User talk:JMitakon

Welcome!

Hello, JMitakon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Unmanned combat aerial vehicle has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. BilCat (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you have a policy of discriminating against original material. I didn't quote any sources for my material because I didn't use any sources, and the reason I didn't use any sources was that I didn't need them. If you read my material again, you should find that it's really nothing more than very straightforward extrapolation from well known and easily demonstrable facts. Do you really need an aviation expert to tell you that an aircraft with a 15 ft wingspan is more manoeuverable than a B52 bomber, for example? Because I don't.JMitakon (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are technical reasons why small aircraft tend to be more manoeuverable than larger ones; the greater moments of inertia in a large aircraft, the effects of scale on the strength of aircraft structures in relation to the loads imposed on them by rapid manoeuvering, and the generally lower ratios of thrust to weight in large aircraft, for example. But I don't think it's necessary to go into a discussion of these things in an article about UCAVs when most people are aware, as an empirical fact, that smaller aircraft are in general terms more manoeuverable than larger ones (there are certain exceptions, for example a large aircraft may have an advantage at altitudes over 50,000 ft where wing area and wing loading become critical factors). It's enough to know that UCAVs are subject to the same laws of physics as other aircraft.85.255.235.82 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)JMitakon (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to the subject of radar stealth, it is fairly obvious that a UCAV with a 15 ft wingspan has an advantage over a much larger manned aircraft in this respect, other things being equal. Actually they are not equal because the interior of the cockpit is well known to be a significant reflector of radar energy in manned aircraft as are the large bubble canopies of aircraft such as the F15 and F16, which provide the pilot with a good all round view, but add significantly to the frontal cross sectional area. It should be noted in this context that when the USAF or Lockheed Martin or the DoD compare the radar cross section of the F35 with that of a "metal golf ball", they are talking PR and not much else because the amount of radar energy reflected by any object is entirely dependent on the wavelength and energy of the radar signal. The comparison might have some validity for radar with a wavelength of 1cm, but a radar with a wavelength of 3m would probably detect the F35 quite easily while being incapable of detecting the golf ball. Radar works best at detecting objects of a size approximating to the wavelength. Target tracking and missile guidance radars usually operate at wavelengths measured in millimeters or centimeters whereas long range surveillance radars sometimes use much longer wavelengths. The ability of a particular radar system to detect a given aircraft under a particular set of conditions also depends on the sophistication of it's signal processing. Given that modern air defence radars can detect "metal golf balls" and even smaller objects quite easily, it makes a lot of sense for the strike aircraft or UCAV to avoid detection by flying close to the ground, out of the radar's line of sight. With modern stand-off air to ground weapons it is not necessary to fly directly over the target at low level, or even to within line of sight of the target if it's position is known in advance. If the target is an advancing enemy ground unit, say a tank battalion, this approach has an advantage in that it should in theory be possible to mount a low level UCAV strike on the basis of information from satellite or from ground observers, in less time than would be required for a medium altitude strike by manned aircraft, which could necessitate putting together a large and complex "strike package" with electronic warfare, defence suppression and counter-air elements. In my personal view, it is very questionable whether the present tactical strike and close support tactics of the USAF and RAF would be applicable in a modern high intensity conflict when in many respects they hardly differ from those used in World War 2. The objective view would be that with today's technology it should be possible to do better. The laser designator commends itself as a means of indicating ground targets to UCAVs, or perhaps to a reconnaissance UCAV flying at medium altitude which would then relay the targets' positions to the strike UCAVs approaching the target area at low level. The aim would be to destroy the short range air defence systems first, then the tanks and armoured personnel carriers. In combat with enemy air elements, the small manoeuverable stealth UCAV would have an advantage at low level over enemy manned fighters whose radars would in all probability be incapable of "locking on" to the UCAV at a useful range particularly in the presence of ground clutter (radar signals reflected from the ground).JMitakon (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issues of sensor capability, flight control and targeting in UCAVs are closely interrelated it makes sense to deal with them together. In the first place, it should be clear that the limitations of human vision impose fundamental limitations on the functionality of a manned combat aircraft, to the extent that the pilot is involved in operating the aircraft's systems. For example, we perceive a television picture as a moving image, because our visual apparatus does not function quickly enough to tell us that what we are actually looking at is a succession of still pictures. And this would be a limitation even if it were possible, as in the film Firefox, to have a thought controlled weapon system in which the weapons were controlled directly by the pilot's brain impulses; the pilot would still have to perceive a target before he could think about destroying it. This is the main factor which limits the level of hand to eye co-ordination that a human being can ever achieve. There are other factors such as the speed with which nerve impulses are transmitted in the body which we needn't go into here. The UCAV does not suffer from these limitations and moreover, it can have as many eyes as necessary to provide simultaneous vision in all directions, with zooming capability, infrared capability, and the ability to integrate information from the cameras with information from radar, GPS, and inertial sensors in real time. Unlike the human brain, the CPU or Central Processing Unit of the UCAV can be designed to perform it's tasks with maximum efficiency, resulting in combat performance superior to that of any human pilot, however well trained. The fact that computer systems can fly aircraft better than humans has been recognised for decades by aircraft designers who, since the late 1970s, have been designing aircraft with computerised fly by wire control systems. Modern fighters like the F16 and Eurofighter Typhoon would be impossible to fly without this key technology. The presence of a human pilot in an aircraft also limits it's manoeuverability indirectly since there is a limit to the g factor that a human can withstand, generally taken to be 10-12 g. This could be increased to as much as 18-20 g through the adoption of a prone pilot position, but ergonomic and psychological factors mitigate against this. In principle though it would be possible to design an aircraft in which the pilot, wearing a virtual reality helmet, would be enclosed within the fuselage, from where he would nevertheless be able to see in any direction via cameras, even in 3D. Such an aircraft would in effect be a UCAV with a human in place of the CPU, and so this would be one means of making a direct comparison between manned aircraft and UCAVs in terms of effectiveness.

The automatic recognition of ground targets is already well established, the Strix 120mm guided mortar bomb for example uses a passive infrared system to identify armoured vehicle targets. This can distinguish between an operational vehicle and one which has already been hit and is burning. Other systems use millimetric wave radar; A UCAV would probably use both. The automatic recognition of personnel by electro-optical means is already a feature of many consumer cameras. I have a Minolta 35mm camera from about 2001 which can recognise a person (or an image of a person) and indicate the person in the viewfinder while automatically focusing on them. A UCAV can also be equipped with stand-off weapons incorporating these features, which can be launched from beyond the range of enemy air defence systems.JMitakon (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's more interesting to compare the flying capabilities of UCAVs with those of birds. As a result of common ancestry, birds have the same senses that we do, so in theory the UCAV should be able to outfly them as well, within the limitations of size and weight. Moving on once more to deal with some of the technical issues associated with the forward deployment of UCAVs, it should be clear in the first place that the practicality of this has already been demonstrated with weapon systems like the V1/Fi 103 and the Matador and Mace cruise missiles. There have also been successful if dangerous experiments with the launching of manned aircraft using rocket boosters. As to the question of how and where the UCAV would land, the simplest solution would be to equip it with a tailhook to engage some form of arrester system, which could be as simple as a length of nylon rope with sandbags tied to both ends, held above the ground by poles. Even this would reduce the landing run to 100m or so. And skids could be used in place of wheels for landing on snow or soft ground. What this means in simple terms is that within any given area of ten miles square, there should literally be hundreds of possible launching and recovery sites. The fact that the UCAV is re-useable is it's major advantage over the nearest comparison among other weapon systems, the cruise missile. But if you can mass produce enough UCAVs at a low enough unit cost, it may become cost efficient to use them in one way missions against certain targets at ranges beyond the UCAV's normal combat radius of action, which would be about 250-300 miles for a UCAV with a wingspan of 15-20 ft and launching weight of 2000-3000 kg. Range/payload capability should in theory be superior to a conventional manned aircraft of comparable size and performance because it would be possible to launch the UCAV at weights greater than that at which it would be able to take off under it's own power within a given distance. JMitakon (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the consideration of basic technical requirements for a UCAV or unmanned combat aircraft weapon system, one requirement that is bound to arise is for a secure means of data exchange between UCAVs. In order to achieve it's full military potential, the UCAV must be employed as a mass action weapon system. And that means that the UCAVs must be capable of exchanging information in flight, in order to co-ordinate their attacks while avoiding blue on blue incidents and mid air collisions (ie, other than intentional collisions with enemy aircraft). It is fairly well known that any communication system, navigation system, or tactical information system which emits electromagnetic radiation on radio frequencies can potentially be jammed, located, tracked, or even destroyed by an anti-radiation or radiation homing weapon. Communication systems which use the infrared waveband have therefore been developed for clandestine use by intelligence agencies. The transmitter of such a system is basically an infrared projector, which can project a focused beam of infrared light to a target location where the receiver is located. Such systems were used for communication accross the Berlin Wall. The use of infrared LEDs, or Light Emitting Diodes, mounted on the airframe of the UCAV, therefore suggests itself as a possibility. Some of these could be recessed so that they would only be visible from another UCAV flying in close formation. Systems similar in principle could also be used by ground forces for communication with UCAVs. In this case a device resembling an infrared torch could be used to transmit information in the form of coded pulses of infrared light.JMitakon (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issues of UCAV tactics and armament have to be considered together because they are interdependent. An aircraft or UCAV flying at less than 20 ft altitude, for example, cannot drop bombs without destroying itself in the process. Guns, rockets, missiles, or a side firing dispenser like the German MW-1 are the possibilities in that situation. This would be one way to attack an armoured formation, flying so low that the accompanying AA gun and missile systems would be unable to get a clear line of sight to their targets. Another option would be a powered guided stand-off dispenser that would have a range of 15 miles or around 25 km when launched from low altitude. Obviously, the wider the range of weapons and tactics that the UCAV can employ, the greater the possibility of achieving tactical surprise over the enemy in a given situation. The gun, or more specifically the cannon, is the most versatile aircraft weapon and the only one likely to be effective against the entire set of targets that the UCAV might encounter during a low level strike mission. It's effectiveness would be enhanced by the accuracy of the UCAV's targeting system, obviating the need for a high rate of fire so the weapon could be quite small and light. For example the Hughes ASP (Automatic Self Powered) cannon from the 1980s, which had a cyclic rate of 500 rpm, weighed 105 lbs or 47 kg. This fired the ADEN/DEFA/M789 rounds, also used by the Hughes 30mm Chain Gun, still effective against most ground and air targets, even an MBT from the flank or rear aspects. Another weapon which would be useful would be a launcher for unguided rockets and/or guided missiles which would be carried internally and launched in rapid succession from under the fuselage, capable of accommodating munitions with a diameter of 120 mm, thereby allowing for an effective hollow charge warhead which would also be designed to produce high fragmentation blast and incendiary effects, a multipurpose weapon which could be produced in both guided and unguided forms and employed against a wide range of targets. Stand-off dispensers could be carried in a semi-recessed configuration under the wings or fuselage of the UCAV. Another possibility would be to launch guided munitions from vertical tubes in the fuselage or wing roots of the UCAV, using the recoilless principle. This would enable target engagement from an altitude of zero feet, thereby taking advantage of the ability of a small jet aircraft or UCAV to fly with extreme precision at low to moderate airspeeds, 180 to 250 knots, very near the ground. I have a magazine with a picture of a Guatemalan air force A37 Dragonfly performing an ultra-low pass directly over the crowd at an air show in the 1960s, literally within a few inches of taking their heads off, which does illustrate the point. Returning to the subject of guns in UCAVs, we have already discussed the enhanced effectiveness of the weapon in this application. A way of quantifying this might be to say that whereas a manned fighter attacking a ground target, say an armoured personnel carrier, might fire a burst of 40 round and get four or five hits, the UCAV would fire a burst of five rounds and get five well placed hits. This kind of accuracy would be equally effective in air to air combat where five 30 mm hits would be more than sufficient to bring down a manned fighter. The optimum installation from the accuracy perspective would be an installation of one gun in each wing root, which would avoid the creation of a pitching moment during firing and giving a total firing rate of 1000 rpm which would be useful against area ground targets or a crossing air target. The ideal tactical element for low level UCAV strike missions would probably be a widely spaced and staggered element of three UCAVs, allowing for effective target engagement and a degree of mutual support without increasing the overall signature to a significant degree when compared with that of a single UCAV.JMitakon (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]