If you stop by this site regularly, you probably know about Boeing’s efforts to develop an killer drone for the Air Force.
You might have read about how a prototype “unmanned combat aerial vehicle,” or UCAV, has already gone on trial bombing runs. Or how a pair of the drones came up with attack plans of their own — and executed them on a mock air-defense battery. It was one of more than 60 test flights for the UCAV.
But that was just the first model, the 8,000-pound X-45A. The other day, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports, Boeing showed off its next edition, which, at 18,000 pounds, is more than twice as big: the X-45C.
It will be powered by an F404-GE-102D engine, the same kind used on Boeing’s two-engine F-18.
The X-45C will be able to fly at 40,000 feet and at Mach .85. It will carry two 2,000-pound precision-guided bombs or up to eight small-diameter bombs. Its operational combat radius will be 1,100 to 1,300 nautical miles.
That’s far more range than manned fighters have without being refueled.
Drones have been armed for a while, now. Look at what the Predator has done. But those planes are remote-controlled, completely. The UCAV is supposed to fly itself, make decisions for itself, the Seattle Times notes.
The aircraft’s sensors identify and approach targets autonomously. The remote pilot gives consent to strike with a mouse click.
“Yet there are serious questions as to the long-term funding of the next-generation X-45-type unmanned aircraft,” the Times adds.
Richard Aboulafia, industry analyst with the Teal Group, called the program “the worst-funded good idea in decades” and said it’s unclear if the budget to produce combat versions will be there.
THERE’S MORE: If the X-45’s $1.2 billion price tag seems a little out of your reach, maybe this little remote-controlled spy plane will be more your speed. It takes 26 pictures from up to 1,000 feet. And it’s selling at Wal-Mart for $148.32.
(Big ups: CP)
By now everyone seems to agree that UCAVs are the wave of the future for recon, EW, strike, and some CAS.
What about air-to-air? Does anyone have any information on recent programs to equip UCAVs with a useful set of air combat capabilities? I’m personally aware of experiments using (if I’m not mistaken) the venerable BQM-43 Firebee as well as a technology demonstrator in the 1980s. Needless to say, these RPVs consistiently outmanuevered their adversaries in close-in fights, having no G-sensitive pilot aboard.
Remember, though– these were operated by direct human control.
Now we’re talking about autonomous aircraft making decisions on their own to select and attack targets. How soon will we see this sort of latitude given to air-to-air engagements?
And remember… These days most air combat is BVR start-to-finish; it’s radar cross sections and probabilities of intercept that matter most.
When does SkyNet become operational?
TBV:
As far as I know, no one is really talking seriously about using UCAVs for air-to-air. At least not for another decade or two. The drones are getting smarter. They’re getting quicker. But not that smart. Not that quick.
nms
Good Morning Folks,
My aging grey cells, I guess are failing me again, could some please say again why the United States need to invest a half Trillion Dollar in the F/A-22’s and the F/A/EW-35A,B,&C’s?
If I recall in a post from last week the advantages of the F/A-22 has in it’s stand off air to air ordnances and capabilities. Does the X-45C have some limitation(s) that the the F/A-22 has to compensate for against an non existant al Qaeda Air Force?
The DoD is looking for big bucks to save out of it’s budget. Now is the time for Sec. Rumsfeld to show some guts and leadership and cut these bloated and unnecessary programs.
The country can no longer aford to have “Million Dollar” fighter jocks sitting around playng war games in simulators and ther $100+Million dollar rides sitting in hangers in South Dakota. While others are off fighting and dieing in the GWOT.
Also can anyone tell me why the $558Million just authorized on CV21 is a good investment when the Navy says that eight DD21’s will be enough.
ALLONS,
Byron
I don’t see why this couldn’t be adapted to air-to-air combat. Since this is now largely BVR, the only factors that matter are radar signature, the weapons payload and a powerful radar suite.
Even if the performance of an X-45 or X-47 is significantly beneath that of most next-generation manned fighter systems, the sheer numbers of these you could throw at an enemy would make it a very effective weapon. In addition, with no risk to pilot, you could use it in a much more aggressive and potentially decision fashion than a manned ‘plane.
More reason why they should cancel the bloated, god-awful F/22 and spend the money on sensible, future-looking projects.
I don’t understand why people act as though US has the only air force in the world. At the risk of sounding like a tinhat or apocalyptican, we need to remain competitive (at a minimum!) with potential adversaries– no, not NK, I mean Russia, India, and most of all China.
Simply put, as their economies continue expanding they need expanding shares of a limited pool of strategic resources, e.g. petroleum.
THAT’s why I expect the US to retain a competitive Air Force. The PLAF are buying modern Sukhois– what do we have that can take them on at anything like a favorable exchange rate?
Back to A2A UCAVs–
It’s such an interesting concept. One fanciful idea which crosses my mind is an X-45 element flying top cover for a CBG, and armed with BVR ASMs tied into the Aegis system. (For instance.)
I also recall an article in Air Power Journal or some other Air Force house organ proposing a fleet of F-16 UCAV conversions. There are so many directions this technology can go; it’ll be fascinating to see where it goes, provided we get there ahead of Certain Other Folks.
Atroll,
I assume when you talk about “flipping” a drone you mean making it, uh, fight for the other side. I’m willing to grant that it’s possible, but given my understanding of present UAV control methods I can’t see it being done without an extreme compromise of DoD SATCOM networks, cryptographic keys, and control software. (We’re talking an order of magnitude above ULTRA or MAGIC, here.)
With that in mind, can you flesh out your UAV takeover scenario a bit?
I remember reading some time back that one of the bigger draws for UCAVs was that it cut down on the most expensive part of an aircraft, viz., the pilot and all of his training. Is this true?
rutty–
Yes, to an extent. There are big savings in weight and complexity (no oxygen systems, ejection seats, instrumentation displays…) which is somewhat offset by the fact that the bigger aircraft require fairly sophisticated ground control suites for the pilot and payload operator. The aircraft also uses satellite bandwidth, a very hot commodity.
However, economy of scale comes into play as it’s been shown that one pilot can operate up to six UAVs simultaneously. And the Air Force might not want to admit it, but the average UAV operator doesn’t require quite the expensive skillset of an F-16 or B-1 driver…
I like the concept but I see too many problems, one of the main advantages about computers is that it can prcess thigs alot faster than human, but human can still process sonsory data much better than computers. Given the 3D nature of aircombat I’m not too hopeful about seeing UCAVs in a furball with even a cessna.
This is alot less of a problem now considering BVR missiles and stuff but would it be able to decide and pick targets of opportunity? would it be able to recognise what maneuvers its target is about to do?
I think the most serious problem of all, are you going to feel safe flying home for Christmas knowing that sharing your air space is an AI combat aircraft that might ID you as hostile? And what do you do when one of these open fire on civilians because its program legally ID them as hostile targets?
Would the UCAV be able to spot, identify and differentiate a bunch of refugee convoy from a military one travelling together? Or a jetliner from a military transport aircraft?
I tell you this, either way, gonna be a hell lot of programming to get those things to do the even basic stuff.
you know its 2006 when you drop a bomb somewhere with a mouse click… im so pissed at this world… wasting money on crap instead of working together for a better future, spending money on medicine and stuff, oh well… whatever
What I’m most worried about here is the “auto” mode. My computers flake out due to environmental factors quite often and they’re hardened. What happens if a glitch causes it to forget/lose the whole “friendly, do not shoot file”? I would feel a whle lot easier about this if there was still human control over it. I’m thinking as bomber escort and extention of reach. You have an additional person on board controlling your fighter drones and perhaps using others to extend the range of precision targeting. Btw, does anyone know if these drones are capable of mid-air refueling?
Neat idea, stormhawk! You could, say, reconfigure an F-15E (or some other two-seater able to keep up with the X-45, maybe an old A-6?) as a drone-minder and include it as part of the strike package.
The question of how the UCAV selects targets for A2A engagement is a valid one, IMHO, and I think it wouldn’t be too different from the system we have now with AWACS IDing targets and handing them off to fighters for interception. In this case, the scope dopes (a disparaging name for a very intense job, though we know it’s all in good fun) would simply hand targets off to the UCAV controller, or even directly to the UCAV.
Imagine… In some E-3 over the Sea of Japan, a captain right-clicks on a bandit, selects “INTERCEPT” from the menu, and clicks on a flight of A/FQ-45Cs to take it down…
And that’s why I’d never support it for use in a civilian-heavy traffic environment. AWACS can be wrong, too; a USAF pilot got a medal back in GWI for taking the time to visually ID a Saudi Tornado which the AWACS were calling for him to engage.
TO THOSE WHO GRIPE,THEY NEED A RIDE ON NICE HOSTILE A.O. FIND OUT HOW TIGHT THIER POSTIER CAN ASUME! THEN ASK THE IDIOT IF HE WANTS TO GO AGAIN.YOU MAY KNOW THE ANSWER.…
the informations about aircrafts are not complet