5 ms·

LOL, you lost me when you mentioned Tesla detecting pedestrians. Optically detecting something small at range is very difficult. When cued by other devices (ra

by greedo 4y ago

LOL, you lost me when you mentioned Tesla detecting pedestrians. Optically detecting something small at range is very difficult. When cued by other devices (radar/IR) EO systems like what the F-14 used to carry can zoom in and identify a target at range. With drones you won't have that cueing. Their IR/radar signature is generally too small unless you're talking Predator size UAVs. And the more you add to a drone, the heavier and more expensive it becomes. Radios, advanced sensors, etc etc. Why would I assume an anti-drone would look anything similar to a "normal" drone? Does a SAM (surface to air missile) look anything like a fighter aircraft it counters? Does an anti-tank mine resemble an armored vehicle? And you can't just hand wave and say add 50% to the cost to make it lighter and more maneuverable. That's just ridiculous. Modern aeronautics is a mature industry, and just throwing money at something doesn't magically improve flight characteristics. And range? Just hand-waving here as well. Range (what the experts refer to as persistence) is hugely important. If you don't have persistence, then to "scramble" as you so eloquently put it require high performance, which leads to higher weight and higher cost, as well as less maneuverability. And in-flight refueling? That's only been demonstrated on very high performance USN UAVs, and those are basically jets, not drones. The idea that these (or any drone) is even close to flying CAP missions is unrealistic. Currently there is no technology to build what you describe. None. And your link to the Kızılelma just illustrates how far away this is. This is a stealthy/low RCS supersonic aircraft with an AESA radar. This is what aerospace engineers call "not-cheap." And I wouldn't dignify the Russian "attempt" as more than someone strapping a shotgun to a hobbyist RC plane and calling it a weapon. It suffers from all the critiques I've previously outlined.

trashtester 4y ago
I think you are missing one key point: numbers. Let's say a drone costs $10000, and you buy as many of them as it costs to buy+operate 100 F35. How many do you get? The key is that you have tens of thousands of these things (more of the smaller ones), and distribute them along the front, near the infantry. Maybe instead of a hand mortar or a machine gun, some platoons would carry a couple of these. Or vehicles of all sizes could have a couple of these mounted simmilar to APS's, kind of like how naval vessels carry helicopters. Then you make sure that the detection capability is networked between the drones, as well as with other detection systems (land based, awacs + fighters). This way, detection is not done at rangs of 100's of km, but of 100's of meters, in the same ballpark that a car detects objects. Also, for the same reason, this means that you don't need a combat radius of 1000km. A combat radus of 100km may be enough. If you need to deploy them further away, one could have setups where they are deployed as munitions from other aircraft (anything from a B52 to a large UAV). Kind of like this: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-drone-swarm-dropped-from-jets-plans-its-own-moves/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-dro... >And you can't just hand wave and say add 50% to the cost to make it lighter and more maneuverable. That's just ridiculous. Modern aeronautics is a mature industry, and just throwing money at something doesn't magically improve flight characteristics. A lot present days UAV's are made witha a lot of focus on cost. That's how they (some of them) cost only 10% of a stinger missile. That's also why you don't want to use a stinger to shoot down a cheap UAV. But, obviously, these cheap drones have a lot of tradeoffs to keep the cost down. Maybe they use aluminium instead of magnesium or composites as materials? Maybe the electronics is a couple of generations older, and both a bit heavy and unsophisticated? Maybe engines are off-the-shelf versions, and not state of the art. Except for the most advanced drones, I would expect it to be possible to pay some extra $ to get somewhat higher performance, such as 10% more speed, 5% faster turn/roll rate, 20% more advanced electronics, with enough weight saved, to be able to add a gun and maybe a better radio. Also, keep in mind that many potential enemies are not nearly as advanced technologially as the USA. Even compared to Russia, the USA has better tech in most fields, and compared to North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan and many other potential enemies that may deploy large number of drones, USA may definitely deploy more advanced tech. With China it may be harder/more symmetrical. > And in-flight refueling? UAV's would exist at different sizes (I described this in another sub-thread). Only the ones that are basically the size of a fighter plane would have in-flight refueling, like the Kızılelma. In turns of numbers, 90-99% of the UAV's I imagine in this model, would be closer to that Russian one in size, or smaller, except that the software would be mature. These are the ones that would be able to counter enemy UAV's that are too cheap to be be worth a stinger missile.
- greedo 4y ago
  You're missing the point. A drone like you're describing, (the Kızılelma) is not a $10k in any world. That's going to be $5-$10M each. The AESA radar alone will be $500K. So you can't just make up a fantasy price and say $10k buys you an effective drone. The communication network you're describing doesn't exist, and would be highly susceptible to jamming, spoofing or hacking if it did. You can't hand wave away the current state of technology because the idea sounds cool. That's just sci-fi you're describing, not realistic technology. Basically what you're describing is something that's not currently available, nor possible in the near future. It's the same story that comes out from HN about how fighter jets are obsolete because a drone can fly more Gs than a manned aircraft.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Ok, so I suppose I only stated the premise fully in the other thread, which is my fault. My premise is that 3-4 types of drones are needed, of different sizes. I'll quote it here for convenience: > I'm imagining at least 3-4 size categories, lets say. 1) Tiny, able to shoot down most quad copters. Top speed of 50-100knots. Price needs to be low enough to allow tens of thousands to be produced. Could potentially also double as anti-infantry weapons by strafing. 2) Small. Able to shoot down switchblade-sized drones. Top speed of maybe 200 knots. Can be produced in numbers of thousands. 3) Medium. Sutable to hunt small UAV's, such as Buyraktar. Top speed of several hundered knots, maybe just below Mach 1. Somewhat more expensive than the Buyraktar, but can also carry some of the same ordanance, like a tiny fighter-bomber. 4) Full-sized, possibly supersonic. Basically the same as the Loyal Wingman concept. Designed to counter other full-sized drones as well as manned aircraft. Also, the hypothesis is that drones will take up a significant share of the military budget. Let say you start with ~$20 billion, what will it buy. Thats $5 billion for each size category when split evenly, one could get something like Size 1 (price = $10000) : 500000 Size 2 (price = $100000) : 50000 Size 3 (price = $1000000) : 5000 Size 4 (price = $10000000) : 500 (EDIT: I realize that these categories are a bit smaller at the higher end than in the other thread, anyway it is primarily an order-of-magnutude estimate.) Total number 555500 drones. Since these vary in size from roughly a quadcopter to close to a manned fighter, they provide capabilities of airial enemies of all sizes (unless the enemy is deploying insect-sized drones). It also comes with very significant air-to-ground capability and (if properly networked) extremely good sensory capability, even if the smaller 2 categories only have basic optics + perhaps some IR. Even if you deploy only 10% of this, you can have a few of size 1 at every km of the front. (Also, by the time $20B has been spent, the first iterations may already have become obsolete.) > The communication network you're describing doesn't exist, We may not be fully there, but this is already a huge trend, and basically already implemented for the higher end of the air force (F35). Some protocols are already ready, some are under development. Ideally, the drone capability described above should be co-developed with JADC2: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11493.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11493.pdf > Basically what you're describing is something that's not currently available, nor possible in the near future. I suppose we just plain diagree here. I think the basic technology for this kind of capability is already there, but still evolving quickly. In other words, this arms race has already started. In fact, with the current exposure tech like this is already getting, I would be surprised if funds and effort is not already being directed to this as we speak. > It's the same story that comes out from HN about how fighter jets are obsolete because a drone can fly more Gs than a manned aircraft. Not just HN. Manned fighters are not obsolete. But more and more people in the industry seems to think that Gen 6 will be dominated by unmanned aircraft. For instance, this is part of the marketing for Kızılelma. This is also not new. F35 was designed to be able to function as a kind of a drone host, and even with the capability to be converted to an UCAV*. This is also much of the reason why it was provided with as much compute- and sensory power as it was. In other words, even during the early design phase of the F35, enough people were predicting the end of manned fighters within the F35's lifetime for that to be included in the design. * This is from my memory from when my country selected the F35 as our fighter, I'm not sure I have more recent sources on hand.

by greedo 4y ago

trashtester 4y ago

I think you are missing one key point: numbers. Let's say a drone costs $10000, and you buy as many of them as it costs to buy+operate 100 F35. How many do you get? The key is that you have tens of thousands of these things (more of the smaller ones), and distribute them along the front, near the infantry. Maybe instead of a hand mortar or a machine gun, some platoons would carry a couple of these. Or vehicles of all sizes could have a couple of these mounted simmilar to APS's, kind of like how naval vessels carry helicopters. Then you make sure that the detection capability is networked between the drones, as well as with other detection systems (land based, awacs + fighters). This way, detection is not done at rangs of 100's of km, but of 100's of meters, in the same ballpark that a car detects objects. Also, for the same reason, this means that you don't need a combat radius of 1000km. A combat radus of 100km may be enough. If you need to deploy them further away, one could have setups where they are deployed as munitions from other aircraft (anything from a B52 to a large UAV). Kind of like this: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-drone-swarm-dropped-from-jets-plans-its-own-moves/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/01/10/154651/a-100-dro... >And you can't just hand wave and say add 50% to the cost to make it lighter and more maneuverable. That's just ridiculous. Modern aeronautics is a mature industry, and just throwing money at something doesn't magically improve flight characteristics. A lot present days UAV's are made witha a lot of focus on cost. That's how they (some of them) cost only 10% of a stinger missile. That's also why you don't want to use a stinger to shoot down a cheap UAV. But, obviously, these cheap drones have a lot of tradeoffs to keep the cost down. Maybe they use aluminium instead of magnesium or composites as materials? Maybe the electronics is a couple of generations older, and both a bit heavy and unsophisticated? Maybe engines are off-the-shelf versions, and not state of the art. Except for the most advanced drones, I would expect it to be possible to pay some extra $ to get somewhat higher performance, such as 10% more speed, 5% faster turn/roll rate, 20% more advanced electronics, with enough weight saved, to be able to add a gun and maybe a better radio. Also, keep in mind that many potential enemies are not nearly as advanced technologially as the USA. Even compared to Russia, the USA has better tech in most fields, and compared to North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan and many other potential enemies that may deploy large number of drones, USA may definitely deploy more advanced tech. With China it may be harder/more symmetrical. > And in-flight refueling? UAV's would exist at different sizes (I described this in another sub-thread). Only the ones that are basically the size of a fighter plane would have in-flight refueling, like the Kızılelma. In turns of numbers, 90-99% of the UAV's I imagine in this model, would be closer to that Russian one in size, or smaller, except that the software would be mature. These are the ones that would be able to counter enemy UAV's that are too cheap to be be worth a stinger missile.

greedo 4y ago
You're missing the point. A drone like you're describing, (the Kızılelma) is not a $10k in any world. That's going to be $5-$10M each. The AESA radar alone will be $500K. So you can't just make up a fantasy price and say $10k buys you an effective drone. The communication network you're describing doesn't exist, and would be highly susceptible to jamming, spoofing or hacking if it did. You can't hand wave away the current state of technology because the idea sounds cool. That's just sci-fi you're describing, not realistic technology. Basically what you're describing is something that's not currently available, nor possible in the near future. It's the same story that comes out from HN about how fighter jets are obsolete because a drone can fly more Gs than a manned aircraft.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Ok, so I suppose I only stated the premise fully in the other thread, which is my fault. My premise is that 3-4 types of drones are needed, of different sizes. I'll quote it here for convenience: > I'm imagining at least 3-4 size categories, lets say. 1) Tiny, able to shoot down most quad copters. Top speed of 50-100knots. Price needs to be low enough to allow tens of thousands to be produced. Could potentially also double as anti-infantry weapons by strafing. 2) Small. Able to shoot down switchblade-sized drones. Top speed of maybe 200 knots. Can be produced in numbers of thousands. 3) Medium. Sutable to hunt small UAV's, such as Buyraktar. Top speed of several hundered knots, maybe just below Mach 1. Somewhat more expensive than the Buyraktar, but can also carry some of the same ordanance, like a tiny fighter-bomber. 4) Full-sized, possibly supersonic. Basically the same as the Loyal Wingman concept. Designed to counter other full-sized drones as well as manned aircraft. Also, the hypothesis is that drones will take up a significant share of the military budget. Let say you start with ~$20 billion, what will it buy. Thats $5 billion for each size category when split evenly, one could get something like Size 1 (price = $10000) : 500000 Size 2 (price = $100000) : 50000 Size 3 (price = $1000000) : 5000 Size 4 (price = $10000000) : 500 (EDIT: I realize that these categories are a bit smaller at the higher end than in the other thread, anyway it is primarily an order-of-magnutude estimate.) Total number 555500 drones. Since these vary in size from roughly a quadcopter to close to a manned fighter, they provide capabilities of airial enemies of all sizes (unless the enemy is deploying insect-sized drones). It also comes with very significant air-to-ground capability and (if properly networked) extremely good sensory capability, even if the smaller 2 categories only have basic optics + perhaps some IR. Even if you deploy only 10% of this, you can have a few of size 1 at every km of the front. (Also, by the time $20B has been spent, the first iterations may already have become obsolete.) > The communication network you're describing doesn't exist, We may not be fully there, but this is already a huge trend, and basically already implemented for the higher end of the air force (F35). Some protocols are already ready, some are under development. Ideally, the drone capability described above should be co-developed with JADC2: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11493.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11493.pdf > Basically what you're describing is something that's not currently available, nor possible in the near future. I suppose we just plain diagree here. I think the basic technology for this kind of capability is already there, but still evolving quickly. In other words, this arms race has already started. In fact, with the current exposure tech like this is already getting, I would be surprised if funds and effort is not already being directed to this as we speak. > It's the same story that comes out from HN about how fighter jets are obsolete because a drone can fly more Gs than a manned aircraft. Not just HN. Manned fighters are not obsolete. But more and more people in the industry seems to think that Gen 6 will be dominated by unmanned aircraft. For instance, this is part of the marketing for Kızılelma. This is also not new. F35 was designed to be able to function as a kind of a drone host, and even with the capability to be converted to an UCAV*. This is also much of the reason why it was provided with as much compute- and sensory power as it was. In other words, even during the early design phase of the F35, enough people were predicting the end of manned fighters within the F35's lifetime for that to be included in the design. * This is from my memory from when my country selected the F35 as our fighter, I'm not sure I have more recent sources on hand.