A10 Replacement

[EchoFiveMike]

For this niche a light gun like 25mm OCSW is better than something huge like 30x173 or 35x228. 30x113 like the chaingun on the AH-64 is about as large and as heavy a recoil footprint as you can tolerate. I've seen these sidemounted on a Littlebird and considered it oversized and that's a huge bird compared to the EagleEye or most of these UCAV's under consideration. A recoilless design like the RMK is going to have real limited traverse because of backblast, and a 30x173 HE shell is no real advantage over a 30x113 HE shell. Considering that it's being dropped from a height advantage, take the 30x113 and go to an even heavier HE shell and you're at zero advantage for the 30x173.

 

APDSFS doesn't mean much to me. If you have hard targets, you're better off using BAT's. I don't care about how good you're ERA is, a 120mm shaped charge on the topside is going to be much more effective than a few 30mm APDSFS hits. S/F....Ken M

[Ivanhoe]

I keep wondering why not make a STOL that has a standard "strap on" JATO type unit for near/vertical takeoff.  Short landing should be good enough in most situations, less weight in fuel and munitions when coming back.  It can still work in STOL without them, or perhaps get airborne with even MORE payload using the boosters. Dump them once airborne...

 

Good idea, but a standard JATO bottle has got way more thrust than needed for this application. You'd want to downsize the thing appropriately. I'd design an "auto eject" mechanism into the rocket, basically the last ounce of powder used to blow forward into the rocket holder to push the rocket out and clear of the fuselage.

 

I remember the Bell proposal, wasn't it the "BAT" pretty sweet looking.  I always wished they had built it for the attack role.

190476[/snapback]

 

Yep, that application, scaled to about 15k lb, would have been a much better choice for first production tiltrotor. That's right in the neighborhood of the XV-15 aircraft, for which the gov't had thousands of flight hours of data and plenty of trained pilots.

[Ivanhoe]

Interesting, however I don't think low-speed and hover performance are that critical for this type of UCAV.  I was thinking more like a scaled up Eagle Eye UAV.  It's more important to have good range, payload, persistence and cruising speed, IMHO.

 

Still a solution in search of a problem. If you're going to operate a 5000 lb UCAV from rough field/no field, you might as well truck the thing within 50-100km of the FEBA or urban jungle. In which case, the speed and range advantage of the TR make little difference.

[Burncycle360]

For this niche a light gun like 25mm OCSW is better than something huge like 30x173 or 35x228. 30x113 like the chaingun on the AH-64 is about as large and as heavy a recoil footprint as you can tolerate. I've seen these sidemounted on a Littlebird and considered it oversized and that's a huge bird compared to the EagleEye or most of these UCAV's under consideration. A recoilless design like the RMK is going to have real limited traverse because of backblast, and a 30x173 HE shell is no real advantage over a 30x113 HE shell. Considering that it's being dropped from a height advantage, take the 30x113 and go to an even heavier HE shell and you're at zero advantage for the 30x173.

 

It all depends on how high you want to operate.

[gewing]

For this niche a light gun like 25mm OCSW is better than something huge like 30x173 or 35x228.  30x113 like the chaingun on the AH-64 is about as large and as heavy a recoil footprint as you can tolerate.  I've seen these sidemounted on a Littlebird and considered it oversized and that's a huge bird compared to the EagleEye or most of these UCAV's under consideration.  A recoilless design like the RMK is going to have real limited traverse because of backblast, and a 30x173 HE shell is no real advantage over a 30x113 HE shell.  Considering that it's being dropped from a height advantage, take the 30x113 and go to an even heavier HE shell and you're at zero advantage for the 30x173. 

 

APDSFS doesn't mean much to me.  If you have hard targets, you're better off using BAT's.  I don't care about how good you're ERA is, a 120mm shaped charge on the topside is going to be much more effective than a few 30mm APDSFS hits.  S/F....Ken M

190479[/snapback]

 

 

that is a good point, but I was thinking that with enough of these you wouldn't need many manned AC-130s.

edit

If they have enough loiter time to be ON POSITION most of the time supporting the ground units, ambushes on convoys and such would be much more difficult. If you had one of these sweeping back and forth up and down the convoy route?

Whichever gun, say 7 guided 70mm rockets, two hellfires and a SDB? THat might be too large, though.

 

I wish I though it could be built small enough but still carry up to 4 SDBs, but...

end edit

 

 

I was also thinking the 57 bofors might be interesting for the AC-130, though the 120 gun-mortar would probably make it unnecessary.

Edited July 3, 2005 by gewing

[gewing]

Good idea, but a standard JATO bottle has got way more thrust than needed for this application. You'd want to downsize the thing appropriately. I'd design an "auto eject" mechanism into the rocket, basically the last ounce of powder used to blow forward into the rocket holder to push the rocket out and clear of the fuselage.

Yep, that application, scaled to about 15k lb, would have been a much better choice for first production tiltrotor. That's right in the neighborhood of the XV-15 aircraft, for which the gov't had thousands of flight hours of data and plenty of trained pilots.

190507[/snapback]

 

 

I agree completely that it would be a scaled down version.

 

I have also been wondering about an attack conversion of the Bell 609, but it is awefully big.

[gewing]

thinking more, I don't want to go edit again...

 

What about two models.

 

One light weight, with the capability of say the OCSW and 2-300 lbs (2 vipers minimum, up to one SDB would probably be nice, but 2 hellfires or 4 vipers would probably be a great compromise) Another weapon that should be very good for this role would be the "SPIKE" mini-missile developed by NWS, at about 2 kg per missile, and a roughly 2 mile range... a pod could carry quite a lot of these. HAS ANYONE HEARD ANYTHING RECENTLY ABOUT THIS ONE? sorry for the diversion.

 

Perhaps ideally 12-16 hours endurance so they can be there looking around and hitting things most of the time.

 

If the aircraft did use something like mini jato bottles for initial takeoff , perhaps it could be kept relatively close to the front lines and able to respond quickly, making total endurance a little less important.

 

A heavy version with 24 hours endurance, the bigger gun for greater standoff, payload of up to 4 SDB, or options like up to 14 guided 70mm rockets(600 lbs for 7?maybe only 7... would be more practical with another weapon on the other side ),

 

maybe various numbers of vipers or hellfires..

 

I guess if it could carry 1200 ish lbs of ordnance it would be pretty darn big. maybe 2 sdb, or one rocket pod, etc would be a LOT more practical 6 or 700 lbs would still be pretty darned respectable.

 

What I want is something that can loiter over our units, patrolling as needed, and one would almost ALWAYS be available, or at least nearby. Something that could cover the convoys in the current situation, and could play mini fac/cas in a hotter environment should be useful.

 

 

HMM, I just had a weird thought. WHat if the old Broncos were converted to UCAVs? Not fast, but...

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I agree that the tiltrotor configuration is not a panacea.

 

As for STOVL, the V-22 is a STOVL as higher gross weights. It can do a rolling takeoff on a deck or a runway, and burn down fuel on the way to the LZ so that it can hover or do true VTOL by the time it arrives.

 

For only 1500 lb of payload, a tiltrotor is going to pay a noticible weight penalty. Back in the 1980s when LHX was getting spec'd out, Bell came up with a very interesting tiltrotor design. But at the then MTOW of 7500 lb (IIRC), the tiltrotor wasn't competitive with a conventional helo design since the Army required excellent hover and low speed flight. Back then I believe the expectation was that the break-even point for tiltrotor configs was between 10k and 15k lb, I don't guess that has changed much over the past 20 years. Actually, for a UCAV under 10k lb, I'd suggest using the mechanicals from the Comanche; all the RDT&E is paid for.

 

I've never been a huge fan of STOVL. If you've got a runway for takeoff, you've got a runway for landing. Rather than pay a weight, cost, and reliability penalty for vertical flight, go with a STOL design and get most of the benefits for little extra cost.

190401[/snapback]

[Ivanhoe]

Rather than get too wrapped up with long loiter times, I think it makes more sense to try to push the UCAV operations group reasonably forward, and have enough airframes to keep the expected minimum number in orbit round the clock. Endurance requires lots of fuel, which means lots of weight, which impacts cost and weapons payload. The disadvantage of having one big bird rather than several medium birds is that the big bird can only be in one place at a time; the multiple bird approach allows you to "flood the zone" using football terminology; if Big Bird is overhead, OPFOR knows its going to get hot. If there are say 4 smaller birds orbiting around a battalion sized battlespace, there's no way of knowing where the line of assault is going to be.

 

It would cost a large fortune to use real Broncos, but a Bronco-like UCAV might be of substantial use. Design a STOL configuration, use basic composite structures to reduce RCS, primarily internal weapons carriage to reduce RCS & drag, and some attention spent on IR signature reduction. Being of the fixed wing ilk, it would have to be stationed farther from the FEBA, so that would drive the max gross weight up a bit. But if you forego high speeds, you can have a fairly voluminous fuselage and thus carry a ton or so of ordnance internally. Aerodynamic cleanliness gives lower drag, which gives lower fuel consumption, which gives longer range and endurance.

[Burncycle360]

HMM, I just had a weird thought. WHat if the old Broncos were converted to UCAVs? Not fast, but...

 

Personally, I'm a fan of using manned bronco gunships as an interm solution till UAV's mature enough to take over the role, but they're gone

[Smitty]

Still a solution in search of a problem. If you're going to operate a 5000 lb UCAV from rough field/no field, you might as well truck the thing within 50-100km of the FEBA or urban jungle. In which case, the speed and range advantage of the TR make little difference.

190511[/snapback]

 

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Why truck a 5000lb aircraft around when you can operate it from hundreds of miles away? If you have speed, you can operate from safer, more centralized locations, which will also aid in resupply & maintenance. Range and speed also mean you can react with a larger force faster, across a greater area.

[EchoFiveMike]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Why truck a 5000lb aircraft around when you can operate it from hundreds of miles away? If you have speed, you can operate from safer, more centralized locations, which will also aid in resupply & maintenance. Range and speed also mean you can react with a larger force faster, across a greater area.

 

It simplifies the communications issue for one thing. In two facets, ground station to bird, and supported troops to ground station. If you can get by without a satellite uplink, you're going to have a much easier time of things. Given a decent antenna you should easily get 50km+ radius of action for the data links I'm familiar with. We routinely got 15km plus from the DragonEye, and that thing was a piddly handhead antenna driven by a BA-5590 35 volt battery. And the troops are going to be VHF, so they're looking at 10-15km range at best, if footmobile. If you start having to relay, things are really going to start getting FUBAR. There's no VHF to HF or SATComm relay boxes at the Bn level, so it's all going to have to be done by the RTO, and that's a recipe for disaster.

 

BTW, "centralized" is grunt for never available. It's a model for false efficiency. If it's not organic to the unit, it's probably worthless. Which is all the more damning because some clueless fool will anticipate it being there, so they'll chop something from the TO/E of the (supposedly) supported unit. S/F....Ken M

[Smitty]

BTW, "centralized" is grunt for never available.  It's a model for false efficiency.  If it's not organic to the unit, it's probably worthless.  Which is all the more damning because some clueless fool will anticipate it being there, so they'll chop something from the TO/E of the (supposedly) supported unit.  S/F....Ken M

190741[/snapback]

 

By 'efficiency' I mean logtistical efficiency (e.g. service, support, rearm, refuel).

 

So A-10s and Apaches are never available?

 

BTW, one of the main reasons I felt VTOL was important is to permit FARPing and forward basing.

 

OTOH, if you have speed, you don't HAVE to be based as far forward, and still be as responsive as a slower bird.

 

So a tilt-rotor UCAV gives you the flexibility of being based or FARP'd close, for maximum responsiveness, or further back, for maximum logistical efficiency.

[EchoFiveMike]

By 'efficiency' I mean logtistical efficiency (e.g. service, support, rearm, refuel).

That's NBD. Make it run on JP-8, the ammo will be easy, a few mechs and techs are easy to add to the TO/E. We're talking a dozen guys here, maybe. An easy trade for actually having control of the thing.

 

So A-10s and Apaches are never available?

 

IME, no. You'll have them for large pre-planned operations or when you have high intensity combat and can convince the AirO to retask from their assigned missions. Otherwise, never plan on it, you'll usually be assed out

 

BTW, one of the main reasons I felt VTOL was important is to permit FARPing and forward basing.

VTOSL is easier, STOL is easier still, as long as you can handle rough strips. Grab a 200m section of road and there you are, or bust out the dozerblade and some Mo-matt and an arrestor rig. All this crap was/is there for expeditionary airfields for the regular aircraft, at least on the USMC side. An M21 arresting set is going to easily handle a 5K lb UCAV if it can handle a 40K lb F18.

 

OTOH, if you have speed, you don't HAVE to be based as far forward, and still be as responsive as a slower bird.

 

IF your commications architecture isn't all FUBAR, sure you can put a VHF relay in the bird for relay from there to the control crew, but it would be so much simpler to have the UCAV control and ground unit COC all in the same space as it would make all the cross coordination easier. The ground unit is going to have to deconflict it's subordinate units for the bird's proposed attacks. Even if you have troops in contact the COC isn't going to want to give carte blanche to the aircraft.

 

So a tilt-rotor UCAV gives you the flexibility of being based or FARP'd close, for maximum responsiveness, or further back, for maximum logistical efficiency.

 

And is the most difficult and inefficient platoform for actual performance as an aircraft. Tilt rotor equals lots of extra weight and LOTS of extra maintainance. S/F....Ken M

[gewing]

It simplifies the communications issue for one thing.  In two facets, ground station to bird, and supported troops to ground station.  If you can get by without a satellite uplink, you're going to have a much easier time of things.  Given a decent antenna you should easily get 50km+ radius of action for the data links I'm familiar with.  We routinely got 15km plus from the DragonEye, and that thing was a piddly handhead antenna driven by a BA-5590 35 volt battery.  And the troops are going to be VHF, so they're looking at 10-15km range at best, if footmobile.  If you start having to relay, things are really going to start getting FUBAR.  There's no VHF to HF or SATComm relay boxes at the Bn level, so it's all going to have to be done by the RTO, and that's a recipe for disaster.

 

BTW, "centralized" is grunt for never available.  It's a model for false efficiency.  If it's not organic to the unit, it's probably worthless.  Which is all the more damning because some clueless fool will anticipate it being there, so they'll chop something from the TO/E of the (supposedly) supported unit.  S/F....Ken M

190741[/snapback]

 

 

How well did dragoneye work for you? I think the idea is great, but I have wondered how good the resolution is, etc.

 

As the technologies evolve, such things should get even better.

[gewing]

That's NBD.  Make it run on JP-8, the ammo will be easy, a few mechs and techs are easy to add to the TO/E.  We're talking a dozen guys here, maybe.  An easy trade for actually having control of the thing.

IME, no.  You'll have them for large pre-planned operations or when you have high intensity combat and can convince the AirO to retask from their assigned missions.  Otherwise, never plan on it, you'll usually be assed out

VTOSL is easier, STOL is easier still, as long as you can handle rough strips.  Grab a 200m section of road and there you are, or bust out the dozerblade and some Mo-matt and an arrestor rig.  All this crap was/is there for expeditionary airfields for the regular aircraft, at least on the USMC side.  An M21 arresting set is going to easily handle a 5K lb UCAV if it can handle a 40K lb F18.

IF your commications architecture isn't all FUBAR, sure you can put a VHF relay in the bird for relay from there to the control crew, but it would be so much simpler to have the UCAV control and ground unit COC all in the same space as it would make all the cross coordination easier.  The ground unit is going to have to deconflict it's subordinate units for the bird's proposed attacks.  Even if you have troops in contact the COC isn't going to want to give carte blanche to the aircraft.

And is the most difficult and inefficient platoform for actual performance as an aircraft.  Tilt rotor equals lots of extra weight and LOTS of extra maintainance.  S/F....Ken M

190764[/snapback]

 

 

 

I've been using an image of the XF5U-1 as a desktop. IIRC, it was supposed to take off at something like 40 knots? WOuld something like that scaled down make a useful stol UCAV? speed of 400+ knots isn't really necessary imo.

 

I don't know what the flight characteristics were...

 

If it can loiter at say 50-60 knots, that is probably close enough to a hover

 

 

 

Another thought.. okay, maybe TOO weird, but still...

 

What about an Autogyro UCAV? Cheap, lightweight design, almost vertical takeoff, low speed handling, relatively good speed capability, depending on the design of course...

 

And NO, I don't foresee aerial Mines!

[EchoFiveMike]

How well did dragoneye work for you? I think the idea is great, but I have wondered how good the resolution is, etc.

 

As the technologies evolve, such things should get even better.

 

The Dragoneye worked very well, as far as it went. Most Bn's didn't use them very much after they broke/wore out because they didn't have the drive to use them. IMO this was because the operators were junior Marines, LCpl's and Cpl's. We sent a few SNCO's, myself included, to the operators course IOT have some experience behind our employment. One SNCO per line company, plus me for the Bn HQ element. Worked very well IMO. The SNCO's had the networking skills to run down the system support element at Camp Blue Diamond who was twiddling his thumbs waiting for planes to fix and things worked out well for us. The system got used almost everyday. Worked great for supporting company mortar sections since the command types always felt better when you told them you had eyes on target. A friend of mine was offered a billet at MCWFL based on his use of the Dragoneye and Dragonrunner systems.

 

They are already fielding the Mod 2 version of the Dragoneye. The early systems are very field expedient and have very rough optics with fixed focus and no zoom or tracking. They are updating the thermal imager and the color camera and it's said to be 100% better. If you want I can E-mail you some images from a rather beatup Dragoneye system. It'll give you an idea of about how good/bad you can expect from a system out in the real world. S/F....Ken M

Edited July 4, 2005 by EchoFiveMike

[gewing]

The Dragoneye worked very well, as far as it went.  Most Bn's didn't use them very much after they broke/wore out because they didn't have the drive to use them.  IMO this was because the operators were junior Marines, LCpl's and Cpl's.  We sent a few SNCO's, myself included, to the operators course IOT have some experience behind our employment.  One SNCO per line company, plus me for the Bn HQ element.  Worked very well IMO.  The SNCO's had the networking skills to run down the system support element at Camp Blue Diamond who was twiddling his thumbs waiting for planes to fix and things worked out well for us.  The system got used almost everyday.  Worked great for supporting company mortar sections since the command types always felt better when you told them you had eyes on target.  A friend of mine was offered a billet at MCWFL based on his use of the Dragoneye and Dragonrunner systems.

 

They are already fielding the Mod 2 version of the Dragoneye.  The early systems are very field expedient and have very rough optics with fixed focus and no zone or tracking.  They are updating the thermal imager and the color camera and it's said to be 100% better.  If you want I can E-mail you some images from a rather beatup Dragoneye system.  It'll give you an idea of about how good/bad you can expect from a system out in the real world.  S/F....Ken M

190835[/snapback]

 

 

That would be GREAT!

[Smitty]

That's NBD.  Make it run on JP-8, the ammo will be easy, a few mechs and techs are easy to add to the TO/E.  We're talking a dozen guys here, maybe.  An easy trade for actually having control of the thing.

 

You still have to move fuel, spares and munitions forward. Plus, unless your biggest round is a Hellfire, you'll need specialized loading vehicles. (I don't think loading Mk82-class weapons is something you do by hand)

 

IME, no.  You'll have them for large pre-planned operations or when you have high intensity combat and can convince the AirO to retask from their assigned missions.  Otherwise, never plan on it, you'll usually be assed out

 

Well this thread is talking about an A-10 replacement.

 

I can see where you might want something significantly smaller that can be part of the TO/E at lower levels though.

 

VTOSL is easier, STOL is easier still, as long as you can handle rough strips. 

 

STOL and STOVL are definitely easier, but I just think you want to have the ability to set up an ad-hoc FARP as they did in Anaconda, without having to find a good stretch of road.

 

 

And is the most difficult and inefficient platoform for actual performance as an aircraft.  Tilt rotor equals lots of extra weight and LOTS of extra maintainance. 

 

Well, V-22 class tilt-rotor is obviously tough. OTOH, an Eagle Eye class tilt rotor appears to be significantly easier. Single engine plus simplified hover reqs makes things a lot easier.

 

Whether there's extra maintenance over a conventional helo remains to be seen, on a UAV sized bird.

[EchoFiveMike]

Well this thread is talking about an A-10 replacement.

 

I can see where you might want something significantly smaller that can be part of the TO/E at lower levels though.

My point is that having a UCAV that can deliver Hellfire/Viperstrike and gunpower at the Bn/Bde level obviates the A10's role to a large degree. You will still have the USAF birds delivering JDAM class ordnance but these are not so time critical. Any bird can deliver JDAM's and heavy shit, BFD. The A10's niche is close delivery and gun passes close to troops in contact, and as I said, if you can deliver 25mm, Hellfire and Viperstrike, you're there.

 

You still have to move fuel, spares and munitions forward. Plus, unless your biggest round is a Hellfire, you'll need specialized loading vehicles. (I don't think loading Mk82-class weapons is something you do by hand)

 

Fuel has to come anyways, ordnance and spares will be incredibly low relative to food and water demands when you look at it.

 

FARP's are almost always existing roads IME. Dozer support has always been sporadic for light forces. Clearing rocks and FOD issues were always a real PITA for any sort of real aircraft. Astan is an anomoly and can be supported via long haul UAV's simply due to the nature of it. It's an insurgency that's being fought with specops forces and their supporting aircraft are not in high competing demand thoughout the AO.

 

I simply think the tilt rotor is a POS design that's neither fish nor fowl and has too much parasitic mass for a UCAV in this weight class, as well as the historic problems in the tiltrotor design. S/F....Ken M

[Smitty]

My point is that having a UCAV that can deliver Hellfire/Viperstrike and gunpower at the Bn/Bde level obviates the A10's role to a large degree.  You will still have the USAF birds delivering JDAM class ordnance but these are not so time critical.  Any bird can deliver JDAM's and heavy shit, BFD.  The A10's niche is close delivery and gun passes close to troops in contact, and as I said, if you can deliver 25mm, Hellfire and Viperstrike, you're there.

Fuel has to come anyways, ordnance and spares will be incredibly low relative to food and water demands when you look at it. 

 

Sounds like you want the armed RQ-8B Fire Scout, with the addition of an OCSW.

[EchoFiveMike]

That looks to be quite good, with the added advantage of acting as a retrans element. I'd be interested to see the weight requirements for a limited traverse ACSW with perhaps 150 rds. I'm wondering if it would be a PITA to bore sight it to the main sensor head or if it would simply be easier to use an on mount sight. and what sort of weight savings there might be.

 

3 of these at the Bn level, USMC side, would greatly reduce the need for the 120mm mortar at the Bn level. It's a fairly substantial footprint, 3.5K lbs per bird, plus base station(I'm assuming a shelterback HUM-V would be adequate) and a similar vehicle for the maintainance crew and gear. But you'd greatly enhance your comm architecture, as well as your ISR and firesupport structure. S/F...Ken M

[EchoFiveMike]

OK, been on a UAV/UCAV kick as a result of this thread. There were a lot of prototype UAV's getting "combat tested" in Iraq and it seems there's some pretty cool "bleeding edge" stuff out there.

 

For example, this ATB Dragoneye's bigger evolved brother. Same niche, just runs on JP8 and uses a standard BA5590 battery instead of the dedicated Li cells that the Dragoneye runs. Not really backpack portable, but much better mission duration(10x greater) and far superior optics. And it's already integrated with Falconview and ATB the same autopilot software used on the larger UAV's, so training is already established and transferable for platform to platform.

 

http://www.acrtucson.com/UAV/silverfox/index.htm

 

S/F....Ken M

[istvan47]

I've got an brilliant idea: if someone re-proposes as successor of A-10 the mitic Piper Enforcer??

[Colin]

time for a harrier?

 

http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headlin...ewsItem_id=3462