The US Lethal Drone That No Enemy Is Prepared For 

WAY too much like the HK’s for my liking.

PLEASE don't jinx it.

Unfortunately it appears the US are the new NOTSEES .

Almost as though Bells designers head to the movies for divine inspiration?

Sigh..

I think they are a long way from an AI pilot. Remote fighter pilots are still a long ways off. Bomber pilots, like the current drones, are much easier.

That’s something few take into consideration,they don’t know how vast that water body is.

On and over water there is only two kinds of vehicles. Submarines or Targets.

@captsirl mostly, subs still suck at AA warfare for now, gotta watch out for ASW drones buzzing around, then dropping a torpedo on your head.

To be fair, when you have millions of expendables, not a bad budget option for the mountainous terrain that they are fighting India in. Heck, use as little radar reflective material as possible and you've got yourself a low visibility attack gyrocopter.

​@@zano187don't even have to do that! They are flying in mountains. Radar is not that good. The Gyros should be more concerned about sound. Unless they plan on using the sound as a psych effect!

I think it is a good idea. They dont care about their troops and those things are dirt cheap and easy to fly. They can literally do entire assaults with a hundred of them to take a position. Would be handy in the Ukraine right now to get behind the enemy line. Let them waste their expensive arse missiles per aircraft! Fly as low and fast as possible at night time. If they made it a hybrid it would have been an even better idea. Switch to battery only for silent flying the last ten miles. Would you rather take on two squads of Chinese with 20 gyrocopters. Or two squads of soldiers with MRAPs with about two or three vehicles carrying them? I think the gyrocopters would be more annoying! People say oh but we have stingers... You aren't going to have enough if they decide to mass attack ya sending 30mm rockets at ya. The cost effectiveness isn't there. This is when lasers become handy. Blind them! Just playing that is illegal! Aim for behind their head where the Jesus nut is. The only thing confusing to me is the optical system. How cheap is that? If it is expensive then I retract my entire statement. If mass produced I bet they could get ridiculously cheap for the gyrocopter its self.

Harbor freight Air Force. If those gyrocopter. Hold up like the harbor freight tools then we have nothing to worry about

Chinese can stop indian holy river GANGES(originates in tibet)over night that feeds 1.4 billion indians …similarly Chinese can stop its export to US overnight that are used in these US drones or military hardware. Never underestimate your enemy!!❤️🇺🇸

Not to the folk you kill.

@Onequietvoice Usually, nothing of value is lost.

Sell the patent to Cyberdyne. Oh, wait...

@@MomMom4Cubs i like how films warn us of the pitfalls of using A.I so we just do it anyway, because-reasons. Try Eturb 1a genocide bingo. great channel

Yoyodyne was a much better company. Especially, their multidimensional approach. BONZAI!!!!!!!

dont forget the flashing strobe lights in blue and red and eerie sound projection to unnerve organic beings.

Cylons?

There is if you have to crash land 😂 💥 🔥

@@Shadow__133 Okay, except for that situation. 😁

@@johnpatz8395Of course in the case of unmanned vehicles that can be built cheap enough,that fuel can add some extra punch to kamikaze deliveries.

Prob means modular areas that can carry more fuel. Often times this guy isn't very clear. He says weight of this aircraft is like 1400lbs, then later he's talking about 29000lbs lol

'Fly' underwater with USV's. A single use unmanned sub with a certain 'device' on board. 1 sub could take out 1 aircraft carrier. A fleet of USV's can take out a fleet of ships. Could hug the bottom and then go vertical underneath a ship if needed. Stealth mode too. Remote and AI controlled to time the impacts as required. No naval fleet nor port would be safe. The 'Protector' has to be correct 24/7, the 'enemy' only has to be correct once. (And this works both ways depending upon if one is protecting or is the enemy, except of course with Nature. While Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. Spoiler Alert: Nature 'wins' in the end.)

I'll just take the 1/8 scale model that flies as an rc...thingy...

AI WILL WIPE OUT the HUMAN Race!

The US military does not require a search and rescue capability since they do not intend putting US troops on the ground except in exceptional circumstances, like if they want to capture someone alive. (lol - that was a joke btw.)

The tilt rotor design is complex - expensive to make and expensive to operate. Honestly, the only plausible customer is the US Marine Corps, which has an obsession with VTOL. These drones, while expensive, could have speed and endurance to keep up with the even more expensive V-22 Osprey or V-280 Valor. F-35 has the speed. Attack helicopters have the endurance. Neither has both.

Yeah. Maybe we can even put them under a centralized AI command. Good idea!

Cheap and complex usually don't mix well. Cheap drones trade off range or payload - that's why Ukraine's drones against Moscow do so little physical damage. And the autonomous capabilities are really limited.

@@recoil53 I should have said relativity cheap. Easier to replace then a Apache or V-280. Something that won’t break the economy if we lose a thousand but win or deter a war.

@@rickjames18 Given the complexity and increased maintenance requirements for the tilt rotor system, this drone could cost several times as much as an Apache. Something like a Bayraktar TB-2 drone costs less, but it's also less capable. For the US Marines, hangar space is expensive. Each of their ships costs BILLIONS of dollars, so spending tens of millions for a more capable drone makes some sense. Of course, if it's just going to get shot down quickly in a modern battlefield, then that may be a false economy. I don't know where the "sweet spot" would be.

Interestingly enough it looks like the thumbnail for the video is BAE Australia's Strix UAV.

Sounds like something straight off r/NonCredibleDefense lol (Too bad Reddit’s CEO had to be a jerk, jokes like yours make me miss the MIC Shitposting lol)

I'LL BE BACK

.... I wonder if drones will ever demand retirement and vacation time :D I need time off boss! YOUR A DRONE! WHAT DO YOU GOTA DO!? PUT YOUR WHEELS UP ON A SOFA!? I NEED TO CONTEMPLATE THE MATHEMATICAL PERFECTION OF THE UNIVERSE BOSS! 101010101010101010100101010010101010101

I realize it's limiting, but they need to stay away from names associated with rogue AI anyway. HAL, Eagle Eye, Skynet, etc. anyone who proposes them should get a talking to. And yes, I'm aware that some feeble minds have already used Skynet several times.

Both are interesting birds. Eagle eye was simpler mechanics than this but it was a decade ago so it makes sense. Proud pusher of the noisy lawnmower.

Taiwan

@@chanceneel1 More like Japan, i think

What's that mean? Making changing the flight characteristics so USA has the best version?

What will be the difference? Those foreign buyers are going to be US close allies. If any enemy countries want something like that, they'll just make their own and give it a Vtail.

@@Outlawstar0198 probably to satisfy the buyers specs.

If Terminator is anything to look forward to we already have the humanoid robots, drones, now we just need AI to become self aware. We are getting there

Soon it will be possible to terrorize every nation on earth without leaving your air conditioned bunker. Brave New World.

The flight dynamics of a tail sitter are much more complex. The tilt rotor tech has become pretty refined so its complexity is made up for by simplifying the flight dynamics and structural load paths.

The problem with a tail sitter is that to hover the vehicle has to pointing upward. This would be a problem for being able to fire its weapons from a hover. Also cameras and other sensors would have to have a lot of range of travel to be able to be able to work when horizontal and flying on the wing and vertical when hovering. Lastly a tail sitter would have to be laid on its side to be able to fit in the existing helicopter hangars on Navy ships.

@@papparocket The weapons configuration I'd go with is "gunship/gunship". In hover mode, it's like an attack helicopter gunship, with a narrow body (the body is a wing). Very minimal profile pointed at the enemy. In horizontal flight mode, it's like an AC-130 style gunship. The guns and sensors point sideways. Unlike a traditional gunship, it's possible to fly "upside-down" to switch sides that the weapons are pointed in. There's no problem fitting the drone in a helicopter hangar. In hover mode, it's like an attack helicopter with an unusually narrow body. But for missiles, it may make more sense to have two wingtip rotors. That way, missiles can be mounted at the middle of the wing, so the rotors don't get in the way. In hover mode, they launch at high elevation, maybe 60 degree elevation. In horizontal flight mode, they launch depressed at -30 degree elevation.

@@intrepidpursuit The flight dynamics of a tail sitter are much simpler than a tilt rotor. The big problem with a manned tail sitter is that sitting upside-down with a dangerously limited view, trying to twist your neck to at least see part of the ground is outrageously difficult even for the extremely skilled test pilots that dared to take on that challenge. For an unmanned drone, that just doesn't matter.

The Navy's pretty conservative even more thab the Army. I dobt they'll go for this more likely the SH-60 gets replaced with another H-60 variant. For the firescout hard to say but the Navy's not likely to want to foot the bill.

*alluded

Must be nice to live in a cave…

Rather live in a cave in a democracy then a shithole n a dictatorship country😂

Since it’s your dad, is this misterinformation?

also...could these, carrying sonobouys, be uses to return the ASW function to the Littoral class ships??

Interesting. I imagine the structure is not built to unfurl while the wings are under load. It would be an interesting capability if it doesn't add too much complexity.

That’s enough cocaine for today MIC /j (To be honest though that would be funny as hell, aircraft *inside* aircraft, now all we need is for them to carry loitering munitions lol)

@@ericlotze7724 Yo Dog I understand you like air superiority so we put a plane in your plane so you can bomb while you bomb.

Or just fly there on its own and refuel in the air?

Because the death rate will be "0" since it is a drone. Unlike the many who lost their lives in Osprey crashes.

@@chuckcts-v3460 Haha - what i meant was that all "new ones" should be better than the prior models - by some metric - but if kill ratio if your thing............. Do you speculate that Ukraine may have the edge on understanding best $ to kill ratio these days ? -

@@chuckcts-v3460 Ospreys have a lower crash rate than most USMC fixed-wing aircraft. People think its unsafe because of a handful of over publicized incidents. Its like people being afraid of EVs catching fire while ignoring the hundreds of gasoline powered cars that catch fire on a daily basis.

In Southern California (I believe) is where they are making the TERMINATOR. Except, is more agile. Basically they are building a DROID ARMY FOR THE "NEW EMPIRE "!

@@jessemills3845 Boston Dynamics

@@jessemills3845nah Boston dynamics is working on this.

To be honest,this channel has never been all that good. It improved for a while but about a year ago it took a nose dive and has never recovered (and only gotten worse with each new release)… Quite sad really.

it is for sure

The engine is in the central body. It does not tilt.

It likely won't be able to deploy out of or drop from the wing of an aircraft in flight. However, it is IMO quite likely that people will be looking at austere deployment options. These could vary from rolling it out of the back of a C-130 on whatever airfield that aircraft happens to have landed on to having the drone fly to a field or parking lot somewhere to meet up with a ground crew in trucks. As for the US Army interest, the US Army undoubtedly wants out from under the Key West agreement.

The twin-engine configuration offers unparalleled economic benefits when optimized for extended range. Its unique ability to hover precisely in place, rather than circling like a gunship, provides a remarkable advantage.

Remember the US war industry isn't about making the best. This product will no doubt be way overpriced.

@@billrosensteinsuch BS. US tech is the leading tech

@@IIXxSLAYERxXII quality been on the downturn. Plus maintenance crews ain't what they use to be.

@@billrosenstein ah come on man stop hating. So much haters today, we need the purge.

BAE Australia Strix UAV yes

You could say the same for ANY flying craft !!

To be fair, a normal helicopter would go down just as hard if it took a hit that hard. It should be slightly more reliable actually than the Osprey because the engines are fueselage mounted, which reduces complexity of transferring engine power across the whole wing. in case of engine loss.

One bullet in one of prop blade on this machine is more serious than in a conventional prop airplane having blade damage.

@@lanesaarloos281 : Not really. Those composite rotors can take a LOT of punishment. Like slice through a small pine tree and fly home levels of punishment

fuel capacity.

Yeah, That's what they are for.

Interesting concept, it could extend the detection range for incoming missiles and destroy them earlier.

When it's no longer a UCAS... meh.

I thought that was an interesting question. Claude AI from Anthropic had this to say (though by these definitions many of the more infamous military "drones" probably shouldn't be referred to as such): "An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is generally referred to as a drone when it is smaller, lighter and used for more tactical purposes like photography, surveying land, or commercial use. The term "unmanned aircraft" implies a larger, more robust platform that can handle heavier payloads or more complex missions." "Some key differences between drones and unmanned aircraft: • Size - drones are generally smaller with weights under 55 lbs, while unmanned aircraft can be much larger in size and weight. (Though this doesn't explain the Reaper Drone.) • Operating Altitude - drones typically fly lower under 400 feet, unmanned aircraft can operate at much higher altitudes. • Endurance - drones have flight times of 1 hour or less, while unmanned aircraft can stay airborne for many hours or days. • Payload - drones carry small cameras or sensors, unmanned aircraft can carry larger payloads like radar, communications gear, etc. • Complexity - drones have basic autonomous functions vs. unmanned aircraft have more advanced autonomous capabilities and systems. ← (This might be the best explanation why.) • Regulation - drones are governed by looser recreational rules, unmanned aircraft must meet stricter FAA requirements." "While lines can blur between larger drones and smaller unmanned aircraft, the key distinction comes down to size, complexity and intended functional use case, anything larger and more robust than a consumer/commercial drone would typically qualify as an unmanned aircraft."

@@theterminaldave And when did "RC Aircraft" get replaced by "Drone"? I mean, a drone doesn't even need to be able to fly, but in this case we're only discussing aerial drones. Point is, they're all the same thing. UAV, RC Aircraft, Aerial Drone, Unmanned aircraft... all are describing the same thing. The term "drone" for unmanned aircraft originated with full sized aircraft that were remotely controlled and used for target practice - in the 1930s.

@@smgdfcmfah You should have brought this to my attention before I sent out the email to all of the dictionary and encyclopedia publishers. Too late now, sorry.

I feel like the risk is not really worth it. Soldiers hear rotor sound and then they will empty their guns or missiles onto the drone direction since they cannot see it

@@quakethedoombringer But how often does that happen on our heli's already? I figure the US army wouldn't shoot down an aircraft since its probably theirs. I think a medivac UAV would be a good thing even outside of war.

I think the US military prefers medevac - basically an ambulance helicopter with human crew tending to the patient. This has obvious benefits to help the patient survive, compared to casevac (where the patient is simply transported as quickly as possible to a medical care facility). An "ambulance" helicopter obviously needs to be a bit bulky anyway, so the marginal cost of including a human pilot is not so much. But there are other militaries out there, which might desire a less expensive alternative that might also be less vulnerable to enemy fire. I don't know if a VTOL UAV would necessarily be the best way to go about it. I mean, if it's smaller than a "real" helicopter, then there may not be a way to safely move under the rotors. And waiting for the rotors to stop spinning, and spinning them back up ... no, that would take too long. If we're talking a multi-rotor electric VTOL, then it doesn't take long to spin down and spin up the props, but these are slow and don't have much range compared to a helicopter configuration. So what's the alternative? Well, some sort of sky crane would solve a lot of problems. The patient's stretcher is a basket or pod with a "basket handle" to hang from a line. The stretcher hangs underneath the drone. It could be something like how K-Max works. Doing things this way, you don't have to worry about the chopper blades, and the downwash effects are mitigated, and you can evacuate the patient directly from a trench or some other less exposed location. It might not be necessary to use a true VTOL for this. A fixed wing aircraft can do a "pylon turn" or "long line loiter" maneuver, where the airplane circles over the target while lowering a weight on the line. This lowers the weight almost vertically, going around in small circles. Obviously this dead weight costs something, but the general efficiency and speed of a fixed wing aircraft makes up for that. Or maybe an autogyro. It can do a much tighter pylon turn than a normal airplane, and it can be cheaper than a normal airplane. For a budget minded military, cheap little autogyros could be a useful solution for casevac.

@@IsaacKuo all good points but having a helicopter loitering while dropping a basket seems like an easy target. I wonder if dual propellers on top would help. I am waiting for the day when we can go pickup a patient and one or two medics, or the age of drop pods like Halo

@@MrShwaggins Generally a single larger rotor is overall better than two rotors, but the K-MAX is a noteworthy heavy lift sky crane with two intermeshing rotors. Something like K-MAX wouldn't need to loiter. It has an incredible lift capacity, so it could simply briefly hover just long enough for a human underneath to hook up the basket and it just powers up and away. We're talking a few seconds it's so powerful. You don't get something for nothing, though. K-MAX may have a lot of lift, but its top speed is lower than most helicopters. So, even though it could do the hook up quickly, it may take longer to simply fly to and from the patient location while potentially exposed to enemy fire. Maybe a less conventional configuration could do better. One idea I like is a tail sitter with a single bladed tip jet rotor. Instead of a centrally located engine with gears, it has a little jet engine at the tip of the blade's counterweight arm. Besides eliminating the gearing and tail rotor, this gives the rotor a lot of momentum. Thus, it can build up a lot of momentum and provide a burst of strong lift by pulling up on the blade pitch control. The point is, it can fly horizontally to arrive above the patient quickly, and then lift up and away quickly thanks to the burst of strong lift.