Posted on 01/17/2006 6:57:49 AM PST by pabianice
WARPLANES: Pilots Surrender to UAVs
January 17, 2006: The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to make the next generation heavy bomber an unmanned aircraft. The Department of Defense also wants the new aircraft in service by the end of the next decade, some twenty years ahead of schedule. At the same time, the current combat UAV program (J-UCAS, run by the air force and navy) is to be changed as well. The current X45 project will be split up, with the air force and navy allowed to develop a shorter range combat aircraft to suit their particular needs. These will be bombers, with some air-to-air capabilities. The X45 was meant mainly for those really dangerous bombing missions, early on, when enemy air defenses have to be destroyed. But the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the J-UCAS developers were coming up with an aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator (in finding, and attacking, targets) and Global Hawk (in finding stuff after flying half way around the world by itself.)
The X45 program started out, two years ago, as a DARPA research project. But last Fall, it was taken from DARPA and given to the air force, with orders to move as quickly as possible. At that time, the plan was to build the X45C version and get it through all the tests needed to certify it for combat. At the time, it was thought another four years would be needed to do that. Now, no one is sure it will take that long.
The X45A has passed tests with formation flying, and dropping a JDAM (actually the new 250 pound SDB version). The X45C will carry eight SDB (250 pound small diameter bombs), or up to 4500 pounds of other JDAMs. The X45A has already shown it can fly in formation and refuel in the air. The X45C will weigh in at about 19 tons, have a 2.2 ton payload and be 39 feet long (with a 49 foot wingspan.) The X-45A, built for development only, is 27 feet long, has a wingspan of 34 feet and has a payload of 1.2 tons. The X-45C will be able to hit targets 2,300 kilometers away and be used for bombing and reconnaissance missions. Each X-45C will probably cost about $30 million, depending on how extensive, and expensive, its electronic equipment will be.
The one topic no one wants to touch at the moment is air-to-air. This appears to be the last job left for pilots of combat aircraft. The geeks believe they have this one licked, and are giving the pilot generals the, "bring it on" look. The generals are not keen to test their manned aircraft against a UAV, but this will change the minute another country, like China or Russia, demonstrates that they are seriously moving in that direction.
Yeah or what if the Chicomms figure out how to insert a computer virus into the data link like in the movie "Independence Day"? They will paralyze the entire Air Force.
Thanks! Good article.
Cross our fingers and hope the tech-dreamers thought of that.
"Col John Boyd, USAF (Ret), coined the term and developed the concept of the "OODA Loop" (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action)". ...
This is the battle field that the nerds will find themselves in. The OODA loop.
If they can match or exceed piloted fighters in this arena the concept will have been proven.
You're right, the enemy will try to disrupt our data links and we will employ countermeasures to prevent it. As happens to all data/comm links in combat.
My nephew works in the un-manned program (he's a captain). All drones are flown by humans. Landings and T.O.'s must be done "locally" as there is a two second delay [each way]from his base in Nevada to the drone. Flying and taking pictures are done by his team in Nevada. I understand another team in Florida does the same thing.
You're right. This must be overcome. Not so much as computational bandwidth but uplink and downlink bandwidth.
The manned aircraft can make realtime command and control decisions without the link delays inherent in remote control.
True. The difference is, however, that with people in the plane you can still rely on individual initiative at the "point of the spear." Disrupting a comm link doesn't prevent human pilots from continuing to act as they see fit, and to autonomously shift targets in response to real-time changes.
For a UAV, however, disruption of the comm links means a complete loss of initiative; and, more to the point, it means that you can't send out any new missions until the comm links are back up.
And C-130's will still be transporting grunts and supplies!
"Going to "autonomous mode" means you've just ceded air control to the bad guys. And if you haven't got the comm links to begin with, you can't even get that far."
No, you misunderstood me. For autonomous air-to-air to work, the system must understand and perform assignments like "Fly CAP along these waypoints {...}, shooting down any non-allied military aircraft." No comm links needed, though reliable comm will be the norm rather than the exception.
Human piloted aircraft aren't nearly as useful without comms either.
What a stinker of a movie. P-U!
Considering that many commercial planes can handle an entire flight from takeoff to landing automatically I would assume that these military planes would be able to do so also.
I guess the question is when a human being is expected to take over, and what can be automated. I'm betting the answer to that is constantly changing.
I work in the avionics field. We've come a long way. While there are a lot of IT jobs being done by overseas outsourcing with varying degrees of success, that's drastically different than writing software that's going to conform to DO-178 standards or the additional layers of security requirements that are going to be layered on top of a project like this.
Disruption of a comm/data link by the enemy is the equivalent of a pilot going unconscious during a hi G maneuver. Both can be fatal in a dog fight. It's a question of the reliability of the comm links. Using ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) will mitigate this IMO.
The problem of bandwidth/delay in uplink (command & control) and downlink (telemetry) is a serious problem.
Since the "nerds" are saying "bring it on" to the AF brass, I'll assume they've done their homework and their numbers look good.
I can only speculate, but in John Boyd's OODA loop, the second O (orientation) is where you might want to go fully automatic. And leave the decision and action up to the on board computers.
It would mitigate jamming. It wouldn't mitigate something like the destruction of a communication satellite or a ground station. A serious enemy would go after our comm infrastructure as their first order of business: they know that it's increasingly our military's weakest point.
The question is: could an all-UAV military survive significant disruption of the comm infrastructure? The answer is no. So the problem is either to protect yourself from the effects of disruption, protect against disruption, or some combination of the two.
You land it like this:
http://www.consoleclassix.com/info_img/Top_Gun_NES_ScreenShot2.jpg
And array of sensors communicating between carrier & aircraft, with the carrier's computers and not the aircraft's computers controlling the landing approach, the whole time with several "carrier based pilots" able to tweak anything manually, landing approaches could end up much safer than the past. The computer will have 200 million simulated landings under it's belt, the most experienced pilot will have no more than 10,000 I'd guess.
And severally damaged planes (at only $30 million a piece) can be dropped in the drink and be disposed of by carrier group ships.
Give them time. They'll try and replace Marines with androids (Data?)
**ducks***
THe other downside to this is that China and other hostile nations will create extremely small proximity mini nuke warheads meant to be EMP weapons. There could well end up with nuclear fallout on the ground below any air combat where UAV's are engaged.
I don't believe anyone is thinking all UAV. During an initial assault for dominance over an airspace the infrastructure must be secured. Satellites, ground comm facilities, etc. Manned aircraft would be required for this mission. However they wouldn't be flying over hostile territory. They'd be in remote locations.
And what's preventing us from having multiple remote links and transmission points? We can achieve reliability through redundancy.
Your own words: "Sad but inevitable. We are now training the last group of combat aircraft crews."
Oops -- sorry -- not "your own words." But clearly the words of someone who disagrees with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
