Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Killer Drone's Big Brother

If you stop by this site regularly, you probably know about Boeing's efforts to develop an killer drone for the Air Force.

x45c.JPGYou might have read about how a prototype "unmanned combat aerial vehicle," or UCAV, has already gone on trial bombing runs. Or how a pair of the drones came up with attack plans of their own -- and executed them on a mock air-defense battery. It was one of more than 60 test flights for the UCAV.

But that was just the first model, the 8,000-pound X-45A. The other day, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports, Boeing showed off its next edition, which, at 18,000 pounds, is more than twice as big: the X-45C.

It will be powered by an F404-GE-102D engine, the same kind used on Boeing's two-engine F-18.

The X-45C will be able to fly at 40,000 feet and at Mach .85. It will carry two 2,000-pound precision-guided bombs or up to eight small-diameter bombs. Its operational combat radius will be 1,100 to 1,300 nautical miles.

That's far more range than manned fighters have without being refueled.

Drones have been armed for a while, now. Look at what the Predator has done. But those planes are remote-controlled, completely. The UCAV is supposed to fly itself, make decisions for itself, the Seattle Times notes.

The aircraft's sensors identify and approach targets autonomously. The remote pilot gives consent to strike with a mouse click.

"Yet there are serious questions as to the long-term funding of the next-generation X-45-type unmanned aircraft," the Times adds.

Richard Aboulafia, industry analyst with the Teal Group, called the program "the worst-funded good idea in decades" and said it's unclear if the budget to produce combat versions will be there.

THERE'S MORE: If the X-45's $1.2 billion price tag seems a little out of your reach, maybe this little remote-controlled spy plane will be more your speed. It takes 26 pictures from up to 1,000 feet. And it's selling at Wal-Mart for $148.32.

(Big ups: CP)

Latest Comments

the informations about aircrafts are not complet

Posted by: farzam at September 6, 2006 2:35 PM


first of all ı'd like appreciate ur job as ıam turkish air force officer this drone ı think will enhance its limits beyond the boundaries. not only it will ensure air superiority but also will implement c&c . but what ı want to ask is to u that will it be sound barrier like (auroras- mach 6 best for reconnaissence , will it be fighter or bomber ,what are the arsenals (classical hellfires,spikes amraam missiles) ı am happy to observe such evolvements

Posted by: Turkerville at March 23, 2006 3:05 AM


TO THOSE WHO GRIPE,THEY NEED A RIDE ON NICE HOSTILE A.O. FIND OUT HOW TIGHT THIER POSTIER CAN ASUME! THEN ASK THE IDIOT IF HE WANTS TO GO AGAIN.YOU MAY KNOW THE ANSWER....

Posted by: roweroert at December 11, 2005 10:49 PM


Good Morning hamster,

I read your post with interest. You mention target selection as one of the reasons a pilot is infact a critical part of the air-to-air battle.

I'm confused a little and maybe someone can help me out here. Current air-to-air doctrine calls for a stand off shot at the 100-150Km. range. The targeting and FoF ID is done by a third party mostly an E-3 for the Navy/Marines or and AWACS for the U.S.A.F. since the target is over the pilots visual horizon.

Once ID'ed. as an unfriendly the F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. is susposre to engage at that range. The target is clearly out of visual range of the U.S. Fighter Pilot.

So my question here is what is the work load of the pilot other the launching the selected weapon?

In the historicaly unlikely case since Vietnam where an enemy Fighter could get with in gun range of a UCAV and shoot it down, so what. The wing UCAV gets the bad guy, the pilot instead of becomming a POW goes off to the Club and washes down his defeat with a drink and then off to the Casinos with his Lady.

The enemy shot down a $25Million UCAV, not a $100+Million U.S. Fighter jet, but still lost an aircraft and maybe a pilot in the process. What's the downside here?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 11, 2005 3:04 PM


Neat idea, stormhawk! You could, say, reconfigure an F-15E (or some other two-seater able to keep up with the X-45, maybe an old A-6?) as a drone-minder and include it as part of the strike package.
The question of how the UCAV selects targets for A2A engagement is a valid one, IMHO, and I think it wouldn't be too different from the system we have now with AWACS IDing targets and handing them off to fighters for interception. In this case, the scope dopes (a disparaging name for a very intense job, though we know it's all in good fun) would simply hand targets off to the UCAV controller, or even directly to the UCAV.
Imagine... In some E-3 over the Sea of Japan, a captain right-clicks on a bandit, selects "INTERCEPT" from the menu, and clicks on a flight of A/FQ-45Cs to take it down...

And that's why I'd never support it for use in a civilian-heavy traffic environment. AWACS can be wrong, too; a USAF pilot got a medal back in GWI for taking the time to visually ID a Saudi Tornado which the AWACS were calling for him to engage.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at December 11, 2005 11:46 AM


» View All 20 Comments

» Post a Comment