Will a UAV make us redundant ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In my Basher
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will a UAV make us redundant ?
Will a UAV make us redundant or just safer ?
It would seem that MOD is hell bent on buying a (decent) UAV. There are currently a number of projects studying where and when we would use it, and also which bits we need bolted on.
My question is, as some of them fly themselves there and back but still have the "man in the loop" as a sensor operator. What happens to us ?
Currently Predator pilots are volunteers as they are guaranteed the choice of aircraft at the end of their tour. So I doubt its much fun then
It would seem that MOD is hell bent on buying a (decent) UAV. There are currently a number of projects studying where and when we would use it, and also which bits we need bolted on.
My question is, as some of them fly themselves there and back but still have the "man in the loop" as a sensor operator. What happens to us ?
Currently Predator pilots are volunteers as they are guaranteed the choice of aircraft at the end of their tour. So I doubt its much fun then
Been reading SHAR WARs eh? Well, I think the Government needs changing.
As for UAVs, I doubt very much that they are something we need to worry about. Remember the demise of manned aircraft was predicted before, by Duncan Sandys in 1957. I consider that UAVs will never have much of a combat role, except on the periphery.
As an Engineer I consider that the problems inherent in controlling those things, particularly if they are heavily armed, will be prohibitive. For example, what happens if you need to do a sortie during a rain shower? If you are depending on RF/Microwave links to the UAV, or satellite links, to communicate with the vehicle, then the loss caused by precipitation would cause the S/N ratio (and hence the bit rate) to fall like a stone dropped off of a cliff. What if the sorties is over several hundred miles or futher?
Then there is the issue of which is in control, the ground station
or the vehicle? Can you reliably ID aircraft or ground targets with what is basically a robot? Do you trust technology enough to put bombs/missiles on a robot without having a human there on the spot controlling things? Will UCAVs be acceptable to the public? After all, I doubt if many people would fly in an unmanned airliner, so why would they be happy seeing these things armed?
Having a pilot in the cockpit has saved the day in many situations which nearly ended up with friendly fire or civillan casaulties. Plus of course getting rid of the pilot will mean introducing much more instrumentation, computers and other stuff. This will make them more expensive than aircraft.
So should pilots worry about UAVs? Not in my opinion.
As for UAVs, I doubt very much that they are something we need to worry about. Remember the demise of manned aircraft was predicted before, by Duncan Sandys in 1957. I consider that UAVs will never have much of a combat role, except on the periphery.
As an Engineer I consider that the problems inherent in controlling those things, particularly if they are heavily armed, will be prohibitive. For example, what happens if you need to do a sortie during a rain shower? If you are depending on RF/Microwave links to the UAV, or satellite links, to communicate with the vehicle, then the loss caused by precipitation would cause the S/N ratio (and hence the bit rate) to fall like a stone dropped off of a cliff. What if the sorties is over several hundred miles or futher?
Then there is the issue of which is in control, the ground station
or the vehicle? Can you reliably ID aircraft or ground targets with what is basically a robot? Do you trust technology enough to put bombs/missiles on a robot without having a human there on the spot controlling things? Will UCAVs be acceptable to the public? After all, I doubt if many people would fly in an unmanned airliner, so why would they be happy seeing these things armed?
Having a pilot in the cockpit has saved the day in many situations which nearly ended up with friendly fire or civillan casaulties. Plus of course getting rid of the pilot will mean introducing much more instrumentation, computers and other stuff. This will make them more expensive than aircraft.
So should pilots worry about UAVs? Not in my opinion.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th May 2002 at 16:17.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not yet a viable threat to friend or foe, if this is to be believed.....
http://defence-data.com/archive/page14225.htm
http://defence-data.com/archive/page14225.htm
Did I do my research?
Well, due to spending over ELEVEN years working towards a RN career, including getting a degree in Electronic and Communication Engineering, a brief spell in the defence industry as well and having lifelong interest in both defence and technology, makes these things very apparent to me.
Those are just a few of the reasons that make UCAVs unfeasible.
Incidently, some puritans might point out that its the C/N ratio which rain would degrade. But S/N is dependant on C/N, and its S/N that is mentioned in the Shannon Hartley Law (which says channel capacity = Bandwith X Base 2 Logarithim of [S/N ratio (in numbers, not dB) + 1).
So you don't want to go drinking with me? Fine, be like that
Talking of the SHAR ....... just kidding! But I did read a few years ago that a UAV was being consider to replace the AEW Sea King. That idea seems to have been dropped now. UAVs for reece and possibly ESM, but for actual weapon delivery? Nah, it'll never work.
Well, due to spending over ELEVEN years working towards a RN career, including getting a degree in Electronic and Communication Engineering, a brief spell in the defence industry as well and having lifelong interest in both defence and technology, makes these things very apparent to me.
Those are just a few of the reasons that make UCAVs unfeasible.
Incidently, some puritans might point out that its the C/N ratio which rain would degrade. But S/N is dependant on C/N, and its S/N that is mentioned in the Shannon Hartley Law (which says channel capacity = Bandwith X Base 2 Logarithim of [S/N ratio (in numbers, not dB) + 1).
So you don't want to go drinking with me? Fine, be like that
Talking of the SHAR ....... just kidding! But I did read a few years ago that a UAV was being consider to replace the AEW Sea King. That idea seems to have been dropped now. UAVs for reece and possibly ESM, but for actual weapon delivery? Nah, it'll never work.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th May 2002 at 16:20.
WEBF,
Quite happy to debate SNR and Shannon-Hartley Law but hasn't the validity of his channel capacity theories diminshed somewhat with more advanced coding, compression and transmission algorithms?
Quite happy to debate SNR and Shannon-Hartley Law but hasn't the validity of his channel capacity theories diminshed somewhat with more advanced coding, compression and transmission algorithms?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks writing off UAVs might be a bit premature. The argument that a human operator will stop blue on blue does not always hold water - look at the number of blue on blue that have occurred due to pilots in the cockpit making the wrong decisions and there have been many.
UAVs have been proven in the recce role on operations. It is only a matter of time before we see them as weapons platforms - mark my words. In these days when it is not acceptable to the politicians to lose aircrew, the UAV offers a sound alternative without the risks to aircrew in the cockpit. After all, beyond the horizon munitions - cruise missiles etc don't rely on the operator being close to the target.
Yes there are likely to be a lot of barking ideas about how to use UAVs, but in time, like any emergent technology it will become the norm.
Just my humble opinion.
GB
UAVs have been proven in the recce role on operations. It is only a matter of time before we see them as weapons platforms - mark my words. In these days when it is not acceptable to the politicians to lose aircrew, the UAV offers a sound alternative without the risks to aircrew in the cockpit. After all, beyond the horizon munitions - cruise missiles etc don't rely on the operator being close to the target.
Yes there are likely to be a lot of barking ideas about how to use UAVs, but in time, like any emergent technology it will become the norm.
Just my humble opinion.
GB
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that we'll see a UAV armed force gain air superiority
over a conventional fighter force in the next twenty years.
And as with all role changes in warfare it will come as a
serious surprise to those with a vested interest in the
status quo.
Remember what cavalry officers used to say about tanks,
battleship commanders about aircraft carriers, phalanxes
about legions, fixed fortifications versus blitzkrieg.
-- Andrew
over a conventional fighter force in the next twenty years.
And as with all role changes in warfare it will come as a
serious surprise to those with a vested interest in the
status quo.
Remember what cavalry officers used to say about tanks,
battleship commanders about aircraft carriers, phalanxes
about legions, fixed fortifications versus blitzkrieg.
-- Andrew
Remember what Duncan Sandys said!!
Oh! 45 years on and still no indication that he was right.
Personally I don't think UAVs will ever be as flexible as manned aircraft. That is due to basic facts like the fact the Earth is curved.
Oh! 45 years on and still no indication that he was right.
Personally I don't think UAVs will ever be as flexible as manned aircraft. That is due to basic facts like the fact the Earth is curved.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that a UAV would be fairly practical, as has been claimed, in an Afganistan type situation both as a recce vehicle, but subject to the limitations of its sensors, and as a weapons delivery system against fixed targets. Doesn`t matter TOO much if it gets hit by ground launched missiles.I would also imagine that they would be very vulnerable to interception by any manned aircraft that was fast enough to catch it and would be totally useless at intercepting even another UAV let alone a manned aircraft.
Let`s not forget that a Cruise Missile is a UAV.
"Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. Please let me welcome you aboard this, the first passenger flight on a fully automatic aircraft. As you will have noticed, the computers controlling the aircraft have brought us to our cruising altitude of 37,000 feet much more smoothly than any human pilot could have done. Please let me reassure you that this aircraft is perfectly safe as has been proved in many thousands of hours of testing. Every piece of equipment is at least triplicated and absolutely nothing can go wrongongongongongongong.......................
MikeW
Let`s not forget that a Cruise Missile is a UAV.
"Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. Please let me welcome you aboard this, the first passenger flight on a fully automatic aircraft. As you will have noticed, the computers controlling the aircraft have brought us to our cruising altitude of 37,000 feet much more smoothly than any human pilot could have done. Please let me reassure you that this aircraft is perfectly safe as has been proved in many thousands of hours of testing. Every piece of equipment is at least triplicated and absolutely nothing can go wrongongongongongongong.......................
MikeW
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, cruise missiles are relatively easy targets for manned
aircraft - they have no external sensors, follow fixed to target
tracks, only real advantage is nap of the earth flying.
Air superiority UAV's will be a different kettle of fish.
I would imagine them being deployed with a pair of AARAM
missiles each under remote guidance from an AWACS - with
enough local processing to operate in battlefield conditions
with severe jamming. They will have smaller radar/i-r x-sections,
better turn rates than human operated vehicles, be cheaper to
deploy - in the final analysis they will act as their own air-to-air
missiles versus appropriate targets.
Moore's Law is driving all of this.
It will happen,
-- Andrew
aircraft - they have no external sensors, follow fixed to target
tracks, only real advantage is nap of the earth flying.
Air superiority UAV's will be a different kettle of fish.
I would imagine them being deployed with a pair of AARAM
missiles each under remote guidance from an AWACS - with
enough local processing to operate in battlefield conditions
with severe jamming. They will have smaller radar/i-r x-sections,
better turn rates than human operated vehicles, be cheaper to
deploy - in the final analysis they will act as their own air-to-air
missiles versus appropriate targets.
Moore's Law is driving all of this.
It will happen,
-- Andrew
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes machines and computers do have faults and do break down, however look at the causes of aircraft accidents (in peacetime particularly). The biggest cause factor is mainly human error, whether that is aircrew or supporting staff.
It will be a long time before people are ready to trust their lives totally to a machine without having a pilot monitoring it with the ability to take some form of control; but look at how automated the systems of the modern airliner have become.
WEBF yes it would appear Duncan Sandys was a little premature in his beliefs but that is hardly an argument against UAVs. A UAV does not have to have full remote control all of the time - it can be programmed to carry out a loss comms procedure.
"Personally I don't think UAVs will ever be as flexible as manned aircraft. That is due to basic facts like the fact the Earth is curved."
The earths curvature is not an insurmountable obstacle - look at the likes of Global Hawk which certainly go considerably beyond horizon.
Yes jamming can also be a problem but again not insurmountable and especially against a low-tech adversarywho doesn't have much if any capability.
"Well sort off......in that you can send less data."
How much data do you need to send to fly a UAV - not much I would wager. And where reduced bandwidth would make real-time recce more difficult again it would not be as difficult for a manned ac?
GB
It will be a long time before people are ready to trust their lives totally to a machine without having a pilot monitoring it with the ability to take some form of control; but look at how automated the systems of the modern airliner have become.
WEBF yes it would appear Duncan Sandys was a little premature in his beliefs but that is hardly an argument against UAVs. A UAV does not have to have full remote control all of the time - it can be programmed to carry out a loss comms procedure.
"Personally I don't think UAVs will ever be as flexible as manned aircraft. That is due to basic facts like the fact the Earth is curved."
The earths curvature is not an insurmountable obstacle - look at the likes of Global Hawk which certainly go considerably beyond horizon.
Yes jamming can also be a problem but again not insurmountable and especially against a low-tech adversarywho doesn't have much if any capability.
"Well sort off......in that you can send less data."
How much data do you need to send to fly a UAV - not much I would wager. And where reduced bandwidth would make real-time recce more difficult again it would not be as difficult for a manned ac?
GB