The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New Dawn for Naval Aviation?

[Mike[_7_]]

The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New
Dawn for Naval Aviation?
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/S.20070711.The_Unmanned_Comba/S.20070711.The_Unmanned_Comba.pdf

[[email protected]]

On 13 Lip, 17:59, Mike > wrote:
> The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New
> Dawn for Naval Aviation?
> Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessmentshttp://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/S.20070711.The_Unm...


I must say it makes me sick a bit when the prophets of the new era
keep telling about people made redundandant, and hyperintelligent
machines fighting their own war. But I think the UCAS programme MUST
have some weak points, for example:

1. Increased exposure to jamming and communication breakdowns (let's
imagine a large-scale conflict again - with GPS satellites splashed
and some "small" tactical nuclear warheads detonated), or just a
broken communication link between UCAS and its mother-station on a
ship or manned aircraft.

2. No real ability to tell the difference between friend and foe (much
higher risk of blue-on-blue kills), to prioritize variety of tasks and
targets, to be "more humane" in situations where collateral damage is
highly possible.

3. Last but not least, if making war was so easy, politicians could be
too fond of it...

Any other ideas?;-)

Best regards,
Jacek

[[email protected]]

On 14 heinä, 01:03, wrote:
> But I think the UCAS programme MUST
> have some weak points, for example:
>
> 1. Increased exposure to jamming and communication breakdowns (let's
> imagine a large-scale conflict again - with GPS satellites splashed
> and some "small" tactical nuclear warheads detonated), or just a
> broken communication link between UCAS and its mother-station on a
> ship or manned aircraft.

Jamming communication links or killing GPS kills much of the manned
fighter capabilities. Fighters do have various auxiliary navigations
systems and I would guess an UCAS would be perfectly capable of using
the same ones, such as TERCOM and INS systems. (TERCOM with manned
fighters, being Mk 1 Eyeball...) The US military is already hugely
dependant upon its space capabilities, UCAS's won't change this.

> 2. No real ability to tell the difference between friend and foe (much
> higher risk of blue-on-blue kills), to prioritize variety of tasks and
> targets, to be "more humane" in situations where collateral damage is
> highly possible.

It's a matter of ROE programming, really. In case of BVR environment a
human pilot is already completely dependant upon information provided
by IFF and battle management for his decision. In case of visual
recognition an UCAV would be far better off, as it could take images
for analyzing them, instead of a human seeing just a black dot far
away. An UCAV in autonomous mode would not be able to distinguish
between situations of less and more collateral damage, to be sure, but
these considerations would be more relevant in a limited conflict
environment, such as OIF, than in a major war.

I agree with you that there will be situations where airplanes must
have pilots. It's just that I think that the correct place for a pilot
is not in the aircraft itself, but in a van eating pizza... Advantages
of getting the humans out of the aircraft far outweigh adantages of
having humans onboard.

Mvh,
Jon K

[Milton Wirth]

Could this be case for using SCADS/Arapaho instead of a $12B CVN?



> wrote in message
ups.com...
On 14 heinä, 01:03, wrote:
> But I think the UCAS programme MUST
> have some weak points, for example:
>
> 1. Increased exposure to jamming and communication breakdowns (let's
> imagine a large-scale conflict again - with GPS satellites splashed
> and some "small" tactical nuclear warheads detonated), or just a
> broken communication link between UCAS and its mother-station on a
> ship or manned aircraft.

Jamming communication links or killing GPS kills much of the manned
fighter capabilities. Fighters do have various auxiliary navigations
systems and I would guess an UCAS would be perfectly capable of using
the same ones, such as TERCOM and INS systems. (TERCOM with manned
fighters, being Mk 1 Eyeball...) The US military is already hugely
dependant upon its space capabilities, UCAS's won't change this.

> 2. No real ability to tell the difference between friend and foe (much
> higher risk of blue-on-blue kills), to prioritize variety of tasks and
> targets, to be "more humane" in situations where collateral damage is
> highly possible.

It's a matter of ROE programming, really. In case of BVR environment a
human pilot is already completely dependant upon information provided
by IFF and battle management for his decision. In case of visual
recognition an UCAV would be far better off, as it could take images
for analyzing them, instead of a human seeing just a black dot far
away. An UCAV in autonomous mode would not be able to distinguish
between situations of less and more collateral damage, to be sure, but
these considerations would be more relevant in a limited conflict
environment, such as OIF, than in a major war.

I agree with you that there will be situations where airplanes must
have pilots. It's just that I think that the correct place for a pilot
is not in the aircraft itself, but in a van eating pizza... Advantages
of getting the humans out of the aircraft far outweigh adantages of
having humans onboard.

Mvh,
Jon K

[John Carrier]

"Mike" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New
> Dawn for Naval Aviation?
> Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
> http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/S.20070711.The_Unmanned_Comba/S.20070711.The_Unmanned_Comba.pdf

I don't think manned aircraft will be eliminated any time soon, but I think
unmanned vehicles are going to perform more and more missions over the next
several decades. I think we'll have an air wing that's over 50% unmanned by
2020-2025.

R / John

[tomcervo]

On Jul 13, 11:29?pm, "Milton Wirth" > wrote:
> Advantages
> of getting the humans out of the aircraft far outweigh adantages of
> having humans onboard.

Is there a known percentage of how much of an airframe is dedicated to
protecting the pilot or compensating for human physical limitations?

[Mike Kanze]

Agree.

The more "smarts" one can put into the most exposed, "forward" piece of gear, be it UCAS, JDAMs, or other semi-autonomous weaponry, the less we must expose our most valuable assets - our folks.

Not to mention that JDAMs make lousy POWs. <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"I knew I'd been living in Berkeley too long when I saw a sign that said 'Free Firewood' and my first thought was 'Who was Firewood and what did he do?'"

- John Berger

"John Carrier" > wrote in message . ..

"Mike" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New
> Dawn for Naval Aviation?
> Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
> http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/S.20070711.The_Unmanned_Comba/S.20070711.The_Unmanned_Comba.pdf

I don't think manned aircraft will be eliminated any time soon, but I think
unmanned vehicles are going to perform more and more missions over the next
several decades. I think we'll have an air wing that's over 50% unmanned by
2020-2025.

R / John

[Tiger]

tomcervo wrote:

>On Jul 13, 11:29?pm, "Milton Wirth" > wrote:
>
>
>>Advantages
>>of getting the humans out of the aircraft far outweigh adantages of
>>having humans onboard.
>>
>>
>
>Is there a known percentage of how much of an airframe is dedicated to
>protecting the pilot or compensating for human physical limitations?
>
>
>
Well for a start? No cockpit needed, no O2 system, no ejection seat, no
G load blackout. While Not a great movie, The Film "Stealth", Jammie
Foxx & Jessica Biel dealt with operating such a system. It clearly has
some advantages...

[Peter Skelton]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:46:24 -0400, Tiger
> wrote:

>tomcervo wrote:
>
>>On Jul 13, 11:29?pm, "Milton Wirth" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Advantages
>>>of getting the humans out of the aircraft far outweigh adantages of
>>>having humans onboard.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Is there a known percentage of how much of an airframe is dedicated to
>>protecting the pilot or compensating for human physical limitations?
>>
>>
>>
>Well for a start? No cockpit needed, no O2 system, no ejection seat, no
>G load blackout. While Not a great movie, The Film "Stealth", Jammie
>Foxx & Jessica Biel dealt with operating such a system. It clearly has
>some advantages...
>
I think the main advantage will turn out to be elimination of the
G restrictions.


Peter Skelton

[John Carrier]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:46:24 -0400, Tiger
> > wrote:
>
>>tomcervo wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 13, 11:29?pm, "Milton Wirth" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Advantages
>>>>of getting the humans out of the aircraft far outweigh adantages of
>>>>having humans onboard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is there a known percentage of how much of an airframe is dedicated to
>>>protecting the pilot or compensating for human physical limitations?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Well for a start? No cockpit needed, no O2 system, no ejection seat, no
>>G load blackout. While Not a great movie, The Film "Stealth", Jammie
>>Foxx & Jessica Biel dealt with operating such a system. It clearly has
>>some advantages...
>>
> I think the main advantage will turn out to be elimination of the
> G restrictions.

Not really. The sensor suite and latency in control doesn't make these
things ideal for turning and burning. Higher fuel fraction leads to greater
persistency, elimination of crew makes stealth easier to achieve and the
asset better for high threat environments. A cheaper, smaller and more
readily disposable interdiction tool. The price is you've eliminated the
decision maker in the cockpit, something you can't always and wouldn't
always want to do.

R / John

[BlackBeard]

On Jul 15, 12:15 pm, "John Carrier" > wrote:
>
> Not really. The sensor suite and latency in control doesn't make these
> things ideal for turning and burning. Higher fuel fraction leads to greater
> persistency, elimination of crew makes stealth easier to achieve and the
> asset better for high threat environments. A cheaper, smaller and more
> readily disposable interdiction tool. The price is you've eliminated the
> decision maker in the cockpit, something you can't always and wouldn't
> always want to do.
>
> R / John

With respect to your years of experience John I've heard that
argument and agree there will always be situations that back it. But
I've also seen counter examples.
Harlan Reep used to fly as a contractor here for decades. He was a
combat vet and normally flew the drones in the live A/A tests.
Occasionaly he would fly other targets in non-shooting tests and flew
for us several times when I was working in flight test (89-91.)
I remember near the end of his career he flew a QF-86 against a
couple Hornets. It was the last Sabre drone in our inventory so there
was a lot of attention/nostalgia on the test. It was planned that the
Sabre would be shot down even if it survived the test so both Hornets
went up with the test missiles and rounds for the cannon.
In a nutshell the Sabre survived the test, and then they allowed
players to go into the shootdown with Harlan being allowed to 'do his
best' to evade. He did, and although there was some hits, the Hornets
landed with empty magazines and racks. IIRC Harlan crashed the drone
because they didn't want to take the chance that thee was damage to
the drone that would cause a crash on landing. They featured a story
on the encounter in the Base paper so it wasn't just O'club stories
that I remember this from. Of course, I _do_ remember some of the
O'club excuses being offered that week ;) (ie. he didn't have to
worry about g-block, he could 'fly the wings off... etc.)

All in all it made a great day for all the nostalgiac people who had
been involved with the Sabre's during their years of use as targets
here at the Lake.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[John Carrier]

"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 15, 12:15 pm, "John Carrier" > wrote:
>>
>> Not really. The sensor suite and latency in control doesn't make these
>> things ideal for turning and burning. Higher fuel fraction leads to
>> greater
>> persistency, elimination of crew makes stealth easier to achieve and the
>> asset better for high threat environments. A cheaper, smaller and more
>> readily disposable interdiction tool. The price is you've eliminated the
>> decision maker in the cockpit, something you can't always and wouldn't
>> always want to do.
>>
>> R / John
>
> With respect to your years of experience John I've heard that
> argument and agree there will always be situations that back it. But
> I've also seen counter examples.
> Harlan Reep used to fly as a contractor here for decades. He was a
> combat vet and normally flew the drones in the live A/A tests.
> Occasionaly he would fly other targets in non-shooting tests and flew
> for us several times when I was working in flight test (89-91.)
> I remember near the end of his career he flew a QF-86 against a
> couple Hornets. It was the last Sabre drone in our inventory so there
> was a lot of attention/nostalgia on the test. It was planned that the
> Sabre would be shot down even if it survived the test so both Hornets
> went up with the test missiles and rounds for the cannon.
> In a nutshell the Sabre survived the test, and then they allowed
> players to go into the shootdown with Harlan being allowed to 'do his
> best' to evade. He did, and although there was some hits, the Hornets
> landed with empty magazines and racks. IIRC Harlan crashed the drone
> because they didn't want to take the chance that thee was damage to
> the drone that would cause a crash on landing. They featured a story
> on the encounter in the Base paper so it wasn't just O'club stories
> that I remember this from. Of course, I _do_ remember some of the
> O'club excuses being offered that week ;) (ie. he didn't have to
> worry about g-block, he could 'fly the wings off... etc.)
>
> All in all it made a great day for all the nostalgiac people who had
> been involved with the Sabre's during their years of use as targets
> here at the Lake.

A somewhat simpler exercise with latency NOT a problem. I was thinking on
the order of a machine being maneuvered somewhere in Afghanistan by a driver
in Colo Springs. When you consider the distances, even at the speed of
light the satellite relay and delay offer enough time to make the job
difficult. Perhaps with sufficient nintendo skills, that might be overcome.

R / John

[BlackBeard]

On Jul 15, 2:49 pm, "John Carrier" > wrote:
>
> A somewhat simpler exercise with latency NOT a problem. I was thinking on
> the order of a machine being maneuvered somewhere in Afghanistan by a driver
> in Colo Springs. When you consider the distances, even at the speed of
> light the satellite relay and delay offer enough time to make the job
> difficult. Perhaps with sufficient nintendo skills, that might be overcome.
>

Perhaps you are right. For the record I believe we are a very long
way away from the 'pilotless air battle' scenario. But I can't help
but wonder if the scales will tip when technology allows virtual
cockpits or other devices that can let the remote pilot obtain SA
comparable or better than piloted vehicles. One pilot in the virtual
cockpit and 3 WSO's monitoring sensors and aux systems? An independent
rear-facing gunner or two (bring back the TBF ;)
If you can build a half-dozen small UCAV's (RPV's) for the price of
one JSF and pilot, any latency problems might be negated by the
ability to send up 3v1. Then if everyone moves to RPV's the the
latency problems balance each other out.
Just some thoughts...

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Kerryn Offord]

John Carrier wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> A somewhat simpler exercise with latency NOT a problem. I was thinking on
> the order of a machine being maneuvered somewhere in Afghanistan by a driver
> in Colo Springs. When you consider the distances, even at the speed of
> light the satellite relay and delay offer enough time to make the job
> difficult. Perhaps with sufficient nintendo skills, that might be overcome.
>
> R / John
>
>

Apparently they've done/tried to use simulators in Australia vs
simulators in USA (F/A-18) for air combat..

The latency was a problem...

It doesn't matter how good your "nintendo skills" are.. You can't get
information there/back fast enough to do real time combat

[BlackBeard]

On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Kerryn Offord > wrote:


Not air combat, but a kissin' cousin...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD61V80.html

The new 'Reapers' being deployed.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Harry Andreas]

In article . com>,
BlackBeard > wrote:

> On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>
>
> Not air combat, but a kissin' cousin...
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD61V80.html
>
> The new 'Reapers' being deployed.

This is an interesting topic.
It reminds me of the first "stealth ship" that Lockheed built.
IIRC no one in the Navy wanted to command such a ship.
The problem was not technical, it was sociological.
Promotion is based on how many men are under your command.
The stealth ship had a radically smaller crew. So despite it's
greater capability, the general concensus was that if you captained
it you would be at a disadvantage career-wise.

I wonder if the same factors are at play here.
How many men make up a UCAV airwing, versus a manned wing?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur