- Objective: To incentivize innovators to create Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) that can carry payloads more than four times their own weight. Current multirotor drones typically have a payload-to-weight ratio of 1:1 or less.
- Applications: This research aims to revolutionize both military and civilian applications, including complex mission scenarios for warfighters, disaster response, infrastructure inspection, and package delivery.
- Incentives: DARPA is offering a total of $6.5 million in prize money to university researchers, independent innovators, and industry participants.
- Design Goals: The designs must weigh less than 25 kg but be capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) and carrying significantly heavier loads, with some teams aiming for a 100-pound (drone) to 400-pound (payload) capacity.
WE’RE ALL GANNA DIE!!!!
😂
The reality is that primitive Russian TOW line drones are being utilized in extremely limited anti personnel work in the theatre, but current technological limitations and realities make the multi rotor FPV drone a niche weapon. In the real world, if Ivan wants to kill Ukes… conventional weapons and artillery are usually the best tools for the job. Also odd: current small hobby and racing drones have power to weight ratios as high as 8:1. Scaling this up seems to involve some major engineering hurdles.
No one seems to be looking at this objectively. Supposing DARPA or some intrepid inventor does overcome the scaling problem… what then? The obvious counter to the cheap military multirotor drone - is another cheap military anti-drone drone. So it goes for all the cheap drones and especially the fixed wing variants currently used by Russia and their allies all I can do is wonder why our guys are firing $800,000.00 Patriots at $15,000.00 Russian Sharmut drones? Such weapons are actually well within the improvisation range of the more advanced American garage dwelling inventors. The scaling problems involved with heavy lift multi rotors…? I personally don’t see it.
This is obviously a PR exercise and a bit of a marketing psyop. It can be nothing else.
The deal with drones is cost. Spend enough and you'll have a remote controlled B-52. Stay within your budget and you'll have a nice crapcopter with three virtues: aerial reconnaissance, low cost, and entertainment.
ReplyDeleteThen there's electronic countermeasures (ECM) problem. What are you going to do when the enemy gets smart enough to jam your wireless system?
I actually had the payload/explosive device argument with a friend of mine who is otherwise fairly bright. I pointed to your video of the drone lifting a grenade, and he kept raising the budget. Then I'd remind him: Budget is $100, not $1000. He kept ignoring the budget and I finally gave up.
The scaling problem is why you can't build an elephant to look like a giant gazelle.
ReplyDeleteTypical American response: spend tens of millions to develop an expensive new capability that can be destroyed by cheap tech.
ReplyDeleteThey wan't VTOL heavy lift in a small, inexpensive package that can operate in a high-ECM environment. How cute. Just because it's never really worked in large, expensive aircraft, doesn't mean they can't miniaturize the failure! (Yes, I know about the Osprey. I don't really consider that to be an unqualified success, given how many Marines it's killed.)
ReplyDeleteThe Osprey, what a piece of overpriced, over complicated shit. A death machine!
DeleteThere's a few medium to heavy lift choppers out there, that could be manufactured new, with improvements, for much less money and improved performance. Not enough room for graft, that way.
Satans system sucks. All the "powers and principalities" are ruled by (((Them))).