# Why the Next Fighter Will Be Manned, and the One After That - War on the Rocks



## dimsum (5 Aug 2015)

> An unmanned replacement for the manned fighter is often believed to be just over the horizon, but the reality is that it is nowhere close and may not even be possible. Combat aircraft that actually have to operate in contested airspace are just the wrapper — it is the aircrew that really matters. An artificial replacement will have to solve three major aviation challenges now readily and regularly surmounted by the human aircrew: basic aviation (flying the aircraft), tactical execution (rapid adaptation of the plan under combat conditions), and weapons employment (shooting the right weapon, at the right target, at the right time, for the right reasons).



http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/why-the-next-fighter-will-be-manned-and-the-one-after-that/?singlepage=1

It's a decent article on the manned v. autonomous aircraft debate, and I'd agree that autonomous fighters aren't going to happen anytime soon, but I'd suggest that Remotely Piloted Aircraft (as opposed to UAVs) be in its own category then based on the three challenges he stated.

Since aircrew are still involved, albeit at a distance, RPAs can fulfill tactical execution and weapons employment. No, they won't be flying low and fast (yet), but changing mission details on the fly and connecting warheads to foreheads is already happening. Basic aviation is still a challenge (no IFR capability, lack of manoeuvrability) but given that the Predator (and its counterparts) are only about 35 years old, what were the crash rates for airplanes in 1938, or for that matter, how easily would a pilot recover an inherently-unstable fly-by-wire fighter built for the sake of manoeuvrability?

One still has to remember that this is new and rapidly-evolving technology, and I tend to think that manufacturers aren't pouring in the tech for IFR, etc as they think RPAs are "expendable" and a crash to them means more $. I'm not convinced that Skynet will be the successor to the F-35, but I'd be willing to fork over a few dollars to say that an RPA would.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Aug 2015)

The Russians are dropping Ukrainian UAVs out of the sky with EW systems.  I think we have a while yet before we lose the pilot.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Aug 2015)

We will always have 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots as long as we have Air Forces because only 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots can fly and lead 'all things air' effectively, right? 

Despite all evidence to the contrary, it's a huge cultural paradigm that will continue to drive our approach to things that fly, and the equipment we procure, as long as we continue to organize and think about the way we do 'air' things like we did in WW1 and WW2.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The Russians are dropping Ukrainian UAVs out of the sky with EW systems.  I think we have a while yet before we lose the pilot.



I would not be too sure on that.  With everything now fly by wire, what EW countermeasures would be necessary to ensure onboard electronics are not affected?  What frequencies do you cover?

[EDIT:  Think Navigation, Communications, and perhaps hacking such as done recently with automobiles.]


----------



## dimsum (6 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The Russians are dropping Ukrainian UAVs out of the sky with EW systems.  I think we have a while yet before we lose the pilot.



Combining your point and GW's point, that's why I propose that RPAs be separate from UAVs as a category of aircraft.  Especially with the fly-by-wire systems being potentially hacked, the difference between RPAs and manned aircraft will continue to get smaller.


----------



## dimsum (6 Aug 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We will always have 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots as long as we have Air Forces because only 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots can fly and lead 'all things air' effectively, right?
> 
> Despite all evidence to the contrary, it's a huge cultural paradigm that will continue to drive our approach to things that fly, and the equipment we procure, as long as we continue to organize and think about the way we do 'air' things like we did in WW1 and WW2.



I *know* I'll get flak from this from my light-blue brethren, but IMHO aircrew do not need to be Officers if they have a specialized "line driver" stream like the US Army Warrant Officer Aircrew.  However, what could come up is that other militaries that are more culturally/socially hierarchical may look down on, or disregard, anything coming from said NCM aircrew.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I *know* I'll get flak from this from my light-blue brethren, but IMHO aircrew do not need to be Officers if they have a specialized "line driver" stream like the US Army Warrant Officer Aircrew.  However, what could come up is that other militaries that are more culturally/socially hierarchical may look down on, or disregard, anything coming from said NCM aircrew.



Don't tell Max or any of the other Fighter Jocks, but during the Battle of Britain, we had Sergeants flying planes.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't tell Max or any of the other Fighter Jocks, but during the Battle of Britain, we had Sergeants flying planes.









This guy couldn't even read but that didn't stop him from crushing Nazis and the Japanese  ;D

Ok I know it's fiction but still!


----------



## observor 69 (6 Aug 2015)

Thanks for raising this topic Dimsum.  Discussions like this at the top of the reasons I hang on to following army.ca.

BZ


----------



## dimsum (6 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't tell Max or any of the other Fighter Jocks, but during the Battle of Britain, we had Sergeants flying planes.



And NCM Navs, and Commissioned Wireless Air Gunners, etc.  

Genuinely out of curiosity, what was the difference between the Commissioned and NCM folks of the same trade?  Did the Sergeant Pilot not get x training as the FLTLT Pilot?   ???


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Aug 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And NCM Navs, and Commissioned Wireless Air Gunners, etc.
> 
> Genuinely out of curiosity, what was the difference between the Commissioned and NCM folks of the same trade?  Did the Sergeant Pilot not get x training as the FLTLT Pilot?   ???



My understanding of it was that the training was the same, and the decision of who was commissioned was made based on a variety of factors. Incidentally the RCAF objected to the practice, which was imposed on the Commonwealth air forces by the RAF, but the other air forces accepted the British policy. The Canadians had objected on the grounds that it was unfair to have air crew of different privilege and pay doing the same job.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Aug 2015)

To be fair, the flying WOs (or WOs in genreral) in the US army have a much more rigorous selection than ours.  They become the technical experts in a certain field.  Ours are streamed more into leadership roles.

GW: if you had read the last 9 years of my posting history (and I know you have, for the most part), you'd know that rank is of very little interest and importance to me.  If the pilot trade was only opened to Privates (I guess Aviators now) with no chance of advancement, I would have still applied to become a pilot.  

In an organization where rank is important though, I believe you need officers in those roles, even if only for instant credibility.  I don't see a bunch of pilots from diverse background (from Lt to Col) listening to a Sergeant, Mission Commanding 80 pilots in combat.  Line Captains, in turn, will command packages into combat with little problems.

I am sure they could be fine pilots.  I am not sure, in most cases, they could be tactical leaders in their units.  And if they could be (because we use a similar selection process and training program for both officers and NCO), then it begs the question Old Sweat brought up: why would we pay them less for the same job?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Aug 2015)

You're bringing up issues with culture and hierarchy, not why we can't have technical WOs as pilots. Just because an officer thinks he's above following the direction of a non commissioned member who's been given authority to lead by that officers boss, doesn't make the ncm incapable of leading. It makes those officers incapable of putting the mission first.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're bringing up issues with culture and hierarchy, not why we can't have technical WOs as pilots. Just because an officer thinks he's above following the direction of a non commissioned member who's been given authority to lead by that officers boss, doesn't make the ncm incapable of leading. It makes those officers incapable of putting the mission first.



When you are dealing and operating with coalition partners, you have to take that into consideration.  Not a single other nation allows NCOs to lead coalition missions ( they don't get the qual).  

Technically, it is relatively easy to get NCOs to become pilots: put them through pilot selection and training.  That's it.  What will be the deal breaker, imo, is indeed culture and hierarchy.

As opposed to what Dimsum said, being a pilot is a lot more than technical skills.  Initial training solely focus on those skills, however the second you become a line pilot, you are given roles (in the air and on the ground) in which you need to use you officer skills.  This begs the question: why have two different class of pilots, if there is no difference in their jobs and required skills?  Do we then keep them as First Officer/Wingmen to create that difference and justify the (huge) difference in pay?  Do we keep them from getting leadership roles airborne?

If we were in serious lack of applicants, I could see merit in this proposal.  Right now, we have more than enough and don't see any reason to consider that.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Aug 2015)

Max raises a good point.  In the fighter world, a pilot is a pilot - what does having a WO rank on do for the service?  It certainly gains you disadvantages in the allied operations context.  If you are going to pay them the same (which I'd suggest you'd have to - create the pilot WO with a very similar payscale to the pilot officer), then other advantages do "flying WOs" have?

What may be required is a more formal split between "guys who focus on flying" and "guys who focus on running the air force".  I don't know how you'd do that, or if you'd want to do that, or even if you need to do that - perhaps it's as simple as a PER opt out?

The "Flying WO" may be more approriate and functional in the Army Aviation Tac Hel or Naval Aviation Maritime Hel worlds where the "pilot WOs" (or pilot POs?) would stay in the squadrons for most (all?) their career while the flying officers would go off to brigade HQ, etc, etc.


----------



## Baz (10 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The "Flying WO" may be more approriate and functional in the Army Aviation Tac Hel or Naval Aviation Maritime Hel worlds where the "pilot WOs" (or pilot POs?) would stay in the squadrons for most (all?) their career while the flying officers would go off to brigade HQ, etc, etc.



As I understand it, in the US system the reason it works is because the units fight and fly just like that, as units.  That's what allows them to have flying WO (and they aren't the same as our WO'S,  they are an entirely separate rank structure between NCMS and Officers), as the flying "unit" is led by an Officer.

You 'could' adopt that model for fighters... a new rank structure using non- commissioned officers (ie flying WO'S,  but not how we view it), trained in flying leadership but not eligible for Command, led by Flying Officers.  But what really do you gain?  Now you have two trades instead of one.

If you are suggesting flying units not led by aircrew then I'd say you'd have a credibility issue sending them off to fight... but I'm biased...

There needs to be a director level officer on the aircraft in MH.  I suppose we could have flying WO'S as pilots in MH and have the crew led by the TACCO... never going to happen in a pilot led Air Force.

More realistically we could remove the TACCO (replace with the a second AESOP) and Crew Commander qual and just have the two pilots, one of which is the Aircraft Captain).  However, we would lose the Battle Management function, and become more tied to ship direction, like the US.  That's why the UK, Australia,  and Canada all carry TACCO.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In an organization where rank is important though, I believe you need officers in those roles, even if only for instant credibility.  I don't see a bunch of pilots from diverse background (from Lt to Col) listening to a Sergeant, Mission Commanding 80 pilots in combat.  Line Captains, in turn, will command packages into combat with little problems.



Just to be clear, the rank of the pilot is not as important as the rank of the person doing operational planning.  The example you put forward still does not exclude a Sgt from being the pilot, but it does exclude the Sgt from being in a position to do Mission Planning and Command.  I am sure that the system would not be so rigid as to restrict promotion through the ranks as one gains experience and skill sets.  Even today, our system permits the NCM to progress through the ranks and even CFR.  We do not currently have our junior pilots doing Mission Planning or commanding 80 +/- pilots on missions.  Pay scales will still exist where the member has IPC and raises with promotion.  It is a cultural thing as you state.  A culture that changed over the years, from when we had pilots who were not officers to a culture where all pilots are officers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Aug 2015)

CAF members often forget the fairly unique relationship NCOs and Officers have in our military.  We would probably make it work but no one else would so the efforts would wasted energy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The "Flying WO" may be more approriate and functional in the Army Aviation Tac Hel or Naval Aviation Maritime Hel worlds where the "pilot WOs" (or pilot POs?) would stay in the squadrons for most (all?) their career while the flying officers would go off to brigade HQ, etc, etc.



Before we start talking about "pilot CPO's" for the MH world, to resolve a non existent problem in my mind, I would much rather see the pilots in the MH world be reintegrated into the naval family. 

They would be required to acquire their watch keeping certificates once they get to sea, but would then be able to progress along a career of : flying, leading to HOD (AIr dept), leading to Combat O, leading to ship's XO, leading to ship's CO, and up the ladder if warranted.

After a fashion, it would provide the Navy with a number of CO's that have a much greater understanding of the employment of air assets and to a much better employment of all airplanes operationally assigned to the RCN.

I have a strange feeling that there are many officers in the MH world that wouldn't mind that career path as opposed to leaving the naval world if they make it above Major.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Aug 2015)

I've seen WO2s plan and command multi-ship RW ops. Granted, they were probably close to promotion to CW3, but command the mission and package they certainly did.

That said, I'm pretty certain it won't ever happen in  Canada, nor will aviation branches ever repatriate to the sister elements.

:2c:


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I've seen WO2s plan and command multi-ship RW ops. Granted, they were probably close to promotion to CW3, but command the mission and package they certainly did.
> 
> That said, I'm pretty certain it won't ever happen in  Canada, nor will aviation branches ever repatriate to the sister elements.
> 
> :2c:



Of course, during a real war, we would never, ever sustain casualties to the extent that a mere non-commissioned person would have to do something an Officer does in peacetime, right?  :


----------



## winnipegoo7 (10 Aug 2015)

Some how the British Army Air Corps manages with NCO pilots. 

I recommend reading Hellfire by WO1 Ed Macy



> Ed Macy left the British Army in January 2008, after twenty-three years' service. He had amassed a total of 3,930 helicopter flying hours, 645 of them inside an Apache. Ed was awarded the Military Cross for his courage during the Jugroom Fort rescue in Helmand Province, Afghanistan -- one of the first ever in Army Air Corps' history. 'Apache' is his first book. He hopes it won't be his last.


http://www.amazon.com/Hellfire-Ed-Macy/dp/0007288212

And this fellow seems to have been a WO1 during the Jugroom Fort rescue mission:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hero-pilot-hopes-100000-medal-3795833
_______________________________________

Additionally in the RCN director positions are filled by PO1s and a LT(N)s. They both take the same courses to fill the same positions.


----------



## dimsum (20 Aug 2015)

The response to the original piece:



> Wars are fought by people, but technology has continually changed how humans fight. Since the first time a human picked up a rock in anger, warfighters have sought ever-greater standoff. The tools of warfare have changed over time, from sling and stone to arrows, bullets, missiles, and aircraft, but it is still humans doing the fighting. Robots are merely the next step.
> 
> In the future, humans will still fight wars. But they may fight them with robots.



http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/yes-unmanned-combat-aircraft-are-the-future/


----------



## YZT580 (20 Aug 2015)

Perhaps at the start but what happens when the machines have all destroyed the other machines?  Do the operators of those machines now surrender or do they reach for clubs, bows and slings?  Just as aerial bombardment cannot win but only provide the opportunity to put boots on the ground so too, a technological war can only go so far before the fighting devolves to man against man.  At least that is the way it appears to me.  How say you?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Perhaps at the start but what happens when the machines have all destroyed the other machines?  Do the operators of those machines now surrender or do they reach for clubs, bows and slings?  Just as aerial bombardment cannot win but only provide the opportunity to put boots on the ground so too, a technological war can only go so far before the fighting devolves to man against man.  At least that is the way it appears to me.  How say you?



The machines become sentient, start attacking people, and then John Connors rallies humanity against Cyberdyne Systems.


----------



## dimsum (20 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Perhaps at the start but what happens when the machines have all destroyed the other machines?  Do the operators of those machines now surrender or do they reach for clubs, bows and slings?  *Just as aerial bombardment cannot win but only provide the opportunity to put boots on the ground so too*,  a technological war can only go so far before the fighting devolves to man against man.  At least that is the way it appears to me.  How say you?



I don't think that RPAs/UAVs will change the need to put boots on the ground.  Instead of 1000-bomber formations in WWII with 8-10 people per bomber, it will be UAV strike aircraft with their crews away from the direct line of fire.  

Also, the crews of said UAVs have to be somewhere.  Sure they can be in the middle of the US, but theoretically they can be attacked too.  If both sides in such a conflict are using them, maybe the next step is to attack the Ground Control Stations themselves.


----------



## Baz (20 Aug 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Also, the crews of said UAVs have to be somewhere.  Sure they can be in the middle of the US, but theoretically they can be attacked too.  If both sides in such a conflict are using them, maybe the next step is to attack the Ground Control Stations themselves.



Some in the US beleived that attacking the crews would be terrorism; as I recall the USAF did a report saying that attacking UAV crews in the US is a valid military target.  If they had to harm their families to get at them that would be valid collateral damage (a belligerent has to make targeting apply distinction, proportionality, and military necessity; even though families are a distinct civilian enemy, the military necessity and proportional gain makes it a legal strike).  As well, law requires the belligerent take "reasonable precautions" to avoid collateral damage; the fact we are technologically superior to most of our enemeies directly means the precautions we must take are more rigid, solely becuase we are able to do so.

There is no question that an attack on the Ground Control Stations would not be terrorism, except to the extent that showing that a country has the ability to reach out and touch such a target would de facto terrorize the population.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Aug 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I don't think that RPAs/UAVs will change the need to put boots on the ground.  Instead of 1000-bomber formations in WWII with 8-10 people per bomber, it will be UAV strike aircraft with their crews away from the direct line of fire.
> 
> Also, the crews of said UAVs have to be somewhere.  Sure they can be in the middle of the US, but theoretically they can be attacked too.  If both sides in such a conflict are using them, maybe the next step is to attack the Ground Control Stations themselves.



Just another form of indirect


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2015)

I suspect the split will be different.

UCAV's will carry most of the weapons and be "forward" or at least on the outer edge of a cloud or flock of warplanes, with the human controllers tucked nicely away near the centre. Of course if the controlling aircraft was anything like an AWACS it would be pretty vulnerable, so ultimately the controlling aircraft will be something like a modern 2 seat fighter (think of an F-15E Strike Eagle), so if the screen of UCAVs is penetrated there is still a full on fighter jet capable of self protection and able to carry on the fight with its own crew.

Shorter range data links should be much more robust and harder to intercept or hack than control signals routed through satellites a continent away, and the human crew is close enough to the scene of the action to react in the ways identified by the initial article.


----------



## GR66 (9 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I suspect the split will be different.
> 
> UCAV's will carry most of the weapons and be "forward" or at least on the outer edge of a cloud or flock of warplanes, with the human controllers tucked nicely away near the centre. Of course if the controlling aircraft was anything like an AWACS it would be pretty vulnerable, so ultimately the controlling aircraft will be something like a modern 2 seat fighter (think of an F-15E Strike Eagle), so if the screen of UCAVs is penetrated there is still a full on fighter jet capable of self protection and able to carry on the fight with its own crew.
> 
> Shorter range data links should be much more robust and harder to intercept or hack than control signals routed through satellites a continent away, and the human crew is close enough to the scene of the action to react in the ways identified by the initial article.



Could a similar concept be used for manned fighters in a Canadian NORAD context?  A stealthy, F-35 flying forward to detect incoming aircraft and transmitting target information to a group of cheaper, "missle truck" aircraft further back loaded with long range missiles?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Oct 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Could a similar concept be used for manned fighters in a Canadian NORAD context?  A stealthy, F-35 flying forward to detect incoming aircraft and transmitting target information to a group of cheaper, "missle truck" aircraft further back loaded with long range missiles?



This is exactly how the F35 is meant to be used.


----------



## GR66 (9 Oct 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> This is exactly how the F35 is meant to be used.



From what I've read (mostly on this forum) the F-35 in the air-to-air role seems to be designed to locate enemy aircraft beyond their detection range and share that info with other F-35s (sharing the same sensor suites) so they can be engaged with long-range missiles.  I haven't seen any references to them being used to coordinate long-range attacks by non-F-35 aircraft.  I certainly could be misunderstanding that though.  

If that is the case, then would there be a benefit to teaming a few F-35's (operating with internal stores only to maintain maximum stealth) with a larger group of non-stealthy aircraft that can carry large numbers of long-range missiles?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Oct 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> From what I've read (mostly on this forum) the F-35 in the air-to-air role seems to be designed to locate enemy aircraft beyond their detection range and share that info with other F-35s (sharing the same sensor suites) so they can be engaged with long-range missiles.  I haven't seen any references to them being used to coordinate long-range attacks by non-F-35 aircraft.  I certainly could be misunderstanding that though.
> 
> If that is the case, then would there be a benefit to teaming a few F-35's (operating with internal stores only to maintain maximum stealth) with a larger group of non-stealthy aircraft that can carry large numbers of long-range missiles?



Long term, the plan is to eventually use the F35 to link with multiple systems on the battle space.  A B1 Bomber for instance, would carry the payload while the F35 does the targeting for the B1.  They also intend to have the plane operate with UCAVs as the human "eyes and ears on the battle space".  It's called "total systems integration".

We in Canada, are generally terrible at this sort of approach because it takes away from our stovepipe empires.  The airframe of the F35 is inconsequential, it's the fact that it's stealth and has the most advanced computer system and sensor suite ever put in to an aircraft that makes it worth the investment.

We need to stop thinking of the F35 as simply a fighter aircraft.  Rather, we need to think of the F35 as a stealth AWACS/ISR platform that can also fight.  Some very high ranking Air Force officials have even advocated getting rid of AWACS all together and pumping all the dough into JSF program, see this link:  http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/31/scrap-awacs-jstars-plough-dough-into-f-35/

Imagine a two pack of F35, each with their own 4-pack of UCAV operating with them.  Perhaps different configurations of weapons platforms will become available on UCAV's as well?  Let's say you split your UCAV in to offence/Defense role as well, the possibilities are quite endless it just takes the technology which is already becoming avail and the imagination to make it happen.

The Americans have also begun developing their future bomber and we really have no idea how that will interact with the F35.  Or the fact that laser weapons/rail guns are not that far off in the near the future.


----------

