Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing, BAE Systems Show Off New Unmanned Planes

Posted by Soulskill on from the sneaky-and-expensive dept.

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."

32 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cost? by somaTh · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to Dailymail, it should be around £143 million ($214 million for those too lazy to google it yourself).

    --
    Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
  2. UAV ? ICBM by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    UAV capable of reaching inter-continental target - check
    UAV payload nuclear - check
    UAV 'hard to hit' and/or find - check

    Ladies and Gentleman; let me present to you your new ICBM replacement (and don't worry about treaties with the Russians, these qualify as airplanes not missles, so we are clear to rebuild our stockpiles!)

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:UAV ? ICBM by Jeng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:UAV ? ICBM by moogied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."
    3. Re:UAV ? ICBM by rwa2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As noted in other articles, the project was previously named HALE (high altitude long endurance) and is a rapid prototype for a larger craft.

      The new dorky name is probably a nod to "Phantom Works", Boeing's "Skunkworks", and hopefully not as much due to stealthy / nefarious connotations.

    4. Re:UAV ? ICBM by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:UAV ? ICBM by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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)

    6. Re:UAV ? ICBM by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:UAV ? ICBM by quanticle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, the big threat of nuclear weapons is speed and stealth.

      UAVs have that. Sure, a MiG can shoot down a UAV with ease. However, in order to shoot down the UAV, it first has to find the UAV. Given that UAVs don't need pilots, control surfaces and intakes (the two most radar reflective portions of any aircraft) can be positioned in a way to minimize radar cross section in a way that even ultra-stealth aircraft like the B-2 cannot do. Combined with the ability of a UAV to fly a computer controlled course at very low altitude (just like cruise missiles), the ultra-low RCS means that these modern UAVs are the cruise missile equivalent of MIRVs. You can load a UAV with multiple cruise missiles and have it launch those missiles after it gets inside enemy airspace.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  3. Cue Terminator Theme... by dmgxmichael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So when do the land based killer units get going?

    1. Re:Cue Terminator Theme... by Jeng · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, we have a copy of Norton we can load on to Skynet's computers when the day comes. That should delay things.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  4. Re:SAMs? by brainboyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The B2 has a 170ish foot wingspan and the radar cross section of a ball bearing, so size is not necessarily a stealth disqualifier.

  5. Hydrogen by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Hydrogen by Dynedain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's probably more likely that making it hydrogen-based qualifies it for earmarked expenditures in Congressional appropriations.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  6. Re:Cost? by demonbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  7. Not much payload by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  8. Re:SAMs? by demonbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Fantastic... by vvaduva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fantastic... by Jeng · · Score: 2, Funny

      You make it sound like its not beneficial to mankind to kill off some of its less co-operative members.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Fantastic... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We constantly find new and amazing ways to kill each other more easily.

      We already have exceptionally convenient ways to kill EVERYONE. Every weapon developed after thr 1960s is actually designed to make it easier to SELECTIVELY kill people. In other words, less collateral damage.

      And making it HARD to kill people isn't a good thing. Go back through antiquity, and you'll find that, though it was difficult, more people were being killed then, than now. Better weapons reduce the body count, as the war is won more quickly, rather than being a bloody, multi-year war of attrition.

      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.

      What? Better weapons beget better battle-field medicine. A great many scientific advancements have been made in war-time, which save a huge number of lives, both during and long-after the particular wars.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Fantastic... by halivar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you probably couldn't. As the largest (in dollars) importer of global exports, it is very probable that without the US, dozens of developing nations would simply disappear off the map. Parent post is just as naively chauvinistic as the grandparent.

  10. Re:SAMs? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  11. No to worry! by quickpick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:SAMs? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The Boeing Company [NYSE: (BA)] today unveiled the hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system, a demonstrator that will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days."

    Not alot of SAMs reach that high, it'll have a low radar cross section, small IR signature, so even the SAMs that go up there will have a hard time acquiring it.

    So even if it's used in a place like Iran or I don't know, the Sudan or Venezuela in a future conflict, the good SAMs will have been taken out in the first few days of the war by F-16s, F-18G, F-22s, or cruise missiles, MANPADS can't get to 65,000, so this thing will be good for intelligence gathering even in an environment where the enemy has small SAMs still

  13. Re:SAMs? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can eyeball a plane going 150 mph at 60,000 feet without sensors?

  14. Hydrogen for Long Endurance Flight? by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hydrogen may be the most efficient combustible fuel, giving the aircraft the longest range per fuel payload? With an unmanned aircraft the usual safety concerns regarding hydrogen do not apply.

  15. Re:SAMs? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So all US combat zones?

  16. More unmanned weapons? Egh... by Que914 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  17. Re:Taranis? by thaig · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because, unlike you, they aren't homophonic.

    --
    This is all just my personal opinion.
  18. Re:Software by CompMD · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course UAVs can land autonomously. Heck, the autopilot and control system I built in college for a few grand can land a 200lb helicopter fully autonomously, no pilot in the loop. Military UAVs can land autonomously as well (AAI Shadow), though some don't have to (the AeroVironment Raven just falls and you go pick it up).

  19. B-52 by S-100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tactically, this is a SAC B-52 replacement.

  20. So has Taranis flown yet? by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I've been reading the odd scraps of information coming out about Taranis for a few years now. Supposedly it was supposed to begin flight trials in 2010; has this happened yet, or have they just shown off the prototype model on the ground to a few media hacks?

    There was an interesting conspiracy theory put about a while back that Taranis was only incidentally a scary UAV project - that its real purpose was technology laundering. BAE have had access to American stealth technology through the JSF project; Taranis is a stealth aircraft supposedly developed independently. So if ten years from now BAE start selling stealth drones to every sheikh with a few billion quid in his trousers, they'll say 'oh, this technology is derived from the Taranis project. Nothing to do with the American secrets we were shown while working on the F-35, no, not at all...'

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.