Home » Air » Air Force » Combatant Commanders Want Tougher Drones

Combatant Commanders Want Tougher Drones

by John Reed on November 4, 2010

An MQ-9 Reaper drone

While the U.S. Air Force’s unclassified effort to field a next generation UAV, dubbed MQ-X, has been on hold for nearly a year now, the service’s top requirements officer weighed in this morning on what he thinks the plane should be capable of.

“We need to look at bridging from the permissive environment” today’s drones like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper fly in over places like Afghanistan and “contested airspace” where something like a Reaper would make easy prey, Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Air Force’s chief of operations, plans and requirements for the U.S. Air Force said during a breakfast with reporters here in DC. “We need a capability in that area and I think MQ-X is a good place to have that conversation.”

In fact, combatant commanders around the world are already starting to ask for something more survivable that our existing drones, according to Breedlove.

From his perspective, the plane wouldn’t necessarily be high-end stealth, but it would be more survivable than the current crop of propeller-driven UAVs prowling the skies of the Middle East.

The Air Force is already working on capabilities that can go into extremely heavily defended regions, but needs something  that can handle less heavily-defended but still dangerous airspace, according to Breedlove.

While he didn’t elaborate on what he meant by more survivable, I’ve heard senior Air Force officials talk about the need to make next-gen UAVs such as MQ-X faster, more maneuverable and equipped with countermeasures or maybe air-to-air weapons.

Sadly, the general did not give a timeline for when he thought the service will have hashed out what it wants the drone to look like.

This makes me wonder, what about all those next-generation Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles being designed?

The Navy is already looking to capitalize on that type of design for its Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike UAV which it hopes to have in limited service by the end of this decade. Is such a plane too expensive for MQ-X style missions?

Also, I’m curious, what category of survivability does the stealthy-looking RQ-170 actually fall under?

– John Reed

Share |

{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }

Anthony November 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Add a jet engine, increase payload speed and range…keep most everything the same as the current predator/reaper, except for a redesigned wing surface to take advantage of the new engine. nope that'd be too simple…

Reply

Nick November 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm

Just make them cost less than a SAM and no matter what you'll come out ahead. At that price, even vs. an F-22 getting a 100:1 Kill:Loss ratio it'll still be a "win" for the drones. This is the future of air warfare and the leap ahead technology our adversaries will be pursuing to destroy our billion dollar, gold plated, flying toys.

Reply

tribulationtime November 4, 2010 at 4:46 pm

From my pointview, they want more flexibility on fly-plan to avoid a "tunnel" in the air so much time prohibited fly zone for others. Need "get-in get-out" faster without made a traffic jam because the drone spend too much time in the target vecinity, means target distance and altitude variations. So more power, and harder structural features, aerodinamics tune up and guess better command stuff. I scrap any stealth improvement. RQ-170 stealthy-looking can be that looking, fly-wing class aircrafts have own advantages.

Reply

nraddin November 5, 2010 at 1:40 am

Truly autonomous drones using messed networks and hive thinking and/or individual awareness don't need to wait for deconfliction of airspace any more than you need deconfliction between your four limps. The science and testing for this kind of 'work together' systems was developed years ago and is now pretty mature, if we where going to use hundreds or thousands of small cheap airframes in a given AO it's hard to think of a more logistically feasible system. I personally see this as the wave of the future, airframes that cost little more than the warhead they are dropping or are just the weapon themselves (imagine cheap tomahawks that loiter for hours and can RTB if they don't find a target to be used again), using cheap sensors to but together a unified picture (Google maps or streatview stitched together in real time 3D video), ID and prosecute targets with greater reliability than a human all while requiring almost no interaction from controllers at all.

Reply

blight November 4, 2010 at 5:14 pm

To be fair, most manned aircraft aren't too survivable either, asides from specialized CAS-intended aircraft like the A-10 and helicopter gunships.

Reply

@Earlydawn November 5, 2010 at 12:31 am

I don't think they're talking physical survivability. As you said, any hit bigger then a small burst of autocannon fire is very hit-or-miss for most aircraft. They're talking countermeasures and defensive jamming.

Reply

Oblat November 4, 2010 at 5:39 pm

The real problem is that drones are too cheap – there just aren't the golden goose that manned aircraft are. Hence the need to gold plate them until they can barely get off the ground.

The next generation of UAVs need to be at least as expensive as the f35, and preferably more expensive. The long development time and extensive software required have all the makings of an R&D bonanza if managed correctly.

And the biggest plus is that they obsolete the existing fleet. It's a contractors dream scenario.

Reply

Belesari November 4, 2010 at 7:29 pm

Do you enjoy trolling? Really i've always wondered why they do it.

Is it a british thing?

Reply

Greg November 4, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Oblat tells it like it is.

Reply

Belesari November 4, 2010 at 9:03 pm

No OBLAT trolls. Its obvious. I have yet to hear anything good out of his mouth or really constructive. TROLL.

Reply

William C. November 5, 2010 at 12:07 am

Of all of the places to troll, I don't get why the guy hangs around defense-related websites? Some angry old hippie who hates the military? I don't know. All he does is criticize whatever the military does and everybody but himself. If the man had any substance at all he would offer his ideas, but I guess he just wants no military or something.

Rolo November 5, 2010 at 4:32 am

Olbat gets it very wrong too, as in "the drones are cheap" line of thinking.

Reply

blight November 5, 2010 at 9:50 am

Drones /are/ cheap in that each one does not exceed ten million. A cruise missile is cheaper, but single-use.

Hopefully GA stays true to the days when they had to sell drones as effective and low cost to an Air Force that didn't want them in the first place. Don't get comfortable, you don't have enough friends in the Pentagon to sell drones that cost more than fighter jets…yet.

Oblat November 5, 2010 at 5:14 am

When you are a paid PR flack from the defense industry the American taxpayer is not a friend.

Reply

Belesari November 4, 2010 at 6:01 pm

"While he didn’t elaborate on what he meant by more survivable, I’ve heard senior Air Force officials talk about the need to make next-gen UAVs such as MQ-X faster, more maneuverable and equipped with countermeasures or maybe air-to-air weapons."

OK not again. Faster maybe but not to fast it also needs a good loiter time and a low stall speed. Manuverable, yes. Air-to-air? No. Counter messures yes. Screw stealth.

Basically take a A-10 figure out how to make it nearly as survivable. While keeping whats needed. We dont need another damn strike fighter. We need a heavy CAS drone.

Reply

greg November 4, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Just use the mq-1c avenger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Aven…. Then you can use existing infrastructure and have a better RoI and a lower TCO. No need to completely retrain, and already fits the bill.

Reply

blight November 4, 2010 at 7:06 pm

Looks badass, but one of those few instances where it doesn't make big bad Lockmart or Boeing mega-billions.

Reply

greg November 4, 2010 at 7:57 pm

Lockhead martin makes the optics on the thing. It's supposed to be the same one that works on the f-35. All the more reason to get this bird.

Reply

blight November 4, 2010 at 11:24 pm

Electronics isn't quite the same as being the prime contractor. Funny, the smaller company seems to deliver workable product with over-runs and stalls…

Reply

Greg November 5, 2010 at 9:55 am

You won't get my argument there. When I first saw the avenger I thought we have a winner. Too much common sense though, I loath to say it but it seems like our service aims to fail almost always.

nraddin November 5, 2010 at 1:25 am

survivability is going to have to mean passive or automatic defense systems for the most part. With a 1 second each direction delay between do to the satellite up-link between airframe and controller there is very little hope in a dog fight or trying to dodge SAMs. Two seconds is a long time to lag out in combat. I am sure in the near future automated systems will be able to handle everything the pilot could handle and more with better accuracy but until then I suspect they are talking about lower IR, more speed, more EM stealth, and countermeasure dispensers, lights and lasers.

Reply

Mart November 5, 2010 at 9:18 am

What if by "survivability" he meant "less malfunctions"? I read somewhere that we loose a lot of drones due to technical malfunctions as opposed to enemy fire. But then…I dont really know the statistics.

What they should come up with is a super drone that can dock with a blimp up in the sky or be carried by a blimp to increase its loiter time. Imagine that huh .. a CAS drone attached to blimp so it can follow troops on patrol and upon encountering enemy it can just unattach and swoosh down like a hawk, kill everything in sight and then fly back to the nearest base on its remaining fuel – or even dock with the blimp again. huh? Now that wouldnt that be sweet?

Reply

chaos0xomega November 5, 2010 at 9:24 am

The problem is the Blimp is a pretty large target, and one thats not very difficult to neutralize. Unless its one of those new-fangled high-altitude airships, Joe Towelhead will be able to put rounds into one from the ground with his AK.

Reply

blight November 5, 2010 at 9:39 am

Assuming our next enemy is Joe Towelhead and not Joe of nation state with surface to air missiles.

Blimps are overrated anyways, since the buoyancy of the blimp is proportional to altitude and internal volume. The Navy's L-class blimp was quite large and only carried ~2,000 pounds of usable payload. They are not efficient at carrying bulk payloads. You're also not invested in a difficult-to-procure-and-resupply item such as pressurized Helium, or it's dangerous alternative, hydrogen.

Reply

tiger November 5, 2010 at 7:10 pm

You saw the same Jessica Biel movie I did.

Reply

Sanem November 5, 2010 at 9:53 am

does the Air Force really know what it needs?
they "needed" 700 F-22s to fight off the Soviets
they "needed" the F-35 to replace all those light fighters: if it wasn't for the CIA putting rockets on drones, they might still be bombing the Taliban using B-2s
the UK "needed" two big aircraft carriers, turns out they can't really afford them, never mind if they'll ever really need them

what they "need" is an effective anti-SAM system, like 70 mm guided rockets. shot per shot cheaper than SAMs, they would make drones untouchable until the laser becomes usable

Reply

LeoC November 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Hmmm, we need a stealthy drone (MQ-X) that is able to operate in contested airspace. We can spend mucho $$$ and 10+ years in R&D or we can dust off the plans for the RQ-3 Darkstar. Need flying prototypes to update the avionics? No problem. I know of three airframes collecting dust now in museums. Just a thought if you want to save time and $$$$.

Reply

Zed November 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm

The advantage of UCAVs are they expendable and persistent. Who cares if hundreds are lost. That means they need to be cheap. 150m per plane doesn't make sense. Modern air defenses make manned aircraft obsolete. Stealth is obsolete too. That said, the US does need a high altitude unmanned jet powered aircraft. Long range hypersonic cruise missiles might be the way to go, too.

Reply

William C. November 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm

Stealth is obsolete? Manned aircraft are obsolete? Where do people come up with this ideas? Have you been reading too many brochures for Russian SAM systems?

What the USAF needs into the future of a mixed force of both aircraft and UCAVs. Your not going to make a combat capable UCAV cheaper than a SAM, however we could develop a target-drone like UAV which could simply exist for people to fire SAMs at. You would need huge numbers of those however.

Reply

tiger November 5, 2010 at 7:07 pm

What good does a hypersonic cruise missile do for guys in the foxholes? Not much.

Reply

crackedlenses November 5, 2010 at 7:31 pm

It would eliminate a bunch of the guys trying to kill them, and maybe even convince a few to surrender…..

Reply

blight November 6, 2010 at 11:24 am

You could argue what good is air support for the guys in the foxholes? If you have enough cruise missiles on tap and they arrive in a timely fashion, fire support is fire support.

During Vietnam they used drones to exhaust NVA SAM inventories. I imagine drone saturation in the future could be part of the SEAD mission. And if those drones had anti-radiation capability to attack SAMs as well…

Reply

MadMike November 5, 2010 at 5:35 pm

Do what the Russians have done in countless ways in the past: Make 'em cheap, but make a lot of 'em. I recall some footage of a drone facing down a fighter sometime back. Anyone recall?

Reply

jhm November 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm

no point, a modern fighter would easily shoot it down from BVR.

Reply

asdf November 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm

yes, there was a shootout in the starting days of OIF between an iraqi MIG (29 or a su maybe) and a predator (or similar) drone, armed with stinger. the mig won.

Reply

Belesari November 4, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Then it would be worthless. SAMs are FAST.

Besides jihadi's have few SAMs.

Reply

blight November 4, 2010 at 11:25 pm

Nothing wrong with a Sherman of the air.

Reply

Jimbo November 5, 2010 at 8:57 am

Right, like that German gunner saying about Sherman tanks: “I don’t believe the City of Detroit sends its young men to their deaths in these contraptions… It’s too simple: you hit it once, BOOM and they go up in flames.”

YES I know ‘they won the war’. But compared to a Panther, Tiger or even T-34 they sucked big time.

Bad name. If you want a proper US name for a new, speedy UAV – call it the MQ-X “Yeager” (as in Chuck ~). Giving names to weapons is an English custom anyway.

Reply

blight November 5, 2010 at 9:47 am

Jimbo: American training programs of late WW2 emphasized volume over quality, and that giving them a better tank would probably not have helped much? UAVs are unmanned, so they should be viewed as more expendable than a manned vehicle. Survivability is nice, but survivability appropriate to the expected mission profile.

A Global Hawk which stays high altitude and is unlikely to get shredded in ground fire doesn't need a titanium bath-tub. If anything, heavy armor would make the Global part of the name more difficult to follow.

Predator and Reaper are in range of enemy weapons, so survivability measures should be considered only as a function of what you lose from payload or range. CAS strike aircraft already have the issue of long flight times and limited loiter compared to a heavier bomber, slower turboprop or a UAV, and considering how procurement of the first and second are dead, the UAV should be complementing, not sharing the deficiencies of CAS aircraft.

Reply

Jacob November 5, 2010 at 5:34 pm

Well still, we're not mass-producing UAV's like we did with WWII aircraft. At some point attrition will cripple the fleet.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: