Slashdot Mirror
Boeing, BAE Systems Show Off New Unmanned Planes
gilgsn writes The hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system, a demonstrator that will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days, was unveiled by Boeing today. 'Phantom Eye is powered by two 2.3-liter, four-cylinder engines that provide 150 horsepower each. It has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots and can carry up to a 450-pound payload.' Across the pond, BAE Systems showed off Taranis, a UAV that will test the possibility of developing the first ever autonomous, stealth Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle that would ultimately be capable of precisely striking targets at long range — even in another continent."
The B2 has a 170ish foot wingspan and the radar cross section of a ball bearing, so size is not necessarily a stealth disqualifier.
I was going to ask "why hydrogen?", then I think I answered my question myself. I would guess that if you had a fossil fuel based system then all your enemies would need to do is point some sort of spectrographic analyzer at the sky and detect a trail of combustion emissions - where the trail ends is where you aim your counter measures. With a hydrogen based system it would be a lot harder to detect a trail a of water vapour in a sky full of water vapour.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
According to Dailymail, it should be around £143 million ($214 million for those too lazy to google it yourself).
If you read the article (and others), you will also see that this was a technology demonstrator, and £143 million was the cost to build it. If it went into production it would likely cost significantly less, certainly less than a $191 million JSF. Getting the pilot out of there cuts down a hell of a lot on the cost, as all of a sudden you can replace all sorts of expensive weight, volume, and logistics with relatively cheap computers (theoretically, anyway).
Even the far smaller Predator can carry up to 750 pounds and stay aloft for at least 40 hours. Though I guess you could still throw in a bunch of Spikes and still have a nice Macross Missile Massacre.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
it has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots...
...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and the natives don't have radar.
So, pretty much all of the conflicts the U.S. and allies are currently embroiled in.
We constantly find new and amazing ways to kill each other more easily. Too bad this much effort doesn't go in other directions which are more beneficial to mankind, and are aimed at saving lives rather than taking them.
The military has been moving to precision instead of magnitude, I'm sure there are plenty of warheads that could be loaded on this.
After all, the suitcase nuke is a real weapon. A nuke does not have to weigh tons to do tons of damage.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
And in doing so reviels where the SAM is. Mr. Sam meet the stealth UCAV with a HARM tasked with SEAD.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Uh. No. Not even a little tiny wee bit. The issue with nuclear warfare between America and Russia is not ones capability to produce X amount of Weapon Y with a nuke on it. Its about the capability to have X fire Weapon Y and for Weapon Y to have 10 nukes. Before we started using the MIRV's it was possible to defend against a nuclear strike. Now though we know we are eff'd if the nukes start flying. Sure, we can shoot down 80 missiles if we get lucky.. can we shoot down 800? No.
So how exactly do these replace THAT capability? Also, the big threat of nuclear weapons is speed and stealth. Not having some frigen UAV flying around that any MIG built in the last 40 years could shoot down with ease.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Should such systems enter into service, they will at all times be under the control of highly trained military crews on the ground.
how comforting, so if it does kill anyone at least we know they meant to.
You can eyeball a plane going 150 mph at 60,000 feet without sensors?
No they don't. 450 lbs is more than enough payload for a 100kt+ nuke.
Nukes weighing several tons went out in the 1950s/1960s
And we wouldn't even need to drop it. There's no pilot in these things so if you can afford to lose the plane, just set off the nuke while it's still in the bomb bay.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"The B61 is a variable yield bomb designed for carriage by high-speed aircraft. It has a streamlined casing capable of withstanding supersonic flight speeds. The weapon is 11 ft 8 in (3.58 m) long, with a diameter of about 13 in (33 cm). Basic weight is about 700 lb (320 kg), although the weights of individual weapons may vary depending on version and fuze/retardation configuration."
So there is your airdropped nuclear weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb
"The W80 is physically quite small, the "physics package" itself is about the size of a conventional Mk.81 250 lb (113 kg) bomb, 11.8 inches (30 cm) in diameter and 31.4 inches (80 cm) long, and only slightly heavier at about 290 lb (132 kg)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_(nuclear_warhead)
So all US combat zones?
Don't forget, unlike an ICMB, it can loiter and get realtime surveillance before it strikes the target, unlike an ICBM where you may be relying on satellite data that's already X minutes/hours old.
The extent to which we've removed humans from the battlefield is really starting to disturb me. The public objection to American coming home in body bags up 'til the past decade has served as at least a mild deterrent to using force, but when we can kill with little or no risk to our own soldiers, what's left to provide our leaders with a motive for restraint?
Egh...