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

[daftandbarmy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.