Sure, dood tell yourself anything that makes you happy, but there is no way this a/c is going to cost so little....

there were some interesting numbers crunched up a few years back.

initially there was a view that UCAV's could cost 30% of an exquiv manned weapons delivery platform. within a few months it was recalculated to approx 70%

the numbers get even more interesting when you do proper system based costing.  ie, the through life, and systems support costs start to include ground station vehicles, controllers, training for controllers, (complex UAV's can involve up to 10x more peripheral staff to do the job) etc...

in fact, there is some pretty good evidence coming out of things like BAMs and tac UAV missions that show that the human resource cost is more than manned.  where it "saves"  is at the actual manned platform level because the issue of persistence and projection, endurance, fatigue, medical etc  is saved at the coal face...  but in the case of a long range UAV, they're finding that there needs to be regular shift rotation of the controllers (every few hours, if not every hour if complex).

the dollar saving argument has been rewritten a few times - and its creeping up, not down 

Agreed with DA, the technology already exists and would be to difficult to employ.  Routes and plans can be pre-programmed with a pre-programmed RTB if the UCAV does indeed lose contact, it does happen.

 

Having your UCAV's up would provide a rapid and very visible nuclear deterrent and would be able to provide some form, maybe limited, of ISR in its location.

 

However the costs associated with these systems are going up because the support force required is pretty large, however switching controllers out every hour or even every 4 is not happening.  They might get breaks or something but shifts are likely 8 to 12 hours.  Support forces include airborne control with all the very complicated and specialized comm gear in place in their little boxes, mx for the aircraft and the boxes themselves, and a crew at the landing area to either land or monitor the landing.  Factor in logistical support for the personnel at both locations.

 

DA is right about the tiered responses, NUCAV's would be able to provide what B-52's did during the Cold War, up in the air using less fuel providing a ready response 24/7.  Cruise missles play a different role and those aren't reusable.  Ballistic missles also play a different role.  I'd argue that a UCAV that can carry conventional weapons can easily carry nukes as well, the question is would you want it to?

 

Will the DoD or the American public trust a machine, unmanned, to carry nukes?  Regardless of how safe it is in actuality, public perception as to how safe it is would be far different.  Considering the severity and definite loss of life in any nuclear conflict, wouldn't it be prudent to put a man up there who can make that final decision?  Do we really want to leave it up to Skynet or the Whoppr?  Not reactionary and anti UAV but real questions that the public will ask.

Anyone who has been involved with the comms portion of a SIOP plan knows why this is a non-starter.

 

The problem is there are too many people in power that don't have Cold War experience and have forgotten what nuclear calculus is, why are triad was built the way it is, and why the protocols we have now were developed. If you understand the why, then you can understand how this doesn't work.

I understand perfectly why, I know not only does it work, but almost all of the needed technologies are operational and the only legitimate criticism whatsoever in all of the post in this thread are those who bring up institutional resistance and the fact that we might be uncomfortable without a man in direct control ON BOARD. Other than that, all challenges with regard to technological feesibility are invalid, all challenges with regards to COMMS architecture vulnerability are invalid, all questions of cost are invalid ect. Not that I don't respect those of you who disagree, but in my opinion you are clearly wrong. In fact, in a hurry, the DoD could put a nuclear armed UCAV in the air before the end of summer if necessary. Maybe faster. It would be crude, but could be done. Extend that timeline out to 2018 or so and a fully functional feature complete N-UCAS could be operational. Of course that assumes the funding is there. Any doubters should refer to the fact that the USAF is already looking into something just like this.

-DA

 

Ir send a clear a clear and public message like Nixon dd in the 72 Arab Israeli war. Yeah, some of us do understand the advantages of a MANNED bomber as part of the Triad. Ben.

 

The ICCM has uts modern place in the mix because they can be made relatively cheaply and they are HARD to stop, but they should be supplemental toi the ICBM force as a means to blow holes open in the enemy defense.

 

One  comment about basing. There are those huge salt flats un the Western United States. The entire  arsenal of the old Soviet Union couldn't stop the old SAC from using that as a HUGE ad-hoc bomber base.  

 

And then there is one more comment. It was the idiot Clinton Administration that disbanded SAC. Its been reconstoituted of sorts as GSC or Global Strike Command. Talk about reinventing the WHEEL! What goes around comes around. And that comment  goes for all of you truck drivers! Leave the rocket science to the rocketeers.........

 

Herald

 

 

 

No its not. Facts trump assertions:

 

From RAYTHEON.... 

 

Three years hasn't changed much.

 

Herald

therein lies a significant part of the problem,  I'm sure I'm not the only one in here who's attended technology briefings where the senior uniforms and civilian "governing" partners expectations of what they want and what they expect to achieve are dislocated from what the geeks are able to guarantee.

the problem is that at a number of levels, some senior uniforms are blinded by the endgame tactical opportunity over the reality of what can safely be delivered/

unfortunately people die as a result when those views aren't synchronised.

can it be done - yes, years away.  now?  all you're doing is putting your own dependant stakeholders/operators in unnecessary harms way so that some boofhead can claim innovation. 

tread softly, slowly, responsibly.  people need to pull back and pause on the spin generated from some in industry...