Very cool F-16

[Michael Eastes]

This is one of the more clever things I've seen done with radio control, by a private citizen, anyway.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5OZCWaJBdc&feature=player_embedded

[Archie Pellagio]

That was always my dream as a boy...

Very cool!

[Guest JamesG123]

That is awesome.

 

There is your answer to the UAV/UCAV "situational awareness" issue.

[Doug Kibbey]

Now that would be "close air support"!

[Guest JamesG123]

I think if I were him, I'd build the "Sidewinders" as AARAMs around small rocket motors and wire the igniters to the flight battery and instead of a release servo, a relay that fires them.

[Coldsteel]

Oooo! .... want one.

[Corinthian]

[Archie Pellagio]

There is a reason simple UAV's like Raven's cost $100,000 and it isn't just defence procurement inefficiencies.

[Guest JamesG123]

There is a reason simple UAV's like Raven's cost $100,000 and it isn't just defence procurement inefficiencies.

 

Corporate greed?

 

The only difference between a RC and a RQ is that the Raven has onboard sensors and computer for self navigation (and a bit of GI proofing). That capability gap is dwindling extremely fast. The only difference now a days is that the .mil version is more compact and ruggedized that the COTS and home-built stuff.

[DB]

Aside from the durability issue - which could be covered by treating the things as semi-disposable and buying enough of them in the first place - I would imagine that the military requirements for hardened, encrypted, jam-resistant control uplink and data downlink would up the price significantly and be a major cost driver. They'd also be putting in a capability creep and want to put in a separate payload optical sensor, GPS, and better inertial sensor for target location, etc., etc.

 

Technically, this is a cool toy and production engineering could drive the cost way down.

[Archie Pellagio]

Aside from the durability issue - which could be covered by treating the things as semi-disposable and buying enough of them in the first place - I would imagine that the military requirements for hardened, encrypted, jam-resistant control uplink and data downlink would up the price significantly and be a major cost driver. They'd also be putting in a capability creep and want to put in a separate payload optical sensor, GPS, and better inertial sensor for target location, etc., etc.

 

Technically, this is a cool toy and production engineering could drive the cost way down.

 

Exactly - the same reason a Toughbook has innards less powerful than a $200 netbook yet costs several thousand dollars.

[Guest JamesG123]

A toughbook costs more because its built of stronger materials/techniques like magnesium cases instead of plastic, and temperature tolerant electronics, and its throughly tested to surpass .mil spec. Yes they are a generation behind performance wise from the latest consumer toys, but that usually isn't a critical factor in ruggedized computers.

 

Aside from the durability issue - which could be covered by treating the things as semi-disposable and buying enough of them in the first place - I would imagine that the military requirements for hardened, encrypted, jam-resistant control uplink and data downlink would up the price significantly and be a major cost driver. They'd also be putting in a capability creep and want to put in a separate payload optical sensor, GPS, and better inertial sensor for target location, etc., etc.

 

Actually up until a couple of years ago, when it was found that the Taliban were dialing in the video downlink with COTS equipment, it was all, from Predators on down to Ravens, all in the red. In fact its common WiFi TCP/IP. Now they've added some software the encrypts the datalinks, so the bad guys can't see themselves on Predator TV anymore, but they can still be detected by the omnidirectional RF signal.

 

But thats just the older, already fielded stuff.

Edited September 4, 2011 by JamesG123

[Archie Pellagio]

A toughbook costs more because its built of stronger materials/techniques like magnesium cases instead of plastic, and temperature tolerant electronics, and its throughly tested to surpass .mil spec. Yes they are a generation behind performance wise from the latest consumer toys, but that usually isn't a critical factor in ruggedized computers.

 

Ummm, yeah, that was my point...

[Guest JamesG123]

Many "entry level" RC kits have an auto-righting feature built into them.

 

This is true, but although I can see the necessity for something like that on Predator (which due to altitude damn near everyone would have a chance of getting line of sight on) for something thats like as not going to be in the air for a maximum of 15 minutes it seems hardly worth it for something thats essentially an infantry squad tool.

 

That depends on how capable the opposition ISR and C3I is. Right now its child's play to arrange for a few mortar rounds, heavier arty, or a PGM to arrive at whereever the GCS was transmitting from.

[mnm]

I think if I were him, I'd build the "Sidewinders" as AARAMs around small rocket motors and wire the igniters to the flight battery and instead of a release servo, a relay that fires them.

 

Hmm, no model regulations I know of, and including the US Academy of Model Aeronautics, allow the use of pyrotechnical devices, just as gliders have to have a nose of a certain minimum radius, etc.

 

The famous words "Watch This!" when uttered by an airmodeler normally turn into "Oh shit!"

 

Many "entry level" RC kits have an auto-righting feature built into them.

 

Yes, a very inexpensive feature. It normally consists of an instructor shouting "Leave the controls alone, you fool!" and the plane rights itself

Edited September 5, 2011 by mnm

[Guest JamesG123]

Hmm, no model regulations I know of, and including the US Academy of Model Aeronautics, allow the use of pyrotechnical devices, just as gliders have to have a nose of a certain minimum radius, etc.

 

Spoiled sport!

 

What "they" don't know (and you don't post on utube)...

[Michael Eastes]

This is true, but although I can see the necessity for something like that on Predator (which due to altitude damn near everyone would have a chance of getting line of sight on) for something thats like as not going to be in the air for a maximum of 15 minutes it seems hardly worth it for something thats essentially an infantry squad tool.

 

 

Actually, I've seen footage on the Military Channel of a backpack-portable recon drone that is already in service in the I.D.F., supposedly at platoon level. It's smaller than the F-16 model, and probably comparatively cheap, giving the troops the ability to actually look over the next ridge, or into a village, etc. I can't recall the name of the show- it was the one hosted by an ex-SEAL who had the best job in the world, IMHO.

[Archie Pellagio]

There are smaller UAV's out there, but the most common Tier I UAV is the Raven

[Michael Eastes]

Richard "Mack" Machowicz probably. My mother used to work in a local newsagents and he walked in one day, said he seemed a rather nice chap.

Future Weapons is quite a good programme actually.../snip/

 

That's the one. I always enjoyed it, and envied him in his position. What a great job! Amazing how many trained killers are actually nice guys.

 

Is the show still on? I haven't seen it in quite a while. That was one military show that my wife liked, too- probably because of Mack.

[mnm]

Spoiled sport!

 

What "they" don't know (and you don't post on utube)...

 

I don't want to look obsessed on stupid safety rules, but the fact is that an airmodel with some weight and speed, and I'm not going to mention what a spinning prop can do, can be quite a dangerous thing.

 

I remember a few years ago, a 2 meter wingspan model of a Pitts Special in Germany wiped an entire family of four. I myself once had to deliberately shove into the ground a 2.5 meter fast glider that was going staight into my car's windshield with wife and kid inside!

 

Your foamie parkflyer is one thing, a big model quite another. Now add to that the ability to fire anything from them, even foam rocket with a small motor as suggested above. Sure sounds fun, I entirely agree, but I'm also sure some a$$hole would be toying with the idea of making them with big motors, and why not a flashbang charge for a warhead?

[Doug Kibbey]

I can't recall the name of the show- it was the one hosted by an ex-SEAL who had the best job in the world, IMHO.

 

 

This must be the one hosted by the guy presenting weapons systems so secret that they can only be whispered about, even on TV.

 

 

.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Doug Kibbey