backtop

Print 56 comment(s) - last by Mclendo06.. on Aug 31 at 3:49 PM

MiG Skat UCAV  (Source: Aviation Week)
MiG shows off a low-observable UCAV

The U.S. isn't the only country looking towards advanced automation for the future of warfare -- Russian companies and the Russian government also see the importance of Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs).

MiG recently unveiled its new low-observable Skat UCAV prototype. The aircraft was shown for the first time to a select group of Russian journalists at the Moscow air show.

Due to its stealthy nature, the Skat's design bears a remarkable resemblance to the B2 Spirit bomber and the smaller Northrop Grumman's X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D). The large air intake which blends into the wing is the prominent feature of the aircraft. And while the Skat may look rather small at first glance, the aircraft's wing span matches that of the MiG 29 Fulcrum fighter.

The Skat carries two air-to-surface missiles (or 4,000 pounds of equipment) within its stealthy body and is powered by a single Klimov RD-5000B turbofan engine. The aircraft has a top speed of 497 MPH and combat radius of 1,240 miles.

A flight-capable prototype of the Skat is expected to be revealed sometime in 2009. By that time, a competing design from rival Sukhoi may also be vying for attention from the Russian Defense Ministry.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Competition (sort of)
By stromgald on 8/24/2007 12:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
I think it's good to see the US manufacturers aren't the only ones developing UCAV technology. With some competition, hopefully this will spur on more development funding on both sides. If it was just the US, the US government wouldn't have much incentive to fund UCAV research.

P.S. It should be Umanned Combat Air Vehicle, not Umanned Compact Air Vehicle.




RE: Competition (sort of)
By Griswold on 8/24/2007 12:20:00 PM , Rating: 4
You seem a little confused. There are several western europe R&D projects for UCAV in the works. Furthermore, why would so called competition give the US government more incentive to fund their own UCAV research? Its a technology that will ultimately give you an edge over potential enemies - its not something you only work on because somebody else is doing it...


RE: Competition (sort of)
By stromgald on 8/24/2007 12:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there are other countries with UCAV development, but nothing as advanced as the US. Sukhoi and MIG generally produce aircraft of the same technological level as the leading US companies. Generally, western Europe lags behind in their fighter aircraft technology by one generation.

It isn't something that you build just because others are doing it, but the US government is much more likely to cut down funding for projects if we already have a significant technological advantage over potential adversaries. The unveiling of this Russian UCAV is a clear indication that "hey, we're not that far ahead so we shouldn't be slowing down."

A classic example of the US slacking due to lack of competition is with NASA. We generally 'won' the space race and the USSR went to bust in 1989. What happened to our space program in the 1990s? It went downhill too. The only reason the military hasn't gone as far down is because of China's emergence as a significant adversary and conflicts in the middle east coming to the forefront.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Martimus on 8/24/2007 1:42:41 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but losing the space race wouldn't mean less security for Americans. Losing an arms race would. The military will always be important, because the ramifications for losing in that area is death.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By cgrecu77 on 8/24/2007 7:52:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
the US government is much more likely to cut down funding for projects if we already have a significant technological advantage over potential adversaries

and, of course, that would be a tragedy ... we are short on weapons as it is, I can't even begin to think about what would happen to this world when we'll start running out of killing machines ... :)


RE: Competition (sort of)
By imaheadcase on 8/24/2007 9:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by cgrecu77 on August 24, 2007 at 7:52 PM

quote:
the US government is much more likely to cut down funding for projects if we already have a significant technological advantage over potential adversaries


Yah heaven forbid we run out of weapons, that would mean, oh i don't know..peace?


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Gibby82 on 8/24/2007 10:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because all those other people with weapons would just stop fighting once the US ran out.

I think nations generally keep their cool because they know there are larger nations, like ourselves, that will come regulate if things get out of hand. We are the world's police force. Just accept the fact already.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Growly on 8/27/2007 7:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think nations generally keep their cool because they know there are larger nations, like ourselves, that will come regulate if things get out of hand. We are the world's police force. Just accept the fact already.
Oh yeah, just like in the movies. If you say so. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess?

Seriously, all people are the same. They get angry and want to hurt each other. The we-keep-the-peace line is getting so tiring I'm actually comtemplating becoming an emo. If you really are the world police, why don't you show some maturity and quit invading, bombing, shooting, raping, pilfering, murdering, interfering, brainwashing, lying....

Oh wait, you can't. Every government is guilty of it, some more openly than others. Self-righteous arrogance leads to hate, which leads to more guns, which leads to more wars, which leads to the end of the world.

Or are all those weapons of mass destruction for "peaceful" purposes?


RE: Competition (sort of)
By murphyslabrat on 8/29/2007 8:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The we-keep-the-peace line is getting so tiring I'm actually comtemplating becoming an emo.


I think that post was emo-ish enough as is, I hate to think what it would look like if you actually were an emo.

While I do agree with you on a few points, to varying degrees, I disagree with you on many of them. I will go through, mostly point-by-point, and tell you what I think of your flame.

quote:
why don't you show some maturity and quit invading, bombing, shooting, raping, pilfering, murdering, interfering, brainwashing, lying....


Assuming that you are talking about the current actions of the U.S. military, "Invading, bombing, shooting" are facts of life. You can't tell your car not to break down or people not to die, can you? They are a part of war, and as long as we humans are greedy bast*rds there will be war (and don't go giving me any humanistic crap, being a greedy bast*rd is inherent to being a human).

"raping, pilfering..." Are not the governments actions unless the troops are told to rape and pilfer. So, if you are accusing the government of this please provide some proof. Otherwise, it is the action of the individual and not of the U.S. military. This action has always been punished internaly and very severely.

"...murdering...", or the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being (according to the Princeton Wordnet), does not include maritime action. Killing in war is on an as-necessary basis: soldiers (at least those used by the U.S.) do not go on killing sprees. They kill only other soldiers (people commisioned to kill them) and hostiles ( including civilians who attack the men and women of the U.S. military), as far as orders from the U.S. military are concerned. Beyond that, it is the action of the individual and should not be attributed to the U.S. military.

"...interfering..." Is the role of government, whether the U.S. government has gone too far is another question. However, as for international interference (I think this is what you are talking about), I would agree with you. I think that the assumption of the U.S. officials (and the geneneral populous) is that the world will destroy itself if we don't intercede. This is both erroneous and short-sighted. So, in the process of playing policeman, we are alienating the world and squandering a lot of money.

"...brainwashing..." Again, I will concede that this occurs. However, this is more often the role of the media, not the government . The government does not control the media. They can put out warnings, and they can control information. They cannot, however, stop information once it is out. It is then up to the media to do the brainwashing. We see it in your accusation of the men and women of the U.S. military of raping, pilfering, and unlawful killing. This is a slant given, by the media, to a few isolated cases , and not at all the rule.

"...lying..." Alas, the great signature of government: lying. How can you tell when an official is lying? When his lips are moving! Unfortunately, you can't always tell anymore: they know how to write now. But, seriously, lying is a pervasive problem in government. It comes from thousands of men and women trying to keep their jobs, when they should be on the streets. That is why they lie, to protect their uselessness. Uselessness in role, or in ability to fulfill their role.

quote:
Oh wait, you can't. Every government is guilty of it, some more openly than others.

This is a mistaken assumption. The common denominator between 'Every Government' is that it is composed of greedy bast*rds. You cannot change this, as every human is one. It is humans making poor decisions, humans making "good" decisions (that happen to be based on incomplete or biased information), it is humans trying to expand their power, it is humans trying to protect their power. The point? the common denominator in all of your issues is the human . That is the one thing you can blame every atrocity and travesty on, it is the one problem with the world. The solution? Obviously, to eradicate us all, but as that includes me...I think I can cope with it.

Dangit, all my posts in this thread turn into books.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Mclendo06 on 8/31/2007 3:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, all people are the same. They get angry and want to hurt each other.

Now that is just downright ignorant. The difference is that unfortunately, some people do hurt others when they get "angry" at them, especially if they think they can get away with it. The point of having a strong military is to make it more difficult to get away with it.

quote:
If you really are the world police, why don't you show some maturity and quit invading, bombing, shooting, raping, pilfering, murdering, interfering, brainwashing, lying....


Removing violent dictators from power and trying to create stability in a region where two groups of people harbor a blind hatred towards each other is one thing. Sentencing people to death for converting to this or that religion or saying this or that negative thing about a government or religion, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing it up in a market full of women and children who believe something different than you do is quite another. I don't believe our nation is perfect, and obviously some of the things we have attempted are not working out as well as we would have hoped. I am glad, though, that there are a few countries in this world that will still try to do the right thing and combat evil and tyranny where it exists, lest it grow unchecked.

quote:
Self-righteous arrogance leads to hate, which leads to more guns, which leads to more wars, which leads to the end of the world.

Or are all those weapons of mass destruction for "peaceful" purposes?


Last I checked, both the US and Russia made it through the Cold War without any of their cities being blown up by nuclear weapons, largely because both countries could have destroyed the other several times over with the weapons at their disposal.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By AraH on 8/27/2007 8:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
they helped a lot in the 2006 lebanesese-israeli conflict... by supplying israel with an urgent supply of quarter ton bombs... (if not larger?) (and don't tell me it was a war against terrorists... i was there, it was against the people (with the disguise of it being against hezballah))

(while i agree they did help this year around by supplying ammunition to lebanon to fight in the northern camp...)


RE: Competition (sort of)
By murphyslabrat on 8/25/2007 1:07:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yah heaven forbid we run out of weapons, that would mean, oh i don't know..peace?

Do you know why we have not had World War III yet? One word, "weapons". Yes that is right, weapons have kept the peace . More specifically, nuclear weapons have kept the peace, massively dissproportionate to anything else, but weapons nonetheless. They deter threats as long as they are formidable, and their value is based on their being dissproportionately greater than what they deter.

Theoretically, we could "run out of weapons" and still have peace(this is assuming we still have nukes). However, we don't want to be caught threatening possibly adversarial actions with nothing short of nukes. We need a deterent short of that, a threat of a degree equal to the offense.

Deterents are not deterant if they can be easily countered. That is what the billions of dollars spent on defense contracting is for, to ensure that we have, if not invincible at least formidable, deterents in place.

This UCAV is a possible counter to our troops and weapons. It is a possible counter to our deterents, rendering them functionally useless. While e might put up a good fight, maybe even beat them, in the event of conflict; but the purpose of a deterent is to prevent conflict in the first place .

Far from just being an international police force, doling out justice to wrong-doers, the Super-powers generally offer a prospect grim enough to deter wrong-doing. And this is supported by defense contractors.

So, are billions of government dollars spent per year on weapons and the knowledge that you belong to a weapon-mongering nation worth having the prospect of being murdered in your sleep so far fetched a concept as to never enter your mind .


RE: Competition (sort of)
By AMDBOY on 8/25/2007 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Quote," America should go to war to protect it's ideals only when they are threatened. This isn't even something I brought up, by why are we in Iraq? You are an idiot (or a neocon) to believe that such actions will protect our ideals. Only the corruption of our ideals can be met by this means." Also Another, "So, are billions of government dollars spent per year on weapons and the knowledge that you belong to a weapon-mongering nation ..." Check this link to see how our Government money is being spent in Iraq; scroll down to Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006) . http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9


RE: Competition (sort of)
By murphyslabrat on 8/27/2007 2:35:32 PM , Rating: 3
I am not sure if you were directing this post in response to mine, but as ethics was not discussed anywhere in response to this article, I will assume so.

quote:
You are an idiot (or a neocon) to believe that such actions will protect our ideals.

After that tactless and inflamatory reply I want to say, "call me an idiot and a neocon. However, I never said anything about ideals. I have never, nor will ever do so, believed that any action by any branch of the United States Government, in recent history, was based on pure, unadulterated, agenda-free idealism. This is purely for the record of whatever government agencies are monitoring me on "idealistic premises"(to illustrate the point).

quote:
This isn't even something I brought up, [but] why are we in Iraq?

You actually did just bring it up, it has not been mentioned anywhere else(at the time of this writing, that is). The War on Terror, while possibly an abuse of power, was nonetheless an excercise of the United States role as a Police Force. There is corruption in the US Law Enforcement, while the degree and magnitude is very low now it was prevelant in the 20's, as anyone who was educated on American History by the Godfather will tell you(I want to be perfectly clear, that was a joke). That does not refute the fact that the United States of America is a consideration in international policies such as war.

As for the War on Terror, the people would not have had it any other way. Despite polls now, regardless of the political outcry over the state of the war now, I don't think that there was any other way. Think about it: could an international symbol of the greatness of capitalism, a national monument(official or not), and a landmark of New York City could have disapeared while those who's lives depended on the ideals it represented stood by and forgot about it, while they called it a tragedy and moved on? If any President would have taken any lesser action, he would be impeached on the spot! Be he republican, democrat, or any other agenda-crazed party.

As for maritime gain? of course it will happen! It's war for gosh sakes, who's gonna make the bullets? The soldiers aren't going to find neatly tooled, complete 5.56x51 cartridges in the dirt, even the bullets shot at them are 7.62x56(assuming AK-47s, after all even CT's grab the AK-47s ;j ). Private gain in war is a given , wether it is a factor in the decision to go to war is a different question. The answer to that, however, is probably not. I have not seen the movie you were referencing, but it is unlikely that private gain motivated the war on Iraq, short of a very widespread conspiracy. However, while I do not believe that private gain had any part to play, I do believe that national gain was a factor. As for specifics, I do not know, nor will I until I do more research(for one, I plan on watching that movie).

Gosh, aren't we a lot of patriots around here ;j


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Competition (sort of)
By DeSade on 8/25/2007 1:27:27 AM , Rating: 4
Sukhoi and MiG do have competitive aircraft they just have different piorities in their systems, really the only thing they are lacking in at this moment is the stealth technology that we see coming in out of the country, but in terms of maneuverability and weapons systems they are just as good if not better than we are. Su-37 for instance incorporates a thrust vectoring system like our f-22 and f-35. Our AIM-9 is just now becoming competitive with the X variant as opposed to the AA-11 which has been around for about 20 years. For your comment on the F-15, the little brother of the Su-37, the Su-27 is very capable of holding it's own against the Eagle, it would most likely come down to what airspeed they turn and fight at if they don't just shoot their BVR (beyond visual range) weaponry.

Su-37: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su37/

Aim-9x: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html
AA-11: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-...

Yes the website for the Aim-9 is for M variant (what we use now) but it has general X capabilities, Note that these are all unclassified numbers and can be sure they are not actual complete capabilites.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/25/2007 6:26:27 PM , Rating: 1
The F-15 has never been lost to enemy fire in combat, and I never said it is still dominant, just that it has been for a very long time. The SU-27 on the other hand is not nearly as combat proven, and doesn't have a comparable kill to loss ratio (see war between Eritrea and Ethiopia). As far as the R-73 (AA-11) is concerned, it is better than the the 9M only in theory, as it has a tiny or non-existent combat record, and Russian air to air missiles do not have a stellar history. The sidewinder has 40 years of successful combat history. The SU-37 is a protoype only. You can't cite a plane that is not in production. The F-22 IS operational and far superior to the SU-27, due to stealth and supercruise; it will never enter a dogfight that it doesn't want to. If you want to compare some non production prototypes like the SU-37, why not throw in the X-29, X-31, and so on?

Also, my previous comment was voted down for what reasons exactly? Too many anti-americans reading this? Or Russkies with an inferiority complex? FYI I am not a jingoistic American, but rather a realistic Canadian.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By DeSade on 8/26/2007 2:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
Yes the F-15 has never been lost in combat (101-0). It is considered an air superiority fighter, but so are the MiG-29's and Su-27's. When was the last time we (US) have engaged in a major Air-to-Air fight? The reference to Eritrea and Ethiopia http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n25eritethiop.ht... tells of Russia selling to both sides of the war, the MiG-29 to Eritrea the Su-27 to Ethiopia, this does not show how Russian acft. would do when flown by competent countries against American acft.

My previous post was not to deny the fact that US has amazing aircraft. But to rebute your statement that the Russians "have never had a chance" all I was saying was that they do have comparable systems even though you disregarded them outright. I also mentioned that the Russians don't have the same priorities that we do. We put R&D into developement of technologies that we will use. Russia builds aircraft, and weapons systems as a source of income. They export alot of technology so they can afford to continue R&D to build the next generation of fighters to keep the best variants for themselves and continue to export the rest. Russia does not have the resources to develop newer, better technology just for the sake of doing it, this is a leisure that the US has, the Russians need income to be able to bring these systems to bare. You can bet they have technology equivalent to ours. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm (again this is a prototype and not in production) but it all comes down to resources and priorities and at this time Russia doesn't have either of these to take on US systems directly, which they are not doing anyway.

I'm not disputing the excellence of American aircraft or weapons systems. I'm merely addressing the fact that it seems you think Russia isn't in the same league as the US as far as technologies go. The US and Russia are not at war and more than likely won't be in the foreseeable future. However to dismiss them outright would be a major folley and shouldn't be done.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Amiga500 on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Competition (sort of)
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/24/2007 12:39:16 PM , Rating: 5
Incorrect.

U.S.- 46 Military UAV/UCAV's and 5 Civilian UAV/UCAV's.

Europe- 25 Total UAV/UCAV's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aeri...


RE: Competition (sort of)
By kamra on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Competition (sort of)
By Lightning III on 8/24/2007 1:49:14 PM , Rating: 2

and those are the ones known to the general public

no telling what they got cooking in the bowels of the skunk work or other top secret area's

maybe flying sharks with lasers on their heads


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Etsp on 8/25/2007 9:59:00 AM , Rating: 1
It was my understanding that they couldn't get the flying sharks, but they managed to get sea bass... they couldn't normally fly, but they were mutated into being able to do so. The only problem is that they seem a bit ill-tempered, so they may start attacking at random =/


RE: Competition (sort of)
By stromgald on 8/24/2007 12:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Demonstrators mean nothing unless you follow through, and admittedly, Russia has had problems following through (S-37). To my knowledge, no other country has UAVs in production/use with the sophistication of the Predator or Global Hawk.

The majority of Europe's UCAV designs have been just concepts. The few that have actually rolled out (i.e. the Sweden Neuron) have been impressive, but the technology has been employed by the US for quite some time. With first flight of the Neuron scheduled for 2011 or later if delays arise, the US has a pretty good lead on them (X-45 first flight was in 2002 I believe). Russia on the other hand says they'll have a flight ready prototype of the Skat within 2 years (2009).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
True. If we want to compare UAV/UCAV's in actual use, then the USA wins hands down. If we want ones that were planned or are in development, the USA still wins but the others have some as well.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By xzourska on 8/24/2007 12:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
When I first looked at it I thought of the X-45 right away. It seems like they got some help making that! Well either if they didn't have spys to get the design from teh X-45 it will make the US get moving and put the X-45 into service soon.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/24/2007 12:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
X-45 is smaller than this thing. X-45 is also more stealthy.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By xzourska on 8/26/2007 7:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well I guess that is what you get for getting some drunk Russian spy! Well seriously It looks like a good plane for Russia. As for the X-45 being more stealthy is due to the US having enough research time in curved stealth structures even though a Russian wrote all of the basis for stealth technology. The best part of the Russia/US relationship is that they create something great we 'invent' it soon after and the same if the US creates something great they have it shortly after us. Why pay so much for new technology that might not work when someone else is willing to pay that money.


RE: Competition (sort of)
By Hoser McMoose on 8/30/2007 5:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Wait? The US Government needs incentives to pump money into military projects?!?

<scratches head while looking at the latest budget>


Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By Suomynona on 8/24/2007 11:17:49 AM , Rating: 5
With a name like Skat, I hope they're not planning to sell it to any English-speaking militaries.




RE: Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By noxipoo on 8/24/2007 11:19:26 AM , Rating: 4
the Japanese adult industry on the other hand...


RE: Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By Hoser McMoose on 8/30/2007 5:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
I hear Germany has already placed an advanced order too :)


RE: Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By albertdup on 8/24/2007 11:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
Skat in Afrikaans means treasure or my darling. So I guess it may be a darling treasure for the Russians after all.


RE: Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By margav on 8/24/2007 11:52:43 AM , Rating: 2
In russian its the name of the sea creature like Mantha but smaller, the name is because of the resemblance ( air/water intake )


RE: Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By RussianSensation on 8/24/2007 12:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
In russian the word "ckat" (pronounced Skat) translates as "stringray" which is very fitting given the visual resemblence of the aircraft.


RE: Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By Gul Westfale on 8/24/2007 12:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
in german it's the name of a popular card game.


RE: Bada bwi ba ba bada bo
By Lightning III on 8/24/2007 1:18:45 PM , Rating: 5
in hunters lingo it's animal shit


Ignoramuses laughing...
By fleshconsumed on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ignoramuses laughing...
By Suomynona on 8/24/2007 12:03:13 PM , Rating: 5
Tell me you wouldn't laugh if an American company made a product with a name that meant "obscene pornography that involves human feces" in Russian.


RE: Ignoramuses laughing...
By Zirconium on 8/24/2007 2:10:50 PM , Rating: 3
Suomynona does have a point. I used to have a Chinese friend with the last name Hui. It means "prick" in Russian (but has fouler connotations than in English). One of my relatives works with a number of Indians who have several funny names (i.e. Srinavas: Sri na vas means "shit on you"). If Americans came up with a "Ballistic Low Yield Assault Device" (BLYAD), Russians would be laughing their asses off.


RE: Ignoramuses laughing...
By Jedi2155 on 8/24/2007 9:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
My sister's last name is Hui...and my original name (changed it since junior high :P )was Phat Lam...so yeah :P


RE: Ignoramuses laughing...
By Cullinaire on 8/24/2007 12:08:32 PM , Rating: 5
From kids raised on Beavis & Butt-Head, what else do you expect? I would see the glass as half full and say that even now, for every one of them, there are an entire two mature people who may snicker a bit in their heads, but otherwise refrain from letting the entire world know: OMG LOLOL SCAT THEY SAID SCAT!!!11~~~

*Prepares for a -1 which tends to get posts more views anyway...who doesn't like the color red?*


RE: Ignoramuses laughing...
By Gul Westfale on 8/24/2007 12:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
does it need TP for its bunghole?


ewwww
By omnicronx on 8/24/2007 11:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
You know a German probably helped come up with that name.
SCAT!




RE: ewwww
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/24/2007 11:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
But its a SCATMAN!


RE: ewwww
By psychobriggsy on 8/24/2007 11:55:38 AM , Rating: 5
4000lbs of it, at 500mph!


By s12033722 on 8/24/2007 12:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
not Unmanned Compact Air Vehicle.

It will be very interesting to see both how stealthy this really is and how capable.




By bhieb on 8/24/2007 12:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Beat me to it. I always thought the C in UCAV was combat as well. Is this a DT error or was something just lost in translation by the Russians.


By bldckstark on 8/24/2007 12:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the russian's haven't made as much progress as we think, and this is actually a COMPACT model of a COMBAT plane they made before this one. You know, a 767 Jumbo Jet sized unmanned stealth jet.

Miniaturization is amazing isn't it? Someday people will even be able to wear radio's on their wrist!


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
It was a total brain fart ;)


China's going to like this.
By Felofasofa on 8/24/2007 10:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
UCAV's are going be to China's ticket to air combat. I envisgage the day when a Chinnese Sub or ship sitting just off the US coast, launches hundreds of these things towards the US, just to see how and if the US deals with them. This sort of unmanned tech is going to be a big leveler. And guess which counties lead in minaturisation?....Asian ones! This going to be the end of PAX Americana.




RE: China's going to like this.
By doctat on 8/24/2007 11:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
Heh. A single Aegis cruiser sitting in port, would have a field day with a wave of UCAVs coming in, given that they're designed to take out everything from jets to missiles, and lately ballistic missles. They've been doing it for a while now, and are pretty good at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_combat_system

Sorry try again.


RE: China's going to like this.
By Felofasofa on 8/24/2007 11:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
It will possibly be the Aegis system combined with something like "Metal Storm" good Aussie tech from a Brisbane Grocer. Although uncle Sam bought it all up. Chinnese tried to get it though, offered him $50 million in cash apparently.


RE: China's going to like this.
By lompocus on 8/30/2007 11:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
and it's so difficult to think america can innovate?

I give you the example of the 'invisible humvee'.

early-late 1980, it was basically a 'type' of lcd or oled placed around a car with a ton of cameras placed around the car to show you what was on the 'other' side. However, said humvee was driven by a near-silent jet turbine, so I'm not quite sure they were your run of the mill lcds lol.

imagine what we have now that they won't tell us!


Heh
By RjBass on 8/24/2007 1:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
So I was going to make a worthless comment in reference to the skat name and Mig. But I see it has already been covered several times.

Nice work. lol




MiGs for the US
By Bruneauinfo on 8/26/2007 7:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
You know, the US could buy these from MiG. It's not like we're in the middle of a cold war or anything.




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki