UAV vs Optionally manned

[Stingerhawk]

It's been interesting to me every time this 'Hawks and FS thing comes up, because it always seems to coalesce around the idea of "how do you make Fire Scout do vertrep/ASW/etc?"

That's not what the -8B/C does, and never was intended to do, and that's also why the whole "optionally manned" thing is a mirage. Drones are good for long endurance. No meatbags aboard means longer loiter time and more space for gas and payload. If you have a drone with a cockpit, you've negated the primary advantage of having UAVs to begin with - you still have to haul all that life support equipment whether it's used or not, and you can't use it for other things.

KMax was a different story. The optionally manned thing was an expedient, not an advantage; the whole point was to get it fielded as rapidly as possible, and that's easier if, say, you can have a pilot do the startup from the cockpit as opposed to a GCS.

We've just got so used to the idea in the Navy that one airframe should do everything that the idea of specialized aircraft is anathema to us. Fire Scout is well suited to what it's for: shipborne ISR. Other missions are better done by Hawks, and you wouldn't want to do the missions FS is doing with a manned helo.

Eventually, everything WILL be unmanned. No doubt. But that is a long long way off. Nobody is willing to move troops or precious cargo in anything purely unamnned. So as long as Marines, Army, and Spec Ops warriors need to go places, it will be pilots moving them for easily the next 30 years (conservatively).

My point is the Navy is paying a significant bill to acquire and support a unique aircraft with a narrow mission set, when it might be able to do it with what it has on hand if the H-60R could go optionally manned with an aux fuel load. Isn't it the best Rotary Wing ISR platform in the fleet ? In "unmanned mode", you avoid the "human factors" mentioned in another post that comes with extended flight, although I will admit it probably won't get 10hrs. But I need to see an MQ-8C actually give that much time on station in real life. That's alot of gas even for a light Bell 407 with a large fuel tank in the cabin.

As far as;"optionally manned" thing is a mirage. " There are a few companies including Sikorsky that disagree and are working on that technology.

Again, I agree at some point EVERYTHING will become unmanned, but I think from an operational perspective that's a lot further off than people think. Especially when it comes to putting anybody in the cabin.

 

[Uncle Fester]

My point is the Navy is paying a significant bill to acquire and support a unique aircraft with a narrow mission set, when it might be able to do it with what it has on hand if the H-60R could go optionally manned with an aux fuel load. Isn't it the best Rotary Wing ISR platform in the fleet ? In "unmanned mode", you avoid the "human factors" mentioned in another post that comes with extended flight, although I will admit it probably won't get 10hrs. But I need to see an MQ-8C actually give that much time on station in real life. That's alot of gas even for a light Bell 407 with a large fuel tank in the cabin.

As far as;"optionally manned" thing is a mirage. " There are a few companies including Sikorsky that disagree and are working on that technology.

And that goes back to my comment about how we've become used to the idea that every aircraft has to be capable of every mission, or at least a lot of them. With something like long-endurance ISR, you need a specialized aircraft. Reconfiguring a Romeo to do the mission unmanned is not worth it, and not nearly as simple as it sounds. I say 'optionally manned' is a mirage because as I see it, it's like the 'commonality' of the F-35. Sounds great in theory, but by the time you make all the modifications necessary, you've more or less negated any advantages to doing so. And it goes both ways, by the way; the headaches and cost necessary to make a FS that can dip or vertrep when you've already got an airplane that can do it isn't worth it either.

You're certainly right to take claimed performance with a grain of salt, but having seen the endurance of an -8B, which is a much smaller airframe, I would not be surprised if the -8C can do what N-G claims, or close. And the fact is, we've already got these UAVs flying operationally. Where's the cost advantage in tossing that while trying to make a much more expensive helo that isn't optimized for the mission do the same thing only worse?

Look, I'm not a helo guy, but I do have a fair amount of time flying FS operationally. Trust me, it's not a mission for a Hawk.

 

[Stingerhawk]

And that goes back to my comment about how we've become used to the idea that every aircraft has to be capable of every mission, or at least a lot of them. With something like long-endurance ISR, you need a specialized aircraft. Reconfiguring a Romeo to do the mission unmanned is not worth it, and not nearly as simple as it sounds. I say 'optionally manned' is a mirage because as I see it, it's like the 'commonality' of the F-35. Sounds great in theory, but by the time you make all the modifications necessary, you've more or less negated any advantages to doing so. And it goes both ways, by the way; the headaches and cost necessary to make a FS that can dip or vertrep when you've already got an airplane that can do it isn't worth it either.

You're certainly right to take claimed performance with a grain of salt, but having seen the endurance of an -8B, which is a much smaller airframe, I would not be surprised if the -8C can do what N-G claims, or close. And the fact is, we've already got these UAVs flying operationally. Where's the cost advantage in tossing that while trying to make a much more expensive helo that isn't optimized for the mission do the same thing only worse?

Look, I'm not a helo guy, but I do have a fair amount of time flying FS operationally. Trust me, it's not a mission for a Hawk.

Fair enough points.

 

[Gatordev]

An unmanned system (especially with FBW becoming the standard in helicopters over the next 15 years) could be installed along with adding any required mission kitting (ie aux fuel cells).

I think you're greatly over-estimating the current room for growth with the -60R. It's tapped out as it is.

when it might be able to do it with what it has on hand if the H-60R could go optionally manned with an aux fuel load. Isn't it the best Rotary Wing ISR platform in the fleet ?

I think it depends on what you need it to do. Sometimes it may be the -8C (when it comes online), sometimes it may be the -60R.

 

[Renegade One]

Eventually, everything WILL be unmanned. No doubt.

 

[Flash]

...I agree at some point EVERYTHING will become unmanned, but I think from an operational perspective that's a lot further off than people think....

There are two ways to control a UAV, preprogrammed or by link (or a mix of the two). You can only do so much preprogrammed and links can always be jammed or destroyed. So no, I seriously doubt that everything will ever become unmanned.

 

[Uncle Fester]

What @Flash said. We haven't fought an opponent who has his ECM shit together in a long time, but you better believe that our adversaries and potential adversaries are perfectly aware of our reliance on UAS and working on ways to defeat it. So - speaking as someone with UAS quals and I am a big believer in what robots can do for you - I put "everything will be unmanned" statements in the same file as "we'll never need aircraft carriers now that we have the Bomb," "we'll never need to go to the merge with these nifty new missiles," and "by 1980, every Suzy Homemaker will have an atomic power plant in her Kitchen of Tomorrow!"

 

[JEFE]

There are two ways to control a UAV, preprogrammed or by link (or a mix of the two). You can only do so much preprogrammed and links can always be jammed or destroyed. So no, I seriously doubt that everything will ever become unmanned.

To say you can only do so much pre-programmed is a bit of an assumption... enter Skynet.
Then we won't need people at all in the military (or anywhere else).

 

[Flash]

To say you can only do so much pre-programmed is a bit of an assumption... enter Skynet.

Now you are getting into AI territory, or more realistically programming something to act autonomously. If you program a UAV to act autonomously then there will almost certainly be limits to what it can do, certainly not lethal missions any time soon, but even non-lethal missions it will be severely limited.

I think folks would be very surprised to how hard it will be operate in a difficult electronic warfare environment, and UAV's would suffer far worse than most other assets.

 

[Swanee]

Now you are getting into AI territory, or more realistically programming something to act autonomously. If you program a UAV to act autonomously then there will almost certainly be limits to what it can do, certainly not lethal missions any time soon, but even non-lethal missions it will be severely limited.

I think folks would be very surprised to how hard it will be operate in a difficult electronic warfare environment, and UAV's would suffer far worse than most other assets.

AI is very far from entering the fight. We have a hard enough time with predictive autopilots that can do as well as the human brain when thrown a curve ball- such as really bad weather.