AviationBanter - View Single Post

Fred J. McCall

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : wrote:
:[snip]
: : But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect,
: : relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive.
: :no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its
:

rice).
:
: And its capabilities.
:
:you don't need Global Hawk capabilities. Not even Predator.

You do if you plan on carrying and launching missiles.

: :You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a
: :reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to
: :be cautious and stay afar
:
: And you won't do that on the cheap.
:
:Sorry, but within 1000feet is really close. You can get by with much
:coarser angular resolution then for targetting something 30km away. Not
:to say about power requirements...(and size). Radically different (and
:much cheaper) approaches then what is currently used in fighters/UAVs
:might work well enough.

You're real big on using words like 'might' and 'may'. How many
weapon systems have you been involved in the design of?

:

come close to one drone and you might be
: :fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong
: :for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot
: :down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work
: :sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the
: :drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic
: :maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots
:

r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's
: :seaker).
:
: Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for
: them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty
: and cheap solutions'.
:
:Big (say half a Predator) does not make it expensive.
:Plastic/wood/metal is cheap.

Forming into actual weapons systems is not.

:Carrying missiles is not expensive.

But shooting them is.

:The missile itself might be
:expensive, if you want to have reasonable pk (but then, you don't need
:that high pk and russian manpads are not that expensive...)

But building them into a vehicle that can shoot them with any prayer
of hitting anything is.

: : If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After
: : all, life is cheap in places like Iran.
: :Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And
: :manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do.
:
: And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about.
:
:If you want to put into it off the shelf military targetting radar or
:similar overkill, sure. If you do it smart ... don't be surprised.

And you have how much experience putting together systems that
actually work and do things?

: There are essentially three UAV regimes:
:
: 1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of
: wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and
: slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a
: small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop
: (frequently shrouded internal to the body).
:
: 2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They
: mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more
: expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but
: probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate
: air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive).
:
:For targetting within 1km you don't need large and expensive radar.
:You can build cheap in this size (I prefer size 1.5, as size 1 does not
:give you range/damaging payload).

Uh, is that supposed to make sense?

:Metal/plastic is cheap. The expensive stuff is sensors and developing
:the software. With good software, you don't need that fancy sensors,
:especially if you are happy if it works in good visibility only.

You really haven't a clue.

: 3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the
: Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive.
:
:And country like Iran/India/China does not really need them.

And so they don't get the capabilities you want to claim for your
'cheap' system. It won't be shooting at anyone.

: You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget.
:You can get 2) with more or less 1) sensor suite on an essentially 1)
:budget, especially if you are developing and producing in a country
:with much lover labour costs then US, and do mass production.

But you can't shoot anyone with that 1) sensor suite.

How many

f Global Hawk/Predators have been produced? What it will do with their
:unit price if you make a thousand of them?)

Not much.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn