Back problems from high G
05-16-2013 | 05:02 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: missionary
As for drones - it's going to be a while before drones can do real air to air. You can put a missile truck up there, but it's simply not going to be as effective (for now) as manned. The fluidity and dynamics of the air to air arena are just not something you can program. And we still don't have sensors that can scan the immediate sky as good as the human eye. What's a Predator going to do? Slew that little camera around? It's like looking through a paper towel tube.
Just one guy's opinion.
Just one guy's opinion.
Look, I did fly the T-38, but I'm no fighter pilot, and I'm not trying to act like one.
But your Post got me thinking. Have you seen the new Google-Car that can drive around in any environment ALL BY ITSELF?
It must have some incredibly sophisticated omni-directional camera gear. Couldn't something similar be put on a Drone platform?
Then you could also put a missile setup on there that spins around like a Lazy-Susan.
No?
05-16-2013 | 05:07 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: missionary
05-16-2013 | 05:19 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: missionary
05-16-2013 | 06:17 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
I think that air-to-air will, for the foreseeable future, require a man in the loop due to operation in contested environments, risk of fratricide etc...
05-16-2013 | 07:06 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: missionary
oops, no startup capital.
...now back to APC.
05-19-2013 | 04:38 AM
#46
Always Junior/Commuting
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: USAF IP / A300 FO
I agree with your statement.
Look, I did fly the T-38, but I'm no fighter pilot, and I'm not trying to act like one.
But your Post got me thinking. Have you seen the new Google-Car that can drive around in any environment ALL BY ITSELF?
It must have some incredibly sophisticated omni-directional camera gear. Couldn't something similar be put on a Drone platform?
Then you could also put a missile setup on there that spins around like a Lazy-Susan.
No?
Look, I did fly the T-38, but I'm no fighter pilot, and I'm not trying to act like one.
But your Post got me thinking. Have you seen the new Google-Car that can drive around in any environment ALL BY ITSELF?
It must have some incredibly sophisticated omni-directional camera gear. Couldn't something similar be put on a Drone platform?
Then you could also put a missile setup on there that spins around like a Lazy-Susan.
No?
I like your creativity but I agree with you that it'll be a LONG time before drones can do air-air. It's such a dynamic environment that requires a thousand decisions a second (feels like at least!), and that's hard enough to do when you are sitting IN the seat surrounded by the info. I can't imagine trying to do that while looking through a soda straw a la' the current drones. The omni-directional idea is a nice thought though.
As far as the Lazy-Susan missile round-about goes, it would be nice. Unfortunately there's so much more to making that missile work that a stationary platform just couldn't perform. B-52 guys advocated for a long time that we should put 100 AMRAAM's on them and they could be "missile trucks". haha. For our current missiles that we have fielded to destroy its target there's about 7 million consecutive miracles that have to work in order. a BIG piece of that is giving it enough energy when it comes off the rail for it to make updates/corrections in mid flight and still make it to the target over Mach 1.0 so it has enough energy end game to finish the intercept. If you had that lazy susan drone (that i picture not very fast due to aerodynamics), you could in theory shoot some missiles off of it but the probability of kill would be extremely low for its missiles. that's provided it didn't get shot down first though. creative thought though!
i find myself thinking about this kind of stuff all the time and i usually come to the conclusion that if my small brain can come up with it then it's probably old news at DARPA!
Highsky - i tried to PM you back but it wouldn't go through because it said you don't accept PM's.
05-19-2013 | 05:14 AM
#47
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
When you say spins around like a lazy susan, you don't mean a platform that can shoot missiles to the side or rear, do you? That reminds me of the guys who ask "Why did the B-52 have a tail gun? Why not mount a couple of AIM-9's pointing backwards?"
At first glance it's "Yeah, why not?" but then you realize there are issues of relative wind that would make the launch problematic, especially if the platform is fast. You can shoot a stinger out the side of a helicopter at 60 knots, but that same stinger shot sideways near the mach is going to have sonic relative wind slam into the side of it as it exits the tube. It'll destabilize.
OTOH, you COULD have a simple drone with a mini AESA radar and missiles. Program it in a simple way. "Fly into enemy territory. Orbit at these coordinates. Shoot anything flying that is detected." It'd be of limited effectiveness and expensive to boot, but it might make a kill or three before being shot down itself.
That's one of the problems with an A-A drone... it needs sensors (radar, IFF) that are much more heavy and expensive than cameras.
At first glance it's "Yeah, why not?" but then you realize there are issues of relative wind that would make the launch problematic, especially if the platform is fast. You can shoot a stinger out the side of a helicopter at 60 knots, but that same stinger shot sideways near the mach is going to have sonic relative wind slam into the side of it as it exits the tube. It'll destabilize.
OTOH, you COULD have a simple drone with a mini AESA radar and missiles. Program it in a simple way. "Fly into enemy territory. Orbit at these coordinates. Shoot anything flying that is detected." It'd be of limited effectiveness and expensive to boot, but it might make a kill or three before being shot down itself.
That's one of the problems with an A-A drone... it needs sensors (radar, IFF) that are much more heavy and expensive than cameras.
05-19-2013 | 05:30 AM
#48
Always Junior/Commuting
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: USAF IP / A300 FO
I always envisioned an F-22 with 6 drone wingman that he can direct via datalink and that carry missiles. he can send them to certain points where they will shoot automatically at certain ranges and the sensor data for those missiles will be datalinked from the Raptor. Expendable, follows Flight Lead's directions precisely, never goes Blind....shoot, that's better than any Wingman I ever had! haha
05-19-2013 | 05:40 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,150
Likes: 51
From: Volleyball Player
As for drones - it's going to be a while before drones can do real air to air. You can put a missile truck up there, but it's simply not going to be as effective (for now) as manned. The fluidity and dynamics of the air to air arena are just not something you can program. And we still don't have sensors that can scan the immediate sky as good as the human eye. What's a Predator going to do? Slew that little camera around? It's like looking through a paper towel tube.
Just one guy's opinion.
Made by Northrop Grumman:
On March 18, 2009 Northrop Grumman announced that its engineers in Redondo Beach had successfully built and tested an electric laser capable of producing a 100-kilowatt ray of light, powerful enough to destroy cruise missiles, artillery, rockets and mortar rounds.[12] An electric laser is theoretically capable, according to Brian Strickland, manager for the United States Army's Joint High Power Solid State Laser program, of being mounted in an aircraft, ship, or vehicle because it requires much less space for its supporting equipment than a chemical laser.[13]
On April 6, 2011, the U.S. Navy successfully tested a laser gun, manufactured by Northrop Grumman, that was mounted on the former USS Paul Foster, which is currently used as the navy's test ship. When engaged during the test that occurred off the coast of Central California in the Pacific Ocean test range, the laser gun was documented as having "a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target," said Chief of Naval Research Admiral Nevin Carr.[14] While classified, the range of the laser gun is attributed to miles, not yards.
Northrop Grumman has announced the availability of a high-energy solid-state laser weapon system that they call FIRESTRIKE, introduced on 13 November 2008. The system is modular, using 15 kW modules that can be combined to provide various levels of power.
On March 18, 2009 Northrop Grumman announced that its engineers in Redondo Beach had successfully built and tested an electric laser capable of producing a 100-kilowatt ray of light, powerful enough to destroy cruise missiles, artillery, rockets and mortar rounds.[12] An electric laser is theoretically capable, according to Brian Strickland, manager for the United States Army's Joint High Power Solid State Laser program, of being mounted in an aircraft, ship, or vehicle because it requires much less space for its supporting equipment than a chemical laser.[13]
On April 6, 2011, the U.S. Navy successfully tested a laser gun, manufactured by Northrop Grumman, that was mounted on the former USS Paul Foster, which is currently used as the navy's test ship. When engaged during the test that occurred off the coast of Central California in the Pacific Ocean test range, the laser gun was documented as having "a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target," said Chief of Naval Research Admiral Nevin Carr.[14] While classified, the range of the laser gun is attributed to miles, not yards.
Northrop Grumman has announced the availability of a high-energy solid-state laser weapon system that they call FIRESTRIKE, introduced on 13 November 2008. The system is modular, using 15 kW modules that can be combined to provide various levels of power.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
