The other day, Inside Defense broke the news that the Army was shaving billions off of its massive modernization program, Future Combat Systems. Now, we’re starting to get some details. Turns out the drones are the ones getting the axe.
FCS originally envisioned four types and sizes of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, buzzing over soldiers’ heads. The littlest ones would join platoons. Slightly bigger drones would be assigned to companies. Batallion commanders would supervise an even larger UAV. And the biggest of ‘em all — an armed, robotic helicopter — would work for the brigade.
Those four classes of UAVs are now being trimmed down to two; just the tiniest and the most gargantuan drones will remain. There will still be other robotic planes in the Army’s arsenal — the hand-held Ravens, the Shadows, and the big, high-flying, bad-ass Warriors.
But the move is the latest in a series of efforts to scale down the once-grandiose FCS vision. First to go were the all-electric, laser-firing, next-gen fighting vehicles. Then, the requirement that those vehicles fit into a C-130 transport plane. And after that, the high-tech uniforms that were supposed to electronically tie the grunts to the larger Army. With the vehicles’ designs still very much in flux — and with the network connecting all of those drones and vehicles together still facing major roadblocks — who knows what will be left, when FCS finally deploys?
UPDATE 3:55 AM: Speaking of those little Raven drones, it looks like the Marines will start using ‘em, too. Inside Defense says that the Corps has given up on its own mini-UAV, the Dragon Eye. During the Iraq invasion, Marines found the drone “too flimsy,” and didn’t stay in the air nearly long enough. Some fixes were made. But the things still had a nasty habit of “break[ing] apart upon repeated landings.” So it’s out with the Dragon Eyes. In with the sturdier Ravens.
|
Army “Future”: Fewer DronesLeave a ReplyBy commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement |
|
this is fun. I’m the airship guy.
I propose, instead of UNMANNED aerial vehicles.…..One Man RIGID SHELLED airships. As easy to fly as hot air balloons, linger overhead time limited only by pilots’ endurance, speed slow about 30mph max, day/night flight.….with a man on board who can make decisions/communicate with ground troops instead of a robot.…who can use various sensors such as infra red, simple eyeball observation.…
such craft would measure about 60′ long, be about 40′ wide, 10’15′ deep.…shaped like Rogallo wing, simple weight shift for altitude control.…upper surface of RIGID shell made of lightweight plastics with thin film solar array for power generation (available now tech)to electric fan engines for day use.…obviously small combustion engine for night.….…bottom of RIGID SHELL covered with E-PAPER which can then be programmed to change color through white,grey,black…(available now tech) or programmed to form distracting/misleading shapes located away from pilot.….…pilot lives in cabin with thin lightweight titanium floor and Kevlar blankets.….….helium is contained within RIGID SHELL in many separate Urethane balloon “cells”.……
like I said, fun!
and effective and do-able and inexpensive and virtually off-the-shelf available, immediately
turtleairships AT hotmail DOT com
Airships huh? Do they fly at 35,000 feet? I know the unmanned versions are getting rolled out but there’s something about a slow-moving airship in a country full of RPGs and antiquated AA guns. Does your rigid shell make those bounce?
(sigh) boy, this sure gets old…but I’ll bite anyway.…
Nope, rigid shell only makes it more sturdy for ground handling and faster speeds.….
(forget what people “know’ about blimps, this is NOT in same class)
(1) airship is silent, doesn’t attract immediate attention to itself
(2) airship as described has some camoflage ability, making it less of a target
(3) at, say, 5,000′ AGL and moving, even at 30mph, its still a difficult target.
(4) rigid shell, of CARBON, with interior of urethane would have at least some stealth characteristics (re: radar), certainly more than chopper
(5) airship can still “fly”, or decend very gradually, even after sustaining multiple hits from ground fire
(6) attracting ground fire would result in obvious successful accomplishment of surveilance missions to find enemy forces…and result in targeting and suppression of same.
bottom line…its a cheap, real, effective tool. and Yes, I’d demo the thing myself to prove it.
Raven is a smaller Dragon Eye …
By the way, in an interesting article about the British troops, Raven doesn’t look well, too.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/mh/dti1106/index.php
pp. 26–28
Interesting note. The FCS Class I VTOL UAV was dubbed the “Flying Trash Can” by some people working on the project. The Army wanted these VTOLs to be $25,000 a piece. The problem is that right now they are $150,000 a piece without a payload.
Me thinks that the Army wasn’t realistic on pricing, and that this may be the reason for Class I scrappin’.
You give me a contract which would allow me to NOT build to mil-spec and I could do them for $25k/each.
You want it to work with Jitters, and be to mil spec and everything else, $150k is doing pretty damn good.
The biggest obvious disadvantage of airships is wind.
Stumbled upon here doing a search on lighter than air rigid envelope. Anyhow…
I’ll also vouch for a rigid envelope lighter-than-air craft. The outside skin would be a hard, yet thin and lightweight carbon or kevlar composite. The inside would be mylar or urethane bags filled with helium. The entire shape would be an aerofoil, possibly symetric. The way to describe it is that it resembles a “pregnant” B-2.
Advantages? Unlike a conventional lighter than air craft, the hard outside is designed to not deform at higher speeds. Thus you should be able to surpass 100MPH without envelope deformation, so it will not peel like a bananna and self-destruct from resulting turbulence. (Something that seems to be an issue with typical soft-skinned lighter than air vehicles.) This thing could set lighter than air speed records that would embarass the Graf Zeppelin. Obviously, it will tolerate wind a lot better than conventional airships due to its profile and hard envelope.
The other advantage with a rigid composite envelope, is that by designing it as an aerofoil structure — it can do “buoyant gliding”. That is when positively buoyant, you can shift the center of gravity back. The buoyant force will push it up, and displaced air is directed back. So it’s gliding forward as it goes up without any additional propulsive means. (Think of buoyant force acting in the place of gravity in traditional gliding.) Then you can glide downward in the conventional manner by shifting the center of gravity forward and reducing buoyancy. Thus it would be possible to engage in forward flight by simple use of a buoyant/gravitational porpoising behavior. This would be a very stealthy way to approach, as it would make no more noise other than that of the air being displaced by the envelope. Also think of it as a really neat way to slow cruise efficiently. Then again, if you need it — use the props or fanjets and you can cruise at more conventional aircraft speeds.
Definitely not your typical blimp, nor your zeppelin either. Think of it more as a unique “airplane that floats”.