X-47B UCAS-D

I certainly think unmanned vehicles will play an increasing role in our defenses. And, offenses. I wonder what their limitations are, though. Do we foresee dogfighting? Or will that always be the domain of a pilot in the aircraft? I know they're talking about "the last manned fighter", but, practically, spatial relations are critical for air-to-air operating. While drones orbiting at stable flight levels are clearly appropriate due to the monotonous nature and extended seat time of the mission, fighting's another kettle.

OTOH, how much dogfighting has been done in the last 20 years? While the fighter school was created to re-focus on dogfighting skills, really, how many dogfights have happened in the last 10 or 20 years? It seems we've developed our long range air-to-air missile capabilities so that we can engage from vast distances and never have to put our pilots or planes in perilous risk. At least, that's what I'm wondering.

But, landing an unmanned on a carrier? Impressive stuff.

CW

 

Having been involved in the business (and having been a strong proponent) of unmanned vehicles for over 30 years it is gradifying to see them finally take their place in the defense system. Unfortunately (and this is JMHO) but expensive fighter or bomber like aircraft like the X47B that are unmanned make no real sense.

Unmanned aircraft need to be cheap. If there isn't a man in it, it is expendable. If it's really expensive, like the X47B, then can you really afford to lose it? At that point why bother to make it unmanned. It complicates the system and I don't see much if any gain. Yes, if one goes down the pilot isn't paraded through the streets of a thirid world country, but really, is that worth the cost? I love the guys in the military as much as anybody, and I don't want to see anybody get hurt or killed, but the cost of such a system has to be weighed against the cost of a manned system and I don't see how that's a favorable proposition. If you are using the unmanned system to attack a specific target and the chance of not getting through is high, you need to be using a cruise missile or a similar one way trip machine to get the job done. That's a lot more cost effective than a system that you have to recover. Just because we have the technology to do this doesn't mean it's a good idea...

The only advantage that could result is that you could pull more g's if there wasn't a man aboard and you have a much more manueveable system. But I question if that is really necessary in today's battlefield.

 

Maybe not today in Afghanistn & Iraq but who knows whats coming tomorrow ?

China & Russia are preparing next gen aircraft based on our F22 & F35. No doubt they have spies in the systems.

What happens if relations seriously sour between USA & China and China gives some to NK to do its dirty work ?

What happens if China decides to take over Taiwan ?

What if NK sells this tech to Iran ?

Lots of things to consider

 

Does this apply when unmanned aircraft are operated relatively close to the zone of engagement???

I have been wondering for years how much longer pilots will be in the planes doing battle. Seriously, I do not think it will be that much longer until a large percentage of flights are flown from virtual cockpits on the ground. I believe we have the capability to mount pretty impressive cameras on the nose which would make this a reality very soon.

Mark

 

If a missile with a very low RCS can't get past an enemy air defense system an unmanned aircraft with it's larger size isn't going to get thru either. I've done RCS work and size is an issue. If you are going to make something stealthy, a missile is a lot easier to do that with than an airplane, manned or unmanned. Things like gear door openings and weapons bay doors make RCS reduction on real airplanes a lot harder than on a missile. You can do everything that you mentioned with a low cost less system once you have established air superiority. The SEAD mission really requires a good sized weapon that can come in from 40 miles away, and is stealthy enough to get real close before it is detected. I don't see how an X-47, with a weapons bay that has to open up can do that either. The right missile can, but you have to have 40 miles of standoff range or your platform (manned or unmanned) is dead right after (or before) you launch. As I said I'm a big fan of unmanned systems, just not this one.

When you put the additional computers and communications gear to make the aircraft unmanned there isn't as big a weight savings as you might expect. The X-47 isn't going to have any more endurance than a F-16. If you put external tanks on it, the stealth is gone. And yes, the Predator or Reaper can fly for more than a day, but they are much more simple, lower speed prop driven aircraft, not at all like what they are trying to do with the X-47. One of the biggest problems with the current Reaper is that it doesn't have enough dash speed. The X-47 does that part of the mission better, but it doesn't have the persistence that a predator has. The Next Generation UAS will need to be faster than the Reaper, but it doesn't need to be as fast as the X-47 and it needs persistence that the X-47 doesn't have.

I think there are a lot of things that an unmanned aircraft can do better than a manned aircraft. Like I said I've been working on unmanned aircraft and missiles for the last 30 years so I'm pretty sure I understand what they can and can't do. I just have a problem with what they are trying to do with this airplane. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

UAVs have a job in the coming defense program. But, I have several problems with them. First, as noted above the total cost of the systems(not just the plane) is no cheaper, and so far has shown to be a lot higher than manned planes. The human limitation are real, and they can be a tactical deficiency but it's something that we can work around with crew and plane scheduling. Recon is one of the important tools that UAVs can do, and beyond taking pics and uploading battle damage assessment, that's about it. You could(or we have) set them up to deliver tactical nukes, but now that can be done with a small truck or boat mounted missile system for much lower cost.

Next, it's not so much as a failing of the UAV but the mfg seem to be making a mission, and then build a UAV to suit it. The A-10 which was first thought to be a useless mission plane has expanded into one of the most important close-in combat tools we have. I know there are missions for the UAVs, and that in some cases they can save a crewed plane from danger, but in many cases a simple manned aircraft could do the job. Example is the US-Mex border. We have a Predator with no human eyes on the prize over the border where four guys in two Cessnas could do the job under 95% of the conditions for a fraction of the cost. Just because we have the technology, doesn't mean it's the best way to do some things. We didn't learn that very well in Vietnam, and the lesson is still there.

Finally, being a GA pilot, I'm scared to death of the little drone deals. The chief of the Houston PD bought one a while back and started flying it around the city with no advance warning to anyone. Fortunately he was stopped real quick before a disaster could happen. It's see and avoid up there and none of the UAVs are even close to that kind of detection that two eyes on a swivel have.

 

We were part of a demo program where we equipped a Huey with FLIR systems and had the ability to zoom in on a target at a distance with both FLIR and a long range TV system. I got to fly on some of these missions and what the aircraft could do was pretty amazing. Probably not as good a a predator, but this was 15 years ago.

Problem was, the Border Patrol pilots wanted something that they could use to track the illegals. What I mean by that is that the BP guys wanted to be able to fly at 10 feet off the deck and look out of the helo and track the footprints on the desert floor... There was a 20 ft groomed sand road along the border fence that was an excellent tell tale that somebody walked across there. Once they walked across they could track the footprints just like an old indian tracker, and they took great pride in their tracking abilities. They were happier with a LOH with no doors on it with their head hanging out of the side looking for footprints than they were with the long range FLIR system and all the bells and whistles.

Until there is a change of tactics and the guys employing the drones are properly using them the situation there isn't going to change. The BP had a few 182's, but they weren't as fond of them as they were the LOH. They felt they coluld do more with the helo than the 182. I always thought that you could cover more ground with the fixed wing, but they wanted to be able to land and get out and arrest/save people as opposed to just spotting them.

 

Yes, there is a small, or incremental mission enhancement with a Predator. But at what cost? Helicopters are great for low level surveillance but they can be rather costly too. Really, it depends on the mission. I think many times UAVs are a cost center just looking for a mission. sometimes low tech, is low tech and it's ok. Sometimes it's not, but we can spend money in places that it's well needed, and save where we can save. On the border, it's a mission where we can save money, and re-deploy the money where it is needed.

 

I think you're one of those guys that needs to get the last post in. I've made my point. A few Cessnas and pilots and a mechanic would do the same job as the Predator for about 1/10 the cost. Anyway, I've already made my say on appropriations and how they get done - I'm out.

Peace.

 

I hate to tell you this, but apparently you are arguing with someone in the field who knows what he talking about. I know a little about general aviation, and I suspect the cost of those few Cessnas would be in excess of a million, with say 4 pilots, at an annual cost, including benefits of about 500k, with maintenance averaging say $40/hour of flight. Next thing you know, you've got an accident, and you've got to pay the family of the deceased. With a drone, a couple guys in an office, turboprop speed, lower maintenance costs, and you are looking at about the same cost.

The Army figured this out a long time ago, that is why they are using the Predators, not Cessnas, which they used when I was in, back in the 60s. Believe it or not, they are very, very cost conscious.

Art

 

Sorry Art but you don't have a clue as to what it costs or takes to buy or support a drone system. Here is a quote from a USAF web site...

The Predator system doesn't fly four aircraft at a time, it flies overlaping missions for 24 hour coverage. One aircraft is being flown, one is being serviced... You get the idea, for 24 hr coverage they need three airframes and a spare.

The Reaper that is being flown on the border has the same ground station and system support requirements, but it is a much more expensive aircraft, each aircraft costs $10.5 million. Also, the cost of maintenance and fuel for a Reaper is substantially larger than a Predator, or for any manned system that would be GA based.

If there isn't a threat to the life of the operator, a manned aircraft is going to be a lot less expensive than a unmanned system. The bottom line is that military rated unmanned systems aren't cheap. Compared to keeping an F16 on station they are cheap, but compared to more conventional alternatives for missions like the Border, they are pretty expensive options. The Reaper has longer endurance, but that isn't that much of an issue on the southern border. There are plenty of airports and you could provide better overlaping coverage with lower cost manned aircraft for a lot less than a Reaper.

 

I'm not sure if the cost of pilots/operators of UAVs is much if any less than a Cessna, if anything it's probably a lot more. You still have rated bodies sitting in a chair but in the case of a UAV it's probably somebody that has gone through a bunch of expensive military training. The small Army UAVs may be a lot cheaper to fly but all the Predator size stuff has some poor SOB who wishes he could be in a real cockpit. One of the saddest sacks I have met in the USAF was a B-1 pilot who got non-vol'ed to Predators.