SAF Upcoming New Toys

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  18 Jan 04, 21:36

  Manned aircraft are reaching the pratical limit of their development... we should start concentrating on fast, manuverable UCAVs that will be the new air elements of the future...
• wuming78

  18 Jan 04, 21:47

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

  Manned aircraft are reaching the pratical limit of their development... we should start concentrating on fast, manuverable UCAVs that will be the new air elements of the future...

  hm.. do u mean the concept of it being manned, or the technology? in terms of the technology i think there r still alot more that can be done.
• laser51088

  19 Jan 04, 01:12

  Originally posted by clarencebk:

  Dun u all think that early 2005 is too late already?
  Our frigate SQN would be fully delivered by then. Announce n immediate acquire of Naval helo dun sound really possible.
  i still think june 2004 is a good time for the announcement.
  BTW wat's S-92?

  frigate sqn delivered by 2005? we all wish so... but it'll only be all delivered and operational by 2009...
  
  RSS Formidable just got launched on Jan 7th this year only wat...
• clarencebk

  19 Jan 04, 01:35

  Originally posted by laser51088:

  frigate sqn delivered by 2005? we all wish so... but it'll only be all delivered and operational by 2009...
  
  RSS Formidable just got launched on Jan 7th this year only wat...

  Yah,sorry. abt lapse on this.
  But if able to deliver on 2005, surely they wouldnt be sitting ducks, right? they be on the move, having drills n trying to familarize themselves,right?
  n of cos they need to be complete with the helos in order to be operational, right?
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  19 Jan 04, 02:31

  Originally posted by wuming78:

  hm.. do u mean the concept of it being manned, or the technology? in terms of the technology i think there r still alot more that can be done.

  Both, in terms of manned aircraft technology, we are reaching a point where improving the basic concept of a manned aircraft is a very bad case of diminishing returns. The aircraft can do a lot but the human in the system is a great limiting factor.
  
  Sooner or later we'll realize that it's far cheaper and effective to take the pilot out of the plane altogether. Unhindered by a mortal human, a UCAV is limited only by the strength of its materials and processing power, capable of doing things that manned aircraft can only dream of. In fact, there's really little distinction between a UCAV and a cruise missile except that the UCAV returns to base.
  
  Why risk man and machine (esp. man) in a slow, limited expensive machine encumbered with so much equipment just to keep the meat (which is already at the peak of human endurance) alive to fire a few missiles, snap a few photos and drop a few bombs when robot planes can do it with far lower cost and risk and with a far greater preformance as well?
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  19 Jan 04, 02:35

  In the end the old people here can argue how a UCAV can never dogfight a manned aircraft... maybe they are right. (Probably not considering to pit a manned aircraft against an idealized mature-technology UCAV is a bit like pitting a Fokker Triplane against an F-16!)
  
  But the basis of the issue remains that it dosen't need to. All it has to do is to make the job of eroding the enemy's capacity to make war far cheaper, easier and better, and we know it can. And the manned aircraft is dead.
  
  Tanks are less reliable then horses, and not as smart as well... but they certainly work in modern warfare a lot better! That's what matters in the end... the math.
• vaxjunior

  19 Jan 04, 13:42

  This discussion on unmanned aircrafts reminded me of Michael Crichton's book "Prey".
  
  I do think if technology allows us to build "cheap" and semi intelligent aircrafts - then this concept really can take off. The predator's missions in Iraq was a experiment and that one that was used to take out terrorists in Yemen was another example. I read from one of the israeli linked sites that there are disposable unmanned drones that are launched from a platoon level for platoon level intel. (looks like a bazooka). These are all interesting and great - but it takes money and time to bring us there.
  
  A more interim strategy would always be to have a complimentary role for unmanned and manned aircrafts even as the unmanned portion increases as technology pushes the boundaries.
• Fairyland

  20 Jan 04, 09:08

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

  In the end the old people here can argue how a UCAV can never dogfight a manned aircraft... maybe they are right. (Probably not considering to pit a manned aircraft against an idealized mature-technology UCAV is a bit like pitting a Fokker Triplane against an F-16!)
  
  But the basis of the issue remains that it dosen't need to. All it has to do is to make the job of eroding the enemy's capacity to make war far cheaper, easier and better, and we know it can. And the manned aircraft is dead.
  
  Tanks are less reliable then horses, and not as smart as well... but they certainly work in modern warfare a lot better! That's what matters in the end... the math.

  Still a long ways to go if UCAV is going to dogfight......but some CAS roles maybe.......I think. Airborne minefields - give them a X,Y Z to loiter over and attack anything metallic that moves. Then you don't need operation "Market Garden" well at least the market part.