NationStates Jolt Archive

Raysian Arms, in conjuction with Raysian Robotics, have begun development of an unmanned ground attack vehicle.

Their current idea looks something like this:
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/haifire.jpg
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/hailfire.gif

Using the control technology similar to the UCAVs of the air, the UGAVs will be controlled either by program or by controllers in safer areas, such as inside an armored tank, or in APC, or a Nearby base, or even an RT-1907 Air Control/Carrier Airship.

Mechanics are relatively simple and cheap. Two oversized Treaded wheels are spun by a dual-drive 2xV38 diesel engine in the center pod. Gyroscopes, gravity, and computers, hold the vehicle's center pod relatively level. The Center pod is armed with 2 Missile racks, which can be interchanged and easily reloaded. The average missile rack holds either 16 Semi-Guided Rockets, 9 Medium Anti-Armor missiles, 4 Surface-to-Air missiles, or 4 Long Range Surface-to-Surface missiles. Underneath the center pod is a 7.62mm Vulcan Machine gun.

This UGAV model is roughly 2.5m tall, 2.5m wide, and 3m long. The relatively minimal size allows it to be carried in an RT-2007 NVTOL, up to four UGAVs in one plane.

The UGAV prototype model has very little armor, consisting of Layered titanium and LiquidMetal, protects this vehicle's vital systems from small arms fire. It is designed to be a relatively fast all-terrain tank supporter vehicle, reaching a top speed of about 150 km/h at full speed.

Overall, this UGAV is designed to lay down missile fire and keep an enemy under constant pressure. Just another Raysian unmanned technology to help reduce bloodshed on your side of the war.

Research is nearly complete and a prototype can be expected soon. The very simple design material costs puts this vehicle at a cost of around 300,000 USD. Ammo packages will be sold with it, as well as maitenance kits and control units. The total package will be roughly around 500,000 USD each when bought in bulk.


http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rsig2.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=78939)

unmanned=sux0rz

unmanned=sux0rzUmm... right... go away n00b.

Well put.

Although the current design seems highly impratical, due to its fragile-looking nature, we will be glad to help, so long as the design is slightly changed.

Care to explain? It's not supposed to be durable, and there are no human lives to protect inside, so safety is not an issue. This is just supposed to be a vehicle dropped into a battlefield to aid MANNED tanks and ground vehicles.

What are your suggestions? Possibly for an alternate model UGAV?

OOC:
Classic unmanned combat vehicle problem, extreme vunerability to ECM (at least the command link) and EMP.

OOC: Straight out of the Starfighter series. Nice.

That does not look like it could withstand much small arms, at best it would have armor as thin as a helicopter's, and its high profile isn't helping much either......I hope also that you plan on turning down the max accelleration, because if you let that thing go too fast too quickly, it will hamster like a monowheel. If this is your thing though, go ahead, its 5 mil price tag will make it more fun to sweep off the battlefield.

(ooc: Guanyu, I think its from starwars........)

OOC:
Classic unmanned combat vehicle problem, extreme vunerability to ECM (at least the command link) and EMP.Thats why they have programming to take over in case command link is broken. Plus, ECM would probably be taken out by the airforce relatively quickly. A lot of our military is "unmanned" and we have plenty of strategies to clear up ECM in the area.

I think it would be better suited for reconnaissance rather than ground combat because of its weak armour and high speed.

OOC: Straight out of the Starfighter series. Nice.starfighter? How about star wars...That does not look like it could withstand much small arms, at best it would have armor as thin as a helicopter's, and its high profile isn't helping much either......I hope also that you plan on turning down the max accelleration, because if you let that thing go too fast too quickly, it will hamster like a monowheel. If this is your thing though, go ahead, its 5 mil price tag will make it more fun to sweep off the battlefield.

(ooc: Guanyu, I think its from starwars........)Is 5 million too high? That seemed a little high... 500,000 should be more like it... changing. And the accelleration won't be too much more than the average tank, it just can reach a higher max velocity. As for armor, yeah, its not meant to be durable. It can repel SMALL arms, like rifles and pistols, its not meant to stand up to a tank.

I think it would be better suited for reconnaissance rather than ground combat because of its weak armour and high speed.lol this is nothing more than a mobile missile battery, its not meant to be a one-man assault vehicle! LOL its just a vehicle to help the tanks! You can even control it FROM a tank!

double

OOC: Straight out of the Starfighter series. Nice.starfighter? How about star wars...

Starfighter is the name of the Star Wars series that features that vehicle.

Raysia, I never said you should lower the price, I'm only saying units like that are costly. Tech like this is hard to produce cheaply no matter what.

Also fun little paradox: can an unmanned airforce suceptible to ECM take out ECM? Will you have to send in the real thing whenever these things jam up on the field?

Raysia, I never said you should lower the price, I'm only saying units like that are costly. Tech like this is hard to produce cheaply no matter what.

Also fun little paradox: can an unmanned airforce suceptible to ECM take out ECM? Will you have to send in the real thing whenever these things jam up on the field?*sigh* I said it 63482 times already... the Unmanneds back up the manneds!! Ok, I know those aren't really words, but whatever. Also, i don't think it would be that hard... no armor, a simple motor and a expensive computer. Excluding the computers, this would be about 200,000, with computers, 500,000. Its not really armored, and its nothing really special.

unmanned=sux0rzUmm... right... go away n00b.
Now whose the n00b, n00b?

unmanned=sux0rzUmm... right... go away n00b.
Now whose the n00b, n00b?I'm sorry... i see 1337 and i say 1337=Gay=N00b... n00b is the only leet word I use, just cuz everyone else does. If your post consists of only 2 words, of which one has an x and a zero, you're gay, and I will kick you off my thread, that simple.

then kick me off your thread!

The whole ECM arguement depends on how good the ECMs are, if they can make the computer controlled weapons disoriented enough so as to not be able to fight, then you are at a serious loss, as a good portion of your forces are taken out until you can destroy the ECMs. If they are just really crappy ECMs, then you are saving human lives.

You+good ECMs=incomplete army=lose=most of human force dies=actually wasting lives
You+bad ECMs=complete army=win=less of human force dies=saving human lives

So basically, computer controlled weapons will give you a roughly 75%(people with bad ECMs) chance of winning as normal, and 25%(people with good ECMs)chance of taking more casulties.........

Hence I use only human controlled things, because no matter what an advertisement tries to sell you, a good soldier is better than a good machine......

(ooc:Raysia, you got something against gays? :lol:)

Heh, no. I have an equal amount of UCAVs to normal fighters. But, of course, if by "Good ECM" you mean an ECM so godmoddingly good enough that not even fly-by-wire controls work... well, then yeah, I'm screwed in the air, and I gotta use ground :)

No, I meant jamming gear that can flood almost every comm channel with static, and sensor jammers that can confuse IFF signals. If such an occurance was ever to happen, your unmanned fighters would be without human control, and would have no way of IDing friendlies, two things that in unison would make them unable to fight(or at least I hope so, if they just go berserk or something your on your own...)

If you give them too much freedom without human control, electronic systems can fool them. If you give them too little they become useless once someone overpowers your signal. If you make them as smart as humans, handle better, and cost less, your godmodding(at least until fighter swarms in space tech :roll: ).

If someone realizes they can put half your airforce out of commission with radio spam, you may be in for trouble........

Dude... again, i've said this many times as well. if they lose link, they go on pre-programmed attack patterns. And as for identifying firendlies, we do it the same way we identify citizens, people wear counterfeit-proof id rings that broadcast signals to all the computers in the area, identifying friendlies. Our police forces operate on the same way. Every ring gives their exact bio and background. of couirse, obviously, if there qwas an ECM in the area, it might screw things up, but as is the nature of ECMs, you could probably trace the ECM and take it out rather quickly. Thats what the manned weapons are for.

Sileetris: But that would require so much energy as to make the airspace unflyable for your own air force as well.

Sileetris: But that would require so much energy as to make the airspace unflyable for your own air force as well.Yeah, 95% of my aircraft are fly-by-wire, if he can disrupt that on modern tech, thats godmodding.

Raysia the definition of fly-by-wire.......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fly-by-wire describes a system where no direct mechanical connections exist between the steering instruments of an aircraft and the aerodynamically acting flaps or rudder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its an internal system and has nothing to do with the sensors or comm systems of the plane.

But if we had ECMs powerful enough to jam your IFFs, your drones would be useless, and while it is true we would be greatly hassled by a lack of communications and sensors, we would also outnumber human pilots 2:1(because half your airforce is drones)

And so I'm saying, your manned weapons would have to simultaneosly dogfight our manned weapons(again at a 2:1 ratio assuming equal numbers) while trying to find and destroy our ECM broadcasters.

*sigh* we do not deploy the UCAVs into heavy ECM areas... that would be dumb. if an ECM pops up in the middle of a fight, there are backups. Depending on programming, the planes can either go on pre-programmed flight and attack paths, or can come on auto-pilot back to the carrier or base. At close range, the controls would work.

Alright, I'm sorry for derailing this thread so far, but I have one last thing to say....

we do not deploy the UCAVs into heavy ECM areas

Don't airstrike our navy. :twisted:

Peace and I hope we never have to go to war with eachother!

lol

dude, we only use UCAVs when we can. We could go without them just fine if we wanted to.

The prototype of the RA-22 Attack Support UGAV has been completed and tested. Look for this vehicle on our storefronts VERY soon!