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.
What day of the week is it? It very well could be the same guy.
I wonder why this rush to combat though. Wouldn't this kind of technology be great for cargo flights, troop transports, refueling etc? I guess it's too hot to waste on mundane applications at this time. Besides, the unions... toujours les unions.
I infer that the planes would have autonomy, but with remote human pilot overides. For instance, during it's trial run a couple years ago, The Global Hawk flew from the U.S. to Australia without any human intervention from the time it taxied to the tarmak to the time all wheels were on the ground and stopped.
I doubt it, actually. The counterstrategy to an all-UAV force is to disrupt the comm links. Disrupt those, and you'd have air superiority. A manned combat air cabability is far less susceptible to that.
marker
And the future Ender's are practicing away as we speak on their X-boxes and Nintendo's.
I don't hold out much hope for NW Airlines.
I heard from a friend that there were plans to lease older, demilitarized, A-10's to private interests which would fight forest fires on behalf of the California Department of Forestry, but the idea was nixed because of all the red tape.
I worked on A7E's and F/A18's and both had ACLS (automatic carrier landing system) that technology has been around for a while
Yep, they're going to look pretty sharp with those big 'ol beer guts wedged into USAF flightsuits. 8^)
LOL. I remember testing NAVAID equipment located between two LAX runways in the 70's. The system electronically helped guide commercial aircraft into near perfect landings. Everytime a plane landed I would notice the touch down spot. From my vantage it didn't appear to vary by more than 10 ft.
I predicted to my fellow engineers that there will come a time when electronics (guidance & control systems) will obsolete the pilot.
The pilot essentialy becomes a robot.
Grab a surplus Vark or two as well.
"I doubt it, actually. The counterstrategy to an all-UAV force is to disrupt the comm links. Disrupt those, and you'd have air superiority. A manned combat air cabability is far less susceptible to that."
There are a few issues with this. There are actually two types of control, telepresence and autonomous. When telepresence fails, the vehicles go into autonomous mode. At a minimum, autonomous mode would be "return to base". In practice, for bombers, most missions could be fully autonomous, just as cruise missiles are now. The only time a lost link would result in auto return to base is if the mission is flagged as "must be recallable".
Air to air is a bit more complicated, but quite solvable. The software would need to be able to understand high-level tasks like CAP, SEAD, interdiction and so on. The other hurdle is IDing other aircraft, which is readily solvable through image processing, radar signature processing, black boxes and so on. A UAV could easily be programmed to "challenge" not-obviously-military aircraft, and only fire if it didn't turn away in a certain amount of time. If a link is available, telepresence could "coach" the UAV. Straight air-to-air combat is the easy part, given good sensors and radar. The plane could "learn" to be a top ace in seconds, the cockpit/oxygen/canopy/displays/ejection seat (and lots of other stuff) go away, meaning longer range and/or more payload. As others have pointed out, UAVs can out maneuver manned aircraft by a wide margin.
I expect the way it'll be used operationally is with manned aircraft in the vicinity to be "commanders". Comms might be accomplished securely with lasers, for instance.
In summary, the big wins are:
Autonomous fighters will eventually win the vast majority of engagements against manned aircraft.
Autonomous aircraft will outperform manned aircraft.
There are no training delays with autonomous aircraft.
Training costs are (much) lower with autonomous aircraft.
A shot down autonomous aircraft doesn't leave a grieving family behind, give intelligence to the enemy, or add to the "media body count".
Didn't our intelligence community suffer because of a similar push to put all of our eggs into the gee-whiz technology basket?
bump for the BUFF
So the bayonet outlives the pilot.
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.