Can Fantail be armed?

• lionnoisy

  8 Feb 08, 19:35

   

  Fantail ‘……can be scaled to accommodate alternative payloads and missions. ‘’

  Can we arm it(1) with missiles or (2) to reduce the payload ,just attach explosives and Fantail just crash into the targets.?

  I think it will be quite accurate fro it to hit GPMG site,APC,tanks etc

  etchttp://www.staero.aero/www/keyoffering.asp?serkeyid=ODAwMDAwMDU

  http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/fantail.htm

  

  Followings From ST Aero
  
  

  FanTail is a versatile vertical take off and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) designed to be the operator's eyes, ears, nose or arrow.

  • Key Features
    
    
    • Capable of vertical take off and landing (VTOL)
    • Capable of hovering in strong winds and gusty conditions
    • Able to fly in a low speed vertical orientation and a highspeed horizontal orientation
    • Able to land at and take off from remote locations
    • Ducted rotor for safety and robustness
    • Well suited for urban applications:
      
      
      • Its hover and low speed vertical mode flying capability allows precise manoeuvring along streets and between trees, buildings and other obstacles.
      • Its duct protects the spinning rotor from strikes against obstacles, and provides safety for bystanders.
      • Its high level of control surface effectiveness allows it to withstand strong winds and gusty conditions typically encountered near building structures.
      • Its small size and low weight enable it to operate in tight spaces from a variety of surfaces, and reduces the risk to people and property.
        
        
  • Missions
    
    
    • Over-the-hill, around-the-corner, over-the-next building surveillance and reconnaissance
    • Tagging, targeting, attack and battle damage assessment
    • Chemical cloud detection and tracking
    • Communications relay in built up areas
    • Reconnaissance for law enforcement or civil defence
    • Inspection of industrial facilities
    • Commercial aerial survey
      
      
  • Payloads
    
    
    • Day, low light or night cameras
    • Chemical sensors
    • Microphones
    • Lethal or non lethal munitions
    • Communications rebro equipment
    • Decoy payloads
      
      

    Preliminary Specifications - Small Urban Reconnaissance Variant
    Dimensions	Rotor Diameter	46 cm
    	Width (excluding landing gear)  Height (including landing gear)	59 cm 115 cm
    Weight	Maximum Take Off Weight	5.5 kg
    	Payload Weight	0.4 kg
    Performance	Maximum Level Speed	60 kts (111 km/h)
    	Endurance at 5 km	30 minutes in hover
    Flight Control	pre-programmed autonomous waypoint navigation using GPS
    Airframe	modular carbon-fibre composite construction
    Powerplant	3.5 hp two-stroke gasoline engine
    Ground Control	Window notebook-based compact ground control station with datalink terminal

  NOTE: The aerial vehicle can be scaled to accommodate alternative payloads and missions. 

   

   

  i can say it is the smallest vertical takeoff and land UAV!!

• arball

  8 Feb 08, 21:40

  hmm...

   

  seems like it will be a good asset for spec ops groups leh.

• Obersturmfuhrer

  8 Feb 08, 23:59

  Yes.

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  9 Feb 08, 00:20

  Want to quote from article use some common sense lah, but judging from your habit of anyhow quoting articles and making statments just for the sake of it, it's not surprising:

   

  With a payload of 400 grams, what kind of missiles do you intend to mount on it?

   

  For a suicide mission, is it really cost effective to crash a UAV into a GMPG position carrying just 400 grams of explosive (assuming they max it out which is unlikely if you count the fusing and other stuff besides explosives) ? The amount of explosive power such a payload has is just about slightly more then one 390 gram American M67 grenade. Bigger question, is it really cost effective to expend a limited asset that is useful in recon just for such a thing? Don't even talk about tanks, the enemy will laugh at you. As it is the "lethal" payload of Fantail isn't really lethal to anything beside personnel and really, really soft-skinned targets... and those are better achieved by other means then a UAV with a top speed of 111kph.

   

  A more pratical idea prehaps, is to use it to designate targets for REAL missiles and airstrikes.

   

  The main asset of Fantail is that it is small, if you want to scale it up to the point it can carry a 50kg Hellfire you are better off using something more akin to your conventional UAV layout like Predator.

   

   

• lionnoisy

  9 Feb 08, 11:30

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

  Want to quote from article use some common sense lah, but judging from your habit of anyhow quoting articles and making statments just for the sake of it, it's not surprising:

   

  With a payload of 400 grams, what kind of missiles do you intend to mount on it?

   

  For a suicide mission, is it really cost effective to crash a UAV into a GMPG position carrying just 400 grams of explosive (assuming they max it out which is unlikely if you count the fusing and other stuff besides explosives) ? The amount of explosive power such a payload has is just about slightly more then one 390 gram American M67 grenade. Bigger question, is it really cost effective to expend a limited asset that is useful in recon just for such a thing? Don't even talk about tanks, the enemy will laugh at you. As it is the "lethal" payload of Fantail isn't really lethal to anything beside personnel and really, really soft-skinned targets... and those are better achieved by other means then a UAV with a top speed of 111kph.

   

  A more pratical idea prehaps, is to use it to designate targets for REAL missiles and airstrikes.

   

  The main asset of Fantail is that it is small, if you want to scale it up to the point it can carry a 50kg Hellfire you are better off using something more akin to your conventional UAV layout like Predator.

   

   

  Ai Ya.My English is far from a model.But my gathering of info not so bad.Have u read the first line and last line in my opening post,dear?

  It read:

  Fantail ‘……can be scaled to accommodate alternative payloads and missions. ‘’

  
  2.It is not just the quantity of explosives u use,it is the design of say anti--armour grenade

  u use!!Read the STechnology products list and share ur view here.

   

  3.Read carefully.

   
    (A) Another product that attracted much attention at the air show was the
                
  Fantail, a mini-unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) ideal for use in urban missions.
                
     It can hover over an area to give a 'god's-eye' perspective to infantrymen
                
  in a variety of battlefield scenarios.
                
     Equipped with a day, low-light or night camera, the Fantail provides
                
  over-the-hill, around-the-corner and over-the-next-building surveillance and
                
  reconnaissance. When fitted with chemical sensors, it can detect a chemical
                
  attack and track the source.----
  : 07/03/2004   Pub: ST              Page: 11
                
  Day: Sunday
                
   
                
  Headline: Unveiled : Made-in-S'pore smart weapons
                
  By: Felix Soh
                
  Page Heading: news
                
  
                
  (B) 新加�技术航宇公�研�先进�型无人机  
   http://jczs.sina.com.cn 2005年04月19日 18:56 航空工业科技信�中心   
  　　[美国《�日航宇》2005年4月4日报�] �新加�技术航宇公�官员称，
  该公�正在对它的"扇尾(FanTail)"
  �型无人机进行一�先进改型，以满足该国国土安全需求，
  还�能出�。 
  　　该公��言人说，"扇尾"正在利用国内的商业技术进行设计与开�。
  目�，工作主�集中在细化无人机的构型和气动布局�综�有效载�
  �数�链系统以�开�一�紧凑的地
  <!--mce:0-->
  �控制站。 
  　　"扇尾"采用碳纤维���料制�，装有全�定�系统( GPS)
  导航自动飞行控制系统�地形规�系统和低噪声�动机。它的起飞��为2.9�克，
  �在空中续航1�时。 
  　　"扇尾"的�本大约25万美元。它在设计上适用于都市侦察和机场��。
  它的尺寸之�足�在障�物之间进行精确机动飞行，但是它的尺寸之大足以抵挡阵风。 
   
  (LION NOTE;It cost US$250,000 to make one)
                
                
  
                

  4.SOF can launch it to destory major platforms like aircarft ,ships ect.

  To damage the radar,comm sys,bridge etc in ships are good enough lah.

  It can avoid the open attack which may not be suitable.

• arball

  9 Feb 08, 12:24

  well, the possiblilities are endless, yes?

  but i agree that at the current baseline model, its better suited for target designation and recon....

  cos for the attack issue,... i think the fantail(current) will end up being bigger than the warhead.. so will have alot of identifiable debris.etc. so not really different from open attack ... end up compromise the sof group....lols...

   

  well, tt's my 2 cents

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  9 Feb 08, 13:17

  Ai Ya.My English is far from a model.But my gathering of info not so bad.

   

  The problem is not only your english, it's your inability to use even common sense to make at least some basic logic of your own quotes.

   

  Have u read the first line and last line in my opening post,dear?

  It read:

  Fantail ‘……can be scaled to accommodate alternative payloads and missions. ‘’

  Yes I have read it, and I am telling you that ST unlike you, is not to nonsensical as to design a UAV and scale it up (making it more expensive) just to crash it into MBTs. When far better technology for destroying stuff already exists... ala Hellfire or Maverick which is over 10 times faster and far more destructive.

   

  How big do you think you want to scale it up to? The size of one UH-1H?

   

  
  2.It is not just the quantity of explosives u use,it is the design of say anti--armour grenade

  Do you even know how an anti-armour grenade works? Your posts show your relative lack of understanding of even basic military technology, wanting to imagine fantastic abilities for any of our own stuff.

   

  Do you know how EFP works? How HEAT works? How HESH works? No? Then you are talking right out of not your mouth when you are trying to imply that with a 0.4kg payload you can threaten an MBT.

   

  Fortunately, unlike you ST has far better idea of their own technology and most importantly, its limits.

   

  u use!!Read the STechnology products list and share ur view here.

   

  3.Read carefully

  Yes, unlike you I've read it carefully and know how to apply proper caution and common sense to what ST say, unlike you which seems to take vauge statements made by ST to mean anything fantastic when the limitations of the UAV design are quite obvious.

   

  That is what Fantail is strong at:

   

  VTOL

  Small size

   

  This is what Fantail is poor at

   

  Low payload (due to VTOL nature)

  Low speed (easy to intercept)

   

  Immediately you can tell Fantail, no matter how you scale it up to, will not be as good as an attack platform as it is a recon one. It's main strengths are in its VTOL ability and small size, not in some macho fantasy idea of packing explosives into it and ramming it into things when its of far more value in the recon role.

   

  But seriously, its no surprise you demostrate the lack of ability to make some sense of ST's comments on their own weapons. What's next? The Terrex can be filled up with explosives and rammed into the enemy? All these ideas can be done, but they will not make much sense.

   

  Do you think the Yanks see more sense in ramming Dragoneye into insurgent positions or using it to recon?

   

  How much do you really know about military technology anyway? Your posts on our local technology are just cut-and-paste... at the very least learn to make a proper commentary and know the LIMITS of our own stuff. I don't think any SAF soldier will want to fight a war next to your side given your "knowledge" of stuff.

   

  Have you even served NS?

   

• gary1910

  9 Feb 08, 17:12

  The different paylaod means different kind of sensor, for example daylight camera or IR or Thermal Imaging etc.

   

  Becos it is so small, it is not expected to carry all kind of sensors, so it need to switch sensor for day time and night time use.

   

   

• lionnoisy

  9 Feb 08, 23:37

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

   

  The problem is not only your english, it's your inability to use even common sense to make at least some basic logic of your own quotes.

   

  Yes I have read it, and I am telling you that ST unlike you, is not to nonsensical as to design a UAV and scale it up (making it more expensive) just to crash it into MBTs. When far better technology for destroying stuff already exists... ala Hellfire or Maverick which is over 10 times faster and far more destructive.

   

  How big do you think you want to scale it up to? The size of one UH-1H?

   

  Do you even know how an anti-armour grenade works? Your posts show your relative lack of understanding of even basic military technology, wanting to imagine fantastic abilities for any of our own stuff.

   

  Do you know how EFP works? How HEAT works? How HESH works? No? Then you are talking right out of not your mouth when you are trying to imply that with a 0.4kg payload you can threaten an MBT.

  .........

  Have you even served NS?

   

  
  How much can a 400 gm payload do?

  Tell me what is the weight of a dual-purpose anti-personnel and anti-armour bomblets .

   

  http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=929

  BTW,do u that ST produced this stuff?

   

  Surf my posting then you can see the image.

   

  This is one of them:

   

  http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/180245

   

• lionnoisy

  9 Feb 08, 23:37

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

   

  The problem is not only your english, it's your inability to use even common sense to make at least some basic logic of your own quotes.

   

  Yes I have read it, and I am telling you that ST unlike you, is not to nonsensical as to design a UAV and scale it up (making it more expensive) just to crash it into MBTs. When far better technology for destroying stuff already exists... ala Hellfire or Maverick which is over 10 times faster and far more destructive.

   

  How big do you think you want to scale it up to? The size of one UH-1H?

   

  Do you even know how an anti-armour grenade works? Your posts show your relative lack of understanding of even basic military technology, wanting to imagine fantastic abilities for any of our own stuff.

   

  Do you know how EFP works? How HEAT works? How HESH works? No? Then you are talking right out of not your mouth when you are trying to imply that with a 0.4kg payload you can threaten an MBT.

  .........

  Have you even served NS?

   

  
  How much can a 400 gm payload do?

  Tell me what is the weight of a dual-purpose anti-personnel and anti-armour bomblets .

   

  http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=929

  BTW,do u that ST produced this stuff?

   

  Surf my posting then you can see the image.

   

  This is one of them:

   

  http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/180245

   

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  10 Feb 08, 00:40

  You posts are becoming more and more laughable.

   

  Yes we are aware what a bomblet is even before you came up with the post.

   

  So are you implying that is is a PRATICAL idea to use an expensive UAV to set a SINGLE bomblet to a target?  I'm sure that's a good use of resources.

   

  The PROPER way send cluster bomblets is via CLUSTER bombs or dispensers that can released hundreds of these at once. And to kill hard targets like MBTs you are going to require multiple hits because most of the bomblets hit non-vital areas and the small amount of explosive means the damage they do is limited.

   

  A single bomblet isn't going to be worth a lot of damage and as we know, technology already exists that can send more explosives further and faster then an your highly unlikely scheme of strapping it to a small UAV with limited range and speed.

   

  Going by your logic, I know what a 5.56mm bullet can do, so ST should come up with a plan to mount a SINGLE 5.56mm bullet on a remote control car and drive it up somewhere to shoot the enemy with.

   

  Please... do come up with something better. I think the people at ST will spit their coffee out if they read your crazy schemes.

   

  Here is the proper way to use bomblets... which is this:

   

  

   

  not this:

   

  

• Skye2

  11 Feb 08, 00:16

  Most aerial vehicles can be configured to become cruise missiles(using the broadest possible term); jet powered or propellor driven. You can also put a grenade on a toy aircraft; will work too. You can turn a Cessna aircraft or a 747 into a cruise missile too. Jet fuel plus the body of the huge 747 makes a great impact and not to mention "nicey" explosion. But you`ll need to see if it`s practical lar. Why waste a fan-tail which has so many other uses ? I mean if you see a sensitive critical human target who just materialized after years of searchers and you want to take him/her out and there`s no other viable alternative owing to a large degree of factors, you might want to use it. Just ram the fan-tail at him.  But wasted lar. This UAV is best used for recon and real-time information `on the fly'.  

• Skye2

  11 Feb 08, 00:59

  i forgot to add that if the materials for the UAV are cheap as compared to a full fledged cruise missile ala harpoon and there are tactical uses for the said UAV, then why not? I would not be surprised if ST has developed UAVs cum cruise missiles for this role given ST`s level of proficiency with such technologies.

   

  Consider the proposed BAE Fireshadow loitering cruise missile

   

  

  Range: 150 km

  Loitertime: Around 10 hours

  Payload: Sensors and munitions

  Propellor driven

  Launched from a variety of platforms including present day MLRS Western launchers.

  Consider Skyblade 4

  

  A good medium ranged UAV with the ability to loiter in the battlespace for hours and propellor driven. Add a warhead and it becomes a loitering cruise missile.

  Note: Im not saying that the the skyblade 4 is designed to be a loitering cruise missile by ST. Im saying it can and that means ST already have the means to make such loitering missiles so they might have already done so.

  I cannot deny the uses of such systems. You can have pre-planned designated targets at the end of the flight and time senstitive critical ones which can pop out which can be given sudden priority.

   

• tankfanatic

  11 Feb 08, 15:50

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

   

  The problem is not only your english, it's your inability to use even common sense to make at least some basic logic of your own quotes.

   

  Yes I have read it, and I am telling you that ST unlike you, is not to nonsensical as to design a UAV and scale it up (making it more expensive) just to crash it into MBTs. When far better technology for destroying stuff already exists... ala Hellfire or Maverick which is over 10 times faster and far more destructive.

   

  How big do you think you want to scale it up to? The size of one UH-1H?

   

  Do you even know how an anti-armour grenade works? Your posts show your relative lack of understanding of even basic military technology, wanting to imagine fantastic abilities for any of our own stuff.

   

  Do you know how EFP works? How HEAT works? How HESH works? No? Then you are talking right out of not your mouth when you are trying to imply that with a 0.4kg payload you can threaten an MBT.

   

  Fortunately, unlike you ST has far better idea of their own technology and most importantly, its limits.

   

  Yes, unlike you I've read it carefully and know how to apply proper caution and common sense to what ST say, unlike you which seems to take vauge statements made by ST to mean anything fantastic when the limitations of the UAV design are quite obvious.

   

  That is what Fantail is strong at:

   

  VTOL

  Small size

   

  This is what Fantail is poor at

   

  Low payload (due to VTOL nature)

  Low speed (easy to intercept)

   

  Immediately you can tell Fantail, no matter how you scale it up to, will not be as good as an attack platform as it is a recon one. It's main strengths are in its VTOL ability and small size, not in some macho fantasy idea of packing explosives into it and ramming it into things when its of far more value in the recon role.

   

  But seriously, its no surprise you demostrate the lack of ability to make some sense of ST's comments on their own weapons. What's next? The Terrex can be filled up with explosives and rammed into the enemy? All these ideas can be done, but they will not make much sense.

   

  Do you think the Yanks see more sense in ramming Dragoneye into insurgent positions or using it to recon?

   

  How much do you really know about military technology anyway? Your posts on our local technology are just cut-and-paste... at the very least learn to make a proper commentary and know the LIMITS of our own stuff. I don't think any SAF soldier will want to fight a war next to your side given your "knowledge" of stuff.

   

  Have you even served NS?

   

   

   

  hei, why are you writing in a third person?...or the ST stands for Singapore Technologies? my bad

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  11 Feb 08, 16:39

  AFAIK, UAV's don't exactly come all that cheap compared to a full fledged cruise missile... unless you are talking about micro-UAVs built from off-the-shelf components which are becoming more popular noadays.

   

  But basically the idea of a modern cruise missile is to be disposable, carry a sizable payload, evade detection/interception and destroy the target. This is quite different from the mission profile of your typical UAV. The UAV is designed at the end of the day to be reusable and to return to base, the cruise missile is not, even if it loiters or not.

   

  The idea is not unfeasible, you CAN use a UAV as a poor-man's jury rigged cruise missile, but ultimately both roles are better served by dedicated platforms.

   

  And of course there is the bigger question... why on earth crash dedicated UAVs when you can use them to launch munitions? Ala. Predator with Hellfire?

   

  As for using Mirco UAVs like FANTAIL for suicide missions, the idea is pretty much half-baked to begin with... you can get far more explosives into an enemy position by using FANTAIL to call in arty stikes or lase a target for another platform to engage. At the end of the day, if you look at FANTAIL's per unit cost... it isn't exactly something you want to toss away just to send not even a kilo of explosives to the target!

   

  It's a bit akin to buying a sniper rifle to melee your opponents with... it can work, but tatically it's not really bright at all.

• Skye2

  11 Feb 08, 17:02

  As for using Mirco UAVs like FANTAIL for suicide missions, the idea is pretty much half-baked to begin with... you can get far more explosives into an enemy position by using FANTAIL to call in arty stikes or lase a target for another platform to engage. At the end of the day, if you look at FANTAIL's per unit cost... it isn't exactly something you want to toss away just to send not even a kilo of explosives to the target!

   

  Ya la. i know. Which is why i said when there is no other viable alternative. If u see Osama and you cannot get arty in time or troops over in time, might as well ram the UAV down his thoat. You can even try put nails in shells for your arty guns if you run out of proper explosive matter. Whatever is expedient la.  

  AFAIK, UAV's don't exactly come all that cheap compared to a full fledged cruise missile... unless you are talking about micro-UAVs built from off-the-shelf components which are becoming more popular noadays.

   

  If they can build cheap cruise missiles which are cheaper than ordinary cruise missiles, it goes to show they can build cheap UAVs which can be converted to cruise missiles as well. Similarly, they can build cheap cruise missiles which can be converted to cheap UAVs. If the costs are consistent to what is cheap relative to other conventional delivery methods and there is tactical advantage in using them, they will be hard to be ignored and probably used. Here`s another UAV cum cruise missile;

  

   

  

  HARPY is a lethal UAV designed to detect, attack and destroy radar emitters. 

  Harpy is a "Fire-and-Forget" all-weather, day/night autonomous weapon system, launched from a ground vehicle behind the battle zone or from ship based launchers.

  HARPY effectively suppresses hostile SAM and radar sites for long duration, by detecting, attacking and destroying radar targets with a very high hit accuracy. 

  HARPY provides the most effective solution to the hostile radar problem, at the lowest price. HARPY is in production, is already operational with several nations Air Forces, and is currently available.

  Weighs 135 kg, 2.1 meter long, 2.7 meter span and with range of 500 km. It is sealed in its sealed launcher/container, to endure harsh battlefield conditions. It can be fueled or defueled in the launcher, therefore retaining its readiness at all time. The system uses periodical built-in test to maintain full readiness.

   It's a bit akin to buying a sniper rifle to melee your opponents with... it can work, but tatically it's not really bright at all.

  No. I would consider it very bright if you have no other better option but to use a UAV as a missile to achieve your aim. That`s being creative. Weigh your options and see whatever is expedient.

• Skye2

  11 Feb 08, 17:12

  Forum kinda of buggy. My posts cant seem to be posted. Anyway, I forgot to add that the Harpy can be installed with a variety of sensors including warheads. And new recon versions are being considered.

   

  In June 1999 MBT and Raytheon Missile Systems teamed to market the more advanced Combat UAV Target Locate and Strike System (CUTLASS), based on the proven Harpy's UAV type airframe. 

  Read yourselves

  http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/harpy/HARPY.html

   

• lionnoisy

  11 Feb 08, 19:03

  see the Fantail

   

  give u later

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  11 Feb 08, 20:27

  Originally posted by Skye2:

   

  Ya la. i know. Which is why i said when there is no other viable alternative. If u see Osama and you cannot get arty in time or troops over in time, might as well ram the UAV down his thoat. You can even try put nails in shells for your arty guns if you run out of proper explosive matter. Whatever is expedient la.  

  If they can build cheap cruise missiles which are cheaper than ordinary cruise missiles, it goes to show they can build cheap UAVs which can be converted to cruise missiles as well. Similarly, they can build cheap cruise missiles which can be converted to cheap UAVs. If the costs are consistent to what is cheap relative to other conventional delivery methods and there is tactical advantage in using them, they will be hard to be ignored and probably used. Here`s another UAV cum cruise missile;

   

   

   

  No. I would consider it very bright if you have no other better option but to use a UAV as a missile to achieve your aim. That`s being creative. Weigh your options and see whatever is expedient.

  
  More or less agree... I believe in creativity on the battlefield... thou of course there's alway a thin line between creative ideas and plain bad ones

   

  Thou as it stands if you want a dedicated attack or recon platform you still got to revert to a specialized platform. You certainly don't want to waste an expensive and non-disposable sensor package in a one-time-use platform, and at the same time a simple UAV platform may not have sufficent payload or speed to be always suitable.

   

  However a possible concept is to come up with a modular airframe to adapt to different mission profiles... ie. you can have an airframe that can be readily and quickly converted to either UAV or cruise-missile mode on the ground and have several of these in the air at once. That's a possibility.

   

  However in terms of Micro UAV... things will be more limited due to the payload and endurance limits... in Fantail's case anyway I don't see ST wanting to rig it to be a suicide platform or even the SAF passing out some order to its operators to use it in such a way.

   

  Note that for a UAV Fantail has limited endurance, payload and speed due to it being in the micro format, AFAIK not idea for a loitering attack platform. 

   

  Of course ramming somebody with Fantail will also be difficult due to the low speed of the system the person will hear and see it coming and have ample time to take cover or shoot it down. There are many ways to kill a person, but I find it hard to see any situtation where you really die die have to ram someone with it... not that it's impossible but shouldn't spend too much money in developing it's ramming capabilities, if any at all. 

• Skye2

  12 Feb 08, 00:53

  Thou as it stands if you want a dedicated attack or recon platform you still got to revert to a specialized platform. You certainly don't want to waste an expensive and non-disposable sensor package in a one-time-use platform, and at the same time a simple UAV platform may not have sufficent payload or speed to be always suitable.

   

  Ya. That is why I say wasted to use Fan-tail on missions like that when you have other options.

  However a possible concept is to come up with a modular airframe to adapt to different mission profiles... ie. you can have an airframe that can be readily and quickly converted to either UAV or cruise-missile mode on the ground and have several of these in the air at once. That's a possibility.

  Yes. You could not be more right here. That is what the planners of Fire-shadow intend to do. They envision having a few of the Fire-shadows playing the role of UAVs doing recon/surveillance where they will relay targetting information on the fly to other Fire-shadows UAVs or cruise missiles armed with war-heads. Alternatively, you can just rely on whatever Male platforms already  airborne like the Hermes 450. Ditto for the Harpy.

  Note that for a UAV Fantail has limited endurance, payload and speed due to it being in the micro format, AFAIK not idea for a loitering attack platform. 

   Of course ramming somebody with Fantail will also be difficult due to the low speed of the system the person will hear and see it coming and have ample time to take cover or shoot it down. There are many ways to kill a person, but I find it hard to see any situtation where you really die die have to ram someone with it... not that it's impossible but shouldn't spend too much money in developing it's ramming capabilities, if any at all.

  111 km/per hour not fast meh? You hurl a printer at that speed at someone and see if it does not damage you or not. But it will be slow when hovering. Otherwise, it can can speed away and I think can suddenly increase speed in spurts.

  Actually, it will be very funny to see the Fan-tail surprise Osama and company. And see the whole bunch running chased by this robot going at 111 km/per hour.

  Anyway, i have seen the Fan-tail during AA series exhibition. The buzzing noise is not audible at the altitude it is supposed to be flying. How many people check thier 12 o`clock all the time anyway? Terrorists in Afghanistan are still getting fragged by Apaches or blown to pieces by Predators in surprise attacks. Found out too late as usual and they had no where to run.

  It all depends on the situation lar. The target in question could be in a secluded spot with limited room for maneuvre or run. Or he can be doing thier thing in this building;

   

  

  

  So. You might as well drop the bomb or Fan-tail before he drops his inside!! LOL. Of course, all this is hypothetical lar. i do not recommend using the Fan-tail for something like this of course. But you never know when you might just suddenly need it for such a role.

   

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  12 Feb 08, 23:21

  111 kph isn't terribly fast for a UAV, and of course if you are not alert then suck thumb lor, even a tonner can run you over... but as far as it comes for reasonably alert soldiers it will be quite hard to stick a UAV like that up into their face, they will see it and react.

   

  BTW, the tangos getting fragged by Longbows or Predator were engaged way out of distance, and often at night. It didn't matter how alert they were, they simply had no way of knowing they were under observation and about to be attacked.

   

  And I am not sure the SAF is too keen on crashing UAVs as missiles... who will sign the 1206?

   

  Haha, crashing UAVs into people, we really should get back on the more normal topics!

• lionnoisy

  13 Feb 08, 09:40

  One bomblet,one kill-----be it anti--personnel and anti--armoured.

   

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

   

  1.The bomblet cab be released from Fantail and use gravity to fall on target.

   

  It worth every single dollars to damage  important assests.

   

  Sometimes,it is not feasible to hit by long range weapons ,be it for political or other reasons.

   

  u just need SOF to release Fantails near the targets.

   

  2.if u think Fantail is too small,how about MAV?

   

  http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/303026

  dunt be suprised if u can see it displayed in next week air show!!

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  13 Feb 08, 12:19

  Your ideas are becoming funnier and more laughable. And you don’t seem to understand… nobody said your idea was unworkable as it is… it is just a plain bad idea like the German Maus tank, Russian Anti Tank Dogs or Japanese Banzai charges against American machine guns… those ideas could be implemented in war but they proved to be bad ones.

   

  A single bullet can also kill or be anti-personnel or anti-armour… what matters is how you deliver it, there are good ways and bad ways… your way of delivering a single cluster munitions is just plain bad. Here’s why:

   

  1)In order to release a cluster munitions by gravity the way you said Fantail has to be ABOVE the target. Tactically this already has several disadvantages compared to a conventional stand off strike with almost any other weapons system especially if you are hitting a sensitive target. You have to expose your non-expendable unit to flying over enemy space and risk it not only to enemy fire but system failure and just about any other general Murphy’s law of combat.

   

  2)Your political or “other reasons” point makes absolutely no sense as well. What reasons are these? And how on earth can risking so much to INSERT an SOF team far behind enemy lines JUST to fly a UAV to send ONE bomblet up to the target be less risky or tactical then a long ranged missile or anti-material bullet?

   

  In any case is an explosion caused by a cluster bomblet even considered a more “political” option?

   

  What are your political reasons anyway? They seem imaginary and tacked on simply for you to justify your post. Come up with a detailed reason please and not just “political and other reasons”

   

  Firstly if anything happens and Fantail is shot down, jammed or simply crashes… the enemy will have no problems figuring out from whom the UAV came from. There goes your “political” reason.

   

  Secondly, how TATICAL is it CONSTANTLY transmitting behind enemy lines just to fly a UAV to drop a tiny bomb? It is obvious you are using the SOF just as a workhorse to carry Fantail for your desperate scheme to work, and I am telling you, it’s just a plain bad idea.

   

  So many OTHER options exist for the SOF to destroy their targets as opposed to having to sacrifice a large part of their payload to carry a UAV with risk just to drop a single cluster bomb behind enemy lines…. In other words when so many other better options are around, it’s a case of “digging your nose with your hand around your head”.

   

  They can lase their target for a PROPER long range strike that comes out of nowhere rather then a UAV to fly over and drop bomb. Also there are plenty of long range AMR options to them that can cause more damage at a safer distance with less risk to operator and equipment then your “lets carry a UAV behind enemy lines and drop a single cluster munitions because it’ll make ST look cool”.

   

  3G Army is supposed to be a smart army, not an army that uses technology blindly.

   

   

  Go learn from this:

  http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm

   

  And last I checked MAV is BIGGER then Fantail, and a non-VTOL design as well.

• Skye2

  13 Feb 08, 15:34

  111 km/h for a printer can still break many things in your body sia. UAVs are better used for recon and surveillance of course. But if they can be cheaply converted to cruise missiles, i feel that they will be useful which is what im talking about. But things like fan-tail, better dont waste on ramming like that unless really got no choice and the opportunity really golden. good day!!

• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  13 Feb 08, 18:16

  Nobody say cannot do, if you got a rock aND Osama is nearby and you have no other weapons, the same thing applies.

   

  But it's another thing to start building your military ideas on rocks.

   

  The funny thing about lionnoisy is that he misses the most obvious and effective uses for Fantail and comes up the most ridiculus, risky, and inefficent uses for it instead.

   

  I seriously doubt the SAF is keen to use or risk it as a singular cluster delivery system, nor would the SOF really apperciate lugging it around just for some James Bond style action when so many other more mundane, and effective options exist.

   

  As I pointed out in another thread... nothing is really stopping us from filling up our Terrex full of explosives and ramming it into enemy targets, it can ACTUALLY be done but that's not what it's really for... the same thing applies for Fantail. I'm sure ST can jury rig it to drop a cluster munition but I think they have much better ideas of getting cluster munitions onto the target.

   

  What's lionnoisy going to suggest next? We keep our soldiers fed in the field by having it swarms of Fantails carry combat rations and dropping it on them?

   

  As it stands I can envision us making a larger version of Fantail or our other UAVs to actually carry a lethal payload like missiles ala. Predator. But as it stands it's obvious the current Fantail isn't going to do much fighting with just 400 grams of payload.

   

  Other options simply exist... you could use Fantail to lase out-of-sight targets while another fireteam with a top attack ATGM missile sends one on the way. But using Fantail itself to attack by ramming or dropping single cluster munitions? That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel...