The Navy and Boeing teamed up to demonstrate the remote
control of two unmanned EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft by a third F/A-18F
Super Hornet.(1) The Navy, of course, is
touting the miracle benefits of this concept …
in very vague, non-specific terms.
Let’s think about this for a moment.
How does having the ability to remote controlled unmanned
Growlers increase our combat capability?
At best, the unmanned Growlers have the exact same capabilities as manned
Growlers. More likely, the Growler is
not quite as capable without a human pilot operating the aircraft and systems. Certainly, it will be far less able to
execute defensive aerial maneuvers and thus far more susceptible to loss.
The only benefit is that unmanned Growlers don’t put pilots
at risk but that’s a very minor consideration since no one puts Growlers at
risk anyway – the aircraft are far too valuable to risk. Growlers are the very definition of a high
value unit. We only have a few of them
and they are far too valuable to risk.
So, whether they are manned or unmanned is, at best, irrelevant.
Now, if you want to use unmanned Growlers in high risk,
semi-suicidal missions then, yes, I guess they enhance our combat capability
but, again, no sane commander is going to use Growlers in high risk
scenarios. They’re too valuable – and expensive!
- to throw away, whether manned or unmanned.
To conclude … this was yet another technology stunt for the
sake of technology and does nothing to improve our actual, operational combat
capability. The Navy steadfastly refuses to think operationally. Instead, the substitute the pursuit of technology for strategy, doctrine, and tactics.
(1)Naval News website, “Boeing and U.S. Navy Successfully
Link Piloted, Unmanned Growlers”, Xavier Vavasseur, 4-Feb-2020,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/02/boeing-and-u-s-navy-successfully-link-piloted-unmanned-growlers/
I would like the experiment done but with a random decommissioned fighter out of the yards. To be able to pull a flight of retired craft out and send them on a suicide mission would have some real value if as nothing but distraction while others did the work against a high value high threat target.
ReplyDeleteIf you're talking about using an aircraft as a suicide platform, that's certainly workable but doesn't it seem like a lot of extra effort and cost to equip an aircraft for remote control and then send at least two aircraft (suicide and control) to attack the target, putting the control aircraft at risk and probably requiring tanker and EW support? Alternatively, we could just shoot a Tomahawk missile from a thousand miles away and be done with it. Doesn't that make a whole lot more sense?
DeleteThis is the problem. We already have simple, straightforward means to accomplish missions but we insist on trying to create more complicated alternatives.
It makes a certain amount of sense if you're looking at this in the context of a strike package trying to penetrate defended airspace to hit targets that could not be fixed enough for attack with Tomahawk. Bringing drones means you get more aircraft in the fight, and you can use your UCAVs to bait enemy air defenses. Fighter UCAVs continue on-target, EW UCAVs provide some measure of protection against the IADS, and your manned strike package can either use the chaos to proceed with the mission, or play Wild Weasel with the air defenses.
DeleteThe thing that brings up the question marks for me is why is the Navy doing these tests, not the Air Force. The benefits of UCAV wingmen are more readily exploited by the USAF - operating from land airbases allows you larger strike packages and total aircraft vs a carrier, which can only carry so many aircraft.
Unless the Navy is trying to use UCAVs to bulk up air wings while reducing the number of human pilots as a cost-saving measure?
(Don McCollor)...a possible advantage would be that an unmanned aircraft could maneuver to the aircraft's structural limits rather than that of the pilot's physical limits.
Delete"maneuver to the aircraft's structural limits"
DeleteIs anyone really going to maneuver a high value unit to the aircraft's structural limits?
I often sense the difference between the pro and con side of these unmanned debates is one's own understanding of autonomous and that not meaning remotely piloted.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand you correctly, you make a good point. The degree of autonomy is key to assessing the value of unmanned assets. At the far future end of the spectrum, if we could produce autonomous software that completely and faithfully reproduces human thinking (with moral values and judgement) but with the speed of a computer, then unmanned becomes much more attractive. At today's opposite end of the spectrum, unmanned generally means that the pilot is sitting somewhere else besides the cockpit and because of that the asset performance is far worse compared to a manned asset.
DeleteToday, most unmanned efforts perform worse, cost more, and require more personnel overall. The only real benefit - and it's sometimes a significant one - is the reduced risk to the operator but in those cases we usually have a simpler, better alternative already at hand - like using a Tomahawk instead of a UCAV.
Of course, other factors such as cost enter into it, as well.
What I find interesting is that so far the USN's UCAV efforts - CBARS and now the drone Growler program - have been focused on support aircraft, not tactical aircraft. I wonder how feasibly/effectively this technology can be applied to combat aircraft. I suspect that Boeing may be leveraging development from the Boeing/Australian Air Force combat UCAV progam - "Loyal Wingman."
DeleteIt was Boeing not the USN doing the testing. They were not unmanned, they had pilots to actually take off and land. So it seems they were testing concepts and not proposing using Growlers as UCAVs. And it seems to me that its similar to the Boeing Australia loyal wingman where they are using existing platforms to do software testing while waiting for the UCAV to be built.
DeleteWar Zone has more https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32081/navy-ea-18g-teamed-with-two-other-growlers-flying-semi-autonomously-as-loyal-wingmen
Hardly any new tech involved , the USAF has been converting its old fighters into unmanned target drones for decades.
DeleteThis story about the current target drone the QF-16 says it was $1.32m each ( for a batch of around 100) back in 2015
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23451/turning-the-f-16-fighter-into-a-drone/
I suppose being controlled by another aircraft is a step forward
"I suppose being controlled by another aircraft is a step forward"
DeleteIt's a bit more than that. A target drone is just flying waypoints. Pretty simple. This concept involves, presumably, maneuvering in combat and operating a complex array of electronic warfare equipment - something the Navy once believed required the efforts of a crew of four - all in real time.
"Growlers as UCAVs"
DeleteNo one suggested that. The test was an exercise in using Growlers to provide electronic warfare support in, presumably, high risk combat scenarios.
Any yes, the articles specifically state that the exercise was a joint venture between Boeing and the Navy.
As a test it's interesting, but inadequate. Complete missions with that unmanned growler against an air defense unit set up out in the desert and compare that with manned growlers and no electronic warfare cover. Then we'll have some idea whether or not this makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteThis flight is undoubtedly a necessary precursor to that kind of test, but it's not impressive in itself.
"a necessary precursor"
DeleteWere that all it was, I would take little notice and have no problem with it. However, this is not a precursor test but, rather, a marker along a misguided path. This was yet another demonstration of the mindset of 'technology for its own sake' that has infected our military. Viewed that way, this was not a meaningless precursor test but, instead, a further commitment to, and evidence of, a fixation upon technology rather than operational reality.
I agree. This seems like "unmanned for the sake of unmanned"... We are still a long way from any remote or fully autonomous control being better or even equal to a "butt in the seat"!!! I just read the article before coming here and was still shaking my head. So I realize pilot training is expensive, but how many millions were just spent on this worthless exercise?? I bet a lot of training flight hours could have been funded instead. When is someine going to snatch the Navy's purse strings and start making intelligent decisions?? Low fighter availibility, subs waiting years for maintenance, rapid deployment ships that cant deploy, destroyers sailing with failed or lapsed certifications... When are we going to fix what we already have instead of grasping at straws???
ReplyDeleteConceptually, this technology could be applied to aid a pilot to bring home a damaged aircraft. Or, fly the aircraft home if the pilot was unconscience or otherwise unable to fly the plane.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF was experimenting with an OS switch, the system would fly you up out of terrain, to a safe altitude,wing level, right side up. For use by disoriented pilots.
DeleteThe Russians a similar system on some operational aircraft.
"aid a pilot to bring home a damaged aircraft. Or, fly the aircraft home if the pilot was unconscience or otherwise unable to fly the plane."
Delete????? In what scenario is a plane going to be so damaged that a pilot can't fly it home but a remote control can?
How many times, even in combat, is a plane going to be hit so hard that it renders the pilot unconscious or unable to fly but leaves the plane, itself, flightworthy? We're talking a one in a million sorties type of odds - and for that, you'd propose equipping all planes to be remote control ready???? More cost for already expensive aircraft! And, you'd have to have specially configured control aircraft accompany every flight just to be on hand for that one in a million scenario.
To assume remote control with an unconscious pilot, the control aircraft would have to be able to 'take over' the aircraft. What do you do when the enemy figures out how to take over our entire fleet of remote control ready planes?
As with the original experiment, this sounds like a solution in search of an incredibly rare problem.
As a past Navy electronics tech, and a diesel mechanic, ive made my living for decades repairing things that fail. And while Id like to think that what the DOD has is much more advanced, I have a personal fear and disdain for vehicles (or anything) that can "take over" control from a human. Why? Because things fail!! Not just electronics, but even basic low/no tech mechanical systems!! I just dont see that weve arrived at a place where human control is a second choice yet. Congress disallowed VLS on an unmanned ship (for now) for the same reason I wont buy a car that can park itself. Im not ready to trust it. Im sure we will get there, but its still far on the horizon...
DeleteGents, you are behind the times on this. It exists today, it works, and by military standards the cost is a mere bagatelle.
Deletehttps://www.businessinsider.com/cirrus-vision-jet-autoland-safe-return-garmin-photos-2019-11
There are some YouTube videos demoing it. Pretty cool, although I have no idea why you REALLY need it on a combat aircraft. It would only apply to a very narrow set of circumstances.
"To assume remote control with an unconscious pilot, the control aircraft would have to be able to 'take over' the aircraft. What do you do when the enemy figures out how to take over our entire fleet of remote control ready planes?"
DeleteExactly. The remote control strikes me as a really bad idea. All it takes is an exploitable software bug...
"Exactly. The remote control strikes me as a really bad idea. All it takes is an exploitable software bug..."
DeleteYou want not get a virus unplug your system and lock down every external port on every PC/computer.
Building in remote control is asking for everyone and their sister and freeloading brother in law who does not like you to start paying every hacker on the planet to figure out a way in. I admit I had to use MS remote control to allow the MS guy to re validate my license. After that I shut it down and locked the ports out via firewall (well 2 I am tad on paranoia side). How can do that while being an injured pilot and not a part time gig IT economy worker just waiting for another cup of coffee?
If the connection is always open its always a vulnerability.
"How can do that while being an injured pilot and not a part time gig IT economy worker just waiting for another cup of coffee?"
DeleteI like it!!
The thing that really bugs me about unmanned is the requirement for AI autonomy. If you don't have it, you are using remote control.
DeleteIf you are using remote control, then you have lag generated by distance from the controller.
Doesn't sound like a problem, right? Well, if the controller is close its not a big deal. But if they're close they are probably airborne and I see all kinds of problems with that from jamming to task loading to you name it.
If they are remote, like drones are flown now, then lag becomes a big deal. I can give you an example. Lag between Florida and Sydney in Australia is about 520ms, or more than half a second in each direction. In this case is 0.6C over fiber. Satellite relay through geo-synch connectors is worse.
That makes life miserable if you are using a remote server application like Citrix.
Can you imagine what that would be like in a combat application? And its what they are doing now flying drones over places like Afghanistan. But that's not really combat as we have complete air supremacy.
So apart from the risk of being hacked, I have some real concerns about how practical this is until the AI exists to do it right.
This sort of remote return strikes me as being more relevant for stateside training. The USAF experienced 18 accidents (14 fatalities) attributed to GLOC from 1982-1990; from 2018-2019 there were 12 GLOC incidents... kinda gives you a glimpse into how this might be useful.
DeleteThat's a great point. I guess it would be as useful in a non-combat role as it would be in civilian life.
Delete"GLOC"
DeleteThat's ridiculous. First, this isn't even remotely what the exercise was about. The exercise was about combat actions performed remotely. Second, in the history of aviation, how many fatal incidents of GLOC do you think occurred that had another aircraft in the immediate vicinity and recognized the problem in time to have taken control? I'm guessing zero but there may have been one somewhere/sometime. Besides, I think today's aircraft already have automatic low altitude pull-up capability.
For someone who made a post about knee-jerk reactions, ComNavOps, you're making one of your own. Wild Goose was commenting on the automated return and landing feature that George brought up. That system, on the Cirrus Vision, is completely autonomous and has no outside intervention.
DeleteAs for my two cents: I see this test as being proof of concept for more work involving drones escorting/assisting manned fighters. I think it's more likely that we'll be seeing Growlers controlling MALD-J jammer drones in actual practice.
@ComNavOps: Not talking about remote controlling aircraft, but on that autoland feature that George talked about. I don't think it may be entirely practical even in stateside training, where you have pilots training against aggressors/instructors. As you said, the big issue is whether the other aircraft can recognise the problem and take action fast enough.
Delete"Besides, I think today's aircraft already have automatic low altitude pull-up capability."
To a limited extent, yes. It's only within the last 5 years that Auto GCAS was developed and deployed onto the F-16 fleet; it's being tested/implemented for the F-35A. To the best of my research, there is no news on implementation on other platforms at this time, but I expect that on future designs it'll be a standard feature.
The idea may have some minor benefit, if applied to tankers. Tankers are an unsexy aircraft type, they're a low-value target, and if crashed, would act as an incindiary bomb. Giving one pilot control of both aircraft may make refueling easier. I don't know how the cost of remote control compares to that of a pilot, but it can't be that bad. If drone tankers were kept aloft at all times, refueling would be available "on call".
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that, given the mission of the Growler, that is one of the last platforms that seems to be one area that we would least like to trust to unmanned platforms.
ReplyDeleteI already think going from 3 crew to 1 for the electronic warfare mission was a bad ideal. How in the hell is one crew member going run 3 different missions outside of scripted demonstration?
ReplyDeleteIn any case is not the MELD-J already available for the kind things you would use a far more expensive remote F-18 for? And also not have the risk of loosing your remote link.
In theory would not an aircraft with no pilot be capable of executing sustained high G maneuvers that would otherwise incapacitate a pilot. I say this despite the glaring issues with security/jamming etc that more than offset this advantage but pilot less aircraft do have some advantages. Of course I doubt very few in the military have the vision to see it.
ReplyDelete"would not an aircraft with no pilot be capable of executing sustained high G maneuvers that would otherwise incapacitate a pilot."
DeleteYes and no. Yes, an unmanned aircraft MIGHT be able to sustain higher G but it does damage the aircraft due to structural stress. Even with manned aircraft, if a pilot exceeds a given G limit, it has to be reported and the aircraft removed from service until it can be thoroughly inspected. So, it's not as simple as 'unmanning' the aircraft and we'll suddenly see a vast new performance enhancement.
With that in mind, is it possible to design a new aircraft intended for high G maneuvers? Sure. We have missiles that can withstand high G and a missile is an unmanned aircraft of sorts.
@jenfel
ReplyDeleteSo why start with a air frame designed for a pilot(s)?
(Don McCollor)...The ultimate was the Sprint ABM missile - it pulled 100G at launch, and was at Mach 10 in six seconds with the ablative shielding glowing white hot (the first tests pulled components right out of the circuit boards).
ReplyDeleteEven conventional unmanned aircraft (within the aircraft limits) should be able to pull repeated high-G maneuvers that should quickly degrade a human pilot's responses.
It seems this was more about testing the ability of one aircraft to be the controller, not any commitment to unmanned EA+18s. Using existing airframes to test the concept is a very reasonable way to go.
ReplyDeleteHowever you feel about manned + drone EW, wouldn't the Navy be negligent if they didn't do basic tests to understand how it might work? This seems like the right way to develop tactics, understand the opportunity (or threat), and start to spec what you'd want (or fear) in an EW wingman drone.