Navy Drone Crash in Maryland

[Qutch]

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......

Nope. About 6 months ago the Wall Street Journal and several other publications wasted their time trying to get that data through a FOIA request. Not suprisingly, the Gov't declined most of their request.

They may not be able to hide all of their mishaps. Iran made a big show out of the drone they recovered, and the Maryland loss became public knowledge. Sometimes they volunteer some information. But not surprisingly, for National Security reasons and to hide embarrassments, it doesn't look like the Gov't will be anxious to volunteer all the data they have on that, so I don't have any hard data I could cite. The Human Factors capabilities of the aircraft is a subject that I'm more familiar with.
.

 

[Qutch]

.....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......

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.

If I understand Hacker correctly, I think I'm with him on this. But I have a bias. My assignment after UPT instructing was at the Air Force Aviation Human Factors Laboratory in Phoenix Arizona. A kind of Think Tank for advanced military aviation related brain studies, among other things. Some of what they did there is still Classified, some not. But there I witnessed the ability of fighter pilots, at the extreme, to perform tasks far beyond the ability of computers. Savants. Almost super human. I'm betting on the on-board pilots for now.
.

 

[Hacker15e]

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.

I don't recall that, personally, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't pitched as a 'benefit' at some point. The main thing I remember being touted was the extremely long loiter time because the could hot-swap crews (pilot duty day was never an issue).

The big thing to realize is that the ISR game has evolved significantly since the introduction of the RPA in the 90s. This DCGS (intel analysis) infrastructure has grown like kudzu into it's own little empire since then.

 

[Hacker15e]

If I understand Hacker correctly, I think I'm with him on this. But I have a bias. My assignment after UPT instructing was at the Air Force Aviation Human Factors Laboratory in Phoenix Arizona. A kind of Think Tank for advanced military aviation related brain studies, among other things. Some of what they did there is still Classified, some not. But there I witnessed the ability of fighter pilots, at the extreme, to perform tasks far beyond the ability of computers. Savants. Almost super human. I'm betting on the on-board pilots for now.
.

You're on the right track in noting that there are human performance factors that rely on the situational awareness afforded by actually "being there". That SA cannot be replicated by looking at soda-straw cameras, digital moving maps, and limited channel comms relayed via datalink to screens thousands of miles away.

 

[Hacker15e]

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.

Well, it's certainly not that high, but it is statistically higher than comparable manned aircraft per flight hour. There are numerous challenges flying the current MQ/RQ-1s and MQ/RQ-9s halfway around the world, in rapidly changing weather conditions, and in a very dynamic "combat" environment.

Some of these problems are unique to the capabilities and performance of the aircraft at the other end of the datalink, and some of the problems are systemic with controlling an aircraft via a satellite datalink (and all of the inherent issues with satellites -- ever had bad reception with your satellite TV??).

Eventually, most of this junk will be sorted out -- hell, the early days of aviation had incredibly high accident rates, too, and RPA technology is still very much in its infancy.

 

[Qutch]

You're on the right track in noting that there are human performance factors that rely on the situational awareness afforded by actually "being there". That SA cannot be replicated by looking at soda-straw cameras, digital moving maps, and limited channel comms relayed via datalink to screens thousands of miles away.

Scientists study the ability of birds and fish to navigate over long distances without the aid of visual cues and technology, crutches that humans think are essential. Scientists have discovered that animals may utilize tiny magnetic material in their brains, angular awareness of the sun, the smell of air and water, along with other sensory inputs that we don't fully understand. At the AF Lab I was assigned to, scientists studied and tried to re-activate similar latent abilities in the human mind that would allow a fighter pilot's brain to perform amazing tasks. Part of the science of Human Factors Engineering.

Take a fish out of the water, or a bird out of the air, and they lose contact with the sensory data (not all of which we understand yet) that they utilize to navigate and avoid trouble (SA). Take a pilot out of the aircraft and ask him to look through a soda straw camera, and he also loses contact with whatever sensory inputs (not all of which scientists fully understand) that he needs to maintain full SA and operate at max efficiency.

On-board fighter pilots still rule when it comes to performing many tasks and missions.

(Same thing that Hacker said, but stated in terms that Human Factors scientists might describe it.)
.

 

[///AMG]

We have a lot of great sensors and systems that we can use to build SA, but Qutch is right on in talking about the soda straw effect. Those things are great aids to help build that big picture, but the most vital two sensors we have at our disposal are eyes and a wide open set of ears. At this stage, those are the most important things that I feel RPA's are missing.

 

[ScorpionStinger]

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.

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.

See links below... All I'm saying is this is the future, you guys may not want to believe it, but it's the next step for a technologically advance nation. Our technology is one of our nation's great strength! Our capabilities, strength, and flexibility is what keeps other nations at bay and gives us economic "Bargaining Power". Follow the money, and you'll learn UAV/RPA (or what ever other nomenclature you guys want to call it) is the next frontier in aviation.


See link and quotes below:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009357466_airshowuav19.html


" At an Air Show briefing on the new unmanned systems division, Boeing Vice President Chris Chadwick said the acquisitions allowed Boeing to enter the marketplace quickly. Part of the appeal of UAVs for both the military and the defense companies is that they are relatively cheap compared to regular manned military hardware, both to buy and to develop."




"The Super Hornet is a beautiful machine," said Alejandro Pita, Insitu's director of business development, gesturing to the big jet behind him. "But honestly, after the JSF (Lockheed Martin's joint strike fighter jet), I don't know if the next fighter will be manned."



Also see link and quotes below:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/military/4347306

"I don't think it's an overstatement that this is a revolution of military affairs. The revolution is the conscious application of automated technology."--Col. Eric Mathewson, Unmanned Aircraft Aystems Task Force director

"The idea of unmanned airplanes also runs contrary to the airman-centric ethos that has defined the Air Force since it became an independent military branch in 1947. Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine in 1973 quoted an Air Force official's disparaging verdict on remote-control warplanes: "How can you be a tiger sitting behind a console?" That attitude proved to be shortsighted."

When I read that I wasn't surprised by your position/stance.


Click link below, It's a great article on the future of UAV and quotes by previous SECDEF & Chairmen of the Joint Chief of Staff under Pres Obama administration.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Future_of_military_aviation_lies_with_drones_US_admiral_999.html

UAV NEWS
Future of military aviation lies with drones: US admiral



It's from the previous administration, but I can assure you, these UAV program fundings are not decreasing anytime soon. They will continue to become cheaper to build.



P.s. Not all pilots go through flight training. Ex: Enlisted Marines operating UAV/RPA's in the battlefield.

 

[Hacker15e]

Are we even talking about the same topic here anymore?

Your "response" here seems to be throwing up a bunch of quotes that RPAs are the future. Got it. Yep, I agree with that and have said so since the beginning of this discussion (see my post #22 and #24): in the future, there will most likely be aircraft specifically designed to be used in the combat roles that currently are filled by manned aircraft, and they will have certain advantages (as well as disadvantages that, strangely, none of your quotes address in the midst of their RPA cheerleading). And none of that in any way changes the fact that currently operational RPAs are not capable of doing any of those missions even to a satisfactory level today or in the reasonable future.

Absolutely zero of those quotes support your assertions made in Post #30 saying that there will never be any more dogfighting because missiles are "shoot and forget", which you quoted my response to.

It's fine to wax poetic about what stuff will be capable of in the future, but don't ever confuse that with what is actually possible today.

 

[exerauflyboy5]

I think it funny how a predator is considered unmanned, when there is a guy on the ground controlling it. And by the way, someone made a comment about a Costco-size warehouse that deals with intel gathered from an RPV platform. The only people I had sorting through Intel was a single analyst that I was hot miked to, that could also see all my feeds.

I will agree that in there current capacity UAV’s do not belong in the national airspace system. The system is just not ready nor is it even designed to cope with UAVs and no matter what fancy whiz-bang ninja transponder or TCAS system they put on them, they still wont be ready. In their current configurations they make great ISR platforms, in all honesty there is nothing like following a group of people or a car around downtown Baghdad, at night for almost an entire 20+ hour orbit. Kind of made me feel James Bondish in a way. Or finding a shooter that’s taking pot shots at a security force, or hunting down mortar tubes and homemade rocket rails that kept pounding Balad. And let me tell you, those little bastards were getting clever at keeping those things hidden.

In my opinion, and please bear with me. With the time I’ve spent on the outside looking in at certain military UAV ops. One of the biggest problems I’ve seen is that there are a lot of pilots who are upset and pissy with the fact that they were sent to pred’s instead of a jet. The contractor side has a few winners in it to, like the guys that just had to take the POS UAV pilot job until they’re recalled. And you know what, I get it; There are some days I’d rather be in a jet to! Or anything that burns Jet-A for that matter (I’d give the left one for just an hour in a Tomcat, but I digress). But this attitude leads to accidents and incidents and puts fuel on the anti-uav fire. Current UAV platforms are not designed to go fast and dog fight (as cool as that could be one day); they are designed to support the guys on the ground in all they do. And provide intelligence so who ever has the reigns that day can make the tough choices to keep the fight in our favor and people alive. One day in the future, they may have a “tin man”. But it’s along way off, and I think you’ll see tankers and transports go RPV before anything else.

Lastly There were a lot of instances where operations wouldn’t kick off until we were overhead providing over watch and scanning for IED’s, shooters, squirters, runners, and targets of various natures. This happened on a nightly basis. Now to me, that tells me we do a dam good job of supporting our dudes and getting the bad guys before they could hurt our guys. I mean isn’t that what’s most important about what we do? Helping win the fight and keeping guys safe?

 

[Minuteman]

Everyone thinks drones are the future (Free Syrian Army).

 

[Hacker15e]

And by the way, someone made a comment about a Costco-size warehouse that deals with intel gathered from an RPV platform. The only people I had sorting through Intel was a single analyst that I was hot miked to, that could also see all my feeds.

Which platform did you fly, and who did you fly it for?

Anything that the USAF, Army, JSOC, or related contracted flyers do is eventually processed through one of these, where the intel trolls Process, Exploit, and Disseminate (PED) intel garnered from ISR assets:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/dcgs.htm

Depending on where you worked, that "single analyst" on your crew ultimately worked for, and was pumping their data into, the DCGS.

 

[MikeD]

Depending on where you worked, that "single analyst" on your crew ultimately worked for, and was pumping their data into, the DCGS.

Additionally, each UAV/crew does have the individual intel person working with the flight crew and hot-mic'd to them, who is working the flight and monitoring the feed (usually a 1N0 or 1N1 AFSC); but beyond that, the DGS did the analysis, and/or whomever was piped into that particular feed and was involved with the mission...which could be many.

 

[exerauflyboy5]

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

I use to fly MQ-1C's for GA. Think Army version of the AF predator, faster, more firepower, diesel motor. I get the whole site picture now with our gathering getting piped to different sources. As a matter fact, there was a mechanic that decided to show his...uh.."Brain", during our initial power up, in IR no less, and that was getting fed to a few sources with some higher ups dialed in. From what I understand a few found it amusing. The majority, not so amused. In what was my typical everyday ops, we would have two that would rotate through our orbit. And if need be pass on intel packets to whom ever.I have seen a few places where all the intel guys sit and go over MASSIVE amounts of intel of all types. But I though it was from all the assets that were working with that command. Not just UAV intel.

On a side note to, no two UAVs fly the same. Some are flown from start to shutdown from a GCS, some are flown by a futaba style box then handed over to a GCS and back. Others from portable stations. Although in a few years all the services are probably going to switch to a auto takeoff/land style system.


Speaking of IA's we had a husband and wife team out in Balad that kicked ass!

 

[MikeD]

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

And now you are going to have to be killed for the contents of your last post.

 

[ScorpionStinger]

Are we even talking about the same topic here anymore?
Absolutely zero of those quotes support your assertions made in Post #30 saying that there will never be any more dogfighting because missiles are "shoot and forget", which you quoted my response to.

Yes we are . We agree in most parts ideologically my man. My comments are to UAV's in general, whether ISR, Air Combat/Fighter, Scouter. I'm not being specific in nature in my comments UAV's/Drones/RPA's are UAV's/Drones/RPA's to me. I said "WWII/Vietnam/Cold War era Dog fights, and/or high G-turning maneuvers to get behind another aircraft to gun them down or even fire a missile close range is not the future of Air combat..." I don't like using absolutes when I speak or write. I did not say never.

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2005-06/future-air-combat?page=1

Lt. Col. Craig Fisher of the 64th Agressor Squadron said in a videotaped interview. "It was very much an unfair fight." That, of course, was the idea. Stealth makes the Raptor hard to find, and the F/A-22 sees better than any predecessor. Its smoothly contoured nose contains "active, electronically scanned array" (AESA) radar: The radar beam is steered electronically, rather than by a moving antenna, so it shifts instantaneously from target to target-identifying the type of each aircraft along the way. A data link connects all the Raptors in a flight, so every airplane can see what every other airplane sees. A Raptor pilot can have missiles launched before the opposing pilot has a clue what is happening. But even in air-to-air combat, technological and tactical changes may have already made the tremendous acceleration and agility of the F/A-22 and the Typhoon less important. The nature of air war has changed, and close-range visual combat might never happen again. The proliferation of new, incredibly agile short-range missiles now makes visual-range combat extremely dangerous, and long-range air-to-air missiles have improved significantly, allowing slower fighters to more easily shoot down opponents.

It's fine to wax poetic about what stuff will be capable of in the future, but don't ever confuse that with what is actually possible today.

True, I am not a fighter pilot, nor military pilot of any sort. I fixed'em, turned'em, launched'em, moved'em, sat in the cockpit and did high power and low power engine run-ups on the latest generation fighter jets. I am not a UAV program manager, high ranking military personnel, nor a DOD acquisition expert. My comments on this thread are (mostly) broad in nature.

Most of the information I've gained about UAV's have been either from people I spoke to who were involved with UAV program directly or from personal research through reading papers and online articles. From conversations I made with engineers while stationed in Patuxent River MD; and also while working as a paid intern for Subcontracts management team at Northrop Grumman Corp (Aerospace systems) in the same spaces where engineers worked.

I'm not a Gun-ho guy for UAV's. I just find the technology and capabilities very very fascinating. I see value in it's limited use domestically for things like Border Protection. I also would like to see it used for Cloud Seeding/Geo Engineering (lol, I kid, I kid)... I also believe in protecting American lives, and civil liberties as per our constitutional rights. So using UAV's for spying and violating the privacy of people is a fight the people will have to make with politicians. The future of aviation is fascinating to me, and I feel blessed to be an American, and to live in this technologically advanced era in aviation history. All this in 109 years is amazing!

P.s. I'm trying to be efficient with my limited time. Please pardon my typos.

P.s.#2. I found this article very interesting.

Click here---> Law enforcement could use thousands of UAVs in next decade
"As many as 30,000 unmanned aerial vehicles could be flying in U.S. skies in the next decade for law enforcement and intelligence-gathering, government estimates show. The UAVs could be used to monitor borders and aid in giving out speeding tickets. However, the American Civil Liberties Union has said that "unmanned aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a significant new avenue for the surveillance of American life." The Christian Science Monitor


P.s. #3... This Blog from AOPASmartBrief was also very interesting.

Click here---> Blog: Aviation industry needs to train UAV maintenance workers
Blogger Scott Spangler wonders who is going to train new workers to maintain unmanned aerial vehicles for civilian use. "Given the industry's success at recruiting new pilots, a profession and pastime much sexier than turning a wrench, becoming an under-panel contortionist, or driving a keyboard, the future should be interesting," writes Spangler. Jetwhine.com (6/14)

 

[Hacker15e]

The nature of air war has changed, and close-range visual combat might never happen again. The proliferation of new, incredibly agile short-range missiles now makes visual-range combat extremely dangerous, and long-range air-to-air missiles have improved significantly, allowing slower fighters to more easily shoot down opponents.

Nothing like Popular Science as an authoritative source on the future tactics of air-to-air combat.

That's all I'll say about that.

 

[Hacker15e]

Additionally, each UAV/crew does have the individual intel person working with the flight crew and hot-mic'd to them, who is working the flight and monitoring the feed (usually a 1N0 or 1N1 AFSC); but beyond that, the DGS did the analysis, and/or whomever was piped into that particular feed and was involved with the mission...which could be many.

We had the same IA attached to our MC-12 crews....at least, they wanted to be part of the crew, unless it had to do with showing up to the brief, actually supporting us during the mission, or showing up to the debrief.

 

[Hacker15e]

Article from today's news cycle that gives some perspective on where we stand in terms of autonomous UAV tactical operations:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13576_3-5...by-2015-u.s-navy-preps-for-futuristic-combat/

 

[ScorpionStinger]

Nothing like Popular Science as an authoritative source on the future tactics of air-to-air combat.
That's all I'll say about that.

You must not have read "Lt. Col. Craig Fisher of the 64th Aggressor Squadron said:...." that was the authoritative source.

As for the reliability of POPULAR SCIENCE.... I'll enjoy this.

Popular Science magazine is a very reliable source much like other reliable news sources (much like your Cnet..... aka CBS interactive... aka CBS Corporation)!


Popular Science was founded in 1872. Popular Science covers the latest developments in science and technology news.
Popular Science was previously owned/published by Time Inc,. (Time Warner Corp). This magazine is now owned by Bonnier Corporation.

And Bonnier Corporation also own and publishes FLYING magazine amongst 40+ others in the U.S. alone. Some of which you might have picked once and learned something from. Worldwide the Bonnier Group is a huge media conglomerate!


You should read Popular Science articles sometimes.... It's very hard to find anything un-authoritative or un-reliable. I'm sure you and I can find flaws in most authoritative and reliable sources that we don't agree with..... #NewsCorp/Murdoch. But that doesn't make them less reliable and authoritative.


Seriously, CHECK it out before bad mouthing -----> http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/UAVS



CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG ~ Rodney King....