Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DARPA works towards unmanned CAS missions using adapted A-10.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DARPA works towards unmanned CAS missions using adapted A-10.

    Below is a link to the relevant story

    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...se-air-support

    While tests were apparently conducted with a 'manned A-10' an unmanned version of the experiment is certainly possible. This raised a question - whats to stop you from removing the ejection seat, aviation controls and oxygen system, in fact all the equipment needed by 'wetware' to fly a current 4th generation fighter (think F-15/F/18/F16 etc) and then installing the electronics of a high end drone in it's place?

    Is it just the reluctance of the 'fighter pilot' air forces around the word that is stopping this and would such aircraft be practical alternatives to their manned counterparts?
    If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

  • #2
    It depends what you want it to do. If all it needs to do is take off and fly a specific pattern to be shot down by a missile over the White Sands test range, that is pretty straight forward.

    In order to actually perform the kind of missions our drones perform, it will need more than just a system to control the flight surfaces however. It would require the installation of a wide variety of forward and downward looking sensors as well as the communications gear to let those sensor talk to both the guys on the ground as well as to satellites that can relay those signals back to Arizona, from where they are being piloted. Unfortunately, this introduces about a 2 second lag in communications, which is unacceptable for quickly evolving combat situations.

    Rather than drones replacing the man in the cockpit, I think the direction we are headed is for the man in the cockpit to have control of drones that help him achieve his objectives. You can kind of see where the concept is headed from the design of the F-35 and LRSB. You get a stealthy manned aircraft that is loaded down with sensors and comms equipment that is constantly sucking in, sharing, and analyzing information about the battlefield while more or less flying itself. This leaves the pilot free to do things like direct UAS (whether purpose built drone or repurposed manned aircraft) to strike targets as they are identified. Keeping the UAS control local eliminates communication lag, and allows for stealthy and even unjammable communication via MADL or laser.

    So I think what the article describes is totally feasible, but I don't know how the economics shake out compared to just manufacturing a purpose built drone.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 30 Sep 15,, 14:55.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yep.

      Comment


      • #4
        There also could be issues with datalinks (the Taliban probably can't hack it, but the Iranians or Russians could muck around with it).

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          In order to actually perform the kind of missions our drones perform, it will need more than just a system to control the flight surfaces however. It would require the installation of a wide variety of forward and downward looking sensors as well as the communications gear to let those sensor talk to both the guys on the ground as well as to satellites that can relay those signals back to Arizona, from where they are being piloted. Unfortunately, this introduces about a 2 second lag in communications, which is unacceptable for quickly evolving combat situations.
          I note your point about the current drones being operated from Arizona (for among other reason economy) - hence the two second com lag. But there's no reason combat drones can't be operated from any other location mucb closer to the combat zone say a vessel or command aircraft only a couple of hundred miles fro the front lines. As for the additional sensors reqioreeed I can't see thiose bebing an issue as youv'e already freed up space and weight in the process of removing the pilot.

          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          Rather than drones replacing the man in the cockpit, I think the direction we are headed is for the man in the cockpit to have control of drones that help him achieve his objectives. You can kind of see where the concept is headed from the design of the F-35 and LRSB. You get a stealthy manned aircraft that is loaded down with sensors and comms equipment that is constantly sucking in, sharing, and analyzing information about the battlefield while more or less flying itself. This leaves the pilot free to do things like direct UAS (whether purpose built drone or repurposed manned aircraft) to strike targets as they are identified. Keeping the UAS control local eliminates communication lag, and allows for stealthy and even unjammable communication via MADL or laser.

          So I think what the article describes is totally feasible, but I don't know how the economics shake out compared to just manufacturing a purpose built drone.
          The situation you describe still doesn't necessitate the pilot begin in the combat aircraft itself. In fact putting the pilot in a larger CCC aircraft where he doesn't have concentrate on the immediate combat environment around his own aircraft might offer distinct advantages. Especially if the drones he is commanding have advanced AI and have been 'trained' by experience human pilots to perform specific combat maneuvers in specific combat situations.
          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            it doesn't matter how close or far they are away from the operator. the operator cannot break through communication unless an intermediary platform is within line of sight. once that plane or satellite goes down, your drones are either gone or on limp back home mode.

            also we will never leave a drone to autonomously make shoot no shoot decisions. alot of heuman judgement is involved. you need a guy there having access to the full stream of info. the drone can do a lot of other things autonomously, but it can't do that crucial part.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Monash View Post
              In fact putting the pilot in a larger CCC aircraft where he doesn't have concentrate on the immediate combat environment around his own aircraft might offer distinct advantages.
              This is kind of what the USAF is doing with both their new fighters and bombers. The F-35 and LRSB are both stealthy platforms, that basically fly themselves while sucking in tons of ISR data, analyzing it, and compiling it with what other aircraft/ships/etc. are seeing. This makes each fighter/bomber aircraft into a mini AWACS and each pilot can devote a lot more time to data analysis, tactics, or directing drones rather than spending all their time and concentration flying their aircraft.

              The US's near peers are devoting a lot of resources into trying to take AWACS out of the picture for the US, and they may be successful. Having your front-line fighters and bombers share the sum of their sensor information rather than falling back on your single aircraft's sensors (or just looking out the window) goes a long way to mitigating that threat. If one group of fighters gets engaged by the enemy and the AWACS is out of the fight, seeing everything the guys in action see is a huge boon, and a hell of a lot better than trying to rely on the guys in combat to describe where they are, and what they see over the radio as they are busy dodging missiles.

              Centralized nodes like you seen in Soviet style IADS are a huge liability, and one that the US fully exploited when fighting Iraq. CCC aircraft represent a very centralized node for current USAF forces that would have a disproportionate impact if forced out of a fight. Information sharing among fighters and bombers won't replace an AWACS but it will make it hurt a lot less when they aren't present.

              Comment


              • #8
                All this work for a fancy bomb. Here's the freaking point. We need somthing with extremely loiter time to determine a specific target and then enough munitions to destroy that target.

                Translations: A sniper with a radio to an artillery battery at 10% of the cost.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  All this work for a fancy bomb. Here's the freaking point. We need somthing with extremely loiter time to determine a specific target and then enough munitions to destroy that target.

                  Translations: A sniper with a radio to an artillery battery at 10% of the cost.
                  That is pretty well covered between the B-1B, increasing levels of tube artillery, and drones.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    How about some unmanned chainsaw action? Just a little late for the 1st of April, but for some fun.

                    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Viwwe...ature=youtu.be

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X