The Unmanned Air Force

[Zachstar]

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?...23225&from=rss

'Next year, the Air Force will procure more unmanned aircraft than manned aircraft,' the general said. 'I think that makes a very pointed statement about our commitment to the future of [unmanned aircraft] and what it brings to the fight in meeting the requirements of combatant commanders.'"

Game, Set, Match! We have a winner here!

Unmanned in the future, period..

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?...23225&from=rss

Game, Set, Match! We have a winner here!

Unmanned in the future, period..

Man, hate to be the one who has egg on their face when the network connection to these A-UAVs are disrupted or used by an OPFOR against us.
The Air Force has gotten taken for granted that they have been using these UAVs against non-technologically advanced OPFORs.

[August]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Man, hate to be the one who has egg on their face when the network connection to these A-UAVs are disrupted or used by an OPFOR against us.
The Air Force has gotten taken for granted that they have been using these UAVs against non-technologically advanced OPFORs.

That's my thinking as well. The network link is definitely the UAVs Achilles heel.

[baggygreen]

And regardless of how securely you encrypt the radio channel you use to control the UAV, if the enemy were to throw enough electrical energy in its general direction, you'll lose control. they need to keep a manned fighter and bomber force going.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

And regardless of how securely you encrypt the radio channel you use to control the UAV, if the enemy were to throw enough electrical energy in its general direction, you'll lose control. they need to keep a manned fighter and bomber force going.

Well, there's a way around that. All you have to do is use frequency-hopping coupled with an autopilot system that just keeps the thing from crashing.
You have to put out a lot of energy to jam a freq-hop signal, and the second you do, your position can be triangulated by RDF and will be a very bright beacon to an anti-radiation missile.
I'm not too concerned about the crypto being compromised, either. The U.S. the best crypto systems in the world, coupled with extensive measures meant to minimize a breach if one did occur. The one thing I can tell you is that the hopsets and crypto keys are changed very frequently. I wish I could say more, cause' it's pretty amazing stuff.

In any case, an unmanned airforce is still many years away, if it ever comes at all. UAVs are great, and a definite asset on the battlefield, but they aren't ready be the primary aerial platforms yet.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I wonder if there were so many Luddites voicing opposition 20 years ago before the Tomahawk missile saw its first combat use.

PD

[Zachstar]

Against fighters they suck. That will not change until they can put a railgun blast or high power laser downrange.

However, F-22s and F-35s will have easy done that by then. In a shooting war all manned aircraft that can carry a missile will be used to keep fighters at bay while stealhy drones blast their airfields, support into shreds.

Afterwords who cares about jamming? Drones are programmed with missions ahead of time and like it is said above. Jamming makes you a BIG HARM target.

Hell I bet most of the time the connection will only be used to report back on how the hellfires are ripping a new hole into the enemy. Drones work better in flocks.

The flock way is the best way. A flock of UAVs means mission success period. Kill one UAV and within moments the sam launcher is tagged and blown to shreads by the others.

And when they get the ability to use Bofors and 20mm? Win..

With all this it is obvious the days of manned military aircraft in the USAF are coming to an end. Some give it 50 years. I give it 15-10.

[August]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I wonder if there were so many Luddites voicing opposition 20 years ago before the Tomahawk missile saw its first combat use.

PD

The discussion is not about their usability but rather whether they can completely replace human pilots. I just think it's a pretty risky proposition to rely on unmanned aircraft completely.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by August

The discussion is not about their usability but rather whether they can completely replace human pilots. I just think it's a pretty risky proposition to rely on unmanned aircraft completely.

I agree. But I don't think there's anybody out there that thinks unmanned aircraft will COMPLETELY take the place of human pilots. At least for a long time. 2050 at the earliest, IMO.

PD

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by August

The discussion is not about their usability but rather whether they can completely replace human pilots. I just think it's a pretty risky proposition to rely on unmanned aircraft completely.

You want to go up when the enemy is using lasers and rails and whatever weapons that give no opportunity for you to evade before you are blown to shreds?

Granted no "Iraq" or "Falklands" war will feature such a threat but if a serious superpower war starts it will within a decade (You think we are the only one developing air lasers?)

I can accept that it is a better idea for transport craft to be human operated. (For morale only for the troops need to be thinking about the fight and not if the AI pilot will go skynet on them)

But that's it. Anything else just is better unmanned. Because Unmanned scales. 100 UAVs scanning an area 24/7 is better than 1 AWACs that is a sitting duck if an enemy somehow manages to slip through. 100 UAVs sniping insurgents in a town is better than 1 Apache having to attack and duck to avoid RPGs. Heck even against fighters 100 UAVs being missile trucks and losing most of em to take out the enemy air force is worth it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

But that's it. Anything else just is better unmanned. Because Unmanned scales. 100 UAVs scanning an area 24/7 is better than 1 AWACs that is a sitting duck if an enemy somehow manages to slip through. 100 UAVs sniping insurgents in a town is better than 1 Apache having to attack and duck to avoid RPGs. Heck even against fighters 100 UAVs being missile trucks and losing most of em to take out the enemy air force is worth it.

Assuming they work as intended sure, but anything remotely controlled is subject to being jammed or enslaved. Maybe not very easily as UnderseaLcpl says but technical oneupsmanship has a long and successful history.

Imagine control of your 100 UAV's being seized by an enemy and used against their previous owners. A UAV does what it's told to. Period, end of story, It's a lot more difficult to convince a human pilot to (deliberately) attack his own side.

[Zachstar]

Do you not think they have not thought of that?

As for chances of them being "Captured" remotely. I think the chances are higher for them to go Skynet before they allow the enemy to use them against us. There are multiple safeguards and these days any major contractor that works with this hires hackers to spend their shifts trying to break the security. The result is a mess until it is cleaned up but any hacking attempt is quickly noticed.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

You want to go up when the enemy is using lasers and rails and whatever weapons that give no opportunity for you to evade before you are blown to shreds?

Granted no "Iraq" or "Falklands" war will feature such a threat but if a serious superpower war starts it will within a decade (You think we are the only one developing air lasers?)

I can accept that it is a better idea for transport craft to be human operated. (For morale only for the troops need to be thinking about the fight and not if the AI pilot will go skynet on them)

But that's it. Anything else just is better unmanned. Because Unmanned scales. 100 UAVs scanning an area 24/7 is better than 1 AWACs that is a sitting duck if an enemy somehow manages to slip through. 100 UAVs sniping insurgents in a town is better than 1 Apache having to attack and duck to avoid RPGs. Heck even against fighters 100 UAVs being missile trucks and losing most of em to take out the enemy air force is worth it.

I have to hand it to you Zach. It's a common fallacy in people to fight the last war, and you certainly can't be accused of that. However, you're talking about a type of warfare that is decades away, if not centuries.
You have to keep in mind the types of countermeasures that might be employed, as well as new offensive technologies, logistical elements, and support structures.
Perhaps the enemy has localized EMP weapons, or a means with which to strike your C3 installations. A massed UAV armada, by its' very nature, would require a relatively centralized command structure, and we've already moved beyond that phase of warfare. The trend now is towards decentralized command and small-unit leadership supported by strategic assets.

As just one example, for your consideration, let's consider the UAV's weakest link; the command structure. Remote UAVs will require a command signal. The farther they roam, the stronger that radio signal needs to be, and the more likely it is that the source will be DF'ed and hit with artillery or airstrikes. You could use an airborne command platform (and we do) but then you have a giant beacon for HARM missiles.

You're on the right track, but UAVs are still in their infancy. Relying on them too soon could have disastrous consequences. A sterling example of such a thing is the U.S. Army's "Transformation" doctrine, used primarily in the 1990's. It focused on modern electronic command and control, and was hugely successful in controlled excercises. However, it had a number of tremendous failures that made themselves apparent on the modern battlefield. One was the reliance on EPLRS (Enhanced Position Location Reporting System), which worked wonderfully in the desert environment of the excercises, but not quite so well in terrain that had trees, hills, or anything other than flat sand. EPLRS uses an ultra-high frequency wavelength, and does a poor job of communicating with anything that is not within line-of-sight.

I'm getting off-topic here, but I will say that reliance on the Transformation doctrine and derivates contributed to the rude suprise we got in post-invasion Iraq. Now the military is dilligently working to perfect an operational doctrine for that kind of environment, and I suspect that they'll have it perfected shortly after the conflict is over.

You, on the other hand, are fighting a war whose necessary infrastructure does not exsist. Once we have an armada of sattelites with shielded directional-transmission capability, as well as the means to defend themselves from ASAT and surface to space lasers, a UAV armada might work. Until then you're thinking at least two generations of military technology ahead of where we should be focussing, namely, the next war.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Do you not think they have not thought of that?

As for chances of them being "Captured" remotely. I think the chances are higher for them to go Skynet before they allow the enemy to use them against us. There are multiple safeguards and these days any major contractor that works with this hires hackers to spend their shifts trying to break the security. The result is a mess until it is cleaned up but any hacking attempt is quickly noticed.

Such hubris!

Look, there were a lot of very authoritative folks who claimed the Enigma was unbreakable too Zachstar. They turned out to be wrong. It's the height of foolishness to put all ones eggs in a single basket. That has always been true and remote UAV control is no exception.

Besides even that temporary "mess" you mention could be quite awkward if it is well timed.

Edit: Lance beat me to it and did a better job!