thedrifter
11-24-07, 06:15 AM
UAV Aces?
Austin Bay has an interesting article on UAVs at Townhall.com, but his conclusion may be a little off base:
UAVs also present the United States with potential strategic problems. Since the end of World War II American military planners -- and for that matter, most of the planners in the rest of the world -- have assumed the United States would quickly obtain air superiority. We not only had the technology, we had an edge in pilot quality.
Robotic fighter aircraft cropping up in the air fleets of adversaries could change that assumption. Software for robotic aircraft is improving. The United States must get prepared to face a robot "fighter ace" -- one that will challenge American air dominance.
I am not nearly so sanguine as Bay about the prospects for "UAV aces." Air-to-air combat is simply too unpredictable and multidimensional to be performed successfully by UAVs. Two factors in particular make the development of an effective UAV fighter unlikely: the problem of situational awareness, and the fact that the best fighter pilots often succeed by pushing their aircraft beyond the envelope. No variety of sensors, even if linked to the most powerful computer, can evaluate and respond to the complex, rapidly shifting, multidimensional time/motion problems involved in air-to-air combat. The human brain does quickly and well what a computer does slowly and badly.
A UAV could be used as a beyond-visual range missile platform, which means it might do well as an anti-bomber interceptor (with the ultimate option of ramming the incoming bomber), but against small, agile targets in a dogfight, I do not see a real role for UAV, even given their potential for pulling double-digit G turns.
UCAVs will thus be limited to strike missions for the foreseeable future. As I've noted here before, UCAVs are developing along two separate tracks. One is a high-performance platform intended to penetrate sophisticated air defenses, a kind of reusable cruise missile (and what is a cruise missile but a UAV with a bad attitude?). The other is a low-speed, high-endurance platform intended for use in benign air defense environments such as pertain in COIN and other low-intensity conflicts.
Though the initial focus was on the high-performance UCAV, the high-endurance type is likely to have more impact, since the majority of conflicts fought by the United States will fall at the lower end of the spectrum. Since air support in low-intensity conflict consists mainly of surveillance and on-call close-air support, rather than strike/interdiction, the bulk of air missions can easily be performed by UAVs such as Global Hawk and Predator, thus taking the burden off of the over-stressed U.S. fighter/attack aircraft force. These, in turn, can be reserved for (and train for) high-intensity combat operations such as we would face in the event of a conflict with China, North Korea, Iraq (or even a resurgent Russia).
Ellie
Austin Bay has an interesting article on UAVs at Townhall.com, but his conclusion may be a little off base:
UAVs also present the United States with potential strategic problems. Since the end of World War II American military planners -- and for that matter, most of the planners in the rest of the world -- have assumed the United States would quickly obtain air superiority. We not only had the technology, we had an edge in pilot quality.
Robotic fighter aircraft cropping up in the air fleets of adversaries could change that assumption. Software for robotic aircraft is improving. The United States must get prepared to face a robot "fighter ace" -- one that will challenge American air dominance.
I am not nearly so sanguine as Bay about the prospects for "UAV aces." Air-to-air combat is simply too unpredictable and multidimensional to be performed successfully by UAVs. Two factors in particular make the development of an effective UAV fighter unlikely: the problem of situational awareness, and the fact that the best fighter pilots often succeed by pushing their aircraft beyond the envelope. No variety of sensors, even if linked to the most powerful computer, can evaluate and respond to the complex, rapidly shifting, multidimensional time/motion problems involved in air-to-air combat. The human brain does quickly and well what a computer does slowly and badly.
A UAV could be used as a beyond-visual range missile platform, which means it might do well as an anti-bomber interceptor (with the ultimate option of ramming the incoming bomber), but against small, agile targets in a dogfight, I do not see a real role for UAV, even given their potential for pulling double-digit G turns.
UCAVs will thus be limited to strike missions for the foreseeable future. As I've noted here before, UCAVs are developing along two separate tracks. One is a high-performance platform intended to penetrate sophisticated air defenses, a kind of reusable cruise missile (and what is a cruise missile but a UAV with a bad attitude?). The other is a low-speed, high-endurance platform intended for use in benign air defense environments such as pertain in COIN and other low-intensity conflicts.
Though the initial focus was on the high-performance UCAV, the high-endurance type is likely to have more impact, since the majority of conflicts fought by the United States will fall at the lower end of the spectrum. Since air support in low-intensity conflict consists mainly of surveillance and on-call close-air support, rather than strike/interdiction, the bulk of air missions can easily be performed by UAVs such as Global Hawk and Predator, thus taking the burden off of the over-stressed U.S. fighter/attack aircraft force. These, in turn, can be reserved for (and train for) high-intensity combat operations such as we would face in the event of a conflict with China, North Korea, Iraq (or even a resurgent Russia).
Ellie