U.S. Researching Pilotless A-10, with FAC "Pulling Trigger"

[The Bread Guy]

This from Air Force Times:

An unmanned A-10 overhead and a joint terminal attack controller on the ground with the firing controls in his hands.

It’s not possible now, but it will be in the next few years, theoretically cutting response time dramatically and reducing errors in close-air support strikes.

The Pentagon’s advanced research arm wants an aircraft 30 miles from a firefight to be able to attack within six minutes of a request by a JTAC. The airman would access the plane’s targeting sensors, enter coordinates to multiple targets and send ammo flying.

Officials with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency expect to award a contract for the venture later this year; a live-fire demonstration is proposed for the last quarter of fiscal 2014. The contractor will modify an A-10 already in the fleet.

The new take on strikes, called persistent close-air support, won’t mean the end of fighter pilots, project manager Stephen Waller, a former F-15 and F-16 pilot, assured defense contractors and military personnel at a Washington-area conference in late July.

“I’m not trying to unman the fighter fleet,” he said. “I’m not trying to rip the pilots out of the cockpit.”

Close-air support strikes now, though, have problems, Waller said: Ground control can be cumbersome, coordinates are transmitted by voice and can be misinterpreted, manned crews have limited air time, current drones have smaller weapons arsenals and can usually handle only one target at a time, and the response time can be 30 minutes to an hour.

“If the guy can sit in a foxhole with an M16 and pull a trigger, why can’t he do that with an airborne asset?” said Dave Neyland, director of DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office ....

 

[REDinstaller]

The ultimate video game. I can see a large problem with the bandwidth required by a radio to support this system. You would require mutliple channels with the ASCC controlling who has priority on the AC.

 

[McG]

I always understood that accomodating the pilot drove many dimensions in combat aircraft design (providing space, protection, fields of observation, etc).  The A-10 certainly carries a lot of armour just to protect the pilot.

It would seem that, if the end goal is a UAV carrying an avenger cannon & full A-10 payload of bombs, it would be more effective to have an all-new purpose designed UAV.

 

[REDinstaller]

Or use an AC like the AT-37 Dragonfly.  7.62MM Minigun and upto 1230Kg across 8 hardpoints which provides a cheaper platform with lots of potential.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So, someone flying an airplane from a trench while being shot at?  Right....

 

[REDinstaller]

I think control of the sensor pod and weapons would be more appropriate.

 

[rampage800]

Posted by: Tango18A
« on: Today at 15:06:33 »
You would require mutliple channels with the ASCC controlling who has priority on the AC.

ASCC dictating who has priority on the a/c ? Theres a few different orgs out there who push a/c, the ASCC isn't one of them and there are already a hockey sock of freqs being used (and back-ups) so that part is nothing new.

I do think though that  Mr Dave Neyland's statement trying to compare a M-16/C-7 to a GAU-8 and GBU's is a long long reach.

 

[REDinstaller]

Data Chanels are a whole different ball game, there must be enough seperation between 2 of them inorder to maintain bandwidth stability. And most of the spectrum in Afghanistan is in use. Who would you suggest controls who has priority for the AC in question?