Chinese UAV/UCAV development

Status
Not open for further replies.
Engineer

Engineer

Major
siegecrossbow said:
3G04OeS.gif
Click to expand...
Did that guy on the right had his head blown off by the blast?
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
There's definitely something that arcs forward and lands about 20ft further. The other guy just basically ran towards the explosion. Unless those mounds of dirt are bunkers, what else was being targeted?
 
janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
SinoSoldier said:
No, the explosion looks like it was made by an ATGM (likely by an AR-1, with a 11 kg warhead). A 50 kg bomb would have easily taken out a fighter-sized target (as per the SDB test video released by the USAF).
Click to expand...
Imho, even the AR-1's 11 kg warhead is excessive; considering the predominant types of targets UCAVs will engage in the COIN role, I think the LMD-002
3cf1562ebaff40ff7be98f220f6c4cf4.jpg​
and LMD-003,
aa8895cf-22e7-4b6b-8740-c0ab2961b2a5.jpg​
at ~5kg total weight, and the Sky Arrow,
7aa2a16b-cfa3-4862-92d1-65f1e67a0133.jpg​
at ~3 kg total weight, are more efficient UCAV ordinances.
Even the Sky Arrow 90,
30573910_1.jpg​
at 17 kg total weight, would be more efficient.
 
Last edited:
P

PanAsian

Major
janjak desalin said:
Imho, even the AR-1's 11 kg warhead is excessive; considering the predominant types of targets UCAVs will engage in the COIN role, I think the LMD-002
and LMD-003,
at ~5kg total weight, and the Sky Arrow,
at ~3 kg total weight, are more efficient UCAV ordinances.
Even the Sky Arrow 90,
at 17 kg total weight, would be more efficient.
Click to expand...

~3 and ~5 kg total missile weight seems to me to be too light for anything more than blowing a single person up with a direct hit. Since armored vehicles, caves, concrete buildings, and bunkers are accessible to targets that is way too high a survival probability for a target. ~3 and ~5 kg warhead weight, maybe. I think a minimally effective missile has to be one able to take out a MBT with a direct hit at any angle.
 
janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
PanAsian said:
~3 and ~5 kg total missile weight seems to me to be too light for anything more than blowing a single person up with a direct hit. Since armored vehicles, caves, concrete buildings, and bunkers are accessible to targets that is way too high a survival probability for a target. ~3 and ~5 kg warhead weight, maybe. I think a minimally effective missile has to be one able to take out a MBT with a direct hit at any angle.
Click to expand...

First off, on second reading, as you point out, the ~3 and ~5 kg total missile weight figures seem to be possibly erroneous (Wikipedia:oops:).

Secondly, please allow me to correct my word usage; as opposed to more efficient (although they would be this, too), I meant to write more economical. And, this, my friend, is the point. Bigger ordinance, bigger UCAV, bigger price-tags. I prefer the solution of more, lighter, less-expensive, ordinance on more, lighter, less-expensive, UCAVs (the type, btw, that will make up tha vast majority of UCAVs developed).

For armored targets, one would, obviously, use heavier ordinance. For the strike in the video, to which these comments have been directed, and for machine-gun emplacements, mortar positions, ATGM positions, and technicals, the predominant weapons of insurgents, and even light artillery positions, a ~13 to ~15 kg guided missile (possibly more accurate) armed with a ~3 to ~5 kg warhead carrying a ~1 to ~2 kg payload would have been quite sufficient. Additionally, placing a ~2 kg thermobaric or FAE warhead on such a missile would easily solve the problems of "caves, concrete buildings, and bunkers".

Gott'a love the thermobarics, baby! Gott'a love 'em!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top