Growlers Converted to UAVs

[Kirkhill]

"In a surprise announcement, the U.S. Navy revealed on Tuesday that it had successfully flown tests involving unmanned versions of the EA-18G Growler electronic attack fighter. The tests involved a single manned EA-18G controlling two unmanned versions of the same aircraft, opening up the possibility that the U.S. Navy could fly armed unmanned aircraft sooner than originally thought.

The test, conducted by the U.S. Navy and Boeing, was undertaken by the U.S. Navy’s flight test wing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. According to a C4ISRNET, a single EA-18G Growler controlled two unmanned Growlers in the air.

The test is notable for several reasons. One, the Navy was not known to be working on unmanned systems other than the MQ-25 Stingray, a future drone tanker set to join the fleet in the mid-2020s. Second, the ability to convert a manned fighter such as the EA-18G Growler into an unmanned aircraft was also previously unknown."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30771030/growler-unmanned-navy/

Not completely new news.  The Bell 407, a Edit Kamov Kaman (K-Max) and a Schweizer manned helicopter have all been converted into UAVs for the Navy.  The 407 and Schweizers were both converted into Firescouts.

What this could mean is that older airframes nearing the end of their useful lives (like CF18s and old CC130s) could be converted into unmanned bomb trucks, sensor platforms and spoofers.  Now. And cheaply.  Resurrecting B47s and B52s from Davis-Monthan as unmanned arsenals?  Or C17s?

I see an awful lot of potential UAVs there if crew survivability is no longer an issue and you just want to get another couple of missions out of each airframe.

 

[Spencer100]

It is full autonomous unmanned fighter or a drone like the QF-16. Boeing also developed the QF-16.

I think their is a big difference between a "drone" and an autonomous fighter. 

 

[Kirkhill]

It is full autonomous unmanned fighter or a drone like the QF-16. Boeing also developed the QF-16.

I think their is a big difference between a "drone" and an autonomous fighter.

According to a C4ISRNET, a single EA-18G Growler controlled two unmanned Growlers in the air.

Although drones can be controlled by crews on the ground on the other side of the planet, enemy electronic attack forces will be doing their best to interfere with U.S. forces, attempting to jam communications between a drone and its controllers. A manned aircraft could control multiple drones, providing instructions through unjammable short range communications.

For now, it’s still important to have a human around.

Admittedly the vernacular use of the word "drone" doesn't help sort things out. But.  For practical purposes having two aircraft conform on you, follow your flight path and take directions, and are only "autonomous" for the last few seconds of their lives could make things a bit easier on the lead pilot.

 

[Dale Denton]

Kamikaze unmanned Starlifters anyone??

 

[daftandbarmy]

A bit of interesting, and tragic, historical trivia about remote control aircraft made from 'worn out' aircraft that I wasn't aware of until fairly recently:

The Remote Control Bombers

"The United States Army Air Forces dominated the skies over Germany in 1944 with conventional weaponry. However, a late-war spurt in German scientific activity inspired a futuristic American response: The US would use remotely piloted bombers, loaded with explosives, to target hardened German targets.

The result was a pair of top-secret programs, the AAF’s Aphrodite and the Navy’s Anvil. War-weary B-17, B-24, and PBY4-1 bombers were stripped of standard equipment and laden with explosives, so that they could be guided by a “mother plane” to dive into a heavily defended target.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, but failed badly in practice. The effort is today remembered largely for killing Navy Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., the son of the former ambassador to Great Britain and the brother of future President of the United States John F. Kennedy."

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1110bombers/

 

[Underway]

Admittedly the vernacular use of the word "drone" doesn't help sort things out. But.  For practical purposes having two aircraft conform on you, follow your flight path and take directions, and are only "autonomous" for the last few seconds of their lives could make things a bit easier on the lead pilot.

Ugh, I hate the word "drone".  A tomahawk missile is a drone.  UAV's are not.  Also, hate the word "unmanned".  Uninhabited is what it should be, there is still a person "manning" that aircraft.

This is why Canada went to RPA  (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) as our label. /rant

Not surprising though the move to use already flying aircraft to convert to RPA.  It's cheaper and much lower risk in a large number of cases.  Reduces strain on the supply system and no need to retrain the techs on a completely new aircraft. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

RPAS is a subset of UAS. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ugh, I hate the word "drone".  A tomahawk missile is a drone.  UAV's are not.  Also, hate the word "unmanned".  Uninhabited is what it should be, there is still a person "manning" that aircraft.

This is why Canada went to RPA  (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) as our label. /rant

Not surprising though the move to use already flying aircraft to convert to RPA.  It's cheaper and much lower risk in a large number of cases.  Reduces strain on the supply system and no need to retrain the techs on a completely new aircraft.

Also almost as old as flying itself

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When I was deployed to Tyndall AFB, in '81, they had F-102 Delta Daggers that Sperry Rand had converted into the QF-102A drones. Full sized fighters used for target (acquisition) practice, but radio controlled. Prior to that they did the same with Super Sabres and after, with F106s, F-4s, and some others including the F-16. It was pretty cool seeing something like that back then.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Of course one of the first, and most successful armed drones was the German V-1 flying bomb.

 

[CBH99]

So many possible tactical advantages with 2 Growlers as loyal wingmen, under the control if the primary pilot.


-  He can remain passive, while his UAV Growlers fly a good distance away while active & feed him information.  He could, in theory, remain EMCON invisible while simultaneously getting real time AESA radar info from 2 different aircraft in 2 very different locations.

-  Depending on how capable the UAV Growlers are, he could possibly use them to jam enemy radars & communications, instead of using his own aircraft.  Or in addition to his own aircraft.  If they are easier to target and engage, with permissible risk as there is no pilot - then the enemy SAM sites become  MUCH easier to target & engage also.

-  Same applies for enemy aircraft ^^



Always nice to have extra airframes handy.  But an aircraft as advanced as the Growler, under active control of a nearby pilot, who has the ability to stay passive & use the other aircraft to scout ahead/around, and use as fodder if needed to get the advantage on enemy units who don't know the UAV Growlers aren't manned.  This is a HUGE force multiplier.  :2c: