Your take on UAV's impact

[Uncle Fester]

UAVs are good for some things. They're better than meatbag-driven aircraft a few things; for most others, manned aircraft are the easier solution. Never mind robot strike/fighter...we once had a discussion about what you'd need in order to vertrep with drones, for example. Seems easy on the face of it - they already have drone helos sling-lifting - but you'd have to drop a ton of money and development work into getting the technology to where it's safe and consistently reliable to do at at sea. Why do that when you can already do it manned?

Long-duration ISR is a good niche for unmanned; anything else is debatable. The technology limitations are well-known, and pursuing solutions is really a matter of money and time.

The sticky point with a lot of bright ideas about manning the community is that drones have, and will continue to, operate in controlled airspace and in/from/around conventional airfields. There are a lot of reasons - safety, regulatory, practical - you can't just take Seaman Timmy and make him an AVO because 'these kids today with their damn XBoxes, make them fly the drones.'

 

[Griz882]

As I have said here on this board several times those dreams will run into the hard reality of a dense EW environment that will make unmanned combat aircraft in a contested environment nothing more than a pipe dream for at least a generation or two, if not longer. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know or willfully ignores the current and near future threats we are facing from our 'near peer' adversaries.

Roger that. But you can't argue that a complex EW battlefield doesn't impact manned attack aircraft as well. I was not a jet guy, but even watching TV I can see something as basic as a pilot's helmet has grown dramatically more complex and highly developed aircraft like the F-35 take the pilot farther from actual flying. Are we to design aircraft that carry weapons and an EW bubba? Or, should we be arguing for far less complex aircraft that can operate in a dense EW environment - iron bombs dropped with iron sites? I imagine that eventually the short to mid range work will be done by unmanned systems that are, in effect, the weapon itself. The long range, anti-EW work will be handled by loitering, armed sensor platforms.

 

[Flash]

Roger that. But you can't argue that a complex EW battlefield doesn't impact manned attack aircraft as well. I was not a jet guy, but even watching TV I can see something as basic as a pilot's helmet has grown dramatically more complex and highly developed aircraft like the F-35 take the pilot farther from actual flying. Are we to design aircraft that carry weapons and an EW bubba? Or, should we be arguing for far less complex aircraft that can operate in a dense EW environment - iron bombs dropped with iron sites? I imagine that eventually the short to mid range work will be done by unmanned systems that are, in effect, the weapon itself. The long range, anti-EW work will be handled by loitering, armed sensor platforms.

Manned aircraft have that backup system called a pilot though, and the better ones have FO's too . Many of the systems that you are talking about though are also internal ones that can't be jammed or hacked in flight. The big difference is that most unmanned systems rely on links for even their most basic tasks and those are the ones most vulnerable to EW, much more vulnerable. Only ones on a pre-programmed mission/track are going to be resistant to that sort of threat and those can only do a limited mission set.

A manned fighter-attack aircraft can lose it's radar, links and even comms to EW but can still complete a mission if necessary while working on solutions to all those issues while in flight, an unmanned aircraft won't be able to do the same today or in the near future.

 

[Griz882]

Manned aircraft have that backup system called a pilot though, and the better ones have FO's too . Many of the systems that you are talking about though are also internal ones that can't be jammed or hacked in flight. The big difference is that most unmanned systems rely on links for even their most basic tasks and those are the ones most vulnerable to EW, much more vulnerable. Only ones on a pre-programmed mission/track are going to be resistant to that sort of threat and those can only do a limited mission set.

A manned fighter-attack aircraft can lose it's radar, links and even comms to EW but can still complete a mission if necessary while working on solutions to all those issues while in flight, an unmanned aircraft won't be able to do the same today or in the near future.

Agreed, but I would rather trade one F-35 for about 50 of these...

 

[obligatory1]

That's still the plan, far as I'm aware. I just affiliated with VUP-19's SAU so I'm sure I'll get to see the further churn on that plan.

So I take it one already needs to be in the maritime community, no doing this for a shore tour from other communities?

 

[Uncle Fester]

So I take it one already needs to be in the maritime community, no doing this for a shore tour from other communities?

Kinda doubtful, but I suppose anything's possible, especially if they have difficulty with manning. I've been told by some senior MPRA folks that there's more Fleet interest in Triton than they anticipated. The reservists doing BAMS are mostly MPRA but some rando cats-and-dogs thrown in. I'm a VAW guy myself, but have a fair amount of robot stink on my resume.

 

[Renegade One]

Agreed, but I would rather trade one F-35 for about 50 of these...
View attachment 16094

To do what, exactly?

 

[Pags]

To do what, exactly?

Get shot down by S-300s

 

[Hotdogs]

Get shot down by S-300s

Hah or any SAM created in the 80s..

 

[Pags]

Hah or any SAM created in the 80s..

True. In the case of A-1 vs S-300 I'd imagine that an S-300 would cost more. But that's why there's ZSUs; bullets are cheap.

 

[Griz882]

Dude, to drop bombs! OK, I'll walk you through it. The debate began over the "impossible" EW environment that UCAVs will face that will magically not impact the chock-full-of-electronics F-35 type craft. Remember, we are talking about an aircraft so data driven that the pilot helmet warns him if his next fart is going to be overly wet. I tend to disagree with smarter people that somehow the bad guys will be able to attack our drones but unable to attack our "fighters." But, as I note, they are smarter than I am so I contend that if that is the case we should operate far more simple and less electronically, data driven aircraft. Someone else put it better...the meat bag in the cockpit is at the heart of the argument.

Here is a scenario, let's use a full-on Bridges of Toko-Ri, bridge busting raid. I can launch 200 UCAVs and the bad guys probably don't have 200 rockets to shoot them down but might have the capacity to fuck up their signals...might. So, now we have to launch a squadron size raid of sparkling new F-35's. That is 10 to 12 humans. But wait, the reality of the situation is that the EW environment that impacts those UCAVs will indeed hurt the human raid. So, now we have to launch three brand new EF-35B "Grumblers" (I made that up, but if the navy builds one, I want credit) adding six more humans to the raid. So right now we are up to 18 humans. Now, let us set aside the earlier snide and idiotic remarks that only old planes can get shot down. If it flies, it can be shot down. With this is mind let's assume one F-35 gets downed in our raid. Oops. OK, we need a rescue. That means two SAR ships adding an additional 10 humans to the raid (we are up to 28 people now). F-35's have pretty crappy range so if they want to cover the raid or stay near their buddy they need to refuel. Now, we add a tanker which means we have added another set of people to the raid (two to six depending on the fueling ship). Put simply we have now lost about $340 million and are risking another four-BILLION dollars to rescue one guy. For that same price I could launch almost 900 armed drones. But, the drones can be magically jammed while the human craft can not...according to the experts here.

So, if we are going to run war that way, why not buy a butt-load more of simple planes with greater range, loiter time, payload and system simplicity? If we are going to lose flying machines (and all scenarios in a big war will cost flying machines) why not win with more and cheaper than go bankrupt with cool, new, and vastly over-priced? By the way, using modern money, the USN bought almost 3200 Skyraiders for the price of two...2...F-35's. I am pretty sure that two F-35's could not stop 3200 Skyraiders coming to drop bombs on your bridge.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Dude, to drop bombs! OK, I'll walk you through it. The debate began over the "impossible" EW environment that UCAVs will face that will magically not impact the chock-full-of-electronics F-35 type craft. Remember, we are talking about an aircraft so data driven that the pilot helmet warns him if his next fart is going to be overly wet. I tend to disagree with smarter people that somehow the bad guys will be able to attack our drones but unable to attack our "fighters." But, as I note, they are smarter than I am so I contend that if that is the case we should operate far more simple and less electronically, data driven aircraft. Someone else put it better...the meat bag in the cockpit is at the heart of the argument.

Here is a scenario, let's use a full-on Bridges of Toko-Ri, bridge busting raid. I can launch 200 UCAVs and the bad guys probably don't have 200 rockets to shoot them down but might have the capacity to fuck up their signals...might. So, now we have to launch a squadron size raid of sparkling new F-35's. That is 10 to 12 humans. But wait, the reality of the situation is that the EW environment that impacts those UCAVs will indeed hurt the human raid. So, now we have to launch three brand new EF-35B "Grumblers" (I made that up, but if the navy builds one, I want credit) adding six more humans to the raid. So right now we are up to 18 humans. Now, let us set aside the earlier snide and idiotic remarks that only old planes can get shot down. If it flies, it can be shot down. With this is mind let's assume one F-35 gets downed in our raid. Oops. OK, we need a rescue. That means two SAR ships adding an additional 10 humans to the raid (we are up to 28 people now). F-35's have pretty crappy range so if they want to cover the raid or stay near their buddy they need to refuel. Now, we add a tanker which means we have added another set of people to the raid (two to six depending on the fueling ship). Put simply we have now lost about $340 million and are risking another four-BILLION dollars to rescue one guy. For that same price I could launch almost 900 armed drones. But, the drones can be magically jammed while the human craft can not...according to the experts here.

So, if we are going to run war that way, why not buy a butt-load more of simple planes with greater range, loiter time, payload and system simplicity? If we are going to lose flying machines (and all scenarios in a big war will cost flying machines) why not win with more and cheaper than go bankrupt with cool, new, and vastly over-priced? By the way, using modern money, the USN bought almost 3200 Skyraiders for the price of two...2...F-35's. I am pretty sure that two F-35's could not stop 3200 Skyraiders coming to drop bombs on your bridge.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

F-35's. I am pretty sure that two F-35's could not stop 3200 Skyraiders coming to drop bombs on your bridge.

I'm confused, you're original argument was that we were throwing 30 bodies at a bridge, and risking those 30 human lives which are at least protected by modern jamming and warning systems. Now you want to throw 3200 pilots into the fray of modern SAMs, AAA, and 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation fighters with a piece of technology that was built in the 50's. Now instead of having one pilot to recover, we probably have about 500, if they're, you know, alive.

 

[Pags]

Dude, to drop bombs! OK, I'll walk you through it. The debate began over the "impossible" EW environment that UCAVs will face that will magically not impact the chock-full-of-electronics F-35 type craft. Remember, we are talking about an aircraft so data driven that the pilot helmet warns him if his next fart is going to be overly wet. I tend to disagree with smarter people that somehow the bad guys will be able to attack our drones but unable to attack our "fighters." But, as I note, they are smarter than I am so I contend that if that is the case we should operate far more simple and less electronically, data driven aircraft. Someone else put it better...the meat bag in the cockpit is at the heart of the argument.

Here is a scenario, let's use a full-on Bridges of Toko-Ri, bridge busting raid. I can launch 200 UCAVs and the bad guys probably don't have 200 rockets to shoot them down but might have the capacity to fuck up their signals...might. So, now we have to launch a squadron size raid of sparkling new F-35's. That is 10 to 12 humans. But wait, the reality of the situation is that the EW environment that impacts those UCAVs will indeed hurt the human raid. So, now we have to launch three brand new EF-35B "Grumblers" (I made that up, but if the navy builds one, I want credit) adding six more humans to the raid. So right now we are up to 18 humans. Now, let us set aside the earlier snide and idiotic remarks that only old planes can get shot down. If it flies, it can be shot down. With this is mind let's assume one F-35 gets downed in our raid. Oops. OK, we need a rescue. That means two SAR ships adding an additional 10 humans to the raid (we are up to 28 people now). F-35's have pretty crappy range so if they want to cover the raid or stay near their buddy they need to refuel. Now, we add a tanker which means we have added another set of people to the raid (two to six depending on the fueling ship). Put simply we have now lost about $340 million and are risking another four-BILLION dollars to rescue one guy. For that same price I could launch almost 900 armed drones. But, the drones can be magically jammed while the human craft can not...according to the experts here.

So, if we are going to run war that way, why not buy a butt-load more of simple planes with greater range, loiter time, payload and system simplicity? If we are going to lose flying machines (and all scenarios in a big war will cost flying machines) why not win with more and cheaper than go bankrupt with cool, new, and vastly over-priced? By the way, using modern money, the USN bought almost 3200 Skyraiders for the price of two...2...F-35's. I am pretty sure that two F-35's could not stop 3200 Skyraiders coming to drop bombs on your bridge.

The A-1 was obsolete by the middle of Vietnam.

 

[Brett327]

The debate began over the "impossible" EW environment that UCAVs will face that will magically not impact the chock-full-of-electronics F-35 type craft.

The fact that you're lumping these two completely different things together tells me that you don't really understand the capabilities of either side in this scenario. It's unfortunate that any meaningful discussion requires a SCIF, but this is kinda one of my core war-fighting competencies, so take that FWIW.