Singapore Airspace Military Activity
-
According to janes.... FIREFLY... is supposed to be BIG.... and supersonic.... i doubt those 2 can go supersonic.....Originally posted by Joe Black:Hey guys,
Jane's International Defense Review posted this article -
who ever heard of a BIG UAV? it's meant for recon isnt it. unless like some ppl suggest, u can fit a warhead on it and turn it into a cruise missle...Originally posted by tripwire:According to janes.... FIREFLY... is supposed to be BIG.... and supersonic.... i doubt those 2 can go supersonic.....
do we really need 40+ UAVs in our inventory??? -
who ever heard of a BIG UAV? it's meant for recon isnt it. unless like some ppl suggest, u can fit a warhead on it and turn it into a cruise missle...Originally posted by recoil:[QUOTE]Originally posted by tripwire:
[b] According to janes.... FIREFLY... is supposed to be BIG.... and supersonic.... i doubt those 2 can go supersonic.....
do we really need 40+ UAVs in our inventory???
[/B][/QUOTE]
Have you heard about global hawk?? it flew across the entire pacific ocean from america to australia!! -
Why supersonic? For stuff to go supersonic, they burn a lot of fuel. In turn it cuts the loiter time of a UAV. That = Valuable Battlefield surveillance unavailable.
-
Furthermore, supersonic flights create sonic booms - a sure way to tell everyone you are here to spy on them...Originally posted by Shotgun:Why supersonic? For stuff to go supersonic, they burn a lot of fuel. In turn it cuts the loiter time of a UAV. That = Valuable Battlefield surveillance unavailable.
That is why current gen of UAVs employ small propeller engines. Flying at some 10,000ft, you won't hear much noise from them. -
well... according to ST... the need for a high speed UAV is to enable rapid ground surveilance at long distances....Originally posted by Joe Black:Furthermore, supersonic flights create sonic booms - a sure way to tell everyone you are here to spy on them... That is why current gen of UAVs employ small propeller engines. Flying at some 10,000ft, you won't hear much noise from them.
Which is to say.... with a supersonic UAV... SAF will be able to carry out deep enemy rear sector intelligience coverage.... OR enable SAF to gather information ASAP....
A slow propeller UAV.... would take quite some time to reach a far away area of interest...
Furthermore... a slow UAV can still be detected by a ground base radar... having a high speed UAV would increase the survivalbility of a UAV that will increase its chances to reach deep behind enemy line...
Lastly.... a high speed UAV endurance can be increased with greater fuel capacity... and may not require to loiter for as long a time as a propeller based UAV....
Furthermore... it is my belief that in future time to come... UAV might be high on the list of targets by enemy SAM... to prevent lost of military secreats and initiatives... to the enemy...
as such.. propeller driven plane with its slow speed... might not survive well in a real battle scenario.... although in peace time trainning... the idea of shooting down a UAV is a lunancy idea... but in war... an enemy force would have no qualms about shooting it down... -
With our satellite imaging capabilities, do we really need a supersonic UAV that can position itself to the "rear?" Larger fuel tanks = larger size, which means the RCS will increase, and chances of radar detection will increase.
-
I think it is quite possible to incorporate some stealth features for future generation UAVs.... furthermore... a UAV is already by constuction much smaller than a real fighter planes carrying weapon loads... thus... it might not be that far fetch a possibility...Originally posted by Shotgun:With our satellite imaging capabilities, do we really need a supersonic UAV that can position itself to the "rear?" Larger fuel tanks = larger size, which means the RCS will increase, and chances of radar detection will increase.
Lastly... a high speed UAV can in future... become a high speed missile.... the isrealis got a UAV called the harpy... which is a loiter UAV with Anti radar target ability... well.. .the harpy practically ram itself into the radar emitters... -
Ah, I see. Looks like the Israelis have learn't something from their Palestinian neighbours afterall.
-
I personally don't think there is a supersonic UAV is a feasible idea with the current control and transmitting technology. A faster UAV need not be supersonic. The prop drive is replaced with a turbine jet drive to increase the speed(not supersonic) and load capacity.
Think about the human controller, can he handle a supersonic plane whose area of view is less than 180 degrees and mainly pointing downwards.
Next fuel capacity. With present solid fuel used on missiles, They can only maintain flight for mins, unless they have the size of a ICBM. With the small size of a UAV, only fuel to last mins of supersonic flight. Though it can reach the distance and return. The picture taken would be a blur. Thus negating it deployment.
Possible uses, Anti radar missions while the opposition air defense are strong, Precision bombing as only one missile is carried (missile weight 200kg). Recon, as fast look on the desired location.
The prop planes are still useful for lotiering to give the arty a on-time look of the target. This was its primary mission designation when it was designed.
The air speed of the present UAV are still relatively slow. The miniture turbine engines developed would be those similar to those on the Tombhawk. And I seen a picture of a F-16 flying along side the missile, so manned fighter still can chase and shoot them down. Provided you know where they are.
Another one point to ponder, Sturcture strength of the UAV air frame. missles has small wings so their air resistance is low, and structure design is easier. A UAV designed like a missile can go supersonic but who is flying it? Computer? Then you would need a huge missile to fly supersonic to 50km. And how are you going to recover the UAV? -
I think the biggest problem we all are facing here is that non of us knew how big FireFly is gonna be.... all we know are from defence magazines who interviewed this ST fella who said that Firefly is BIG and can go supersonic....Originally posted by jagkoh:I personally don't think there is a supersonic UAV is a feasible idea with the current control and transmitting technology. A faster UAV need not be supersonic. The prop drive is replaced with a turbine jet drive to increase the speed(not supersonic) and load capacity.
Think about the human controller, can he handle a supersonic plane whose area of view is less than 180 degrees and mainly pointing downwards.
Next fuel capacity. With present solid fuel used on missiles, They can only maintain flight for mins, unless they have the size of a ICBM. With the small size of a UAV, only fuel to last mins of supersonic flight. Though it can reach the distance and return. The picture taken would be a blur. Thus negating it deployment.
Possible uses, Anti radar missions while the opposition air defense are strong, Precision bombing as only one missile is carried (missile weight 200kg). Recon, as fast look on the desired location.
The prop planes are still useful for lotiering to give the arty a on-time look of the target. This was its primary mission designation when it was designed.
The air speed of the present UAV are still relatively slow. The miniture turbine engines developed would be those similar to those on the Tombhawk. And I seen a picture of a F-16 flying along side the missile, so manned fighter still can chase and shoot them down. Provided you know where they are.
Another one point to ponder, Sturcture strength of the UAV air frame. missles has small wings so their air resistance is low, and structure design is easier. A UAV designed like a missile can go supersonic but who is flying it? Computer? Then you would need a huge missile to fly supersonic to 50km. And how are you going to recover the UAV?
provided that unless we know how big or huge firefly is... there seems little point in arguing whether it will be able to go supersonic or loiter over a long span of time in enemy space....
But... assuming that somehow... Firefly is indeed big.... maybe even half the size of a fighter plane!!! than everything becomes a possibility...
Futhermore... ... just a suggestion... isit possible to make UAV fly at supersonic speed using super cruise... like the EF2000 without having to switch on afterburn? -
I think the present trend of aircaft research a ummmanned fighter or bomber(a huge UAV) as the military circus are trying to put manned combat aircrafts into obselete. Consisdering the hinderance caused by a human pilot, withstanding a fraction amount of G-forces compared to the onboard equipment strength.
The space and weight taken up for instumentation and safety measures for a human pilot can be utilised for enhacement of the combat abilities of the aircraft. The pilot could be on the ground in a simulator sort of cockpit and pilot the plane. So your transfer rate and path of the data from the aircraft is critical. It must be able to withstand interferences(EMI) and obstraction from terrain. Unless you have a clear path of data transfer, you will face a brick wall in the design.
You would have to include a signal protection units too. Or a preprogrammed module to take the aircraft back to base if the signal is lost.
Anyone has any suggestion to solve this? -
To me it sounded as if ST Areo is trying to build a UCAV rather than a UAV. A big UAV even in the size of Global Hawk is not easy to develop. Furthermore it will cost quite a fair bit. Even the US UCAV is going to cost somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 the price of an F-16. Can ST Aero ready afford to finance such a project? Assuming that this is one of their secret R&D project.Originally posted by tripwire:I think the biggest problem we all are facing here is that non of us knew how big FireFly is gonna be.... all we know are from defence magazines who interviewed this ST fella who said that Firefly is BIG and can go supersonic.... -
Back to the original topic, I've heard that a group of F-16s from the Indiana Air National Guard has joined the Aussie Hornets here for the combined exercise. This makes it the 3rd Slingaroo exercise ever held and the 2nd invlving a ANG unit, after F-15s from the Louisiana ANG kicked off the first Slingaroo with 75 Sqn RAAF in 1998. Nice to see the ANG units with their colourful and interesting markings back, it was a real downer to see the Commando Slings scaled back during the Clinton years, now that they actually have a real president in the White House the Americans are warming to Singapore again
-
I think it's pretty impossible, at least at this point of time to judge that they are gonna replace a physical pilot with an AI. Although it is cheaper and costs less (not considering the 'priceless' pilots!) but i think there is no situational awareness in AI! It would be like flying a MS Flight Sim more than an aircraft, and i guess that would mean any kid can fly a UCAV then.Originally posted by jagkoh:I think the present trend of aircaft research a ummmanned fighter or bomber(a huge UAV) as the military circus are trying to put manned combat aircrafts into obselete. Consisdering the hinderance caused by a human pilot, withstanding a fraction amount of G-forces compared to the onboard equipment strength.
The space and weight taken up for instumentation and safety measures for a human pilot can be utilised for enhacement of the combat abilities of the aircraft. The pilot could be on the ground in a simulator sort of cockpit and pilot the plane. So your transfer rate and path of the data from the aircraft is critical. It must be able to withstand interferences(EMI) and obstraction from terrain. Unless you have a clear path of data transfer, you will face a brick wall in the design.
You would have to include a signal protection units too. Or a preprogrammed module to take the aircraft back to base if the signal is lost.
Anyone has any suggestion to solve this?
The concept of having a UCAV(i think) is to be piloted by a ground crew to carry out the missions under the cover of a human piloted fighter.It is more of an asset than a replacement for the air fleet. I doubt you can replace human reflexes and experiences with just an AI. There are utimately just a machine with no 'brains'. -
More on Commando Slings, from the Feb 2002 issue of the USAF's Airman magazine.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0202/features.html -
Of course, one can simply programme UCAVs for simpler missions like SEAD.
-
Commandoes sling exercise sound familiar! What's that exercise about? Aussie F-18? I saw US F-15 a couple of time at PLAB
-
[quote]Originally posted by nigaman:
[b]You guys are all wrong...
The Hornets at PLAB were here for the recently ended EX Carat between RSAF, and the USAF...
Ex Carat is a naval exercise. Besides, the original post of the Hornet sightings were in March/April. -
UAV is mainly for patrols
-
Does anyone know how's the pitch black exercise goes this year? Viper52, hear or read anything yet? Any pics so far? I haven't found any information from any magazines on the news agent magazine racks yet...
sigh!!!!
Funny how this year, USAF did not participate in the exercise. Perhaps they are a little over stretched with their deployment in Afganistan, the gulf, Phillippines and in Bosnia, perhaps they are even preparing for another war against Iraq right now.... -
JB, heres what I got from the AFM forum, I've not idea who Air Commodore Pietsch is but I would think some RAAF big shot. Additionally an Aussie contact I have said that this years Pitch Black is basicaly Amberley duking it out with Williamtown for control of airspace over Central NSW...
----------------------------
PITCH BLACK 2002 from Air Commodore Pietsch
This is the first time that it's been held on the east coast for about 15 years. This year is a scaled down exercise. There's no US forces involved and there is no British forces involvement. The reason for that is of course, as we know, the real world activities are keeping many armed forces quite busy and Australia's no different. We don't have some of our forces with us this time, because some of them are deployed at the moment. The basis scenario for the exercise is really quite simple. We've got a strike force based her at Amberley and we've got a defending force at Williamtown. And the aim is to launch strike forces out of Amberley against targets, which will be defended by the Williamtown defenders. The expected outcome of the exercise is fairly straightforward. We're looking for improving or maintaining and developing between he Republic of Singapore Air Force and our forces. We're looking at improving the skill levels of aircrews and our fighter controllers. We've also got the army with their surface to air missiles out there training and out of it, we want to improve the preparedness of both of our forces. -
I don't think Singapore will be able to afford the UCAV on a large scale basis to have any significant impact in its armed forces. It would more likely use UAVs for recon etc. Also, Singapore does require a large number of UAVs. UAVs are lost or written off VERY easily. Probably 'cos they're harder to control, especially if you lose contact with it, although current SIngapore UAVs are programmed to return on their own if contact is lost, but it is still very easy to lose a UAV. Another reason is that very often, you need continuous info of your enemy/battlefield. To do that, basically you need a large number of UAVs (some sending feedback, some on their way/returning, some on standby and some in maintenance)
also, I doubt it necessary for a supersonic UAV. A UAV should be stealthy. If the enemy find your UAV, you can say byebye to it already, 'cos most fighters today are supersonic and SAMs are even more so. (unless the enemy has yet to scramble planes and does not have SAMs aimed at you, which is highly unlikely once the UAV is found) Once you're UAV is found in that sector, most likely you cannot put anymore UAVs around there because the enemy will be on their guard there, so the best option is still to be stealthy and not speedy.
A UAV also beats a satellite in that you need several satellies up just to ensure that you can give 24hr coverage of the enemy(at least 3 sats i think). Otherwise, you'll only have info when the your sat is overhead the enemy. A UAV is there when you need it. -
for more info of pitch black 02 come to this site:
http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/exercises/pitchblack02/gallery.cfm?paginate=21
this exercise got the sg f-16 sqn photos of f-16d. damn cool!