I wanted to share my ideas about next genration uavs and possible ucav air to air warfare scenarios. Instead of creating a separate thread I decided to share it here as a discussion topic for future contribution.
Currently ucavs are used almost extensively for air to ground roles and a2a is a researched topic with prototypes. A live exception is during gulf war there are some videos of usa predator uav launching stinger against mig25 but uav later shot down. The trend is going towards installing jet engines to current a2g uavs, make them stealthier but still in a defensive situation against other planes. Another approach is currently designed 6th gen. planes by making the pilotless version of the piloted design. The first one is an a2g role and the latter is a multirole design.
I think just for interceptor role uav concept can be diversified to include rocket-ramjet powered systems with certain cost-practicality advantages over the above popular concepts that everyone with the budget will aim to copy from usa.
Just an example of a sam system from the 50s is the bomarc sam that was aimed against possible soviet bombers
from extremely long ranges like 650kms(200km more than S400, somewhat same as S500).
missile flies at about 20km max altitude
Practicality: The solution should be non reliant on static-vulnurable airbases. Jumpjet engine would be both costly and its high thrust to weight ratio to lift the plane upwards can be a tradeoff by its high IR signature in close ranges. Actually a solution was found in ww2 which is to use landing skids instead of landing gears and launch the planes by dolly. Yes at that time dolly would jump back and could hit the plane back during takeoff but we are not in 40s and circuitry can time the release and make calculations pretty well. In ww2 me163 interceptor had the landing skid solution with most axis airbases destroyed and had limited success but considering the overwhelming allied airforce and limited production at late years of war we cant say it is unsuccessful in my opinion. Yes the popular argument is the plane becomes vulnurable after it lands but It is not in the gun era but cruise missile era. If the airbase is visible from public websites like gearth and dozens of missiles could be launched at the same target then an undisclosed flattened grass location close to enemy is less vulnurable than the airbase mentioned even if it is protected by latest sams.
Cost: The engine has no moving parts. It relies on speed. Rocket engine needs to be installed on the plane for takeoff until ramjet takes over but the example given above is 50s tech and could still go about 600km range. A simple design with fuselage and delta wings and ramjets with rocket take off it wont be costing much.
The new sensors like infrared focal plane array and a2a engagement systems, internal bays for ir guided short-medium range missiles is a must but to reduce costs bvr and radar engagement can be added in later versions if the uav is stealthy or fast enough to get close enough against other planes. For example Jjust a ground VHF radar needs to find the quadrant that F35 is flying in and guide the uav to those location for wvr engagement by the uav controlled from ground if not autonomous.
Another further option is I think rocket assisted takeoff under wings can be used and the space for the rocket engine now empty can be filled with ramjet fuel to increase effective range of the uav.
Effectiveness: There are some tradeoffs but advantages as well and in my opinion advantages can overcome the tradeoffs.
- It wont be maneuvrable and cant make dogfight as fighter planes do. This can be compensated with off boresight engagement sensor and lock on after launch ir guided a2a missiles.
- It was a mach 3 missile. Hitting it with a2a missiles would be difficult but possible especially with newer ramjet powered a2a missiles so I think this tradeoff can be compensated by improving the airframe making it more stealthy even if it reduces its speed. The engine has no moving parts so you dont need a supercomputer to design the inlets to hide the engine fans. if it flies at about 20-25km altitude and ramjet engine is carried above the wings it can be hidden from the radars of the enemy planes flying below. A body with a diamond cross section and V tail is a common knowledge to reduce the signature.
I just made a sketch with openvsp modifying the x15 rocket plane adding ramjets and V tail and modifying its body a bit to show what I mean as below. You can think of canopy as Ir sensor.
As a summary popular designs are ok for usa as they have the budget and the tech but for us alternatives need to be researched since we dont have the budget to copy everything they do and we are generally at the the threat of being at the recieving end of their bombers these days. The urgent demand is an effictive interceptor role over others since we are currently on the defensive and I think rocket-ramjet based designs would have advantages in this role.
