Excellent analysis of current drones

[Tracy White]

I came across these last night; while it focuses on the current Predator / Reaper fleets, I think it has relevance for the Navy UCAV / BBX spotting programs and it's just a really well-done analysis of effectiveness and true costs.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/catego ... m-fiction/
Part 1: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... revisited/
Part 2: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... rformance/
Part 3: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... t-targets/
Part 4: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... he-drones/
Part 5: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... r-routine/

[carr]

Thanks for the links, Tracy. Excellent articles. They point out that the drones are only able to operate in permissive environments. I particularly noted the reference to satellite comm issues being the cause of multiple crashes. In a major war, China for instance, involving loss of satellite comm capability through destruction of the satellites and/or jamming of the signals, one has to wonder how all the drones willl function. The comm links seem to be a major weak point which is disturbing given the escalating emphasis being placed on drones by the military.

[Dave Wooley]

This is a really hard nosed analysis of the Drone-v- manned aircraft on all different operational and cost levels. A real eye opener and not just a one sided kick at the technology. Thanks for posting the link.
Dave Wooley

[carr]

There is a school of thought, currently in vogue, that the future of Navy carrier aviation will be all, or largely, unmanned combat planes (UCAVs). A UCAV carrier would be rendered a complete mission kill if the comm link capability were lost or sufficiently degraded.

Consider that the U.S. has lost several drones over the last several months, all unofficially attributed to comm loss issues - and this is in a setting of full satellite availability and little or no jamming.

I'm not saying that UCAV development shouldn't be pursued. I'm saying that I hope the military is taking a long, hard look at the lost satellite/jamming issue and has a solution before commiting too far down the unmanned vehicle path.

[Tracy White]

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.

[Tracy White]

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

[carr]

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?

[gott_cha]

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..

[Rick E Davis]

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.

[Tracy White]

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.

[carr]

... 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?

[Cliffy B]

... 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?

[Timmy C]

What happens when we loose the satellites?

We go out and catch them, is what!

[Rick E Davis]

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.

[Tracy White]

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.

[carr]

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?

[Tracy White]

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.

[Timmy C]

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.

[Tracy White]

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

[carr]

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.