Comments on: Naval UCAV Squadron by 2025

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:15:42 +0000

GJP,
You’re right, my bad. A guy I worked with was on a DDG that tested that thing. He said it didn’t do too well.
DC2

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:36:50 +0000

Saul,
Defense spending IS NOT what is taking us deeper into debt.

By: Saul

Saul — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:16:14 +0000

This is,taking us deeper into debt!Be,content with
what we have idiots.

By: GJP

GJP — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:51:02 +0000

DC,
LAMPS was the Kaman SH2 configured for ASW and OTH targetting operations, and was manned. The unit you’re talking about was the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter (DASH) which didn’t work because of an unreliable data/control link. The new UCAVs are an entirely new breed of cat. They’re autonomous (DASH wasn’t) but subject to override. I like the idea of the cable connection to program the UCAV, but you’d still need links for BDA and retargeting — also to notify the UCAV of your new location if you move (which aircraft carriers have been known to do).

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:06:53 +0000

Concerning the hack of the network streams:
Why not give the ucav it’s orders on the ground (via old style cable connection) and let it fly all alone. If you just want it to bomb a certain position you will never need a network connection, which can be hacked. Or give it some sort of AI, so that it can identify iraqi, russian, chinese, … tanks on it’s own.
’Cause no computer system is save. None.
For the most part you won’t need to update target coordinates in-flight.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:03:09 +0000

Scott,
If they throw an EMP pulse over their own country it would be far worse for them than for us. Also, most military equipment is EMP hardened. That would be especially true for our ships, which are surrounded by well grounded and thick metal.
It will be interesting to see this technology mature. The real issue I see with UCAVs is situational awareness. But I’m sure that is an area of technology that will mature pretty quickly with the emphasis turning to these types of aircraft.
Lest we forget, the Navy was the first user of UAVs. Back in the day (late 60s) they developed the LAMPS I unmanned helo for ASW warfare from small helo decks. Unfortunately that was a collosal failure. The Navy also used UAVs launched from the BBs back in Gulf War I for fire control of the 16″ guns.
DC2

By: Scott Drumm

Scott Drumm — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:10:29 +0000

I’m skeptical of this whole drone thing. It’s one thing to harden an aircraft against EMP; it’s quite another to protect the data link between that aircraft and the ground (or shipboard) controllers.
With our reliance on satellites, GPS, and now drone-based aircraft, what’s to keep a smart adversary from lofting a nuke up 250 miles — even above their own territory — and disabling all of our high tech toys?
Wikipedia (keywords “EMP” and “Starfish Prime”) has an interesting primer on the subject, sourced from the FAS.org site.

By: Rix

Rix — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:13:24 +0000

Man, Boeing can’t catch a break. Their military business is toast. Junior partner on the F-22, no F-35, No KC-45…now falling behind in the UAV industry. C-17 line is running on fumes…I suppose they better hope the P-8 is a winner. Of course, now I’m sure Airbus will be bidding…

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:05:26 +0000

Oh so sorry, of course Jennings and Rall … Ravewood would be their verticle take off version.
:)

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:09:08 +0000

It shall be called the “Jennings & Rall/Ravenwood/Skynet” Squadron.
Tim
You forgot to mention Jennings & Rall,& their subsidiary Ravenwood.They’re coming too.