Talk-Polywell.org

paperburn1 wrote: I was a poet and did not know it!

And again!

gj

http://www.gizmag.com/x-47b-night-flights/31684/
According to this article the X47b did launch from an aircraft carrier...

The X-47 has conducted both launch and recovery operations afloat.

ladajo wrote:The X-47 has conducted both launch and recovery operations afloat.

It was meant as a response to GiThrusters earlier post that claimed the X47-b cant launch from a carrier. It seems that it can.

Yes, I was agreeing and adding to what you said.

I don't know what he was thinking.

ladajo wrote:Yes, I was agreeing and adding to what you said.

I don't know what he was thinking.

Ahh, all good then

I think that the big drama here is that folks keep wanting to leap ahead is what is capable.

Right now, we can field drones that can augment strike and also BVR and LVR packages.

Tomorrow, is when we will be able to field NVR augments or substitutes.
In effect, we already have with fire and forget systems that track, home and kill other aircraft. It is not a big leap to integrate sensing tech for a multispectral smart homer, and giving it some level of endurance to persist the fight. Once on lock, with other manned aircraft on the attack, an attacked platform would be very challenged indeed. I also do not see it to be a big leap to add launchable air to air ordnance to this system.
All that said, it is not today, it is tomorrow.

The BVR/LVR & Strike augments are doable today.

Make note that I spoke nothing of Unmanned ISR, as that is already being done.

My point is just that it makes more sense to invest in the development of more and better drones, than into more manned fighter jets.

Until we get real AI we need both.

But the ratio can shift in favor of UCAV to some degree.
It is like the LIttoral Combat Ship. You can buy about 2.5 for one DDG. That means that you can double up on select mission areas for less than half the cost of a capital or quasi capital unit.
For example, 2 LCS and an DDG doing ASW is way more cost effective and probably more tactically effective than 3 DDGs.

ladajo wrote:Until we get real AI we need both.

But the ratio can shift in favor of UCAV to some degree.
It is like the LIttoral Combat Ship. You can buy about 2.5 for one DDG. That means that you can double up on select mission areas for less than half the cost of a capital or quasi capital unit.
For example, 2 LCS and an DDG doing ASW is way more cost effective and probably more tactically effective than 3 DDGs.

I agree that we need both and I think that the cost ratio of UAVs to manned fighters/bombers will improve once capabilities have caught up sufficiently. Right now it seems like the large UAVs are still an ongoing R&D project with comparably low production volumes. IIRC General Atomics already claims a cost ratio of 1/12 for their Avenger. At the same time their capabilities will improve as well. Then you can just overpower the enemy with a huge number of UAVs that are all networked and supported by a small number of manned fighters, operating as a unit. It is kinda scary, but I think that is where it will go.

number of UAVs that are all networked and supported by a small number of manned fighters, operating as a unit.

This is the current plan.
The functions of the UCAVs are being debated to some degree still. But the overall concept is set.
These functions could include ISR, EW, Strike, Counter Air BVR/LVR (think weapons truck), Tanking, etc.

I would just note that there was never a question of whether drones can be launched and recovered by the older steam system. The question is whether this can be done without damage to the aircraft. Also remember, that US DOD routinely underreports their capabilities as part of a standing policy, so there is little telling what they can actually do. I just noted, they SAY they need the new EM stuff aboard the Ford class for drones.

GIThruster wrote:I would just note that there was never a question of whether drones can be launched and recovered by the older steam system. The question is whether this can be done without damage to the aircraft. Also remember, that US DOD routinely underreports their capabilities as part of a standing policy, so there is little telling what they can actually do. I just noted, they SAY they need the new EM stuff aboard the Ford class for drones.

Well, they obviously did it with the X47b.

The X-47 was built to fly from CVNs. It can take it.

Other drones (for the most part) were not built for Deck launch and recovery.

The question about EMALS is more so does it open up other drones for possible launch cycles due to its inherent ability to dial-a-launch with digital control accuracy unlike the steam systems in use now.
Deck recovery is another discussion, but the new braking systems provide some greater flexibility there as well.

All that said, if in ain't built tough, it just ain't gonna do it. Just like aircraft. You can't cycle any old airplane from an assisted launch and recovery system. Look at the landing gear on an F-16 and compare it to that of an F-18 (either flavor).