UlanBatori wrote:use multiple frequencies, no Stealth can defeat that. Would you risk your $60M WongWei-Thundaars against 10 yindoos $100K UCAVs? I wouldn't. You don't have 10 missiles to fire, so after 8 u r a sitting duck.
I was all ready to demonstrate why your under-equipped $30 mil drone fighter could be taken down by a $2 mil AAM since it lacked essentials like a proper radar, EW kit or MAWS and was piloted via a VHF link (?) that could be jammed.
And here you're telling me that a UCAV capable of air-to-air combat equipped with 6 missiles and "some form of radar" (what form?) and a small (low performance?) jet engine, capable of good "high-Gs and high AoA" can be had for $100,000 each!!
Seriously, the HTT-40 which will be the simplest aircraft in the IAF fleet, featuring nothing but a basic aluminium airframe, a turboprop engine and a small compartment for two individuals, is priced at $6 mil each (Rs 40 crore).
No disrespect intended but I think we can revisit this debate once you have sobered up.
Alternative: A set of maybe 50 UAVs at different altitudes, with radar. Stealth does not work side-on, IIRC: there are angles where radar lights up a Stealth plane, it's just that you don't expect many planes to be flying there. Why can't a cheap UCAV talk to another UAV by cellphone, hain?
I'm afraid you're mistaken about that. X-band shaping is usually optimized for the frontal sector but isn't absent from the side. Multistatic radar system will improve detection but they do not 'nullify' LO characteristics of the platform.
Of course, given that your proposed drone is flying around with a cellphone and some kind of rudimentary radar (or no radar?), you can pretty much forget about detecting an LO aircraft.
Because you can transmit video and your other assets provide accurate geo-location. Cruise missiles are able to do this, why not much more near-based UCAVs?
No they are not. The information picture is generated by the 'gold-plated' platforms like the F-35 that can loiter in hostile airspace as an ISR asset and funnel data to generate a unified picture of the battlespace. Cruise missiles are dumb devices that go where they are pointed.
If 1000 enemy fighter can get up into the sky at one shot, then best thing is "bend over, put ur head between ur legs, and kiss ur ass goodbye". When will India be able to field 1000 fighters at the present rate? At $80M a pop for imported fighters (or 8/yr HAL LCA prima donnas) how many can India buy? That translates to $80B.
If you can put 5000 fighter drones into the sky at one shot, the enemy can put 1000 fighters into the sky at one shot.
But the reality is that India CAN field 1000 armed UCAVs with 1 missile each, long before anyone can field 200 fighters with 4 missiles each.
1 missile each? I thought it was 4 AAMs + 2 HARMs?
If the cost is down to that of a missile, why should a UCAV be survivable? Missiles are used on 1-way soosai missions, the well-considered UCAV is just a missile-carrying missile. If you can produce another 1000 in short order, there is no reason why UCAV survivability is equated to national survivability. That does not work with manned craft.
A 'non-survivable' UCAV? Are you sure you're not describing a additional booster stage for a SAM?