The degree of intellectual rigor being applied to unmanned
systems is nearly non-existent.
For example, here’s an article about the first exercise
involving a Turkish ULAQ 11 m unmanned surface craft. The article lists claimed benefits of
unmanned and joint manned-unmanned assets (they refer to the combined
manned-unmanned operations as MUM-T, for some unfathomable reason). Along with the claims, I’ve added the most
cursory of intellectual and analytical rigor, in red, to examine the
claim.
Here’s the exact quotes and claims
Increased Operational Efficiency: MUM-T allows for
the simultaneous operation of manned and unmanned vessels, enabling a more
comprehensive and efficient coverage of a given area. Autonomous or remotely
operated USVs can handle routine or monotonous tasks, freeing up human
operators to focus on more complex decision-making.
There is no evidence that teaming an
unmanned boat and a manned asset allows for more comprehensive and efficient
coverage of a given area. In fact, most
unmanned assets are small and decidedly underpowered compared to equivalent
manned assets and, therefore, have reduced sensor coverage compared to purely
manned assets. Further, human operators
are not freed up for more complex decision making; they’re merely transferred from one tedious
job to another: in this case, from direct sensor observations and
interpretation to indirect sensor observations and interpretation … same
exact job, just using second hand data instead of direct observations.
Further, most unmanned sensors,
being mounted on smaller unmanned platforms, have a significantly smaller field
of view compared to a similar manned platform and are, therefore, less
efficient in their coverage than purely manned platforms.
Risk Reduction: MUM-T can be used to mitigate risks
associated with certain tasks. Unmanned vessels can be deployed for missions in
hazardous or high-threat environments, minimizing the exposure of human
operators to potential dangers.
This is partially true on a limited
basis, depending on what capabilities the unmanned asset has. Typically, the unmanned asset is far less
capable than the equivalent manned asset and the manned asset must still be put
at risk.
A closely related consideration is
that if the risky task requires any degree of sophisticated capability, the
unmanned platform will be correspondingly expensive and while the unmanned
asset reduces (note: does not eliminate)
the human risk, the monetary risk is equal to, or greater than, the manned
asset.
Extended Endurance and Range: Unmanned surface
vessels can be designed for longer endurance and extended range. This is
particularly beneficial for tasks such as persistent surveillance,
reconnaissance, or data collection in remote or challenging environments.
Manned assets can equally be
designed for longer endurance and extended range. There is nothing inherently superior about
unmanned asset range and endurance.
Further, longer endurance and extended range comes with a concomitant
decrease in capabilities. For example,
an aircraft, manned or unmanned, can achieve longer range/endurance by reducing
the weight of the payload. Of course,
reduced payload equates to reduced capabilities.
Flexibility and Scalability: MUM-T provides a
flexible and scalable approach to maritime operations. Depending on the mission
requirements, the combination of manned and unmanned assets can be adjusted to
achieve optimal results.
This is ridiculous buzzword bingo. Manned systems are equally flexible and
scalable and can be adjusted to achieve optimal results. Unmanned assets have absolutely no inherent
benefits in this regard.
Sensor Fusion and Information Sharing: MUM-T
facilitates the integration of various sensors and data sources from both
manned and unmanned platforms. This enables enhanced situational awareness and
information sharing, leading to better-informed decision-making.
As the quote correctly notes, ‘integration’
of sensors and data is not an inherent characteristic of unmanned assets and
applies equally to manned assets.
Unmanned assets offer no ‘enhanced situational awareness’.
Coordinated Missions: Manned and unmanned vessels can
operate in a coordinated manner to execute complex missions. This collaboration
allows for a synergistic approach, combining the strengths of human intuition
and adaptability with the precision and endurance of unmanned systems.
More marketing bilgewater. Manned assets can, and do, ‘operate in a
coordinated manner to execute complex missions’. Again, there is zero inherent superiority in coordinating
unmanned assets and, indeed, some significant drawbacks in that manned assets
can act independently and with intelligence as situations change whereas
unmanned assets cannot.
Training and Skill Development: MUM-T scenarios
provide opportunities for training human operators in controlling and
interacting with unmanned systems. This helps in developing the necessary
skills for seamless collaboration between manned and unmanned assets.
This is the ultimate in self-licking
ice cream cone logic. Of course operating
unmanned assets develops skill in operating unmanned assets. So what?
Operating elephants develops skill in operating elephants but that doesn’t
help warfighting and neither do unmanned assets.
Conclusion
This article was a marketing blurb, pure and simple. Its only value was in clearly illustrating the
lack of analytical rigor being applied to unmanned systems. The West has made the leap directly from concept
to implementation of unmanned systems without bothering to stop at the analysis
step.
The article reads like a Turkish arm sales marketing brochure and should be an embarrassment to the Naval News website.
_________________________
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/12/ulaq-combat-usv-proves-efficiency-on-the-field/
"Manned assets can equally be designed for longer endurance and extended range."
ReplyDeleteThe human systems component of a manned aircraft actually takes up quite a bit of size, weight, power and cooling. All of which take away from fuel load.
A better way to put is this is that for a given aircraft size, an unmanned aircraft configuration can provide greater endurance.
Range is a whole different issue since that required a communications link.
"The human systems component of a manned aircraft actually takes up quite a bit of size, weight, power and cooling. All of which take away from fuel load."
DeleteNot really.
First, most of the human accommodations consist of air which has no weight. The cockpit is mostly space which, certainly, contributes to increased size but not that much weight. Basically, it's the ejection seat and the pilot plus some small displays. There's miscellaneous equipment such as O2 and heating equipment.
Now, consider an unmanned aircraft. While it doesn't have the human accommodations, it has extra cameras and sensors for the ground controllers, additional comm gear and antennae, ground control comms/gear, and so on.
One would have to do a detailed, item by item tabulation of the weights and volume but it seems unlikely that unmanned aircraft are significantly smaller and lighter FOR THE EQUIVALENT FUNCTIONS as a manned aircraft.
"an unmanned aircraft configuration can provide greater endurance."
No. An unmanned F-35 is going to have approximately the same endurance as a manned F-35 because the weights won't be significantly different. What's gained by removing the human accommodations is lost by inserting the unmanned accommodations.
An F-35A weighs around 30,000 lbs empty. The human (200 lbs) and ejection seat (?200 lbs?) makes up 1% of the total weight. Even removing that and not replacing it with additional unmanned gear results in a mere 1% decrease in weight. That has no significant impact on range or endurance.
People continually want to attribute all manner of near-miraculous capabilities and characteristics to unmanned aircraft but most claims are simply not true.
All things being equal, where an unmanned aircraft has a clear advantage over a manned aircraft is in maneuvering. A manned fighter is soft limited to 9G maneuvers for a very short period of time, because sustained 9G maneuvers will cause the pilot to pass out from GLOC. An unmanned fighter doesn't have this limitation.
DeleteAs a practical matter, sustained 9G maneuvers is still not a good thing, because it imparts additional stresses on the aircraft and will deadline it for inspection and repair - I'm reminded of how Tomcats could disable the G limiter to pull 10.5G snapturns. - but that's a problem for tomorrow, after the dogfight has been won.
There are certain applications where unmanned aircraft can have longer endurance than a manned aircraft, such as Reaper, where missions can be of a sufficient duration that remote piloting crews are rotated out while the aircraft remains in the air, but these are very niche applications. For tactical air missions, the duration would be about the same, whether manned or unmanned, so the endurance is less of an issue.
CNO you are forgetting the extra length of the fuselage to accommodate the cockpit.
Delete"clear advantage over a manned aircraft is in maneuvering"
DeleteNo. The G force limit on manned aircraft is due to aircraft structural stress considerations, not pilot endurance. The same stress limits apply to unmanned aircraft. You basically acknowledged this further on in your comment.
"There are certain applications where unmanned aircraft can have longer endurance than a manned aircraft"
Again, no. If we wanted to, we could build a manned aircraft with incredibly long endurance but, just as with unmanned aircraft, we'd have to sacrifice most of the payload capacity.
"you are forgetting the extra length of the fuselage to accommodate the cockpit."
DeleteNo, at least not to any great extent. The space/length consumed by the cockpit in a manned aircraft is consumed by the extra sensors. comm gear, etc. required for unmanned operations. Perhaps there might be some slight difference when all is said and done but nothing significant. If you want the exact performance of an F-22/35 in an unmanned aircraft, that aircraft will be almost exactly the same size/weight as the manned version. The human accommodations simply don't consume that much space/weight compared to the unmanned accommodations.
"No. The G force limit on manned aircraft is due to aircraft structural stress considerations, not pilot endurance. The same stress limits apply to unmanned aircraft. You basically acknowledged this further on in your comment."
DeleteThere's the argument that the current stress limits on aircraft come from the pilot - there's no point to building an aircraft that can take 11Gs if the pilot tops out at 9Gs. Like you've said before, if there's a clear need for it, it'll be done and we'll build it. If we want and need big guns, we'll build them. If we want unmanned fighters that can regularly pull 11Gs, we'll build them.
(This is setting aside the question of whether we actually want unmanned fighters for dogfighting, although it's interesting to note that the Air Force's drone target squadrons have been messing around with practicing ACM in their QF-16s...)
"Again, no. If we wanted to, we could build a manned aircraft with incredibly long endurance but, just as with unmanned aircraft, we'd have to sacrifice most of the payload capacity."
I was thinking more from the crew fatigue issue. Reapers have flown very long endurance missions where they've swapped crews, and that's fine because the crews are in the ground station. Otherwise, you'd either need to have a larger crew compartment to carry the crew*, or, as with B-2s (and presumably B-21s in future), the pilot and copilot will trade off, taking turns to fly and sleep.
*To be fair, the main long duration missions, coming mostly from the air force side, are intercontinental transport, strategic tanker sorties, AWACS orbits, and intercontinental bomber missions, most of which are using platforms which can certainly accommodate additional flight crew.
"there's no point to building an aircraft that can take 11Gs if the pilot tops out at 9Gs."
DeleteAgain, no. While it may be true that we could, theoretically, build an aircraft that could withstand 100G's, it would be too heavy to get off the ground. Aircraft - ALL aircraft - are built as structurally light as possible consistent with their performance requirements. An unmanned F-35 is going to have the same structural (meaning g-force) limits as a manned one unless we want to start beefing it up which means reducing its payload (meaning weapons and fuel).
Remember, g-force impacts not just the pilot and the wings but also every component in the aircraft. Every circuit board, computer, hydraulic cable, connector, fuel tank, etc. has to be further strengthened and reinforced to withstand the greater forces.
Your thinking, taken to the extreme, results in missiles, as a form of unmanned aircraft. Yes, they can withstand greater forces but they have very limited payload, can't be recovered, have very limited sensors and field of vision, and are rigidly single function (not a bad thing!). In short, they trade off general performance for increased g-force tolerance.
You are probably aware of the dismal state of the Royal Navy. Two frigates to be disposed of, apparently, because, through incompetence, crews can't be found.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.navylookout.com/is-the-royal-navy-in-crisis/
So, whether or not they will ever be able to cope, unmanned systems and minimal manning are almost certainly coming to European and, possibly, to the Japanese navies. I would be very interested in articles from you on the right way to do those things. Could you please take any of the trendy and, with current technology, terrible ideas that navies and the related industries are proposing and show how to get the job done properly.
I think it's important to remember that we are still in the very early stages with a lot of these technologies. When we look back, current efforts will look rather like WW1 aircraft and tanks look to us now.
After reading the article I've discovered that it's a port security drone and there is an ASuW variant. Most countries use smaller patrol boats or RHIBs for the security role, often with eyeball Mk1 as the only sensor and a crew of 2 or 3 sailors. The turks will probably use the inside and around the Straits together with ground sensors and others. In such a scenario there could e the advantages written in the article but only in the specific case and they are probably hyperspecialized for the specific used around the straits.
ReplyDeleteHarsh reality - people's wishful thinking (even patriotic) vs technical capability.
ReplyDeleteTurkey simply has no high end ship based fighters nor ability to eject large aircrafts from ship.
If you want to watch this kind of manned and unmanned system, watch China, not Turkey.
Some news report first type 076 is under construction. 076 will have two EMAL to launch drones. Surf web yourself on GJ-11 drones. A problem is, unlike West, China doesn't release much information on ships under construction nor give much on their future weapon development.
Real danger on China is its ever increase technological base.
"The article reads like a Turkish arm sales marketing brochure"
ReplyDeleteBecause that's its actual purpose.
Too many once respectable publications will happily shill for whoever is willing to pay enough, with facts and reality being a very distant concern.
If you examine the article, it appears that all the information came from a SINGLE Turkish source. Reporting 101 teaches that you NEVER use just a single source and certainly not a biased one which a Turkish official commenting on Turkish equipment most certainly is.
DeleteThe Naval News staff failed utterly in their responsibility to ANALYZE and report news.
Of course, as you suggest, if there actual purpose is to make money and accuracy, validity, and integrity don't matter then they likely succeeded.
I almost find myself hoping that the Naval News site has simply sold out rather than that they're totally incompetent. It least if they've sold out for payments I can understand that.
I have a collection of 'trusted' sources I go to but they're getting fewer as time goes on.
"Any free information is worth what you payed for it."
DeleteOld Albanian NKVD saying.
" I have a collection of 'trusted' sources I go to but they're getting fewer as time goes on."
DeleteI really had this epiphany just days ago. I have a lot of military and naval affairs sources I subscribe to, and I had a mass deletion event. It seems as if many have turned into either manufacturer brochure publishers, or buzzword bingo printers. Even some that are history-focused have become full of rampant errors and/or written by people who actually have no interest or knowledge in what theyre writing. Not sure whats going on, but it seems that the 'net is becoming an even worse source of info than it usually is...
The basic problem with unmanned vehicles is, at least the US Navy, does not generate an CONOPS for these vehicles. Therefore, there is no way measure or evaluate effectiveness. Instead you get RFPs that are just a collection of technical performance values. Worse, the technical specificatoins are issued on the contract as DRAFT. These in no way tell you how useful, if at all, the vechicle will or can be in an operational environment. What use is a 18 foot long, 950 lb UUV, that launches and recovers nose first, in a submarine torpedo room? It has to be taken apart to turn it around and reassembled for relaunching. and 2 - 475 lb units are not easy to move around. Yet 18 ft and 950 lb max is all the specification contained. As with all acquisitions, if you can't develop a CONOPS you shouldn't be requesting a contract for production and fielding. Really advanced concept prototypes (like what DARPA does) don't need a CONOPS, EVERYTHING else does.
ReplyDelete"if you can't develop a CONOPS you shouldn't be requesting a contract for production and fielding."
DeleteSuccinctly put! This is at the root of every Navy procurement fiasco, as we've repeatedly documented. I honestly don't understand the Navy's refusal to generate CONOPS. It doesn't take very long and doesn't require any significant amount of money to do. The only explanation is that doing so would probably show that most Navy desires are invalid and, of course, they don't want that known. Their goal is budget funding not combat usefulness.
Absolutely!! Its absurd to build somthing with the mentality of "lets put it in the hands of sailors and see what they can do with it"!! It baffles me how you can request proposals when theres no clearly defined mission, capability, or specification set.
DeleteTo quote the immortal CNO:
"CONOPS, CONOPS, CONOPS!!!"
Careerists do not want anything that can document how political they are and how inept of combat leaders they are. For an Admiral proposing a CONOPS, written by their staff (maybe even bright young junior officers who know how they will fight), the risk of having a documented accountability trail just inconceivable. Better to jsut request money with vague promises. The old adage better to br thought a fool, than speak up and remove all doubt is how the system works now.
DeleteNumber 1, all of the alleged benefits of manned and unmanned assets working together require strong and consistent communications. The enemy's first or second step is going to be to jam the heck out of those communications. How do things work in that environment?
ReplyDeleteNumber 2, which of these wonderful capabilities ave been tested in a full combat environment? If any have, what problems did they encounter and what solutions have they developed? I'm guessing that if we had 20 years of exercising in an interbellum Fleet Problem environment, we would find some ideas that worked, some that didn't, some problems that nobody anticipated, and some solutions that we wold never have found without realistic testing. Tabletop war games are no substitute for boots on te ground.
Read where the Navy accepted the first unmanned submersible prototype in the ORCA program. There are 4 more prototypes being manufactured. The first proposed mission set would be mine laying. Your 1 & 2 paragraphs make sense. Also if a mechanical or if software bug occurs what will they do ? Attempt to recover this under war time conditions ?
DeleteGenerally speaking, I'd say that unmanned enhances the ability to win the budget wars far more than it enhances the ability to win actual wars.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
And we all know which kind of war the military cares more about winning...
DeleteYou can't make this stuff up:
ReplyDeleteForces from the U.S. 5th Fleet completed a four-day exercise in May 2023 that focused on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence integration into maritime operations. The prior month, the U.S. Navy sent the first unmanned surface vessel through the busy Strait of Hormuz, as part of its ongoing efforts to integrate drones into the fleet for a broad range of patrols and monitoring. The 41-foot vessel that looks like a speed boat was escorted by two U.S. Coast Guard cutters and according to reports was closely observed by the Iranians. The Iranians harassed and seized one uncrewed vessel used for monitoring, but the Navy defends its program saying it permits them to expand coverage and be seen at a lower cost of operations.
https://maritime-executive.com/article/usn-launches-new-task-group-for-uncrewed-operations-in-the-middle-east