ID wrote an article early (and I mean it posted early...like around 1 or 2 am) about the US Navy losing the narrative battle to the USAF in regards to the Air-Sea Battle. Read it here but a few snippets.
Two problems occurred. First, unmanned aircraft development for the Navy in particular got sidetracked when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began wearing down F-18s faster than the Navy expected, and due to political pressure from Congress, not to mention practical problems with rapidly aging airframes, the Navy ended up having to spend a great deal of the aviation budget on replacing F-18 Hornets instead of innovating new unmanned aircraft. Second, the Littoral Combat Ship mission modules that focused on unmanned vehicles ran into serious development problems that have led to a complete restructuring of the mission module programs. Many of those technologies could not meet requirements, and as a result Navy leadership spends a great deal of time in public speeches emphasizing the necessity for mission power capacity to support new technologies like unmanned underwater vehicles.
The Navy doesn't have a Hornet replacement of any type ready to field today, and while a lot of investment in both the Joint Strike Fighter and the UCAS offers possibilities; these systems lack a narrative that overrides the uncertainty surrounding the programs. What will be the capabilities and limitations of both platforms, and will they compliment each other effectively has hoped? What does future ISR look like when surface combatants and submarines field unmanned systems, and what does the Littoral Combat Ship bring to the total battle network? Will these complicated emerging networks of systems be both reliable and credible, or will the network requirements be too vulnerable to stress and disruption in the future warfare environment to make many of these technologies useful?I don't know if the G man had word of the shoot down before I did, but one thing is certain.
He nailed it. The article is a little wordy and he goes into issues that focus on the Big Navy, but as far as UAV's and the Surface Navy is concerned, he nailed it.
This first combat deployment of rotary winged UAVs (I'm assuming US Navy warships) is a disappointment. At least in my eyes.
It also brings up a couple of interesting questions.
1. Are rotary winged UAVs more vulnerable than fixed winged UAVs?
2. Was the flight profile adequate? Did its mission profile place it in danger of being lost or is it more fundamental?
3. Is the idea of armed rotary winged UAVs an evolutionary dead end?
4. For naval warfare --- do manned helicopters just make more sense? MH-60's can be had for a song...should we dump the fashion of UAVs and concentrate on what we know works?
I don't know but the loss of this FireScout...for whatever reason...does not bode well for the future of these vehicles.
I would say that all rotary wing aircraft are more vulnerable as a rule. Speed and Altitude are huge advantages, and can take large numbers of hostile AA weapons out of the picture.
ReplyDeleteBut for the Navy rotary UAVs have one big advantage we have not tapped. Capacity for a dunking sonar. These things could be a submarine's nemesis since they are capable of decent range and can launch/recover from anything. Also they would be a great torpedo delivery platform much like the DASH of 50 years ago. If we start to see more submarine launched SAMs (like the German IDAS) sending unmanned ASW birds in might be the only option.
thats a huge point but that would place the surface navy in the lead role and not aviation...in particular, carrier aviation would take a back seat in all this.
ReplyDeletei just don't see it happening.
additionally if you look at the development of the Fire Scout, it started as a surface warfare platform and the anti-sub mission was huge...then it got morphed into an AH-1W light....a Predator light...long story short its been moving away from purely naval missions at every step of its development.
1) yes. They fly lower and slower, and are therefore more vulnerable.
ReplyDelete2) The problem with current UAV tech is that they're programed to fly from waypoint to waypoint. While these can be changed mid-flight, they basically fly straight and level from one point to another. Since the MQ-8 operates between 5 and 7 thousand feet, and has a very limited ability to take evasive action from enemy fire, this would make a Fire Scout a much easier target than a manned chopper. Therefore, I'd say there's a fundemental danger of loosing an unmanned rotorcaft in any type of anti-air enviroment.
3) The Fire Scout is a very early concept as far as unmanned rotorcraft go. The platform's based off of a small tour/trainer helo. I think it's too early to tell if it's an evolutionary dead end.
4) I think currently it makes much more sense to employ manned helos in the role the Fire Scout was doing in Libya, since they're much harder to shoot down and also have the advantage of being able to carry alot more payload.
i am wondering how much the unmanned aspect helped because getting pilots back would have been more difficult (even though we were able to get our F15 pilot back i dont know if the amphib ship is there right now with their 22s and marines), so its better to lose a vehicle than to lose a pilot, since we don't have ground troops that was a risk they may not have wanted to take, i know this is kind of overshadowed by the British using the Apaches but with the debate in congress about our people being in "hostilities" and the war powers, was this a way to justify no Americans were being shot at.
ReplyDeletedon't get me started on the war powers act!
ReplyDeletehave you ever wondered why every modern president has involved US forces in a military action?
i don't think it has a thing to do with 'helping' allies or saving people...i think it has everything to do with ego and power.
the only part of the US government that acts on a dime is the US military. the ultimate act of power/ego is to send someone into danger while you can sit back ....
with modern communications, anything short of nuclear war can be discussed by Congress before the military is involved in hostilities.
well i wasnt meaning to start a political debate and i agree the communication is not an issue with regards to talking to congress but i was just wondering if this was a less risk way of sending in fire-scout instead of an MH60.
ReplyDeleteits less risky because it allows the deception that the current administration is promoting to continue.
ReplyDeleteit also shows what a lie it is to say that we're not involved in hostilities.
the lie is so fragile that if its said out loud one more time it'll shrivel up and blow away.
well i agree its stupid we arent engaged in hostilities, congress is just splitting alot of hairs with regards to the politics because its easier than addressing real problems.
ReplyDeletethe real problem is that the american people are not involved in the decision making process when it comes to war.
ReplyDeleteand the reason why is because our politicians are asking us to commit to operations that the american people would not support.
thats why we the people are being ignored when it comes to afghanistan.
the people want out, our leaders want us to stay.
we need a revolution.
well i would say our leaders dont care what the american people think in general.
ReplyDeletealso the american people really arent that well informed, most americans dont want to learn and study issues of national importance, they just listen to talking points from major parties.
yeah but explain to me why Libya is more important than Syria? the Syrians have easily killed more of their own people than Khaddafi has.
ReplyDeletebut the issue is that their is no human rights crisis thats being defended here...its all about oil. oil for the Europeans.
at least afghanistan isn't or wasn't about oil...all they have is opium.
time to kick bricks on both operations.
well i dotn know why syria is more important than libya, it doesnt seem that important to me, but it seems we were dragged into this by france who is going to pull out their carrier in a few months anyway.
ReplyDeleteok. honest discussion Joe.
ReplyDeletewhat does that say about the leadership of our country and both political parties?
McCain...the war hero and senile old fool...is begging to stay the course in not only Afghanistan but also to up activity in Libya...but at the same time says nothing about Syria.
the President...community activist and war protester...has doubled down in Afghanistan, got us involved in a third conflict (if you're not counting whats going on in Yemen) and is going to announce a paltry reduction of forces in Afghanistan of just 10,000 troops.
the US is being fucked not by China but by our political elite.
we need a revolution.
we dont have "leadership", we have people that govern technically but we lost true leaders a long time ago.
ReplyDeletenot sure what you mean by a revolution though? you mean an actual conflict in the US?
ReplyDeletehonest discussion right?
ReplyDeletemaybe a violent expression of ideas is what the country needs.
we're actually two maybe three countries mixed in one anyway. i know you get tired of my rants against the coasts but they're so far removed from the values that i know and believe in that i can't see straight. the environmental movement that is embraced by those in the cities would take away my rights to hunt and bear arms...do tree huggers ever get into the woods anyway?
on top of that, they ruin the southern economy by wanting off shore oil bans that put hundreds of people out of work..l.....
i just don't know. what i do know is that what we have now is not working.
yes an honest discussion, i think alot of what you see on teh east and west coast is a rural/urban divide. you see alot more conservative people in rural areas than urban even on the coasts (look at NY which theres a bit of conflict). i dont think there should be violence in anyway, i do think we need to have better leadership, somehow i am not sure what to do.
ReplyDeletethe off shore bans are lifted now to the understanding i have but also there is a ban on off shore oil drilling within the horizon, which seems stupid to me as well. theres alot of things past administrations have done (both obama and bush) i dont support but dont see anyone else to fix it. the problem is both parties have been hijacked by their extremes and no one is willing to come up with the best solution, only THEIR solution, which doesnt bode well for a democracy.
yeah but the problem is that solutions are being tailored to people on the coast while the heartland is bieng ignored.
ReplyDeletethat won't stand.
maybe not violence but i seriously see extreme conflict. mark my words, you'll hear talk about succession and you'll even see minor disruptions like tax protest rear its head.
we're in for a very rough ride soon.
well i think the heartland is being heard, its just Obama is the first president in recent memory which has not carried the south, so i think people are feeling angry, and i think overall the tone is not conducive in this country. i think there will be non-violent conflict, and the tea party showed how a group that feels left out can influence the political system, but we need solutions, just not people raising problems (i am making this as a general statement, not towards you). i did an internship at HHS in summer of 2007, the head of our office (a political appointee under Bush who had served under every admin since Jimmy Carter) had a rule. The office was for people with disabilities, and when meeting with constituent groups she had a rule that you couldnt complain about a problem without having a solution, i agree with that.
ReplyDeletethe only thing is succession would be devastating. States can no longer be independent if they were to break off economically, so much interstate trade so many bills to pay by the states, even if they cut all federal programs mandated, they still wouldnt have the revenue (most states wouldnt, some larger ones like texas, florida, cali, NY might) but succession is impossible for most states economically. commerce is too integrated.
ReplyDeleteI would say the American people are partly to blame.
ReplyDeleteA majority supported the initiation on the Libya operation. Now it seems that the majority is against it, because it has not gone well - that's the problem right there. Americans only care as long as we win. In real life you don't always win, so you need to be smarter about the messes you risk good lives over.
1% of Americans serve, so the country at large really doesn't give a damn what war the executive branch starts as long as we are winning.
well i agree and it goes back to what i was saying a while ago, most americans dont inform themselves on the issues, so their views are almost meaningless. those that are informed (like those of us here) are too far and few between to be heard.
ReplyDeleteA litle unrelated, but I'm just gonna throw out there that this is one of the best discussions I've seen on this blog.
ReplyDeletei like it when people of differing views can have honest discussions, why cant the people in DC do the same? :) Sol does good here at SNAFU :), which i think is far more apt to describe DC than the military today.
ReplyDeleteagree Patrick...
ReplyDeleteJoe, let me ask you a question. me and friends are sitting around after working out drinking a beer and we all hit on something.
the current economy is still in a tailspin. what we're seeing in Greece could easily apply to us sooner rather than later.
what do you think is going to happen to this country if they can't fake the unemployment rate anymore because millions more americans become unemployed because everyone continues to hunker down...even the clowns that are spending like crazy right now because they believe that everything is back to 'normal'....
what happens when these floods we've been having...droughts we've been having and we have a double whammy of crazy high oil and food prices...
do you think that crime will spike?
do you think that our just in time food supply system will survive?
do you think americans will be happy paying 5 dollars a gallon gas prices?
what happens to our civil society when everyone is under pressure.
what happens when everyone finally understands that things are not as good as the leadership said and we're facing at the very least a double dip recession.
do you not think that the idea of states banding together to form mini unions won't take place?
i can see it now. Texas and Louisiana as oil producing states...Alabama, Mississippi as food producers...Georgia and Florida as vacation and commerce hubs (of course this is just tossing it out there...it would mix out far differently)...
can you not see how an association of south eastern states might not make sense? can you not see how these states could easily be self sufficient? thats not even counting the other states that would want to join...the point is that the northeast and the west would be cut out. the heartland is self sufficient...the coasts aren't...yet the coasts are wagging this nations tail.
well i think there are tough times ahead, i dont think we will hit a double dip recession although the economy will rebound slowly, not as quick as we want. even if the states do bound together, it depends on if they stay apart of the united states or not. if they do not they would be cut from federal money and would have to begin to offer services to their citizens themselves, and so many services would be cut until trade and an independent economy got going. the south eastern states wouldnt be very self sufficient economically, the south eastern states are mostly poorer and so state services would have to be heavily curtailed which would lead to social unrest.
ReplyDeleteconsidering our economy is the largest in the world, i think while there are certainly cultural differences among the states, its best to have a solution that keeps the union together, any state being removed would cause alot of instability, not only domestically but globally, and i know your not a fan of globalization yet i think it would hurt. furthermore, i am not sure a state can succeed or how that process would go. congress can admit states, the constitution doesnt mention how they leave.
sorry sol you had some questions in the middle i didnt give my POV on:
ReplyDeletedo you think that crime will spike?
this is a kind of depends scenario. we have a very strong law and order society. we put more people in jail per-capita than most countries. it depends what crimes. i dont see a large spike in violent crimes but i can foresee theft and things if food and other necessities become scarce. my fear is greater crime will lead to the states justifying more restrictions on civil liberties. i am not saying we will go the way of a non-free society but it could be scary. look at what we have been debating civil rights wise in the WOT.
do you think that our just in time food supply system will survive?
food supply will be scarce around the world in the future years, its a major concern, as will clean water be.
do you think americans will be happy paying 5 dollars a gallon gas prices?
very unhappy, but europe pays about that, with rising fuel efficiencies it will hopefully become less of a problem, the market will demand better vehicles, so it may spur us away from oil addiction. Also if we go away from oil addiction the oil producing states lose power, the saudis said that bluntly the other day, they dont want us to go away from their oil.
what happens to our civil society when everyone is under pressure.
that i dont know.
OK those are my responses, just my ideas.
Sorry to highjack the thread back on topic but I wonder if that Firescout was bait? There are a lot of MANPADs in Libya, maybe the Navy sent a stripped down Firescout out there to eat up as many MANPADs as possible before they find their way out of the country.
ReplyDeleteyou're missing the point Joe. in this recession police officers have been laid off. in cities they still clinge to the idea of uniformed men paid to protect...in rural areas everyone is getting concealed carry permits.
ReplyDeletei have one...in two states which covers me for about 90 percent of the country.
crime will come but it won't end up with more people behind bars. when the time comes you'll see tombstone justice.
people are growing gardens in my area like never before.
people are in the gym getting in shape...
many believe that tough times are coming and are preparing.
thats my point.
back on subject with you TLAM.
ReplyDeletei don't think so. there are cheaper, older UAVs that are capable MANPAD magnets if that was the mission.
plus this is the maiden deployment of a new weapon system for the NAVY, Marine Corps and potentially Army.
you don't set that up to fail by being shot down.
and i cant say it wont happen, i just hope to God it doesnt. I have great respect for you Sol but in this case i hope you are wrong, but all we can do is hope. i might be seeing this from a survival point of view because as someone who isnt capable of defending himself i would need a really strong deadbolt!
ReplyDeleteif it came down to it, if things like that started to happen i think they would deploy Nat. Guard and military assets but again so many things can happen, its a day by day thing these days to survive.
nope. if there is a GOD and i believe there is then he will make provisions for you.
ReplyDeletemy disdain is for those that are fully capable but choose not to do what is necessary to protect themselves.
thank you sol. I would take it even further and say my disdain is that we have lost a sense of community in this country. I remember JFK saying ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. well serving your country is not only about serving the government but serving others as well. Looking out for your neighbor, helping others i need, if we looked at America as a community and not 300 million individuals we wouldnt have half the problems we do now. A vast majority would be of welfare because people would have jobs and be able to support themselves, alot of the problems we have is the state has taken over where social relationships use to be.
ReplyDeleteTo get back to your original questions:
ReplyDeleteRef 1: Sure rotary wing UAVs are more vulnerable. The trade off is a lot of neat things come along with VTOL. Helicopters are more vulnerable than jets, it doesn't mean you replace all your helicopters with fast movers.
Ref 3: Given the choice of operating fixed wing vs. rotary wing for maritime patrol and ASW, everyone picks fixed wing. This line of thinking is why I think the Osprey is criminally under-used in future navy planning, but I digress . . On anything smaller than a through deck cruiser, fixed wing isn't really an option so VTOL vehicles have a place for everything smaller. Also VTOL drones (usually but not always rotary wing) allow aviation capability on even smaller ships than helicopters both because of physical size and because losing one is not as big a deal as it is with a manned helo. The reasons there is a future for maritime VTOL UAVs are the same as the reason there is a future for maritime helicopters.
Ref 4: It's not a one to one comparison. Firescout is about 1/7th the size of a Navy Helo by weight. Having several drones instead of one helo lets you cover more water and gives resilience against mechanical failure and combat losses. this combines with the unmanned nature of the beast to let commanders use drones much more aggressively. If you look at how much capability you can get out of a fixed amount of deck space, support crew, and fuel, smaller UABs will look better in many applications by weight of numbers, not individual platform capability.
The theory is moot however. The LCS is a disaster and the targeting capabilities that UAVs bring are only significant to a Navy that arms surface ships to kill other surface ships and attack shore targets, things the US Navy has no requirement for nor interest in.
i have to say again, the LCS is a piece of crap. it has no teeth, and from Sols pictures the other day is only being held together by bird droppings! we need a good LCS sized ship that can take over where the oliver perry class is leaving, anti-sub duties, that can also do some littoral stuff. it has to have more teeth though, put a few VLS cells, a good radar, a good sonar (can be towed) and have helo capabilities. i think they can redesign slightly the JHSV to do this, turn it from a transport to a combat ship, it will have great speed, have helos and ability to be recon for the fleet.
ReplyDeleteMH-60s can't be "had for a song". IIRC, MH-60Rs are in the $40-50 million range. MH-60Ss are cheaper, but not Fire Scout-cheap.
ReplyDeleteI have to imagine O&M is a lot cheaper on a single-engine Fire Scout too.
That being said, yes, they are far more vulnerable to ground fire than fixed-wing aircraft. IMHO, if they were just looking for overland imagery, they should use smaller, semi-disposable UAVs like ScanEagle, or just let fixed-wing aviation do the job.
I agree that VTUAVs have a lot of potential as dipping sonar platforms, but I have a feeling Fire Scout is too small for this. Especially if it has to carry a torp too.
@B.Smitty: Yea a VTUAV is kinda small for both Sensors and Torpedoes, but why not send two? One with a sonar and one with a torpedo. That is what was done in the 1950's, it was called a Hunter/Killer Team.
ReplyDeleteWell ALFS weighs around 600 lbs by itself. And that's just for the dipping rig. It doesn't count any acoustic processing or datalink hardware it might need.
ReplyDeleteA single Mk54 torpedo weighs 600 lbs.
MQ-8B's payload is only 700lbs for "short range" missions.
So two MQ-8Bs will struggle to carry ALFS and ONE torpedo.