Drones

[GIThruster]

Tom, I think you should look at the wiki page since you mentioned it. What you're saying makes no sense to me. The Shadow system does not include multiple launchers for a single aircraft. It includes three aircraft and a backup spare, all serviced by a single launcher. And yes, the system requires 22 men. And I'm just noting, it is because of the launcher. The only reason the craft requires a luncher at all, is because it is so fast. It's got a powerful engine in it and a 2KW power generator. If you decide you can get by with 70 kph, you can put this all into a package that will fit into a Humvee and train squads to use them rather than special units. That means you can have 10X as many in service--all by making the thing slower, much lighter and cheaper.

Yeah, I'm sure it saves lives. It would save a lot more lives if it weren't so expensive and there were 10X as many of them. Remember, these are all line of sight. More is better.

[Tom Ligon]

The first time we flew a Shadow, we didn't use a launcher at all. We just took off from a runway. They use the launcher because it is convenient. The unit descriptions we had specified multiple launchers, for multiple aircraft, and spare aircraft. One or two guys can service and launch an RQ-7B, but I'm sure there is an Army way to need more. Everybody in the field has a logistical tail, and soldiers have this nagging need to be fed. Even a rifleman in the infantry likely has 10 people supplying him.

Let's get our units straight. I was giving flight speeds in knots, not kph. The wiki kept giving mph, which nobody in aviation has used in decades. Internally, I think I'm not giving away anything to say the RQ-7 uses meters per second, so the aircraft thinks we're both simpleminded fools.

The airspeed envelope of the RQ-7B I worked with is pretty similar to a Cessna 172, which is not what I'd call fast, and I'm not sure why you think it is excessive. I believe the engine is about 35 hp, a cute little rotary with a decent power to weight ratio. They may replace it with an aircraft diesel ("heavy fuel engine") on a new model because the Army hates gasoline. These do exist. If they need that sort of electrical power, then I'd say they have something in the payload that needs it, something a hand-launched electric running on a lithium polymer battery the size of your fist can't power.

Yeah, we can build UAVs that fly slower. Or faster. I've worked with all sorts. I've not worked with anything that has accumulated the flight hours of the RQ-7. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it just possible that it gets a job done that nothing else will do? Could it be that it is just the right size to carry the payload for that mission?

The packables, such as Raven, are the right size for a squad or platoon needing to look over the hill. They are far less capable in payload and range, and they are not the right aircraft for the needs of battalions and regiments. I have no axe to grind with them ... I think we provided control systems for those as well. And Predator, Warrior, and at least some versions of ScanEagle. But packables have serious limitations. Maybe this will tell you something about using a launcher. http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/ ... 802396001/

You could just as well argue that an M-4 rifle is lighter, cheaper, only requires a gun crew of 1, and has a higher rate of fire than a 155 mm howitzer. So why does the Army like the big gun? Seems to me they like both, and each has a role to play. You say "this is all line of sight." You left some things out of that assessment. It is all about what you can detect, and how well you do it. You can see more if you can fly for 6 hours than if your battery runs out in 20 minutes. You can see more from higher up. RQ-7's stable camera works well from thousands of feet up. You can kill more enemies if your system can pinpoint their location. And you can see more if your vision extends from microwaves up thru the visible.

But what you describe is what one commander called "The Electric Swarm." Eyes everywhere. UAVs of all sizes were involved, from Global Hawk down to, if the scuttlebutt is right, UAVs you could stick in your shirt pocket.

[paperburn1]

Perhaps you should read my earlier post, after all my company only teaches people how to use the system for the marines. Tom seems to be in the right ballpark.

[ladajo]

22 bodies is the unit manning. That, as noted, goes above and beyond the basic manning needed to just launch and fly. It includes bodies to operate and maintain unit equipment, comms, vehicles, weapons and whatnot. It also includes supervisory and administrative functions, to probably include a medical body for an independent detachment.

22 is a common ballpark number for a independently deployable tactical detachment. It is also normally scalable, where you can take portions of the unit, or combine units dependent on footprint needs. But once a requirement is documents, and the ROC&POE defined, manning is also defined to support the ROC&POE.

[GIThruster]

22 is a common ballpark number for a independently deployable tactical detachment.

And this is my point. It is because Shadow is so fast, that it requires its own unit. If it flew 1/3 the speed, it would be half the size and 1/3 the weight since almost all the weight is in the engine and fuel. There are lots of RC aircraft that could lift that package and could be tossed into a single case and flung into the back of a Humvee when needed, then hand launched and retrieved. Instead you've got this huge launcher that gets deployed with, and several vehicles and 22 guys. And again this is the problem--DOD does not think about cash requirements and such. They go with whatever they're pitched and often prove to make very poor choices. Don't even get me started on Land Warrior or a dozen other bonehead projects and appropriations. People have no idea how idiotic many of the choices we have made over the decades really are. We could have put the H&K G11 into service more than 20 years ago if we had had a clue, and our guys would be lugging around much less weight and much more ammo, and using a much better gun. We make stupid choices at DOD every day. It's the reason "military intelligence" has become an oxymoron.

[ladajo]

I think what Tom was saying is that it can fly without the launcher. Thus, it could become a 2 to 4 man det. operating from a truck.
The command and data link management is the part that matters. Ie. who does it talk with while in the air, and how.

[GIThruster]

I get that and it may be it is deployed without 22 men at times. Still, look at what the speed does to the concept. It requires a runway or a launcher, whereas the real advances in RC aircraft the last 2 decades have certainly been in LiPo, brushless DC, foamy construction, that removes the requirement for a strip or launcher. There were almost no "Park Fliers" 20 years ago. Now there are hundreds if not thousands, using all these new materials and methods. Foamy park fliers can be flown nose into the ground at close to 100 knots, pulled back into shape with bare hands and launched again. They can be fixed with various glues and duct taped together when necessary. You cannot do this to a high tech 200 KPH drone. So just saying, it is the speed with which the Shadow flies, that makes all the other, more recent developments not work, and one has to wonder if there isn't a much better choice. Fly a hand-launched foamy. Grab it out of the air when you're done. Then you don't even need a landing strip.

Seriously, think of the cameras we have in our cell phones now and you realize Shadow and its 2KW generator doesn't make much sense. $15M for a 25 year old system that could be replaced with a $500 system makes how much sense? Okay so the defense contractor gets $5,000 instead of $500, and so we can only deploy 300 of them for the cost of a single Shadow (at least until you start looking at the manpower difference, then it's more like 1,000.)

[ladajo]

The packables, such as Raven, are the right size for a squad or platoon needing to look over the hill. They are far less capable in payload and range

From Tom's post.

I have a 50inch wingspan Park Flyer. It is good for about 20 to 25 minutes max. if I fly very gently.

And, as Tom pointed out, cost is primarily payload and payload management. The targeting systems used for spotting can not be done with a cell phone. It would quickly escalate in cost and size given current technology. Using a cell phone(like construct) for targeting would almost guarantee that you did not get your spotter back due to proximity needs of the targeted site. You need stand off and endurance to do that mission. Not doable with a short endurance pop and peek flyer that is packable.

[GIThruster]

Here's an idea of what I'm talking about concerning why the speed of the Shadow is the only reason you can't do something better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmVl-9z8CKc

And really you can go much smaller, cheaper and lighter than this if you want. This has duration and range but the smaller you make a drone, the higher performing it is in general. You add size to make it easier to fly, and give it more range/flight time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biidFyiY-SI

Notice the advanced launch system, is three finger slots on the aircraft. You simply throw these into the wind and on return catch them or skid them on the ground next to you. No strips required.

and there are lots of other options. If you want to scare the crap out of the bad guys, you could fly one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6STlxPrwJE

BTW, I actually have had an idea for an almost completely silent drone for about 10 years now. Anyone who thinks they have the chops to develop it, I would go 50/50 were you able to do the engineering, which is not extremely difficult but does want an EE. Would make many different sorts of drones <<1/100 as loud as they are now and that is enough to greatly enhance their survivability especially at close range.

A handful of these is all you really need for an effective drone:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HD-700TVL-1-3-S ... 4421&rt=nc

This is the kind of thing future aircraft and spacecraft are going to see with, and past and present armored vehicles and subs see with. IIRC, the Virginia class no longer includes an optical pathway to the scope but uses a CMOS. That's the way of the future, as Gene Roddenberry suspected.

[Tom Ligon]

If you want to get silly about this, scare the heck out of the Germans with this one. We used to have a hobby shop in Richmond with one like it, back in the 1960's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X76f-GgNSE

This talk of "park flyers" reminds me of Bob Parks. The last time I saw Bob he was stunt-flying a little indoor aircraft (a UUFO, if memory serves) that weighed about an ounce around inside the main hangar at Aurora Flight Sciences. Bob was one of the designers of the Daedalus 88 human-powered aircraft that did the amazing Crete to Santorini flight, so he knows low-Reynolds-number aerodynamics well. He's also worked on the F117. He's back from Zee Aero and at Aurora again at the moment. He's also worked on super-high altitude designs such as Perseus (80k ft on a piston engine) and the Mars HADD (100k ft)

GIThruster, Bob would laugh you out of the place with your lame arguments. Making all UAVs slow and light would cripple their range of missions. Period. The same could be said for limiting them to the size of Global Hawk.

You still bewilder me by thinking a UAV with the speed of a single engine Cessna is "fast". I've been in a C152, throttle to the firewall, being passed by cars on Va 28, due to a 60 kt headwind. I was making forward progress, but not much. So you would have us adopt aircraft that would be blown backwards by the prevailing wind, unable to advance over enemy positions so they could serve as artillery spotters. One of your examples, that you say is "long range", did a round trip of 12 km. Look up the range of modern 155 mm cannon and tell me again if you think that aircraft can substitute for something with hundreds of miles of range and hours of duration. What size radar can they carry? What's their target location error?

My Typhoon 3D survived a couple of nose-ins, requiring only replacement of the prop and a little tape here and there, but died on the third crash. I've also seen the result of a Shadow 200 going nose-in at full throttle. I think the largest piece of circuit board we recovered was about the size the nail on my pinky finger. But here's the funny thing: we fly these over enemy territory. You don't want the tech captured. One means of UAV self-destruct is called the "lawn dart." Hard to get human pilots to do that.

Yeah, the US military likes fancy toys. Could they get some use from stuff you can order for $100 on Amazon. Yeah, and in fact they do, off the procurement record. But that would be limiting us to the tech available to any person in the world with a computer and a credit card. Some world governments tried that in the last century, and we got WWII, when Germany and Japan took another approach.

As for completely silent, at 4000 ft a Shadow can't be seen or heard by most people. If they have no resources available to hit the enemy, they sometimes bring them down to 1000 ft, which causes the bad guys to scatter like roaches. Do you recall the video from the first Gulf War, in which a bunch of Iraqis surrendered to an "unarmed drone"? That was a Pioneer, predecessor of Shadow. It was not exactly unarmed: it had 9 16" guns, it just was not carrying the guns with it ... they were back on the Wisconsin. So sometimes it is good for them to be heard or seen. I'm convinced one of the best uses for the packables is to use them to distract the enemy.

[GIThruster]

GIThruster, Bob would laugh you out of the place with your lame arguments. Making all UAVs slow and light would cripple their range of missions.

I didn't say anything about "all UAV's", I said it is the top speed (which indirectly dictates a higher stall speed) of the Shadow that makes it necessary to have a launcher or an airstrip. That is the problem that makes the craft expensive and heavy manpower to move and operate. If you lose the high speed you can fulfill the mission with the foamy I posted about for less than $500. There is still call for Global Hawk, RQ-180, etc.

You still bewilder me by thinking a UAV with the speed of a single engine Cessna is "fast".

If you're bewildered it's because you're not paying attention to what I have been saying. You're acting like you're not paying attention. For the last time: it is the criteria that makes a strip or launcher necessary, that is the crippling criteria. A plane that stalls at 70 kph has to have a runway or launcher. A plane that stalls at 20 kph does not. It's that simple. Seriously, pay attention to what I'm saying. You can replace 22 men and $15M system with two guys and a $200 RC aircraft and $200 in electronics (http://www.fpvmodel.com/boscam-tr1-fpv- ... _g642.html) , and have the system improved in a dozen ways. Shadow is 20+ years old and the RC industry is nothing like what it was 20 years ago. I should not have to make further explanation than this.

The only exception to the $500 replacement I can see is if you want encrypted Rx/Tx so that a target can't just take control and crash your drone, then that might cost a little extra but we face that issue with everything we fly. And BTW, it is because we face that issue that crashing a drone is a very serious issue. Doesn't matter that it self-destructs on impact. When the Iranians downed that RQ-170, that was a heavy blow to our intelligence gathering, for now they know what we used to do with our Rx/Tx.

[Tom Ligon]

GIThruster, could you give me the specs on the look-down radar your foamy UAV will carry?

What is its loiter time over a target at the extreme range of a 155 mm cannon? Can you even reach that range one-way?

What headwind can it manage?

You stipulate something that won't do the job. You keep insisting it will, but you're missing the important facts. We don't fight wars in the park, on nice days with light breezes.

[GIThruster]

Well Tom now you're just shit-talking and it's not worth responding to you. Anyone can look up the stats of a dozen Long Range First Person View (FPV) RC craft and find a good replacement for the 20+ year old Shadow, that does not require a winch to lift. (Shadow weighs about the same as a Chevy large block. This is some of why it requires so many men to support.)

How about you tell me when was the last time we had an enemy with artillery at all, and how we thwarted them with the mighty Shadow? Please. . . how ridiculous. BTW, you need to stop mixing your stats. It does not matter that Shadow has the range it does based on fuel, etc. It has a 15,000' ceiling because it is LINE OF SIGHT control. In practical use, it has no more range than a common toy plane.

[ladajo]

GIT,
Everybody has and uses artillery. It remains the most potent battlefield shaping tool on the planet short of nukes. You are misinformed. As a point of order, most all the other guys' artillery outreaches ours right now which is a big problem. The only effective counter we have is first volley precision fires to take out before they can do counter battery.
The only way you are going to do that, especially at range, is with operating envelopes, payloads and endurance that far exceed your finger launch foamies.
Targeting quality Geo-location in battlefield environments is not something you do with a transmitting GoPro, period. To think you can do it in a sustainable and effective manner as you are proposing is just not right. Winds alone dictate bigger heavier and more powerful airframes that what you are discussing.
Have you ever spent any real time flying real vehicles in real environments?
For example, I once pushed the wind envelope with my hand toss 50" winger (P-51 with a LiPo batt and brushless motor, ie. Hotrod 50incher). Upon launch got it up only to have to pushed right back down wind over my head at full throttle. I was lucky to get it back with minimal damage. Windspeed was about 10miles per hour on the ground. The guy I was out flying with that day, rolled out his 80 inch gas powered, and took off from the dirt strip with a cross wind and flew around like there was nothing going on.

Size, weight, and power all matter dude. And once you start adding real payloads with real capabilities, size, weight, and power matter exponentially more.

You have a nice thought that is not currently technologically feasible.

[Tom Ligon]

Not addressed to GIThruster, as he's not listening. But the rest of you, I offer a story my Dad told from his little vacation in Europe back in 1944-45. The 967th Field Artillery was at that time a battalion with 12 155 mm howitzers and two L4 spotter planes (Piper Cubs painted green). One of the L4 pilots got a little tired of taking ribbing from P-47 pilots, who liked to brag about their armament.

"My plane is not unarmed," he insisted.

"You mean that 45 hanging from your belt?" they asked.

"You carry eight machine guns, maybe ten HVAR rockets, and a couple of bombs. I have a dozen 6-inch guns. They can keep firing all day. When I look at something I don't like and push my microphone key, all sorts of unpleasantness happens. The day we crossed the Rhine, our two cubs fired over 3100 rounds of the big stuff."

Or words to that effect.

They would have loved a little UAV for the same job though. But one with enough range to actually get to the target, and sufficient speed to battle a minor headwind. They saw no problem with clearing a modest runway in the dirt.

http://www.tomligon.com/Toms/Dad/MajorTomLigon.html
24 March 45 - The Bn began firing the preparation at 0100 and by 2200 had broken all it's previous records by expending 3162 rounds. Bn fired 61 Prep. missions, 3 CB, 24 support, 10 harassing, and 2 ass. area missions.