Highly Autonomous Excalibur UCAV to take flight in 2009

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

DarthAmerica @FJV 7/27/2009 3:44:29 PM

Nothing I posted is directed at you. Going back through the thread, you have disagreed with that design and simply stated why. NOWHERE did you insult me or erroneously make assertions as to what I know or don't know. I appreciate that because if you hold your position and I hold mine, as we make point and counter point we learn from each other vs this other childish nonsense.

My claim remains the modern FCS can easily handle the invert maneuver such that reliability will not be an issue. I'm also saying that the VTOL feature is important for a set of missions that I know if in country right now and if this UAS were available the U.S. Army would certainly procure it in some numbers. The combination of VTOL/400kts and if it has ANY degree of persistence, even a few hours, then there is no doubt for me how it would be put to use.

-DA

Quote Reply

FJV Relax a little 7/27/2009 3:46:37 PM

Herald is right about this design and this topic. (And Darth's technical know how)

However, his debating style makes him look a bit like this guy:

I'm not sure the "drinking with Bob" debating style, helps to put points across more effectively.

I would say relax a little, most technical arguments made, make the some other posters look plenty stupid by itself. This does a better job than calling people incompetent or liars (deserved or not).

I will be the first to admit to having sometimes used the "drinking with Bob" debating style and worse *1). I'm no saint in that respect.

*1) Could post video examples of that worse thing also.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 You fantasize again. 7/27/2009 3:48:14 PM

You would have seen a one axis control problem solved through the parabola trajectory by a two fan linear lift and trajectory momentum solution. Your ignorance in trying to use that video of a simple one case solution as an example to prove your point about general hover flight control shows how appallingly ignorant about aircraft you actually are. The solutiion was highly specialized to the one specific problem described and cannot be generalized as a control solution from hover to horizontal flught into a bank and turn regime or to claim 2 axis control.

Do you realize who the stupid one revealed, here, is?

You are NOT qualified.

CREF above.

Again, you can't help but behave like an absolute child. What the Rufus video shows Herald, and all it was meant to show IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD, is that the act of flipping the UAS over is not some insurmountable problem and that modern FCS can do it. That's it. Yet here you go again, calling people stupid and trolling on my nuts as usual and trying to obfuscate and move the goal post onto something else. I've stated many times in this thread that this UAS has much ore to demonstrate before an opinion one way or the other can be made. Do you get that? Can you read? Now, stop trolling because as I said. You are only special to fanboys. REAL PROFESSIONALS see you for what you are. I'll hold of on characterizing you because it's obvious. You could have simply said, you don't like it, why and left it at that. All this BS you keep shoveling is trolling. But keep it up. See what happens.

-DA

You tried to claim a simple solution was applicable to a complex problem. I told you you were wrong. I gave you numerous specific reasons why the concept wouldn't work.; i told you for what to check. O even gave you specific fault points and control problems inherent in the design. Your malarkey? Troll, move goal posts, what does an UAS have to demonstrate, etc. but NOTHING have you p0resented to show that you understand the flight regime problems, and the control failures shown. here.

For example have you even bothered to do a fuel fraction calculation on that piece of junk to get a ballpark feel for what the TRUE TTW to get into hover and flight endurance realistic parameters for this crap vehicle realistically can be? How about BALLAST transfer aming the fuel tanks in the hover to maintain level attitude since that fuel fraction has to be HUGE for jet take off and land in a workung birs and not just for a three minute demo flight?

That is another one of those fails that you don't have the knowledge to address, poster.

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald12345 You fantasize again. 7/27/2009 3:50:53 PM

You would have seen a one axis control problem solved through the parabola trajectory by a two fan linear lift and trajectory momentum solution. Your ignorance in trying to use that video of a simple one case solution as an example to prove your point about general hover flight control shows how appallingly ignorant about aircraft you actually are. The solution was highly specialized to the one specific problem described and cannot be generalized as a control solution from hover to horizontal flight into a bank and turn regime or to claim 2 axis control.

Do you realize who the stupid one revealed, here, is?

You are NOT qualified.

CREF above.

Again, you can't help but behave like an absolute child. What the Rufus video shows Herald, and all it was meant to show IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD, is that the act of flipping the UAS over is not some insurmountable problem and that modern FCS can do it. That's it. Yet here you go again, calling people stupid and trolling on my nuts as usual and trying to obfuscate and move the goal post onto something else. I've stated many times in this thread that this UAS has much ore to demonstrate before an opinion one way or the other can be made. Do you get that? Can you read? Now, stop trolling because as I said. You are only special to fan boys. REAL PROFESSIONALS see you for what you are. I'll hold of on characterizing you because it's obvious. You could have simply said, you don't like it, why and left it at that. All this BS you keep shoveling is trolling. But keep it up. See what happens.

-DA

You tried to claim a simple solution was applicable to a complex problem. I told you you were wrong. I gave you numerous specific reasons why the concept wouldn't work.; i told you for what to check. O even gave you specific fault points and control problems inherent in the design. Your malarkey? Troll, move goal posts, what does an UAS have to demonstrate, etc. but NOTHING have you presented to show that you understand the flight regime problems, and the control failures shown. here.

For example have you even bothered to do a fuel fraction calculation on that piece of junk to get a ballpark feel for what the TRUE TTW to get into hover and flight endurance realistic parameters for this crap vehicle realistically can be? How about BALLAST transfer among the fuel tanks in the hover to maintain level attitude since that fuel fraction has to be HUGE for jet take off and land in a working bird and not just for a three minute demo flight?

That is another one of those fails that you don't have the knowledge to address, poster.

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/27/2009 4:02:47 PM

About my technical know how. I could employ Herald if I so chose.

-DA

Quote Reply

FJV 7/27/2009 4:05:54 PM

That makes you at most a manager, not an engineer. Sorry.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/27/2009 5:07:21 PM

That makes you at most a manager, not an engineer. Sorry.

Been there done that. Still do that as a private consultant. Don't need to beat my chest though stating who is and who isn't qualified though. Again, if people want to move goal post and obfuscate issues that's fine. The point is, there is nothing inherently insurmountable about this design. While it may look superficially to be complicated, no one here has enough information to make any kind of definitely judgements. Moreover, with regard to the utility, none of the critics thus far are experienced in the areas where such utility could prove useful. I am. Thats not to say you don't have valid concerns. But you would be wise to talk to the someone like me who would have direct interaction with machines like this before discounting it. The fact that some are not understanding the importance of the VTOL requirement is a clear sign that what we need a machine like this to do is a bit misunderstood. Now, having said that, I don't particularly care if the machine does a backflip into the air or turns cartwheels. The point is if it can VTOL and be forward deployed without reliance on fixed basing and has the speed ~400kts then we are on to something. Otherwise a MQ-18 or something similar would be fine.

What we need are the following:

Forward based VTOL

Low Speed Capability for loiter and ISR

Dash capability to enable responsiveness to time critical targets over broad area

If Excalibur can give that at reasonable cost then we are fine.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 U donm't work with the incompetent. 7/27/2009 8:46:45 PM

About my technical know how. I could employ Herald if I so chose.

-DA

or hire them.

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald12345 I don't work with the incompetent. 7/27/2009 8:49:25 PM

About my technical know how. I could employ Herald if I so chose.

-DA

Typos.....

I don't work with the incompetent or hire them..

Herald.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/28/2009 1:57:00 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

Quote Reply

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.

Excalibur is developed by Aurora Flight Sciences in conjunction with the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate and the Office of Naval Research. Aurora conducted extensive wind tunnel testing of scaled-down vehicles and plans to test a proof of principle aircraft in 2007, after which, the company plans to continue the development into full scale system.

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

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us