Air-Force Kelley Aerospace unveils Arrow, supersonic UCAV

[ekemenirtu]

Kelley Aerospace unveils Arrow, supersonic UCAV

Singapore-based Kelley Aerospace has officially launched the world's first supersonic unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV).

www.airrecognition.com

Kelley Aerospace unveils Arrow, supersonic UCAV​

Aviation Defense News March 2021 aerospace air force industryPOSTED ON THURSDAY, 04 MARCH 2021 15:25
Singapore-based Kelley Aerospace has officially launched the world's first supersonic unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV).

Arrow UCAV (Picture source: Kelley Aerospace)



Dubbed "Arrow" , the aircraft boasts a carbon fiber monocoque, enabling it to fly for more than 2,600 Nm (4,800 km) with a maximum payload of 37,038 lbs (16,800 kg). Speeds up to Mach 2.1 – exceeding the speed of sound – are announced.

The Arrow is said to be the “world’s first supersonic UAV that pushes the boundary with state-of-the-art swarm and autonomous aerial flight logic — making it a formidable UAV. The Arrow is designed to complement manned aircraft and be a force multiplier in the aerial battlefield”

The Arrow is designed to complement manned aircraft and be a force multiplier in the aerial battlefield (Picture source: Kelley Aerospace)



“It is designed for a reduced radar cross-section and infra-red signature. The carbon fiber and monocoque design endows the Arrow with outstanding strength and stiffness,” said the company.

Arrow is designed to perform a variety of tasks, at a starting price of $9 million, that can reach $16 million with different features. To date, the company claims to have already received 100 “pre-orders” for the drone, which will be manufactured at their facility in Singpaore’s Seletar Aerospace Park

 

[Azeri441]

Lol seems legit

 

[ekemenirtu]

This is an "Israeli"/Zioinst regime operated company.

The founders are "Israeli".

Due to the autocratic nature of the regime in Singapore, they have had very little success in generating notable innovative entrepreneurial activities on the global stage.

Some critics have pointed to the culture as the source of deficiency.

Some others have pointed to the regime's autocratic tendencies - low media freedom, low tolerance for dissent, effectively one party state, pliant judiciary and law enforcement, cumbersome bureaucracy, not so innovative civil service and policy makers, kleptocracy, nepotism, favouritism, elitism, racism, discrimination and a host of other reasons for their failure.

Their government may have a lot of skeletons in the closet, which is probably why they like to keep a "core group" of pliant "sheeple" that would not question their government/elite control over their lives.

The current model of inviting in foreign companies, operating a few relatively big government linked companies and crowding out organically developed local competitors serves the government well in keeping dissent low, in ensuring no one asks uncomfortable questions.

A good article on the authoritarian regime's failures and limitations.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Manu%20Bhaskaran_Getting%20Singapore%20in%20shape_WEB_2.pdf

However, a reluctance to undertake a bold restructuring of education means the response has been tweaks (many of which are commendable). Others would argue that a freer media and willingness to tolerate dissent is also important for creativity. Here, too, there has been a disappointing reluctance to change

However, there are growing concerns about how these individuals behave collectively. There is a tendency to recruit and promote people who are similar to the senior civil servants, with whom the seniors feel comfortable. Those who challenge the views of their seniors are filtered out and do not make it to the top. Consequently, there appears to be far less diversity in the composition of the higher and middle ranks of the key services. The result is a greater risk of groupthink. The system of training and rotation among different agencies and ministries may not be working as well as previously. For example, scholars serving in the Singapore Armed Forces appear to be parachuted into senior positions for which their training and exposure do not prepare them adequately. There does not seem to be enough emphasis on experience and domain knowledge.

There also appears to be more of a tendency in the bureaucracy to second-guess the wishes of senior civil servants or political leaders and to tell them what they want to hear rather than provide dispassionate and objective advice and analysis. Such risks are present in any bureaucracy but in Singapore the problem seems to have worsened of late. CONCLUSION Singapore’s economy, while still robust and possessing considerable strengths, faces growing challenges. However, Singapore’s ability to adjust effectively to these challenges may have weakened compared to the past. The major reason for this diminished capacity is that the policy responses required to support a successful adjustment may not be evolving quickly enough. Moreover, the capacity for companies to make more spontaneous bottom-up adjustments seems to be lacking. Unless bolder changes are made to overcome these challenges, Singapore’s extraordinary economic performance may prove difficult to sustain