There is no probably, they are 100% automated. That was one of the major points of J-UCAS/X-45/X-47 and now UCAS-D. The drones are completely automated. They don't require pilots in any way. They take of, land, fly, maneuver et al, without pilot interaction. A controller puts together the planes mission using a software package primarily developed by Boeing that then transmits the package to the software on the plane (also primarily developed by Boeing) that executed the package. The package can have several wait for operator input points: thinks like "wait for takeoff", "wait for release authorization", "wait for land authorization", etc. The package can also be updated in operation and can have dynamic segments like "follow lead aircraft".
It is a major improvement over other drones which basically require a remote pilot to perform all their actions.
The end goal is to have a small group aboard the carrier that is tasked with running a whole wing worth of UCLASS equipment. That basically means for the primary mission, you have have 1 active controller operating multiple aircraft in flight essentially just reading the ISR data coming from the planes. Its basically closer to a RTS game than a flight simulator game, by way of analogy.
That would be the same as claiming the F-14 started in 1957 when the original requirement for the VFX program was initiated. The Douglas F6D Missileer never entered production but should the time spent on that program be added to the F-14's history?
The contract for the F-35 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on October 2001. The F-14 production contract was awarded in December 1969. Of course EVERY system in the F-14 had been flying for years before and they still managed to crash the first F-14 on its first flight.
At this rate it will be at least a quarter of a century before these things reach initial operational readiness, and perhaps upto 40 years before they are fully deployed, then they will probably have an expected lifespan of 40+ years, we are looking at a fighter plane that is reaching near 100 years from design to decomissioning. That is just absurd, you cant be rocking with quarter century old technology that is nearly a half century old by the time it is in full service, and near a full century outdated by decomissioning.
That is no way to run a national armed services, the government buerarcacy and corruption needs to be removed from the armed services which should operate as an independent branch of the government. And companies shouldnt really be declared winners of contracts untill they actually have a product, I mean fair enough to say an idea is stupid and kick them out, but... This is not a winner...
The only thing that pisses me off about this is I'd like to have seen a Boeing competitor. I feel like this program was supposed to have been a demonstrator, but all signs point to Northrop already supplying the Navy these things. I've read that Boeing's tech is actually beyond Northrop's in this case.
Well, esp considering that Northrop admitted they basically committed fraud in their original UCAS-D bid. They way underbid at 650 mil when even they thought the actual cost was 1.2 billion just like boeing and then basically squeezed the government for the additional funding.
The plan B of.the Navy is almost ready with out too much noise or fireworks.
In the meantime L.M. announce goals before they have an operational and ready for war airplane. This video is totally out of reality ignoring completely the arrival of 24 Super Hornets and 12 Growlers to Australia, showing up just the arrival of the F-18 long time ago.
As a Brit this doesn't fill me with confidence at all. At least buying helicopters to fill the Queen Elizabeth class will be a lot cheaper than F35b......
Plan B if the F-35B doesn't happen. An Advanced Super Hornet with the new EPE engines should easily be able to take off on the QE Carrier using the ski jump. However traps would have to be installed for it to land. Refueling could be accomplished by an MV-22 tanker, once the aircraft gets to altitude.
STOBAR decks are inefficient and as you point low take off weights would require an organic AAR for range. At least given our probable buy we would have plenty of spare deck space. It has been my contention for a long time that QEC should have been designed around E2 and then the MoD should have gone shopping for a fast pointy jet. I have gone from being a real supporter of QEC to quite a doubter. You don't save much by going for a smaller vessel because all the costs come with the military systems not the steel and without the steel you lose flexibility. But I wonder if something that played to our strengths would have been a better choice. The Invincible class had a secondary role as an LPH but it was more to do with them carrying another label more than specific built in features. I wonder how much better off we would be with a more modest programme, money put towards a decent attempt at a heliborne AEW/ASaC system rather than the lacklustre system we seem to be getting, money put towards increasing CHF cab numbers, specific LPH features (wide assault passage ways like Ocean), and finally ramps to allow vehicles to be carried in the hangar in lieu of airframes. Go look at Cavour. We may have even had money left over for additional Astute or two/three new big dock ships to replace the small(-ish) slow Albion class.
Agree steve, surely they could modify it back to CATOBAR standard, problem is I hear one of the generators or something wasn't installed for catobar... Have to cut her open... I think they would just stick on helicopters, perhaps if they are lucky F18s and say good enough. Meanwhile you have to put up with lower sortie rates, and lower take-off payloads.
By then the F18 will pretty much be out of production probably too, requiring the production lines to restarted, costs will probably be well over 100M ea.... Brilliant...
The F18 is good enough. Soon missiles and UCAV will take the place of manned aircraft in peer to peer combat. PGM and AH are already eating into CAS. For (deep) strike there are cruise missiles be they launched by an airforce, navy, or even army. What is left and who we in the West will have to fight can be covered by F18. Seeing as UK defence thinking seems to start off with the idea only with the US then does the UK really need expeditionary air beyond that provided by the RAF which in itself is a me too capability? It would probably be best if the UK did just provide the West with the largest moving heliport! Think about the UK providing a few squadrons of navalised (to a degree) CH47 backed up AH-64 flying from QEC with the only naval rotary craft being Merlin based AEW/ASaC and one or two cabs for VERTREP/SAR/"plane guard".
In the proposal for India Boeing analisys indicated it can take off using the ski jump fully loaded. Probably and ASH with conformal fuel Tanks could make more than 800 NM. That's a lot if you compare it wit the less than 500 NM of the F-35 B.
Whoever's flying that thing on the geekbox is shit-hot.
ReplyDeleteEvidently the program is moving right along.
Take off and landing are probably 100% automated. All the geek had to do was set a waypoint, and give it an order to land.
DeleteThere is no probably, they are 100% automated. That was one of the major points of J-UCAS/X-45/X-47 and now UCAS-D. The drones are completely automated. They don't require pilots in any way. They take of, land, fly, maneuver et al, without pilot interaction. A controller puts together the planes mission using a software package primarily developed by Boeing that then transmits the package to the software on the plane (also primarily developed by Boeing) that executed the package. The package can have several wait for operator input points: thinks like "wait for takeoff", "wait for release authorization", "wait for land authorization", etc. The package can also be updated in operation and can have dynamic segments like "follow lead aircraft".
DeleteIt is a major improvement over other drones which basically require a remote pilot to perform all their actions.
The end goal is to have a small group aboard the carrier that is tasked with running a whole wing worth of UCLASS equipment. That basically means for the primary mission, you have have 1 active controller operating multiple aircraft in flight essentially just reading the ISR data coming from the planes. Its basically closer to a RTS game than a flight simulator game, by way of analogy.
BTW, here's some info on the control software and functionality:
Deletehttp://archive.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/killer-drone-secret-history/all/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nx0sjYunOc
Design, build, tested an ready for carrier operations... 14 years from start of concept to flying and ready platform.
ReplyDeleteF-35 program, started in 1993... fail concept, faulty design, NOT tested, NOT operational.
NAVY your choice is simple, Northrop Grumman is the one for you.
That would be the same as claiming the F-14 started in 1957 when the original requirement for the VFX program was initiated. The Douglas F6D Missileer never entered production but should the time spent on that program be added to the F-14's history?
DeleteThe contract for the F-35 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on October 2001. The F-14 production contract was awarded in December 1969. Of course EVERY system in the F-14 had been flying for years before and they still managed to crash the first F-14 on its first flight.
like i said. bullshit excuses for a fucked up beyond recognition program.
DeleteAt this rate it will be at least a quarter of a century before these things reach initial operational readiness, and perhaps upto 40 years before they are fully deployed, then they will probably have an expected lifespan of 40+ years, we are looking at a fighter plane that is reaching near 100 years from design to decomissioning. That is just absurd, you cant be rocking with quarter century old technology that is nearly a half century old by the time it is in full service, and near a full century outdated by decomissioning.
ReplyDeleteThat is no way to run a national armed services, the government buerarcacy and corruption needs to be removed from the armed services which should operate as an independent branch of the government. And companies shouldnt really be declared winners of contracts untill they actually have a product, I mean fair enough to say an idea is stupid and kick them out, but... This is not a winner...
"And companies shouldnt really be declared winners of contracts untill they actually have a product"
DeleteI would sign under this with both hand, legs and with my tong.
The only thing that pisses me off about this is I'd like to have seen a Boeing competitor. I feel like this program was supposed to have been a demonstrator, but all signs point to Northrop already supplying the Navy these things. I've read that Boeing's tech is actually beyond Northrop's in this case.
ReplyDeleteWell, esp considering that Northrop admitted they basically committed fraud in their original UCAS-D bid. They way underbid at 650 mil when even they thought the actual cost was 1.2 billion just like boeing and then basically squeezed the government for the additional funding.
DeleteThe plan B of.the Navy is almost ready with out too much noise or fireworks.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime L.M. announce goals before they have an operational and ready for war airplane.
This video is totally out of reality ignoring completely the arrival of 24 Super Hornets and 12 Growlers to Australia, showing up just the arrival of the F-18 long time ago.
http://youtu.be/l4M7U6ywmp4
F-35, the hangar queen. You can pay for it, have it but do no use it in combat. That's the situation now.
DeleteAs a Brit this doesn't fill me with confidence at all. At least buying helicopters to fill the Queen Elizabeth class will be a lot cheaper than F35b......
ReplyDeletePlan B if the F-35B doesn't happen. An Advanced Super Hornet with the new EPE engines should easily be able to take off on the QE Carrier using the ski jump. However traps would have to be installed for it to land. Refueling could be accomplished by an MV-22 tanker, once the aircraft gets to altitude.
DeleteSTOBAR decks are inefficient and as you point low take off weights would require an organic AAR for range. At least given our probable buy we would have plenty of spare deck space. It has been my contention for a long time that QEC should have been designed around E2 and then the MoD should have gone shopping for a fast pointy jet. I have gone from being a real supporter of QEC to quite a doubter. You don't save much by going for a smaller vessel because all the costs come with the military systems not the steel and without the steel you lose flexibility. But I wonder if something that played to our strengths would have been a better choice. The Invincible class had a secondary role as an LPH but it was more to do with them carrying another label more than specific built in features. I wonder how much better off we would be with a more modest programme, money put towards a decent attempt at a heliborne AEW/ASaC system rather than the lacklustre system we seem to be getting, money put towards increasing CHF cab numbers, specific LPH features (wide assault passage ways like Ocean), and finally ramps to allow vehicles to be carried in the hangar in lieu of airframes. Go look at Cavour. We may have even had money left over for additional Astute or two/three new big dock ships to replace the small(-ish) slow Albion class.
DeleteAgree steve, surely they could modify it back to CATOBAR standard, problem is I hear one of the generators or something wasn't installed for catobar... Have to cut her open... I think they would just stick on helicopters, perhaps if they are lucky F18s and say good enough. Meanwhile you have to put up with lower sortie rates, and lower take-off payloads.
DeleteBy then the F18 will pretty much be out of production probably too, requiring the production lines to restarted, costs will probably be well over 100M ea.... Brilliant...
The F18 is good enough. Soon missiles and UCAV will take the place of manned aircraft in peer to peer combat. PGM and AH are already eating into CAS. For (deep) strike there are cruise missiles be they launched by an airforce, navy, or even army. What is left and who we in the West will have to fight can be covered by F18. Seeing as UK defence thinking seems to start off with the idea only with the US then does the UK really need expeditionary air beyond that provided by the RAF which in itself is a me too capability? It would probably be best if the UK did just provide the West with the largest moving heliport! Think about the UK providing a few squadrons of navalised (to a degree) CH47 backed up AH-64 flying from QEC with the only naval rotary craft being Merlin based AEW/ASaC and one or two cabs for VERTREP/SAR/"plane guard".
DeleteI really believe the SH can make it.
ReplyDeleteThis is my suggestion for the Queen.
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1141/1050/original.jpg
SH should have equal or better range than F-35B.
DeleteIn the proposal for India Boeing analisys indicated it can take off using the ski jump fully loaded. Probably and ASH with conformal fuel Tanks could make more than 800 NM. That's a lot if you compare it wit the less than 500 NM of the F-35 B.
ReplyDeleteF18 Super Hornet Farnborough 2014:
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/4gUbLB77PNI