The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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