Lockheed Martin’s recent unveiling of its Polecat UAV might be related to the nascent Air Force program to field a new bomber by 2018. But then, it might not. Some industry insiders believe the Air Force is bent on keeping pilots in bomber cockpits, no matter what.
After years of steady growth in funding, development and operational use, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have begun to rival and, in some cases, exceed the capability of manned aircraft.
The rapid maturing of military UAVs into armed unmanned combat aerial vehicles was seen in one of the most promising armed drone programs, the joint unmanned air combat system, or J-UCAS.
J-UCAS began its life at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 1998. Both Boeing and Northrop Grumman built jet-powered demonstrators: the X-45C and the X-47B, respectively. The X-45 was equipped for in-flight refueling and optimized for Air Force missions that demanded a high degree of stealth. The X-47 was less stealthy, but longer-ranged and designed to operate from Navy aircraft carrier decks.
After seven years of successful design and testing, in November 2005, the Defense Department transferred J-UCAS to a joint Air Force and Navy office and scheduled a fly-off between the demonstrators.
But then, in February 2006, the Pentagon ordered the Navy to take over J-UCAS. Air Force killer drone funding was redirected to a new, vaguely defined, “next-generation long-range strike” development program that, according to observers, is likely to include a mix of unmanned and manned bomber aircraft.
Just months after its graduation from fringe research status to major procurement program, J-UCAS had been downgraded to Navy UCAS, or N-UCAS. The X-47 was largely unaffected, but the X-45 had lost its sponsor and, it seemed at first, any hope of ever reaching production.
One Boeing employee who worked on the X-45 program said the Air Forces about-face was a long time coming. He asked to not be quoted by name because his views do not reflect the companys official stance.
“We knew even from early 1999 and the original X-45A UCAV contract that we were fighting a political, cultural and budget prejudice that could kill us,” said the employee. Many of the Boeing workers from the X-45 program, he said, were angered by the abrupt cancellation of J-UCAS just when they were nearly “on the cusp of making history in the aviation world.“
He speculated that the Air Forces decision to withdraw from the program was partly financial mostly to ensure that the J-UCAS would not drain any procurement funds from high-profile manned aviation programs such as the F-22 and the F-35 fighter jets. Another possible explanation for the Air Force backing away from J-UCAS, the Boeing employee said, is that the X-45 was running headlong against the Air Forces pilot culture that prefers dropping bombs from cockpits, rather than from ground control centers.
Read more in my feature on the late J-UCAS in this month’s National Defense Magazine. The piece is co-written with National Defense editor Sandra Erwin.
–David Axe
P.S. — Big thanks to the Defense Tech readers who stopped by the San Diego Comic Con last weekend to save me from hours of talking about Spiderman’s new costume with sweaty geeks in weird hats.
| Who Killed the Killer Drone? (Redux)Leave a ReplyNOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces. By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement | |
This has happened before — a new type of technology is fielded, in this case combat robotics, and soldiers are loth to field it.
When airplanes were first introduced around the time of World War I, generals and admirals were more than happy to field them for ISR purposes. When the first military pilots broached the idea of equiping their vehicles with weapons, there was some natural push-back.
New technology always threatens the way military services traditionally define combat. The USAF is clearly hesitant to bring robotics anywhere near the core of their service, fighter and bomber pilots. I mean, it is harder to justify those hip leather jackets and scarves when you fly a joystick at HQ all day.
In the USAF’s defense, I don’t know if unmanned systems are sophisticated enough to replace most manned missions. Human pilots in the theater have faster reaction times and more situational awareness than the current generation of robots. I would much rather have a flyboy handling close air support for now than a Predator.
Let’s see.…..
UAV’s don’t need sleep, food, to pee or poop. They don’t or shortly, will not need, a pilot, just a babysitter who oversees a bunch at once.
So you get extensive persistence at minimum cost, you are esentially remoting the decision making on the “PICKLE” button. The operator is going to have 95% of the situational awareness of a pilot. Is the additional 5% worth the billions of dollars to provide a manned vehicle?
Gee, guys, let’s try a little bit of critical thinking, okay?
Boeing employee: “The new BOEING aircraft which I WORKED ON is obviously superior to that other thing made by some other company. It’s obviously a case of pure Air Force bias which would lead to them using a NON-BOEING PRODUCT, especially one that does not contribute to my job security. Boeing… protecting the future of America.”
Actually, Brian, I spoke with DOD official who pretty much confirmed what Mr. Boeing said.
nms
Rip, I think we’re on the same page here. UAVs are definitely the future of warfighting — they are fairly cost effective, have high endurance and allow us to push the envelope of traditional vehicle design. I’m just not sure that the current state of robot technology is completely ready to replace the human element — but the day changes is flying towards us very fast (no pun intended).
USAF is in the same position as the Army and Navy were in around the 1920s and 1930s. The flyboys need to adapt or get left behind. Hopefully it won’t take another world war to popularize the use of robot weaponry.
That may be true, Noah, but it doesn’t mean the Air Force is wrong to do so.
Obviously, there’s a manned-aircraft preference in the Air Force. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be right. We need a next generation bomber. Are we really ready to make it unmanned? Having an unmanned alternative WILL cause problems for the financing of a next gen manned bomber. So ask yourself, how much do you trust UAV technology? Obviously, Mr. Boeing is all for it.