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   NEXT
neiyold       7/25/2009 4:26:04 PM
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.
 
Hmm, shouting at me, I must have it a nerve.  Is it flying?  Preliminary Design Review, nope havent seen it.  Generally those are CC.  Or do you mean a Publicly Documented Report, nope havent seen that either. Have you seen the design documents, not some website mumbo jumbo, but the actual feasibilty study, or design review, or status reports? 
 
Actually, I never said it would not work, just that, as others have said, it does not look to be an affordable game changer given the current information available.  I can comment based upon what I have seen...or not seen.
 
Is the design complete and flying operationaly?  Not a clue, do you know?  If you answer no then you cant tell me I dont know.  Two half blind men do not a cyclops make.  If you do know, say so.  If you "are not allowed" then why even posting about it here, that would surely not be professional!  Sheesh if I pulled a stunt like that...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       7/25/2009 4:30:47 PM

Looking at the Excalibur photo and video generates a few questions:

1. Why have the 2 wing-mounted lift fans retract into the wing? A much stronger, lighter, simpler and less expensive design would be to have 2 plates slide over (and under) the wing to expose the lift fans, much like a car sunroof.

2. Why have the main propulsion jet rotate? The technology to build a thrust diverting nozzle seems to be mature and reliable, and the overall installation is likely to be lighter. Additionally, installing / mounting some sort of centerline payload would be possible.

3. During the video lift-off sequences, the side weapon-mount pylons are not visible, yet they appear later just before the vehicle inverts. Where are they during lift-off? A solid center body (as per my #2) would seem to be less draggy, stealthier, and offer more useable cargo volume. Additionally, carrying a stretcher, say for medevacing an injured team member from a very remote site, would be much easier.

4. Why does the vehicle land with one side up, yet invert to fly? The possible argument that this places the lifting surfaces down, to keep the craft from rising / flipping due to gusts / high winds is easily mitigated by adding additional range of motion to the control surfaces (slats, flaps, etc.). Loading looks like a 2-man-lift, 1-man-guide operation, no matter whether the weapons are loaded from above or below. Same for maintenance. The design reasoning is unclear.
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       7/25/2009 4:34:37 PM

Correction: in one video sequence, the pylons are always visible. In the others they are not. This is slightly bothersome, as it makes the design look to be not yet stable.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/25/2009 4:38:44 PM

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.

 

Hmm, shouting at me, I must have it a nerve.  Is it flying?  Preliminary Design Review, nope havent seen it.  Generally those are CC.  Or do you mean a Publicly Documented Report, nope havent seen that either. Have you seen the design documents, not some website mumbo jumbo, but the actual feasibilty study, or design review, or status reports? 

 

Actually, I never said it would not work, just that, as others have said, it does not look to be an affordable game changer given the current information available.  I can comment based upon what I have seen...or not seen.

 

Is the design complete and flying operationaly?  Not a clue, do you know?  If you answer no then you cant tell me I dont know.  Two half blind men do not a cyclops make.  If you do know, say so.  If you "are not allowed" then why even posting about it here, that would surely not be professional!  Sheesh if I pulled a stunt like that...



Not trying to yell. Just saying that we don't really have enough info to judge the UAV design yet with anything other than opinion.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You yelled.   7/25/2009 4:48:22 PM




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.



 



Hmm, shouting at me, I must have it a nerve.  Is it flying?  Preliminary Design Review, nope havent seen it.  Generally those are CC.  Or do you mean a Publicly Documented Report, nope havent seen that either. Have you seen the design documents, not some website mumbo jumbo, but the actual feasibilty study, or design review, or status reports? 



 



Actually, I never said it would not work, just that, as others have said, it does not look to be an affordable game changer given the current information available.  I can comment based upon what I have seen...or not seen.



 



Is the design complete and flying operationaly?  Not a clue, do you know?  If you answer no then you cant tell me I dont know.  Two half blind men do not a cyclops make.  If you do know, say so.  If you "are not allowed" then why even posting about it here, that would surely not be professional!  Sheesh if I pulled a stunt like that...










Not trying to yell. Just saying that we don't really have enough info to judge the UAV design yet with anything other than opinion.




-DA 
He nailed you on point on the tech and on your lack of technical competence to address this subject in those points.
 
Seems to me that you yell at those who zing you on point like that.
 
Get over that problem and address the TECHNICAL objections directly, that is if you can..
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/25/2009 4:55:46 PM

He nailed you on point on the tech and on your lack of technical competence to address this subject in those points.

Seems to me that you yell at those who zing you on point like that.

Get over that problem and address the TECHNICAL objections directly, that is if you can..

Herald

In case you haven't figured it out, you are being ignored. NO ONE, has nailed me on anything troll.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

neiyold       7/25/2009 4:57:42 PM




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.



 



Hmm, shouting at me, I must have it a nerve.  Is it flying?  Preliminary Design Review, nope havent seen it.  Generally those are CC.  Or do you mean a Publicly Documented Report, nope havent seen that either. Have you seen the design documents, not some website mumbo jumbo, but the actual feasibilty study, or design review, or status reports? 



 



Actually, I never said it would not work, just that, as others have said, it does not look to be an affordable game changer given the current information available.  I can comment based upon what I have seen...or not seen.



 



Is the design complete and flying operationaly?  Not a clue, do you know?  If you answer no then you cant tell me I dont know.  Two half blind men do not a cyclops make.  If you do know, say so.  If you "are not allowed" then why even posting about it here, that would surely not be professional!  Sheesh if I pulled a stunt like that...










Not trying to yell. Just saying that we don't really have enough info to judge the UAV design yet with anything other than opinion.




-DA 

Yes, but intelligent opinion.  If you ask a history major with focus on 20th century western civ., his opinion on the long term consequences of the Clinton years, you would, normally, weigh that opinion more heavily than if you were to ask a physician.  Both are professionals, different subject matter of excellence.  However, if you were to ask history major with a focus on Roman history about the long term consequences of the Clinton years, then his opinion would still in all likely hood be of greater worth than the physicians because is still practiced in the art (and science) of history.  Same effect here, anyone involved in product development engineering can look at a concept and make a relative judgement on the merits  and faults.  Identifiying the faults is how we determine if the risk is worth the investment.  To me (opinion time), givent the complexity of the flight profile and limited weapons release, a helicopter type UAV seems immiently more practical and less prone to accident.
 
Caveat, I do not claim to be an aerospace engineer of any type.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       7/25/2009 5:02:48 PM
You guys are missing the forest for the trees a bit on this one.
 
The point here isn't to say whether this specific design is totally awesome or not.
 
Personally I think it looks needlessly complex for something with a relatively simple mission.  Whether or not it is possible to make this particular vehicle work doesn't concern me, because it is without a doubt possible to make something very similar work.
 
The real point here is that vehicles with a similar set of capabilities to what this one is trying to achieve will likely begin appearing on battlefields within the next decade or so.  The ability to operate from totally unimproved locations with sufficient striking power to destroy a handful of enemy positions or vehicles is a big deal.
 
Imagine a small UAV armed a few small missiles that could be carried in the back of a small truck and launched with only minutes of notice.
 
Put one of these trucks/systems in a convoy and the commander would be able to send it up ahead to check out anything of interest at any point.  If attacked, he would have his own organic air-power available almost instantly. 
 
Basically imagine this:
 
h*tp://www.aurora.aero/TacticalSystems/GoldenEye80.aspx
 
With a few of these:
 
h*tp://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/DAGR/index.html
 
There is no reason such a UAV couldn't be launched from a moving truck, and quite possibly land on a moving truck.  The idea wouldn't be for the UAV to stay airborne all of the time.  Most of the time it would just be hitching a ride on the ground, when required however it would be available at a moment's notice.   Approaching a blind curve? or a village with a history of trouble?  See movment on the next ridge?  Send up the UAV for a quick look, at worst it will burn a couple liters of fuel.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

neiyold       7/25/2009 8:32:50 PM
Actually, that is about all that I am trying to say, that with an eye to development costs and system complexity, it appears to me that there ought to be an easier way to do this.  Even using a lift fan approach, which given the relative expected affordability of the F35 ought to become an easier and easier method of achieving VTOL.  Licensing cost may become an issue, but nothing that is insurmountable.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    OMG!   7/27/2009 12:27:37 PM
I have the haunting suspicion that the UAV has to flip over on the reverse side for  forward flight, because otherwise the air flow to the main engine would be disrupted/blocked.
 
This design is getting weirder and weirder and I do not mean this in a positive way.
 

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



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