UAVs and implications for everyone

[a_majoor]

Here is a good introductory look at UAV technology and what it is doing to the US military.

It is igniting turf wars, with the USAF attempting to corner the market on UAVs, while the Army is handing theirs out to all and sundry. UAV technology also shortens time-lines, has the potential to flatten org charts but could also increase micro-management since information flows both ways.

Lots of implications for all of us:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/drones.html?pg=1&topic=drones&topic_set=

 

[ArmyRick]

In this regard, I like where our CDS is going. He wants to implement joint HQ across the country. So instead of LFCA, what ever wing is at trenton, etc, etc all Military Forces in Ontario come under one command. This will further eliminate HQ and their staff.

You can down load his PPT at his web site. Its really interesting and gives you a broad view of where the CDs is going.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Good article.  I got to watch the turf wars over UAVs from a front row seat.  Those should eventually die down.  UAVs should be somewhat "joint" in that the bigger ones basically are airplanes.  I learned first hand of the many issues regarding UAVs and this should perhaps be a branch of its own (that draws in people from across the CF).

The issue of who "flies" the UAVs is less important to me than how the information is used/managed.  I don't really know what it is, but "bandwidth" seems to be an issue, in addition to the normal problems of managing large volumes of information.  When I was down South we watched a little vignette of a US UAV crew who picked up the Iraqi attack on Kafghi long before it reached the town.  Their information got lost at the higher levels, however, and USAF strike assets were not diverted from their assigned targets to deal with the threat in the open.  If the aim of all this is to give higher level commanders the ability to be voyeuristic without actually influencing events then we need to re-assess what we are doing. 

The "kill chain" or sensor to shooter point is an interesting one.  A manned fighter plane has a very short sensor to shooter link if you trust the pilot.  Perhaps the new operating environment will have JAGs approving each strike or action by watching live feed from an air-conditioned bunker somewhere.  This might be very necessary in certain circumstances, but just because you can does not mean that you should.

Going back to the UAVs themselves, I think that the future is in big UAVs and micro-UAVs.  The big UAVs will be (and are) expensive, highly capable and can be controlled from far away.  The big UAVs will be "airforce" platforms.  The micro-UAVs will be cheap, expendable and controlled by a guy behind the next ridge.  These ones will be "army" platforms.  I imagine that armies will continue to try to develop tactically UAVs that work for Bde or Div.  These ones might have the greatest technical obstacles to overcome, and are also the easiest ones to have airforce/army turfwars over.  As long as people planning and conducting operations have direct access to the big-UAV feed this should be workable.

"Launch the probe!"

Cheers,

2B

 

[Andyboy]

Could we be seeing the birth of a new "arm", ie the information and intelligence arm?

 

[Acorn]

Good points 2Bravo. The turf wars aren't even confined to "AirForce/Army" conflicts. There's the "targetting/recce-sensor" turf war as well. I agree that it may benefit from becoming it's own branch of service, with a combination of Air Force and Army types working it. I also think it may have benefitted more from being an asset assigned to our Armoured Recce guys, than to the Gunners. While the Herbies have trouble thinking it can be used for something other than finding things to shoot at, the Recce Zipperheads have always been inclined to provide information for others to act on.

I will no search for my Nomex in anticipation of the inevitable flames.

I think the CF has a long way to go before we achieve a broad spectrum UAV capability. We're still trying to figure out how to properly use a tactical, unarmed, system. Let's iron that one out before we start looking at strat systems with days-long loiter times and Hellfires.

AndyBoy, I don't think we'll see a new "arm" (or Branch). We already have an Intelligence Branch, and we are doctrinally committed to the primacy of Operations (vice intelligence), so tools like UAVs will be controlled by operators. We may see a new trade/classification though, especially if we adopt larger and more sophisticated systems. Will that trade be a subset of Intelligence? Probably not - it's more likely to be an arm-wrestle between the Gunners, the Zoomies and someone in the Navy (who flies Navy UAVs?).

Acorn

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

As an aside our DCO has mentioned in his O group (Points from Comd 1 CMBG) that 408 Sqn is standing up a tactical UAV (TUAV) flight this summer for the possible Afghanistan mission .

 

[a_majoor]

This is kind of wandering into a pet peeve of mine: turning a process into a "branch". The idea of ISTAR units is a similarly ill conceived notion in my book: ISTAR is a process, and refocusing the work and work spaces of a tactical HQ to integrate multiple source and sensor inputs can probably produce the desired results without creating the need for entirely new sections of modular and carrefour tentage and personnel attached to the HQ.

If I am to get the best results from a TUAV in my role as an Infantry section commander, I would be best off  packing a device that a soldier can carry and launch by himself, and which feeds "real time" data to me so I can "look around the corner". In the "Infantry of the Future" thread there is a picture of an Israeli soldier wearing a sort of wrist band TV monitor to do just that. Similar devices can be mounted on vehicles and helicopters (a helicopter gunship with a UAV flying ahead like the Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters do for American AH-64s), expanding local situational awareness.

"Bigger and better" UAVs for tactical headquarters would of course have greater performance and carry more sensors, and a tactical headquarters should also have the means to interrogate "my" TUAV, without interrupting my little show. Each step up the line, there will be dedicated devices, and the means to interrogate lower level devices without interrupting the user. This also cuts through the clutter of who uses UAVs for what: Gunners can search for targets, recce soldiers can develop information for the rest of the team, EW types can read SIGINT and deliver headaches to opposition systems etc.

In a fully developed "Bottom up" system, theoretically there is no need for dedicated TUAVs at any HQ level, they simply interrogate subordinate systems to find out what is going on. Realisticly, the commander needs his own independent means of information (read Martin Van Crevald's "Command in War", especially his thoughts on the commander's "Directed Telescope" techniques through the ages), so HQ level flights are appropriate.

<rant off>

 

[George Wallace]

Looks kinda like you have too many 'bears in the Air'.  ;D

 

[Spr.Earl]

Looks kinda like you have too many 'bears in the Air'.    ;D

Yup what goes up,must come down and thank God it's not H.E. or Frag.  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Looks kinda like you have too many 'bears in the Air'.  ;D

Thats a big 10/4

 

[George Wallace]

Thing is; like Recce, we will have to develop the 'Levels' at which we are going to operate them.  Not everyone will get access to them.  Like Close Recce and Long Range Recce, UAVs and TUAVs will come in different sizes and fill different roles.  We already have the Air Force conducting Aerial Recce and photography.  We already have Satellite analyse of points of interest.  How far down the ladder do we give control of this type of Recce?  How much information overload and UFI will the local Commander acquire from their use?  At what speed will the info be processed and by whom?  Do we give 'hand-held' devices down to Coy Level and let the Air Force/Gunners/Recce/Int (whoever) control the larger devices for higher Commands/Formations? 

ISTAR does seem a logical solution, in its combining of all these different Trades into an Intelligence gathering organization.  The inclusion of EW will be essential to future Recce as well.  Perhaps, what we are seeing is the 'morphing' the Armour Corps into a larger info gathering organization.

 

[TCBF]

" Perhaps, what we are seeing is the 'morphing' the Armour Corps into a larger info gathering organization."

- And just who will do the fighting?

- When we take the ability to act with speed and violence away from the lowest levels, we take away our ability to wage war successfully. 

 

[George Wallace]

- And just who will do the fighting?

- When we take the ability to act with speed and violence away from the lowest levels, we take away our ability to wage war successfully.   

Isn't that what the Liberals have been 'promoting' for the New Army - Less Combat Warriors - More High Tech Soldiers?

 

[TCBF]

Like lambs to the slaughter...

 

[Spr.Earl]

Our problem is we look for the cheap way out,typical Canadian.
Lets spend the money and do it properly!!

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Acorn,

You are quite right.  Between the Int and Imagery folks we already have the right branches to analyse and interpret the data.  I think that a good UAV "crew" would have a mix of airforce types, recce guys and gunners.  I am less fussed about who flies it as long as the information gets to the ASC (or whatever we are calling it) and thence to the commander who can influence the battle.  There are ways to do this with the "feed" and I saw it work relatively well in theatre.  UAVs are much more than flying FOOs although they can perform that job very well.  Perhaps the same inter-branch "battles" were fought in WWI.

AMajoor,

I was in an ISTAR Company and yes, ISTAR is more of process than a unit.  We were a collection of the majority of KMNBs dedicated ISTAR assets but there were certainly other assets not in our unit.  Being in the same unit made "combined" ISTAR operations a little easier to plan and conduct, but we were also able to integrate well with elements not from our company.  A good ISTAR CC with the right expertise and linkages is the heart of a successful process.  The many sensors can reside in many units as long as their activities are coordinated and their information flows into the right place.  Who "owns" the ISTAR CC is another debate perhaps served better on another thread (I've been a bit of a tangent causer these days...)

Watching the SPERWER sensor in action I was very impressed with the optics package.  I doubt that we could get the same capabilties in a smaller craft.  I still feel that we should focus on having a small fleet of Predator style birds and then another large fleet of micro-UAVs.  UAVs are certainly going to become more important but we also have to manage our expectations.  The micro-UAVs will be easy to control and use but their capabilities will be somewhat limited.  Still, if they give the patrol commander the ability to peek over the next hill for a minute before exposing a soldier then we are on the right track.

Cheers,

2B

 

[TCBF]

Now all we need is the ability to arm our UAVs.
Nice to find something - even nicer to kill it before it disappears again. 

 

[Andyboy]

I guess the reason I ask is that at some point I suspect virtually every aspect of the battlefield will be monitored by <something> that might mean a lot of actual <things> and may at some point require someone to manage the whole thing.  I see it as being something akin to the layers of communications we have now only better. Theoretically anyone with access to the "net" should be able to see anything and everything anyone else on the net does including UAVs, remote controlled vehicles, satelite imagery etc. We're not there yet, not really close but it is coming. That amount of information is going to need a person to manage it. I can see it developing much in the same way as our present comms courses work right down to trade specific, and lower, courses. "Infantry Section Commander Information Management Course"?