• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US UAV, esp. UCAV, progress

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,286
Points
1,160
this looks interesting, hope it goes somewhere

http://www.gizmag.com/cella-energy-fuel-cell-drone/41718/

 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,129
Points
1,060
Dolphin_Hunter said:
A launch and forget UAV from a sono tube is what I think they are going with here..

That seems really expensive just for MAD.  I thought they had the best acoustic blah blah blah in the world, and didn't even need MAD anymore at all.  :nod:
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
140
Points
710
Maybe things not settled yet in Pentagon (much less Congress--lots of further links at original):

CBARS Drone Under OSD Review; Can A Tanker Become A Bomber?

The Navy’s new flying robot fuel truck, CBARS, is being reviewed by senior officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Breaking Defense has learned.

Details about the current review are hard to come by. But our regular readers may be getting déjà vu, because the predecessor program, the UCLASS recon/strike drone, was stuck in OSD review for over a year until it was finally scrapped and replaced by CBARS. Will this new program, announced just weeks ago with the 2017 budget, fall into the same limbo?

The issue last time, with UCLASS, was requirements. Should the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aerial Surveillance & Strike drone be designed primarily for surveillance — long, slow flights in relatively safe airspace, with a modest capacity for weapons? Or, they asked, should UCLASS be optimized for strike — deep penetration into defended territory with a heavy bombload?

In the end, after bitter debate involving OSD, the Navy, and Capitol Hill, the 2017 budget went with neither. Instead, it replaced UCLASS with the less ambitious and hopefully much more affordable Carrier-Based Aerial Refueling System. CBARS is primarily a tanker, but the Navy says it will have surveillance and “limited strike” capabilities. That makes it sound awfully close to the surveillance-focused version of UCLASS.

When I asked Pentagon officials to clarify what CBARS was supposed to do, I received polite demurrals. No one can comment, they said, until the OSD is finished — which is how I learned of the review. All this suggests, though it hardly proves, that someone in the Office of the Secretary of Defense has the same question I had: Is CBARS a UCLASS-light or something entirely different?...
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/cbars-drone-under-osd-review-can-a-tanker-become-a-bomber/

Mark
Ottwa
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,286
Points
1,160
I suspect something like this will be the way they go, semi-protected blades, auto land and take off features and enough fuel to sustain and some payload to deploy.

urban_aero_mule.jpg
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
460
Eye In The Sky said:
That seems really expensive just for MAD.  I thought they had the best acoustic blah blah blah in the world, and didn't even need MAD anymore at all.  :nod:

No.  We have the best acoustic blah blah blah in the world and they know it.  Theirs is a piece of crap, which they also know.  As for MAD, it really doesn't make sense for them to have it they would burn through fuel like crazy.  I beleive the days of MAD tracking are gone.  I you are tracking by MAD, the sub knows you are there so you might as well throw some DICASS multistatics in the water (and climb in alt) and keep them guessing as to where the buoys are.

Here is that UAV I was talking about.  This is an old article and mainly deals with ISR, but I did read some where that they were looking at MAD options, I just can't find it now.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2006/January/Pages/UF_Undersized5460.aspx

 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,129
Points
1,060
Dolphin_Hunter said:
No.  We have the best acoustic blah blah blah in the world and they know it.  Theirs is a piece of crap, which they also know.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/big-fish-saab-bids-high-end-antisubmarine-warfare

Processing and display hardware, and some data-fusion software, will be common to the GlobalEye air and surface surveillance system, the aim being “a very high-end capability with fewer operators.” Saab is working with partners on sensors, including Selex for the radar and General Dynamics Canada on the acoustic system, which supports state-of-the-art multistatic active coherent (MAC) processing – “the same kind of system as they have on the P-8A,” Mevius says.

;D

As for MAD, it really doesn't make sense for them to have it they would burn through fuel like crazy.  I beleive the days of MAD tracking are gone.  I you are tracking by MAD, the sub knows you are there so you might as well throw some DICASS multistatics in the water (and climb in alt) and keep them guessing as to where the buoys are.

Ya...I still like the ability MAD gives a crew.  For the weight of them now, and the cost in relation to the entire aircraft...stick 'er on.  They are realizing now they want/need MAD, or else they wouldn't be even looking at the UAV MAD capability.  Something changed from their original "oh, MAD is obsolete" line. 

Here is that UAV I was talking about.  This is an old article and mainly deals with ISR, but I did read some where that they were looking at MAD options, I just can't find it now.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2006/January/Pages/UF_Undersized5460.aspx

Branthoover estimated the cost of the Coyote prototype at $15,000 per unit. Advanced Ceramics Research would only estimate the cost of a single Coyote at less than $10,000.

Waste of money!!!!  Even for MAD.  The CAF doesn't have $ to spend on this crap...EMATT vs ETAT.  That EMATT $ can be better spent (IMO).
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
460
Eye In The Sky said:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/big-fish-saab-bids-high-end-antisubmarine-warfare

Processing and display hardware, and some data-fusion software, will be common to the GlobalEye air and surface surveillance system, the aim being “a very high-end capability with fewer operators.” Saab is working with partners on sensors, including Selex for the radar and General Dynamics Canada on the acoustic system, which supports state-of-the-art multistatic active coherent (MAC) processing – “the same kind of system as they have on the P-8A,” Mevius says.

;D

I just go by what their guys tell me... I know they are getting an upgraded system, but right now their system is not as good as ours.  The first batch of P8's had the shitty P3 system installed..

http://aviationweek.com/blog/increasing-p-8a-capability

They should be rolling out the new suite now.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,995
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/big-fish-saab-bids-high-end-antisubmarine-warfare

Processing and display hardware, and some data-fusion software, will be common to the GlobalEye air and surface surveillance system, the aim being “a very high-end capability with fewer operators.” Saab is working with partners on sensors, including Selex for the radar and General Dynamics Canada on the acoustic system, which supports state-of-the-art multistatic active coherent (MAC) processing – “the same kind of system as they have on the P-8A,” Mevius says.

;D

Ya...I still like the ability MAD gives a crew.  For the weight of them now, and the cost in relation to the entire aircraft...stick 'er on.  They are realizing now they want/need MAD, or else they wouldn't be even looking at the UAV MAD capability.  Something changed from their original "oh, MAD is obsolete" line. 

Branthoover estimated the cost of the Coyote prototype at $15,000 per unit. Advanced Ceramics Research would only estimate the cost of a single Coyote at less than $10,000.

Waste of money!!!!  Even for MAD.  The CAF doesn't have $ to spend on this crap...EMATT vs ETAT.  That EMATT $ can be better spent (IMO).

What is the additional operating cost in term of crew hours, fuel usage and wear and tear on the fuselage and engines, to come down from altitude to sea level, conduct a MAD run and then recover to surveillance altitude?

Just curious.
 
Top