News "Flying Dorito" over Texas

[Hlynkacg]

There are still some tasks men in cockpits can do better.

Air-to-air combat is really the only one.

Current and immediate next-gen drones (like the 47B) still get their asses handed to them by anything that actively evades and fights back but it wont be that way forever

 

[Urwumpe]

Air-to-air combat is really the only one.

And CAS. And BAI. And SEAD. And SAR...

The only thing drones can do properly, is killing few right and many wrong people because of Metadata. :dry:

 

[MattBaker]

The only thing drones can do properly, is killing few right and many wrong people because of Metadata. :dry:

The only thing drones can do is not putting a human life at stake or even worse let that pilot get captured.

And I think one could argue they are cheaper.

 

[Urwumpe]

The only thing drones can do is not putting a human life at stake or even worse let that pilot get captured.

And I think one could argue they are cheaper.

That's the problem: Cheaper for what? Why do you need a car, cheap shoes cost you 1/1000th of a cheap car if you need mobility?

If you have a CAS mission, you risk the life of a few pilots to safe the lives of a few hundred soldiers. And time matters then, you can't wait until looking through the straw of the UAV sensors has differed the targets from the friendlies. Every minute waiting means more soldiers get killed.

Also... I think that soldiers have to be put at a reasonable risk in a wartime situation. Most people in the USA don't grok war (in the sense: You can grow up without seeing any trace of war in your country, the first time you will see that it is nowhere like Hollywood is when you arrive on another continent), so I can understand if you feel like using drones in Jemen is a perfectly safe way to wage it.

But would you use drones against an enemy that is half-way industrial, the front line will not be on another continent, it will be at the drone controllers and the people who support them. It might even be easier to target civilians, if the drone controllers are hiding in a bunker.

Drones are perfect for supplementing traditional military units, but I don't think they are a replacement.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I agree with Urwumpe on this one. Drones have their uses, but they're limited. High-risk targets that you just can't get a manned aircraft over. HALE recon. Possibly even for environmental research (see the HALE argument). Actively supporting troops on the ground? No way. You need to see the bigger picture that a drone cannot provide. A drone could miss the AAA gun parked under a tree that an A-10 pilot would probably spot without issue. Why? the drone was looking elsewhere. So the drone goes down, but the A-10 reevaluates the run and takes out the gun first. Which is cheaper? Replacing a drone, or replacing ammo and a little sheet metal?

 

[Evil_Onyx]

My Opinion on Unmanned or remotely operated fighting vehicles, Land, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_USV"]Sea[/ame] or Air. Is that they should be limited to reconnaissance, scientific payloads and should have NO offensive capability. I believe that the tendency towards offensive drones will cause more casualties on all sides due to the tendency for commanders to use soldiers in the same manner as drones (IE in more risky situations).

There are some advantages to UCAV's in Air to Air combat, They are not limited to the physical abilities of the pilot and don't have to lug around a load of stuff (Ejector seat, cockpit, Life support, pressure vessel ect.). Meaning that 12+G corners are possible making them harder to it and track.
The disadvantages are that they are reliant upon communications that can be jammed or hacked (no matter what the advertising says..). Have limited situational awareness, they cant look out and scan the horizon in a second. If its not spotted and actively tracking an attacker in a dog fight it is just as likely to re-engage countermeasures as any missile.
And anyone who says that they can be programed to identify countermeasures so to avoid them, I say it is nature that any advance that is made on this would be countered with new countermeasures faster than could be dealt with.

UCAV's are considered cheaper because the pilot is not put at risk, as the cost of training a pilot (and possible recovering from the ground) is a significant part of the cost of a combat aircraft system.

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------

Also there needs to be a clearly defined diffrence between a UCAV and Missile other wise cruise missiles could be classed as an UCAV.

 

[Hlynkacg]

And CAS. And BAI. And SEAD. And SAR...

The only thing drones can do properly, is killing few right and many wrong people because of Metadata. :dry:

SAR i'll concede due to there being no drones (at the moment) with sufficient VTOL lift capacity to do the job.

But everything else? Drones do the job as well if not better.

 

[fsci123]

My Opinion on Unmanned or remotely operated fighting vehicles. Is that they should be limited to reconnaissance, scientific payloads and should have NO offensive capability.

While i believe that drones will have trouble trying to shoot down human opponents in a dog fight. I still believe that it has its place in an offensive airwar. Theoretically old and retired planes could be gutted and connected to a "cheap" computer...which could do basic bomber missions or if necessary suicide/decoy missions. Drones made from old fighter planes could overwhelm enemy airspace and distract the enemy long enough so the real fighters can win the war.

 

[Andy44]

SAR i'll concede due to there being no drones (at the moment) with sufficient VTOL lift capacity to do the job.

But everything else? Drones do the job as well if not better.

Really? Drones are better at CAS than a Marine in a Harrier? Tell me more about this.

 

[Urwumpe]

Drones do the job as well if not better.

For CAS, SEAD and BAI?

Oh, tell me more about it. I had seen that drones had been capable of strike missions lately, if the target is known by recon in advance and the target is not fighting back. Otherwise, drones had been less capable than even cruise missiles.

And for these three mission types, there is a design factor that you misunderstand: The planes in such missions are vulnerable, but must be robust, quick in situation awareness and much smarter than a BVR fighter (which is just a flying SAM site). Dog fights against a single target look impressive - but how about a more realistic 2 vs 2?

I have not yet seen any drone, that has any offered situational awareness, that does not make it look like a stupid politicians son playing Playstation. Just see the number of accidents, in which drones nearly collided with planes, because the plane did not see the small drone and the drone lacked any situation awareness to notice the bigger plane. And thats already a peacetime problem.

Imagine how a drone with such limitations will do in actual CAS mission. Your latency in communication with the ground forces will be at least 0.8 seconds (ground-geostationary-ground-geostationary-UAV, if the UAV and the command center are using the same satellite). Thats 25% of the time that you have as human pilot of a A-10 to attack a laser designated target. And then you also lack the ability to notice that you are flying directly past a few AAA sites, because your FLIR sensor is busy focusing the designated target.

In the worst case, you will simply remove all the nasty delaying communication and be the worst enemy of your own ground forces. Because without FACs you will be unable to tell which camouflaged vehicle is yours from 5 NM away.

 

[Hlynkacg]

For CAS your are forgetting that it is the FAC or JTAC who is control of the ordnance. The only latency of note is between the controller and the drone itself and you're gaining anywhere from 0.2 - 2 seconds of responce time by removing the human pilot from the OODA loop. Couple this with lower cost for longer dwell times, and yes a unit of UCAVs can provide equal or better CAS coverage to a flight of A-10s of F-18s.

Likewise with SEAD, you can afford to press attacks with drones that you couldn't with manned aircraft.

We can also afford to field 5 UCAVs like the X-47 for each manned fighter so your 2 v 2 scenario would realistically be 2 v 10.

 

[JonnyBGoode]

The only manned spy/surveillance aircraft in the US military is the U-2.

That's what they want you to believe.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

See, that is the heart of the matter right there: Who knows what's really up there right now?

 

[Hlynkacg]

See, that is the heart of the matter right there: Who knows what's really up there right now?

I really don't get what the controversy is about.

That there are x-47s and other Prototype UCAVs stationed at White Sands is public knowledge.

Likewise we know that flying to or from White Sands to the Navy's carrier training area in the Gulf of Mexico would cause them to overfly Amarillo Texas where the pictures were taken.

Basically the only reason to think that it isn't a X-47 is the word of some guy on the internet.

 

[Urwumpe]

For CAS your are forgetting that it is the FAC or JTAC who is control of the ordnance. The only latency of note is between the controller and the drone itself and you're gaining anywhere from 0.2 - 2 seconds of responce time by removing the human pilot from the OODA loop. Couple this with lower cost for longer dwell times, and yes a unit of UCAVs can provide equal or better CAS coverage to a flight of A-10s of F-18s.

So, aren't there any humans involved in the operations of a UAV? Really? :lol:

 

[Hlynkacg]

So, aren't there any humans involved in the operations of a UAV? Really? :lol:

Where did I say that there where no humans involved? The point is that there are fewer humans and that those humans are those that (in theory) have the greatest degree SA.

In a conventional CAS call-for-fire the on-scene commander passes a request to his JTAC, who contacts the FAC who Contacts the Flight Lead who may or may not be the Pilot actually dropping the ordnance. Each person in the telephone chain adds 0.2 - 2 seconds of latency as they must each hear, comprehend, and then act on, the information that was passed to them.

Giving FACs and JTACs direct control of ordnance actually makes CAS easier and safer for the guys on the ground as it removes the most common source of mistakes, namely poor communication.

Point your PEQ and press the "smite" button.

 

[Urwumpe]

Where did I say that there where no humans involved? The point is that there are fewer humans and that those humans are those that (in theory) have the greatest degree SA.

Wrong - there are more humans involved. You are no longer the pilot operating alone on the scene, but you will have "infallible" intelligence guys and commander, who are better suited as politicians, sitting right next to you. And these don't give you any better understanding on the battlefield at all - as you can see in practice.

In a conventional CAS call-for-fire the on-scene commander passes a request to his JTAC, who contacts the FAC who Contacts the Flight Lead who may or may not be the Pilot actually dropping the ordnance. Each person in the telephone chain adds 0.2 - 2 seconds of latency as they must each hear, comprehend, and then act on, the information that was passed to them.

Wrong. FACs and JTACs are the same person by different names, not more. You have no additional human involved from the moment the plane has left its loitering position and is flying towards the IP. Only the FAC and the pilot. A lot of the attack planning has ideally already happened at this point, but in reality, very often the planning is completely obsolete already by the moment the plane passes the IP.

Giving FACs and JTACs direct control of ordnance actually makes CAS easier and safer for the guys on the ground as it removes the most common source of mistakes, namely poor communication.

Point your PEQ and press the "smite" button.

I can't wait to see how a FAC will fly a UAV while also monitoring hostiles and friendlies from the front line in the ground position. Usually a FAC is already not alone for making sure that he does not get killed before the target is destroyed. There is a good reason why CAS pilots are more than just order executing robots and ordnance dispensers.

And then you can be sure, that the enemy will do everything to jam communications. As you can see with Iran, even crude methods can be successful. What is good enough to make a drone crash, is much better suited for simply making a drone unable to execute an attack.

The only way to make drones immune, is to make them as smart as humans.

Mother nature had 2 million years designing the human brain in a few billion iterations. Want to bet how long it will take to make a non-human brain capable of the same situational awareness? A human can decide that the rules by which he should operate, are wrong. A robot specialized for that task can't - it knows no conflicting rules and has no ability to take information in account, that was not expected. It just executes orders and rules - and does not know any objectives.

Its the same with ground infantry - following orders is sometimes nice, but its better to have ground forces that achieve objectives.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Wrong - there are more humans involved.

You seem to be confusing CAS and Gangplank calls with deliberate strike missions

Wrong. FACs and JTACs are the same person by different names, not more. You have no additional human involved from the moment the plane has left its loitering position and is flying towards the IP.

Wrong, a FAC is an air traffic controller and JTACs are spotters. occasionally they'll be the same person but they usually aren't.

For a lone SOF team out in the boonies the FAC might very well be the guy also spotting targets. But for a platoon or company of Marines operating as part of a larger engagement the FAC will be an ATC specialist sitting in an AWACs or command post somewhere while the JTACs are in helos' close to the fight or actually down in the dirt.

I can't wait to see how a FAC will fly a UAV while also monitoring hostiles and friendlies from the front line in the ground position.

The JTAC doesn't fly the UCAV, once the operator has given release consent the JTAC points his designator at a target and presses the "Smite!" button. Alternately, if he lacks uplink capability, he can pass a grid mark same as he would if he were requesting 155 support and the UCAV's on-board computer handles the rest.

And then you can be sure, that the enemy will do everything to jam communications. As you can see with Iran, even crude methods can be successful. What is good enough to make a drone crash, is much better suited for simply making a drone unable to execute an attack.

The only way to make drones immune, is to make them as smart as humans.

So far this is the only compelling argument for keeping men in the cockpit. It remains to be seen if investments in EW capabilities will come out favor attack or defense.

 

[Urwumpe]

You seem to be confusing CAS and Gangplank calls with deliberate strike missions

Wrong: Sure, that you are knowing what CAS missions are and how it is defined in the US military? Ever considered reading the relevant standards? At least STANAG 3797?

Wrong, a FAC is an air traffic controller and JTACs are spotters. occasionally they'll be the same person but they usually aren't.

In NATO standard, FAC are the same as US JTACs introduced in 2003 - they have the same qualifications and use similar procedures.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Wrong: Sure, that you are knowing what CAS missions are and how it is defined in the US military? Ever considered reading the relevant standards? At least STANAG 3797?

Close Air Support, specifically semi and non-autonomous strikes on behalf of "Troops in Contact" as practiced at the company and battalion level and proscribed in US Joint Pub 309 and the USN / USMC's NTTP 3-20 series of tactical handbooks circa 2006 (the last time I had to cut an exam) to 2010 (the last time I actually passed a 9-line).

In NATO standard, FAC are the same as US JTACs introduced in 2003 - they have the same qualifications and use similar procedures.

Except that there is only ever one FAC. The FAC on duty is The FAC and they bear the responsibility of de-conflicting the airspace. As such they are invariably the senior most JTAC qualified individual in the area and are kept well away from fighting usually in a command post or a C3 aircraft where they can focus on the important work of making sure that no one crashes into each other or flies through a steel rain-storm.

That said. I think you may be right in that a language barrier exists.

My entire career was with with US Navy and FMF at the Company and Element level. Our CAS assets were either Helicopters flying or Navy/USMC F18s and MQ9s in medium to high orbit (inappropriate term considering the forum i know, but that's what the pilots and controllers called it)

Only time I ever saw an A-10 or any ordnance heavier than a mk82 was at the Miramar airshow each year. Knowing the Air Force and how much they hate doing CAS it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they'd make using it as much as a PITA as possible.