| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Tech | |
| Why Robotic Warplanes will Replace the Other Kind | |
| 2005-08-01 | |
| August 1, 2005: The U.S. Air Force warplane fleet has been shrinking for sixty years. At the end of World War II, the air force had 63,000 fighters (plus nearly as many bombers of various sizes). Currently, the fighter force stands at about 3,400, and is headed for 2,000 in the next decade. There are only a few hundred bombers (most of them A-10s.) This trend has been noted over the years, with one wag predicting that, sometime early in the 21st century, the U.S. Air Force would possess but one, very expensive, and very capable, fighter aircraft. The new F-22, for example, costing over $200 million each, has put a real squeeze on how many fighters the air force can afford. The dramatic reduction in the number of fighters has been made possible by the greater capabilities of the newer, and more expensive, aircraft. This has made it necessary to provide more training (as in more time in the air) for the pilots of these more expensive aircraft. But that’s where the U.S. Air Force has an enormous advantage. While potential foes of the U.S. strain to buy modern aircraft, they find they cannot afford to let their pilots fly them. This makes their fighters expensive targets, in wartime, if they have to go up against American fighters. This is the dilemma facing China. The Chinese have lots of proven, even inexpensive, fighters. And plenty of eager pilots. But they cannot afford to let these guys spend enough time in the air to become really good, or even effective. Not when oil is costing over $50 a barrel. It’s costing China big bucks just to let the pilots of its few hundred most modern (Su-27 class) fighters fly. The situation in Iran and North Korea is even worse, because Iran has no modern fighters, although they do produce their own oil. But a two decade long arms embargo prevents Iran from getting spare parts for its largely American made fighter fleet. North Korea has a few modern fighters, but no money to buy fuel for its poorly trained pilots. While the problems of potential foes gives U.S. Air Force generals some relief, the big problem, of growing aircraft cost, remains. The generals are wondering how they will maintain their reputation with fewer aircraft. The American fighter force has been so formidable, for example, that U.S. troops on the ground have not been attacked from the air in over half a century. New smart bomb developments have made it possible for anything that can fly to develop highly accurate attacks from the air. A few dozen, four decade old, B-52s are sufficient to carry all the smart bombs needed for most operations. But it’s not just the bombs that have gotten a lot smarter. Several decades of developing software to run aircraft has made it possible to send off a fully robotic bomber, or even fighter, on many types of missions. Air forces have resisted this sort of thing for over thirty years, although cruise missiles, which are one way bombers, are regularly used. But now, all those nations that see no way of competing with the F-22, do see it as possible to build a large fleet of robotic fighter aircraft. China has a lot more software engineers than it does highly experienced fighter pilots. American air force generals fear that the Chinese are moving slowly to expand their fleet of modern fighters because everyone believes that the next generation of fighters will be robotic, and a lot cheaper than F-22s. This is one of those rare turning points in weapons design. Similar to when the modern battleship (the British Dreadnaught being the first), made all existing battleships obsolete. A similar thing happened when jet fighters appeared in the mid 1940s. Nearly all those 63,000 American fighter aircraft in 1945 were prop-driven, and all those pilots knew that in the next few years, jet fighters would make all those prop fighters obsolete. Now the robotic fighters are about to make manned fighters obsolete, just like GPS guided bombs (JDAM) made dumb bombs dropped by a low flying fighter-bomber obsolete.
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #27 This is much more along than any of you think. You should see what is going on at Northrop Grumman and Lockheed. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-08-01 22:50 |
| #26 Incidentally, I am a missileer rather than a fighter jock, so my position on this is contrary to what my parochial interest would be. I have taken a different position on unmanned recce vehicles, for example. In particular, I castigated the "silk-scarf lobby" for shutting down the fantastically successful Firebee drone program at the end of the Vietnam War. I think that autonomous bombers are within reach. Remote-controlled ones are already here in the form of the armed Predator and it is only the beginning. Incidentally, successful weapons carrying trials were conducted with recoverable Firebees as long ago as 1968. Laser guided bombs and Maverick missiles were among the weapons released from the drones, which is quite sophisticated for that time and beyond anything that is operational today. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-01 22:34 |
| #25 I don't think that technology alone will ever defeat technology+human brain. In separating the latter from the vehicle, a remote-control fighter, we come up against some fundamental physical limits, the nature of the electro-magnetic spectrum itself. If you can detect an electro-magnetic signal, the link to a UAV for example, the enemy can as well. What can be detected can be interfered with. Technology itself makes this easier in the form of computerized scanners and jammers as well as several more esoteric technologies and methods. The problems of surface-to-air missile (SAMs) operations are a close analog to those of remotely piloted, as opposed to autonomous, UAVs. New technologies have been incorporated into SAMs too, but these are probably more susceptible to interference today than they were 30 years ago, to say nothing of the much greater capability of anti-radiation missiles. The latter are based on the principle that if a radar can guide a missile to a target aircraft, it can also guide a missile from the aircraft back to the radar itself. The obvious solution, to switch the radar off, has worked many times in practice but it doesn't work anymore, for reasons that I really can't go into here. In fact, SAMs probably reached the zenith of their effectiveness during the 1973 Yom Kippur war and have been declining relative to the threat ever since. Over Yugoslavia and Iraq, it was child's play for American aircraft to evade modernized versions of the same missiles that decimated the IAF in 1973 and the difference was not in the aircraft themselves. Russian and other sources claim that their newer SAMs would do much better, but this sounds like little boys whistling past the graveyard. These, and our own Patriot, have the same fundamental flaws as the old SA-6 and Nike Hercules, dependence on a broadcast em link. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-01 22:18 |
| #24 I am inclined to think that they will because of the length of time before the next one will be built. The F-15 took 10 years to first delivery. The F-2 took 25 years. I hate to think how long it will take to develop the next. In addition, the economics of the next plane will be prohibitive as Norm Augustine demonstrated. So it seems to me unlikely that the AF will be able to get the bucks for development absent a cold war with the chinese that isn't in the cards for many decades. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-01 22:14 |
| #23 the Lightning has been followed by three generations of successors; the Phantom, the Tornado, and the new Typhoon :> Shoulda kept the Lightning and bought tankers... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-01 22:08 |
| #22 Mrs. D I really don't think they will be, though as Jackal says, they might well be the last within my lifetime. I have a copy on hand of William Green's 1958 classic Air Forces of the World. In the section on Great Britain, Green confidently states that the English Electric P-1B (later the Lightning) would the last manned combat aircraft ordered for the RAF. Here we are 47 years later, and the Lightning has been followed by three generations of successors; the Phantom, the Tornado, and the new Typhoon. What might lie 50 or 100 years in the future is beyond my powers of prediction. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-01 22:02 |
| #21 I know you didn't ask Me, Mrs. D, but I'll reply anyway. I think the F-22 and F-35 will be the last manned fighters I will see during My lifetime. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-08-01 21:21 |
| #20 AC/JR Without disagreeing with what you have said, would either of you dispute that the F-22/F-35 will be the last generation of manned fighter delivered? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-01 21:12 |
| #19 Check the markings on this one AC..... 40 plus missions and home safe..... plus other markings. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-01 21:00 |
| #18 docob The problem with the remote control fighter is the amount of data that would have to be transmitted to give the remote pilot a really good view of the overall situation. This would include inputs from radar and multiple visual sensors as well as the usual flight data transmitted from more traditional drones. This means a lot of outgoing bandwidth and there is really no good alternative to this other than the fully autonomous robot. The more bandwidth you have going out, the more likely it is to be jammed and the more serious the consequences of the jamming. It also serves as a beacon announcing the drone fighter's approach and location. This might be an ideal time to share this amazing picture from the Vietnam era, supposedly a real-time monitor view of a MiG-21 caught by the tv camera on board a Firebee reconnaisance drone:  "This unique photograph is showing the control console aboard one of the specially-equipped C-130s, used to control AQM-34-operations over North Vietnam - just in the moment as a North Vietnamese MiG-21 was buzzing the drone! Parts of MiG's fuselage and wings - together with the SRVAF markings - can be clearly seen on the display of the main camera of the drone, which was used as navigation-aid. Sadly, the exact date of this incident, which occurred sometimes in 1970, remains unknown. (Tom Cooper collection)" I believe that this is actually a film still in a viewer on the ground, rather than a tv frame from the DC-130 controller aircraft. Note the absence of video controls and of typical crt lines on the image. In either case it is an amazing image. Check out as well what the link says about MiGs being lost attempting to intercept the drones; from collision, fuel starvation, fratricide, and simply hitting the ground. Note that five of these can be credited to the same drone, making it a robot ace. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-01 20:35 |
| #17 discussion here |
| Posted by: Spemble Achrinatus9967 2005-08-01 20:12 |
| #16 Atomic Conspiracy - I agree that "robotic" pilots are pretty far away from reality -- but I'd be interested in your view on fighters that are remotely controlled by human pilots. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-08-01 20:08 |
| #15 #14, Roger VF-84? |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-01 19:20 |
| #14 Having spent a career in the general vicinity of this topic, I agree completely with Atomic Conspiracy. |
| Posted by: jolly roger 2005-08-01 18:54 |
| #13 There's autonomous, and then there's autonomous. Our UAVs in operational use are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (or Ground Vehicles) but not Autonomous. (They're teleoperated by pilots.) There's been a lot of progress towards robotic capabilities such as machine vision, but it's still a huge challenge to make an autonomous vehicle for ground movement - i.e. one that can maneuver through a terrain on its own. Air vehicles are easier, since they generally don't need to deal with obstacles once they reach a certain height in the air. But it's still not exactly an easy task and our software isn't really up to it yet. |
| Posted by: HAL 2005-08-01 18:51 |
| #12 I believe the Israelis have a long range largely autonomous bomber flying today. You have to realize that autonomous weapons are disposable. Therefore it doesn't matter how good they are. What matters is how many you have. Do you have enough to overwhelm the enemy's defences? |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-01 18:40 |
| #11 I'm skeptical about the beam weapon thing, though. As Einstein showed, mass is a lot easier to handle than equivalent energy. Very large platforms may indeed be able to take advantage of beam weapons (their speed is very nice), but I can't see smaller UAVs and such ever having them. I don't work in that area, though, so all I know what I read on Rantburg. Sure Einstein was right, but thats on stuff like lasers and particle beam weapons (NPBs). However the kind of beam weapons they're talking about currently are HPMs (High Powered Microwaves), and guess what an AESA radar set can be configured to emit that. So dont be surprised at hearing that our jets in 2010 are already fitted out with energy weapons, they're just going a bit different than the pulse laser systems that the DoD is still fielding research on. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-08-01 17:56 |
| #10 Domingo says: "I've talked with people in the industry and they claim that the JSF will be the last maned combat aircraft produced by the US." That is eerily reminiscent of the British Defence Ministry's infamous 1957 White Paper, which predicted that guided missiles would make manned combat aircraft obsolete within a few years. This resulted in the wholesale cancellation of several promising military aircraft projects, a debacle from which the British aero industry never recovered. The idea that missiles had already reached this level in 1957 would be comical had the consequences not been so serious. As we know, no such thing has happened even to this day, almost 50 years later. (In fact, British aviation policy was so badly managed during the two decades after WW2 that some excitable types have suggested concious treason among Ministry bureaucrats as the cause. I doubt that, but it couldn't have been much worse if it were true.) Duplicating the functions of a human fighter pilot, and doing so for the entire duration of a counter-air mission, is much farther beyond the state of the art than this article and many casual observers apparently assume. The software for this is difficult enough, but it is not really software but sensors that provide the limit. For example, a truly robotic fighter would need not just an advanced AI system but 360 degree radar and a range of optical sensors that would match the acuity, breadth of field, and flexibility of a pilot's eyes. Beyond that, the control system must be able to deal with spoofing and countermeasures directed at all these sensors. This is a very tall order, since these countermeasures can (and should) be deployed simultaneously and often involve entirely unrelated technologies. Lasers and flares can confuse various optical systems, jamming can defeat radar, and there is no human brain to instantly assess the overall situation and decide on alternate courses. As of today, no fighter even has 360 degree radar. It presents a very difficult packaging problem for high-performance aircraft and putting it into a UAV with autonomous control and ECCM is at least an order of magnitude more difficult. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-08-01 17:54 |
| #9 One reason why the cost keeps increasing so radically is the number procured keeps diminishing. Per Unit Cost usually includes amortization of R&D costs. This means that whenever the fixed costs have to amortized across ever decreasing numbers of airframes, the cost soars. From 1947 to 1965, the USAF bought more than 4,000 bombers. From 1965 through 2005, the USAF has purchased 123 bombers (3 B-70s, 100 B-1s and 20 B-2s). Original planning called for 132 B-2's. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-08-01 17:35 |
| #8 Why not robot pilots? We already have puppet pilots |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-01 17:29 |
| #7 Yeah, when a totally self-contained robot fighter beats a human in air-to-air combat at Red Flag, I'll believe it. The problem is, it won't necessarily be a one-on-one dogfight. If robotic (or remote-human-controlled) aircraft become cheap and effective enough, they could overwhelm our highly capable but relatively few piloted aircraft. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-08-01 16:30 |
| #6 I can see a day when semi robotic airplanes that are capable of flying complete missions without supervision come to be included in the invertory but at the same time I can see that future air superiority fighters just might be remotely controlled by a human sitting in a van someplace. This would free the airframe of the maximum gee loads the pilot could withstand and still function while still retaining the combat initiative a human pilot would have. But I think before an airframe could be fielded the concept of virtual reality will have to be improve furthur. Also I think the concept of humans being taken further out of the loop will resisted strongly by the military and some in political circles. JMO |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-08-01 15:22 |
| #5 The problem I see w/robotic a/c is still there,no matter how many advances in technology there are. Who flies it? Does anyone thing we will have computers advanced enough to "see" and "think" like human pilots anytime soon? If not,that means a ground controller and that means communication could be jammed and then what do you have? So far,all UAV flights have been in a relatively friendly enviroment. What happens when the UAVs are called upon to fly over a country that has hundreds,if not thousands,of automatic jammers running,that uses missiles that home on electronic emissions? I have this nasty suspicion that depending completely on ground-controlled UAVs is all too reminiscent of Donitz trying to control his U-Boats by radio. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2005-08-01 15:22 |
| #4 Beating a human in air-to-air could happen - the robot can pull way more gees, and so can do sharper turns. But us humans is notoriously tricksy, so it probably wouldn't be as straight forward as some might imagine. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-08-01 12:37 |
| #3 Did they find Sarah Connor yet? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-08-01 12:24 |
| #2 Robotics are getting better all the time and someday may outperform manned aircraft. Someday isn't today, though. Some of our missiles should be renamed "hittles," because we finally have certain weapons that will hit more often than they miss. In another 20 years, who knows? I'm skeptical about the beam weapon thing, though. As Einstein showed, mass is a lot easier to handle than equivalent energy. Very large platforms may indeed be able to take advantage of beam weapons (their speed is very nice), but I can't see smaller UAVs and such ever having them. I don't work in that area, though, so all I know what I read on Rantburg. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-08-01 11:20 |
| #1 I've talked with people in the industry and they claim that the JSF will be the last maned combat aircraft produced by the US. Also, a directed energy weapon would replace the traditional on board gun aramanents. |
| Posted by: Domingo 2005-08-01 10:14 |