Pilotless drones eyed to replace CF-18s

[time expired]

If canada wish to replace manned aircraft with UAVs they might want to look at the loss rate of UAVs
at the present time.I subscibe to magazine ,Airforces Monthly, that covers world wide military aircraft accidents
and losses of these vehicules is very large,considering how few airforces operate them, and those things
are not cheap.
The whole discussion reminds me a little of what took place in the 50s with the introduction of the
surface to surface missile when many experts predicted the end of the manned fighter

 

[NovaScotiaNewfie]

I'm not an expert on this by no means, but I thought that Canada is with the US in development of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) I think it's the replacement for the F-16 for the USAF and a vertical take off model is to replace the Harrier for the USN.
"This agreement makes Canada the second international partner on the JSF programme after the United Kingdom. Canada is to be a Level 3 participant. The price for this is no more than $ 100 millions plus $ 50 million from Technology Partnership Canada (subsidies for companies) plus the services of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, free of charge use of Canadian test facilities and funding of the staff seconded to the JSF Programme Office.

All the same, the Pentagon plans to give full consideration to the question of whether in return for this Canada might not have to pay any development cost surcharge on the F-35's it orders. In any case, it is a positive development that a portion of the licence fees payable on sales to third countries will also go to the Canadians. And there is a backdoor as well: "The Canadian defence ministry can withdraw from the JSF framework agreement and this addendum if it is of the opinion that the participation of Canadian industry in this project is not satisfactory.”

In any case, Canada is not in a hurry to procure any F-35's. Its F-18's will remain in service until 2017-2018. By then, its requirements will be clear, according to Alan Williams of the defence ministry, who in the short- and medium-term is already dreaming of 3,500 to 5,000 jobs created on the back of the JSF programme."

Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0204/FR0204e.htm

Not to say we will still buy them, we might go in on the development of them but we may never purchase them. In any case I would tihnk that would possible come about before drones?

I think the US would be the leading or one of the leading countires when it comes to drones etc, and I think the closet that exists today would be Predator or Globalhawk with a missile attached and  these are operated by pilots on the ground.

I'd say pilotless drones/robots are a far way off from being feasible yet.

 

[Rad]

i hear those UAVs need alot of maintaining because they beat themselves up on landing quite a bit.  I sure hope the fighters stay manned for a long time, that is what alot of young pilots aspire to be, and it does inspire alot of interest in flying.  a fighter pilot is, in a sense, to the pilot trade what a Paratrooper is to the Infantry trade, it's the ultimate goal for many people who get in, and though they don't all make it there, the goal started them and now they are excellent pilots in all aspects of military aviation.  would taking them away just make there be one less thing to aspire to?  this reason is possibly not enough by far to keep the manned fighters, but it is, in my oppinion, a saddening fact.  if it were up to me i'd keep them for that reason, and this is why it's NOT up to me haha.

 

[bbbb]

Planes will always be needed. UAVs don't have the situational awareness that pilots have. I'm sure they'll be using UAVs for combat soon enough but fighter aircraft will always be needed.

 

[Rad]

I sure hope you're right.

 

[eerickso]

I would prefer a baby steps approach like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501288.html

Nobody fully understands the consequences of using remote control fighters.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would prefer a baby steps approach like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501288.html

Nobody fully understands the consequences of using remote control fighters.

And what are these consequences you mention?

 

[SupersonicMax]

The F-35 proposition from Lockheed to make them unmanned is purely because of the decrease in customers.  It's just a way to sell their product and have more nations to be involved with the program...

Max

 

[Good2Golf]

As there is a place for remotely controlled systems on the battlefield (static recce/surveillance sensors, EOD systems, micro UAVs, etc...) yet still clear need for operators on the ground, so to is the situation in the air (and in/under the sea for that matter.)  Notwithstanding the use of the old (i.e. outdated in this context) term "drone", the requirement for both remotely "piloted" craft as well as remotely-piloted and fully autonomous aircraft will complement the piloted systems that most certainly will continue to be used for decades to come.  This is not specific to the fighter force.  There are remote aerial delivery systems being developed and employed as we speak, yet that does not cast any doubt on the future of tactical airlift.  There are tactical-level UAVs yet that does not indicate the days of the battlefield reconnaissance and attack/armed helicopters are numbered.  The article dealt with the issue as more of a "one in place of the other" instead of "a new capability that complements piloted aircraft with a remotely and/or non-piloted capability."  There is a balance out there that this article does not accurately reflect.

G2G

 

[Astrodog]

Just a thought from a UAV-hating aspiring pilot, but with the advent of new stealthy platforms such as the F-22 (obviously no nation is even close to competing with this technology) does anybody see a time in which conventional radar guided long range missiles become obsolete and a re-emphasis on IR and WVR combat and more need for a set of eyes in the cockpit as opposed to what has become a hide over the horizon BVR fight?

 

[Kirkhill]

The F-35 proposition from Lockheed to make them unmanned is purely because of the decrease in customers.  It's just a way to sell their product and have more nations to be involved with the program...

Max

Also, I am inclined to believe there are cheaper ways of creating UAVs than taking aircraft, whose designs have been compromised to allow for that poor, weak pilot ( > ), and hooking their auto-pilot up to a  Playstation 3 so that they can be flown from the ground (another aircraft, submarine......).

Not to mention there are cheaper methods of delivering all effects into enemy airspace by employing "one-way UAVs" than by employing reusable platforms to get them close. 

In my crystal ball I would be betting on the day where the F22, B2 and CP-140 merge as Composite Manned C4ISR platforms with some offensive weapons capability but with greater utility as a combined forward CP and OP primarily used to target missiles launched from other platforms.  The other platforms would be located in secure airspace or waters or on secure ground.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Just a thought from a UAV-hating aspiring pilot, but with the advent of new stealthy platforms such as the F-22 (obviously no nation is even close to competing with this technology) does anybody see a time in which conventional radar guided long range missiles become obsolete and a re-emphasis on IR and WVR combat and more need for a set of eyes in the cockpit as opposed to what has become a hide over the horizon BVR fight?

I don't think we'll ever see good old dogfighting as we (generic term here, I personnaly wasn't there) saw during Vietnam and Korea.  The F-35 isn't even armed with a gun...

Max

 

[Astrodog]

Just a thought, as in the past the 'experts' have been wrong with Missiles replacing manned bombers as well as the initial F-4 having no cannon either... here's hoping i guess!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Hey whoa, who said that i don't what im talking about im just taking information i was told. I watched a show about drones to on Discovery Channel also. Cmon now your making look inferior :'(  This is what i know about Drones there unmanned aircraft that are used for as you said scouting and spying on things, i also know that they also dont have any weaponry. They dont have far range and are very small. I also saw the disc drone they made that they launch like a frisbee its prety awesome.

Can someone with some knowledge tell us a bit about this?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=175645

Israel developing killer robot plane
Monday Jan 8 17:50 AEDT

Israel is developing the world's largest unmanned aircraft, which will be used for long-range operations and destroying ballistic missiles as they are launched.

The Eitan has been developed by the Israel Aircraft Industries and has a wing span of 35m — similar to that of a Boeing 737 passenger plane — the official told AFP.

According to the Yediot Aharonot daily, the drone is designed for long endurance and high-altitude flights and is equipped with an array of advanced cameras and missiles which allow it to identify and intercept long-range missiles as they are being fired on the ground.

It will make its maiden flight in the coming days, the paper said.

Israel has stepped up in recent years the development of technologies to face the threat of missile attacks, fearing most notably Iran, which has acquired long-range ballistic missiles able to reach Israel and beyond.

Coupled with President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's calls for the destruction of Israel, Iran's controversial nuclear program, which Israel claims is aimed at acquiring an atomic bomb, has become the Jewish state's main strategic threat.

Iran, which last year tested the Shahab-3 missiles which are capable of hitting targets around 2000 kilometers away, nevertheless insists the program is aimed solely at peaceful means.

Is the large wing span a prerequisite for "long endurance and high-altitude flights"?

If it can carry "an array of advanced cameras and missiles" to attack missiles shortly after launch could it not, also, carry an array of sensors and missiles which would allow it to attack fixed facilities - like, say, nuclear weapon assembly plants?

 

[MrWhyt]

The F-35 isn't even armed with a gun...

I believe that the Air Force F-35 has an internal 25mm cannon and the Navy and Marine versions can be armed with the same gun in a centerline pod.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/thursday/maher.pdf

 

[Good2Golf]

.
.
.
Is the large wing span a prerequisite for "long endurance and high-altitude flights"?

If it can carry "an array of advanced cameras and missiles" to attack missiles shortly after launch could it not, also, carry an array of sensors and missiles which would allow it to attack fixed facilities - like, say, nuclear weapon assembly plants?

A) Edward, generally "yes".  The longer the endurance, the more fuel efficient the aircraft needs to be for a given fuel load...at the expense of (relative) speed, minimizing induced and form drag most often moves the aircraft's design towards a "glider-like" configuration: U-2, Global Hawk, MQ-9, B-52, P-3, etc... -- straight(ish) wings (highly efficient L/d ratio [high lift to drag, low induced drag], thin fueselage [low form drag, low profile drag]).  It is truly a case where "form follows function".

B) ...

G2G

 

[eerickso]

And what are these consequences you mention?

Some possible consequences:

Maintaining radio silence during missions
Maintaining secure radio channel for control

Just a thought from a UAV-hating aspiring pilot, but with the advent of new stealthy platforms such as the F-22 (obviously no nation is even close to competing with this technology) does anybody see a time in which conventional radar guided long range missiles become obsolete and a re-emphasis on IR and WVR combat and more need for a set of eyes in the cockpit as opposed to what has become a hide over the horizon BVR fight?

The SA-3 is a ground based system made in 1961 and it shot down a stealth figher. I don't know the details of the engagement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-3_Goa

 

[Bert]

Some possible consequences:

Maintaining radio silence during missions
Maintaining secure radio channel for control

eericksoo

These are not consequences.  Given various scenarios, any aircraft may or may not maintain "radio" or
"secure radio" silence.  UAVs require a remote control interface of some type at some time(s) but then specifics
of the platform, its mission, its software/intelligence, and designed capabilities have to be discussed.  Too many
present and future variables for your generalizations.

Read this:  http://radarproblems.com/  ;provides an overview of basic radar principles that can be applied for
understanding RF radar/detection as an example, lots of other tech stuff out there.

other:  http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1999/0299radar.asp

Try searching the internet for UAV, F-22, and advanced radar product capabilities and specs; beware of speculation,
opinions, and the difference between design and demonstrated implementation; and note the objective state of the art.

This may assist the consideration of consequences (if thats a direction you wish to take) of UAVs, F-22s, and advanced
detection measures.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thank you Bert.

 

[Seyek]

I'm a systems and computing student at U of G, and I've had a good interest in Robotics and unmanned systems for a couple years now (the reason I'm in this program). While I'm not by any means an expert, I don't think that in ten to twenty years it would be difficult to make a dedicated air superiority/interceptor fighter or a generic platform like the Hornets that is purely unmanned and autonomous. Since the aircraft is unmanned, the considerations and equipment given up for human pilots are no long required, and the aircraft could be made extremely maneuverable without worrying about killing the pilot with the increase G-forces. A sophisticated computer core hooked up to an advanced suite of sensors and even an optical recognition system would allow it the same, if not superior sensing capabilities over a manned aircraft and an IFF system to identify and differentiate between friendly and enemy aircraft would be easily possible I imagine. If it runs into an object that it can't identify, ground control can get in touch with that object to identify/deal with it, or if that's not possible the craft itself could transmit orders to the unknown to land at the nearest airfield or whatever you want really, and if the unknown refuses to comply/engages/proves to be hostile than the UCAV can engage. I'm not saying this will exist anytime soon and I highly doubt any modern or in-development UAV would meet the requirements of a modern fighter, but down the road I don't see why not.

As for remote fighters, I don't like them, it just seems to easy to jam or intercept the link between the craft and controller, and range issues.