Navy Drone Crash in Maryland

[Zondaracer]

But the SUPER HORNET (F/A-18E, F/A-18F, EA-18G) cost well over $50 million each. Yes under $70 million a piece. But multiply the cost by the hundreds of aircraft's needed. The aircraft's on ordered and/or in production, or that have been produced. Not to many UAV's are flying or needed.

You don't need as many UAV's. You don't need as many manned pilots. You don't need as many maintenance time (man hour, labor hours, parts, phase maintenance). Because they stay in the air longer, fly further, can fly over a target/threat/station for hours on end with un-comparable fuel economy.

You need to compare apples to apples. The F/A-18 do uniquely different missions from the RQ-4. Granted, the F/A-18 and other fighter aircraft can get us some non traditional ISR, but that's not its main purpose. Compare it to the U-2... how many U-2s are needed for the mission? How many U-2s go up on the ATO each day? How many pilots does a U-2 mission require?

Look at the predator... how many pilots are required to carry out a mission? Well... there are two at any given time, and they rotate through during the mission, plus there are pilots at the recovery and launch... so I'm not an expert on Predator missions but you've easily got half a dozen pilots operating a Pred mission, not to mention sensor operators and all the folks behind the scenes keeping the whole mission operational. Also, it seems that the JFACC can't get enough predators. Look at the ATO one day and you will see how many predators are out there at any given time.

Like I said, RPAs have a purpose and fill a useful role, but they aren't the end-all to military aviation, or civil aviation for that matter. At least not any time soon.

 

[Hacker15e]

RPA is a methodology of controlling aircraft. While it may have a significant part in the future of military aviation, don't confuse that with the actual capabilities and potential of the iron that is currently being physically controlled remotely.

It is certainly possible that RPAs of the future will be better, faster, smarter, etc, than their manned counterparts outside of the ISR world. Right now, you cannot even have that discussion. When we have actual RPA strategic bombers and RPA air superiority fighters and RPA carrier-based multirole fighters and RPA CAS aircraft all out in fielded operational service (like the manned aircraft in these categories are), then we can make apples-to-apples comparisons about how efficient and effective and wonderful they are.

Until that time, such arguments are theoretical cheerleading about something that does not exist.

You don't need as many UAV's. You don't need as many manned pilots. You don't need as many maintenance time (man hour, labor hours, parts, phase maintenance). Because they stay in the air longer, fly further, can fly over a target/threat/station for hours on end with un-comparable fuel economy.

Where do you find that they "don't need as many manned pilots"? Someone has to be at the controls 100.0% of the time in an RPA, just like in any manned aircraft. In fact, by nature of how RPAs are operated (with separate deployed crews to launch-and-recover at the deployed location, in addition to the crews that are in the CONUS and performing the mission flying, there is actually a GREATER number of pilots, per aircraft, per sortie than a comparable manned analog.

Additionally, the operational infrastructure around ISR drones (mostly the intel side of the house, between imagery analysts, cryptological operators, linguists, etc) is ENORMOUS. There are entire Costco-sized warehouses filled with intel analysts whose job was invented to view and interpret the steady 24-hour firehose of data that ISR RPAs collect. Taken in whole, there actually is a LARGER operational footprint for ISR RPAs than for comparable manned ISR assets.

There are also serious operational limitations to the current set of ISR RPAs that you're not taking into consideration, and have thrown a wrench into the RPA kool-aid drinkers' parties. There's a reason the USAF has stopped making RQ-4s and will continue flying the U-2. There's a reason the SECDEF forced the USAF to buy MC-12s to perform manned tactical ISR rather than buying more MQ/RQ-1s or MQ/RQ-9s. It has to do with the capabilities and LIMITATIONS of those systems compared to their manned counterparts.

And we haven't even started talking about operations in a denied environment -- GPS denied, SATCOM denied, IADS threat, or DCA threat. The massive success of the last 10-15 years of ISR RPA development has all taken place in a permissive "combat" environment, where the current crop of RPA iron has been able to roam unopposed (and has been been clubbed like baby seals when they did face any kind of denial or opposition).

 

[Boskru]

Hacker15e You make some great points! The military does still need many pilots but I think the main difference is that those operating UAVs don't have to be trained to the level of fighter pilot or manned ISR pilot. You're also spot on about how "gentle" the air above Afghanistan is. If it were any sort of war in which the opposing forces had air power it would be an entirely different game plan. Contrary to what hollywood shows UAVs cannot even maneuver as aggressively as a Cessna 172 can! I'd be interested to see how the UAV fad would cope with a war that include air to air combat.

 

[Hacker15e]

Hacker15eI'd be interested to see how the UAV fad would cope with a war that include air to air combat.

Eventually, I'm sure it will be completely seamless, and with better capabilities than are available today. There are actually some inherent advantages to not having a human in the aircraft with respect to air combat (G limitations for one). Unfortunately, the current crop of vehicles were not designed for that kind of maneuvering capability, and would be schwacked like flies if it happened today.

 

[Matt13C]

Eventually, I'm sure it will be completely seamless, and with better capabilities than are available today. There are actually some inherent advantages to not having a human in the aircraft with respect to air combat (G limitations for one). Unfortunately, the current crop of vehicles were not designed for that kind of maneuvering capability, and would be schwacked like flies if it happened today.

I have no experience in this whatsoever but I always thought the best use for them in a fighter capacity would be as drones slaved to a lead pilot. So maybe a tanker has a flight of 6 fighter drones slaved and can use them as needed for protection against opposing air power. Or a led fighter pilot could have a drone or two that they could use for seek and destroy missions allowing the human pilot to focus on attacking a valuable ground target or providing ground support close to friendly troops that you may not normally use drones for.

Again I have no knowledge of this game, I just think that would be a cool use of them as a force multiplier vs primary attack aircraft.

 

[Jet]

How big are these drones?

 

[Boskru]

They range from the shadow UAV wish is about size of a large coffee table to the global hawk which has a wingspan of 114 feet. The more common Reapers and Predators are 66 feet and 48 feet respectively.

 

[Hacker15e]

I have no experience in this whatsoever but I always thought the best use for them in a fighter capacity would be as drones slaved to a lead pilot. So maybe a tanker has a flight of 6 fighter drones slaved and can use them as needed for protection against opposing air power. Or a led fighter pilot could have a drone or two that they could use for seek and destroy missions allowing the human pilot to focus on attacking a valuable ground target or providing ground support close to friendly troops that you may not normally use drones for.

Again I have no knowledge of this game, I just think that would be a cool use of them as a force multiplier vs primary attack aircraft.

Realize that 'drone' is a misnomer -- in general these are not autonomous aircraft that are making decisions for themselves. These are aircraft that are flown real-time by pilots who just happen to be thousands of miles away and piloting via satellite datalink.

Eventually we will probably have aircraft that have the capabilities you're talking about, though.

 

[///AMG]

I have no experience in this whatsoever but I always thought the best use for them in a fighter capacity would be as drones slaved to a lead pilot. So maybe a tanker has a flight of 6 fighter drones slaved and can use them as needed for protection against opposing air power. Or a led fighter pilot could have a drone or two that they could use for seek and destroy missions allowing the human pilot to focus on attacking a valuable ground target or providing ground support close to friendly troops that you may not normally use drones for.

Again I have no knowledge of this game, I just think that would be a cool use of them as a force multiplier vs primary attack aircraft.

If only fighter employment was that simple It will take quantam (QUANTAM) advances in technology and either artificial intelligence, or some sort of unimaginably amazing sensor fusion (to borrow a current buzz word) to enable a UAV to even fight an air to air engagement with the skill of a brand new nugget pilot. I really don't think I'm exaggerating here. Not saying I'm a whole lot better than that, but I know from observation what it takes to be really good, and I think some of those things are inherently difficult to impossible with an RPA. Hacker said it pretty well, but I think people talk pretty fast and loose about fighter employment when it comes to UAV's/RPA's, as if it were just a matter of easily having unlimited SA and only needing to point and shoot. Just my .02 FWIW

 

[ScorpionStinger]

A few of you are forgetting somethings, and thinking conventional.

1. WWII/Vietnam/Cold War era Dog fights, and/or high G-turning maneuvers to get get behind another aircraft to gun them down or even fire a missile close range is not the future of Air combat, yet alone Drones/UAV/RPA currently under development for the next 50 years. It's shoot and forget. The technology is here for that.

2. Some of these aircrafts are flying Automated race tracks. With the pilots playing more of a "monitoring" role vs. physically flying the plane. The training will be quite different! I saw a job posting the a few months and weeks ago for U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hiring pilots for their UAV's with (min 1,500hrs) preferably with CFI, CFII ratings... I saw the posting on USA Jobs.Gov. Type CBP... Go to the CBP website. In fact click here: http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the...-Customs-UAV-Pilot-Operator-Age-Limit-Removed!!!

3. U-2's are being used where they see it's cost effective. U-2's are being used for the same reason F-22's aren't being used.

I want to response further, but don't have time right now. I'll comment more tomorrow.

P.s. I'm not parading UAV operations, just saying it makes sense. The capabilities and future benefits are enormous. It's the future of Military Aviation (the next step), and perhaps civil aviation then after...

 

[MikeOH58]

A few of you are forgetting somethings, and thinking conventional.

1. WWII/Vietnam/Cold War era Dog fights, and/or high G-turning maneuvers to get get behind another aircraft to gun them down or even fire a missile close range is not the future of Air combat, yet alone Drones/UAV/RPA currently under development for the next 50 years. It's shoot and forget. The technology is here for that.

Yea, and the Phantom didn't need a cannon. I want to say that I read something recently posted by MikeD, Hacker or AMG about the reliability of BVR Air to Air missiles. The point was they are far less reliable then joe airline/corporate pilot thinks they are.

(MD/Hack/AMG, if you did not write that stuff and i'm confusing with another site my apologies in advance)

 

[bunk22]

A few of you are forgetting somethings, and thinking conventional.

1. WWII/Vietnam/Cold War era Dog fights, and/or high G-turning maneuvers to get get behind another aircraft to gun them down or even fire a missile close range is not the future of Air combat, yet alone Drones/UAV/RPA currently under development for the next 50 years. It's shoot and forget. The technology is here for that.

Then why do we practice that turning to get behind another aircraft still?

 

[MikeOH58]

Then why do we practice that turning to get behind another aircraft still?

TCAS III RA?

 

[///AMG]

A few of you are forgetting somethings, and thinking conventional.

1. WWII/Vietnam/Cold War era Dog fights, and/or high G-turning maneuvers to get get behind another aircraft to gun them down or even fire a missile close range is not the future of Air combat, yet alone Drones/UAV/RPA currently under development for the next 50 years. It's shoot and forget. The technology is here for that.

I'm only speaking to the air-to-air feasibility of UAVs, and I don't believe I'm forgetting anything. The reality is that there are a lot of reasons that modern BVR weapons haven't rid us of the task of going to merges. The war in the Balkans, and USAF kills of that era are a testament to this, as are the developments in more recent years of the AIM-9X and AA-11 Archer. I'd say the more conventional thinking would be this second coming of the late 1950's idea that BVR was the be all and end all of modern air warfare. We found out the hard way over NVN how well this worked out. We found out again in every major conflict with air to air engagements since.

P.s. I'm not parading UAV operations, just saying it makes sense. The capabilities and future benefits are enormous. It's the future of Military Aviation (the next step), and perhaps civil aviation then after...

I wouldn't disagree. Again, my only point is that there are places for manned aircraft that I don't believe UAV's can adequately fill at this time. In 50 years? I couldn't even begin to take a guess at that, but I'm sure they will at a minimum be much more capable then.

 

[ryan1234]

A few of you are forgetting somethings, and thinking conventional.

1. WWII/Vietnam/Cold War era Dog fights, and/or high G-turning maneuvers to get get behind another aircraft to gun them down or even fire a missile close range is not the future of Air combat, yet alone Drones/UAV/RPA currently under development for the next 50 years. It's shoot and forget. The technology is here for that.

It's nice to know that you can predict the future of air combat.

Just as a quick note... generally speaking, for each leap in weapons technology there is an equal (or almost equal) and opposite counter measure out there. Bottom line, it's just a lot more complex than putting a blanket statement on the future. UAVs may have the technology to do cool stuff, but the bandwidth may not be there... or any other variable that is critical to their success.

 

[Hacker15e]

A few of you are forgetting somethings, and thinking conventional.

1. WWII/Vietnam/Cold War era Dog fights, and/or high G-turning maneuvers to get get behind another aircraft to gun them down or even fire a missile close range is not the future of Air combat, yet alone Drones/UAV/RPA currently under development for the next 50 years. It's shoot and forget. The technology is here for that.

It's most certainly not 'shoot and forget'. We're not 'forgetting' anything in making these posts -- it's that we have actual hands-on experience with the equipment, tactics, and incidences involved in both BVR and WVR air-to-air combat, and based on that experience, we know that it's not as simple as that by any stretch of the imagination.

Taken in the singular - one aircraft fighting one aircraft in a vacuum, where there is no surrounding chaos of combat, no multiple opportunities for mechanical failure, no confusion or mistakes on the part of the operator, no deception or denial on the part of the shooter or the target -- then there's somewhat of a chance that an engagement will only be a BVR engagement and never get into an actual turning fight.

Add in any of those other potential failure points, AND/OR add in the various electronic attack methods of foiling the weapons that make BVR kills possible (missiles, and their various guidance methods), add in any maneuvering or other ways to spoof or defeat those missiles, then you rapidly and significantly increase the chance that a kill won't/can't take place beyond visual range, and will terminate in a turning fight.

This happens ALL THE TIME in combat scenarios with ALL TYPES of aircraft fighting one another.

This was the previous post and thread referenced:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/american-fighters-are-useless-compared-to.142957/#post-1902675

 

[Hacker15e]

2. Some of these aircrafts are flying Automated race tracks. With the pilots playing more of a "monitoring" role vs. physically flying the plane. The training will be quite different! I saw a job posting the a few months and weeks ago for U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hiring pilots for their UAV's with (min 1,500hrs) preferably with CFI, CFII ratings... I saw the posting on USA Jobs.Gov. Type CBP... Go to the CBP website. In fact click here: http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the...-Customs-UAV-Pilot-Operator-Age-Limit-Removed!!!

Just because "some" aircraft are doing that, does not mean you can blanket apply that to ALL aircraft.

Remember, RPA is a method of controlling an aircraft. Anything, from a 172 to a 777 to an F-16 could be on the other end of that control datalink. It is the physical capabilities of that aircraft on the other end of that datalink, along with the mission needs of that aircraft, which dictate the number and capability of the crew members needed to operate them.

The current crop of ISR aircraft function fine on preprogrammed orbits. Pilots may just be monitoring that orbit, but they're still physically present controlling it, just in the same way every 121 airliner has two pilots that are just sitting there monitoring that the autopilot is doing. Pilots still have to be hired, trained, and physically present. In your quote you show that ISR RPA pilots flying for CBP can be hired with some relatively low time and experience. Don't misconstrue what that means -- an ISR RPA pilot really doesn't do much with respect to the mission except fly to a point and orbit around it, then fly home. It's the sensor operator and the mission crew commander (an intel guy) who perform the actual 'mission' tasks.

And, as I mentioned in my previous post, ISR aircraft have a huge hidden infrastructure of people who monitor, interpret, and disseminate the information collected by the RPA. Those are all personnel who, in a different time, would physically have to be aboard the aircraft if it were manned (like EP-3, MC-12, EC-130, RC-135, etc). There are still tons of people -- usually defined as aircrew -- involved in the process.

Still, none of this can be blanket applied to anything other than an ISR aircraft operating in a permissive environment.

 

[Matt13C]

Realize that 'drone' is a misnomer -- in general these are not autonomous aircraft that are making decisions for themselves. These are aircraft that are flown real-time by pilots who just happen to be thousands of miles away and piloting via satellite datalink.

Eventually we will probably have aircraft that have the capabilities you're talking about, though.

Yeah, I was thinking more of their future not present capabilities.

If only fighter employment was that simple It will take quantam (QUANTAM) advances in technology and either artificial intelligence, or some sort of unimaginably amazing sensor fusion (to borrow a current buzz word) to enable a UAV to even fight an air to air engagement with the skill of a brand new nugget pilot. I really don't think I'm exaggerating here. Not saying I'm a whole lot better than that, but I know from observation what it takes to be really good, and I think some of those things are inherently difficult to impossible with an RPA. Hacker said it pretty well, but I think people talk pretty fast and loose about fighter employment when it comes to UAV's/RPA's, as if it were just a matter of easily having unlimited SA and only needing to point and shoot. Just my .02 FWIW

I dont think there is a "tin man" out there at this point, to quote an awful movie. I could be wrong, who knows what we are really capable of? Anyway, I was thinking more future technology. I personally don't think we will ever get away from manned fighters for the simple reason that for every offense there will be a defense, a way to limit technology. With the technological advantage eliminated, which I would imagine would be any adversaries first move in a war against the US, we will need manned aircraft to get the job done. It would be cool if at some point in the far future it was possible to slave drones to a manned fighter to increase his survivability and increase his ability to fight.

 

[rframe]

I read somewhere that the loss of drones is through the roof, basically the military cannot keep the things in the air and the loss was something like well over 50% loss ratio. That is totally from memory and could be inaccurate. Anybody have actual data on these things? Qutch this seems like something you'd know.

I think they have their place and are probably a very welcome addition in recon work where the ground teams need eyes in the sky but it's neither safe nor discrete to use manned aircraft... but from what I've heard they really need to reel in the control issues to make them effective in the long term.

 

[GX]

Where do you find that they "don't need as many manned pilots"? Someone has to be at the controls 100.0% of the time in an RPA, just like in any manned aircraft. In fact, by nature of how RPAs are operated (with separate deployed crews to launch-and-recover at the deployed location, in addition to the crews that are in the CONUS and performing the mission flying, there is actually a GREATER number of pilots, per aircraft, per sortie than a comparable manned analog.

Wasn't this very thing one of the big selling points of the RPA? (That they would require less pilots to man, reducing overall numbers in a squadron?) This was during the large drawdowns of the Clinton administration when they were being developed, IIRC.