The Ship Model Forum

Boy, talk about a biased assessment.

They use apples and potatoes comparisons with F-16s and A-10s. There are many falsehoods in the arguments against the REAPER.

One, REAPER and F-16/A-10 were not, are not, designed for the same missions. Claiming that the A-10 (and maybe even the F-16) can survive in a "robust" air defense environment better than REAPER is not necessarily true. Claiming that REAPER would need EW support aircraft ignores the fact that A-10 and F-16s need EW support as well, along with tankers, and added EW pods. REAPER is a RECON asset designed to loiter over an area of "interest" and to take action REAL-TIME. F-16 is designed as a multi-role fighter and really is a poor "loiter-hunter" ... a pilot's ability to find and ID small targets is only as good as their skill set. A-10 was designed to kill tanks, It can take a beating, but finding small targets over long periods of time is a challenge for them as well.

Two, the costs for F-16 and A-10 are bogus. They compare one A-10/F-16 "flyaway cost" + "Development cost" to four REAPERS and several other costs including Ground Stations and personnel. First off the Development and Flyaway costs of an A-10 last delivered in 1984, are WAY out of date. The F-16 costs quoted are old as well and honestly are way under true "Flyaway" (higher that stated) cost including the NEEDED sensors (Litening or Sniper Targeting Pods) to do the mission that REAPER is designed for and has built in. The author(s) don't include the added sensors, aircraft upgrade costs, Logistics (THE largest part of any aircraft's Life-Cycle-Cost), and ground crew costs for the A-10/F-16 and use old FY cost numbers, if these aircraft were purchased as "new" today ... the numbers would be eye-popping. So given what the author(s) used, sure the costs look bad for REAPER. Further, it isn't necessarily true that there will be a ground station purchased for EVER four REAPERS. There will be replacement aircraft bought for those lost.

Three, they don't compare what it would REALLY take for manned aircraft ... F-16 or A-10 ... to do this mission. REAPERS are designed to loiter for a very long-time. For a manned aircraft to stay on station that long, a tanker would be required or multiple aircraft available to keep one on station for the same period of time. REAPER isn't stealthy by any means, but they are slow and can fly low using terrain as an aid and are harder for "Mark One Eyeballs and Ears" to detect them. Loitering over Pakistan is a lot easier for REAPER than for an A-10 or F-16. REAPERS wouldn't make go multi-role fighter either ... no one expects them to.

Again, the biggest reason REAPER (and PREDATOR before her) are used, is they DON'T have a pilot that can be captured and put on display having his/her head cut-off.

I think there's a balance - less potential inflammation on the US Public side as well as propaganda (unless you count the Sentinel) but more anger over additional flights caused by an emboldened leadership, as brought up in the article.

One fault I found with the series is that there are a couple of references to the A-10 being cheaper to buy; much as I like the A-10 buying new ones isn't an option, so I view it as sort of a false argument.

The big take-away for me is confirmation that the drones require MUCH more infrastructure that is not lumped into the quoted costs for the system.

What a great series of articles. Of course, I can't independently verify the numbers any more than I can the military's but, lacking evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to accept the information, at least in general terms.

While the articles do a nice job of evaluating costs, manning, combat effectiveness, etc. and then drawing a less than favorable overall conclusion, the one aspect that was not really evaluated was that the aircraft are, indeed, unmanned. That was kind of the whole point of the drones. I don't recall any reasonable person claiming that drones would outperform manned aircraft or cost less when compared to manned aircraft with similar capability. The major claim was that they could be used without fear of losing pilots, creating prisoner/hostage situations, or inflaming public opinion about the loss of pilots during questionable missions. And it is this aspect that the drones do perform flawlessly. Not a single pilot has been lost in the dozens (hundreds?) of drone crashes. That's the major benefit of the drones and it works perfectly.

How you evaluate the "unmanned-ness" of drones or put a price tag on it, I don't know but it must surely temper the article's unfavorable overall assessment.

Something to think about.

Part 5: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... r-routine/

Timmy C wrote:One of the main advantages of the X-47B UCAV is that it has an unrefuelled range of some 1600 nm, nearly triple that of the Hornet and JSF. With the increasing threat of long-range anti-access weapons (read: ASBMs), UCAS may well be the only way to go in order to assure access to regions with such threats.

Of course, the range is pointless without stealth, especially for a subsonic aircraft. If the aircraft couldn't survive to reach its target, it would be useless. My understanding is that the X-47 is designed to be quite stealthy. At what I assume will be $100M or more per plane, these won't exactly be throwaway drones! We'll need them to survive their missions.

The mothership model is mainly (in my mind) based on the F-22. I don't see any other airframe having the sensor integration capacity. Knowing the Navy though I bet they'd try and use an EA-18G

One of the main advantages of the X-47B UCAV is that it has an unrefuelled range of some 1600 nm, nearly triple that of the Hornet and JSF. With the increasing threat of long-range anti-access weapons (read: ASBMs), UCAS may well be the only way to go in order to assure access to regions with such threats.

Of course, this range advantage would be negated if the mothership model that Tracy's mentioning is adopted.

Some fairly conventional ones. CAS/Interdiction/SEAD. Basically taking the same tactical missions we have "today" (recognizing that today really means no opposing air force or AA, but really I'm thinking of the initial invasion phases) and looking at doing it differently. The mother ship could serve as a mini-AWACS and mission controller/strike commander, broadcasting a bit more freely or inheriting data from a mainstream AWACS/JSTARS type of airframe. Tasking UCAVs with some of the more "mundane" or dangerous operations would allow the pilot to maintain more of an overview of the situation and manage more than one engagement or mission task.

Hmmm ... Interesting. I gather that you're talking about a strictly line-of-sight (hence, the "visual") burst communication. Either the drones would have to be in a specific spatial orientation to be properly aligned with the comm antenna or the comm antenna would have to be "visible" from multiple aspects. For example, a comm antenna under the nose of the guiding plane would only be able to communicate with drones beneath it. Those above would not have line-of-sight.

So, you envision a package of drones with their controlling plane flying around with no specific task and then being tasked at some point during the flight. That would imply targets of opportunity and, further, targets of opportunity that would not invalidate themselves (a targeted vehicle that unexpectedly drives into a crowded area therefore causing too much risk of collateral damage to remain a target, for instance).

My thoughts aside, have you given any thought to what types of targets/missions might be likely to be assigned in this fashion?

carr wrote:OK, you got me. What would be an example of a visual comm system that could control a drone?

Not necessarily control, but bursting communications. It wouldn't take much to give a set of GPS coordinates to attack, the weapons to use, and GPS coordinates & time for a rendezvous.

I figure that there is some sort of LIDAR ID and communications possible; Fiber optics are just a medium for laser communications, so if you can have a LIDAR sensor recognize a friendly air vehicle and know where the optical com port is located you could "converse" between the two vehicles with an extremely tight beam. If the UCAV is designed correctly it should be fairly autonomous. Give it a target and type of weapon to use and let it plan its own route and fight its own way in or out. That way you have a pilot nearby who can coordinate 3-4 strikes, say; or use the UCAVs as defense while he rolls in. I don't know what the correct drone to pilot ratio would be; I would think it depends on the piloted air frame and how well it integrates with the pilot without saturating them.

We can stand-off and lob GPS / laser guided bombs with just about any vehicle, but there are still times when you need something different, and this is a "package" that I have theorized for a long time.

Cliff,

I heard a story that an USAF fighter Squadron CO recently threw his pilots a loop in their training by having them turn-off ALL their GPS and Comm devices, to go silent ... no emissions ... and told them to get to point B from where they were. No word how that went.

What happens when we loose the satellites?

We go out and catch them, is what!

carr wrote:

Tracy White wrote:... could even communicate with the controller aircraft over a visual system that wasn't detectable the same way radio is.

OK, you got me. What would be an example of a visual comm system that could control a drone?

Maybe laser light beams? You'd have to bounce them off something though if they were over the horizon. Don't know about range or signal degradation though. Just thinking out loud.

As long as there is a human controlling the UAV/UCAVs than that's fine by me. If it keeps our pilots out of harms way than awesome. Just don't give the darn things ANY form of an AI for crying out loud!!!

All this technology and reliance on computers and satellites is really disturbing though. Does anyone know how to do anything without them anymore? Do they even teach basic pencil and paper navigation anymore? What happens when we loose the satellites?

Tracy White wrote:... could even communicate with the controller aircraft over a visual system that wasn't detectable the same way radio is.

OK, you got me. What would be an example of a visual comm system that could control a drone?

Rick E Davis wrote:Personally, I think that a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft are required by our Armed Forces for our defense.

I agree. For example, I like the idea of hybrid flights of manned/unmanned aircraft; using, say, an F-22 with 2-3 UCAVs that can be tasked with things and need less constant control and contact, and could even communicate with the controller aircraft over a visual system that wasn't detectable the same way radio is. There are things that each system does better, and we need a good blended approach.

I suspect that a lot of the appeal of drones to the Pentagon is that it is easier to hide costs; harder to do with a major system like the F-22 or F-35.

I like that this series of articles is taking into account the "Total System" cost of utilizing UAVs. I wish they in turn would do the same for manned aircraft instead of only counting development and "fly away" costs. There are huge investments on the ground for ANY air vehicle. It would be better at providing apples-to-apples comparison.

However, I have to question some of the article's assumptions.

One, there doesn't seem to be any calculation for "spares" or units undergoing a programed maintenance. They simply count up how many 4-ship "CAPs" there are "claimed" by the USAF. For manned aircraft, the USAF plans for x numbers of loss replacement and aircraft in "overhaul" outside of the number of aircraft available operationally. These unmanned vehicles will require ... assuming some survive ... periodic upgrades of hardware/electronics/software. Also, does their aircraft purchase count minus operational "CAP" count include aircraft operated by "others" outside of the USAF?

Another thing not factored in here is that the main attraction of "drones/UAVs/UCAVs/Whatever label is used today" is that they do not carry a pilot and are considered expendable. In that sense the air vehicle will not have the same redundant and reliable equipment that a manned aircraft will. I would expect and the DoD (and other users) would expect a heavy attrition rate. The REAPER moved the "cheap/light-weight" PREDATOR from a simple throwaway recon air vehicle to a fairly heavily armed light attack air vehicle. The article authors should try to figure out how many "manned aircraft" sorties would have been required to to do the same number of missions the PREDATOR/REAPERs have done since 1998.

Other UAV types are designed for greater survivability than these low-end, "low intensity" conflict UAVs.

Communication/control of an air vehicle beyond sight is always tricky. The DASH drone helos from the 1960s suffered heavy losses due to operators losing control. There is more than one way to have communication/control of a "drone" and some or all links "Should" be secure. If there are issues, they need to be addressed. Don't think that some of these same issues already wouldn't also impact "manned" aircraft as well.

Personally, I think that a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft are required by our Armed Forces for our defense. We are not at the point where "launch-and-forget" drones will be fighting wars without a human in the loop. Makes for a nice SF movie ... but not for real. I kind of doubt we will for a longtime.

I wonder if maybe we have put too much dependency on technology . I know and understand a simple EMP/F air burst can disable a manned Fighter and all electronic equipment just as easily as a remote operated drone,..but a manned aircraft has that human ability that no automation or hard drive could ever match.. The ability to kill or let live,.... have we now entered into a realm of "machine vs. man? A world where the true predator is hidden away in some remote underground location only seeing a Monitor and having no vested interest in the life or death of the selected target.

I think we stand at the chasm and if we cross this great gulf...we can never return..

Whoa! If that article is even half correct, that's a pretty damning assessment of the drone program. It doesn't mean that the program won't improve, only that it's nowhere near mature technology, yet.

Drones: wave of the future or niche tool?

Part 4 is up: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... he-drones/

Well, and even when the comm links have been up there have been issues with some of the pilot workstations. The infrastructure they have to drag along is a vulnerability that can be attacked as well, and I question if the warfighters at the top are truly planning for the next war.