Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Highly Autonomous Excalibur UCAV to take flight in 2009
DarthAmerica    6/2/2009 5:51:53 PM
Excalibur Excalibur is a purpose-built armed, tactical UAV. Excalibur fills a gap between current weaponized UAVs and manned strike platforms that provide tactical air support. To enable the attack role, Excalibur will be compatible with Hellfire, APKWS, Viper Strike and other small, precision-guided munitions recently developed by the Department of Defense. Excalibur will use a turbine-electric hybrid propulsion system to give the aircraft VTOL capability while allowing optimization of the turbine engine for horizontal flight. The aircraft's advanced flight control system operates with a high level of autonomy. The aircraft is not remotely piloted, therefore operators are able to focus on mission planning, finding, and engaging targets instead of flying the aircraft. Excalibur combines VTOL launch and recovery, high-speed flight (in excess of 400 knots), and low speed loiter (100 knots) into one aircraft. Excalibur can operate in a STOL or STOVL mode for increased mission durations or payloads. Aurora is under contract to the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate to design a 700 pounds Excalibur technology demonstrator aircraft, will have it's first vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) flight test planned for summer of 2009
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
JFKY    Herald and Darth   7/28/2009 2:44:17 PM
Boyz, don't MAKE me come down there and make you play nicely together! If you all are going to be cranky and nasty you both need to take a time out and take a nap.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/28/2009 3:43:25 PM

Excalibur, designed by Aurora Flight Sciences is expected to fill a gap between current weaponized UAVs and manned tactical air support platforms. When fielded, sometime in the next decade, Excalibu could fill the gap between current weaponized UAVs such as Predator and FireScout and manned strike platforms such as Apache and A-10.



The 21 foot wingspan aerial vehicle will weigh about 2,600 lbs. The empty weight will be 700 lbs., Excalibur will be able to carry a payload of up to 400 lbs. To enable the attack role, Excalibur will be compatible with Hellfire, APKWS II, Viper Strike and SPIKE. Excalibur will combine VTOL launch and recovery, high-speed flight (460 knots), and low speed loiter (100 knots) into one aircraft. The vehicle will be able to operate in a STOL or STOVL mode for increased mission durations or payloads. The Excalibur's weapons carriage concept is unique. When the aircraft is on the ground, weapons and payloads are placed over the wings to protect them from damage from dust or debries. After takeoff, Excalibur rolls upside-down to normal flight pattern, with payload and weapons in normal position under the wings.

It is powered by a turbine engine, placed in oblique position, generating thrust and lift for forward flight and rotating into vetical, for take-off and landing. The turbine generates sufficient thrust to accelerate the vehicle to dash speed, in excess of 300 knots, enabling the Excalibur to reach flash points in half the time of an attack helicopter. The UAV can also loiter over the target area for much longer, even after flying long distances. Excalibur uses a unique three-fan design to lift augmentation for vertical takeoff and landing. The battery powered lift fans are embedded in the wings and fuselage. The wing stored fans slide out to augment turbine thrust during takeoff and landing. Excalibur will be cleared for operation at altitudes up to 40,000 feet, and 3 hours flight endurance.

The flight control system will be designed to enable high level of autonomy, since the aircraft is not be remotely piloted, like current Predators, operators are able are expected to focus on mission planning, finding, and engaging targets instead of flying the aircraft.

Excalibur is under development as a technology demonstrator aircraft, funded by the US Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate. Excalibur is scheduled for flight in 2007 pending availability of funds.

Highly autonomous flight control system will reduce human involvement in controlling the platform, enabling the operator to focus on mission planning, finding, and engaging targets. The Excalibur, designed by Aurora, is scheduled for flight in 2007. General Dynamics Robotics Systems (GDRS) is responsible for the ground control station and data links.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Darth,    7/28/2009 4:08:53 PM
Because nothing says authoritative like a Defense Update article, right?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/28/2009 4:51:32 PM

Because nothing says authoritative like a Defense Update article, right?

Stop being unnecessarily sarcastic and confrontational. It wasn't posted to be "authoritative". It was posted so that the program objectives could be consolidated without any bias from me or anyone else prior to continuing the discussion. Again, I'm someone who will benefit directly from a UAS like this so to me, what's needed is something I've seen on deployments and in training. For others the issues may not be as clear and since I can't elaborate of specific uses due to the fact that people are still in the field, this helps to bring context so that people better understand before they wonder why VTOL is necessary ect.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Darth   7/28/2009 6:18:25 PM
1) Stop being so defensive;
2) Stop whining about other people;
3) Stop being confrontational, and then WHINING about other people "attacking" you, grow a thicker skin, or just lash out, but stop complaining about Herald, and then continuing to feud with him;
4) I believe we all understood the purpose of your post early on and your continued RESTATEMENT of its purpose simply reminds us, this is a PROTOTYPE, yes we get that....if the readers haven't grasped it by now they are too stupid to have an opinion.
 
Simply posting the same thing over and over, is no better or worse than BlueWings....as I said we grasped early on that you like this as an "Idea", but weren't wed to it.  But the second anyone attacked it you sure got awfully wed to it.....
 
To my unskilled and unschooled eye it is a Rube Goldberg Solution...it works but isn't there an easier way of doing the same thing?  I will go further and say that the upside down thing is silly...ordnance is fairly tough and it already faces inclement weather and atmospheric conditions on fixed and rotary wing a/c and functions, does it REALLY need protection in the Excalibur or isn't this just one thing too many to have to design and control?  Just make an autonomous Hover UAV and fore go the whole Flip the bird approach.  It just seems to add complexity for little real return...and many folks are trying to tell you that, but instead you've got to get all bent outta shape that Herald doesn't like it....Well he's not the only one.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/28/2009 6:35:19 PM

1) Stop being so defensive;

2) Stop whining about other people;

3) Stop being confrontational, and then WHINING about other people "attacking" you, grow a thicker skin, or just lash out, but stop complaining about Herald, and then continuing to feud with him;

4) I believe we all understood the purpose of your post early on and your continued RESTATEMENT of its purpose simply reminds us, this is a PROTOTYPE, yes we get that....if the readers haven't grasped it by now they are too stupid to have an opinion.

 

Simply posting the same thing over and over, is no better or worse than BlueWings....as I said we grasped early on that you like this as an "Idea", but weren't wed to it.  But the second anyone attacked it you sure got awfully wed to it.....

 

To my unskilled and unschooled eye it is a Rube Goldberg Solution...it works but isn't there an easier way of doing the same thing?  I will go further and say that the upside down thing is silly...ordnance is fairly tough and it already faces inclement weather and atmospheric conditions on fixed and rotary wing a/c and functions, does it REALLY need protection in the Excalibur or isn't this just one thing too many to have to design and control?  Just make an autonomous Hover UAV and fore go the whole Flip the bird approach.  It just seems to add complexity for little real return...and many folks are trying to tell you that, but instead you've got to get all bent outta shape that Herald doesn't like it....Well he's not the only one.



OK, thanks for the advice.

Regards
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/28/2009 10:46:56 PM
JFKY,

Forgot to add. The flipping is not silly. FOD in forward basing modes is a serious concern. Also, as you saw in the video, its not difficult for a computer to do at all. I don't mind people disagreeing. Just do so without attacking the messenger and if you must disagree have some sort of support for the disagreement so that we can debate it. As to a simpler way? I'm sure there are many ways. But for whatever reason THESE engineers have chosen this method. Now it's up to them to demonstrate military utility and ability to meet the requirement. If they do that then I know more than a few people who would still be alive if such a vehicle were operational in 2007. If not then they get no contract. I'm impartial to the final configuration so long as it works and meets the requirement.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/29/2009 6:46:04 AM

That explains why you aren't serving or working anything defense. Like I said, get over yourself, stay on topic and stop lying.







-DA 
You don't know where I work, Darth. Nor do you know on what I work.
 
One more thing. When I call you a prevaricator, its because I cite the specific case as I usually do with various and sundry prevarications you post  here. On this topic you generally claimed to knowledge that you don't have or expertise that you cannot claim. Its not hard to prove that you actually don't have that knowledge..
 
Forgot to add. (A) The flipping is not silly. (B) FOD in forward basing modes is a serious concern.  (C) Also, as you saw in the video, its not difficult for a computer to do at all. I don't mind people disagreeing. Just do so without attacking the messenger and if you must disagree have some sort of support for the disagreement so that we can debate it. As to a simpler way? I'm sure there are many ways. But for whatever reason THESE engineers have chosen this method. Now it's up to them to demonstrate military utility and ability to meet the requirement. If they do that then I know more than a few people who would still be alive if such a vehicle were operational in 2007. If not then they get no contract. I'm impartial to the final configuration so long as it works and meets the requirement.
  . 
A statement has nothing as an engineering solution to do with B. Its an unnecessary complication to a transition to level flight regime. The jet exhaust in a flip maneuver is actually more of a danger as a loss of vehicle incident than some rock being sucked into the intake, or some rock kicked up by lift wash during takeoff . This statement you made, just shows the ignorance you bring to the subject. C is a statement that is so patently stupid on the face of it, that explaining the difference between a one axis solution to a special case and a two axis general control solution is wasted on you. If you want to read the explanation, its been provided above.

Shoot the messenger is actually needed, here, when the message he delivers as his "facts" is this dumb.
 
You will notice, that as always, when I shoot the messenger, I tell you the WHY.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/29/2009 1:36:32 PM




That explains why you aren't serving or working anything defense. Like I said, get over yourself, stay on topic and stop lying.

















-DA 


You don't know where I work, Darth. Nor do you know on what I work.

 

One more thing. When I call you a prevaricator, its because I cite the specific case as I usually do with various and sundry prevarications you post  here. On this topic you generally claimed to knowledge that you don't have or expertise that you cannot claim. Its not hard to prove that you actually don't have that knowledge..

 

Forgot to add. (A) The flipping is not silly. (B) FOD in forward basing modes is a serious concern.  (C) Also, as you saw in the video, its not difficult for a computer to do at all. I don't mind people disagreeing. Just do so without attacking the messenger and if you must disagree have some sort of support for the disagreement so that we can debate it. As to a simpler way? I'm sure there are many ways. But for whatever reason THESE engineers have chosen this method. Now it's up to them to demonstrate military utility and ability to meet the requirement. If they do that then I know more than a few people who would still be alive if such a vehicle were operational in 2007. If not then they get no contract. I'm impartial to the final configuration so long as it works and meets the requirement.


  . 


A statement has nothing as an engineering solution to do with B. Its an unnecessary complication to a transition to level flight regime. The jet exhaust in a flip maneuver is actually more of a danger as a loss of vehicle incident than some rock being sucked into the intake, or some rock kicked up by lift wash during takeoff . This statement you made, just shows the ignorance you bring to the subject. C is a statement that is so patently stupid on the face of it, that explaining the difference between a one axis solution to a special case and a two axis general control solution is wasted on you. If you want to read the explanation, its been provided above.




Shoot the messenger is actually needed, here, when the message he delivers as his "facts" is this dumb.


 

You will notice, that as always, when I shoot the messenger, I tell you the WHY.


 

Herald


 

Get a life. You don't have the experience, education or anything else to "shoot" any of my messages.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    A claim by a man   7/31/2009 6:27:57 AM










That explains why you aren't serving or working anything defense. Like I said, get over yourself, stay on topic and stop lying.





































-DA 






You don't know where I work, Darth. Nor do you know on what I work.



 



One more thing. When I call you a prevaricator, its because I cite the specific case as I usually do with various and sundry prevarications you post  here. On this topic you generally claimed to knowledge that you don't have or expertise that you cannot claim. Its not hard to prove that you actually don't have that knowledge..



 



Forgot to add. (A) The flipping is not silly. (B) FOD in forward basing modes is a serious concern.  (C) Also, as you saw in the video, its not difficult for a computer to do at all. I don't mind people disagreeing. Just do so without attacking the messenger and if you must disagree have some sort of support for the disagreement so that we can debate it. As to a simpler way? I'm sure there are many ways. But for whatever reason THESE engineers have chosen this method. Now it's up to them to demonstrate military utility and ability to meet the requirement. If they do that then I know more than a few people who would still be alive if such a vehicle were operational in 2007. If not then they get no contract. I'm impartial to the final configuration so long as it works and meets the requirement.






  . 






A statement has nothing as an engineering solution to do with B. Its an unnecessary complication to a transition to level flight regime. The jet exhaust in a flip maneuver is actually more of a danger as a loss of vehicle incident than some rock being sucked into the intake, or some rock kicked up by lift wash during takeoff . This statement you made, just shows the ignorance you bring to the subject. C is a statement that is so patently stupid on the face of it, that explaining the difference between a one axis solution to a special case and a two axis general control solution is wasted on you. If you want to read the explanation, its been provided above.










Shoot the messenger is actually needed, here, when the message he delivers as his "facts" is this dumb.






 



You will notice, that as always, when I shoot the messenger, I tell you the WHY.






 



Herald






 





Get a life. You don't have the experience, education or anything else to "shoot" any of my messages.




-DA 


Who has never designed a machine in his life or understands how machines actually WORK.
 
Herald.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy