You are both missing the point. Rufus got it. Its not about the complexity of the respective VTOL systems. Its about phased incremental flight testing. You don't make a first flight and demonstrate the absolute performance limits of the aircraft. So the criticism was invalid. They set up a test flight to demonstrate VTOL and did it. Thats a success. That was the purpose.

At no time was I making a direct comparison of the specifics of the X-35B or Excalibur propulsion systems.  My intent was to demonstrate that when you are flight testing, you start off with small steps and test very specific performance. It's not just a free for all flight demo to prove the absolute limits of the flight envelope.

-DA 

In its first hover test the F-35B had to demonstrate stable 2 axis hover. The VTOL piece of crap you showed  failed to even meet that criterion.

 

You need to fundamentally understand that you don't know what the ____ you are talking about here and learn to park that ego of yours when you try to make a false argument and actually read what others specifically TELL you.

 

Its not hard to dismiss you out of hand, when you don't even try to follow the tech and understand it..

 

Over and OVER.

.  

 

The thing is, this whole concept has been sold on "what it might eventually achieve if we can make everything work", a better way to look at the problem would be "what we know will work, and what we can make it achieve", I do understand to a degree that you're not talking up this particular design, but rather, are showing examples of various UCAV concepts that will (maybe) be fielded.

 

I guess the responses have highlighted the major areas of concern.

 

Failure modes: Enough said already about it, it's going to have a FAR higher failure rate than predator, and I think to dispute that given the design in current form is going against reason and the inevitable amount of prototype write-offs that are going to happen. Given they are seeking funding just to get the F**king thing to crawl forward in the air how likely does this seem?

 

Range: It has to do a lot in a massively inefficient couple of flight profiles before it inverts for tactical usage, in all likelihood they would deploy this as STOVL wherever possible, in which case why compromise SO much on everything else to make it VTOL?

 

Flight Profile: well, look at it. I very much doubt the top speed, what is it based on?

 

Cost to develop: HUGE, because it has three completely seperate flight profiles that have to work, it has to be designed to be stable, maintain lift inverted, to de-invert, and then fly with a good degree of control. 

 

Limited Payload: 4 hellfires vs (up to) 16 on an apache plus 1200 rounds of 30mm HE.

 

No hover, no gun (so presumably this thing is going to be engaging individual RPG armed insurgents with a massively expensive anti-tank missile?) Most apache kills are with 30mm, it couldn't provide anything like the support that it can without it, and would only be useful as an initial strike platform that couldn't "clear up". As I understand the apache is especially useful for mopping up enemy combatants who have hidden in cover on roadsides, ditches, etc, what use is a system that can not engage these? The apache's 30mm is the most useful weapon for this role, without which it would be far less useful to you.

 

I think the concept of a VTOL UCAV is great, it's just that this design, as has been stated, looks massively unwieldy, and doesn't demonstrate anything like the control/stability of the F35 on its maiden flight, it resembles more of a uni-project or toy. 

 

Don't invest.

You cannot assert that as a matter of fact. I understand that the mode of flight is more complex. But thats where the more advanced computers and FCS SW of today come in.

Because it needs to not be tied to a fixed basing mode. The same reasons HELOs do it. VTOL is a critical capability for this design and would be extremely useful. I can go more into why, but I don't think it's appropriate. Without getting into details, I can say that this basing mode allows organic armed UAS coverage probably as low as BN level. What we lose in performance due to VTOL we more than make up for with basing options, coverage and timeliness of response.

OK, but why? If they say they are building to this then IMHO we should let them demonstrate it.

Could be Viper Strike as well...

 

Why bother agonising over designs to make something that's effective and reliable, when any idiot that makes "a cool looking RC model" can do a Hollywood dog and pony show and end up with millions of taxpayer money?

 

As for the arguments here, an anology would be arguing that a car with 4 seperate 2 cilinder engines, each independently driving a wheel will perform better than a conventional 4 wheel drive car with a single V8 engine.

 

But that's a poor analogy without seeing the implementation. As my words and that video Rufus posted shows, inverting is very possible and a computer could handle it. The appropriate step is to let the engineers finish the product and THEN assess if it has a positive MUA. Or you could suggest an alternate design that gives the equal or better performance. You can't do the latter because we don't know enough about Excalibur requirements yet. So you can say its an awkward design, but you cannot credibly criticize it YET.

If VTOL weren't necessary then I'd agree with you. But it is and I explained why. So more patience IMHO...

-DA 

 

 

Actually, its not that poor of analogy from a burdened development path.  4x engines means 4x transmissions.  It means a more complicated suspension system and a more complicated fuel and air flow arrangement.  It means a more complicated wiring system (which would probably be heavier).  From a development path viewpoint they are both in the same class, high risk, high complexity, low reward when there are other proven architectures (or platforms) that reduce development risk and provide usable increases in performance.

 

 

And I can criticize it now (and so can you!) even though I am not an automotive engineer or designer (or investor) because I can do a feasibility analysis and return an opinion.

 

 

As far as the UAV concept, well the A10 is ugly, but it does not have any over arching design tradeoffs that would hinder its ability to achieve its requirements at excessive risk.  In the case of the F35 lift fan, again we see that the integrity of the idea is sound, afterall fans have been used to provide lift, turbines to provide rotational forces for work.  The F35 risk is in the complexity of system as a whole in an affordable package (read: development cost and timeframe).

 

This UAV does meet the integrity argument because of the number of failure modes are so high given the ungainly functionality of if its operating method and flight profiles!  That is the epitomy of high risk.  Looking back now, it seems obvious that the Convair Tailsitters were a horrible concept for anything other than pure experimentation.  That seems to me to be the chief value in this UAV, but the flight profile just makes the whole proposition dotty.

YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO SAY THAT YET. Have you seen PDR or CDR documents? Is the design complete and flying operationally? If you answered no, you don't know.

-DA