UAV with Auto-Canon?

[Evolv5]

I've always thought it would be an interesting concept to see a UAV with an auto-canon instead of 60000$ Hellfire missiles.
Not only would it be cheaper, but I also believe it would be more effective in some instances, such open fields :) (why waste thousands of dollars when it could be done with some 25 or 30 mm ... even 12.7mm but I think that's too small). But I also believe that with fine tuning an auto-canon could even be accurate enough to be used in urban areas, much like the Apaches M230.

So here is what I come to from some internet research,

The Vehicle:

MQ-9 Reaper (your average UAV of the USAF)
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/6726/300pxmq9reaperinflight2zm8.jpg

Current Armament


6 Hardpoints

1,500 lb (680 kg) on the two inboard weapons stations
500–600 lb (230–270 kg) on the two middle stations
150–200 lb (68–91 kg) on the outboard stations



This beast cannot only handle Hellfires, but also 500 lb GBU-12 Paveway II bombs, as well as plans for JDAMS and Sidewinders.

So, if we do some math, the MQ-9 should at least be able to carry 2000 lbs (900 kg +) of weaponry. [rounding down]

Ideas of Auto-Canons:

Well, first you'd have to choose between .50 cal (12.7 mm) , 25mm or 30 mm (anything bigger would not in my opinion be feasible).
The canon would have to be able to penetrate soft skin, and maybe even lightly armored vehicles, along with your average house wall.
.50 cal Armor Piercing sounds a bit too weak in my opinion, not enough punch at long distances (remember the UAV cruises at quite some altitude).

25/30 mm has good armor piercing abilities, and good effective range.

The two good options that I find are:

M242 Bushmaster (25 mm)
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7130/300pxm2421sh8.jpg

Weight: 110 kg (243 lb)
Effective range: 3000 m
Max. Range: 6800 m

or

Hughes M230 Chain Gun(30 mm)
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1894/300pxm23030mmgunad5.jpg

Currently used on the Apache gunship.

Weight: 25 kg (56 lb)
Effective range: 1500 m
Max. Range: 4500 m

So, which one to choose?

Well, the M230 is already being used on the Apaches, so a weapons system already exists for it. I'm not sure what the total weight is, but I'm pretty sure that you must be able to cram the M230 + weapons system + optics + a few hundred rounds of ammunition in under 900 kg?

Maybe even convert an M230 into 25 mm, would that possibly achive longer range + more ammunition/lighter weight?

Issues:

Well first of all, the cruising altitude of the MQ-9 seems to be around 25 000 ft (7500m), so you would probably have to fly at a lower altitude to achieve accuracy.
It's also a question of recoil ... how will it affect the flight performance of the UAV?

But all in all, doesn't this sound like a feasible idea?
Or am I the only one who has had this thought?

Please let me know what you think / if you have any ideas, or see that I'm clearly wrong somewhere. Feel free to post.

P.S. most of these facts are from Wikipedia and some other internet sources, so they might not be spot on.

[Kilgor]

A gun would be cool, but the goal here is to fly high, silent and invisible and surgically strike targets.

If the drone is in gun range, then its in the enemies range too.

[Vympel]

A gun would be cool, but the goal here is to fly high, silent and invisible and surgically strike targets.

If the drone is in gun range, then its in the enemies range too.

So insurgents have something to shoot ~1500m?

[Eeobroht87]

I dunno - what's the max altitude of the Igla/Sterla MANPADs? :p

[Britboy]

Gun sounds interesting, beneficial financially.

Only problem I can really see is that you would load up a UAV with said autocannon and then, what do you know, a target which makes you really wish you put missiles on it pops up instead. Although, granted, there may be a lot of targets atm that are tackled with missiles that you wish you could have a (Cheaper) cannon for.

The only other thing is you are going to need an EO sensor in order to surveil the area and then aim this thing. Thats going to eat into your weight. Plus I'd think UAVs to be rather slow to allow for survivability if you're planning to go low. Of course, they are unmanned for that, but they're still fricking costly.

I wonder if 20mms would save weight and also allow small rockets (FFAR?) to be carried as well, for an all-round set-up?

UAVs may be usable as weapons carriers, but FWIW I'd say their real potency is ISTAR. Whilst you are wanting to hit things from the air and that is grand, does it risk taking the UAVs away from the surveillance role they were originally intended for, to the detriment of the G2 side of life? Does this also risk a duplication of roles with helicopters and CAS?

Why have a UAV strafing with guns and ISTAR potentially hurt, when you could have UAVs do the loitering and the spotting, and call in helos/CAS/arty for the shooting?

[Vympel]

I dunno - what's the max altitude of the Igla/Sterla MANPADs? :p

Depends of how tall shooter is. I was bit unaware that those MANPADs are widely used in A-stan or Iraq..

[Jagr]

They are developing mortar shells that have GPS capability. A drone would be able to carry dozens of them and if they can be targeted well they would be more than enough in most cases.. It would allow the drone to loiter for long periods and keep engaging the enemy. The problem with guns is the system itself is heavy, and the ballistics suck from anything but low altitute. Most of these drones are flying WAY WAY up there.

[Eeobroht87]

Depends of how tall shooter is. I was bit unaware that those MANPADs are widely used in A-stan or Iraq..
You never know when they're going to pop up and be used. I dont know if the Taleban's used all the Stingers the US supplied in the 80s yet, and there was that commercial aircraft that was hit by a SA-7 IIRC in Iraq a few years ago, so there's historical precedent...

[ARGAR FORKBEARD]

intersting idea!
what if they put it on the helo uav the us navy are testing??




http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/wp/images/AIR_UAV_A160T_1k_Test_Payload_lg.jpg
not sure what this one is

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/MQ-8B_Fire_Scout.jpeg/800px-MQ-8B_Fire_Scout.jpeg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/MQ-8B_Fire_Scout.jpeg)

fire scout

[Asheren]

It wasn't designed to carry such weapons. There are many other factors not only ability to carry weapon system and sufficient amount of ammo. Some parts or frame might not be able to withstand recoil effect. Heat also could be an issue.

[ARGAR FORKBEARD]

It wasn't designed to carry such weapons. There are many other factors not only ability to carry weapon system and sufficient amount of ammo. Parts or frame might not be able to withstand recoil effect.
true!!
but i think its a good concept none the less!

[3rdMillhouse]

intersting idea!
what if they put it on the helo uav the us navy are testing??




http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/wp/images/AIR_UAV_A160T_1k_Test_Payload_lg.jpg
not sure what this one is

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/MQ-8B_Fire_Scout.jpeg/800px-MQ-8B_Fire_Scout.jpeg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/MQ-8B_Fire_Scout.jpeg)

fire scout

Exactly what I thought the very second I've spotted this thread. A UCAV armed with a 20mm auto-cannon, like the Cobra.

[Kaapeli]

So, which one to choose?

The weights you gave are propably just for the stripped cannon without electronic control systems and ammunition.

Why not use an already existing gun pod system that can propably be mounted on the hardpoints without significant modifications.
The GPU-2/A 20mm gun pod weights only 265kg fully loaded and I think it's compatible with standard hardpoints.
The problem with gunpods is that they are point and shoot weapons so you have to strafe with the aircraft because they don't have swiveling mounts like most helicopters do.

[NeoConPatriot]

I think the idea behind the GPS guided mortars is a compromise between large munitions and a cannon. You can drop several at once and get the impact of a large munition or you can drop one at a time for "pinpoint" work. "Pinpoint" in this instance is obviously relative.

[GazB]

So insurgents have something to shoot ~1500m?

14.5mm HMGs will do that no problem. 23mm towed guns could also do the job though they are less mobile.

The idea is interesting, the pivotal thing is cheap but still accurate.

I like the idea of adding simple laser homing heads to unguided rockets. Two 70mm rocket pods means 38 rockets that can have payloads from smoke to mark targets for other platforms/local forces, through to HE for area targets and HEAT for pinpoint hard targets. With the laser guidance they can be fired to ballistic range with high accuracy.
Not all the rockets need to be guided for area targets... or even warning shots if you want to capture someone perhaps.
The problem is cost. If it costs 10,000 per rocket like I heard the US system cost then it is a waste of time. If it can be knocked down to 2-3 thousand per rocket that will not be too much more than a normal rocket. However even if it is 5 times the cost of a rocket the difference is the amount you fire. At 3km from a target you might have to launch an entire pods worth of HE just to make sure you hit a point target or to get good coverage of an area target. With laser guidance then you might be able to hit that point target at twice that range with a single rocket.
I believe the French are also working on a similar system for their SNEB 68mm rockets, while the Russians are working on the Ugroza system that can reportedly be fitted to their full range of operational unguided rocket range. (S-8 80mm, S-13 122mm, S-24 240mm, and S-25 266mm). This gives you a range of warhead sizes from about 6kg through up to 32kg, to 125kg for the S-24, and 150kg for the S-25 rockets.

The Russians also have interesting gunpods that might be relevant to what you are talking about. The SPPU-22 has a twin barrel 23mm cannon with 260 rounds in a gunpod where the barrels can be lowered from level (ie 0 degrees) down to 30 degrees. It was designed to be used by the Mig-27 and the late model Su-17s and they could be fitted facing forwards or backwards to allow the pilot to start shooting in a dive but let the pilot then pull up up to 30 degrees from the dive and still continue to fire. Onboard computers kept the barrels horizontally aligned during firing.
The SPPU-6 takes it all a step further and has a gun that can be depressed from 0 to 45 degrees and also sweep 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right. The gun is a 6 barreled 23mm gatling gun firing at up to 12,000rpm. This pod has 500 rounds in it.
This latter weapon is carried only by the Su-24 AFAIK but possibly also the Su-34.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

A few humble thoughts from me

I just don't see a mini-gun as the best weapon for a UAV.

1) I don't they could carry enough ammo to justify the effort.
2) I would guess the heavy recoil associated with the M242 (25 mm) and M230 (30 mm) would substantially degrade the surveillance (ISR) capabilities of a UAV, be it a fixed wing or a rotary wing aircraft. In videos, the M230 shakes the Apache, a fairly substantial aircraft. And in any case the M230 is an area weapon.
3) I would think the above canons would require a lot of electrical power. Not sure it's in the budget along with a surveillance payload.

The heavier weapons may be workable in a Unmanned Little Bird (currently in development, can be controlled from an Apache); it has a fairly high payload capacity. Or maybe the Remote Guardain System (GAU-17, 7.62), being developed for the V22, could possibly be used on it.

But if you really want to use a canon in a Predator or Reaper UAV, the XM307 (25 mm) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM307_Advanced_Crew_Served_Weapon) or XM312 (.50 BMG) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM312) might be more suitable candidates as weapons. One can be converted into the other. I rather like the idea of using a UAV as a sniping platform.

A less expensive precision weapon alternative might be one of the guided, 70 mm Hydra rocket concepts.

[ZeroZen]

Adding an Auto-canon would require structural changes and it will be met with undesirable competition with pilots job security.

[helomech]

$70,000 for each Hellfire missile?Damn,I didn't realize they cost that much per copy

Too bad an ion cannon isn't available like the kind in the video game Command and Conquer!p-)

[Lazarou]

The Mauser RMK30 recoilless autocannon seems like an ideal weapon for the task.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9108/wmrmk30go3.jpg

- low recoil
- low rate of fire
- high accuracy

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1506&lang=3&pdb=1

[benbach]

i think its a good idea for more of the hovering UAV types than a high flying airplane types.

[kilroy1911]

i think its a good idea for more of the hovering UAV types than a high flying airplane types.

yeah, i was going to say the same... with the effective range of any autocannon you cannot fly too high and to shoot at the same time... it can be effective for low flying helicopter-like
UAVs but i cant imagine using autocannon on reaper for example.

[Hispeed1]

A gun would be cool, but the goal here is to fly high, silent and invisible and surgically strike targets.
If the drone is in gun range, then its in the enemies range too.

What he said.

[Mackie]

Don't saw Lazarous post. Sry. Please delete.

[Evolv5]

The Mauser RMK30 recoilless autocannon seems like an ideal weapon for the task.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9108/wmrmk30go3.jpg

- low recoil
- low rate of fire
- high accuracy

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1506&lang=3&pdb=1

Yeah I found that one later on, it's caseless as well I believe.

All the comment on the UAV structure not being able to handle the recoil, well that is probably true. You would need a specifically built UAV, I was exaggerating a bit with the MQ-9. I don't mean that you can just bolt it on a be good to go.

I never thought about the 25mm grenade launcher, sounds reasonable.

The GPS guided mortar idea ... well I read that they were going to cost 5000$ per round, still quite expensive in my opinion.


How 'bout if we go back to the bare minimum.

Would a UAV with a .50 cal + "tailored rounds" be effecient?
Possibly using the GAU-16/A (M2 strapped onto UH-1 Helicopters during Vietnam), or the XM312 as Lt.Col A-Tack mentioned.

I like the idea of possibly having a UAV armed with, let's say the M2 circling above a village providing firesupport from above. In the "mini-CAS" role.

Sure, it would be a prime target for MANPADS I suppose, but if we're fighting an unconvetional war, or insurgency, I could see the use of such a platform in A-stan. No?

Thanks for all your thought.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

That Mauser RMK30 looks fairly heavy. Not sure which UAV could carry it, and the ammo, and don't know if it can supply enough electrical power to operate it.

My final recommendation:

An MQ-9 Reaper (it's big enough, and was intended to operate as a hunter-killer) paired with an XM307 / XM312.


http://www.youtube.com/v/wHf_vMd5MOQ&hl=en&fs=1

The mount for the crew-served weapon appears to attenuate the recoil substantially, and as mentioned earlier, they can be converted from one to the other (about 6:24 into the video).

[Mackie]

To compare it:
http://military.people.com.cn/mediafile/200702/07/F2007020710305400009.jpg
Not very small but you also need less material to mount it.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

To compare it:
http://military.people.com.cn/mediafile/200702/07/F2007020710305400009.jpg
Not very small but you also need less material to mount it.

I have to admit, that does look pretty cool :)
Is it a Weasel? Any shots of it firing?

[Evolv5]

How about a MQ-9 with both a XM307 and XM312. 307 for the heavier targets and 312 for "sniping".

Or, would it be worthwhile possibly having a smaller UAV just with the purpose of "sniping"? Maybe a semi auto .50 cal rifle?

Personally I like the idea of the XM307 / 312, thanks for finding it :)

Now if I could only build one ... :D

[Lazarou]

That Mauser RMK30 looks fairly heavy.
From the manufacturer's site:


"The RMK weapon system can be integrated into practically any conceivable platform, including trailers, containers and vehicles; and thanks to its low weight, compactness and simple design, it can also be retrofitted into existing platform vehicles."

RMK30: 100 kg
M242 Bushmaster: 110 kg
GIAT 30: 120 kg
Bushmaster II: 154.6 kg

[Migs]

why put an auto-cannon on a UAV?

[Lazarou]

To compare it:

http://military.people.com.cn/mediafile/200702/07/F2007020710305400009.jpg

Not very small but you also need less material to mount it.
Optical illusion... ;)

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9069/rmk3001vh4.gif

I have to admit, that does look pretty cool :)
Is it a Weasel? Any shots of it firing?
The only pic I've seen of a Wiesel firing an RMK30, from weapons trials held in 2000:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5535/rmkya2.jpg

[GazB]

The problem with guns in fighters are stated as maintainence costs, vibration effecting delicate electronics etc, and residue from propellents that are potentially corrosive covering the aircraft parts and needing to be cleaned. On fighters that rarely use guns these are serious issues. On a UAV that might use such a weapon more often then it might be worth the extra maintainence and cost overall to reduce the cost of munitions.

The problem however is range and to a degree accuracy. Putting a gun on something adds a lot of weight. There is the gun itself, the ammo feed system, the ammo itself, plus the extra weight of the turret system for aiming the gun and stabilising it too. Then there is the extra problem of the ballistics computer and aiming system. Adding all this to a UAV means the UAV just got much heavier and much more expensive.
With all that it still doesn't have the range and accuracy of any sort of light missile.

Personally I think the best solution is cheaper guided rockets. The basic problem is cost.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The Mauser RMK30 recoilless autocannon seems like an ideal weapon for the task.
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9108/wmrmk30go3.jpg
- low recoil
- low rate of fire
- high accuracy
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?fid=1506&lang=3&pdb=1
"Low recoil" would be relative I would think.

From the manufacturer's site:
RMK30: 100 kg
M242 Bushmaster: 110 kg
GIAT 30: 120 kg
Bushmaster II: 154.6 kg
XM307, 50 lbs (22.7 kg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM307_Advanced_Crew_Served_Weapon) and XM312, 52 lb. (19kg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM312) Just being a little competitive. p-)

The only pic I've seen of a Wiesel firing an RMK30, from weapons trials held in 2000:
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5535/rmkya2.jpg
Thanks for the pics, sir.


why put an auto-cannon on a UAV?Basically, I would think for the same reason missiles are put on them: given UAVs ability to loiter for extended periods of time, targets of opportunity may present themselves. Probably, easier to keep a UAV overhead to support an operation.

The problem however is range and to a degree accuracy. Putting a gun on something adds a lot of weight. There is the gun itself, the ammo feed system, the ammo itself, plus the extra weight of the turret system for aiming the gun and stabilising it too. Then there is the extra problem of the ballistics computer and aiming system. Adding all this to a UAV means the UAV just got much heavier and much more expensive.
With all that it still doesn't have the range and accuracy of any sort of light missile.
That why I was thinking a bigger UAV (like the Reaper or Unmanned Little Bird) with a smaller gun (XM307 or 312)


Personally I think the best solution is cheaper guided rockets. The basic problem is cost.There are a few programs: here (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/guided-hydra-rockets-program-halts-new-entries-03157/) and here (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/) (APKWS II, LOGIR, DAGR, CRV7,GATR-L) with the objective of turning the Hydra 70 mm rockets into to precision weapons.

From the first link:
"This clears the way for DAGR rockets to be employed immediately on larger unmanned aerial vehicles like the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, MC-1C Sky Warrior, and MQ-8B Fire Scout; on AH-1 Cobra, AH-64 Apache, H-60 Seahawk, OH-58 Kiowa, and Eurocopter Tiger helicopters; and on the ARH-70A Armed Reconnaissance helicopter if and when it is delivered."

I think Hydras (unguided, I'm guessing) have been tested on the Firesout.

[GazB]

I think Hydras (unguided, I'm guessing) have been tested on the Firesout.

Yes I have seen mini rocket pods for light Russian aircraft too that carry something like 7 rockets per pod of 80mm calibre rockets. (Not to be confused with the 122mm rocket pods that are 5 shot pods as standard that are designed to penetrate concrete targets like armoured hangars to destroy the equipment inside.).

Such light pods would be ideal for a UAV as weight and drag effects will be reduced
to a minimum level.

Looking at the evolution of guns on the Hind I would say that it probably makes more sense to stick with the stand off range of rockets and missiles.

Saving money using cheap cannon shells wont help if the aircraft has to get in close to actually engage the target and exposes itself to enemy fire. Even the cheapest dumbest MANPAD can generally take out a UAV because most UAVs are designed to be cheap so they don't have extensive self protection systems that detect incoming enemy missiles. By the time the operator realises a MANPADs has been fired his screen has probably gone all snowy if you know what I mean. Flying really high solves that problem but makes accurate gunfire difficult as dispersion is increased with range. Laser homing rockets have more range when fired from altitude.

As an added bonus to guided systems for unguided rockets they can almost instantly be widely deployed as most aircraft that can fire an unguided rocket can also carry a targetting pod to laser mark targets or like the Apache already have that capability.
I remember an air defence vehicle the US was toying with that use a 25mm gatling and 4 stingers on a bradley chassis that also had a Hydra launcher. Fit it with laser guided Hydras and that would be a very capable system... those hydras could be HE for anti air use or HEAT for use against light armour. Would make it a more capable system for little extra cost.

[Britboy]

...
I remember an air defence vehicle the US was toying with that use a 25mm gatling and 4 stingers on a bradley chassis that also had a Hydra launcher. Fit it with laser guided Hydras and that would be a very capable system... those hydras could be HE for anti air use or HEAT for use against light armour. Would make it a more capable system for little extra cost.

Mate, Starstreak HVMs already in service with the British Army for close air defence are usable against armour, certainly light armour at least. They can be fired from the shoulder, from a lightweight multiple launcher (firing post), or from a tracked armoured vehicle.

The missiles don't have any sort of specialised ATk warhead but rely on the sheer speed of the darts from the high velocity missile in order to breach armour. Good, as then you won't have to unload one type of round then reload the appropriate type - would hate to have AT missiles if all of a sudden an air raid began, or vice versa. So Starstreak could act as truly versatile antiair/antiarmour weapons system... In service already.

To be honest, I look at this, and I also look at the LAV-AD (25mm Gatling) and that German SPAAG with the 2 autocannons (Gepard? Roland?) that could be used in the ground fire role, and think we should get back into the SPAAG game as well as having missiles. LAV-AD for lighter forces and German autocannon-SPAAG for heavier forces, both augmented with a number of Starstreak in a box launcher like BRADLEY carries TOW, would give anyone a bloody nose, AFVs or a/c. As well as beefing up AD alongside the MANPAD/LML/Armoured HVMs and Rapier we already have.

[paracrusader]

I'll admit that I know very little about the technical side of UAVs, or any kind of aircraft design for that matter. Something I've thought of in the past, however, is why not have a small UAV that carries either a M240B or an M107, that can land? It could instantly emplace a support weapon where needed without requiring troops to physically move it. Or, for that matter, it could be used to overwatch key terrain, or even deliver precision fires where needed, without having to place men in harm's way? I doubt a hovering or flying UAV of small size could handle firing a machinegun or large rifle, and it is likely that the sound of it's propulsion system would be heard if it was in range. It could have a remote destruction system, or even an anti-tampering device, to ensure that it did not fall into the wrong hands. The technology exists to create something like this. One machinegun in the right place at the right time can drastically alter the outcome of a fight. And, for that matter, the ability to place a sniper any place, any time, and utilize precision fires rather than using a hellfire or a JDAM, is not only more cost effective, but it reduces the risk of collateral damage. Obviously not a solution to every situation, or even most, but it could be a great asset, especially in places like Afghanistan.

[angry cow]

Jigabachi?

http://www.all-meister.com/bbs/data/gallery/jav_01.jpg

[magicman]

Jigabachi?

http://www.all-meister.com/bbs/data/gallery/jav_01.jpg
someone is a ghost in the shell fan apparently.

[JRT]

Gun sounds interesting, beneficial financially.

UAVs may be usable as weapons carriers, but FWIW I'd say their real potency is ISTAR. Whilst you are wanting to hit things from the air and that is grand, does it risk taking the UAVs away from the surveillance role they were originally intended for, to the detriment of the G2 side of life?


Armed and unarmed UAV's arent excluding each other, they are complementary. Why not having UAV's in the ISTAR role and other UAV's in the munition delivery role?



Does this also risk a duplication of roles with helicopters and CAS?


Yes, which is why human piloted helicopters and CAS aircraft are becoming unnecessary. They are both more expensive and in certain extent less capable.



Why have a UAV strafing with guns and ISTAR potentially hurt, when you could have UAVs do the loitering and the spotting, and call in helos/CAS/arty for the shooting?

Why have manned helos / CAS aircraft that need expensive, error-making pilots who are potential casualties and who need to land to eat, sleep and take a piss every now and then, when the same CAS role can be fulfilled with unmanned aircraft whose pilot can be changed during the flight?

Just as unmanned aircraft are replacing manned aircraft in surveillance / intelligence mission, they will replace manned aircraft in munition delivery missions. It's only a matter of time & tech development, because the benefits are so big. It's not so much of a price issue, since UAV's are far cheaper to operate.

[armchairpundit]

Reaper is a very sophisticated, expensive aircraft. Arming it with an autocannon that requires you to fly low and slow is penny wise and pound foolish. If the talibans manage to knock down just one, then that's ~150 Hellfire II missiles or thousands of laser guided 70mm rockets you could have bought instead.

[LineDoggie]

I could have sworn I was told they were thinking of Armed JLens Blimps as well, carrying 30mm?

[Andy-M]

Mate, Starstreak HVMs already in service with the British Army for close air defence are usable against armour, certainly light armour at least. They can be fired from the shoulder, from a lightweight multiple launcher (firing post), or from a tracked armoured vehicle.

The missiles don't have any sort of specialised ATk warhead but rely on the sheer speed of the darts from the high velocity missile in order to breach armour. Good, as then you won't have to unload one type of round then reload the appropriate type - would hate to have AT missiles if all of a sudden an air raid began, or vice versa. So Starstreak could act as truly versatile antiair/antiarmour weapons system... In service already.




Thales have developed a new lightweight missile based on the Starstreak to do exactly that, it's called the Lightweight Multirole Missile, designed to be able to be fired from UAVs, and just about any platform capable of taking missiles.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/dythel/yourfile.jpg

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/02/224303/thales-reveals-new-lightweight-missile-for-uavs-helicopters.html


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3558214

[GazB]

They are both more expensive and in certain extent less capable.

I would have to disagree here. I have yet to see a UCAV that could completely replace an Apache or A-10 or their international equivelents on the front line.

The more defensive systems and equipment you put on a UAV the more expensive it becomes and the lower performance it will display. Without that stuff however it would be a sitting duck to ground fire. It is like the difference between a bomber and a cruise missile. Tracer fire coming from the ground might upset a pilots aim and increase the miss distance of the weapons used, but they don't effect a cruise missile. This makes the cruise missile better able to accurately hit a target. It also makes the cruise missile an easier target for air defences. When it strikes it is more effective than a manned aircraft delivering dumb munitions on a bombing run, but it is also more likely to be shot down because it doesn't recognise any dangers. Few UCAVs have 360 degree views. I mean you just need to look at You tube and look up that incident with the American UCAV and the Iraqi Mig-25. The UCAV was armed with stingers and fired at the Mig-25 but stingers don't have the range of a modern AAM. The result was very one sided.

[GazB]

Thales have developed a new lightweight missile based on the Starstreak to do exactly that, it's called the Lightweight Multirole Missile, designed to be able to be fired from UAVs, and just about any platform capable of taking missiles.

But how much does it cost? If it is less than the cost of cannon shells then it has promise. If it costs as much or more than a Hellfire then why not keep using hellfire?

[Britboy]

Thales have developed a new lightweight missile based on the Starstreak to do exactly that, it's called the Lightweight Multirole Missile, designed to be able to be fired from UAVs, and just about any platform capable of taking missiles.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/dythel/yourfile.jpg

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/02/224303/thales-reveals-new-lightweight-missile-for-uavs-helicopters.html


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3558214

Cheers mate, will read up on that.

I heard about some older system called ADAT (Air defence and anti tank) which was a load of missiles on an AFV chassis but don't think it worked well or is in service. I know JAVELIN (the new AT one not the old AD one) can be used against hovering helos as well.

This light multirole missile could be an interesting one, would make sense for mobile forces to have moving air defence cover (+ extra ATk assets), as well as the more traditional air defence of fixed sites.

I wonder if HVM crews train against ground targets atm? Would make sense, even if it might be considered a minority thing, like GPMGs in the air defence role.

[GazB]

I know JAVELIN (the new AT one not the old AD one) can be used against hovering helos as well.Not wishing to sound flippant but even unguided RPGs can be successfully used against a hovering helo... why waste a Javelin?


I wonder if HVM crews train against ground targets atm? Would make sense, even if it might be considered a minority thing, like GPMGs in the air defence role.

AFAIK the starstreak crews are taught to engage ground targets as well as air targets because realistically it is easier to deal with enemy helos using F-15s with long range look down radars and also long range AAMs. The most likely aerial target a starstreak crew will come up against is probably UAVs.

[Andy-M]

But how much does it cost? If it is less than the cost of cannon shells then it has promise. If it costs as much or more than a Hellfire then why not keep using hellfire?



well, according to Thales themselves, low-cost is one of the main reasons for developing this missile, use one of these instead of a more expensive Hellfire.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/uk/Press-Room/Focus-search-all/Focus-search-result/Focus-Article.html?link=1e17115c-5201-097f-482e-6f591e6b1724:central&locale=EN-gb&Title=LMM+-+low+cost,+high+performance&dis=1

[GazB]

well, according to Thales themselves, low-cost is one of the main reasons for developing this missile, use one of these instead of a more expensive Hellfire.

Thales aren't stupid. Hellfire is a very powerful weapon and a very capable weapon, but at the end of the day fire and forget is nice but control from launch to impact is also useful too. Laser guidance is much cheaper and allows the weapon to be used in useful numbers over a long period.

If the cost can be kept below about 1/4 the cost of a hellfire I think this weapon and potential new weapons like it would be more attractive than a gun on a UCAV. 8km standoff range means the target is unlikely to even see the launch platform let alone expect an attack. That makes the platform much safer and means it can fly higher which also makes it safer from small arms fire.

[Bro Jangles]

Didnt they put a autocannon on the OV10?

Why not use the laser guided 2.75in rockets?

[GazB]

Didnt they put a autocannon on the OV10?

Why not use the laser guided 2.75in rockets?

AFAIK aircraft like OV10 and even A-10 don't generally have the high zooming optical sights or thermal sights etc for detecting targets at fairly long range. Guns are therefore more useful to such manned platforms. Of course the fact that they are manned means they don't generally fly straight and level like most UAVs which fly for the most part on autopilots to certain areas flying from waypoint to waypoint.
A fixed cannon in an aircraft allows the pilot to manouver the aircraft to point at targets on the ground. I would assume a UAV might have to be manually controlled to do the same.

[Bro Jangles]

I didnt mean fixed i meant like this,

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm112/bravo-juliet/ov-10-nog.jpg

[Ed the bumbling fool]

Not to be rude but 30 MM cannon etc causes enough Blue on Blue without setting it up to be controlled from afar. the acuracy of such a weapon on a light airframe would also be suspect

[Ought Six]

The points about UAV vunerability are valid, so a specialized attack UAV that was faster, tougher and more manuverable would be desirable. Low observables would enhance survivability. A pusher turboprop or high-bypass turbofan would give the necessary combination of speed and fuel economy.

The Rheinmetal Rmk30 uses the same recoilless principle as a recoilless rifle, so recoil forces would be minimal. Accuracy is good (1.5m dispersion @ 1000m), so such a weapon in a stabilized UAV turret should work reasonably well. The rate of fire is low, at 300 rpm max, but a smaller UAV is going to have a limited payload capacity, so the lower ammo consumption is a good fit. Here is a picture of the Rmk30 turret for the German Tiger attack helo. A much more aerodynamic mount would be desireable for a UAV.


http://img135.exs.cx/img135/8949/mauser22fq.jpg

As for the missile/gun debate, there is nothing preventing a mixed armament. A low-cost option would be the LASER-guided variant of the 2.75" FFAR (70mm Hydra) that is available from a number of manufacturers, as Col. A-Tack suggested. This has approximately the same warhead capability as an 81mm mortar shell, except it is a dual-mode frag/AP warhead that can attack thinner-skinned armored vehicles, especially on their more vunerable top armor. Hellfires could also be carried.

I imagine the gun system would weigh under 500 pounds loaded. A loaded seven-round FFAR pod with mount is around 350 pounds. Hellfires are about 100 pounds each. A UAV with a Hellfire and an FFAR pod under each wing, and the gun turret under the fuselage should have a weapon load of somewhere around 1500 pounds. Considering that there is no pilot, cockpit, environmental systems, ejection seat, etcetera, I think that a UAV with those capabilities could be about the size of a small light plane like a Piper Cub.

A scenario where such an attack UAV could shine would be a situation like the interdiction of the Ho Chi Mihn trail. A UAV like this could loiter for extended periods of time until targets appeared. The gun would be very useful for smaller trucks and unprotected troops, while the guided rockets would be great for materials caches, larger trucks, light armor and buildings, and Hellfires would take care of bunkers and heavy armor. Having a few of these on station over enemy supply lines would do great harm to their logistical effort at no risk to our pilots. They could work in concert with surveillance drones carrying more sophisticated sensors working at higher altitudes. I think it could be a quite deadly combination. Another mission that comes to mind is antipirate patrol off the coast of Somalia. Security patrol around American bases in places like Afghanistan would be another task this system could do well. The Taliban would think twice about dropping a few mortar rounds on military installations with these overhead. And with low-cost gun ammo, 'reconnaissance by fire' into suspicious areas is feasable, which it is generally not with expensive missiles.

This is a great concept, IMO.

[paracrusader]

That OV-10 with the 20mm M197 (?) is great. I remember reading about it awhile back, but IIRC it was never widely fielded. I can't seem to find any info on it, though. It's a great concept, and more practical than a UAV. This concept should be revived for use in Iraq, where it would be of great use. The cost of modifying existing small aircraft with a small 20mm or 30mm gun and FLIR/fire control in this fashion would be, I assume, quite small, as opposed to modifying an existing UAV or developing a new one for this purpose, or using the over-worked AC-130 fleet for that matter.

[JRT]

I would have to disagree here. I have yet to see a UCAV that could completely replace an Apache or A-10 or their international equivelents on the front line.


As have I, which is why I put the sentence in the future form.



The more defensive systems and equipment you put on a UAV the more expensive it becomes and the lower performance it will display. Without that stuff however it would be a sitting duck to ground fire. It is like the difference between a bomber and a cruise missile. Tracer fire coming from the ground might upset a pilots aim and increase the miss distance of the weapons used, but they don't effect a cruise missile. This makes the cruise missile better able to accurately hit a target. It also makes the cruise missile an easier target for air defences. When it strikes it is more effective than a manned aircraft delivering dumb munitions on a bombing run, but it is also more likely to be shot down because it doesn't recognise any dangers. Few UCAVs have 360 degree views. I mean you just need to look at You tube and look up that incident with the American UCAV and the Iraqi Mig-25. The UCAV was armed with stingers and fired at the Mig-25 but stingers don't have the range of a modern AAM. The result was very one sided.

A valid point considering UAV vulnerability. Developing UAV engine technology however is going to offset increased payload. Survivability can also be increased by using mainly stand-off weapons, even in CAS role. That would mean ranges exceeding 10 km and altitude exceeding 5 km.

I doubt we will see another generation of CAS aircraft. When time goes by, it is very doubtful if there'll ever be a replacement for A-10/Su-25/AH-64/Mi-28. There is a reason why RAH-66 was cancelled after pouring billions of dollars.

[Mastermind]

Well, in my opinion, much of the past reliance on direct fire weaponry can be taken over my very accurate small smart munitions. A poster above mentioned the smart morter rounds that can be guided directly onto just about any target. I can tell you from my personal experience in industry, making a device as small as a tennis ball guide directly onto a target the size of a man's head is highly possible....in fact, not even that difficult. making them as small as a football, now you can guide it five different ways; laser, inertial, video, fire and forget, and GPS. You could even incorporate just about any two of the possible five ways. As for fusing, I believe the micro devices available now could easily fuse the thing to take out a squad from a specific altitude (rather like a flying claymore set for air burst) or to knock a rather impressive dent or hole in the top of a tank or bunker.

The direct fire method naturally would involve some cumbersome problems, controlling vibration to be one of the more significant. Compensating for the thrust of repeat firings would be another. I think the answer lies in simple guided munitions. These things were exorbiantnly expensive when they first came out...but, the more they are mass produced, the cheaper they have become. Look at the complexity involved in the cell phones...they have just about everything you could possibly imagine, in addition to being a cell phone and they are smaller than a pack of smokes and practically cost the same. The same is true of micro smart muntions that could be carried on board a super smart drone. I think the potential is there to one day in the not overly distant future, to even eliminate many direct fire man portable weapons as well.

[Ought Six]

Mm:
"The direct fire method naturally would involve some cumbersome problems, controlling vibration to be one of the more significant."Those sorts of problems have been solved, as evidenced by the quite accurate long-range cannon fire Apache helos have delivered in every conflict they have participated in. I think the biggest problem could be the time delay if these UAVs are controlled by satellite link. They would need a certain amount of 'intellegence' in target lock-on and tracking, as the time delay would make realtime control of the gun on moving targets problematic. This technology is already available in many fire control systems, so that should not be a huge obstacle.

As for smart mortar rounds, at $5000 a pop, gun rounds are still a more attractive alternative, cost-wise. Also, autocannon can engage area targets like somewhat dispersed troops, which smart munitions (except smart cluster munitions) cannot.

BTW, another mission for an attack UAV would be hunting enemy helos. A slewable gun turret would be excellent for this, and an attack UAV would need such a weapon to defend itself up close against helos hunting it. Something like Mistral or Starstreak could be used for longer range in this role.

[Mastermind]

^Good points. But, my experinece with remote controll and autonomous vehicles suggests there are some specific limitations that have not been solved yet. There is no doubt, the airframes can be built to stand the vibration. I don't think the time delay problems would be all that difficult to overcome, since the thing does not have to be controlled via satellite link..though, even satellite links can be faster than most people can think. Putting myself in the shoes of the developers building a direct fire ROV system, I would think a kind of "lock on" then autonomous attack program sequince would be practical for many potential targets...such as those in the open and with all civilian and friendly forces readily identified and blanked so the direct fire is certain not to stray into them. It's not mechanically and operationally impractical. I just think a thing like that would have to be doubly reliable. It certainly would be one deadly little beast.

I have just seen too many absolutely sure fire perfect programs go astray and do the damndest unexpected things.

[GazB]

I didnt mean fixed i meant like this,

First of all the gun depicted is a 20mm gun. It is optimised for short range work shooting down enemy fighter aircraft and has a light projectile with relatively high velocity with a high rate of fire. These features, velocity and rate of fire, are excellent for small fast moving aerial targets. For ground targets there is no advantage. For ground targets a heavier bullet carries better and does more damage. Its velocity is unimportant, as is its rate of fire. That is why the US uses the 30mm gun on the Apache. The 20mm gatling of the cobra is for commonality with the other carrier based fixed wing aircraft. The soviet and now Russian use of the same 30 x 165mm ammo of the Russian Army is for the same reason... commonality, though they have the advantage that the Russian 30mm has a large and heavy projectile for its calibre... it is even heavier than the 30mm round of the A-10... it is just propelled at a lower velocity.

In my opinion the problem is distance to target. To get decent standoff distance with guided rockets is no problem. To get it with a gun requires a large calibre gun firing heavy shells.


Not to be rude but 30 MM cannon etc causes enough Blue on Blue without setting it up to be controlled from afar. the acuracy of such a weapon on a light airframe would also be suspect

The US has a system where the last F-14s could use targetting pods to view the ground and they were in direct communication with the guys on the ground. The guys on the ground could even get a datalink image of what the F-14 was seeing to look for bad guys and to tell the F-14 guys what to hit. I really don't see why they couldn't do that with a UAV instead of an F-14. Put a gun and missiles on that and the guy on the ground would have much better awareness of what is around him, including what is behind those trees ahead etc.


Here is a picture of the Rmk30 turret for the German Tiger attack helo. A much more aerodynamic mount would be desireable for a UAV.

The optics could be integrated into the main UAVs optics... that would reduce drag. A fully retractible turret mount should also aide aerodynamics when the gun is not needed.


As for the missile/gun debate, there is nothing preventing a mixed armament.

The gun will introduce a cost, both in integration, in weight, and in maintainence. In most cases I don't think a gun is warranted, but certainly for some specific roles a gun would add flexibility that a rocket doesn't have.


A low-cost option would be the LASER-guided variant of the 2.75" FFAR (70mm Hydra) that is available from a number of manufacturers, as Col. A-Tack suggested.

For targets that are too heavy then the US has 5 inch rockets or something large like that doesn't it? For some bunkers or building structures the 70mm might be too light, yet a bomb to heavy. I know there is a 135mm weapon used by Saab aircraft at one time in a 5 shot pod. Something like that would be good for longer range plinking at heavier targets perhaps.


There is a reason why RAH-66 was cancelled after pouring billions of dollars.

The reason the RAH-66 was cancelled was because most air defences for use against low flying helos don't really rely on radar anymore. There was no need for a long range strike helo. Very few modern airdefence systems use radar. Most MANPADs are heat seeking, few guns are radar guided, and most radar guided SAMs are medium range weapons or have optical backup.

Having a stealth helo in Iraq or Afghanistan would be like having a stealth tank in Iraq or Afghanistan. In these cases stealth makes no difference in performance because the enemy is not well equipped with radar, but it makes the item very expensive to buy and operate because of its "special needs".


I can tell you from my personal experience in industry, <snip> t) or to knock a rather impressive dent or hole in the top of a tank or bunker.

The problem seems to be locating and correctly identifying the enemy rather than actually being able to hit them. The original purpose of UAVs was to enhance the eyes and ears on the battlefield. Arming these UAVs is to ensure that when you see you can hit rather than waiting for a method to hit has been decided upon based on the target type and location and then the organisation of that strike.
The problem is numbers and to get the number of UAVs high you need to make them cheap and you don't make them cheap if their primary weapon is so expensive. A gun is one solution. IMHO moving all the expensive stuff from the weapon into the platform is a better idea. Making the expensive stuff in the weapon really cheap is another option.

The result needs to be cheap enough to use in numbers, but provide safe stand off range for the UAVs to UAV losses are not the cost of cheaper ordinance.


I think the biggest problem could be the time delay if these UAVs are controlled by satellite link.

First of all you can pretty much set a UAV to operate any way you like, but my understanding is that a modern UAV has a programmed flight route that it flys including altitude and speed etc. This can be altered live and the aircraft can be manually manouvered but it is by no means a fighter plane. The operators monitor the flight of the aircraft but their controls control ball turret mounted optics to look below the aircraft for ground targets. If a helo flew up from behind and sprayed it with machine gun fire from a PKM hanging out the side window the first the operators will know is the loss of picture, or perhaps the first tracer rounds whipping past. If the airspace the UAV is flying through is monitored they might get AWACs warning in which they can turn and maybe try to engage the target with stingers, but their main job is looking at ground targets and they wont be looking for a fight.
The "controllers" manually turn the optics looking at the ground for targets or items of interest.
They can take manual control of the UAV, but that is unlikely for the reasons above. They might change the flight plan to circle a new target or item of interest on the ground, but taking manual control is unlikely IMHO.
The operators will see what the optics see in a near live situation.

As I mentioned before there is a system used by the last F-14s in Afghanistan where the guy on the ground could see a TARPS image directly from the F-14 overhead. He could work out where he was based on information on the video and then look for targets from a god eye view. He could designate targets for the F-14 to hit. I would suggest this would be useful in reducing blue on blue tragedies. (which have always happened everywhere to everyone).