UAV vs Optionally manned

[Stingerhawk]

Why are we developing pure UAV's to fly alongside our manned aircraft (UCLASS on carriers and Firescouts with MH-60s) ? It would seem to me that if we have the technology (especially with "fly by wire") to completely fly an aircraft or helicopter unmanned, why not incorporate that technology into our manned fleet (the proverbial "manned/unmanned switch") and not have to maintain two separate fleets of aircraft (manned and unmanned)? I am not talking about the small UAV's that fly in places, and off non-air capable platforms. That utility is obvious. For example; why have a completely separate aircraft that can ONLY fly unmanned onboard a ship with manned aircraft, when you could simply decide based on the mission requirements whether the MH-60 of even the F-35C flies that mission manned or unmanned? I realize someone will respond with the amount of space and weight you are giving up by having the life support systems and cockpit on an aircraft to have it be manned, but I'd argue you can recover a lot of it by adding aux fuel cells or ISR gear to support an "unmanned" mission with a "manned" aircraft.

I also realize that someone will respond that pure UAV's are a lot cheaper to operate per hour, but I am also willing to argue that the total ownership costs with acquiring and operating a completely separate fleet of UAV's (as opposed to using the same "manned" aircraft in unmanned missions) eclipses the difference in Direct Operating Costs. In the long run, it seems to me that the "manned/unmanned switch" is a much more efficient path until the day that manned missions are functionally and practically obsolete (which is not any day soon).

Just a thought for discussion.

 

[RobLyman]

You mean like this?

 

[Stingerhawk]

You mean like this?

Yes. Exactly

 

[Gatordev]

Because a -60R costs <insert whatever number we are saying this week> and a MQ-8C costs "only a couple million." Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[Swanee]

Training is a huge issue. Plus, you lose capability with optionally manned platforms in the form of ejection seats, life support, avionics displays, etc... with a pure uav you need a cockpit in the airplane, and you don't have to limit the airplane based upon the meat bag that has to stay alive, conscious and kicking though out the flight. The engineering to make that removable would be tough, and very expensive. You won't get an optionally manned platform to have 44+ hours TOS, like you have with the new Reapers now.

 

[Pags]

Like Swanee said, you want the two platforms to do two different things so you'd end up with a crappy manned aircraft and a crappy UAV. For instance the MQ-8C is based on the Bell 407 but in lieu of meat servos the cockpit is taken up by the robot brains and the cabin is full of gas. And it can hang out on station for over 10hrs which is far longer than a manned helo can. Even if you had started with an H-60 you would've ended up filling the cockpit and cabin with gas to give similar endurance. At a burn rate of 1200/hr an H-60 based UAV would need to haul 12000lbs of gas to hit 10hrs which I think would be a stretch for the H-60. Plus I'd have to haul around another motor and more airframe weight then I need to.

 

[Gatordev]

Not to mention the CPH of a -60 vs a -8C/407.

 

[Stingerhawk]

Because a -60R costs <insert whatever number we are saying this week> and a MQ-8C costs "only a couple million." Seems pretty straightforward.

Let me clarify my point a bit.

You wouldn't need to buy the UAV (in this example the MQ-8BorC) at all if the manned aircraft had the optionally manned capability. I don't think you are suggesting that some MQ-8s were bought in lieu of some H-60R's? They were bought in addtion to the compliment of Romeos. So the direct acquisition cost comparison isnt accurate becasue it's not an either/or decision.

Not That I pretend to understand the all mission complexities with the H-60R/Firescout team, but I am pretty sure an H-60R det would be mission capable (as it is today) without the MQ-8 onboard, but the Det would not be mission capable without the H-60R. So the MQ-8 is purely additive and a completely separate aircraft that cannot do what an H-60R does. So its costs are additive and not replacing anything except for some H-60 flight hours.

After clarifying, IS it worth the total ownership cost of an entirely new airframe and all the legacy costs (including training) when you have to have an H-60R on board anyway? If you are comparing costs accurately, it would be the TOC of the MQ-8 vs the additional flight hours on the H-60R.

 

[squorch2]

you have to have an H-60R on board anyway?

Looking 20 years down the road... why do you have to have one on board?

 

[Gatordev]

@Stingerhawk , I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. Are you asking why have a -60R and -8C when you could have two -60Rs built to fly either unmanned or manned? I think that's what you meant, but you had "manned" in there twice.

Looking at the macro level, I'd argue two very big reasons: a) two (2) -60Rs cost more than one -60R and one -8C. Add in the manned capability, and the R gets even more expensive. And b) why pay for (and decrease life of airframe) flying a -60R for 10 hours PLUS the manned portion of flight time? You could fly a -8C for 10 hours at $X/hour or fly a -60R for $(X+a shit ton more)/hour.

But maybe I'm not understanding the question.

Looking 20 years down the road... why do you have to have one on board?

Because there's nothing else that can currently do what it does. Could it be built? Absolutely. And I could win the lottery next week. But realistically, there's nothing else until FVL.

 

[Uncle Fester]

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.

 

[bert]

The people advocating for optionally manned have no idea what that costs in money, weight, or space (fundamentally interconnected concepts based on usability/habitability/survivability).

I'm as big a critic of military acquisition programs as there is (retired as a 1510 but I choose to work only civilian programs), and I've no doubt they are right to avoid optionally manned.

 

[Swanee]

The other piece here is the limit of the human- in the UAS world we regularly swap crews after about 4-6 hours. Why? Because that's about the limit of the human brain to focus and because we can. Sometimes we do it even sooner. You can't do that when you're in the airplane.

I'm all about training unmanned guys to the level that they could be in the airplane. I honesty think we should- everyone should start from common ground and branch off. But optionally manning a platform is just putting off the inevitable. Eventually almost everyone is going to be sitting in a GCS somewhere.

 

[Stingerhawk]

Looking 20 years down the road... why do you have to have one on board?

Agree. But that's a long way down the road.

 

[Stingerhawk]

@Stingerhawk , I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. Are you asking why have a -60R and -8C when you could have two -60Rs built to fly either unmanned or manned? I think that's what you meant, but you had "manned" in there twice.

Looking at the macro level, I'd argue two very big reasons: a) two (2) -60Rs cost more than one -60R and one -8C. Add in the manned capability, and the R gets even more expensive. And b) why pay for (and decrease life of airframe) flying a -60R for 10 hours PLUS the manned portion of flight time? You could fly a -8C for 10 hours at $X/hour or fly a -60R for $(X+a shit ton more)/hour.

But maybe I'm not understanding the question.



Because there's nothing else that can currently do what it does. Could it be built? Absolutely. And I could win the lottery next week. But realistically, there's nothing else until FVL.

Sorry. I didn't do a very good job of posing the question in the first place.

My point is not to add anything to a current Det. other than an unmanned capability to the existing H-60R that's already onboard (no extra H-60R or MQ-8). 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). That avoids buying any extra (in this case MQ-8) airframes, support & training to support am additional line of aircraft.