Who is gonna make the 5-gen fighter first?

[gf0012-aust]

If we're debating a peer or near peer power situation, then ASAT shouldn't be ruled out.

which means that they need to knock out more than one satellite. if its just local theatre space then that means probably 2 satellites min and a third to knock out the redundant sat sitting out of that particular orbit.

knocking out two satellites wouldn't leave much room for excuse - at that stage both sides are at war.

and to be totally effective it means knocking out a good portion of the constellation. if somebody has elected to do that, then i suspect that it won't be ASATs flying....

 

[gf0012-aust]

EDIT: Not directly related to 5th gen fighters, but relevant to the discussion on robotics, DID does a nice little analysis that confirms Abrahams views with de-facto programs and proposals.

Not only air - there are a whole pile of capabilities coming to underwater warfare - and a few navies are going to be caught out spending too money and focus on manned solutions.....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm not saying this is the future, I'm actually out of my class in this discussion, just throwing the possibility out there. If we're debating a peer or near peer power situation, then ASAT shouldn't be ruled out.

There are two problems here. One ASAT is really hard*. Two if an enemy is shooting down satellites then the kind of rules of engagement that demand a human in the loop for dropping bombs are long since forgotten. So the UCAVs will go in silent and autonomous and do it themselves.

*There are other 100 comsats in low earth orbit and over 50 in very high orbits (GEO). GEO satellites are effectively invulnerable if given launch warning and a fuel margin to burn some in evasive maneuvers.

 

[Gerry301]

There are two problems here. One ASAT is really hard*. Two if an enemy is shooting down satellites then the kind of rules of engagement that demand a human in the loop for dropping bombs are long since forgotten. So the UCAVs will go in silent and autonomous and do it themselves.

*There are other 100 comsats in low earth orbit and over 50 in very high orbits (GEO). GEO satellites are effectively invulnerable if given launch warning and a fuel margin to burn some in evasive maneuvers.

Since when does a country follow "rules" in how a war is fought. Wars are not fought by the rules of gentlemanly conduct.

It can be expected that both China and Russia will try to gain the upper hand through our weakest point. That is our satellite communications. The Chinese in particular plan on this, and have demonstrated they are capable of doing so.

While we have some satellites that can maneuver, not all can, and you can expect jamming, as well as some being destroyed in a major war.

The US is making satellites with anti jamming capabilities, but what is China or Russia doing? We won't know which side is better off until we go to war.

Or do you expect if the UCAVs sneak in there, the war will be over in one day, before they can react?

What is your plan "B"? (Sorry, forgot to put a smiley face, I'm not trying to be beligerent)(Really)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Since when does a country follow "rules" in how a war is fought. Wars are not fought by the rules of gentlemanly conduct.

How on earth did you read that into my statement? Have you not heard of rules of engagement (ROE) they are a pretty common thing in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.

Admin: Text deleted. Unnecessary

1. If an enemy was to shoot down SATCOMs it would indicate a large scale war between major powers last seen in on this planet in 1945.

2. This would mean that the ROE for a human in the loop to launch ordnance - which is the main reason UCAVs need to be managed by a human operator - would be redundant.

3. The UCAVs would operate autonomously with no need for SATCOM beyond non line of sight networking.

To add to this a long range, very low observable UCAV armed with BMD weapons like NCADE (two stage BMD AIM-120) and ALHTK (PAC-3 missile) is actually an ideal weapon for countering ballistic missile launches. Since an ASAT is a ballistic missile the UCAV can actually supress the enemies attempts to destroy SATCOM.

 

[Gerry301]

How on earth did you read that into my statement? Have you not heard of rules of engagement (ROE) they are a pretty common thing in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.

Let me explain again in a slightly patronising and slow tone so you understand.

1. If an enemy was to shoot down SATCOMs it would indicate a large scale war between major powers last seen in on this planet in 1945.

2. This would mean that the ROE for a human in the loop to launch ordnance - which is the main reason UCAVs need to be managed by a human operator - would be redundant.

3. The UCAVs would operate autonomously with no need for SATCOM beyond non line of sight networking.

To add to this a long range, very low observable UCAV armed with BMD weapons like NCADE (two stage BMD AIM-120) and ALHTK (PAC-3 missile) is actually an ideal weapon for countering ballistic missile launches. Since an ASAT is a ballistic missile the UCAV can actually supress the enemies attempts to destroy SATCOM.

"Let me explain again in a slow and patronizing tone so you understand"

Sorry, with all due respect, thats all I read, or would read.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just to add some further input to my earlier on a rapidly evolving and shifting warfighting construct....

-------------------------------------------------------------

*Taking the UAV to the next level*

Over a year ago a Royal Air Force pilot successfully controlled multiple unmanned aircraft from the cockpit of a Tornado military jet. Stan Lovett explains how.

At the end of March 2007, the autonomous control of unmanned aircraft took a major step forward when one pilot was able to simultaneously fly a combination of five real and computer generated aircraft at the same time. Sitting at the controls of a Tornado, the pilot was also able to command a BAC 1-11 which was acting as an Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) plus three additional unmanned aircraft which were being computer generated (but which appeared as totally real assets to the pilot). This was not a cost cutting measure for commercial airlines, but a solution that could deliver benefits in a number of situations in addition to the military potential, including life saving and humanitarian scenarios. Examples include coastguard search and rescue, disaster relief operations and environmental monitoring.

*Built-in intelligence*

The technology has important military applications and was developed by QinetiQ as a defence project funded by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD). The system gives unmanned aircraft an advanced level of independence and intelligence. A series of successful flight trials were flown in March 2007 using a Tornado as the command and control aircraft and QinetiQ’s BAC 1-11 trials aircraft acting as a "surrogate" unmanned air vehicle (UAV). The Tornado pilot also had the responsibility of commanding three other simulated UAVs. Throughout the flights a mixed RAF and QinetiQ flight crew were on-board the BAC 1-11 for safety monitoring and control during takeoff and landing. QinetiQ's Tornado Integrated Avionics Research Aircraft (TIARA), flown by an RAF test pilot, assumed control of the BAC 1-11 acting as a surrogate UAV and three simulated UAVs for the middle section of each flight.

Working in combination, the Tornado and the four UAVs carried out a simulated ground attack on a moving target. The sophisticated system allowed the UAVs to act autonomously, communicate and sense their environment, including possible enemies, and target their weapons. However, the final decision to fire simulated weapons was retained by the Tornado pilot. The system has been designed to provide the UAVs with a significant degree of independent intelligence in order to minimise pilot workload, while at the same time ensuring that the most important decisions are retained by a human operator.

*The challenge*

During the flight trials real conditions were simulated and the Tornado pilot had to command the BAC 1-11 and the three simulated UAVs as if they were real aircraft. For this, QinetiQ developed complex and sophisticated software for remote command of the BAC 1-11 and generating the simulated aircraft and their simulated environments. For hosting the software during the flight trials QinetiQ required an embedded hardware platform powerful enough to provide the necessary real-time processing and tough enough to withstand buffeting during the flights on-board the BAC 1-11.

Another important requirement was the use of standard, off-the-shelf embedded computer technology for cost effective project implementation. Moreover, since the platform also needed to combine CompactPCI and VME technology in one multi-processor system, QinetiQ needed a partner capable of providing the required form factors from a single source, including BSP for different OS such as VxWorks and Linux.

*The solution*

QinetiQ worked with Kontron who were able to supply two identical hardware systems: one in the BAC 1-11 trials aircraft and the other in a ground based installation used for laboratory testing. Each platform consisted of multiple racks containing several VME and CompactPCI boards as well as the Kontron Industrial Silent Server 4U (KISS-4U).

Since VME is a well-established, proven technology that is designed for high-availability and reliability, it is ideal for use in the avionics/defense sector. CompactPCI also meets the rigorous demands for reliable operation in rugged environments: the robust connectors, metal guides and metal front plate hold the highly integrated CompactPCI boards firmly in place inside the mounting cabinet. The electronic connectors are also robust, providing a board design that is inherently resistant against vibrations and shocks. With its rugged design, including shock and vibration protection for the system’s HDDs, the 4U Kontron Industrial Silent Servers (KISS-4U) with 3.2 GHz Intel processors were also the optimal choice for reliable on-board operation.

*Real time control*

For the flight trials, the control of the BAC 1-11 and the three simulated UAVs was handled by QinetiQ software running on Kontron components in 4 server racks – one rack for controlling each of the UAVs. Each rack contained multiple VMP2 3U Power PC processor boards and CP306 3U processor boards with processors based on Intel Centrino technology. The boards were connected by two CP930 3U fast Ethernet switches. With its versatile design the CP930 3U fast Ethernet switch with five fast Ethernet ports was the ideal choice for handling real-time communication between the different form factors.

Kontron also supplied a blade array for communication purposes consisting of numerous 6U CompactPCI boards (CP6000) with processors from Intel’s Centrino Platform and 2 x CPCI UC232-2 dual head serial cards. With 2 x RS-232/422/485 interfaces and baud rates up to 1.5Mbps, the UC232-2 cards are especially designed for this kind of rugged and performance-oriented communication application.

The KISS4U servers, mounted in separate racks, hosted a range of essential status monitoring applications. The servers were equipped with high performance 3.2 GHz processors and Matrox Dual Head graphic cards for connecting multiple displays. They enabled the operators on board the BAC 1-11 to monitor and check system performance during the trial flight.

*Looking ahead*

The UAV autonomy technology developed by QinetiQ is already being used in a number of further government and defence industry-backed programmes. QinetiQ is playing key roles in the Taranis project, a £124 million joint industry and MOD initiative led by BAE Systems to develop an autonomous unmanned combat aircraft. Furthermore, QinetiQ's technology is supporting the £32 million ASTRAEA project, a joint industry and Department of Trade and Industry initiative to explore the technical and regulatory challenges of using UAVs for civil and commercial applications.

*Kontron UK*

www.kontron-emea.com (http://www.kontron-emea.com/)

Stan Lovett is Key Account Manager, CompactPCI and VME Products at Kontron UK Ltd.

 

[Gerry301]

I don't think the argument is over 'can UCAVs be controlled to a high degree ' as it is 'can they operate in a hostile inviroment'.

UCAVs are very sophisticated by their nature, and noone doubts over the last few years the US has made great strides in their developement . The amount of control and operability as well as payloads and packages has grown leaps and bounds.

How ever the question of electronic warfare (EW) from other aircraft or ground systems, to include many types of jamming systems is an issue that cannot be denied. I suspect many different new types of powerfull jammers would come into being should the 6th generation fighters be UCAVs. (but then again, I voted Republican)

 

[dragonfire]

French 5th Gen Fighter

Can anyone clue me in on the French plans beyond the rafale for its fighter arm. Does it have any 5th Gen and/or Stealth Fighter plans ?? It is a significant EU country not in the JSF program, which is taking care of the next gen needs of the air forces of many countries thru the F-35