A new report drafted by the well-connected Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments makes a strong case for an accelerated development of unmanned combat aircraft for carrier battle groups.
With a simple equation, Tom Ehrhard and Robert Work of CSBA lay out the benefits of UCASs for the CVW, saying the increase in range and stealth drones bring to the maritime strike fight are inarguable…
The logic supporting accelerated development of a carrier-based UCAS is straight-forward. Using manned aircraft, current CVWs are optimized to strike targets at ranges between 200 to 450 nautical miles (nm) from their carriers. Moreover, carrier aircraft lack persistence. That is to say, they are limited to missions no more than ten hours long, and they more typically fly missions that last only a few hours. In contrast, a carrier-based UCAS could mount strikes out to 1,500 nm from a carrier without refueling. Just as importantly, because its mission duration is not limited by human endurance, with aerial refueling a UCAS will be able to stay airborne for 50 to 100 hours five to ten times longer than a manned aircraft. In other words, with multiple aerial refuelings, a UCAS could establish persistent surveillance-strike combat air patrols (CAPs) at ranges well beyond 3,000 nm, and strike point targets at far longer ranges.
Ehrhard, a former Air Force officer who wrote his PhD thesis on UAVs, and Work, a former Marine artillery officer and one of the sharpest minds in amphibious warfare development, are adamant that the Navy not fall victim to its usual manned-fighter biases and deprive the UCAS program of the funding it needs to keep on track. They contend the future of the CVW will be undercut if carrier-based UAV development is sidelined and call on Congress to step in and marshal the program through the sea service.
With the many competing programs now fighting for the attention of naval aviatorsnot to mention the Navys historical ambivalence regarding unmanned aircraft systemsthere is a danger that the UCAS-D program will suffer in DoN budget deliberations and be progressively delayed. If this happens, the long-term operational and tactical effectiveness of the US carrier fleet may be at risk. Congress and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) should therefore take a direct interest in fostering this program and monitoring its progress.
Work and Erhard understand the arguments against UCAS programs, including the complexity of integrating a drone with manned aircraft on the flight deck and banking on unreliable technology with so many competing fiscal priorities like shipbuilding.
But both analysts say the Navys participation in aerial robot wars will make them more relevant in the future and keep the Air Force from passing the carrier strike group by on the way to the fight.
The bottom line is this: the N-UCASs unique combination of great unrefueled range and dramatically improved endurance and stealth could transform US aircraft carriers and their embarked air wings from operational strike systems with outstanding global mobility and relatively limited tactical reach and persistence into globally mobile, long-range persistent surveillance strike systems effective across multiple 21st century security challenges. To make this potentially revolutionary transformation possible, Congress, OSD, and the Navy must take the necessary first step and support both an expanded N-UCAS carrier demonstration program and technology maturation effort to safely integrate these unmanned surveillance/strike systems into carrier flight deck and strike operations.
(Gouge: DID)
Now this makes sense. For all of those F-35 cheerleaders that tout stealth and long range as being a necessity, this provides both without risking a pilots life for deep strike/recon. My only question would be what it will end up costing.
I believe that such drones are less versatile than aircraft like the F/A-18. An F/A-18 can do anti-ship, CAP, interdiction, precision strike, air policing, recon, SEAD, DEAD and many other missions.
A long-range stealthy drone should have serious problems with at least some of these missions — unless lots of exchange packs and R&D funds are available as well as excellent commlinks.
Versatility is a premium factor for carrier groups because of the limited quantity of daily sorties and the extreme importance of self-defence.
Honestly, I don’t understand why a UCAV should be a more pressing need for a navy than for an air force.
Good Morning Folks,
With the F-35 apporaching $100Million per copy and the F-18F/G already over that benchmark the Navy has to look to the unmanned airial vehicle.
The XM-47 over the past two years has exceeded all it benchmarks. It has passed with fly colore carrier take off and landkings to the point that all F-18’s will have the unmanned lands capabilities. Another aircraft turning heads is the “Fire Scout” unmanned helicopter, it also has passed all the Navy’s sea trials and is ready to enter the fleet.
The arieal unmanned refueling has been so successful that it is now going to be the standard for all new Air Force and Navy tankers.
Future carriers battle groups will be deployed without any attack pilots. Thats a fact not fiction.
SLLONS,
Byron Skinner
Well, but if that happens the drones will not be ver different from manned planes.
Their necessarily built-in verstatile equipment makes them expensive — and one of the core advantages of drones (no need for many backup systems because no life is at risk) is lost.
Risk-averse use would be standard and thus limiting the advantages of the drone approach.
It seems interesting to me that the Marine artilleryman forgot to argue the OTHER possibility:
A UCAV system for the US Marine Corps.
The UCAV would first off be a good back up for the Marine tactical aviation community should anything happen to the JSF.
2ndly, the USMC has always had a good constituency in congress, thus guaranteeing a source of funding for their UCAV.
3rdly, the USMC has also been a pioneer in new ways of fighting.
All good comments. Don’t know if unmanned platforms will replace manned completely in our lifetime, but there are certainly grounds for argument.
A question for the board: are there any benefits to converting manned platforms to unmanned? We’ve got a long history of target drone conversions: e.g., the QF-4. The old F-4 was carrier capable. IIRC, we’ve still got A-4s and F-18As at the Boneyard.
With such conversions you lose stealth, at least, but, then again, you don’t always need stealth: e.g., for deterrence missions, or even SEAD. Sometimes you want the enemy to see you coming.
It seems that if we’re converting target drones to be destroyed anyway, we could just as easily use some for attack. They might even serve as good decoys/stalking horses for either manned or stealthy platforms.
I don’t know that drone conversions would be any cheaper than dedicated UCAV platforms, but it seems that a) we’re already spending money to convert them, b) the base platforms are already bought and paid for, and c) they are already known quantities, at least in some senses. We know their capabilities and shortcomings, compared to still unproven platforms.
Just a stray thought FWIW, if anything.
Hmm … as a mostly-ignorant lurker here, I note some inconsistency.
Just recently you were railing against earmarks in the article “JSF Engine Pork Continues.” Now, however we’re in favor of earmarks?
Cheers,
–Bob
I fail to see any problems with UAVs. Having read the report summery, two things, in my opinion, really stuck out.
First, the report mentioned the effective range of a CBG, without Air Force Tankers, was only about 400 nmi. That is disturbing.
Second, the report mentioned that the current technology testbed would be the most advanced carrier aircraft, in terms of range, payload, and stealth, ever made.
Those two arguements make UAVs a necessity, at least to me, if the carriers hope to continue as viable strike platforms in the face of improved coastal defense systems.
This is simply the navy chasing the capabilities of the cancelled A-12, but with unmanned technology. Sadly, using today’s manufacturing materials and methods, the baseline A-12 would probably avoid many of the weight and electronics issues that led to its cancellation. Instead of remaining with a manned version, the navy would be again flirting with developmental disaster by shifting to still-unproven unmanned technology for carrier decks.
Did the A-12 have an endurance of 50 to 100 hours? No. Thus with UCAS the Navy is not chasing the capabilities of the A-12, it is chasing a vast improvement over the A-12. If the Navy wanted a manned, stealthy fighter, it would not have to try once again to build the A-12, it could just build a bigger JSF. No manned aircraft, however, could provide the persistence at long range that the Navy would need in a Taiwan Straits scenario.
While unmanned aircraft may have limitations, they also have advantages. I think the advantages justify exploring and developing such capability. If it works out that the capabilites and advantages can be exploited while mitigating the disavantages, it is foolish, IMO, to ignore them.
While I often wonder about the judgement of the beauracracies who develop and procure weapons systems, I have alot of faith in the judgment of the people who utilize them. Give them a weapon, and it won’t take them too awfully long to detemine how best to utilize it — it at all.
We all know–except airdales–the expensive to build, man and operate CVN is as obsolete as the BB it replaced. Smaller amphib LPH
and SS-types will replace them. this is the first step.
A lot of people dream of the chance to be a pilot and more. Looking ahead to the great adventure of space exploration, were will the experiance come from if not the military.
If a drone is shot down will we feel and respond the same? Were is the Honor not being at risk or to put your life in Gods hands.
I guess I know this sounds old fashioned but I rather talk to people because the conversation is adaptive. Try arguing with your computer for a responce when you key in the wrong number. One mistake could spell disaster because computers do not think. Im sure the military is careful to select good people so I trust them more than a machine. Machines must be designed to adapt to a situation were people evolve to a situation.
My advise is to design and use them as high risk Recon drones, without weapons except a self destruct.
Maybe the best answer to all this is that man can control and the robot can destroy without the human factor having to risk live and those of others. Maybe also we can reduce costs by using new technologies such as Robot aircraft, ships and weapon systems. The Navy can lead the way but all services should be involved. The Army with robot vehicles, the Air Force with robot bombers, and fighters, plus recon. Maybe in ten to twenty years. the skys will be controled by such weapon systems.
Not to push forward with unmanned combat aircraft is dangerously reactionary. Besides enhanced range and linger time, robot aircraft have other advantages. With no need for life support systems,there is room for other systems. Without a human pilot, the aircraft can pull tighter turns, making it more manuverable and hence more lethal.
Imagine a small stealth carrier with stealth UCAVs. The capability would compliment that of a traditional carrier battle group and could be used independently for special operations. Cost savings would be huge.With our current trend toward an economy burdened with a ballooning social welfare budget (Social Security, Medicare, etc)this will be the future by default.