Earliest combat UAVs

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What is the earliest we could see armed UAVs participating in wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
The earliest attempt at a powered unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" of 1916.[2] Nikola Tesla described a fleet of unmanned aerial combat vehicles in 1915.[3] A number of remote-controlled airplane advances followed, including the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane, during and after World War I, including the first scale RPV (Remote Piloted Vehicle), developed by the film star and model airplane enthusiast Reginald Denny in 1935.[2] More were made in the technology rush during World War II; these were used both to train antiaircraft gunners and to fly attack missions. Nazi Germany also produced and used various UAV aircraft during the course of WWII. Jet engines were applied after World War II, in such types as the Teledyne Ryan Firebee I of 1951, while companies like Beechcraft also got in the game with their Model 1001 for the United States Navy in 1955.[2] Nevertheless, they were little more than remote-controlled airplanes until the Vietnam Era.

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

The Luftwaffe had one in WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_As_292
But it was similar to the rest of the major powers who were experimenting with target drones for AAA.

It looks like the first recon drones appeared in the 1950s and were extensively used in Vietnam.
Still it took until the 21st century to have armed drones running missions (according to Wikipedia that is).

So how soon could a weaponized drone been used on the battlefield?
 
Well IIRC the recon drones used in Vietnam were launched from aircraft, weren't remote controllable but simply followed a pre-set flight route, and had to be recovered to view the film they had taken. Even then they were apparently pretty useful so people started looking at improving them. To get a modern UAV you need to develop a control system that's small and light enough to fit in a drone that can be actively operated via satellite. To get the combat part you're going to need a missile, something like the TOW seems to be the earliest possible option but it seems a bit on the large side compared to the Hellfire that came along twelve years later.
 

Meerkat92

Banned
To get the combat part you're going to need a missile, something like the TOW seems to be the earliest possible option but it seems a bit on the large side compared to the Hellfire that came along twelve years later.

Why does it have to be a missile? It would be comparatively easy just to latch a couple decently-sized bombs to one and drop them over a target.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why does it have to be a missile? It would be comparatively easy just to latch a couple decently-sized bombs to one and drop them over a target.
That's why I'm wondering why something like this isn't possible in WW2 at least for insurgency operations. I know that a major power could jam and render the UAV useless, but against guerillas recon UAVs and even attack UAVs could have some use, even if its just directed from another aircraft (mothership).
 
That's why I'm wondering why something like this isn't possible in WW2 at least for insurgency operations. I know that a major power could jam and render the UAV useless, but against guerillas recon UAVs and even attack UAVs could have some use, even if its just directed from another aircraft (mothership).

Given the size of drones (used for AA practice), its going to realistically need transistors to get them working. Transistors in WW2 open way more cans of worms than just UAV's....!!
 
That's why I'm wondering why something like this isn't possible in WW2 at least for insurgency operations. I know that a major power could jam and render the UAV useless, but against guerillas recon UAVs and even attack UAVs could have some use, even if its just directed from another aircraft (mothership).

Why use drones at all? If guerillas can't hurt UAVs they can't hurt manned planes either. So it makes more sense to send those, with bigged payload, pilot input, more reliable....
 
I'm not seeing barriers to it being WW2. Think about it: Fritz-X was radio-guided, Bat had an airplane-like airframe, V-1s were airlaunched... How big a step is it to develop something between Bat & V-1, equipped with *FFARs, for AA? Or for penetration of heavily-defended airspace?

Why you develop an RPV is another matter... You'd need air defenses to be very strong, or manpower losses to be prohibitive for some reason. Perhaps you need to conserve strategic materials so much, you've got to switch to wood?

Suppose you want it for ASW patrol? Fly a blimp with Camazotz RPVs (produced by Wayne Industries?:p), equipped with AP rockets. Blmps are too vulnerable to approach, but have high endurance; the Camazotz is fast enough to seek & attack, & small enough to be recovered in flight.
 
What we would call UAVs were used in World War Two. See the German Mistral program and the American Aphrodite. Other programs used war weary airframes loaded with explosives. The Germans used mostly Ju88 with a Me109 mounted on top to provide guidance. At the right time the fighter pilot would release the drone and provide terminal guidance via short range radio. The Americans used piloted B17s with a minimal crew. At the last moment the crew would bail and terminal guidance would be provided by a shadowing bomber.

Neither were even remotely successful, unless you count killing Kennedys. The tech just isn't there. What most really have trouble realizing is the remotely operated portion of the UAV. They are commanded from special communications hubs via satellite. That's theomly way to ensure they have constant, secure, long range guidance.

As to hitting a target? There was no such thing as precision fires like we have today. Accurately hitting something from a manned platform was hard enough.

Besides aircraft and pilots were cheap then. No reason not to put your pilot at risk for significant more advantages.
 
Matt said:
satellite. That's theomly way to ensure they have constant, secure, long range guidance.
So who says you have to be able to operate an RPV from half a world away?:confused::confused: A 20mi range could be very useful, as the radio-guided bombs proved.
 
I'm not seeing barriers to it being WW2. Think about it: Fritz-X was radio-guided...
From a very short range IIRC, what's the point of a drone that you have to follow around in close proximity with very basic control of it? I could maybe see a reason for dropping bombs or taking reconnaissance photographs over very highly defended sites, but losses would of had to be extreme for the costs of developing guidance systems and building a small enough yet still effective UAV to outweigh just carrying on using regular aeroplanes and bearing the losses.


So who says you have to be able to operate an RPV from half a world away?:confused::confused: A 20mi range could be very useful, as the radio-guided bombs proved.
Well then I'd say that it wasn't really a combat UAV in the modern sense of Preadtors and Reapers but simply a flying bomb.
 
Simon said:
From a very short range IIRC, what's the point of a drone that you have to follow around in close proximity with very basic control of it?
As already described, it could have search multiplier effects.
Simon said:
Well then I'd say that it wasn't really a combat UAV in the modern sense of Preadtors and Reapers but simply a flying bomb.
Did I mistake the OP? I took it to mean "earliest" not "most like modern".
 
Top