"...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

"For the good of the Air Force, for the good of the armed services and for the good of our country, I urge you to reject convention and careerism..."
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Maxwell AFB, April 21, 2008

"You will need to challenge conventional wisdom and call things like you see them to subordinates and superiors alike."
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, United States Air Force Academy, March 4, 2011

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Why I Believe UAVs are Better than Manned Fighters

Due to Popular Demand (written about a year ago)...

I am of the opinion that UAVs (both existing and capable of existing within months using today's technology and sufficient motivation among lawmakers and the defense industry) can provide the ISR that our warfighters in the DoD (and especially the SecDef) are demanding while simultaneously giving us an advantage beyond the F-22 and F-35 in terms of air supremacy and global strike. I also think it can be done cheaper and cost the taxpayers a great deal less money than our fleet costs us today both to purchase and to maintain. I also think it can be done relatively quickly if we can loosen the power grip of the culture of pilots running the Air Force and make the case to Congress.

So before I try to explain why I think why I do let me admit up front that I’m not a fighter pilot. Let me also say I have nothing against them and I think they do great things in certain roles and they certainly provide support I need to do my mission (much of the time). I also think they possess a great deal of flying skill required by the nature of their jobs. Unfortunately, however, they have limitations that play greatly in this discussion and some might suppose I have a chip on my shoulder for saying so. I don’t. I passed up the fighter/bomber track in pilot training for the good life of hauling cargo but after the events of 9/11 I volunteered for the Gunship and, like several in the class, ended up an attack pilot. I spent five of the last six years prosecuting interdiction, close air support, and armed recce missions and I have 1100 combat hours doing it. More importantly to this discussion, I have integrated air and ground effects hundreds of times with other aircraft including special ops assets, F-16s, F-15Es, F-18s, A-10s (once), EA-6Bs, AV-8s, Apaches and Predators. My integration has [redacted for OPSEC]. By integrate I mean sometimes employing together such as the Al Faw invasion on hit night of Iraq where I employed with a two ship of A-10s with limited coordination mostly deconfliction or with F-15Es such that coordination was required and their ordnance was dropped through my orbit or by lazing for F-16s. Most of the time, however, my integration experience is characterized by F-16s or F-15Es in the air stack well above me over an operation where the integration is on the radio and is characterized by radio communications and the passing of information and building of SA. This is key to backing up my claims. I have literally hundreds of hours in combat evaluating and building the SA of fighter aircraft. My experience leads me to conclude that single seat fighters have very low SA over the objective and provide little unless ordnance is required on a static set of coordinates. My experience with two seater F-15Es has been a little better but not significantly. I can’t offer much about my A-10 experience as we mostly just deconflicted airspace and target sets although during integrated live fire/dry fire missions with them back home in the states I was very impressed with their SA. What’s my point? My point is that single seat aircraft moving fast and flying in formation bring limited capability to a fluid ground environment. It takes a great deal of skill to bring that limited capability but in the end it’s still limited. When they would check into an air stack over an operation and contact the ground party asking for a situation update I often found myself wishing the ground party would tell them to just be quiet and wait to be called. The time they spent trying to develop the picture of what was going on took up a fair amount of time and radio chatter and once the situation changed (hostiles squirted in various directions) they generally would lose it quickly. On my aircraft we had multiple sensors and could independently track multiple targets giving us significantly more SA on the fluid dynamic. More sensors, more people, longer loiter time equated to a vastly superior amount of SA. This isn’t to say I haven’t made big mistakes or that our crew aircraft is blemish free. Comparatively, however, the more people involved and the more data (sensors) the better the outcome in my experience. This is just one major advantage UAVs bring to the table.

There will be no single seat UAVs. Each UAV will come with a host of analysts, sensor operators, and at least one weaponeer. The self induced panic and adrenaline producing fear that comes from unseasoned pilots imagining they are threatened will not be a factor although the trigger happy neophyte will still have to be guarded against (and will be with more oversight). I’ll talk more about the Blackhawk shoot down that occurred when two supersonic F-15Cs engaged a slow moving flight of helicopters later but I do want to bring up the killing of the Canadians by the F-16 pilots at Tarnak Farms because it painfully illustrates just what a limitation the pilot can be. In this situation they saw small arms fire 20,000 feet below them in an established ground fire practice range in friendly territory. They claimed the fog of war feeling of being threatened made them attack. As a reference, an AK-47 small arms machine gun (according to Wiki), has an effective range somewhere around 400 meters. The level of incompetence here is hard to translate to somebody without air sense that isn’t used to being shot at and seeing ground fire. It sounds “reasonable” to people that don’t know any better but to those with an idea the situation is staggering. I would liken it to an armored police officer that uses deadly force because he feels threatened by a four year old with a butter knife. Imagine instead of two pilots flying at 300+ knots you instead have a crew of people sitting in Vegas analyzing all the sensory data. The only thing they’re scared of is shooting the wrong people for the wrong reason. They can’t use the “self defense” excuse for incompetence or a masked trigger happy desire to be the first kid on their block to get a confirmed kill. The self defense rationale should be emphasized as it’s important. One might wonder why there aren’t lots more examples of fratricide by single seat aircraft if the SA of the single seat pilot is as limited as I make it out to be. The reason there aren’t more is because of release authority rules. Fighter/bomber aircraft ordnance employment is controlled by somebody on the ground that provides coordinates (generally) and other information to ensure the right target is hit. More importantly the pilot must get permission from that ground controller to release weapons. As such, the decision making of the single seat pilot is greatly reduced with target selection in most cases. They simply punch in coordinates, pickle, and the GPS does the rest in most modern cases. Where these sad stories arise is during exceptions to that control where the pilot, with limited SA, makes the decision. The most common example is the self defense loophole; a pilot can defend him or herself if engaged. There are other exceptions as well but they are rare. The AC-130 that I flew, however, was [redacted for OPSEC]. As the pilot I was [redacted for OPSEC]. [Redacted for OPSEC] the biggest reason was due to our many sensors, many eyes, many brains, and exceptional (though not perfect) SA. My aircraft aside, a single seat pilot (or two) is a limiting factor for several reasons including limited SA, the potential for emotional over-reaction, and the “self defense” excuse for trigger happy decisions. The multiple people and oversight a UAV will bring will bring about more rational, calm, professional decisions.

The single seat pilot is not just a limitation due to SA and decision making. He or she is also a massive physical limitation. Having a pink fleshy in the center of our flying machines requires an oxygen system, heating systems, cooling systems (which will still be needed for avionics in some fashion), pressurization systems (pressure suit or cockpit pressurization), ejection systems, and an often less than perfectly aerodynamic cockpit. How does this translate into capability loss? The aircraft must weigh more than it has to, can’t climb as high as might be desired, burns more fuel and costs more to operate, is exceedingly limited by its G maneuvering and defensive capability, is theoretically subject to more anti-aircraft threat rings, and can’t fly indefinitely (think weeks or months). The pilot is a major limitation.

UAVs have already started replacing the two obvious manned arenas….ISR and bomb dropping. There isn’t a need for much maneuvering typically in ISR collection and bomb dropping with today’s laser and GPS technology. We can still make better ISR and bomb dropping UAV platforms but when we make the next platform it should be an obvious choice to choose the unmanned version. We can expect UAVs with the stealth of the B-2, the speed of the B-1, and the payload of the B-52. Why wouldn’t we? There is nothing that requires UAVs to be small.

The heart of the fighter mafia isn’t safe from the UAV, either, although they’ve done a great job keeping the discussion out of the mainstream (although unmanned F-35 options have been discussed). It could be argued there are more benefits to unmanning air to air than any other area. The most exciting advantage is the significantly more maneuverable ability of a UAV although the heart of modern air to air engagements (especially in the theoretical early days of a conventional war with China where the “if it flys it dies” rule is in effect) remains the radar and the capability AWACs provides (another aircraft that can go unmanned). The days of Mig Alley are pretty much over and he with the best radar and missiles with the best range usually wins. There isn’t much need for a furball these days outside of the MOA back home in a training area. Paint, shoot, about face, and then confirm you got em. But certainly you may need to get closer in some circumstances. For example, if you are flying in a fairly low threat peace keeping environment dubbed “Operation Provide Comfort” enforcing a no fly zone in your supersonic F-15C and you see two possible enemy helicopters that aren’t squawking. You may want to shoot them down because they could be Hinds terrorizing the Iraqi people. But they may not be. You need to do a visual ID pass to ensure they are in fact hostile. What happened on April 14, 1994 however was two trigger happy pilots took the lives of 26 U.S. servicemen because they saw what they wanted to see and later justified their response with, you guessed it, fear they were threatened by the vastly inferior helicopters. A Hind is a threat to larger aircraft in certain circumstances but is not a credible threat to a supersonic F-15C. The F-15Cs did a visual pass within roughly 1000’ of the helicopters and at a speed of 400+ mph. The helicopters were dubbed Hinds although they were clearly not due to paint scheme and instead of the pilots following ROE to then determine the nationality of the helicopters they instead reported they were “engaged” (ie threatened or fire upon by the helicopters) and took them out. I think it’s instructive that one of the pilots flying over the burning wreckage of the helicopters said, “Stick a fork in them, they're done.” We can see again in this scenario the “self defense” excuse conjured out of thin error to allow two trigger happy neophytes to be the first kid on their block to get a confirmed kill. If I make it sound like they were a couple of kids living out their childhood movie fantasies that is because that’s exactly what I’m saying. Part of the problem here is a culture of immaturity fostered by the fighter (primarily) community where a job requiring a professional, sterile, calculating decision to kill is met by a slap sticky, cocky, unprofessional with a cloudy “cranium” that killed 26 Americans in “6 to 9 seconds” but sounded cool on the radios doing it. When that attitude and culture informs the decision to kill it’s an issue. I know this sounds over the top and if there is anything I'll take flak for it will this but I think it deserves to be said. There is a cultural immaturity I think has to be factored into the process and when that immaturity is combined with boredom and the feeling of "this may be my one shot" then young guys (and old) tend to get creative in a bad way. Now to be fair, the issue of professional killing is not at all limited to the fighter community. It’s most definitely found in my own community and I would hazard a guess it’s also found in the trailers of UAVs. It’s a human issue and [redacted for OPSEC]. But I would postulate that with the “detached killing” that comes from flying UAVs with multiple people and more oversight we will see more professional killing with limited fratricide and human collateral damage. Fog of war and “self defense” are not get out of jail free cards although, unfortunately, none of the pilots in the two examples I cited did jail time.

So how would a UAV have done a better job with the Blackhawk shootdown? First, the sensors would have been much better than the “mark one eyeball” that saw two Hinds that didn’t exist. Secondly, the visual pass could have been done supersonic, closer, and provided crystal clear digital photos to a group of people with all the resources and time necessary to make a very positive identification. The SA of the pilot would have been nothing compared to the SA of the crew on the ground. Most importantly, there would be no conjured excuse of self defense to mask unprofessional trigger happy human desires. Lastly, unprofessional human desires would be likely checked by a system of oversight.

UAVs are the answer for ISR, attack, and air to air operations. Cargo and tanker operations should stay manned for the most part (with a few specialized exceptions) because in both we will want the option to haul people. If we haul people we will require the same systems and have the same limitations as a manned aircraft so being unmanned will not be an advantage. I think we can begin developing these systems now to meet our current and future needs and will save money in the long run doing it. First, one of the advantages to UAVs is the ability to fly higher and burn less gas with less weight and fly longer (with manned or unmanned in flight refueling). This equates to less gas burned, less sortie generation required, less maintenance required (aircraft break when they stop flying more than when they are flying), and less of a forward deployed footprint needed. As [redacted for non-attribution] stated in a recent post logistics like search and rescue capability are no longer required, as well. The logistical support and force structure required to support operations will be lessened and more importantly less junk will need to be hauled across the world to support saving money and gas. We won’t be hamstrung as much by countries not letting us base in their territory and lives will be more stable for our airman improving retention and quality of life. As far as purchasing a brand new aircraft with that “new UAV” smell….that should be cheaper, as well. Less specialized systems are required (outside of the data link systems that many manned aircraft already have). The aircraft I fly now has a cost mostly accounted for by the ejection seat, as an illustration. Without all the life support systems a UAV can be much cheaper and, with the exception of air to air UAVs, a one size fits all approach can be taken for many missions. Meeting the desired ISR objectives means we will purchase in bulk driving the per unit costs down further. The UAV that provides the ISR we need today can be used to penetrate China’s IADs and drop bombs to supplement our cruise missile technology. Training for the UAVs will save money, as well, because operators don’t need to build “air sense” related to flying and feeling Gs and operating in austere environments. Like the Global Hawk most of flying becomes click and drag with a mouse. Much of that training can be accomplished easier with computer simulators lessening peace time training costs.

Let me sum up this novel. The single seat pilot is the limfac both physically and more importantly mentally with great limitations to decision making mostly owing to the real or invented “fog and friction” of being threatened and needing to invoke self defense. Every auditory and visual sense the pink fleshy pilot has in a cockpit can be accurately transmitted to operators on the ground and enhanced in near real time if not in real time providing better situational awareness. SA is not a casualty of the unmanned argument. The advantages given by going unmanned can be achieved now and will cost significantly less money. Leveraging the technology, however, will mean filling the skies with UAVs beyond the pilot production pipeline. It will mean opening up the virtual cockpit to non-pilots with less training (a year long tech school will not be required) and an Air Force that may not longer be dominated by pilots. I would think Space Command might be a good command to take over the reigns of the Air Force as I would think UAV ops would be well suited to their capabilities.

I look forward to your spears and comments.

16 comments:

  1. Yikes. Obviously, I have some significant disagreements here, although there are some valid points - somewhat hard to find among the stream of consciousness. Some big things that jumped out at me:

    "...This is key to backing up my claims. I have literally hundreds of hours in combat evaluating and building the SA of fighter aircraft."

    Actually, you are drawing from an extremely limited sample size. How many conventional sorties? How many sorties where your crew was involved in the mission planning, but they were not? How many day sorties? Lots of CAS happens when you're not around.

    "They simply punch in coordinates, pickle, and the GPS does the rest in most modern cases."

    A gross oversimplification that illustrates your ignorance of fighter air-ground weapons employment more than anything else.

    "Where these sad stories arise is during exceptions to that control where the pilot, with limited SA, makes the decision. The most common example is the self defense loophole; a pilot can defend him or herself if engaged."

    How common? Since Tarnak Farms, what frat incidents in the AOR was caused by the "self-defense loophole?" Don't get me wrong, the F-16 pilots involved in this should have gone to jail - but get your facts straight.

    "There isn’t a need for much maneuvering typically in ISR collection and bomb dropping with today’s laser and GPS technology"

    Hypothetical: OEF, Konar region. OVC 050. Friendly convoy gets caught in an IED ambush with multiple casualties and taking fire from multiple directions. JTAC is slightly occupied and can't dig out the GPS and laptop to derive some coordinates. Day or night. UAV is 50nm away and gets re-rolled. Please explain your UAV's initial and follow actions.

    Yes, this is slightly nitpicking versus addressing your overall premise, but these aren't completely unrelated. When I have more time, I'll try to address your macro view.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You make great comments here and I'll try to address them with some substance soon. An accomplished Strike Eagle pilot buddy of mine has also managed to respond in the few hours since this was posted to tell me I'm out to lunch in at least a couple spots. His comments echo yours and I know he's a credible guy. I'll go put my thick skin on....

    More to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Actually, you are drawing from an extremely limited sample size. How many conventional sorties? How many sorties where your crew was involved in the mission planning, but they were not? How many day sorties? Lots of CAS happens when you're not around."

    You are right. My experiences are limited. I hope they are useful enough, however, to support my point that UAVs will provide greater SA than manned counterparts, longer loiter time, more maneuverability, cheaper operations, more fidelity, less chance of fratricide and collateral damage etc. But my experiences are limited. To answer your specific questions my experiences included no conventional sorties that I can remember. As far as sorties where we mission planned and the fighters did not there were none that I can recall. Fluid battlefield, pick up game, limited planning... As far as day sorties I can only think of one. Flight of two Mudhens below me. Very poor SA for the operation (one provides friendly coordinates in the clear to the other while they try to build their SA during the op). Your point is well taken...my experiences are limited.

    "A gross oversimplification that illustrates your ignorance of fighter air-ground weapons employment more than anything else."

    I'm sure it isn't as simple as I paint it out to be. My point was to illustrate that our smart weapons allow for dropping from pretty much any height and can get themselves to the target once released. A task that can be easily accomplished by a UAV. If you think the release is significantly more complicated please educate me.

    "How common? Since Tarnak Farms, what frat incidents in the AOR was caused by the "self-defense loophole?" Don't get me wrong, the F-16 pilots involved in this should have gone to jail - but get your facts straight."

    I'm not sure since Tarnak Farms. I don't have the data. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that it is much more likely a fighter aircraft will frat when acting without a JTAC than when following the guidance of a JTAC. This is pretty self evident hence the role of the JTAC. But UAV and other assets have much greater SA than fighter aircraft to the point their SA eclipses the JTAC. I'm even aware of examples of such an asset engaging the enemy against the clear instructions of a JTAC and ground commander simply because the conventional ground commander did not have the SA to know his men were being tore up in a firefight. Obviously not text book and I can't give any more details than that but suffice it to say UAS and other such assets provide a massive jump in SA that will prevent future frat. If you have some data to suggest otherwise please share as able.

    In your example of the UAV scenario I'm not sure if OPSEC would allow a precise description of how to skin that cat but suffice it to say it could be done and better than its manned counterpart.

    Great comments. Keep them coming. I'll post my Mudhen buddies comments when he gets them to me unless he posts on here himself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let me clarify the skinning of the cat comment above to prevent confusion. A UAS could do it better than a manned counterpart given capabilities that current UAS may or may not have (but easily could have).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't have enough time to develop this fully, but the persistence of UAS allows us to take Interdiction to the next level.

    Admin note, though, regarding your hypo, a UAV can get the initial cueing coordinates (in any format) for a TIC probably faster than anyone. I can plot a TIC in one of fourteen ways on one of several computers with full connectivity at my fingertips. Speed is an issue certainly, but endurance and loiter time offsets that. Theres more to it than I can write here.

    I would argue the problem with UAS at this point has far more to do with AF bureaucrats and AFPC foolishness than with the platform itself. If you start by putting them at crappy bases and making it a leper colony, it's pretty hard to come back from that. As a comparative study, look at the Army's use of UAS... despite the hyperbolic and kneejerk articles opposing their organic use, the reality is that their full capabilities remain lost on the AF operational level combat leadership. Regardless, now we're in a Catch-22, because once they lift the assignment freeze, everyone is out all at once, and they have to put it back on, which further tanks morale. Moreover, the disastrous 1U career field will tank our E-side, leaving us with not much. Maybe if we reconsitute then we can take it to the next level, but I believe the fact of the matter is the AF set up the program to fail, or at least to be red-headed stepchildren, and they got what they wanted, to the detriment of our nation's airpower and the guy on the ground.

    Anyways, the tremendous niche for UAS, even in a conventional way, is exploiting the 'ledge.' Think about mapping airspace control the same way army guys map FEBA/FLOT/etc. When you take out the badguy defenses, you push the blue air/red air line back. Instead of being stuck in the raiding mentality, which takes space and then gives it back after the raid is done, UAS doesn't have to give it back. So when you have an area that is blue air/red ground, you can park UAS up there and rain hellfires on tank columns until kingdom come. Think Killbox ops on crack. Anyways, off to write a paper. Out here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Disclaimer: From a fighter pilot...

    I can see why such a topic would generate a backlash. Not because of the topic, but because of how the topic is presented. You provide a very authoritative and assertive argument for something you know very little about--as is evident by some basic factual errors in your post.

    In addition, your whole premise belies a bias. Why, for example, did you not give a long and detailed argument advocating the AC-130 be replaced with unmanned aircraft? (After all, that's actually something you have first-hand knowledge of.) If your argument is that UAVs are the next big thing, why grind the axe against the fighter community? Make the argument based on the system, not the opposition to the fighter pilot culture. You paint with a very broad brush, and you apply the issues of a specific situation to the larger group as a whole. That may make for an interesting argument, but not a winning one.

    I am averse to belittling the combat experiences of others. Getting shot at is getting shot at. I will say, though, that to tout your personal SA is a bit disingenuous. While an AC-130 pilot is the AC and holds the big red button, I would venture that the majority of SA about what's happening on the ground resides behind the flight deck, not on it.

    "My point is that single seat aircraft moving fast and flying in formation bring limited capability..."
    You're bringing up limitations that are not restricted to the manned environment. An F-16 without a pilot would have the same limitations of speed, for example. If your thesis is the limitations of manned aircraft, your focus should be on the limitations of the man, not the aircraft. Otherwise, one might get the perception you have issues with the role of the fighter in general...

    As a fighter pilot, I agree that the choice of the pilot (not pilots) re: Tarnak Farms was one that may have resulted from an "imagined" threat. That said, your AK-47 reference is disingenuous because it makes the situation seem far more innocuous than it already was. The Canadians were using far larger bore weapons (and that information is publicly available). You can make your point without resorting to misleading analogies.

    "They can’t use the “self defense” excuse for incompetence...why there aren’t lots more examples of fratricide by single seat aircraft...The reason...is because of release authority rules."
    Your premise is based on the assumption that a UAV won't have to defend itself, which is ludicrous. UAVs abide by the same rules, and have the same risks. Thus, a UAV operator may still have to use a self-defense "excuse." Or are you prepared to say that a UAV operator can't use lethal force to defend his aircraft?

    You also presume that if not for the JTAC, there would be more frat. Do you have data to back that assertion?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "They can't use...a masked trigger happy desire to be the first kid on their block to get a confirmed kill."
    Why not? Is a UAV operator somehow morally superior or less human to those operating manned aircraft?

    "...a single seat pilot...is a limiting factor [due to] limited SA, the potential for emotional over-reaction, and the “self defense” excuse for trigger happy decisions."
    All those things are human elements, not manned aircraft elements. A UAV operator can also have limited SA, emotions, and the need to defend his asset. "Multiple people and oversight" do not guarantee a change to any of that. You also ignore the fact that in order for UAVs to "replace" manned assets, they would have to be so numerous that it would be logistically impossible to have the degree of oversight and leadership by committee that you imply is necessary. If a single sortie requires the pilot, sensor operator, weaponeer, analyst, and oversight, you've just quintupled the size of the Air Force to replace a single seat aircraft.

    "UAVs have already started replacing the two obvious manned arenas...ISR and bomb dropping."
    Not true. UAVs have not started replacing manned aircraft in bomb-dropping. Some UAVs may drop bombs, but that doesn't mean they're replacing manned aircraft. That's a logical fallacy. ISR is more arguable, honestly, though it is still debatable.

    "There isn’t much need for a furball these days...Paint, shoot, about face, and then confirm you got em."
    Think back to your military history. Remember when they took the guns out of aircraft because missiles had changed the face of war? We learned the lesson of "its not that simple" once already. It was called getting shot down in Vietnam. As a non-fighter pilot who has no experience in air to air combat, you are free to express your ideas, but you might consider not asserting them so arrogantly. Don't be so quick to dismiss out of hand something you very evidently don't understand. If you want to oppose it so vehemently, at least learn about it first.

    "...the pilots...reported they were “engaged” (ie threatened or fire upon by the helicopters) and took them out."
    I challenge you to provide one authoritative source that says the F-15 pilots fired "in self defense." You may find that rather difficult, because it isn't true. I will say, however, that your account bares a striking resemblence to the related Wikipedia article, though even it doesn't say anything about being fired upon by the helicopters. Incidentally, your "ie" translation of "engaged" is incorrect. Your argument is based on an incorrect foundation, which negates the value of your conclusion.

    "...with a cloudy “cranium” that killed 26 Americans..."
    Again, factually incorrect. They killed 26 people, not 26 Americans. No less tragic, but another indication of poor research and writing on your part.

    "Secondly, the visual pass could have been done supersonic, closer..."
    Do you have any idea what a supersonic pass at less than 1,000 feet would do to a helicopter? Again, don't speak authoritatively about something you obviously have no knowledge of. Make your point without resorting to making things up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "First, one of the advantages to UAVs is the ability to fly higher and burn less gas with less weight..."
    That "advantage" is primarily a function of propulsion, not the presence of a human. No UAV that was equivalent in mission and technology to a manned aircraft today would have a significant advantage in fuel or altitude.

    "We won’t be hamstrung as much by countries not letting us base in their territory, etc, etc,..."
    You're making UAVs out to be a panacea. They're not a holy grail. They're just an airframe without a person in them.

    Every system has its limitations. Here's a simple question: when was the last time a manned aircraft went "lost link"? How many manned aircraft, with human eyes on a target, have lost all SA on a target because their sensor tumbled and reset by itself? UAVs aren't perfect either, and neither are the humans that operate them.

    "Without all the life support systems a UAV can be much cheaper..."
    You're making strong, unsupported assertions that are highly debatable. Cite your evidence.

    "...a one size fits all approach can be taken for many missions."
    That's an amazingly naive statement. You fail to grasp that many limitations in military aicraft are a result of the aircraft, not the man.

    "Every auditory and visual sense...can be accurately transmitted to operators on the ground..."
    Yet another bold and unsubstantiated statement. If you can prove it, you'll make a lot of money for Raytheon et al when the Air Force stops flying training sorties in favor of an all-simulator peace-time training environment. (Which, incidentally, would apply to UAV sorties as well.)

    "If you think the release is significantly more complicated please educate me."
    It's like saying all driving is is turning the key and pushing the long pedal on the right. It's a gross over-simplification, and one that can't be corrected in the comments of a blog.

    You obviously have a passion, which is fine. But you undermine your own credibility when you claim to speak about things you have very little knowledge of. If you don't know how something works--and you should assume you don't unless you have knowledge otherwise--then don't try to explain it, and certainly don't use it as the basis to justify a larger point.

    "But UAV and other assets have much greater SA than fighter aircraft to the point their SA eclipses the JTAC."
    Sweeping, unsupported, and over-confident statements like that worry me as a human being, never mind as a military officer. People are most dangerous when they think their SA is the highest--because they're generally wrong.

    An honest UAV sensor operator should admit that, given the same technology, the SA he gets through his soda straw is less than if he was actually physically there looking around. The ability to see the environment around you, sans the limitations of a viewscreen, are enormous. Take Tarnak Farms. Suppose for a moment they really WERE being shot at. What would have happened to the UAV? It probably would have been shot down, because it never would have seen the ground fire. How many manned aircraft have to stop what they're doing to do a "weather check" because they can't "see" in two places at the same time?

    "In your example of the UAV scenario...it could be done and better than its manned counterpart."
    Again, since you don't know how a manned counterpart can do it, how can you possibly compare?

    Your willingness to draw analytical conclusions based on nothing but your own opinion forces one to read your entire article with incredulity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jon, thanks for taking the time to post your comments. The essay above was written to provide a perspective to those that can challenge my perspective and correct or confirm the ideas contained in it. As such your commentary is much appreciated.

    I will try to respond to your points at the soonest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Why...did you not give a long and detailed argument advocating the AC-130 be replaced with unmanned aircraft? (After all, that's actually something you have first-hand knowledge of.) If your argument is that UAVs are the next big thing, why grind the axe against the fighter community? Make the argument based on the system, not the opposition to the fighter pilot culture. You paint with a very broad brush, and you apply the issues of a specific situation to the larger group as a whole. That may make for an interesting argument, but not a winning one."

    I am an advocate for replacing the AC-130 with UAS. I apologize if I appeared to insinuate the Gunship couldn't be replaced. My intent was to show how multiple sensors/brains are one aspect that makes UAS more capable.

    As far as targeting the fighter pilot culture I do so because I think that culture was guilty of protecting their manned airframes at the expense of unmanned capability (when I wrote the essay we didn't yet have our current CSAF). I think there are parts of fighter pilot culture (and therefore the larger Air Force culture) that play into the UAV versus Manned Aircraft argument. That's why I included it and didn't just discuss systems.

    As far as taking micro examples and painting a broad brush of the macro I think you're right. Certainly all fighter pilots cannot be judged based on Tarnak Farms or the Blackhawk Shootdown and I could have done a better job making that clear. I hope those instances, however, demonstrated some advantages that UAS will leverage.

    "I will say, though, that to tout your personal SA is a bit disingenuous. While an AC-130 pilot is the AC and holds the big red button, I would venture that the majority of SA about what's happening on the ground resides behind the flight deck, not on it."

    I apologize if the essay seemed to tout my personal SA as that certainly wasn't my intention. My intention was to show the opposite...that it is the multiple sensors/brains that provide for superior SA. You are correct the SA is in large measure behind the flight deck. Part of the reason is because on the flight deck I do pilot things which detract from my SA. Behind the flight deck is the "booth" and I imagine they are much more like the "booth" controlling a UAS. They do have superior SA.

    "You're bringing up limitations that are not restricted to the manned environment. An F-16 without a pilot would have the same limitations of speed, for example. If your thesis is the limitations of manned aircraft, your focus should be on the limitations of the man, not the aircraft."

    I'm not sure I follow your point here.

    "As a fighter pilot, I agree that the choice of the pilot (not pilots) re: Tarnak Farms was one that may have resulted from an "imagined" threat. That said, your AK-47 reference is disingenuous because it makes the situation seem far more innocuous than it already was."

    I was under the impression it was a flight of Vipers instead of single ship which is why I mentioned pilots. I did rely on Wiki (this essay wasn't for credit and was simply for discussion so I wasn't barred from that less-than-academic source). I used Wiki for my facts simply to ensure I didn't inadvertently include information from a safety briefing or some other format that shouldn't have been made public. Thanks for pointing out any errors in my simplified renditions of complicated events. I hope my use of the events, however, remains useful to support my point that UAS offer greater capability than manned counterparts.

    My point wasn't to make the "machine gun" threat seem more innocuous than it was. I provided the Wiki stat concerning the AK-47 as a reference only. If you believe the machine gun fire was far more of a threat can you please post that information? There are several AAA pieces that can't reach 20,000 feet so I'd be interested to see the range of the machine gun fire you are discussing. In any rate, I hope the discussion served to illuminate my point concerning the superiority of UAS.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Your premise is based on the assumption that a UAV won't have to defend itself, which is ludicrous. UAVs abide by the same rules, and have the same risks. Thus, a UAV operator may still have to use a self-defense "excuse." Or are you prepared to say that a UAV operator can't use lethal force to defend his aircraft?"

    I am not saying a UAV won't have to defend itself. I am saying a UAV operator will be less likely to invent self defense claims in order to employ weapons because the "argument" carries less weight to impartial observers due to the removal of human operator risk and oversight from a crew of people.

    "You also presume that if not for the JTAC, there would be more frat. Do you have data to back that assertion?"

    I do not.

    "Why not? Is a UAV operator somehow morally superior or less human to those operating manned aircraft?"

    More oversight, the self defense argument carries less weight. I made no mention of morality or humanity.

    "All those things are human elements, not manned aircraft elements. A UAV operator can also have limited SA, emotions, and the need to defend his asset. 'Multiple people and oversight' do not guarantee a change to any of that."

    Good point. There are no guarantees. It seems to me that removing risk to the pilot will make "I was defending myself" less likely to be used to make poor employment decisions.

    "You also ignore the fact that in order for UAVs to 'replace' manned assets, they would have to be so numerous that it would be logistically impossible to have the degree of oversight and leadership by committee that you imply is necessary."

    I'm not sure I follow your logic here. It was not my intention to imply that "leadership by committee" is necessary. I believe more people provide more capability but in our business there are times when the decision maker must limit or deny input and simply act. This fact will go unchanged in the UAS but the UAS will have the capability when the environment allows for CRM (as opposed to the F-15Cs in the Blackhawk Shootdown that didn't have that option despite having all the time in the world to make a good decision).

    "UAVs have not started replacing manned aircraft in bomb-dropping. Some UAVs may drop bombs, but that doesn't mean they're replacing manned aircraft. That's a logical fallacy."

    Good point. I really meant to state they had begun replacing manned aircraft that provide air-to-ground munitions (not necessarily bombs). My understanding is the number of Vipers deployed downrange was reduced due to the addition of Reapers to the location. Replaced, augmented,... Somewhere there is a Reaper or Predator flying where a Viper used to patrol.

    "As a non-fighter pilot who has no experience in air to air combat, you are free to express your ideas, but you might consider not asserting them so arrogantly. Don't be so quick to dismiss out of hand something you very evidently don't understand. If you want to oppose it so vehemently, at least learn about it first."

    It wasn't my intention to be arrogant in my essay. I apologize if it came off that way. I wasn't suggesting there would be no visual fights...just fewer due to greater BVR technology. I believe UAS will excel at both BVR and visual engagements. I am not a fighter pilot so I appreciate your inputs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I will say, however, that your account bares a striking resemblence to the related Wikipedia article, though even it doesn't say anything about being fired upon by the helicopters. Incidentally, your "ie" translation of "engaged" is incorrect. Your argument is based on an incorrect foundation, which negates the value of your conclusion."

    It was based on the Wiki account. Thanks for correcting my use of the term "engagement." I agree with you it detracts from my argument.

    "They killed 26 people, not 26 Americans. No less tragic, but another indication of poor research and writing on your part."

    Thanks for pointing out the error of my assumption. I agree my accounts of the Black Hawk Shootdown and Tarnak Farms were poorly researched.

    "Do you have any idea what a supersonic pass at less than 1,000 feet would do to a helicopter? Again, don't speak authoritatively about something you obviously have no knowledge of. Make your point without resorting to making things up."

    Apparently not. My intent wasn't to make anything up but merely to suggest a UAS could fly faster and closer to ID a bogey.

    "You're making UAVs out to be a panacea. They're not a holy grail. They're just an airframe without a person in them."

    Regarding the basing advantages I think it's safe to say that because UAVs don't house a person that needs to sleep inside them then they have a greater range. A greater range will result in a smaller forward deployed footprint.

    "Every system has its limitations...UAVs aren't perfect either, and neither are the humans that operate them."

    I agree.

    "'Without all the life support systems a UAV can be much cheaper...'
    You're making strong, unsupported assertions that are highly debatable. Cite your evidence."

    I have none. I have reasoned that oxygen, ejection, pressurization, avionics, and heating and cooling systems cost money with ejection seats and avionics making up most of that. It may not save as much money as I assumed.

    "Again, since you don't know how a manned counterpart can do it, how can you possibly compare?"

    I know how a manned counterpart can do it.

    "Your willingness to draw analytical conclusions based on nothing but your own opinion forces one to read your entire article with incredulity."

    I agree that's a good approach to my essay. I also agree that it wasn't well researched or particularly good. It wasn't an academic submission or part of an assignment and was hastily written to respond to several fighter pilots in my PME discussion who maintained that manned aircraft were more capable than unmanned aircraft. I hope despite the several flaws you illuminate that it still adds something to the discussion.

    Thanks for your outstanding comments.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'll address two points from your 0535 comment first:

    "...it is much more likely a fighter aircraft will frat when acting without a JTAC than when following the guidance of a JTAC"

    Actually I hold that the exact opposite is true. The "CAS without a JTAC" scenario is a pretty high emphasis, and has been for years. There are numerous facets to this scenario that I've battled during multiple deployments that aren't worth getting into, other than to say this: if a two ship of fighters (at least the ones I fly) check into some dire ground situation and there is not a JTAC on station - the last things the fighters are going to do is see this as opportunity to freeball and fire away. They are going to be extra vigilant about deconflicting fires (if fires are absolutely necessary) from the friendlies. And BTW, the two frat incidents I'm familiar with in the AOR were both under the control of a JTAC.

    Secondly: "In your example of the UAV... suffice it to say it could be done and better than its manned counterpart."

    Suffice to say? I'm just supposed to take you at your word? Try again. You have my home email, and I'm on both the NIPR and SIPR Global. Fire away. I'll address your rather open-ended caveat in a moment.

    Here's another one for you: the targets are dudes in a single truck. It is up to you the make, model and year. You can decide the environment: weather, wind, terrain. Day or night. You can make the threat level whatever you want. Friendlies can be a factor, or not. My only stipulation is this: the truck is moving at 50 mph. What UAS platform, what weapon and how do they employ it? Again, you know where to send your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As for your overall post, CFP already covered some ground and I'll try not to repeat. It is somewhat difficult to adequately address your premise due to it is somewhat confusing, both in terms of time and scope. Your first paragraph alludes to "technology available within months." How many months? Less than a year? Then later you say "We can expect UAVs with the stealth of the B-2, the speed of the B-1, and the payload of the B-52". Well when can we expect that? Months? Whatever your drinking, I'll take two. [The last quote is concluded with "There is nothing that requires UAVs to be small." Well, a good deal of your argument requires it: less weight, less gas, fly higher, less mx, less specialized, cheaper, etc, etc]

    You then amend your comment with "A UAS could do it better than a manned counterpart given capabilities that current UAS may or may not have (but easily could have)"

    You left yourself a mighty big out. Easily could have? When...and with what? The above statement + $5 = maybe a cup of coffee. Lots of things could happen. Again, what exact timeline are you talking about? If you say we can cancel all Fighter AEFs within the next 9-12 months, you have failed to provide any evidence to support that. If you're saying the last fighter pilot has been born and in twenty years everything is going to be UAS, you need to completely redefine your airpower framework beyond the current fight.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Which leads to my second comment about scope. Again, in your intro paragraph you say that UAS (in some indeterminate amount of time) can completely absorb the roles of air dominance and global strike. Yet, the cast majority of your evidence consists of the current theater: Southern Watch, Tarnak Farms, air stacks in OIF/OEF, squirter scenarios, etc. The examples you give outside of the current AOR (China) illustrate a near complete lack of understanding of how air dominance is achieved and maintained:

    "The UAV that provides the ISR we need today can be used to penetrate China’s IADs..."

    Really? I had no idea our current UAVs were impervious to any and all EW / Radar / SAM / IR / AAA and A/A threats.

    "The most exciting advantage is the significantly more maneuverable ability of a UAV although the heart of modern air to air engagements..."

    I'm confused for a couple of reasons: first, I'll be sure to remember that the next time I need a UAS to move his altitude block 2000 feet higher and five minutes later, he's still telling me to 'standby.' Secondly, one sentence later, you state the days of the furball are over and all we need is an unmanned platform to lob missiles, turn cold and then medals for everybody. So do we need maneuverability or not?

    CFP covered most my other points rather well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neal, thanks for the comments. You bring up some shortcomings of the essay and weak writing areas. I'll put some thought into all these points and try to state my position better in the near future.

    ReplyDelete