NightFall - Unmanned Fighters

[Bevo]

Originally Posted by ShotOne

Bevo, "what systems would you eliminate". Your question presumes that in designing a RPAS we start with a manned aircraft then remove the pilot bits. That's not the way I see it; it's a new ball game. For starters why would it need to fly at 1000 miles per hour? It's already where it needs to be..

I don't understand your ststement that "It's already where it needs to be".

My point was that except for the system supporting the pilot, all other systems and sensors on current fighters are there to support the air-to-air mission not the pilot. Unless you change the mission requirements you will still need those same systems and sensors to support the basic vehicle flight and provide data to the on-board computer.

[ShotOne]

Designing an RPAS by starting with a current fighter then removing some systems would make no sense. It would still be eye-wateringly expensive and probably useless.

Perhaps we're looking at different horizons but initially, air-defence RPAS, are likely to follow the example of other RPAS in service. First with appropriate sensors, later weapons. By "it's already there" I meant a key selling point of any RPAS is ability to remain on station for many hours -so it doesn't need to get there at 1,000 mph! So far their development for air defence has lagged other roles. This isn't because it's impossible, rather that we haven't had to fight a war recently where air defence was contested.

[Finningley Boy]

I suppose if such a system is going to be that good it'll literally fly and think for itself, the term RPAS will in itself be redundant. It would be interesting to see just how close to procuring such a machine anyone is? I know all about Taranis and its mooted Global strike capability, which I suspect is aimed at becoming the true descendant of the Lancaster/V-Bomber/Tornado line. But even here, I can only imagine that such an aerial strike machine will be able to evade/defeat any known manned fighters, air defence missile screens, early warning radar systems and jamming technology, meaning that if this is all on then there is some amazing equipment being devised at the moment.

The same would also need to apply to an autonomous unmanned interceptor/dog fighter. It would need to be a literally invulnerable system in respect, certainly, of any possible adversary.

FB

[Bevo]

Originally Posted by ShotOne

Designing an RPAS by starting with a current fighter then removing some systems would make no sense. It would still be eye-wateringly expensive and probably useless.

Perhaps we're looking at different horizons but initially, air-defence RPAS, are likely to follow the example of other RPAS in service. First with appropriate sensors, later weapons. By "it's already there" I meant a key selling point of any RPAS is ability to remain on station for many hours -so it doesn't need to get there at 1,000 mph! So far their development for air defence has lagged other roles. This isn't because it's impossible, rather that we haven't had to fight
a war recently where air defence was contested.

Actually there have been several studies that I am aware of that have looked at the characteristics of an unmanned vehicle for defensive and offensive air-to-air. Unfortunately most of the studies are either classified or proprietary to the companies doing the work. However, I can relate an operations study which centers on the speed of the vehicle. First off, the speed is not needed to get on station, but rather to prosecute the intercept. In looking at the number of aircraft needed to protect a carrier battle group in a 120 degree threat sector on station 200 nm from the CVBG it took eight aircraft with a top speed of Mach 0.9. But with a vehicle with a top speed of Mach 1.5 you only needed four aircraft. The reason is that the higher top speed allowed the aircraft to get into position to successfully intercept threat aircraft from "on station" to anywhere in the threat sector. In addition, thrust needed for speed is also used to keep energy up during a maneuvering fight.

Another characteristic of a lower signature aircraft is swept wings which moves the wing spikes out of the forward quadrant. For example Lockheed's RQ-170 Sentinel has swept wings not for speed but for reduced signature. Another example is a study which looked at taking a B-1 and loading it up with 40 A-A missiles and an F-22 radar. This aircraft could stay on station for seven hours, however, that concept was not found to be adequate because of its lack of maneuverability and speed.

So at least in the studies I am aware of there was not a preconceived idea of what the characteristics of the unmanned vehicle should be.