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

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

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

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

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

"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/4Publicati...nned_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

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?

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/4Publicati...nned_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 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...

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

"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