4 ms·

The problem with the SUAS concept is energy and scale. You can't have something very small (small enough to fit a dozen in a C-130, so several metres in length

The problem with the SUAS concept is energy and scale. You can't have something very small (small enough to fit a dozen in a C-130, so several metres in length at most) which has a powerful turbofan engine and significant range and excellent manoeuvrability and compact stowage. Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics and risk to the people on the mothership. C-130s are fine for a demo I guess, but are particularly terrible tactically, as the adversary SUAS systems would easily be able to take them out.

Shivetya 8y ago
I just figured recovery could be sky hook or similar, have a cable out there that the drone snags and then it gets pulled in. I cannot imagine the hell of trying to fly in the turbulence behind a C130
- lainga 8y ago
  We tried that in the 20's with airship carriers. It was hard even at airship and biplane speeds.
  - VectorLock 8y ago
    The Fulton recovery system only had one fatality in its uses. And recovering a UAV is more durable than a squishy meat bag human.
  - NegativeLatency 8y ago
    And in the 30s, 40s, 50s. It’s an enduring dream. One of my favorite parasite fighters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin
derefr 8y ago
> Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics and risk to the people on the mothership. Why not recover the sUAs with a big UAV? You can do all sorts of crazy things re: vehicle design, if you don't need people inside. For example, have each sUA just dive toward the UAV from above, decelerate to a zero/zero intercept, and cut propulsion, such that it goes ballistic falling past the loading bay; and then have the UAV target the sUA with a net out of its loading bay, catch it, and reel it in. Like a skyhook that assumes an uncooperative peer. Or, have the sUAs throw themselves at random points on the the UAV's (very thick and solid and ferromagnetic) hull, and lock onto it magnetically, and then have the UAV pluck the sUAs off with external cranes and bring the sUAs into the loading bay. Like a monkey plucking ticks off of itself and eating them.
VectorLock 8y ago
>You can't have something very small (small enough to fit a dozen in a C-130, so several metres in length at most) which has a powerful turbofan engine and significant range and excellent manoeuvrability and compact stowage. Why can't you? Wouldn't it just be, essentially, a reusable Tomahawk cruise missile?
- nine_k 8y ago
  How reusable Tomahawk's engine is? That is, for a reusable engine of this size, what would be flight time until a serious maintenance is required?
- angry_octet 8y ago
  I did think of tomahawk, but it doesn't have great aerodynamics for long endurance or speed. Certainly not very fast. Of course, TLAM accepts many constraints so it can be launched from a submarine. Could the TLAM components be used in a better folding airframe? I guess so. It always seemed dumb to blow up a $2m airframe to delivery 450kg of HE. And of course it is, TLAM would be cheaper if it wasn't engineered for delivering nuclear warheads. Maybe just build $200k Tomahawk-lite that don't need air recovery, just ditch in the sea.
tintor 8y ago
It you look at the picture in the article, UAV wings appear to be foldable, so many of them can be stored in smaller space.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics and risk to the people on the mothership. Fly straight up, cut engines, fall ballistic. Maybe even add a parachute. The US recovered spy satellite footage in the 60s this way, with payload falling from space and being caught in-flight. So it should be workable today as well.
- angry_octet 8y ago
  That was a film cannister, not hundreds of kilos of carbon fiber aircraft (and weapons).
- dgudkov 8y ago
  Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that? I would envision a robotic arm that automatically collects UAVs when they approach sufficiently close to the mothership. The arm can be rather large and can be extended through rear loading bay.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that? Is it though? I mean, it ostensibly is, at least on paper. Not so much in practice, though. Maybe there is a cycle of expansion and contraction? In the 50s-80s we've pushed tech across all domains as far as we could, doing miracles. Then it got all scaled back in an attempt to optimize the most common use cases to be cheaper. If so, I can't wait for the next expansion phase.

Shivetya 8y ago

I just figured recovery could be sky hook or similar, have a cable out there that the drone snags and then it gets pulled in. I cannot imagine the hell of trying to fly in the turbulence behind a C130

lainga 8y ago
We tried that in the 20's with airship carriers. It was hard even at airship and biplane speeds.
- VectorLock 8y ago
  The Fulton recovery system only had one fatality in its uses. And recovering a UAV is more durable than a squishy meat bag human.
- NegativeLatency 8y ago
  And in the 30s, 40s, 50s. It’s an enduring dream. One of my favorite parasite fighters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

derefr 8y ago

> Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics and risk to the people on the mothership. Why not recover the sUAs with a big UAV? You can do all sorts of crazy things re: vehicle design, if you don't need people inside. For example, have each sUA just dive toward the UAV from above, decelerate to a zero/zero intercept, and cut propulsion, such that it goes ballistic falling past the loading bay; and then have the UAV target the sUA with a net out of its loading bay, catch it, and reel it in. Like a skyhook that assumes an uncooperative peer. Or, have the sUAs throw themselves at random points on the the UAV's (very thick and solid and ferromagnetic) hull, and lock onto it magnetically, and then have the UAV pluck the sUAs off with external cranes and bring the sUAs into the loading bay. Like a monkey plucking ticks off of itself and eating them.

VectorLock 8y ago

>You can't have something very small (small enough to fit a dozen in a C-130, so several metres in length at most) which has a powerful turbofan engine and significant range and excellent manoeuvrability and compact stowage. Why can't you? Wouldn't it just be, essentially, a reusable Tomahawk cruise missile?

nine_k 8y ago
How reusable Tomahawk's engine is? That is, for a reusable engine of this size, what would be flight time until a serious maintenance is required?
angry_octet 8y ago
I did think of tomahawk, but it doesn't have great aerodynamics for long endurance or speed. Certainly not very fast. Of course, TLAM accepts many constraints so it can be launched from a submarine. Could the TLAM components be used in a better folding airframe? I guess so. It always seemed dumb to blow up a $2m airframe to delivery 450kg of HE. And of course it is, TLAM would be cheaper if it wasn't engineered for delivering nuclear warheads. Maybe just build $200k Tomahawk-lite that don't need air recovery, just ditch in the sea.

tintor 8y ago

It you look at the picture in the article, UAV wings appear to be foldable, so many of them can be stored in smaller space.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics and risk to the people on the mothership. Fly straight up, cut engines, fall ballistic. Maybe even add a parachute. The US recovered spy satellite footage in the 60s this way, with payload falling from space and being caught in-flight. So it should be workable today as well.

angry_octet 8y ago
That was a film cannister, not hundreds of kilos of carbon fiber aircraft (and weapons).
dgudkov 8y ago
Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that? I would envision a robotic arm that automatically collects UAVs when they approach sufficiently close to the mothership. The arm can be rather large and can be extended through rear loading bay.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that? Is it though? I mean, it ostensibly is, at least on paper. Not so much in practice, though. Maybe there is a cycle of expansion and contraction? In the 50s-80s we've pushed tech across all domains as far as we could, doing miracles. Then it got all scaled back in an attempt to optimize the most common use cases to be cheaper. If so, I can't wait for the next expansion phase.