Comments on: Lockheed Martin Sabre Warrior UCAV Concept Has Two Noses http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/11/04/lockheed-martin-sabre-warrior-ucav-concept-has-two-noses/ Jonesing For Robot News Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:01:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Dan http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/11/04/lockheed-martin-sabre-warrior-ucav-concept-has-two-noses/comment-page-1/#comment-10899 Dan Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:47:10 +0000 http://www.botjunkie.com/?p=3161#comment-10899 Does anyone know what the range of this thing would be. Because if it is designed for air-air combat it needs long range. And also a high payload and to me, 4 AMRAAMs are not enough. Also, giving an unmanned aircraft the capability to be piloted by a human pilot is a BULLSHIT. What would be the point of the UCAV and all the advantages it brings with it, then? It just makes no sense. My opinion is that the US government and military should wait for other aircraft manufacturing companies to come up with their ideas before going with the Lockheed Martin's product. They didn't do this with the ATF program and the result was the adoption of the weaker aircraft, the F-22. The YF-23 was better from range, payload, speed and stealth points of view. Does anyone know what the range of this thing would be. Because if it is designed for air-air combat it needs long range. And also a high payload and to me, 4 AMRAAMs are not enough. Also, giving an unmanned aircraft the capability to be piloted by a human pilot is a BULLSHIT. What would be the point of the UCAV and all the advantages it brings with it, then? It just makes no sense. My opinion is that the US government and military should wait for other aircraft manufacturing companies to come up with their ideas before going with the Lockheed Martin’s product. They didn’t do this with the ATF program and the result was the adoption of the weaker aircraft, the F-22. The YF-23 was better from range, payload, speed and stealth points of view.

]]> By: quantum_flux http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/11/04/lockheed-martin-sabre-warrior-ucav-concept-has-two-noses/comment-page-1/#comment-9323 quantum_flux Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:40:17 +0000 http://www.botjunkie.com/?p=3161#comment-9323 That just seems too cheesy, unless they are willing to make it into a spaceplane. That just seems too cheesy, unless they are willing to make it into a spaceplane.

]]> By: Robotbling http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/11/04/lockheed-martin-sabre-warrior-ucav-concept-has-two-noses/comment-page-1/#comment-5460 Robotbling Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:52:45 +0000 http://www.botjunkie.com/?p=3161#comment-5460 You'd think a multi-billion (trillion?) dollary company like Lockheed Martin could afford better computer graphics presentations. :D Anywho, this design looks remarkably like Konami's Vic Viper (from their Gradius series). http://images.google.ca/images?q=Vic+Viper You’d think a multi-billion (trillion?) dollary company like Lockheed Martin could afford better computer graphics presentations. :D

Anywho, this design looks remarkably like Konami’s Vic Viper (from their Gradius series). http://images.google.ca/images?q=Vic+Viper

]]> By: joe http://www.botjunkie.com/2009/11/04/lockheed-martin-sabre-warrior-ucav-concept-has-two-noses/comment-page-1/#comment-5447 joe Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:25:52 +0000 http://www.botjunkie.com/?p=3161#comment-5447 Retrofitting existing combat aircraft with unmanned systems is not a great idea. Manned combat aircraft are extremely expensive, far more costly for comparable unmanned aircraft. The safety and reliability requirements are more stringent stringent for manned, and add significantly to cost and vehicle weight. Unmanned aircraft have no need for a cockpit, windshields, air, etc. Also, unmanned and manned aircraft have drastically different requirements. No one cares if unmanned aircraft have bumpy take-off and landings, sustain high g forces, operate for long periods of time, etc. Retrofitting existing combat aircraft with unmanned systems is not a great idea. Manned combat aircraft are extremely expensive, far more costly for comparable unmanned aircraft. The safety and reliability requirements are more stringent stringent for manned, and add significantly to cost and vehicle weight. Unmanned aircraft have no need for a cockpit, windshields, air, etc. Also, unmanned and manned aircraft have drastically different requirements. No one cares if unmanned aircraft have bumpy take-off and landings, sustain high g forces, operate for long periods of time, etc.

]]>