3 ms·

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

by 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.
- greedo 4y ago
  I don't have time to keep getting into the fantasy math here for your drones, but just wanted to correct you about the F-35. It was never part of its design to either be a drone host or to be optionally manned. And saying it has the capability to be converted to a UCAV doesn't mean much; the USAF has done that for fighters starting with the Century series up to the F-16.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Here is a link from 2015 describing the intent to have F-35 command drone swarms: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/19/air-forces-new-unmanned-strategy-has-f35-pilots-flying-drones.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/19/air-forces-ne... In fact, this capability was baked in from early development through the MADL data link, sensor fusion capability and powerful processing power (at the time). Optionally manned versions of the F35 was being discussed as late as 2015: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a26cc000-3b69-4895-b851-4643aa70588d&subId=407669 https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a26cc000-3b69-4... Here is an excerpt from the article "Lockheed Martin has not yet officially confirmed the development of a pilotless or optionally piloted version of the F-35, but it is my understanding that they have had plans for an unmanned variant for some time now, with F-35 programmers having long ago confirmed to me that the fly-by-wire functionality was designed-in as inherent feature for later exploitation in the design of an unmanned model. I would suggest that if the Committee is not aware of such options, they be thoroughly investigated with Lockheed with a view toward exploring potential technical problems such as the lag time between commands and their execution, and the impact that removing the human from the F-35 design would have on flight characteristics. If, on the other hand, future unmanned operation has already been factored into the cost-benefit analysis by Defence decision makers and its investment partners, I would suggest that this logic be made clear to the public, especially given that it is not the only aircraft manufacturer converting its fighters for unmanned operation:" So, I suppose it was unoffical, but the same information seemed to be given to Norwegian decision makers when we joined the programme in 2008, and there was also rumors in 2006: https://www.flightglobal.com/lockheed-martin-reveals-plans-for-unmanned-f-35-jsf-among-other-new-uav-concepts/69073.article https://www.flightglobal.com/lockheed-martin-reveals-plans-f... How much this affected the design choices for the manned versions is unknown, suppose.

by greedo 4y ago

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.

greedo 4y ago
I don't have time to keep getting into the fantasy math here for your drones, but just wanted to correct you about the F-35. It was never part of its design to either be a drone host or to be optionally manned. And saying it has the capability to be converted to a UCAV doesn't mean much; the USAF has done that for fighters starting with the Century series up to the F-16.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Here is a link from 2015 describing the intent to have F-35 command drone swarms: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/19/air-forces-new-unmanned-strategy-has-f35-pilots-flying-drones.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/19/air-forces-ne... In fact, this capability was baked in from early development through the MADL data link, sensor fusion capability and powerful processing power (at the time). Optionally manned versions of the F35 was being discussed as late as 2015: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a26cc000-3b69-4895-b851-4643aa70588d&subId=407669 https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a26cc000-3b69-4... Here is an excerpt from the article "Lockheed Martin has not yet officially confirmed the development of a pilotless or optionally piloted version of the F-35, but it is my understanding that they have had plans for an unmanned variant for some time now, with F-35 programmers having long ago confirmed to me that the fly-by-wire functionality was designed-in as inherent feature for later exploitation in the design of an unmanned model. I would suggest that if the Committee is not aware of such options, they be thoroughly investigated with Lockheed with a view toward exploring potential technical problems such as the lag time between commands and their execution, and the impact that removing the human from the F-35 design would have on flight characteristics. If, on the other hand, future unmanned operation has already been factored into the cost-benefit analysis by Defence decision makers and its investment partners, I would suggest that this logic be made clear to the public, especially given that it is not the only aircraft manufacturer converting its fighters for unmanned operation:" So, I suppose it was unoffical, but the same information seemed to be given to Norwegian decision makers when we joined the programme in 2008, and there was also rumors in 2006: https://www.flightglobal.com/lockheed-martin-reveals-plans-for-unmanned-f-35-jsf-among-other-new-uav-concepts/69073.article https://www.flightglobal.com/lockheed-martin-reveals-plans-f... How much this affected the design choices for the manned versions is unknown, suppose.