Again inspired...sigh

[sv51macross]

So with a Hobby Lobby appearing out of nowhere 20 mins from my house i printed out a coupon and went. Came home with a Revell Integra Type-R and an Academy 1:144 F-16A. Well, the F-16A needs alot of work and the canopy looks terrible, so I got to thinking, I've got a spare Dragon F-14A and carrier deck...why not do a UCAV Navalized F-16? Methinks a twin nosewheel, faired over cockpit and some cameras/IRSTs, Su-33/35/37 style canards and enlarged elevators to lower trap speeds to 150mph. Then add a couple antennae on the back, modify the IFR door area to have a deployable probe, and mod-up the Dragon F-14 to look the part of a mothership/controller...maybe biggie fuel tanks, glove-pylon tanks, and a buddy IFR pod on the center-line for extended patrols?

How about the F-16 carrying 4 AIM-54s and 4 AIM-120s? My idea is a deployable net of UCAVs armed heavily with BVR missiles and a couple of AESA equipped Kittycats controlling the whole shebang. Good for intercepting Blackfires, Blinders, and Kitchens as well as the odd MiG-28.

Will try it out in 1:144 before spending three 1:48 Academy kits on the idea.

Edited March 3, 2009 by sv51macross

[ChristopherC]

Sounds cool! You going to give it markings from an existing USN squadron?

Btw, I think the designator for drone is "Q". So it would be XQF-16N. I think.

Chris

[sv51macross]

Sounds cool! You going to give it markings from an existing USN squadron?

Yeah, in 1:144 i was just going to use the Dragon VF-134 markings as it would be a test run. In 1:48 it would be VF-2.

Btw, I think the designator for drone is "Q". So it would be XQF-16N. I think.

Chris

:)

[ChernayaAkula]

Again inspired...sigh

Don't you just hate it when that happens? :lol: There you are, thinking you don't need any new kits for the time being and - zap - there's a new cool idea that needs immediate execution in styrene.

Project sounds cool! UCAV-Viper with faired over canopy will look mean!

[Tomcat RIO]

i'm thinking of the implications for operations.. take our fully gassed up tomcat with 1000mile radius, then put a high perfomrance ucav with BVR and phoenixes, estimate the range of this ucavs to be 300-400 miles? and put them at sea anywhere. you've got an extensive 1500 miles patrol zone.

i think i'll need to build that backfire missle truck to deal with your ucav f-16 threat. Lol!

[sv51macross]

i'm thinking of the implications for operations.. take our fully gassed up tomcat with 1000mile radius, then put a high perfomrance ucav with BVR and phoenixes, estimate the range of this ucavs to be 300-400 miles? and put them at sea anywhere. you've got an extensive 1500 miles patrol zone.

i think i'll need to build that backfire missle truck to deal with your ucav f-16 threat. Lol!

The F-14s launch first and then the pair of UCAVs (per F-14). The F-14, aside from a controller/general director (UCAVs operate autonomously using radar, IRST, national intelligence data, and IFF to engage threats) as well as a refueler. The F-14s and UCAVs have more efficient engines and can buddy refuel from the F-14 when they run low, and as mentioned, the F-14 is carrying about 700-800 gallons of extra fuel on each side plus the buddy pod.

And the F-14's AESA will direct a few AIM-54D's at your Backfire in no time. I also have the idea that the UCAVs can shoot-down cruise missiles/ASMs too. Plus, as soon as the threat is picked-up, it's full alert and AST-21s out with AIM-120Ds and AIM-9Xs.

[illithid00]

I'd think that the EA-6B Prowler would be a better controller aircraft for the UCAVs than the Tomcat. Have the Prowler hold two officers in the rear seats, one for each UCAV. Each operator can take control of their UCAV in case of an emergency like a computer problem or battle damage. The Prowler wouldn't have the electronic warfare capability anymore, or it would be greatly reduced, but it could have some weapons capability, even working off the UCAVs' radars like AWACS aircraft. Tomcat's sexier, but I think the Prowler would work better. It could even be modified to carry AIM-120s, similar to the B-1R concept.

[sv51macross]

I'd think that the EA-6B Prowler would be a better controller aircraft for the UCAVs than the Tomcat. Have the Prowler hold two officers in the rear seats, one for each UCAV. Each operator can take control of their UCAV in case of an emergency like a computer problem or battle damage. The Prowler wouldn't have the electronic warfare capability anymore, or it would be greatly reduced, but it could have some weapons capability, even working off the UCAVs' radars like AWACS aircraft. Tomcat's sexier, but I think the Prowler would work better. It could even be modified to carry AIM-120s, similar to the B-1R concept.

True, but one of the ideas of the Tomcat for the mothership is that it has that enormous radar, to give preemptive strike with the AIM-54s. I agree though that the Prowler is a more suited aircraft for a mothership but I liked the idea of the mothership being supersonic kinda like the EA-18G being supersonic to match it's wing's capability. Albeit, the Prowler could probably carry more external fuel than the Kittycat.

[Tomcat RIO]

"prowler is better at controlling but tomcat has supersonic speed "

agreed, aerial warfare tends to be geared towards speedier interception, and detection and suppression of threats as far away as possible. we never know but maybe defence science technology in those confidential governemt agencies may have already thought about UCAVs being mounted or used in conjunction with fast jet types such as the f-22.

who knows, a stealthy two seater mothership directing stealthy UCAVs would defnitely pitch aerial combat to one side. but it could also be countered with a cheap mass produced hordes of slow lumbering ucavs that fights by attrition and greater numbers.. hmm.. thinking of counter threats to other people's what-ifs gives more new ideas!

[ChristopherC]

"prowler is better at controlling but tomcat has supersonic speed "

agreed, aerial warfare tends to be geared towards speedier interception, and detection and suppression of threats as far away as possible. we never know but maybe defence science technology in those confidential governemt agencies may have already thought about UCAVs being mounted or used in conjunction with fast jet types such as the f-22.

who knows, a stealthy two seater mothership directing stealthy UCAVs would defnitely pitch aerial combat to one side. but it could also be countered with a cheap mass produced hordes of slow lumbering ucavs that fights by attrition and greater numbers.. hmm.. thinking of counter threats to other people's what-ifs gives more new ideas!

Sounds like a job for a two seater Sea Raptor :lol:

Chris

[illithid00]

True, but one of the ideas of the Tomcat for the mothership is that it has that enormous radar, to give preemptive strike with the AIM-54s. I agree though that the Prowler is a more suited aircraft for a mothership but I liked the idea of the mothership being supersonic kinda like the EA-18G being supersonic to match it's wing's capability. Albeit, the Prowler could probably carry more external fuel than the Kittycat.

I can see how supersonic capability is nice, but in that case why not go with the Super Hornet? It's more modern and a lot newer than the Tomcat is, and it's more standard with the rest of the current Navy fleet.

As for radar, you could mount a radar system like the Raptor or JSF has, which are supposed to be way more powerful than what the Tomcat had, into the Prowler. A miniature version of the Hawkeye's radar system wouldn't be THAT far fetched either. I figure the Prowler would hang back a hundred miles or so behind the UCAVs, directing them like an AWACS aircraft does. That keeps the Prowler relatively safe from enemy aircraft. Any bandits would be intercepted by the UCAVs before they got to the Prowler.

Upgraded engines would give the Prowler near supersonic speed to bring it as close as possible to the speed of its UCAVs.

If you stick with the Tomcat version, I think I might build something like this in 1/72 using a Prowler and 3 Legacy Hornets.

[MattC]

Here's a quick thought;

Why can't the UCAV's be controlled from low orbit satellites? Then the fire control system could allow the UCAV's to operate individually, autonomously, or even in a collaborative role, as incoming threats could be picked up from long range and the weapons systems of the UCAV's harmonised to that of the satellite so that they "lock on" to targets which are as beyond the range of the prowler/tomcat radar system.

Either that, or controlled by secondary "airbourne radar" UCAV somewhat similar to Helios, ie ultra high altitude and more or less unlimited endurance.

[sv51macross]

Didn't realize I'd get all this feedback!

Alot of good ideas. the reason for the Kittycat as opposed to the SH is that it could potentially carry a bigger AESA in its nose and it's swept pseudo-delta produces less drag at supersonic speeds than the SH's straight wings. Plus I had the idea of the UCAV's would 'standoff flank' the F-14, relying off it's huge radar for BVR detection.

Though, the satellite idea is good too. Either a dedicated satellite network with cuing and directing ability for the UCAVs or have the Kittycat with uprated engines and a Super-Sylph (Yukikaze) style, semi-retractable sensor/radar suite, but then that would reduce potential locations for fuel/buddy pod.

[Tomcat RIO]

what if the UCAVS could be mounted on a supersonic controller mothership with swept swings? ie a B-1 with 4 UCAVS slung on the external hardpoints, and a full rotary launcher load of aim-54s.. remember how the x-15 was mounted under the b-52's wings?

and plus it's got 4 seats, so u can have a pilot, 2 controllers and a wso, and its so big you can mount pretty much anykind of electronics. and while you're at it, an AESA in the nose and another AESA in the tail.. and a magnetic refuelling boom system to refuel the UCAVS.

Ok i've got myself another what-if !

edit - p.s. oops..sv51macross was talking about a navalised xfn-16 to be used by the navy. B-1s can't land on a carrier. not even with thrust reversers and 4 tailhooks and a barrier net. or could they?? : )

Edited March 5, 2009 by Tomcat RIO

[sv51macross]

what if the UCAVS could be mounted on a supersonic controller mothership with swept swings? ie a B-1 with 4 UCAVS slung on the external hardpoints, and a full rotary launcher load of aim-54s.. remember how the x-15 was mounted under the b-52's wings?

and plus it's got 4 seats, so u can have a pilot, 2 controllers and a wso, and its so big you can mount pretty much anykind of electronics. and while you're at it, an AESA in the nose and another AESA in the tail.. and a magnetic refuelling boom system to refuel the UCAVS.

Ok i've got myself another what-if !

edit - p.s. oops..sv51macross was talking about a navalised xfn-16 to be used by the navy. B-1s can't land on a carrier. not even with thrust reversers and 4 tailhooks and a barrier net. or could they?? : )

Well, even the F-16 is too be to be carried at all by the B-1, I'd need a F-5 sized UCAV (though cockpitless, rudderless, TV-equipped X-29s...)

As far as ops go the F-14 gets all fueled-up, four large drop-tanks and a buddy A2A refueling pod, and the UCAVs would launch with the 4 each of AIM-120 and AIM-54, as well as full internal gun and the F-14 would refuel the UCAVs when they got out to patrol range, then patrol, the UCAV's each circling their-pre selected airspace and the F-14 watching with it's radar, then another sip of fuel for the UCAVs before going back to the carrier. An enemy encounter launches tankers and support fighters, in that priority.