# Pilotless drones eyed to replace CF-18s



## Maritime_Matt (6 Sep 2005)

fr. today's Globe and Mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050906.gtplanes06/BNStory/Technology/?query=drones

By MURRAY BREWSTER 

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 Updated at 9:42 AM EDT

Canadian Press

HALIFAX â â€ It is usually the stuff of science fiction and Hollywood, but Canadian defence 
researchers are debating the replacement of the trusty CF-18 jetfighter with a fleet of sophisticated, pilotless drones.

The concept was first proposed in 2003 in an internal Defence Department research paper, but it has now become the subject of discussion within the air force.

The CF-18s, which are undergoing a $1.3-billion, life-extending modernization, are scheduled to keep flying until 2017.

The idea of simply substituting one manned aircraft for another should no longer be the obvious solution given the increasing complexity and relatively low cost of unmanned vehicles, said Thierry Gongora, a defence researcher

In his study, one of the options he suggested is replacing the CF-18 with a fleet of pilotless drones.

"It's in the realm of possibility," he said in an interview from Ottawa. "There are people thinking that much outside the box."

In an age of tight budgets, as well as a defence policy review and U.S. resolve to extend its security perimeter to the whole of North America, the idea of switching to drones isn't that far-fetched, said General Paul Manson, retired chief of defence staff and a member of the conference of defence associations.

Not having to risk lives attacking heavily defended targets makes them very attractive, Gen. Manson said.

Pilotless surveillance drones, such as the U.S. Predator, have seen military duty in Afghanistan with U.S. and Canadian forces.

The growing popularity of the system, which combines real-time video and a host of other electronic surveillance, has led to the development of more sophisticated drones that can carry missiles and attack ground targets.

Unlike the completely automated attack fighter that goes haywire in this summer's Hollywood movie Stealth, the real-life drones are controlled from the ground by technicians.

In the spring, the United States successfully tested the latest version of a robotic combat aircraft, which is being designed to evade ground fire.

Whether technically savvy robots can replace flesh-and-blood pilots in all aspects of air combat is still a matter of debate, Mr. Gongora said.

For example, the technology does not permit drones to carry out air-to-air interceptions, such as tracking down enemy aircraft or escorting airliners that may have been hijacked.

A senior air force officer in charge of the squadron supporting the CF-18 fleet is deeply skeptical.

"I'm not convinced the technology will be there," Lieutenant-Colonel Carl Doyon said in an interview from Bagotville, Que.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2005)

Several things wrong with this article:

First; is this statement: 





> For example, the technology does not permit drones to carry out air-to-air interceptions, such as tracking down enemy aircraft or escorting airliners that may have been hijacked.



Second; Drones are programmed on the ground before takeoff to fly in a programmed flight pattern.   They have no way to change their flight plans or make split second decisions on their own.   How can this in any way replace a piloted CF 18?   

A Remote Piloted plane is not a Drone; but it could replace an aircraft and fly a variety of missions with a pilot controlling it from the ground.   A Drone cannot.   RPVs and UAVs still don't have air combat abilities yet.   Some attempts are being made to make them capable of limited Ground Attack.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

This point has started to intrigue me:

With it being possible to strap a set of glider wings and nav system onto a "dumb" bomb of 250 to 2000 lbs, launch it from more than 60 km away and hit the cross hairs on an ISO container, or better yet launch a Harpoon/SLAM-ER with a 500 lb warhead from 300 km, how much need is there for aircraft to "close" with the target?  

If you don't close, you don't put the aircraft and pilot at risk.  There is no need to contemplate arming the attacking vehicle to defend itself thus there is no need for the UCAV.  Does it make any sense to arm a Harpoon with air to air missiles, radar, control surfaces and gas so that it can autonomously engage in a dogfight on its attack run? Or does it make more sense just to keep weight and cost down so that there are more of them and they are harder to hit?

The developments in precision guided munitions are gradually forcing aircraft into the role of "Bomb-Trucks" in any event.   Does a "Bomb-Truck" have to be manned?  Or is it conceivable to use UAVs in that role?

I do see a role for manned aircraft in maintaining air-superiority, shooting down bomb-trucks, but unless you have carriers that is pretty much going to be a home-court advantage and even then there are likely to be issues with range overmatch with the attacking missiles having the advantage.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (6 Sep 2005)

George,

I believe it is simply an example of poor technical knowledge (or worse poor terminology used by those interviewed) on the part of the author.  Similiar to the 155mm bomb launching recoiless rifle mentioned in another thread.  He does mention the Predator which is not a drone as an example of the vehicle type.

D


----------



## S McKee (6 Sep 2005)

Pilotless Drones:

Before we replace pilots with "drones" serious issues have to be addressed: 
Will CF-18 pilots be assimilated? 
Will the drone operating platform be using PS2, XBox or Nintendo controllers? 
Will the guys (read geeks) working the drones be able to get cool nicknames like real pilots do now; like Joystick or Big thumbs? 
Is there a place for a pocket protector on a leather jacket/flight suit? 
Will airbases currently known as Wings now be known as Cubes (you know drones=Borg)?
Can the drones be manufactured by Bombardier at three or four times the cost of an original off the shelf drone manufactured by another country?
If we go with the "off the shelf" option will we still buy the French drones? Which look really cool but have a myriad of technical problems i.e. prone to surrender to other drones, fly in the opposite direction of the combat area, think that they are better than all the other drones, and inoperability with US drones except when they see German drones.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This point has started to intrigue me:
> 
> With it being possible to strap a set of glider wings and nav system onto a "dumb" bomb of 250 to 2000 lbs, launch it from more than 60 km away and hit the cross hairs on an ISO container, or better yet launch a Harpoon/SLAM-ER with a 500 lb warhead from 300 km, how much need is there for aircraft to "close" with the target?
> 
> ...



Google "MBDA Diamond Back" and "Leigh Longshot"



Matthew.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Sep 2005)

Too funny Jumper.

Also will these Drones be bilingual, gender neutral, secular and represent the changing face of Camada?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

Re Diamondback/Longshot 

Seen Matt.   Believe Longshot is now out of the running but Diamondback+Mk80 series+GPS/INS+Paveway Designator = Paveway III? 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-24.htm#gbu-24eb

Diamondback
http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=117



> After the bomb has been released and the "diamond" wing has been extended, the bomb benefits from additional lift. When a bomb like the GPS-guided JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), equipped with a DIAMOND BACK Ã‚® kit, is released at an altitude of 25,000 ft (7 600 m), its range increases from 18.5km to 65 km.


Given that it is a glider presumably range increases with altitude.   Given that it is guided precision is presumably unaffected by range.

13 m CEP
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Dec/Planned_JDAM.htm

3 m CEP
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/s1/news/2000/DAMASK2.htm

250 lb SDB
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2004/december/i_ids8.html

170 miles Harpoon SLAM-ER
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q2/nr_050519m.html

EGLIN AFB, FLA. - Officials at the Air Force
Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate,
in conjunction with Alenia Marconi Systems
and Boeing, conducted a successful proof of
concept test of a modified Joint Direct Attack
Munition (JDAM) BLU-109 weapon recently.
Known as the JDAM-ER (for extended
range), the weapon incorporates the use of a
device called Diamond Back. According to
2nd Lt. John Mehrman, JDAM-ER program
manager, the Diamond Back is a low cost,
high performance wing kit, which features a
joined tandem wing design. The wings
extend from a compact storage position and,
when fully deployed, they form a diamond
shaped platform.
Mehrman said the weapon was launched
from an F-16 at 20,000 feet and within 4
seconds the wings deployed and it began
flying down range on its own. After a 200-
second flight, the JDAM-ER splashed in the Gulf of Mexico at
a specified GPS coordinate.
"Diamond Back increases the range of the JDAM from 8 to
approximately 24 miles when launched at 20,000 feet,"
Mehrman said. "This not only extends the range of the
weapon, but also helps protect our warfighters by providing
by Rex Swenson, Munitions Directorate
Munitions lab conducts successful JDAM wing test
additional survivability for the delivery aircraft. It also
allows the attack of multiple, widely separated targets from a
single release point."
A cross range flight demonstration was scheduled for
shortly after the Diamond Back test. In that test the JDAMER
flew 15 miles down range and across 10 miles. @
Summer 2000 Volume II, Issue 2
news@afrl The official voice of the Air Force Research Laboratory
F e a t u r e s
BOMBS AWAY - An Air Force plane carries a Joint Direct Attack
Munition weapon with a Diamond Back. The Diamond Back is a
low cost, high performance wing kit that increases the range of
JDAM from 8 to 24 miles when launched at 20,000 feet.


----------



## TheCheez (8 Sep 2005)

The 18's will ride out their life to the planned 2020 or whatever it is. In 15 years UCAV technology is going to be drastically different and as long as the development continues at a reasonable pace, the problems and limitations of current models should be ironed out. Unlike manned craft which take 15 years to develop a new airframe, the US seems to be pumping out a new UCAV every couple of years and likely have some pretty nice machines under wraps still.

They're not looking to replace the 18's in 2008. When the time comes I dont think the political types will be able to justify a manned fighter. It'll be a sad day when no more fighter pilots exist in Canada. If it doesn't happen in 2020 I'll be surprised.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2005)

Of course we may all be blind sided by changes in technology, operations or doctrine. The most massively useful aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq are not fighters or UAVs right now, but A-10s and AC-130s. An Apache getting up close and personal with the 30mm is probably right up there for CAS as well.

Whatever we get, the need for versatility, a wide range of possible configurations and the ability for a "man in the loop" to make split second decisions that no machine can make (yet) will still exist in 2020.


----------



## daniel h. (18 Oct 2005)

TheCheez said:
			
		

> The 18's will ride out their life to the planned 2020 or whatever it is. In 15 years UCAV technology is going to be drastically different and as long as the development continues at a reasonable pace, the problems and limitations of current models should be ironed out. Unlike manned craft which take 15 years to develop a new airframe, the US seems to be pumping out a new UCAV every couple of years and likely have some pretty nice machines under wraps still.
> 
> They're not looking to replace the 18's in 2008. When the time comes I dont think the political types will be able to justify a manned fighter. It'll be a sad day when no more fighter pilots exist in Canada. If it doesn't happen in 2020 I'll be surprised.




I don't see how you figure fighters becoming obselete. I don't think they every will, at least not anytime soon.  They predicted fighters might go instinct with teh advent of the ICBM, but it never happened.

If we go through a period of econmic scarcity, which is predicted when oil becomes very expensive, then no country will be able to afford unmanned aircraft than can perform as well as jets.

If we can afford to buy unmanned aircraft, we can afford to maintain manned aircraft should we so desire.

We are assuming things will keep going forwards forever, but things change. I do realize UAVs have uses but replacing the performance of a fighter with a slow, stealthy UAV is not possible. They lack the all-round utility, can't patrol territory well and defend against interception, bomb long range, travel quickly,  etc....even if they could, they would cost much more and be less reliable for a long time. At a certain point they become more complicated than they need to be. We already have weapons more complicated than they need to be.

Most countries can't even afford modern fighters.


----------



## jmnavy (3 Nov 2005)

> even if they could, they would cost much more and be less reliable for a long time.



Actually they'll be a lot less expensive and their reliability will be comperable.  A UCAV is projected to cost around $18 million, whereas a JSF will cost $50+ million.

There's a good article on this stuff here (link courtesy Infanteer in another thread)
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/vol6/no1/PDF/08-Techno_e.asp.pdf


----------



## Bert (3 Nov 2005)

I guess one could state it's better to get the right tool for the job.

As described ambiguously in the article, the UCAV or the example of the Predator is
useful in an air to ground capability.   Though technology will improve the capabilities
of remote aircraft in the future, the article states air to air capability has not been 
demonstrated.

When the Canadian government went through the aircraft acquisition process and
eventually settled on the CF-18, they were looking for a dual engine multi-role combat
aircraft.   This includes air to ground, air to air, air superiority, and interception.   The CF-18
is not excellent at all roles but provides adequate general performance.   UCAVs cannot. 
A ground attack on a battlefield is one thing but responding to an unidentified air intrusion
in the arctic is another.

Theres a number of limiting factors for remote aircraft like control/acquisition range, RF 
jamming, limited conventional ordnance, limited contact identification ability, extreme 
environmental performance, that would leave UCAVs in niche roles for the foreseeable future.


----------



## big_johnson1 (7 Jan 2006)

UAVs and UCAVs have another benefit that hasn't been mentioned yet.. With the current political climate in the US, the government might see a great advantage in having pilot-less drones. If their children aren't dying in a war thousands of kilometers away, citizens might be more willing to support war. Of course this could open the door to "Universal Soldier" style cloning or genetic engineering programs. The last thing we need is a bunch of Jean-Claude Van Damms running around with guns.

On the other hand, at the moment, pilot-less drones are limited by the computer programs that control them. While I'm not a Computer Science major and I'm not sure how far advanced AI technology is, I suspect that currently, any craft performing in an interceptor role would probably require an operator on the ground to control it. This requires a data uplink, meaning some kind of radio connection between the craft and the operator. This can be jammed or spoofed or even hijacked with the right technology. The US is hard at work on microwave based directed energy weapons that are capable of frying computers from quite a distance (essentially a focused electromagnetic pulse). It wouldn't be too far fetched to see the Chinese or other possible beligerent states developing something similar that could be used to counter UCAV uplinks.

TheCheez has a good point though in that we have no idea where the technology will be in another ten years. Who knows what the future will bring?


----------



## Warthor (8 Jan 2006)

A drone can never replace a Cf-18 on account that CF-18 and drones are totally different air craft. That settles it all together. Totally diferent purposes. The CF-18 is a Fighter aircraft and drones cannot fight air to air. Drones are slow and dont have far range. I talked to some people in the vancouver recruiting centre about it and they said theyd use it for scouting and stuff.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

Warthor said:
			
		

> A drone can never  replace a Cf-18 on account that CF-18 and drones are totally different air craft. That settles it all together. Totally diferent purposes. The CF-18 is a Fighter aircraft and drones cannot fight air to air. Drones are slow and dont have far range. I talked to some people in the vancouver recruiting centre about it and they said theyd use it for scouting and stuff.



Warthor, please don't try to be so sure of yourself in areas which are clearly outside your area of expertise. Current UAV technologies are focussed on surveillance operations, but the future potential of unmanned vehicles remains wide open. Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) are certainly being discussed (and probably trialed in early stages) and this can see the likelihhod of unmanned vehicles being eventually considered to take over a variety of roles and tasks now solely executed by manned fighters or other aircraft.

I would sugest you spend some time investigating development trends and discussion on unmanned vehicles and reconsider the tone and specifics of your post. You will find there is much more information available to you than the views of a single service member talking about currently employed UAVs in CF service.

Thank you and welcome to army.ca.


----------



## Warthor (8 Jan 2006)

Hey whoa, who said that i don't what im talking about im just taking information i was told. I watched a show about drones to on Discovery Channel also. Cmon now your making look inferior :'(  This is what i know about Drones there unmanned aircraft that are used for as you said scouting and spying on things, i also know that they also dont have any weaponry. They dont have far range and are very small. I also saw the disc drone they made that they launch like a frisbee its prety awesome.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

Warthor

What I am trying to emphasize to you is that the little knowledge you have claimed to possess is not a complete picture of emerging unmanned aerial vehicle technologies. The opinions of some people at a CFRC on current use of the Sperwer, and a Discovery Channel episode on current UAVs/drones is NOT comprehensive knowledge.

You said this:



			
				Warthor said:
			
		

> A drone can never replace a Cf-18 on account that CF-18 and drones are totally different air craft. That settles it all together. Totally diferent purposes. The CF-18 is a Fighter aircraft and drones cannot fight air to air. Drones are slow and dont have far range. I talked to some people in the vancouver recruiting centre about it and they said theyd use it for scouting and stuff.



Which is pretty definitive as an opinion, and shows that you have not done further research into the issue.

Here is some reading for you to start with in otrder to explore the potential os future unmanned vehicles:


Some links for further reading:

X-45 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav.htm
 (Scrolll down to the bottom of this page for further links)

UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE; ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTATION (UCAV ATD); PHASE I - SELECTION PROCESS DOCUMENT ("SOLICITATION") MDA972-98-R-0003 - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ucav-sol.html



> The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in conjunction with the United States Air Force (USAF), is pleased to offer you the opportunity to respond to the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) solicitation. As you explore this solicitation we believe you will appreciate this unique opportunity to work in partnership with the US Government to demonstrate the technical feasibility of a UCAV system which can effectively and affordably prosecute 21st century Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)/Strike missions within the emerging global command and control architecture.



UAV Technologies and Combat Operations - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ucav96/index.html



> Chapter 3
> Operational Mission and Task Concepts
> 
> Air-To-Air Combat (Offensive/Defensive). The offensive and defensive threat associated with air-to-air combat in the future will consist of enemy manned aircraft as well as air-, ground and sea-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. It will be characterized by the necessity for quick and absolute dominance. UAVs would participate in air-to-air combat by air-to-air ambush and by high speed, high “g” interception. Each would be employed in a defensive or offensive role, depending on the target and scenario. As air-to-air UAVs enter the inventory, manned aircraft can be assigned to other missions.



UCAV Overview Department of the Navy UAV Offsite Meeting 20- 21 May 1998
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ucav-overview.pdf

F-16 Unihabited Air Combat Vehicles - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-282.htm

Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems - http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/

X-45 J-UCAV JOINT UNMANNED COMBAT AIR SYSTEM, USA - http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/

X-45 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) - http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-45A/index.html



> The Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) program is a joint DARPA/Air Force/Navy effort to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value for a networked system of high performance, weaponized unmanned air vehicles to effectively and affordably prosecute 21st century combat missions, including suppression of enemy air defenses, surveillance, and precision strike within the emerging global command and control architecture. One of the aircraft systems being evaluated is the Boeing X-45A.



X-45A first GPS-guided weapon demonstration - weapon release
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-45A/Small/EC04-0100-01.jpg


----------



## Warthor (8 Jan 2006)

Thanks for the info, ill check it out


----------



## Astrodog (12 Jan 2006)

for those of you that don't check the CF websites:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/2006/01/11_e.asp

silver fox just doesn't look as intimidating as a patroling CF-188!


----------



## time expired (12 Jan 2006)

If canada wish to replace manned aircraft with UAVs they might want to look at the loss rate of UAVs
at the present time.I subscibe to magazine ,Airforces Monthly, that covers world wide military aircraft accidents
and losses of these vehicules is very large,considering how few airforces operate them, and those things
are not cheap.
 The whole discussion reminds me a little of what took place in the 50s with the introduction of the
surface to surface missile when many experts predicted the end of the manned fighter


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie (2 Mar 2006)

I'm not an expert on this by no means, but I thought that Canada is with the US in development of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) I think it's the replacement for the F-16 for the USAF and a vertical take off model is to replace the Harrier for the USN. 
"This agreement makes Canada the second international partner on the JSF programme after the United Kingdom. Canada is to be a Level 3 participant. The price for this is no more than $ 100 millions plus $ 50 million from Technology Partnership Canada (subsidies for companies) plus the services of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, free of charge use of Canadian test facilities and funding of the staff seconded to the JSF Programme Office. 

All the same, the Pentagon plans to give full consideration to the question of whether in return for this Canada might not have to pay any development cost surcharge on the F-35's it orders. In any case, it is a positive development that a portion of the licence fees payable on sales to third countries will also go to the Canadians. And there is a backdoor as well: "The Canadian defence ministry can withdraw from the JSF framework agreement and this addendum if it is of the opinion that the participation of Canadian industry in this project is not satisfactory.” 

In any case, Canada is not in a hurry to procure any F-35's. Its F-18's will remain in service until 2017-2018. By then, its requirements will be clear, according to Alan Williams of the defence ministry, who in the short- and medium-term is already dreaming of 3,500 to 5,000 jobs created on the back of the JSF programme."

Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0204/FR0204e.htm

Not to say we will still buy them, we might go in on the development of them but we may never purchase them. In any case I would tihnk that would possible come about before drones?

I think the US would be the leading or one of the leading countires when it comes to drones etc, and I think the closet that exists today would be Predator or Globalhawk with a missile attached and  these are operated by pilots on the ground.

I'd say pilotless drones/robots are a far way off from being feasible yet.


----------



## Rad (12 Mar 2006)

i hear those UAVs need alot of maintaining because they beat themselves up on landing quite a bit.  I sure hope the fighters stay manned for a long time, that is what alot of young pilots aspire to be, and it does inspire alot of interest in flying.  a fighter pilot is, in a sense, to the pilot trade what a Paratrooper is to the Infantry trade, it's the ultimate goal for many people who get in, and though they don't all make it there, the goal started them and now they are excellent pilots in all aspects of military aviation.  would taking them away just make there be one less thing to aspire to?  this reason is possibly not enough by far to keep the manned fighters, but it is, in my oppinion, a saddening fact.  if it were up to me i'd keep them for that reason, and this is why it's NOT up to me haha.


----------



## bbbb (16 Mar 2006)

Planes will always be needed. UAVs don't have the situational awareness that pilots have. I'm sure they'll be using UAVs for combat soon enough but fighter aircraft will always be needed.


----------



## Rad (16 Mar 2006)

I sure hope you're right.


----------



## eerickso (11 Jan 2007)

I would prefer a baby steps approach like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501288.html

Nobody fully understands the consequences of using remote control fighters.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jan 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> I would prefer a baby steps approach like this:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501288.html
> 
> Nobody fully understands the consequences of using remote control fighters.



And what are these _consequences_ you mention?


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jan 2007)

The F-35 proposition from Lockheed to make them unmanned is purely because of the decrease in customers.  It's just a way to sell their product and have more nations to be involved with the program...

Max


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jan 2007)

As there is a place for remotely controlled systems on the battlefield (static recce/surveillance sensors, EOD systems, micro UAVs, etc...) yet still clear need for operators on the ground, so to is the situation in the air (and in/under the sea for that matter.)  Notwithstanding the use of the old (i.e. outdated in this context) term "drone", the requirement for both remotely "piloted" craft as well as remotely-piloted and fully autonomous aircraft will complement the piloted systems that most certainly will continue to be used for decades to come.  This is not specific to the fighter force.  There are remote aerial delivery systems being developed and employed as we speak, yet that does not cast any doubt on the future of tactical airlift.  There are tactical-level UAVs yet that does not indicate the days of the battlefield reconnaissance and attack/armed helicopters are numbered.  The article dealt with the issue as more of a "one in place of the other" instead of "a new capability that complements piloted aircraft with a remotely and/or non-piloted capability."  There is a balance out there that this article does not accurately reflect.

G2G


----------



## Astrodog (12 Jan 2007)

Just a thought from a UAV-hating aspiring pilot, but with the advent of new stealthy platforms such as the F-22 (obviously no nation is even close to competing with this technology) does anybody see a time in which conventional radar guided long range missiles become obsolete and a re-emphasis on IR and WVR combat and more need for a set of eyes in the cockpit as opposed to what has become a hide over the horizon BVR fight?


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2007)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The F-35 proposition from Lockheed to make them unmanned is purely because of the decrease in customers.  It's just a way to sell their product and have more nations to be involved with the program...
> 
> Max



Also, I am inclined to believe there are cheaper ways of creating UAVs than taking aircraft, whose designs have been compromised to allow for that poor, weak pilot ( > ), and hooking their auto-pilot up to a  Playstation 3 so that they can be flown from the ground (another aircraft, submarine......).

Not to mention there are cheaper methods of delivering all effects into enemy airspace by employing "one-way UAVs" than by employing reusable platforms to get them close.  

In my crystal ball I would be betting on the day where the F22, B2 and CP-140 merge as Composite Manned C4ISR platforms with some offensive weapons capability but with greater utility as a combined forward CP and OP primarily used to target missiles launched from other platforms.  The other platforms would be located in secure airspace or waters or on secure ground.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jan 2007)

Astrodog said:
			
		

> Just a thought from a UAV-hating aspiring pilot, but with the advent of new stealthy platforms such as the F-22 (obviously no nation is even close to competing with this technology) does anybody see a time in which conventional radar guided long range missiles become obsolete and a re-emphasis on IR and WVR combat and more need for a set of eyes in the cockpit as opposed to what has become a hide over the horizon BVR fight?



I don't think we'll ever see good old dogfighting as we (generic term here, I personnaly wasn't there) saw during Vietnam and Korea.  The F-35 isn't even armed with a gun...

Max


----------



## Astrodog (12 Jan 2007)

Just a thought, as in the past the 'experts' have been wrong with Missiles replacing manned bombers as well as the initial F-4 having no cannon either... here's hoping i guess!


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2007)

Warthor said:
			
		

> Hey whoa, who said that i don't what im talking about im just taking information i was told. I watched a show about drones to on Discovery Channel also. Cmon now your making look inferior :'(  This is what i know about Drones there unmanned aircraft that are used for as you said scouting and spying on things, i also know that they also dont have any weaponry. They dont have far range and are very small. I also saw the disc drone they made that they launch like a frisbee its prety awesome.



Can someone with some knowledge tell us a bit about this?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=175645


> Israel developing killer robot plane
> Monday Jan 8 17:50 AEDT
> 
> Israel is developing the world's largest unmanned aircraft, which will be used for long-range operations and destroying ballistic missiles as they are launched.
> ...



Is the large wing span a prerequisite for "long endurance and high-altitude flights"?

If it can carry "an array of advanced cameras and missiles" to attack missiles shortly after launch could it not, also, carry an array of sensors and missiles which would allow it to attack fixed facilities - like, say, nuclear weapon assembly plants?


----------



## MrWhyt (12 Jan 2007)

> The F-35 isn't even armed with a gun...


I believe that the Air Force F-35 has an internal 25mm cannon and the Navy and Marine versions can be armed with the same gun in a centerline pod.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/thursday/maher.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jan 2007)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> .
> .
> .
> Is the large wing span a prerequisite for "long endurance and high-altitude flights"?
> ...



A) Edward, generally "yes".  The longer the endurance, the more fuel efficient the aircraft needs to be for a given fuel load...at the expense of (relative) speed, minimizing induced and form drag most often moves the aircraft's design towards a "glider-like" configuration: U-2, Global Hawk, MQ-9, B-52, P-3, etc... -- straight(ish) wings (highly efficient L/d ratio [high lift to drag, low induced drag], thin fueselage [low form drag, low profile drag]).  It is truly a case where "form follows function".

B) ... 

G2G


----------



## eerickso (12 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And what are these _consequences_ you mention?



Some possible consequences:

Maintaining radio silence during missions
Maintaining secure radio channel for control



			
				Astrodog said:
			
		

> Just a thought from a UAV-hating aspiring pilot, but with the advent of new stealthy platforms such as the F-22 (obviously no nation is even close to competing with this technology) does anybody see a time in which conventional radar guided long range missiles become obsolete and a re-emphasis on IR and WVR combat and more need for a set of eyes in the cockpit as opposed to what has become a hide over the horizon BVR fight?



The SA-3 is a ground based system made in 1961 and it shot down a stealth figher. I don't know the details of the engagement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-3_Goa


----------



## Bert (13 Jan 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Some possible consequences:
> 
> Maintaining radio silence during missions
> Maintaining secure radio channel for control



eericksoo

These are not consequences.  Given various scenarios, any aircraft may or may not maintain "radio" or
"secure radio" silence.  UAVs require a remote control interface of some type at some time(s) but then specifics 
of the platform, its mission, its software/intelligence, and designed capabilities have to be discussed.  Too many 
present and future variables for your generalizations.

Read this:  http://radarproblems.com/  ;provides an overview of basic radar principles that can be applied for
understanding RF radar/detection as an example, lots of other tech stuff out there.

other:  http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1999/0299radar.asp

Try searching the internet for UAV, F-22, and advanced radar product capabilities and specs; beware of speculation, 
opinions, and the difference between design and demonstrated implementation; and note the objective state of the art.

This may assist the consideration of consequences (if thats a direction you wish to take) of UAVs, F-22s, and advanced 
detection measures.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2007)

Thank you Bert.


----------



## Seyek (2 Feb 2007)

I'm a systems and computing student at U of G, and I've had a good interest in Robotics and unmanned systems for a couple years now (the reason I'm in this program). While I'm not by any means an expert, I don't think that in ten to twenty years it would be difficult to make a dedicated air superiority/interceptor fighter or a generic platform like the Hornets that is purely unmanned and autonomous. Since the aircraft is unmanned, the considerations and equipment given up for human pilots are no long required, and the aircraft could be made extremely maneuverable without worrying about killing the pilot with the increase G-forces. A sophisticated computer core hooked up to an advanced suite of sensors and even an optical recognition system would allow it the same, if not superior sensing capabilities over a manned aircraft and an IFF system to identify and differentiate between friendly and enemy aircraft would be easily possible I imagine. If it runs into an object that it can't identify, ground control can get in touch with that object to identify/deal with it, or if that's not possible the craft itself could transmit orders to the unknown to land at the nearest airfield or whatever you want really, and if the unknown refuses to comply/engages/proves to be hostile than the UCAV can engage. I'm not saying this will exist anytime soon and I highly doubt any modern or in-development UAV would meet the requirements of a modern fighter, but down the road I don't see why not.

 As for remote fighters, I don't like them, it just seems to easy to jam or intercept the link between the craft and controller, and range issues.


----------



## Batrakio (9 Sep 2007)

Has everyone ever saw the movie Stealth?
UCAVs may have advantages, but I would stick to a pilot.


----------



## Loachman (9 Sep 2007)

Have you noticed that Hollywood and reality have absolutely nothing in common?

And if you're going to stick to a pilot, don't stick to me.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Sep 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Have you noticed that Hollywod and reality have absolutely nothing in common?
> 
> And if you're going to stick to a pilot, don't stick to me.



I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.  :rofl:


----------



## foo32 (10 Sep 2007)

I expect that in the short term pilotless drones can't completely replace human pilots, but the writing is certainly on the wall.  IMHO, it won't be too long before it will be suicide for a human try to engage in aerial combat (Hollywood may look ridiculous now, but if anything they are probably giving humans too much credit). Even a silly combat flight sim computer game like IL-2 Sturmovik (which they tell me is rather realistic ... the hour I've spent as airline passenger doesn't qualify me to judge) is adequate to at least show the potential of computer-as-fighter pilot.

The really scary thing is, I expect true AI (machines with human-like intelligence) probably isn't *that* far off (perhaps decades, maybe generations, but either way we are not even talking a blink if you think in terms of evolutionary time.)   And of course right on the heel of human-like intelligence is super-human intelligence. It would all seem like nutty apocalyptic stuff 25 years ago ... but now it seems just too damn plausible.  The twilight of humanity anyone? :crybaby:


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2007)

foo32 said:
			
		

> I expect that in the short term pilotless drones can't completely replace human pilots, ...................



Of course they can't.  There is no one piloting them, not even by remote control.  They have their flight paths programmed prior to launch and then they are on their way, with no further control from any outside means.  They can not be jammed.  They can not have their flight plans changed.  They are essentially incommunicado with the outside world until they land, and their collected data downloaded.  That is what drones are.


----------



## foo32 (10 Sep 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...  That is what drones are.



Perhaps my terminology is wrong ... I mean an autonomous, computer-controlled aircraft. Whatever that would be called in military linguo (?)


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Sep 2007)

A drone is a very simple, "go out and do what you're told/programmed to do" piece of gear.  An autonomous system, be it a UAV or remote operating ground or maritime system, or even a weapon system for that matter (see the BAT), is another.  

If you extend your argument, there would be autonomous tanks, trucks, ships, etc...  and the manned vehicle/craft would not be required.   The unmanned system, be it airborne, terrestrial or maritime, will fill a niche, but it will likely remain just that, a niche, and not a complete replacement of manned systems.

G2G


----------



## foo32 (10 Sep 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A drone is a very simple, "go out and do what you're told/programmed to do" piece of gear.
> 
> G2G



Ah..thanks for the clarification.  Yes, I do expect autonomous vehicles and ships could happen too, but I think dealing with the situation on the ground is a tougher problem (for a computer) than something like air-to-air combat.  In the air a computer would not have to deal so much with complications like civilians, nearby and not-easily-identified friendlies and other things like obstacles, IEDs, etc.. The kind of stuff even humans can have problems with.  

Ground attack is a sticky problem though.  Perhaps it isn't the super-human intelligent machines we need worry about so much as the first few generations of autonomous vehicles that don't actually work right  ;D


----------



## KevinB (13 Sep 2007)

uhm -- civilian airliners and friendly forces don't count in your tally  ???

Judging AI actions from a computer simulation is skewed in favour of the IA - since the computer that is running the AI is also running the sim - thus it cant removie any unknowns that are factors in REAL life.

   I'm not a pilot nore do I play one on TV - but I do hitch rides on AC in combat environments -- I'm quite happy with a live body thanks.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Sep 2007)

DID article:



> *Raven UAVs Winning Gold in Afghanistan's "Commando Olympics"*
> 12-Sep-2007 17:00
> 
> Back on Feb 24, 2005, DID covered the success the RQ-11 Raven mini-UAV was enjoying in Iraq. In November 2005, StrategyPage reported that the RQ-11 Raven was also turning heads in what it calls "the commando Olympics" of Afghanistan: "In addition to all the cooperation, there's also a lot comparing notes. One thing everyone has noted is the large number of useful gadgets American Special Forces troops have. The most envied item is the American Raven UAV."
> ...



More ... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raven-uavs-winning-gold-in-afghanistans-commando-olympics-01432/


----------



## McG (13 Sep 2007)

With things like Reaper, we are getting to where remote aircraft will start to take more & more of the CAS role.  I don't think we will see a complete switch to such systems in the near future, but they will be more common.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,113925,00.html
I like that US general emphasises capabilities (like persistence).  It is a contrast to the Canadian thought on page 1 which emphasises keeping people away from danger.


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2007)

That link also gives a good look at who is buying what in UAV's


----------



## foo32 (14 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> uhm -- civilian airliners and friendly forces don't count in your tally  ???
> 
> Judging AI actions from a computer simulation is skewed in favour of the IA - since the computer that is running the AI is also running the sim - thus it cant removie any unknowns that are factors in REAL life.



Of course civilian airlines and friendly forces counted in my tally! All I was saying was that it would be at least possible to program a computer to recognise friendlies and civilian aircraft.  I can't even conceive of a computer program that could deal with anything but the most idealised ground warfare at the present time.

Sure, a computer simulation is not a perfect way to evaluate how AI will perform in real life, but it doesn't have to be meaningless -- we use simulations to help train real pilots after all!  I only intended to imply current simulations at least revealed potential for some air-combat scenarios (assuming a significantly more complex AI). We have taken significant steps towards such systems already: We already have fly-by-wire systems and complex targeting systems, and friend-or-foe systems (imperfect as they may be).  Discussions of the future have a tendency to sound pie-in-the-sky silly, but at least this one is plausible.  In any case, we aren't going to see such a system *tommorrow*.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Sep 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> That link also gives a good look at who is buying what in UAV's



Yeah, I find DID is pretty good fof the 'global picture' stuff ... 8)


----------

