The Chinese are quite upset about our idiotic Freedom of
Navigation cruises but they’re not quite ready to shoot a Navy ship. However, I’ve got to believe that they won’t
hesitate to capture or shoot down a UAV.
After all, the precedent has been established in the Middle East that
we’ll allow our UAVs to be destroyed without repercussion.
Given that the Chinese have, in the past, forced down and
seized a manned EP-3 aircraft and seized an unmanned underwater drone while we were operating it, I
don’t see them hesitating to do the same to an unmanned Triton.
 |
| MQ-4C Triton |
My prediction is we’ll see one captured or destroyed within
a year.
It's sixty years since the Russians shot down Gary Powers in U2, the Iranians shot down a Air Force variant of the MQ-4C, the RQ-4A Global Hawk last year, fail to understand why spending ~ $200 million per Triton, it will be just be a turkey shoot for the Chinese and Russians.
ReplyDeleteThe Iranians shot down one of the first 4 prototypes which supposedly did not have the magical defensive suite yet produced. I wonder if the MQ-4's sent to Guam are the remaining prototypes or the ones that supposedly are "defendable". I would think we would not want to show our capabilities so I'm assuming the later. I would guess a shootdown rather than a capture due to its
ReplyDeletevery high ceiling. I'm also guessing that its a decoy for something else.
In additiona to a kinetic capture/kill, a capture can also come from overriding the comm link and control protocol. Supposedly, Iran captured one of our RQ-170 UAVs this way, in 2011.
DeleteThe EP-3 'forced landing' came about because it collided with a Chinese fighter harassing it which crashed, and then the closest place for an emergency landing was Hainan Is.
ReplyDelete"The J-8 broke into two pieces; the EP-3's radome detached completely and its No. 1 (outer left) propeller was severely damaged. Airspeed and altitude data were lost, the aircraft depressurized, and an antenna became wrapped around the tailplane. The J-8's tail fin struck the EP-3's left aileron forcing it fully upright, and causing the U.S. aircraft to roll to the left at 3–4 times its normal maximum rate."
You wouldnt say it was a 'force down' in those circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
Of course force down/shootdowns were common place over the period of the Cold War. Dozens of planes were lost along with their crews and 'there were no consequences' either. There are good reasons for that approach.
Unless you believe that a Chinese pilot went rogue, the EP-3 was intentionally harassed in an unsafe manner. Whether the subsequent collision was intended or not, is almost irrelevant as the Chinese created a situation which had very few happy outcomes and, indeed, it did not.
DeleteBeyond that, the Chinese could, and should, have simply aided the US aircraft and crew and helped them return home. Instead, they seized the EP-3, looted everything of value, cut it up, and eventually, after an extended period, returned the remaining pieces.
The crew was held for 10 days and subjected to interrogation using mild forms of torture (separation, bad food, sleep deprivation).
If you want to tell the story, tell the whole story and get it right.
On the Ep-3
DeleteI still an irritated that the crew and no training and no well designed plan for destroy sensitive equipment in a situation that could well be foreseen - given its mission.
On the Triton. I'm not sure it is an issue. Either they deemed cost affordable and unmanned and they will provided intel that allows USN ships and or USCG ships (or any of our friends) to badger China in it aggressive attempt to claim well I dunno anything thay want or fish inside others economic zones, etc. One would hope even if expensive they are disposable in the sense that nothing on them is really a loss technologically. If otherwise their deployment should have been buried well deep in a black budget and not be all over the news.
The issue with the riverine boats, EP-3, the underwater drone, the shot down drones, and now the Triton is that we're operating them without backup and support. We should have ships and aircraft ready, at a moment's notice, to support these assets when they get in trouble. The Chinese aircraft should not have been allowed to get close enough to the EP-3 for anything to happen. We should have had escorting aircraft for the EP-3 since we knew they were going into a potentially hazardous situation. We pay immense amounts of money for these assets and then send them on missions without any protection. That's insane.
DeleteI agree the EP-3 should have an escort and some kind available force to deal with aggressive flyby.
DeleteBut for drones they should be expendable assets. Used for non war surveillance they should be off the shelf stuff that is annoying to loose but worth annoying China into a pattern of behavior that justifies US actions.
"Used for non war surveillance they should be off the shelf stuff that is annoying to loose but worth annoying China into a pattern of behavior that justifies US actions."
DeleteNow that's a fascinating approach!
The Triton is very important to Australia. We have millions of square kilometres to patrol, and that millions in each direction. I see P8/Tritons as ASW platforms mainly. They hunt subs in war. Subs and fishing boats in peacetime.
ReplyDeleteThere are alternatives to the vulnerable and massively expensive Triton program $15.5 billion/limited number - 70 at $220 million ea./drawn out dev-build - 13 years.
ReplyDeletePossibles are small microsatellites/cubesats in LEO and high altitude pseudo-satellites, HAPS, at a fraction of the cost of the Triton program enabling very high numbers/survivability at those very high altitudes, to offset attrition.
A few days ago SpaceX launched another 60 ~500lbs satellites into LEO on one rocket, plan is place approximately 12,000 in orbit to create world internet comms web. A Finish company launched Iceye cubesat, only 70 kg, with SAR-X radar in Jan 2018, to track illegal fishing vessels or to look for refugee boats in the Mediterranean, images on web; US Capella Space claims/plans to offer customers access to global one-meter resolution SAR imagery, to update hourly need constellation of 36 satellites; DARPA Blackjack program; UK Carbinite 2 with video seen from an altitude of 505km on youtube . Another possibility is the Airbus Zephyr HAPS, being tested in Australia.
With the small microsatellites/cubesats/HAPS you could afford to create separate constellations to give radar/infra-red/video coverage, they will not give you the same detail of Triton due to limited weight of sensors, but good enough, and of surviving beyond first week in a hot war unlike Triton. Similar in principle as CNOs swarm reconnaissance ship drones?
Satellites are going to survive in a real war?
DeleteIt depends. Monster size ones like the KH-11s probably not. Smaller ones like SpaceX's might because they are small and there are a lot of them. PlanetLab had a cluster of cubesatts up that could take 5 meter resolution pictures. What if you covered them in radar absorbing material and used laser communications? Stealthy and quiet.
DeleteOkay, I have an idea: massive, AESA radars in permanent orbit. Without the effects of gravity, there's no real limit to how big they could be-- and because they would beam vertically, rather than horizontally-- "persistent stare" over the horizon surveillance of enemy fleets would be possible. I mean, they're thousand ton blocks of steel floating on the ocean. How could they hide?
ReplyDeleteA constellation of such spy satellites could act as a "red force tracker" for the Navy, and provide targeting for our long-range weapons. I know it would be crazy expensive, but it's better than a 200 million dollar RC plane. Jesus.
Interestingly enough, there was a study done in 1974 about this very idea. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a024679.pdf
Delete