Forum: Air Power

I've been thinking about this subject for quite a while now, but it's always been at the back of my mind. UCAVs keep coming up in different topics, but I haven't seen one just for them. I have a few thoughts on the subject and would appreciate any thoughts the rest of the membership might be able to contribute.

While I understand the idea behind UCAVs, I have some serious questions and concerns regarding the deployment and use of them. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the thought of sending men into harm's way any more than anyone else. UCAVs have that going for them. I see this as a trade-off. While you remove the risk of a human being injured or killed, it also removes a very important link in the chain.

While I know that the UCAVs will have a datalink to a "pilot" on the ground most likely backed up with superb fail-safe programming, I feel there is something lost in not having an actual pilot in the aircraft. Humans have an unmatched ability to think on the fly and adapt to changing situations. What if the datalink is lost and the target turns out to be friendly or civilian? Allowing computers to make life and death decisions is a very dangerous proposition. Forget about theoretical scenarios like "Terminator", I'm thinking of the allied aircraft shot down by Patriot missiles while returning to base after missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I know "blue on blue" has occured in every conflict and will almost certainly occur in every conflict to come, it seems that a few radio conversations might have saved those pilots' lives. Instead, the computer in the Patriot Missile system "decided" that the aircraft were hostile and launched. Isn't there the possibility that a UCAV could go "rogue"? If one UCAV does go rogue, or mistake friendly forces for enemy while continuing to transmit the correct IFF, could another UCAV still be tasked to disregard that particular aircraft's signals and destroy it, assuming that there are no manned aircraft to handle the assignment?

Am I the only one who sees an ethical problem with sending robots to kill people? I know that every advantage should be exploited in combat, but to what degree? I personally don't think it is proper to send an unmanned vehicle out to shoot down and kill the pilots of other aircraft. Truth be told, I don't like the thought of the Predator being equipped with Hellfires. I think a human should be in the aircraft to push the button that launches the weapon. War is hell, and I see the possibility that the distance from our actions afforded by "telepresence" might also distance us from the thoughts of the consequences of those actions.

I guess my problem with UCAVs is really about the loss of humanity. The human in a combat aircraft (or in combat in general) is the last line of conscience in the chain of command. Assuming a loss of communication, a UCAV is a flying computer. It has no sense of duty, honor, or humanity. There are many stories of men flying combat missions and deviating from "Standard Operating Proceedures" to save the lives of those in the air or on the ground. I'm sure Gums and some of the other guys here know a few of those stories. Computers can only do what they've been programmed to do. They can not deviate from the SOPs for any reason. This would cause me serious concerns as an infantry troop. Humans can improvise, adapt, and overcome. We are still human, and make mistakes, but we can't rely on computers to be perfect, either. After all, it takes a human to program a computer.

One last thought. What if the enemy gains access to the controls of the UCAV through espionage and hijacking the signal? I hate to think of the possibility of this happening, but without a person in the cockpit, can it truly be ruled out as a possibility? If they can control one UCAV by these means, why not all of them? I can guarantee that by no means whatsoever is it possible to remotely control the "stick actuator" in an F-16 or any other current fighter, let alone all of them at once!

Maybe these concerns are the result of ignorance. Maybe they're just a reflection of the fact that I'm "old school". Maybe I'm just nostalgic and don't want to accept the new reality. That's why I'm asking everyone here for their opinions. We have a great group of people on this site, and I appreciate the opportunity to take advantage of everyone's knowledge and experience! Thanks in advance!

F-16.net Sponsor

hehe you used "kill" and "ethical" in the same sentence... think about it.

Face it, UCAVs are the way of the future. Our military is already going down that path. Our defense industry is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the technology and infrastructure. The military will continue to invest billions more.

Think of the political ramifications - any war that can be fought (and hopefully won) with minimal loss of and/or risk to troops will keep politicians re-elected. So of course such a concept has the backing of politicians. The defense dollars invested in UCAvs mean jobs, and jobs mean votes, which will keep politicians re-elected.

Oh, wait - you asked about UCAVs... Sorry for the cynicism but that's how I see our country's political motivators. Evil or Very Mad

Quote:

Hehe, you used "kill" and "ethical" in the same sentence... think about it.

Yeah, it's quite an oxymoron, isn't it? But isn't there a right way and wrong way to fight a war?

Quote:

Face it, UCAVs are the way of the future. Our military is already going down that path. Our defense industry is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the technology and infrastructure. The military will continue to invest billions more.

I know UCAVs appear to be the way of the future, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it!

Quote:

Think of the political ramifications - any war that can be fought (and hopefully won) with minimal loss of and/or risk to troops will keep politicians re-elected. So of course such a concept has the backing of politicians. The defense dollars invested in UCAvs mean jobs, and jobs mean votes, which will keep politicians re-elected.

Oh, wait - you asked about UCAVs... Sorry for the cynicism but that's how I see our country's political motivators.

I completely agree with you here, Habu2. I see the good UCAVs can do by limiting allied casualties. As for politics, well just look at where the word comes from. Poly = many and Ticks = blood sucking parasites. Where the jobs are concerned, I see a net loss of jobs due to UCAVs. No need to develop and manufacture as many cockpit displays and interfaces, no HUDs, no ejection seats, no life support systems. Also no need to have people maintain these systems. This can be good for the aircraft and the program because it reduces costs and complexity along with weight. Less weight and complexity means an easier aircraft to support with more capacity for gas and weapons, but I still think we need a person in the cockpit. Just my humble opinion.

For missions in high threat areas on fixed targets with a low civvy Pk, patrolling known enemy supply routes, or for striking known mobile military targets (convoys, command posts, etc.) then yeah...I can see the value of UCAVs. Small, fast, nimble, fairly stealthy, long loiter times, modest payload on some models (and getting better), and expendable.

I understand and sympathize with parrothead's apprehension about taking humanity out of the firing sequence. But try looking at it from this angle: There also may be a deterrent factor indirectly noted by habu2: The reason the US doesn't enter into war on a whim is because we value the lives of our troops and don't want to see them needlessly put into harm's way. Our current and future enemies know this and exploit it. If a war can be fought and won with minimal risk to American troops, I, for one, think our foes will be less likely to threaten or provoke a war with the US if they know our civilian leadership is less apprehensive about entering into conflict where our troop risk is low by using forces based largely on unmanned technology. If you're Kim Jong-Il or Bashir al-Assad for examples, the thought of swarms of American UCAVs darkening the skies over your major cities is not conducive to a good night's sleep. Wink

That maybe pollyannish thinking on my part but then again I'm not a Pentagon war planner either.

I really don't think the pilot will ever be completely phased out. For high-value strikes where you absolutely have to have certain success you're gonna need a set of human eyeballs and fingers to carry it out. But like habu2 noted the trend is moving more and more toward the unmanned stuff for all kinds of reasons not the least of which are militarily related.

Good points Link! Smile

Quote:

There also may be a deterrent factor indirectly noted by habu2: The reason the US doesn't enter into war on a whim is because we value the lives of our troops and don't want to see them needlessly put into harm's way. Our current and future enemies know this and exploit it. If a war can be fought and won with minimal risk to American troops, our foes will be less likely to threaten or provoke a war with the US if they know our civilian leadership is less apprehensive about entering into conflict using forces based largely on unmanned technology. If you're Kim Jong-Il or Bashir al-Assad for examples, the thought of swarms of American UCAVs darkening the skies over your major cities is not conducive to a good night's sleep.

I hadn't thought of that! Great point! Playing devil's advocate, I don't know how well the idea would play with the public and the activist groups. I think we need to take care of business, but I see a whole bunch of people who might use this new-found willingness to use force as another rallying cry against the "Imperialist Infidels". The more I think of it, the more I'm starting to agree with you on that one! Wink

Quote:

I really don't think the pilot will ever be completely phased out. For high-value strikes where you absolutely have to have certain success you're gonna need a set of human eyeballs and fingers to carry it out.

I hope and pray that you're right on this one!

One last thought for this post. I know that the autopilot flies almost all of the time when I'm on an airliner, but I take great comfort in knowing that there's a pilot in the cockpit to watch over it all. The day the pilot is eliminated from the cockpit of commercial airliners is the day I start driving until I can afford my own plane and pilot's licence! Laughing

Thanx again guys!

parrothead wrote:

Playing devil's advocate, I don't know how well the idea would play with the public and the activist groups. I think we need to take care of business, but I see a whole bunch of people who might use this new-found willingness to use force as another rallying cry against the "Imperialist Infidels".

It's precisely that "new-found willingness" that will deter threats against us. If I keep getting mugged by thugs and keep telling them I have a gun but never use it, and they know I'll never use it, I'm still gonna keep getting mugged. For a deterrent to be effective, the will to use it must be there. Now I'm not saying at all that diplomacy should be chucked out the window or that we launch the first time someone looks at us funny but we shouldn't beat a dead horse for diplomacy's sake either. For diplomacy to be effective, ALL sides must negotiate in good faith. When diplomacy fails, where does talk stop and action start? The "give peace a chance" types can protest 'til they're rainbow in the face but they're not tasked with national security. I'm sure I'm not the only one on the planet that wished everyone could just get along. But unfortunately, conflict is part of human nature. Chamberlain tried to get along with Hitler in the 30's and look what happened.

parrothead wrote:

The day the pilot is eliminated from the cockpit of commercial airliners is the day I start driving until I can afford my own plane and pilot's licence! Laughing

Amen bruddah! Very Happy

Dare I assume that NO airline exec could be so STUPID as to take the pilot completely out of the loop?

I completely agree with you about the willingness to use force, Link. I should have been more specific and clear. When diplomacy fails, we must be ready, willing, and able to use overwhelming military force to kick serious alpha! "For a deterrent to be effective, the will to use it must be there." I couldn't have said it better, Link.

As I see it, some of the political types here in the US have been using our military actions lately to attack their own country. They and the media seem to merely repeat whatever they hear that supports their point of view. Evil or Very Mad

You know what happens after that... We could get into a whole new discussion on that one! I was just presenting the argument that these people (both here and abroad) might try to use this outrage by the enemy and the "give peace a chance" crowd against us. This is the US and we have freedom of speech (thanks to the military who goes out and defends it) and permits them to express any opinion that might fill their heads. I'm definitely NOT agreeing with them!!! And THANK GOD the "give peace a chance" types aren't tasked with national security! Wink

My main concern is still what happens if the datalink is lost? What would a failsafe say to do? Press on with the pre-programmed mission, or RTB? We can't just abort the mission if it's critical, but what if the intel was wrong and a pilot in a cockpit could plainly see that the target should not be prosecuted? I know this is purely hypothetical and very unlikely, but how would this situation be resolved?

As for the airliners, I hope we're right. One thing I learned about a few years ago was the new (at the time) mode S transponders. My understanding was that the controller would tell the pilot what he wanted done while simultaneously transmitting the same commands to the aircraft which would immediately begin to execute the commands WITHOUT PILOT CONSENT!!! Shocked

Call me crazy, but that doesn't exatly give me a warm fuzzy! I've heard and read enough examples of controllers goofing up (they're human, too) only to have the pilots catch the mistake before anyone gets hurt. I don't really think pilots will ever be taken completely out of the loop, but these are executives.....

(Putting on executive hat Wink

)
Hey! If we can get rid of the pilots out of the picture, we can save over $100K per pilot per year, which is $200K per aircraft in pay alone! If there aren't any pilots, we won't need a cockpit, which means that hijackings will be a thing of the past! Hey! No pilots also means no pilots' union! Less headaches! Pilots are human, and humans make mistakes, right? No humans must mean no mistakes!
(Coming back to reality and rational thought)

JUST KIDDING!!! JUST KIDDING!!! JUST KIDDING!!!

Sorry about any cynicism on my part, but I've learned not to place blind faith in anyone but God Almighty himself. Very Happy

Anything else requires a team of lawyers to sort through the fine print before I'll sign on the dotted line. Wink

No harm, no foul. No apologies needed.

Your failsafe concerns are understandable. I can but speculate. If a datalink were lost which negated human intervention, the software could be programmed to have the vehicle orbit and wait for re-connect, divert to a preprogrammed landing site, or self-destruct depending on the circumstances (it's a bit extreme but still an option). If the target is deemed of a high enough national priority, by executive order of the POTUS or SecDef the software could be written to execute the strike if positive control is lost and not re-established in a preset time span. This is the most extreme case I can think of. If comm is lost and the strike occurs with politically embarassing results, the ultimate responsibility will fall on the NCA.

A fair portion of proposed future UCAV designs are like the Global Hawk...fully autonomous. My biggest concern is with target ID reliability. I'm guessing the target recognition algorithms will be advanced enough to distinquish military from non-military targets but accidental collateral damage can never be completely eliminated, just minimized to the fullest extent possible.

parrothead wrote:

Hey! If we can get rid of the pilots out of the picture, we can save over $100K per pilot per year, which is $200K per aircraft in pay alone! If there aren't any pilots, we won't need a cockpit, which means that hijackings will be a thing of the past! Hey! No pilots also means no pilots' union! Less headaches! Pilots are human, and humans make mistakes, right? No humans must mean no mistakes!
(Coming back to reality and rational thought)

Except that having done all that, paying passengers will be next to non-existant...THEN where will he be? No paying passengers, no operating airline. Having said that, there'll probably be some schmuck who'll STILL fly his airline just 'cause he got a good price on the ticket. Confused

Cheers!

Now, most of taxpayers know nothing about UCAVs (especially in France, where the army is very silent about them) or only believe that UCAVS will prevent our troopers to be killed in the most dangerous missions.
As wars go, if UCAVS are made fully automatic on air-to-ground missions, it is very likely that a collateral damage will occur some day. It appears to be an unavoidable risk. Wars kill people, often without justice, even if it seems that there are more and more people unable to understand that (and be grateful to our soldiers).
I just wonder how US and European citizens will react if some journalist (who probably knew nothing about UCAVs the day before anyway) declares that people were killed by a robot

The main ethical question about new weapons no longer lies in the willingness of our leaders and soldiers to use them, but in the willigness of the public to accept their effects.

What I mean is that a public reaction that would forbide the use of automatic UCAVs, soon after they enter service, is imaginable. What do you think?

It is my understanding that an operational B-2 mission is autonomous (hands-off) from gear-up to gear-down. The flight is completely pre-programmed and flown by the aircraft mission computers, including weapons release. Even those JDAMs are released by computer, and guided to their individual targets by computer. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of, or the need for, B-2 crews but the fact is they are only there for emergencies. The B-2 is essentially a (very capable) manned UCAV.

Thanks guys! This is turning out to be the interesting discussion and debate I thought it would be! Smile

Quote:

A fair portion of proposed future UCAV designs are like the Global Hawk...fully autonomous. My biggest concern is with target ID reliability. I'm guessing the target recognition algorithms will be advanced enough to distinquish military from non-military targets but accidental collateral damage can never be completely eliminated, just minimized to the fullest extent possible.

Targeting presents quite a few questions. I'm not just worried about a computer distinguishing military from civilian, but also trying to tell friend from enemy. With today's coalitions of different nations it is completely reasonable to think of allies and enemies operating the very same equipment. How would the UCAV tell an enemy BMP, MIG, or Mirage from an enemy operating the same system?

Quote:

Now, most of taxpayers know nothing about UCAVs (especially in France, where the army is very silent about them) or only believe that UCAVS will prevent our troopers to be killed in the most dangerous missions.
As wars go, if UCAVS are made fully automatic on air-to-ground missions, it is very likely that a collateral damage will occur some day. It appears to be an unavoidable risk. Wars kill people, often without justice, even if it seems that there are more and more people unable to understand that (and be grateful to our soldiers).
I just wonder how US and European citizens will react if some journalist (who probably knew nothing about UCAVs the day before anyway) declares that people were killed by a robot

The main ethical question about new weapons no longer lies in the willingness of our leaders and soldiers to use them, but in the willigness of the public to accept their effects.

My thinking exactly Wildcat. Thankfully we have brave young men and women willing to protect us from evil. They are the reason we have the freedom to question things like this. Public opinion and common sense has rightfully led to the prohibition of chemical weapons and restricted the use of nuclear weapons to very limited scenarios. A flight of UCAVs equipped with GPS guided dispensers filled with sensor fused weapons would be an incredibly lethal strike package, but I, too question the willingness of the public to accept the thought of a pre-programmed aircraft with no human backup killing so many people at once. The military would love that capability with the benefit of fewer troops in danger, but the public is usually much more timid about subjects like this. With that said, doesn't this sound like a more capable, reusable cruise missile?

Quote:

It is my understanding that an operational B-2 mission is autonomous (hands-off) from gear-up to gear-down. The flight is completely pre-programmed and flown by the aircraft mission computers, including weapons release. Even those JDAMs are released by computer, and guided to their individual targets by computer. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of, or the need for, B-2 crews but the fact is they are only there for emergencies. The B-2 is essentially a (very capable) manned UCAV.

You're probably right habu2. That sounds about like most airline flights from what I understand. The important thing to remember is that the B-2 has a human backup for emergencies. If the nav system goes out (as unlikely as that scenario is), they can still shoot the stars and use a hand held compass to continue the mission. In a worst case scenario where a mission abort is required, a message could theoretically be sent in the clear to RTB.

Thanks for the replies, guys, and please keep 'em coming! Very Happy

Wildcat wrote:

What I mean is that a public reaction that would forbide the use of automatic UCAVs, soon after they enter service, is imaginable. What do you think?

Sure it's imaginable. It's why AUCAVs won't become the majority of air assets for years because the mission reliability levels aren't there yet. It'll be YEARS before we see any mass AUCAV raids, if at all.

But to get to your point, if a nation thinks UCAVs will replace forward-deploying airmen and aircraft and save great national and monetary expense in the process yet forbid the use of the UCAVs because of the collateral damge risk, I'd remind them that they can't have it both ways. If they want to minimize a conflict should one arise, they have to make a choice as a nation:

1) Be willing to deploy manned airpower in large enough numbers to quickly demoralize and/or defeat the enemy so that follow-on ground forces can secure and hold mission objectives in order to bring the fight to as speedy an end as practicable. You risk the lives of the flyers, the grunts and possibly incur collateral damage.

or

2) Invest in intelligent unmanned weapon systems in large enough numbers that significantly reduce the risk to your troops yet still have the same lethality of the manned forces. The odds of incurring collateral damage are about the same and you possibly demoralize the enemy to a point where he doesn't want to even start the fight in the first place.

Both of these points assume that the populus in question has the capacity to recognize a threat to itself and decides to deal with it before Pandora's Box is opened. Unfortunately there are a number of nations that would just as soon appease people who have sworn to eradicate them then be bothered with having to defend themselves and their way of life. The half century of relative peace after WWII has dulled the notion in many peoples, not all but many, that although peace is a noble thing, sometimes you have to fight to defend that peace. They've also lost sight of the fact that sometimes wars can't be won in a week. Desert Storm was a great victory for us but it was so victorious that it spoiled people into believing that all you have to do is have a massive air campaign for a few days then pack up and go home. Not all wars are like that, as OIF is demonstrating.

Having never been in the military maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

I hear ya and agree Link. I don't remember who said it first, but I believe that "Peace is not merely the absence of war."

While we hate to put people in danger, we're more comfortable knowing that someone's there if and when things go wrong.

Si vis pacem, para bellum: "If you want peace, prepare war"
That is what Romans used to think at the time of the Republic...

I personnaly think that UCAVs can bring a lot to air war, by bringing to military aviation what robots can do better: be fast, cope with mathematically complex situations and endure very long missions (at least, the list is not over, feel free to add your thought Wink

).

Parrothead wrote:

With that said, doesn't this sound like a more capable, reusable cruise missile?

LinkF-16SimDude wrote:

If they want to minimize a conflict should one arise, they have to make a choice as a nation:

Habu2 wrote:

The B-2 is essentially a (very capable) manned UCAV.

Well, you are all damn right! Very Happy

The matter is that most of people do not keep being logical beings when you talk to them about such things... Confused

Even most of political leaders daily show that Clausewitz and Sun Ze are perfectly unknown to them. Or at least the idea that war, its goal and the way it must be done, needs intensive and dispassionate thinking!

Forum: Air Power

Are UCAVs really such a good idea?