Highly Autonomous Excalibur UCAV to take flight in 2009

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 NEXT

DarthAmerica 7/23/2009 10:45:26 AM

And no controlled roll or rotate-meaning that the simplest problems they haven't solved.

CRAP concept and an ignorant poster who doesn't see or understand why.

Carlo Kopp speaks! Unfortunately is is making an error again. Similar to how he did not understand that G-Hawks prototypes are different from production models. For the benefit of others I'll explain about this so you don't get thrown off by Heralds insatiable appetite for trolling. This was a test flight with a specific objective. It's not uncommon for test aircraft to fly for a particular purpose in order to validate an aspect of the design. For instance VTOL...

...No complex maneuver there either. Well I guess we have another crap design...lol

-DA

Quote Reply

reefdiver 7/23/2009 11:13:56 AM

Personally, I'm quite thrilled these guys have flown vertically - hopefully out of ground effect. I have little doubt they can solve any technical problems - given enough time and money. The real question is will they have the time and the money in this impatient and financially weak environment.

My biggest concern about this would be that it will be used "in-country" without prepared air-strips and will start fires whereever it goes....

Regardless, if it is fielded, it could bring some unique capabilities to the battle space.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/23/2009 12:46:01 PM

What did you guys expect it to do? Capture Bin Ladin on its first flight?

This is a development program, and early in a development program at that. When dealing with a novel propulsion system like that you start slowly and build from there.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/23/2009 12:49:17 PM

And no controlled roll or rotate-meaning that the simplest problems they haven't solved.

CRAP concept and an ignorant poster who doesn't see or understand why.

link width="425" height="344">

...No complex maneuver there either. Well I guess we have another crap design...lol

-DA

Negation.

Transition not yet showm, but horizontal and vertical flight for the F-35 B is PROVEN as fact. Amy more incorrect analogies and not relevant comparisons you want to post, poster?

...

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/23/2009 12:52:25 PM

My biggest concern about this would be that it will be used "in-country" without prepared air-strips and will start fires whereever it goes....

Regardless, if it is fielded, it could bring some unique capabilities to the battle space.

Fires is certainly a concern. However as with other aircraft and armored vehicles there will be procedures for safe operation. Getting a UAS like this on the battlefield is really going to change things. Right now, units have small organic ISR UAS capability but this extends a lethal capability and combines it with speed.

-DA

Quote Reply

Reactive 7/23/2009 12:56:46 PM

It looks incredibly clumsy, has a fantastically inefficient forward profile, just about maintains a hover, to me it looks optimised for VTOL and not flight.

It looks like one of those unwieldy (never to be produced) designs that people produce at universities. It (so far) takes off and hovers with about the same level of control that one would expect from a toy helicopter. The inverted missile shot on the CGI actually made me choke on my drink, I think it's more likely to attempt invert, become unstable, flip 90 degrees and crash, and that to avoid that happening is going to require osprey-like levels of patience. This is assuming that it manages to maintain stability in the initial transfer from hover to foward flight.

It also has a beautiful set of smooth curves to maximise its radar profile from almost every aspect, looks incredibly draggy for a machine that is designed for persistence, and seems like using VTOL in the first place will massively reduce its range.

I can't recall seeing anything that looks as draggy and clumsy as this ever having been fielded?

The company plans to complete initial hover-phase testing at speeds up 20kt, but is looking for funding to modify the vehicle for medium-speed flights up to 40kt, which will involve making the aerodynamic control surfaces active. If it can secure funds, Aurora plans to build a second demonstrator for high-speed testing - one that can retract the lift fans, retract the gear and tilt the engine down.

And I will give anyone here good odds that if someone ever unwisely parts with said funds for development of a version that "may fly", it will be a very short lived and painful misadventure (as the vehicle inverts in a beautiful hyperbolic terminal dive). Look at other UCAV concepts currently being developed, I see far more potential for designs like Taranis (low RCS, large payload, flight-control-friendly, even as a prototype) than this sort of "transformers" approach with a tiny loadout, vast RCS, draggy ineffiient profile, lack of control surfaces, and inevitable software problems in flight. I will bet anyone here that this never gets anywhere near production.

Also, I can't help but thinking that it is worryingly easy to secure funding, i've seen many more interesting UAV/UCAV concepts than this, It's shocking, does anyone have any data as to what range they expect from it?

ReactivE

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/23/2009 1:01:50 PM

What did you guys expect it to do? Capture Bin Ladin on its first flight?

This is a development program, and early in a development program at that. When dealing with a novel propulsion system like that you start slowly and build from there.

Exactly. That's why I showed the X-35B video so that people can see that it's baby steps. You don't just jump in and start dogfighting Invid on a first flight. Some don't understand that and others are just trolling.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @ReactivE 7/23/2009 1:10:53 PM

Form follows function. There was another pane they said that about...

And lets not forget another FUGLY plane...

...Neither of them will win beauty contest. But their utility is unquestionable. It's the same for this design. Its a forward based VTOL CAS UAS. Believe me, on my last deployment, I could have used something like this.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/23/2009 1:17:20 PM

And no controlled roll or rotate-meaning that the simplest problems they haven't solved.

CRAP concept and an ignorant poster who doesn't see or understand why.

link width="425" height="344">

...No complex maneuver there either. Well I guess we have another crap design...lol

-DA

Some more from the prevaricator?

You want to prevaricate and make false analogies.? Your ego is getting ion the way of your go0od judgement. Got it?

It doesn't matter what you claim. What I saw was that you posted, asserted and claimed falsehoods again. HERE us a flight test to prove prototype flight regime as properly described.

We have a STOVL transition seen, whereas the crap you posted doesn't even show good 2 axis control on that "prototype"..

If they can't transition from the hover without the wobble seen, then their concept like your foolish assertion is WORTHLESS.

Quote Reply

Reactive 7/23/2009 1:18:11 PM

Form follows function. There was another pane they said that about...

And lets not forget another FUGLY plane...

-DA

I'm afraid I disagree, both of those platforms look and behave (aerodynamically) as planes, they rely on conventional wings, and a conventional approach to balance, center of gravity, center of pressure, flight surfaces, Both of those designs look like good solutions to the particular missions they were designed for, but crucially, neither looks (aerodynamically) anything like as clumsy and potentially uncontrollable as (in my opinion) "Exacalibur" does.

The flight control software to maintain stability on this thing is going to be COMPLEX, and particularly as you don't have a pilot on board, I think it's going to be incredibly hard to keep it stable. Can you imagine the computations involved in performing a "roll" - Look at the CGI - they just rotated it on its z-axis, no consideration for drag, pressure, gravity, when this "inverts" its going to encounter a lot of problems, just as it will when it moves from hover in to forward flight.

I'm not against designs that push the limit of conventional wisdom, as you cited, those are two good examples, but this just looks to me like bad design. Don't reinvent the wheel unnecessarily to produce a plane that performs a very limited roll compared to just about everything out there when in foward flight. The fact that it can't hover + fire is pathetic for a system that is designed to provide an alternative to gunship support.

I always respect what you say for many reasons, but in this case I do personally think this design stinks, it looks wrong so immediately in so many ways that I feel it is a case of pushing "what is possible" as opposed to what is optimised, effective, and practical.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT