Home » Air » UAVs Hot Topic in Paris

UAVs Hot Topic in Paris

By Colin Clark Monday, June 8th, 2009 5:35 pm
Posted in Air, International

If you comb through the press releases, special displays and briefings at the 100th year of the Paris Air Show, unmanned aerial vehicles loom larger than anything else.

Virtually every major company is offering briefings on their standard bearers: Lockheed is looking at delivering on the promise of the F-35. Boeing and Northrop are doing updates on airborne tankers. And EADS will be talking a lot about their troubled A400M transport aircraft and why the C-130J is the wrong plane for France to buy. But it is the UAV briefings from the Israelis, Northrop, Boeing and others that offer the best promise of news and of new products.

The reason for the excitement about UAVs is not just that no one seems able to get enough of them to satisfy the military’s needs. It’s a wide open market, one that the primes have not gobbled up yet or figured out how to dominate.

“It’s an undefined market space so everyone is trying to get into it, ” says Robbin Laird, an international defense consultant who is already in Paris, combing through the exhibitions and companies. “It’s very difficult to dominate but relatively easy to get into.”

Compared to the fighter market, cargo and the civilian passenger sectors, UAVs are a wide open market. Laird notes that none of the UAVs have made it beyond the hand-made manufacturing approach. “It’s not an area where manufacturing has really emerged. It’s still a hand-built business,” he says, adding that the primes are very eager to get in because the next stage in this market is to standardize the equipment and build them in larger numbers.

Here are few of the UAV briefings on tap at the Paris Air Show, which begins June 15. Watch for DoD Buzz’s detailed daily coverage from the show. Bryant Jordan and I will be combing the chalets and air field for news and posting videos of the more interesting newsmakers and technologies.

Right after the show opens on Monday, Northrop will brief on its unmanned air and sea systems. At 1 pm, Boeing will brief on ScanEagle, A160T, Unmanned Little Bird, SolarEagle, MQ-X, and Integrator.

The next day at 11 a.m., Raytheon “will discuss its plans to become a much larger player in the UAS market. We will also have new details about our latest entry into the UAS arena, the KillerBee UAS.”

For its part, Israel’s national display “will highlight UAVs in all types, shapes and sizes.”

Join the Conversation

	John the civi June 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm The Russians are buying Israeli UAVs…probably in the hope in the hopes of taking them apart and catching up.
	Alex June 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm I would love to see what is being developed in our black programs. One of the primes must have an ace up their sleeve — I’m thinking along the lines of long range stealth bomber. The Iraq/Afghanistan(Pakistan) wars should put us years, if not a decade or more, ahead of our nearest competition in terms of the development and employment of UAV technology.
	jim June 8th, 2009 at 6:27 pm So what happens when UAVs are fully industrialized and factory built? Do costs plummet due to mass production? Or rise due to big biz, big gov bureaucracy? Are there new tactics that will arise from cheap, massive UAV swarms?
	Alex June 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm Manufacturing costs will go way down if you can employ automated manufacturing/reusable parts. The bureaucracy will be a problem either way. Network capacity limits the number of UAVs we can throw into the sky at any one time (unless x number of them are completely autonomous and not transmitting/receiving any data).
	Cole June 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm Network capacity is less of a problem if you use Army tactical common data link instead of just satellites out of Nevada and the Dakotas.;) Airspace is a big problem for lots of lower flying manned and unmanned aircraft. Not sure how you continue to restrict small UAS flights to such an extent when tactical necessity dictates using the system now at an unforecast location and time. On board warning systems on manned helicopters and small UAS may be essential. I’m still wondering how you ever get timely higher altitude (above coordinating altitude)UAS flights fitting the tactical situation of 15 minutes ago (not 72 hrs ago) when you gotta submit ATO information 48 hrs prior to execution day and airspace control measures for the ACO 24 hours out. Dynamic re-tasking helps but the whole Joint Air Tasking Cycle needs to be fixed. UAS stacks like fighter stacks for Close Air Support? In OIF they had 4 CAS stacks on radials around Baghdad at one point. Maybe have 4 other UAS stacks 45 degrees from the manned aircraft stacks? Good thing about UAS is you could have the stacks at closer altitude intervals without danger to pilots. Multiple block altitudes for UAS also help substantially. At the DefenseTech site you can link to Aviation Week for a great article talking about UAS. 9 cameras on future Reapers and 65 on future Hummingbirds?? See through trees?? Now THAT is bandwidth…and a task for many analysts somewhere. As the article mentions, it also may require on board processing to filter out the dull and cue about the dangerous.
	ReconTeam June 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am I always hear this talk about “UAV swarms” I see no way a UCAV will be that much cheaper than a manned fighter. Electronics, radar, missiles, and cameras are expensive things. Removing the pilot isn’t going to save enough money to allow you to buy a swarm of UCAVs instead of a handful of fighters.
	Colin Clark June 10th, 2009 at 8:55 pm Recon, An enormous amount of the gear in a piloted fighter exists to protect the pilot, allow the pilot to sit safely in the plane (that whole oxygen thing) and to let the president control the plane. It’s true that an unmanned aircraft can’t make instant judgement calls as a pilot can, but a fair amount of the decisions a pilot makes have to do with surviving, which is not unreasonable. Swarms are in the future, but you can certainly have UAV pilots fly their craft in formation and/or build in software and hardware that can take care of basic guidance which a pilot supplements. A UCAV will be much cheaper, especially once the primes start using the latest manufacturing techniques to build them in bulk.
	elgatoso June 10th, 2009 at 10:34 pm a article for another blog http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/06/will-5th-be-last-manned-fighter.html some interesting thoughs.
	Oldpilot June 11th, 2009 at 9:46 am A reaper costs less than $20 mil. An F-22 costs ten times that much and is not nearly as good in the ground support role. An F-16 is a good air to mud machine but the reaper can carry more arms and stay on target much longer than any of the fast movers. I know pilots of both and they will attest to the effectiveness of the UAV’s.
	jimbo June 11th, 2009 at 10:04 am can a reaper really carry more bombs/munitions than an f-16? thought they could only carry a few hellfires?… thas news to me… i agree about time on station
	UAV PILOT June 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am Another article from aviation week, newest UAV from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/AVENGER041709.xml&headline=Predator%20C%20Avenger%20Makes%20First%20Flights&channel=defense Images: http://images.google.com/images?q=predator+C+avenger&rls=com.microsoft:*&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=2RUxSrTMGJvotQO95IWtAw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title
	observant June 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm The presence of that expensive component of value, the pilot, does cause different decisions and outcomes. The reality? Both wil be needed: piloted aircraft — independent, co-controlling swarms, and ground controlled UAV’s. The real problem? poly-linear co-present managing of decision systems, tracking displays of status and solutions, for all participants securely, clearly, and simultaneously to Elint.
	Cole June 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm Not sure UAS swarms are the answer just because we may have the technology to do it. That implies more UAS that are less capable individually. It also infers that we think: • Multiple targets will be in the open for swarms to see/attack…instead of hiding and hugging civilians and our forces • Searches will be somewhat random with many UA to cover a large area systematically…instead of cued to specific areas identified by CCIR and mission/IPB analysis and other intelligence reports. • On board processing would identify, and make fratricide/collateral damage assessments/decisions…as opposed to a manned release authority and GCS operator • Fewer/lighter weapons and sensors would be on board requiring closer proximity for sensing and attack…instead of having heavier weapons/sensor on larger UAS allowing greater standoff and more lethality • The logistical and maintenance manpower would be available for more less-capable UAS swarms versus fewer, but more capable systems • We could work out the airspace and launch/recovery problems of so many swarm UAS through some sort of see-and-avoid technology and automated launch/recovery of multiple UAS • UAS will replace manned aircraft entirely instead of teaming with them Swarm proponents probably would cite reduced bandwidth as an advantage by having multiple UAS interacting locally rather than controlled by a distant Ground Control Station (GCS). A “mothership” could be cued to conduct the ID and fratricide/collateral damage assessment with a GCS man-in-the-loop. But the fact that the UA are communicating with each other is using bandwidth. The video still must go somewhere for analysis unless you can build a powerful micro-processor for a small UAS. Seems like this is a microcosm of the flawed manned fighter argument that quantity has a quality all its own. Just don’t think a threat exists to justify swarms of manned OR unmanned aircraft. Fewer UAS that are more capable, would better utilize scarce/expensive manpower for ground control stations, launch/recovery, and maintenance, while presenting a smaller ground and airspace footprint. Manned ground/air scouts and maneuver units will continue to perform reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition (RSTA) functions teamed with UAS. Other UAS will team with manned fighters, bombers, and aerial tankers. UAS and UGV will augment and complement them providing means for cooperative engagements, station-keeping, and greater persistence on station. Stealth technology has got to be easier to achieve on a smaller unmanned system possibly placed in storage to that surface treatments don’t wear out, and using non-stealthy versions and possibly optionally piloted for bombers/UCAV) and simulation for training. The dull, dirty, and dangerous is a good soundbite…but suspect UAS will replace and augment many other functions beyond that. But don’t perceive too many Infantrymen would want to be carried into a hot LZ by a fearless UAS pilot without a stake in the outcome, or transported over the ocean via unmanned C-17s. “observant,” I’m assuming that by co-present managing of decision system you mean both on board processing and a man-in-the-loop sharing decisions? What is poly-linear? I had seen those links before UAV PILOT, but I’m puzzled that they are calling that a C model when a more conventional prop joint C model is already planned? Seems like you don’t need a jet UAS for ISR so much as for lobbing small diameter bombs from greater standoff by exploiting the greater speed.
	Illeloprainia July 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm Hi Everybody :) I just wanted to note on the contribution of this community here. It’s simply great. I want to contribute my part to this forum as well There is a site that has been excessively helpful to myself and some associates of mine. That site is OnlineComputerHelpers.com and they offer online help [url=http://www.onlinecomputerhelpers.com]computer repair[/url] I hope that my offering has been substantial and you also are able to utilize their services just as I have.
	Swarlyfal July 12th, 2009 at 6:35 pm Hey guys, I just joined this forum and wanted to introduce myself. I look forward to learning and contributing. Cheers
	dogodus December 26th, 2011 at 5:05 pm Als Handwerk (von mhd. hant-werc, eine Lehnübersetzung zu lat. opus manuum und grch. ?e???????a (cheirurgia)) werden zahlreiche gewerbliche Tätigkeiten bezeichnet, die Produkte meist auf Bestellung fertigen oder Dienstleistungen auf Nachfrage erbringen. Der Begriff bezeichnet auch den gesamten Berufsstand. Die handwerkliche Tätigkeit steht der industriellen Massenproduktion gegenüber. Das handwerkliche Gewerbe wird in Deutschland verbindlich durch die Handwerksordnung geregelt. In der weitgehend bäuerlich geprägten Welt des frühen Mittelalters spielten die sich später spezialisierenden Handwerkstätigkeiten wie die Verarbeitung von Nahrungsmitteln, die Herstellung von Textilien oder das Fertigen von Geräten und Bauten aus Holz noch eine verschwindend geringe Rolle gegenüber der häuslichen Eigenproduktion. Spezielle Arbeitstechniken, wie Bronzeguss, Malerei und Bildhauerei waren an Klöster gebunden. Erst im Hochmittelalter und mit der Städtebildung verlagerte sich der Schwerpunkt in urbane Zentren. Die hergestellten Waren werden auf Märkten feilgeboten oder in Werkstätten und Läden ausgestellt und verkauft. Eine Ausnahmerolle spielen Baumeister und Steinhauer, die, von einer (Kirchen-) Bauhütte zur nächsten ziehend, über territoriale Grenzen hinweg Fertigkeiten, Innovationen und Stilentwicklungen verbreiten.
	Woritoiluri January 16th, 2012 at 8:13 am

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

UAVs Hot Topic in Paris

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments