How long B4 UAVs completely replace pilots in US/Europe and will it minimize US stealth edge?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: How long B4 UAVs completely replace pilots in US/Europe and will it minimize US stealth edge?
free_man 12 1/21/2008 11:49:47 AM

Will the ability to build mass pilotless aircraft at low cost, as this site proclaims the Russians are planning on doind, dampen or overcome the stealth/techno edge that the US posseses? Will we ever see bombing missions with hundreds/thousands of bombers like in WWII, but they will be UAVs, where there is almost no unacceptable lmit on losses?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Wicked Chinchilla 1/21/2008 12:17:17 PM

I don't see how UAV's will minimize stealth at all.

Whether a UAV loss is more acceptable than a piloted aircraft is unimportant in the scheme of being able to complete a mission. If all of your UAV's are shot down on their way to the target your mission is just as failed as if all your manned fighters were shot down.

Stealth is an excellent way of getting your ordnance on target safely and successfully, be it a stealth cruise missile, or a bomb launched from a stealth fighter manned or unmanned.

The fact is that stealth is here to stay. The evidence behind this statement is seen in how every country in the world capable of producing a modern fast jet is working on, or part of, a fifth generation stealth fighter program.

Quote Reply

free_man 12 granted, but 1/21/2008 1:04:32 PM

I do not think modern airforces are built to combat hundreds or thousands of attacking aircraft at once. If you add all the F-22's the US is planning on building, and then add up all their missles on a given sortie, and taking into account that not nearly all the planes will be up at any given time, how would the US counter a wave of hundreds or thousands of low cost UAVs, each trying to drop one or two precision bombs?

Also, as for defense; if a country can "hover" hundreds of UAVs whoch then can be vectored to attacking bombers, can a sortie of a 20-30 aircraft penetrate hundreds or thousands of UAVs using active radar to seek those bombers?

Quote Reply

Ehran 1/21/2008 1:19:29 PM

the problem may lie in your definition of "low cost". if you want a uav with a broad range of capablities at a high competence level they won't be cheap and expendable. look at the latest predator model and the price tag attached to that thing for instance and it's no where near ready to replace a manned fighter.

Quote Reply

free_man 12 Ehran 1/21/2008 2:08:05 PM

However, I disagree with your cost calculator. I would think that the greatest cost, and therefore greatest loss, would be the recruitment and training and "maintenance" of a human pilot. As much as sensors and electronics cost, the human element, in terms of expendability (i.e., moral, cost, replacement ability, etc...), is exponentially higher than a UAV.

Think of Top Gun, Red Flag, etc... With UAV's you need good software, not pilots. Last time I checked, you don't have to feed UAVs, house their motherboards on Military Bases, pay for disability, have UAV hospitals. Just like JDAMs reduce the sortie package significantly all the way down the chain (less bombers=less force protection=less refuelers=maintenance=less logistics=$, etc...), so too a UAV does the same to an exponentially greater extent.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica rookie question/post 1/21/2008 4:44:47 PM

There is nothing new about the premise of this post. Since you choose to reference WW II I'll use that to finish up this thread. During WW II it was possible to field huge air forces of thousands of aircraft. It would have been utterly impossible to shoot them all down and a huge waste of effort. Instead the WW II militaries went after the extensive highly vulnerable support infrastructure and logistics to ground and destroy the enemy. This also forced the enemy into combat under less than ideal conditions which added attrition to the dilema of starvation.

It's not how many you shoot. It's who, what and when. Also do not forget that there are non-kinetic ways to "kill" an opponent. Suppose for example the enemy was unable to "control" or "vector" those UAVs on CAP for some reason? AND THAT ASSUMES an opponent with sufficient C4 to manage hundreds of platforms in a coordinated defense. It's a really really big sky and even hundreds of UAVs are still governed by the laws of physics. Your suggested defense is well beyond the capability of any potential threat for sometime.

-DA

Quote Reply

Wicked Chinchilla 1/21/2008 8:35:28 PM

You also have still failed to explain how the stealth advantage is negated by UAVs.

Why do you assume future UCAVs would not be stealth? Considering the inherent advantages in stealth aircraft, and their current widespread development, should it not be presumed that they will obviously be stealthy as well?

If your answer to my question is the cost of stealth it is a flawed argument. Stealth is fast becoming a mature technology. The F-35 is projected to be cheaper than both the Rafale and the Typhoon, two completely conventional fighter aircraft.

Besides, as I have already stated, an entire wing of F-22's or F-35's with an extremely low, or nonexistant, attrition rate is far cheaper than UAV's that are suicidally thrown at targets with high attrition rates, especially considering the odds of a non-stealthy airframe against modern IADS.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 1/21/2008 9:25:47 PM

at last estimate, a UCAV a la fixed wing jet combat platform was circa $30-40m USD. Thats not far from the price of a cheap manned solution.

It doesn't matter how many UCAV's you have - you still have to be able to use them to the platforms strength against the target opportunity.

Quote Reply

free_man 12 But, 1/21/2008 10:15:36 PM

You fail to account for the human element. It is not just how much a UAV platform costs, compared to a manned airframe. It must cost many millions to bring a recruit to an accomplished fighter, besides the untold millions more to keep him in the military and provide him and his family with support. I can just imagine what % of the airforces budget is spent on personnel.

I think that just by saving that $ it may be well worth using UAVs. Also, you don't have to replace a pilot that is shot down if you are flying UAVs. One thing is certain in a shooting war between 2 powers - after the initial stages of the war, there will be a huge gap in experienced pilots, due to losses, while UAVs stay just as robust.

Quote Reply

stingray1003 1/21/2008 11:36:34 PM

They are only that large because they are using manned designs and systems in an unmanned aircraft.

UAV can be positively tiny, think bird sized or smaller.

It depend what you want to do. If you want something to fly to certain GPS co-ordinates, drop a package or take a few ~10mp pictures and fly back or transmit back. No problems, fuselage smaller than a coke bottle. Costing maybe a $1000. These could be avalible at the platoon level.

If you want something to loiter for 20 hrs, use its own radar to identify six targets, then go supersonic, fire 3 missiles, chase down the remaining three manned fighter aircraft and score hits on all of them, then you will need something much larger and more expensive.

I don't think we will see swarms of UAV's for quiet a while yet.. The technology is moving pretty fast so by the time one is ready for mass production, a far superior option is avalible.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 1/22/2008 1:28:02 AM

Fail is a rather strong word when...

a. you are asking the questions

b. you haven't demonstrated any understanding of the subject matter

Right now, UAVs aren't mature enough to completely replace manned aircraft across the spectrum of missions. They also require extensive MANNED logistics support and maintenance to conduct operations and maintain any kind of decent OR rate.

UAVs currently fill a strong growing niche but aren't yet at a point where they can replace manned platforms in more traditional roles. What you are talking about is optimistically a decade or two out and even then there will still be manned niches in aerial combat.

-DA

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT