UCAV as replacement of manned multirole fighters

[Firn]

After having thought about the Avenger C I really wondered why it wouldn't be possible to use a VLO strike UCAV to protect itself and a specifc zone with BVR missiles against enemy fighters. A present/future pure fighter BVR range engement is dominated by the skill and training of the pilots, opposing sensor suites, radar and infrared signatures, kinetic performance of the platforms, defensive suites and capabilities of the BVR missiles.

A VLO UCAV with a relative fast speed and good sensor suites, defensive suites and a modern BVR missile and supported by an AEW&C could be on the defense a very dangerous enemy even for a modern non-VLO fighter with AEW&C support. Now I googled around and found this

An interesting read, for sure.

 

[IPA35]

Not in the forseeable future, but they can be used for recon, patrolling, 'easy' ground targets and counter-insurgency.

 

[swerve]

A VLO UCAV should be very good for first day of war strikes & deep penetration strikes. Both of those can also be done by cruise missiles, but they're strictly one use, against single, fixed, targets, while a UCAV can be used multiple times, & each time potentially against multiple targets, & not necessarily fixed.

The UK & other European countries are developing Taranis & Neuron for a reason. They promise to be cheaper than manned VLO strike aircraft, with superior range & endurance. The USA's in the same game.

 

[METEORSWARM]

The point is easy,one aircraft stealth or furtive with domination air or superiority air with 5 ucas,uvas/drones,ucas hard work,detect and destroy enemy ucas/uvas/aircrafts.

 

[Firn]

I might add that this paper ask also the question why especially the BVR air-to-air combat in a neutrale and "clean" environment is considered beyond the capabilities of UCAV when air-to-ground work in the complex and cluttered environment is de-facto a far more challenging task.

I wonder if all have read the paper

BTW: The F-35 fits IMHO extremely well in a system which contains also VLO ISR UAVs and VLO UCAV.

 

[Ananda]

After having thought about the Avenger C I really wondered why it wouldn't be possible to use a VLO strike UCAV to protect itself and a specifc zone with BVR missiles against enemy fighters.

I try to find the link, but forgot about it. However some time ago I crossed an article on Artificiall Intelegence (AI) technology that point the best way to make an autonomous UAV that able to take decisions on self defence with manned fighthers is with an AI on board.

Current man and machines interfaces on present UAV, will not be sufficient on providing self defence capabilities (toward air combat environment) due to limitations on human operators with split seconds environment awareness. In short since the human operators are not on board, they will have split seconds disadvantages compared to manned fighthers that facing them.

Thus until AI matures, according to the article, UAV or UCAV will be limited on penetrating ground targets, defence suppresions with aerial cover from manned fighthers..

Hope I put it clear enough, since i'm struggling with english as non mother language..

 

[Firn]

I try to find the link, but forgot about it. However some time ago I crossed an article on Artificiall Intelegence (AI) technology that point the best way to make an autonomous UAV that able to take decisions on self defence with manned fighthers is with an AI on board.

I - and the USAF officer who wrote that article - think that for a long time there will be a "hybrid" control with an ever greater AI part - up to an point.

Current man and machines interfaces on present UAV, will not be sufficient on providing self defence capabilities (toward air combat environment) due to limitations on human operators with split seconds environment awareness. In short since the human operators are not on board, they will have split seconds disadvantages compared to manned fighthers that facing them.

In the article he comes up with an 2sec disadvantage. This is of course a huge gap but you don't seem to appreciate the difference between a BVR and a WVR fight. While a UCAV will need quite some alghoritms to be able to hold its own in an close WVR fight a BVR fight is a different beast. According to the articles it seems that the primary question is how great the possible VVLO advantage (among other factors) is compared to the 2sec disadvantage which will not be fixed in times. IMHO the problem is mostly one of perception and prejudice.

Hope I put it clear enough, since i'm struggling with english as non mother language..

You are doing fine, as long as I can see. English is my tertiary language...

 

[Ananda]

I - While a UCAV will need quite some alghoritms to be able to hold its own in an close WVR fight a BVR fight is a different beast. According to the articles it seems that the primary question is how great the possible VVLO advantage (among other factors) is compared to the 2sec disadvantage which will not be fixed in times.

Firn..is't a BVR advantages can only be done if in the theater the side that use UCAV already have huge aerial advantages...
I mean the Gulf, The BAlkans campaign show a very skewed advantages to the western alliances that by using BVR alone they can expect suppremacy..

What I'm getting at what if the opposing forces have to conduct dog fighting like the Yom Kippur, Falklands, Iran & Iraq war..in which it will down to the pilot skills and reactions to determine aerial suppremacy..
If those happen again..than those 2 sec disadvantages will matter...

I know its still much debated right now..and I'm not an expert on this, however I believe in recent years...we never found situations where two major oppossing aerial forces..with same amount of AEW/Control..EW..capabilities face each other...

Like in Be'kaa..Israelis with Advantages on AEW and EW... show that the world has changes...and nummeriorical par of Syrial with Israel will not matter..if you do not have the electronics capabilities..
What if for arguments sake..Syria have the same capabilities to counter Israelis EW and AEW...What if the Syria can react to the electronic and UAV bait Israel launced..What if they can launch sufficient electronic counter attack.jamming that render Israelis BVR useless..then everything will come back to the individual dog fighting in bekaa valley...(which much probbaly will be won by Israel anyway due to their pilots supperior skills)..THe margin of Israel winning will not be that high..and cassualties will be higher..and their UAV has to stay on ground..

I just feel that UAV can worked well if the aerial supperity has been or close to be achieved...

 

[Firn]

Firn..is't a BVR advantages can only be done if in the theater the side that use UCAV already have huge aerial advantages...
I mean the Gulf, The BAlkans campaign show a very skewed advantages to the western alliances that by using BVR alone they can expect suppremacy..

Well BVR is of course a form of air-to-air combat which greatly profits from the integration of a state-of-the-art system which also contains AEW&C. According to the paper there is are very good arguments that in a not too distant day UCAV will be a better node than a modern manned fighter in such a system.

We will see

 

[Firn]

Future of military aviation lies in drones

Washington: Unmanned aircraft likely represent the future for US military aviation with next generation bombers and fighter planes operating without pilots onboard, the top US military officer said on Thursday.

"We're at a real time of transition here in terms of the future of aviation, and the whole issue of what's going to be manned and what's going to be unmanned," Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate hearing.

"I think we're at the beginning of this change," Mullen said when asked about plans for developing a new bomber aircraft.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Would it be possible for 2 seater trainer jets to use the second seat to control 2 or 3 UAVs while the pilot just gets on with being a pilot? This solves the pilot work overload issue and if 1 or 2 of the UAVs are ahead of the manned aircraft it can also increase sensor range.
This also has the benefit of keeping pilots in the sky rather than on the ground thousands of miles behind enemy lines.

 

[zeven]

Would it be possible for 2 seater trainer jets to use the second seat to control 2 or 3 UAVs while the pilot just gets on with being a pilot? This solves the pilot work overload issue and if 1 or 2 of the UAVs are ahead of the manned aircraft it can also increase sensor range.
This also has the benefit of keeping pilots in the sky rather than on the ground thousands of miles behind enemy lines.

Sure, Gripen NGs rear cockpit will be used for weapon/NAV and UAVs - optional tho..

 

[Firn]

I think that an interesting solution might be a business jet like the Gulfstream 550 (platform of the IAF Eitam CEAW and SEMA and a VIP transporter). The spacious cabin in a modern, mobile and endurant aircaft could function as highly flexible C4ISR node for unmanned vehicles and could partly fulfill also other roles (ELINT, COMINT).

It would be the beequeen of a swarm of many different UAV. As backup ground operators could take over non time-critical entities of the swarm.

 

[Grim901]

Would it be possible for 2 seater trainer jets to use the second seat to control 2 or 3 UAVs while the pilot just gets on with being a pilot? This solves the pilot work overload issue and if 1 or 2 of the UAVs are ahead of the manned aircraft it can also increase sensor range.
This also has the benefit of keeping pilots in the sky rather than on the ground thousands of miles behind enemy lines.

The British and the US have both been looking into using the newest generation (Typhoon, F22 etc) to control a couple of UCAVs, not much has been said about the results though. I think the idea is for the pilot to do some of the work and the AI to pick up the slack.

I can see the appeal, it's essentially one pilot controlling more ordnance (or spreading the necessary ordnance between craft to increase loiter time) and allowing the pilot greater sensor capability/range. And it keeps a qualified pilot in the loop (current USAF requirement) and a manned aircraft/pilot on station to protect the UCAVs from airborne threats (which they aren't great with right now)

 

[Firn]

The British and the US have both been looking into using the newest generation (Typhoon, F22 etc) to control a couple of UCAVs, not much has been said about the results though. I think the idea is for the pilot to do some of the work and the AI to pick up the slack.

I can see the appeal, it's essentially one pilot controlling more ordnance (or spreading the necessary ordnance between craft to increase loiter time) and allowing the pilot greater sensor capability/range. And it keeps a qualified pilot in the loop (current USAF requirement) and a manned aircraft/pilot on station to protect the UCAVs from airborne threats (which they aren't great with right now)

This could IMHO be a good short- to midterm solution for high performance multi-role UCAVs. However I really wonder how the information overload will get solved. A command and control center on a buisness jet would allow to manage effectively a large amount of Unmanned vehicles from TUAV to UCAV. The standoff range and thus the communication lag depends of course on the tactical situation.

 

[Vivendi]

This could IMHO be a good short- to midterm solution for high performance multi-role UCAVs. However I really wonder how the information overload will get solved. A command and control center on a buisness jet would allow to manage effectively a large amount of Unmanned vehicles from TUAV to UCAV. The standoff range and thus the communication lag depends of course on the tactical situation.

I believe Australia is looking at controlling UAVs from their AWACS (Wedgetail?) systems; I guess UCAVs could also be controlled from the same plane...

V

 

[Firn]

I believe Australia is looking at controlling UAVs from their AWACS (Wedgetail?) systems; I guess UCAVs could also be controlled from the same plane...

V

A AEW&C can be suited to do so, it depends of course on a rather large numbers of variables. The size of the plane, the number and AI of them, the doctrine, etc

All in all it can make a lot of sense

 

[Firn]

ISR glider

Not an UCAV, but a very interesting UAV which can leverage on a excellent platform with a great numbers of strenghts (endurance, altitude, proven design)

 

[gf0012-aust]

I believe Australia is looking at controlling UAVs from their AWACS (Wedgetail?) systems; I guess UCAVs could also be controlled from the same plane...

V

Successfully demonsrated a few weeks back. 3 x UAV's were independantly managed by a Wedgetail

 

[Firn]

Successfully demonsrated a few weeks back. 3 x UAV's were independantly managed by a Wedgetail

The large airframe of the Wedgetail is of course very much suited for such UAV control beside the AEW&C. This is (among other points) a good argument for such relative large planes.