Joe Katzman, writing at Winds of Change, speaks to the issue of tactical-level UAS – what a UAV used to be, before someone got hisself a FITREP bullet for changing the name – associated with ground forces rather than under the aegis of a USAF Joint Force Air Combat Commander (JFACC):
The trend is the growing use of Army UAV drones and precision artillery/ rockets, in order to perform close air support and battlefield interdiction roles that were once the domain of the US Air Force. Don’t fighter planes and bombers still work? Of course they do. But they cost $8,000 – $20,000 per flight hour to operate, plus $80 million – $1+ billion to replace once their airframe runs out of safe flight hours (usually at 8,000 -10,000 hours). Those dynamics, and the need for constant battlefield coverage, have led to an explosion in UAV flight hours.
The USAF has two major reasons to want to run the UAS acquisition process, one programatic, one procedural. In DoD, the dude with the funded program trumps all, while air deconfliction is easier with “centralized planning, decentralized execution.”
On the other hand, when it comes to security and stabilization operations (SASO) Army and Marine Corps company commanders have become strategic players in a way that was never before envisioned. And they don’t want to have to forecast three days forward to ask a JFACC for air in their battlespace.
Looks like the captains are winning out over the generals. That’s not entirely a bad thing.
(H/T to Virgil xenophon)
“Dear US Air Force:
We currently have all our CAS positions filled by UAVs and UCAVs. Due to the high degree of efficiency we have achieved with these unmanned aircraft, we no longer need your services. Please don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of our theater”
Remember, though, that unmanned aviation is not cheap. Never.
Well, MikeM, for a lot of what the Army wants, it IS cheap. If you read the comments in the winds of change article, they aren’t terribly concerned about not having super-duper armed recon overhead, since as soon as they find the bad guys, they can shoot either GMLRS or Excalibur rounds at the target.
Some good points for sure. I would not say 8k to 10 hrs on a fighter airframe. more like under 8k unless you look at the F-15E which was designed in to give you 15k hours of service life.
As for the Army and UCAVs/UAVs… yup they should have them. Although for the family of UAVs and now also UCAVs in the General Atomics (GA) Predator class (Predator and now Reaper USAF and MQ-1C Warrior etc for U.S. Army), you have to look at how USAF and Army use them.
USAF has the manpower for the most part to run the things. Army as you know still has to buff up it’s manpower big time. This includes for the Army style of Warrier etc stuff, that they are being run a lot by contractors. So Army in addition to all it’s other serious manpower needs, has to pump a lot more manpower into Army Aviation in order to properly grow this asset as a strong Army Aviation community.
Also Army runs theirs mostly in-theater for the whole shootin’ match vs. USAFs GA products being controlled out of places stateside and launched, recovered and maintained in-theater.
A different way of doing things for sure.
All the above great for useless dirt ops. For ops that are vs. a big team player, USAF is dumb for not getting into the UCAS-N X-47B with the Navy. Why? Many reasons.
-This would lower the risk for UCAS-N for the Navy and save a lot of money on testing. For USAF UCAS-N only has to launch and recover on a runway.
-Also, lets look at the future and say that a threat pops up much like Allied Force 1999 vs. the Ex-Yugo.
Today, with it’s broadband stealth, persistence/loiter, range, ISR, Strike and maybe some day other talents, UCAS-N in USAF trim along with the USN, would sortie rate the hell out of the DMPI management game. It would put down so many cheap near all weather PGMs in such a short span of time as to (along with other assets) beat the stuffing out of any serious high end threats. After that you can do what you want.So anyway… USAF has a long way to go in figuring out what UAV’s and UCAS can do… if they ever figure it out. My guess is the pilot mafia doesn’t like the idea that something like UCAS-N could (along with the NEEDED manned air assets) bring the game up significantly.
Also, fortunately, small turboprop trainers setup as combat strike aircraft are making a comeback for small war stuff.
Give me the cash and you would see more combat aircraft like the AT-6IIb and Super Tucano in theater with E/O bulbs, NVG setup, small LGBs/JDAM and gun packs hanging from them.
Also more STOL Cessna Caravan’s hanging a few hellfires and good ISR gear on them. Both of these kinds of assets would do well at night too.
Lot’s of wind there ELP. Weight/payload in sensors/weps can NEVER be carried by the craft you propose..At least to sustain meaningful CAS/interdiction. Plus, unique organization and training needs to support such a lightweight family of aircraft is unsustainable in todays fiscal climate. Third world stuff for third world airpower needs.
I will amplify M.M. statement..all that unmanned stuff has huge development costs, huge SW costs for sustainment, long lead/test times all based around bandwidth, unique training needs and humongous infrastructure additions- IE manned/unmanned aviation don’t mix.
Unmanned discussions remind me of the history of the space program.. JPL/CALTEC/MIT nerds would never have proposed manned space travel if they could have gotten away with it..Root of the same discussion here over the last decade from mainly desk bound engineers and xbox futurists….To be sure there is a need for some unmanned stuff. I won’t go into just what, but IMO, not the amount all the services are after to buttress their failing regular manned programs- IE- design a mission around and aircraft procurement made from existing or OTS derivatives..I’m disgusted.
How can you crawl out of a hole if stubborn folks around you keep digging it deeper?
b2
The big problem for the Army, unlike the AF, is they have no source of ready trained pilots they can redirect. The Army Aviation mission hasn’t changed before the addition of of unmanned craft while the AF is getting cut back in cockpits. A number of AF pilots volunteered for unmanned missions to stay in, otherwise, they would have been axed.
I’m glad the company grade officers are driving this thing, however. Most of the time, they get stuff rammed down their throats and are told to like it.
It is true that unmanned craft require a lot of development, or have. Being a former software engineer, however, I will say once the initial problems are solved, modifying things for more capability is not that hard, and doesn’t take near the lead time the initial development took. The first time you climb the wall is, by far, the hardest climb. Being able to do things in higher level languages these days makes thing much easier as well than the days I had to do things entirely in 8080/Z80 Assembly language. Cuts lead time a good bit as well.
Frankly, I’d give th Army the turbprop CAS AC. The AF would shuttle them off where they wouldn’t be a threat to the fighter mafia. Better yet, bring back a modified A1D. They could haul more ordnance. As UAVs develop further, the combo of UAV and DivArty will probably make the flying arty obsolescent. If we find ourselves in triple canopy jungle again, as in ‘nam, the small flying arty would probably make a come back to some extent. In the desert, not so much.
I’m not saying that unmanned aviation isn’t worthwhile. Precisely the opposite. It’s great – when used wisely.
But the UAV fad is reminiscent of the fad for guided missiles in the late ’50s and early ’60s. It’s a very useful technology that suffers from being oversold by people who have no idea of the real technical challenges, limitations, and costs.
I will note, for the record, that AAC units were originally assigned directly to ground units in WWII… which changed the first time that there weren’t enough air units available to mass in defense of the guys getting hit because the guys not in contact refused to give up their allocation “just in case”. Now, today it’s a bit different, because we’re talking ISR/strike only with lighter platforms that aren’t needed in such density. Still, it’s something to keep in mind–what we’re seeing right now in combat is a set of conditions that emphasizes dispersal, long-duration ISR, light strike, and a decentralized chain of command both in the air and on the ground. What happens the next time we fight in conditions where it’s the other way around? Will we retain the physical and mental flexibility to switch-hit as needed?
The advantage to the UAVs is they carry no one. Being flown from the ground allows greater crew flexibility and endurance (not to mention potty breaks which are bit difficult for the pilot in that cramped space). Since they stay aloft longer, fewer are needed. With precision munitions, they have to carry less, and have to re-arm less often as well. If they are simply used as target designators for Arty units, then the only endurance barrier is fuel. Given the advantages, I don’t see these things as a fad, but will become a permanent fixture in the arsenal.
The problem for the Army, is they will have to establish another training pipeline to get pilots for the things in sufficient quantity.
Something like a Reaper or even armed Predator or it’s Army equal…. shows up… loiters…. observes …keeps a tab on bad actors of interest…. follows them to their hide out …. and any where in that cycle kills them if needed… records the results …. and goes back on station for a new tasking. Not too bad for Operation Useless Dirt like adventures.
And of course works nice with AC-130 Gunships, Apaches all at night… making night work of the enemy very difficult. Not bad.
And yeah add some turbo prop strikers in there too.