Uninhabited
Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs)
Do you think unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV) will replace
manned fighter jets in the future?
For certain missions, I think the UCAV will replace manned
aircraft. In particular, they are desirable for performing
suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) missions such as destroying
enemy surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites as these are some of the
most dangerous missions flown by manned planes. UCAVs would also be
useful in completing other types of air-to-ground attacks,
especially those against heavily defended targets that would be
risky to send pilots into. However, I don't see UCAVs performing
air-to-air combat against other aircraft anytime soon because the
computer control systems lack the decision-making skills and
situational awareness of a human pilot.
Do you think unmanned aircraft are worth the effort?
In general, I think concept of an unmanned combat aircraft is an
idea whose time has come. While much work still needs to be done,
they are potentially much cheaper and in some respects more capable
than manned aircraft. I see the UCAV as combining the low cost of a
cruise missile with the reusability of an aircraft. With the way
defense spending has dropped over the last decade, I think this may
be the military's most cost-effective option in the future.
What are the pros and cons of UCAVs?
Pros include:
1) significantly lower cost compared to manned vehicles (although
they can get pretty expensive depending on their sophistication);
this should allow the military to buy UCAVs in much larger
quantities than manned aircraft
2) expendability, you can afford to send them into heavily defended
areas and risk losing some without endangering a pilot
3) more maneuverable than manned planes without the limitations of
a human pilot
4) can be built stealthier than a manned plane since one of the
least stealthy parts of the aircraft (the cockpit) is
unnecessary
5) should be lighter, smaller, and easier to transport
Cons include:
1) limitations of their programming, may not be able to compensate
for the changing battlefield environment (such as being able to
attack a new more desirable target that appeared after the aircraft
was launched or changing course to avoid enemy defenses)
2) because they are typically smaller than a manned plane, they
cannot carry as large a payload (however, they do generally have a
greater ratio of payload to total weight)
3) along the same lines, they may not be able to carry as much fuel
and therefore may have a shorter range
4) typically tailored to specific kinds of missions and not as
versatile as a modern multi-role fighter
5) if contact is lost with a ground station, the vehicle may be
lost
What are the pros and cons of manned planes?
Pros include:
1) larger payload
2) better survivability features (including sturdier structure,
more thorough set of countermeasures, better avionics suite)
3) a trained, thinking pilot is still far superior in understanding
the battlefield and how to best utilize his assets to accomplish
the mission than any computer
Cons include:
1) higher cost not only to buy the aircraft but to operate it,
maintain it, and keep pilots trained and proficient
2) greater complexity
Would the success of air-to-air combat be in favor of a UCAV since
it would be able to pull tighter turns than a human pilot could
withstand?
This question is hard to answer because it depends so much on
conditions. Air-to-air combat is often fought at ranges of 10 to 30
miles these days where maneuverability in a dogfight makes little
difference. Probably the greatest advantage a UCAV would have over
a manned vehicle is the greater difficulty in detecting what should
be a much smaller, stealthier shape.
Are UCAVs proving successful so far?
It's still much too early to say as the only UCAV projects are
still in very early stages. I believe only two such aircraft, the
Boeing X-45 for the US Air Force and the Northrop Grumman X-47 for
the US Navy, have even been built. The X-45 has only flown a couple
of times and the X-47 not at all. These two vehicles are research
craft designed to test technologies that will be necessary for
future production UCAVs. The Predator might be considered a
"converted" UCAV since it was designed for reconnaissance but some
have been armed for combat. It's had good success in attacking
targets as far as I've heard, but several have been shot down over
Iraq and Afghanistan due to the vehicle's slow speed, low altitude,
and lack of stealth.
What do the various branches of the military think about this kind
of aircraft?
The Army, Navy, and Air Force have all shown interest in UCAVs but
progress has been slow since most of the decision makers are former
pilots themselves who dislike the idea of arming unmanned aircraft.
I think all the services will adopt them for certain missions, but
it will take time to overcome the bias against unmanned combat
vehicles.
If you were a fighter pilot would you like the idea of unmanned
fighters taking over your job? Why or why not?
I do know several fighter pilots, and their general opinion seems
to be that UCAVs are great for going after heavily defended targets
or SAM sites, but no machine can ever or should ever replace a
human in any mission that requires complex decision making.
Do you think funding for UCAVs will be more or less than that spent
to produce manned fighters?
In the near term, spending on UCAVs will likely be far less than on
manned planes. So much funding has been dedicated to the F-22,
F-18E/F, and Joint Strike Fighter that there is very little left
for anything else for at least the next 10 or 15 years. I think
we'll see some more experimental vehicles and maybe limited
production in the meantime, but I doubt any UCAV will enter
wide-spread service before 2015.
How advanced is the UCAV intelligence in terms of
self-judgement?
That is the single biggest challenge remaining in the development
of unmanned aircraft--the ability of a computer to "understand" the
combat environment and "decide" how best to proceed. Current
technology allows missiles to be programmed to attack a specific
point or a human controller can override the programming to attack
some other target that may be more desirable. There is quite a bit
of work currently going on to develop smarter guidance systems that
allow missiles to seek out targets on their own, prioritize them,
and attack them with little or no input from a human controller.
This too is in the early stages and won't be seen in production
weapons for at least a decade.
Will a UCAV incorporate evading mechanisms such as countermeasures,
flares, chaff, stealth, maneuverabilty, or jammers?
UCAVs will almost surely incorporate stealth characteristics since
they are already being included on new generations of missiles and
bombs and possibly greater maneuverability. Other countermeasures
like chaff, flares, and jammers might be included depending on the
type of mission or environment the vehicle is designed for, cost
limitations, and the needs of the user.
Will all UCAVs be flown and controlled by ground crew or flown
solely by the flight computer?
I would guess that any UCAV would almost surely be programmed to
fly to a target area on its own, but there will likely be some kind
of human interaction or complete control during the actual weapon
launch.
What kind of weapons will UCAVs carry?
Probably some sort of next-generation guided weapon, the so-called
"brilliant bombs." Based on how the weapons are carried (such as
the size and number of bomb bays), a UCAV might be armed with a
single 1,000 to 2,000 lb weapon or multiple smaller weapons in the
100 to 500 lb class. They may also carry next-generation
submunitions capable of loitering over the battlefield under their
own power allowing them to search for the best targets.
What would a UCAV do in case of a mechanical or electrical
failure?
If the failure was significant enough to compromise the success of
the mission (such as a loss of communication with the control
station), the aircraft would most likely be programmed to abort and
return to land at some pre-programmed location. This is already
done on the Predator, X-45, and X-47.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 16 June 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
