Marines recommending books - that's like fashion advice for the homeless.
Brett
I think you mean "from" the homeless.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Flying UAVs
- Thread starter macattack
- Start date
I think you mean "from" the homeless.
WingedRyno
New Member
Flash, I've heard that argument before and I'll caveat my diatribe with "I'm not a fighter pilot." Here is my argument why AtoA should be the first to go.
First, saying air to air is too dynamic and intensive for remote control seems a bit too much like saying Air to Air resembles the fight scenes in Top Gun or that a furball is likely to happen in the merge more often than not. I don't think that is the case. I think what more than likely happens is the grinder scenario and BVR capability. Air to air is won by radar trons it seems to me. Put a good radar on the UAV, paint the bad guys, shoot, do a 180 and go the other way, and then turn back and see if you still have radar paint on the target. That can certainly be done with a UAV.
The UAV air to air role has many other advantages. Speed, loiter time, a reduced signature, and greatly increased maneuverability. No need for ejection seats, oxygen systems, air conditioning (except for avionics cooling as required), pressurization systems, or a cockpit to house flesh and bone. Everything being equal, the UAV should be smaller and leaner. It also isn't G limited so it can be more maneuverable with a better turning radius and better performance. A UAV could even be developed that could outmaneuver a missile although that would come with a payload price tag I would think.
But sometimes it can't all be done BVR someone might argue. I think it can mostly be done BVR and certainly in the beginning stages of an air campaign with no fly zones and "if it flies, it dies" ROE in effect and with reliable friendly transponders - BVR is the way to go. In the event it gets visual, however, how much easier would it be to take the UAV supersonic and pass within feet of the target taking clean crisp pictures that the UAV operator (and the host of analysts sitting next to him) can analyze calmy and accurately? No more Black Hawk shootdowns. A quick clean and much safer visual ID run. Keep going supersonic then turn and take out the target BVR.
Air to air UAVs would be much easier to implement and would be much better than manned counterparts, I think.
As far as cargo and tanker aircraft being the first to go, I'd disagree with cargo certainly and partially agree on the tanker. Cargo will likely never go unmanned simply because any cargo aircraft needs to also be able to transport people. If it's going to transport people then it needs pressurization systems, heating and cooling, and oxygen systems. If you're going to have all that - and be hauling people - you might as well have humans onboard to at least "monitor" the flying of the aircraft. Plus people will be less likely to want to fly on an aircraft flown by an operator that doesn't have as vested an interest in landing safely. A cargo UAV could be developed, I suppose, for hauling equipment into really hot LZs but I don't see that happening, either.
Tankers could be unmanned and would be better suited for the UAV role as long as they don't double as cargo aircraft capable of hauling people. If the mission is only to haul gas, then I agree tankers can easily go unmanned.
Again, I'm not an AtoA guy.
The problem with your theory lies in the ROE WRT BVR engagements. While the technology might be there, the political dimension will be the overriding concern.
Brett
WingedRyno
New Member
I think the political dimension is simply, "did you know what you were engaging?" And I think the technology employed on the future air to air UAV would answer a more convincing "affirmative," even from BVR, than the Mark 1 eyeball. Just my two cents.
But if this thread is devolving let me stop. I personally think its an interesting discussion.
But if this thread is devolving let me stop. I personally think its an interesting discussion.
You need to read a little bit more about Vietnam, the ROE was very restrictive and many WVR engagements occurred because BVR engagements were restricted. Simply, they wanted the pilots to make sure that they knew what they were shooting at.
To counter your argument, why did Patriot batteries shoot down an F/A-18 and a Tornado during the opening stages of OIF? An over-reliance on technology. If you think that anyone who has flown in a strike package is going to rely on IFF, radar and links, like a UAV fighter will have to rely on, to tell you what is out there then you are fooling yourself. All of that technology is great but it often fails and you end up having to rely on your training and the Mk 1 eyeball.
So, when the AWACS has been shot down by a long range SAM and the datalink between the UAV and the ground controller back at Creech AFB is down because the satellite transmitting it was blown to smithereens by an ASAT, what the heck good is a UAV then? It is a big fat drone for any enemy fighter to use as target practice.
Technology always fails, just give it time. I have yet to see a piece of technology be made completely sailor proof, much less a UAV.
WingedRyno
New Member
Flash,
That Vietnam ROE was in place, among other reasons I'm sure, due to the technology of the day. The UAV technology I'm speaking of is not of the old F-4 vintage.
Seems our disagreement centers on the technological feasibility. I'm more inclined to think it could work than you. Certainly satcom couldn't be the only way of controlling it for the reasons you mentioned but there are other systems to prevent it from becoming a drone which are already in use and other systems that could also work as backup. I'm a far cry from an engineer and I could be wrong about the feasibility but I don't think so. It's already being developed as we speak and others much smarter than myself think it will work, as well.
I agree reliance on technology is a dangerous path but I don't think that fear should keep us from developing it. It should just remind us to "what if" it and apply backups and continue to adapt.
So let me just say, so we can all agree, that IF the technology can be developed, I think the air to air UAV would be a much better asset than the manned counterpart.
That Vietnam ROE was in place, among other reasons I'm sure, due to the technology of the day. The UAV technology I'm speaking of is not of the old F-4 vintage.
Seems our disagreement centers on the technological feasibility. I'm more inclined to think it could work than you. Certainly satcom couldn't be the only way of controlling it for the reasons you mentioned but there are other systems to prevent it from becoming a drone which are already in use and other systems that could also work as backup. I'm a far cry from an engineer and I could be wrong about the feasibility but I don't think so. It's already being developed as we speak and others much smarter than myself think it will work, as well.
I agree reliance on technology is a dangerous path but I don't think that fear should keep us from developing it. It should just remind us to "what if" it and apply backups and continue to adapt.
So let me just say, so we can all agree, that IF the technology can be developed, I think the air to air UAV would be a much better asset than the manned counterpart.
How many times have you flown with an avionics gripe that hampered your ability to do your mission but still were able to do so? A UAV wont be able to do so as easily.
A thinking creative human will schwack the machine every time. If you take our thinking creative human out of the mix, someone else will make us wish we hadnt. Human psychology will play a role as well, get killed in a video game no big deal (anyone who will operate those things will have grown up with video games) The guy that is actually there fighting the machines will have all the "heightened" sense that go with getting shot at.
ROE today is just as restrictive, if not more so - even with a huge gain in technology. I know your theory sounds good on paper, but it won't survive the demands of real world strike ops.
Brett
The biggest hurdles are not going to be from technology but from the political standpoint and cash. I good example is the cruise missile. Technology has increased, accuracy increased, the ability to disperse firepower, cost is going down and so it now is a staple in strike missions.
When the technology develops a primitive strike fighter is not out of the question. Maybe just a buoyant air to air missile fired from a destroyer that loiters in an airspace. At the end of its patrol lands in the water to be picked up by the same destroyer refilled with fuel and reloaded.
Its not that a UAV would ever be able to compete with a human pilot. Its when it costs the same for 10 UAVs or 1 human pilot. 20 UAVS or 1 human pilot. 50 UAVS or 1 human pilot.
However, things that transport people instead of weapons. Helos, cargo planes, c2, p3 and etc When something goes wrong nobody wants to say someone lost their son to a windows autopilot reboot screen.
When the technology develops a primitive strike fighter is not out of the question. Maybe just a buoyant air to air missile fired from a destroyer that loiters in an airspace. At the end of its patrol lands in the water to be picked up by the same destroyer refilled with fuel and reloaded.
Its not that a UAV would ever be able to compete with a human pilot. Its when it costs the same for 10 UAVs or 1 human pilot. 20 UAVS or 1 human pilot. 50 UAVS or 1 human pilot.
However, things that transport people instead of weapons. Helos, cargo planes, c2, p3 and etc When something goes wrong nobody wants to say someone lost their son to a windows autopilot reboot screen.
Ok Im seriously tired of hearing this arguement mostly because the info thrown out there that people are using is from the guys trying to sell the idea that UCAV's can do everything.
All things being equal performance is not going to be significantly enhanced in the WVR arena. Engines and metals dont suddenly get lighter and better just because you took the man and his life support equipment out of the equation. A GE-414 is still gonna put out the same amount of thrust. Honestly look at the Max G limits on currant aircraft. The F-15 may be a 9G fighter when running clean but bolt a set of 500 gallon tanks on it and suddenly the maximum pylon weight cuts it down to significantly less then that. Put a set of 2000lbs bombs on an F-16 and you have a fighter that can only pull 5.5 G without overstraining the pylons. Yes a human being is limited in the number of sustained G that can be sustained without passing out or even death but we simply do not have metalergy that will allow for 20 and 30 G fighter sized aircraft. Take a person out of an F-15 and its still only a 9G fighter, and anything you build to do its mission with current technology is going to need to be roughly the same size and by effect of that roughly the same flight envelope as any manned fighter it would replace. Also given the current information (declassified) on just how effective the newer WVR HOB weapons are getting it would take a monumental leap in capablilities to suddenly be any better then a manned fighter.
They also wont cost any less because the pilot is still gonna have to be paid whether he sits in the fighter or in a big metal box 500 miles away. And the life support systems on an aircraft are probably the cheapest part in the grand scheme of things.
Humans over hardware, fighter pilots (and pilots in general) can not be mass produced. This argument seems to come up every few weeks with the same end result:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133173&highlight=uavs
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132619&highlight=uavs
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132263&highlight=uavs
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18041&highlight=uavs
and there are many more. if we are going to repeat things it should be more of the hooker and blow mentality threads-much more entertaining, but what do I know, I still have no job.
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133173&highlight=uavs
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132619&highlight=uavs
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132263&highlight=uavs
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18041&highlight=uavs
and there are many more. if we are going to repeat things it should be more of the hooker and blow mentality threads-much more entertaining, but what do I know, I still have no job.
Oh jeez... yeah, you hit on a few good points, but it's throwing out a lot of A/A-related ideas without realizing what the real limitations here are.
What about EA? What about SAM rings? What about fighter escort for strikes? What if your radar breaks? What if the E-2 goes down? What happens if the bad guy is hiding behind a mountain (as Heyjoe mentioned, it's done every time in Fallon)? What if an Airbus wanders into the no-fly zone? What if your transponder goes down (happened to the Blackhawk in question)? What if your interrogator goes down?
These assumptions all rely on the idea that A/A is some sort of a sterile environment just because we've got AMRAAMs and radar and gucci sh!t.
What about EA? What about SAM rings? What about fighter escort for strikes? What if your radar breaks? What if the E-2 goes down? What happens if the bad guy is hiding behind a mountain (as Heyjoe mentioned, it's done every time in Fallon)? What if an Airbus wanders into the no-fly zone? What if your transponder goes down (happened to the Blackhawk in question)? What if your interrogator goes down?
These assumptions all rely on the idea that A/A is some sort of a sterile environment just because we've got AMRAAMs and radar and gucci sh!t.