News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -missions/The UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) plans to assess the potential use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for SAR missions under a program named « Drone Demonstration and Development Project », a recent tender document reveals.
Nah, give them the Watchkeepers....if they haven't all been crashed yet...Dahedd wrote:Give them the Predators when the RAF retires them
Shame though, maybe LMM? Less collateral damage!Lord Jim wrote:Obviously they will not be dropping Paveways on SUVs in Chelsea though.
What? One for the dinghy, and another for the rescue diverRichardIC wrote: the drone that was also being considered for planeguard from the QLZ
Not in its current form. There are easier VTOL systems available to UAV designers that would be far more reliable in practice (the tailsitter VBAT for example).Little J wrote:Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
Too expensive?Timmymagic wrote:Not in its current form. There are easier VTOL systems available to UAV designers that would be far more reliable in practice (the tailsitter VBAT for example).Little J wrote:Anyone else think it would make a good (scalable) basis for a UAV???
What's surprising to me is that there have been no attempts to use the F-35 powerplant with LiftSysystem in any UCAV designs, or even scale it down to a smaller jet engine and use the same concept.
Certainly the F135 and LiftSystem is very expensive, and could only be justified by a very high end UCAV. The market for that is very limited. You could argue that unless you're building one to pair it with an F-35B you may as well buy an F-35B...dmereifield wrote:Too expensive?
But then making a less expensive version would require an expensive RnD programme first for development and testing etc...no longer particularly cheap then, is it?Timmymagic wrote:Certainly the F135 and LiftSystem is very expensive, and could only be justified by a very high end UCAV. The market for that is very limited. You could argue that unless you're building one to pair it with an F-35B you may as well buy an F-35B...dmereifield wrote:Too expensive?
But utilisation of the same concept with a smaller, less expensive system could be doable. But again it would add cost and complexity, and your market will primarily be Navies with LHD's and small carriers.
I'd say the same of the far more established 'rotating nozzle', Harrier style technique, particularly in the shape of the QinetiQ VAAC testbed. It was already capable of landing on Charles de Gaulle with little to no human interaction.Timmymagic wrote:What's surprising to me is that there have been no attempts to use the F-35 powerplant with LiftSysystem in any UCAV designs, or even scale it down to a smaller jet engine and use the same concept.
The big disadvantage it has is that it needs a dedicated engine for that. And there is only the Pegasus. The beauty of the Lift Fan concept is that you can still have afterburning (as Plenum Chamber Burning never really worked well) and could alter an existing engine to power the gearing.Jensy wrote:It also has the big advantage over the Lift-Fan system of not needing to drag around the dead weight of the fan, during level flight, and all the hefty, strengthened panels needed to ensure airflow.
No it wouldn't be cheap, but the F135 is enormous and you're pretty much committed to an F-35 sized platform. And the answer at that point is an unmanned F-35B...dmereifield wrote:But then making a less expensive version would require an expensive RnD programme first for development and testing etc...no longer particularly cheap then, is it?
Why would you want a supersonic ucav. A non after burning engine optimised for range will be subsonic in nature and more suitable for unmanned missions. The f35 engine system is covered in ITAR and it’s use subject to the whims of US congress no one outside the US will bother developing a platform with that.Timmymagic wrote:The big disadvantage it has is that it needs a dedicated engine for that. And there is only the Pegasus. The beauty of the Lift Fan concept is that you can still have afterburning (as Plenum Chamber Burning never really worked well) and could alter an existing engine to power the gearing.Jensy wrote:It also has the big advantage over the Lift-Fan system of not needing to drag around the dead weight of the fan, during level flight, and all the hefty, strengthened panels needed to ensure airflow.
No it wouldn't be cheap, but the F135 is enormous and you're pretty much committed to an F-35 sized platform. And the answer at that point is an unmanned F-35B...dmereifield wrote:But then making a less expensive version would require an expensive RnD programme first for development and testing etc...no longer particularly cheap then, is it?
Afterburning has other uses beyond getting over the transonic hump. The ability to accelerate, climb rapidly or shorten a takeoff run is worth the price of admission. But it very much depends on the role a UCAV fills. If its going to operate as a wingman it may need the ability to reach higher speeds to keep up.SW1 wrote:Why would you want a supersonic ucav. A non after burning engine optimised for range will be subsonic in nature and more suitable for unmanned missions.
That’s all related to a thrust to weight requirement that does not require after burning to be meet especially if it has low drag. There’s a number of examples out there that demonstrates that.Timmymagic wrote:Afterburning has other uses beyond getting over the transonic hump. The ability to accelerate, climb rapidly or shorten a takeoff run is worth the price of admission. But it very much depends on the role a UCAV fills. If its going to operate as a wingman it may need the ability to reach higher speeds to keep up.SW1 wrote:Why would you want a supersonic ucav. A non after burning engine optimised for range will be subsonic in nature and more suitable for unmanned missions.
Actually it didn't, but it saved fuel by using afterburner to get through the transonic regime quickly. It could go supersonic using dry thrust but it took more time and fuel to push through.SW1 wrote:Concorde required reheat to get to supersonic flight.