Sunday, December 29, 2013

UAVs are finally entering aerial combat. How did we miss this?


Dave wrote an article about the Navy's UAV that will be Tomcat sized.  But in doing so he buried the lead.  Read the article here, but this is what we all missed.  Air Power purist should be afraid.  They should be very afraid...
But Manazir cautioned that the UCLASS will not be nearly as stealthy as the F-35C.
“We’re not going have JSF-like stealth,” Manazir said. “You’re not going to have somebody that can go right over the top—you know—of the threat capital city, but you’re going to have something that can stand in somewhat.”
Alternatively, the UCLASS might be useful as a flying missile magazine to supplement the firepower of the F/A-18 and F-35C in air-to-air combat as a robotic wingman of sorts.
“Maybe we put a whole bunch of AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) on it and that thing is the truck,” Manazir said. “So this unmanned truck goes downtown with—as far as it can go—with a decision-maker.”
In those situations, Manazir said, a Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye or a F-35C flight leader might command the UCLASS.
But the concepts for what missions the Navy might offload from manned aircraft to the UCLASS are still evolving.
So you're sitting there asking...Why should air power purist be afraid.  Its not only because someone is taking the idea of arming a UAV with AMRAAMs to potentially fire them at manned fighters.  Its because the guy who is making these statements is Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy's Director of Air Warfare.

He was diplomatic.

He deferred to the F-35C whenever he could.  But its obvious that the US Navy is definitely thinking beyond the F-35C when it comes to their air systems. One other tidbit caught my attention and I might be reading more into it than it deserves but check this out...
The Navy hopes to use the UCLASS as an aerial refueling tanker to extend the range of the tactical fighter fleet—particularly the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter. “We’re going to put a refueling capability into them and they’ll have an endurance package in them,” Manazir said. “They’ll be able to give away something like 20,000 lbs. of gas and still stay up for seven-and-a-half hours.”
By combining two tasks.  ISR and aerial refueling, the Navy is playing the game the right way.  They'll get the UAVs they want, at the size they want without threatening the F-35C program...at first anyway.  Its slick, as some would say its "strategic marketing" and it should get the plane past the bean counters.

This is gonna get good. 

29 comments :

  1. i think the x47 and UCLASS in general will have alot more capabilities in the future, first ISR, then talking about bomber, now refueling and air-to air missile truck, sounds to me like the navy has figured out modularity they should have figured out in the LCS!

    ReplyDelete
  2. also i know the E2D is going to be able to connect with AEGIS, i wonder if the 47 will too?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder what happens when we go toe to toe with a near peer that can attack our networks. Our great drone armada suddenly becomes a fleet of paper weights.

    Actually, all the Chinese have to do is stop selling us bandwidth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. china is getting more tech but they are not close to us as a near peer, just because they have tech doesnt mean they have the doctrine, skills, tactics, training to carry it out. while cyber warfare is inevitable i would be stunned if we didnt have counters to it, i am sure they could do some damage but we still spend far more than china spends. also our market economy allows for innovation, theirs stifles it, they are creating some tech it seems in pictures but until you see it in action who knows. also our military has 10 years of war trained veterans, while chinese military hasnt been in an external conflict since they invaded vietnam in 1979. so while they are rising they still have alot of catching up to do

      Delete
    2. @Joe.

      let me ask you something. have you heard of partnership missions? its where the US sends out its personnel to teach allies, potential allies and even potential enemies our tactics. i've been outraged at the sight of US Marines and Army Paratroopers teaching even countries as beliigerent as the Russians our infantry techniques. take a look at a Chinese soldier or Marine and he's beginning to have the exact same equipment as we do.

      additionally this "partnership" trend is catching on in other fields. security? the Israeli's teach an academy open to everyone. Ranger School? the idea was at one time to have small unit specialist scattered throughout the Army...that was the real goal of Ranger School at one time. now? they have foreign officers and enlisted going to the course.

      and finally the same thing is happening with the Navy and Air Force.

      the Chinese might not have a doctrine to fight us today, but we're teaching them our own so they can fight us later.

      Delete
    3. @Sol, yes i know these and see these, and i know we are teaching the russians some and we have partnerships with allies and even some countries not our allies. i have qualms about the behavior of some of our allies too, and is it possible China at some point will challenge us, yes, but not soon. We spend far more than they do, our tech is generations beyond theirs, and china will not likely risk war with the united states because it would pull Japan, S. Korea, Australia, NZ, and likely other nations into it. china must maintain its economy to prevent complete social breakdown, businesses hate instability. Would we win in a war? yes we would, would we face alot tougher enemy in china than we have had since the second world war, yes, but with the combined arms of the navy and air force i dont think there would push us out of the pacific, especially if japan keeps uparming. it is a dangerous policy if we give too much away, but right now and for the coming decades we still hold the cards.

      Delete
    4. Im with drake1 on this. We have to exploit the cheapness that is drones but the EW realm is just too risky to pour a large percentage of the air air into it.

      60% of our air fleet is unmanned today but its the shittiest 60% by far. And we don't rely on it to allow us to operate in the air.
      fucking lllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggg lololol.....if not a soft kill.
      At what point do anti-air become better than air units. When they can't even stay in the sky reliably is kind of a baseline with me.
      If were really too cheap to buy a proper air force we should just forget the thing and invest in increasing the range and detection of our anti-air units because when that day comes we are relying on these paper planes we are going to need it...a lot of it because something has to work as advertized

      Delete
  4. I don't know how the fight for more Super Hornet orders is going, but the fact that the Navy keeps promoting the F-35C and saying that they are committed to the program tells me that they are still playing the game hard and cutting it very close to the books, which I think is a good sign. I also think we'll find out tomorrow or the day after if we have new Super Hornet orders. If not, the Navy still has the UCLASS as a back up and I believe you're right, Sol. The Navy tried using the Super Hornet to argue its way out of the F-35 program. Since that did not work, it seems that the Navy is now looking to make a new argument with the UCLASS in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Manazir went to extraordinary lengths not to upset the F-35 mafia - the whole Super Hornet pre-solicitaion faux pas last fall has taught Navy leaders to be very, very careful about how frame Tacair requirements and platforms. The amusing thing is Congress inserted $75M for advanced procurement for the Super Hornet program in the FY2014 budget just signed into law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good catch. It's less than the advanced procurement on the CV, but it's something that Boeing will appreciate.

      Delete
  6. An unmanned truck goes downtown with a decision-maker -- what a concept.

    2,400-mile Made Flight Made By Drone Bombers .
    Schenectady Gazette - Aug 7, 1946
    http://tinyurl.com/7qcjlqt

    Crewless Flight Points Way To Push-button Wars
    Deseret News - Aug 7, 1946
    http://tinyurl.com/mrogj8g

    Sixty-seven years ago! But planes were cheaper back then, with plenty of pilots to man them, and generally unopposed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A2A depends on the progress on AI. Unless there is some kind of a massive break through in AI, drone A2A combat is simply not possible with the sole exception of a BVR missileer . This is why all the F-X and F/A-XX concepts are still manned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Slowman.

      your skepticism is unwarranted. the UAV the admiral is talking about would engage in air to air combat in the same way that is planned for the F-35. extended long range shots only. sneak to a position, volley your missiles and leave.

      look at WVR missiles. today they're hitting at distances in Vietnam would have been considered BVR. even the vaunted Pheonix missile is having its range duplicated by the upcoming Aim-120D.

      warfare is changing. the idea of sending drones to attack a target, other drones to defend them and the only manned airplane being a E-2D is weird but cool

      Delete
    2. check out this video, around 15 min mark

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnUwxDhE1kU

      Delete
    3. if 22s are planned to help tomahawk missiles, seems like guiding other missiles with bombers as missile trucks will be relatively easy transition.

      http://theaviationist.com/2013/12/24/f-22-targeting-tlams/

      Joe

      Delete
    4. Solomon

      > extended long range shots only.

      AMRAAMs have a poor record against a maneuvering target with a decent EW defensive system.

      Relying exclusively on AMRAAM is like the F-4 Phantoms discovering that the Sparrows had a 10% kill rate against Migs on the battle field. By then it's too late.

      Even today, most kills on fighter size targets would be Sidewinder or gun kills, and drones cannot handle that before itself being blasted out of sky.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6b35gjZ9cc

      Delete
    5. comparing the old performance of the sparrow against the new model of BVR weapons is a VERY weak argument. that puts you squarely in the camp that all aerial combat will devolve into a WVR affair.

      even if thats true WVR has changed. you're looking at AIM-9X that is approaching (I'll have to look it up) being able to engage targets at 50 miles away. thats longer than sparrow range in Vietnam.

      besides. the drone carries the missiles to the location. fires when instructed by the E-2D and then return to land, refuel and return.

      throw in the possibility of increased electric production and cooling on a UAV and suddenly you have a missile truck that can defend itself from incoming missiles with lasers. for the UAV maneuvering might indeed be irrelevant.

      Delete
    6. Get it within engagement range of a foe, arm it with a gun and missiles, then unleash it. Program it with the simple algorithm to kill its target by any means, and program in the maneuvers to engage. A high performance UCV will dog a manned fighter into the ground if it doesn't shot it down or ram it first (a tactic we'll have to weight carefully on cost of the UCV). But you have a weapons bus cruise missile with the ability to come back to reengage over and over, with capacity to push its airframe and engines to a level no human being could survive. Once its within that tactical engagement envelop, no amount of jamming its bandwidth is going to do anything to save its target short of downing the UCV. Now it just comes down to if we trust our software engineers enough to unleash the aerial warbots to that level.

      Delete
  8. Aha and where is the A2A radar, what happens when the satellites are knocked down, control signals jammed etc..etc.. Not convinced. These slow planes deliver a small payload at a slow speed, they are a waste of carrier space. As far as I am concerned the best opportunity for 'combat drones' died when the F111s were sent to butchers.

    And as a A2A missile truck that is what the F111Missiler and to a degree the B1R was envisioned as. I don't see any place for these low capacity drones in a carrier battle group.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A lot of cheap drones of different sizes and functions with advanced Sensors and smaller and more powerfull computers, all of them comunicating and acting in a collaborative and synchronized way to optimize the attack to put in the non scape zone one or several manned aircrafts, in the case of air combat or to kill soldiers or insurgents on the ground. Like in the case of Google, is just an issue of time to find the algorithms to let the drones to act dynamically according to the uncertainty. At one point humans won't be able to react as fast an efficecient las drones in the air. This is just the beggining of a very scary revolution and humans will be responsable just to take the final decision to attack.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEvxlwLR9uo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=z78mgfKprdg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is to check the swarm tactic and complement the F-35C, its the quarterback idea the Air force has for the F-22.

    A unmentioned use of this because of its range is using outside sensors to do the mythical boost phase BMD. I remember a old story of F-35 sensor test picking up a ballistic missile at range, having that ability over enemy air space with a package of UCAV in orbits tight enough to chase intercept any launches in X box you can shut down entire swaths of enemy territory for launching BM. The missile exist as the updated AMRAM body with the new Sidewinder heat seeker head, we have the aircraft with the sensors that can survive inside the enemy defended airspace, and soon we will have the survivable orbiters to be everywhere at once in the box.

    Either way it puts the carrier back as the fleet protector because with a UCAV E-2D package you own the ASM threat at range even if it tries saturation. The vaunted supersonic ASM threat are big non-maneuvering targets except for their final leg charge.

    Then you also have a survivable buddy tanker.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why do you need a 300 million "invisible" airplane to launch a stand off weapon?
    Me no understand amigo....

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUhlZmmxdqA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  12. When you can use a 55 million fighter...

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdtNU3-byLo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRkAdsTB6FU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  13. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBsSBwxAwjo&sns=em

    ReplyDelete
  14. If the electronic warfare is that bad that a UAV can't operate, not sure how the data-links and such of the F22 or F35 communicating amongst themselves or with AWACS/E2D is going to be so superior and survivable compared to the UAVs. If you can jam the GPS signal, that you are afraid to lose the UAV, well, that JDAM isn't going to work any better from an F35. GPS signal is going to be jammed the same for that JDAM, launched from an UAV or F35.

    Also F35 has 20 million lines of code, anyone trust that there are no virus, back doors that China can't use today or in the future? What happens if China develops their own version of "Suter" airborne network attack system? They seem to have done a pretty decent job of infiltrating the JSF program and they will have years to exactly tailor it to the US radar....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the F22s and F35s actually work after the communication satellites were shot down during the first 5 minutes of the war and any forseeable signal can also be foreseeably jammed, which means that most of your airforce could potentially be disabled in 5 minutes if you are relying on remotely opperated drones.

      And yes the US is too dependent on GPS, but at least an actual warplane like the F35 (even given how bad it is) can still operate when the military sattelites are disabled. For such a plane to be viable it would net to be a proper and autonomous fighter plane that could be for example directed by a commander in a nearbye plane if needed. But the best way to do this I believe is to develop and then improve a manned/unmanned hybrid plane as an interim to mitigate risk until the technology has matured enough.

      Delete
  15. Unmanned vehicles is the answer to Syria style, and any other, guerilla warfare.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Electronic Warfare doesn't have to destroy anything, simply overpower signals. When a drone can't get a signal to fire, either the software has to continue with a pre-programmed mission or abort. It is that simple.

    If a drone "missile truck" is next to a "decision making platform" that can make a decision, it would take a huge amount of power from a ground station to interrupt that proximity advantage. Free space loss is a bitch in the EW world. Although with digital data links we can often use less power by going with an induced bit rate error attack technique which will cause checksum fails at the level 2 layer which if they get bad enough can block a transmission as the comms protocol goes into a "retransmit" loop.

    EW has a huge role to play in drone warfare, just ask the Iranians.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's why an almiral mentioned that in the future it will be neccesary to apply more agressive tacticts using jammers, decoys, drones and antiradiation missiles to destroy enemy air deffensives, not just passive stealth to destroy the targets.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjV3-qCBstk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZyL-zEoMfM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl9agfdpXUA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.