Austin Bay sees the past and the future of airborne reconnaissance share airspace in the Middle East:
The past, a black U-2 spy plane, took off and shot skyward with a characteristic steep climb, an altitude grabber. The future, a U.S. Air Force Global Hawk unmanned aircraft, landed and glided to a stop.
Will unmanned air vehicles unman tactical aviation? Most planners see room for a mix:
The Air Force’s smart guys talk about a “mix” of piloted high-performance aircraft, like the F-22, in a strike or operational “package” with UAVs. Commercial aircraft use autopilots to fly from point to point, but do passengers want to completely remove pilots from commercial cockpits? Commercial flying isn’t combat, but immediate human presence and judgment – while significantly augmentable – are not quite fully replaceable.
Putting aside for now such theoretical notions as smart Air Force guys, I think that’s about right. As I’ve said before – especially in close air support, with troops engaged on the ground inside the fire support coordination line – you’re always going to want to be able to mind lock in 3-D space with those you’re about lay heavy ordnance alongside.
That is to say, that if I was one of those guys down there on the dirt asking for help, I’d want to be absolutely sure that the pilot I was talking to had the same view of the world as I myself did, in meatspace.
A friend of mine (B-52 Aircfraft Commander) who just returned from Iraq after his second tour as an ALO is thinking seriously about UAV’s as his next assignment – “wave of the future” doncha know.
Interesting that artist renderings I’ve seen of CVN-78, depict a mix of manned and UAV aircraft on the deck.
BTW, he says that from an ALO standpoint, Navy/Marine Hornets are easier to work with than Air Force Vipers…and it has little to do with the hardware – more so the pilots’ attitude. He gives high marks to the A-10, but it’s sometimes too slow to get where they are needed.
I just can’t see taking humans out of the cockpit entirely. Especially — as Lex said — in close air support missions. It seems to me that there’s just too much at stake to not have a human set of eyeballs… and human judgement in the cockpit.
Jim C
The difference between the manned and unmanned responsiveness may hinge on the mindset of the controllers, and the greater opportunities for “higher authority” to meddle with remote controllers than with cockpit dwellers.
Insist that anyone above the video game player level for UAVs have recent seat time as an attack, FAC, ANGLICO to keep the focus and urgency on supporting the guys [and gals] in the mud.
Sensors with the UAVs may actually provide their controllers with greater opportunities for situational awareness and seeing the “bigger” picture with fewer distractions from pucker factors from ground fire or mechanical problems.
New tools for the tool box offer new opportunities as well as challenges, and a need to recalculate the risk/benefit merits of missions.
The budget priorities between manned and UAV acquisition will be especially critical because we need lots of both, and the idiots in Congress seem inclined to provide few of either unless they are goldplated with goodies made in their districts.
Curious, isn’t it, how history repeats itself? Exactly 50 years ago the UK Defence Minister, Duncan Sandys, declared the manned aircraft to be obsolete. Which explains a lot about the current state of the RAF and FAA. Sadly, the people with the common sense don’t necessarily sign the cheques.
if…. IF UCAS-D can work without mishaping all over the carrier deck and starting flight deck fires, you will have a bat wing low observable that can hit 1500 miles from the carrier and return. Not a bad thing as unfortunately, strike aircraft range from the carrier has gotten shorter not longer due to the USN having no choice in a post cold war world Navy that only wanted a pretty cost per flying hour excell spreadsheet friendly Super Hornet with a new car smell. F-35 JSF has a lot to figure out in testing= a big question mark. Rhinos and UCAS-D could do some serious hurt. Where the UCAS-D and Tomahawk allow you to beat up stuff far away from the carrier and let Super clean up when the carrier gets closer. UCAS-D won’t have the weight penalty of 3 Cylon warriors either. I think UCAS-D will also help with ASW. I mean, who really wants to fly ASW missions? That is some seriously strong coffee needed for the crew.
I could see unmanned CAS if the controller was on the team, like Navy Corpsmen with the Marines, or perhaps if the UAV team was part of an Artillery battery supporting the PBI.
If they’re folks dialing in from the States, there’s too much separation between the controllers and the grunts for me to see how the controllers can maintain SA.
We have had total air superiority-supremacy in every conflict since GW1 in 2 weeks or less. What is it we have to move to all this new stuff in a hot war with every service trying to out- pilot (literally) the other….
Stupid. UCAS A-Z that is…Particularly know during a hot war..funding is way outta sight for that Buck Rogers stuff…I want persistent, manned aviation in sufficient numbers to fill out another 30 jets on the CVNs to 95 aircraft..fat chance with all this foolish B.S.
re ELPs- “strike aircraft range from the carrier has gotten shorter not longer due to the USN having no choice in a post cold war world Navy that only wanted a pretty cost per flying hour excell spreadsheet friendly Super Hornet with a new car smell.”
Nice summation. Only recommendation -add “….and good at airshows”.
Don’t want to pile on, however I gotta take my shots when offered for “persistance sake”, but speaking of cost per flight hour- in AVDLR it might be great because it’s all new and solid-statey but have you seen the price of JP lately as a component of total cost/flt hr? LOL. From what I heard, each SuperHornet tanker dumps enough on each event they can’t “bring back”, to fly all airwing helos for a week or several E-2 sorties!
Another not so advertised ‘benefit’ of the $75 M dollar organic Navy tanker us taxpayers have bought…..
b2
I disagree, BB, for two reasons.
First, we will not be able to continue to outspend the world at a 5:1 rate. Basically, US spend as a percent of world defense expenditure is going to fall pretty dramatically, simply as a function of the faster growth rates of other economies over the next 20-30 years. So we damn well better continue to advance our technology edge in ways that improve the cost-effectiveness of fielding existing capabilities.
Second, our political will to sustain conflict is substantially diminished by casualties. So to the extent that we can send drones, airborne or otherwise, in harm’s way instead of people, it is certainly in our interest to expand that capability.
We are likely to be amazed at what missions drones will take on effectively or supplement 20 or 30 years from now.
Flatlander,
re GNP vs defense spending.
Jumping to the macro, don’t disagree but I also don’t see your point. Manned vs unmanned is cost nuetral, even Bay acknowledges that. You know how much a Global Hawk costs, can you imagine the per unit cost of a sofware intensive UCAV? That nullifies/mitigates any cost effectiveness…
re- “In Harms Way”. Go back to ‘91 and count up our losses on our way to air superiority. Pretty light vs the level IADS they faced. Tactics and simple, predictable mishaps were to fault for many…
My point is, we are in a war, the Soviet Union ain’t coming back right away and we have a real and different war to fight right now. And, IMO, it doesn’t require a bunch o’Star War vehicles to gain same superiority over any nation on earth. The Israelis didn’t need unmanned to go into the world’s most advanced enemy IADS in Syria…
That said, there’s nothing wrong with advancing technology but there is a lot of big money out there amongst the industry and I think on this one they are selling a lotta future concepts ala A-12 to a lot of gullible folks who just see reducing the payroll as the major cost benefit of going to unmanned..The folks in charge have been making hay off reducing the size our military since the Cold War went away and they won’t soon desist.
Technology advancement ain’t a panacea for a tangible defense today but I acknowledge it has some aspects of ISR down pat although a lot o’big wing naval aircraft are over the beach really doing the heavy lifting ISR work because 4 engines can generate a lot o’watts…
b2
Pardon my skepticism, but our top robotics researchers have trouble making robots that can play soccer properly. Their generational goal (by 2050) is to get robots that can beat a human team there.
So what is it about aerial combat that would make robots in the air so much better than robots on the ground today?
Check it out. Robots on the ground and in the air are already saving lives in Iraq today.
The question is not whether they will be able to play soccer, the question is, what do we want them to do? What are the additional missions that they are best suited to contribute toward that can save lives and improve the combat effectiveness of people? The robot:human ratio will definitely increase over time. The interesting question is what the limits are.
BB – Assume a world where the broadband network is everywhere you need it to be and that everything is getting smaller and lighter every year. Even if it’s not happening at the rate of Moore’s law, the equation is going to look better and better and better for the droids. Time is on their side. I think you’ll always need warriors, airborne and otherwise, but the mix could shift a lot. 30 years is an eternity for this techn0logy.
I disagree. Hardware is no longer the dominant issue. Software is. And it took over three years of intensive effort to get the software that flies a Global Hawk written and checked out. A UCAV with air-to-air capability is an order of magnitude more complex…not that UCAS will do that. The X-47B is a testbed for a bomb-dropper and recon asset, nothing more.
That’s the soccer argument all over again. Air-to-air shouldn’t be a UAV priority I wouldn’t think, at least not anytime soon.
Three years of intensive effort? How long you think it takes to crank out a military pilot, junior version?