![](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5BqV-ThPeE8/TgsZA4kyftI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/e00VX_nsopw/s320/firescout_2.jpg)
As a few people have mentioned in comments last week - we had some Transformational News!
A Navy unmanned helicopter crashed while flying a reconnaissance mission over Libya on Tuesday, Navy and NATO officials said.There has been, as with most ideas embraced by the Transformationalist cult, a lot of blinkered thought, half-truths, and general lack of open discussion about unmanned systems. Big Navy and their industry/future employer bedfellows continue to try to sell the false economy of the unmanned future above, on, and under the sea as if unmanned systems are something radical and new. Balderdash.
At 7:20 a.m. local time, the MQ-8B Fire Scout, which was flying over Libya’s central coast, lost contact with a command center and crashed.
It is unclear exactly from where the unmanned helicopter was being controlled, where it was attached, or where it flew from. The Navy referred inquiries to NATO. NATO would not provide details about the aircraft’s origin or operators. NATO, for its part, would only say that it was an unmanned aircraft that crashed on the coast and that an investigation is underway.
From DASH to Firebee, and even earlier - the modern military experience with unmanned systems predates even my birth by over a decade. This is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
As computers/navigation/data processing improve, so do the abilities of unmanned systems. They are just a tool though, just a tool. They cannot and will not replace the balance of our tactical requirements.
... but evolutionary isn't cool - and transformational items must seem magical ... so ... we have to wade through all the panting from the Transformationalists about capabilities.
There is one thing they do not like to talk about though, and that is the loss rate. The first I heard of the problem was about eight years ago when going over Navy UAS (nee UAV) options as part of a planning group. We had a nice civilian engineer as part of our team, forget who he was with, who - darn it - had all these facts with him about loss rates and maintenance requirements based on present UAS experience. I think he was working on UAS back well before I even had a license to drive. He kept telling us that our numbers were bad as we were not making allowances for loss rates and the need for replacements.
He also kept reminding us that - darn it - we were overestimating the ability of these systems to carry all the kit we wanted them to. We weren't - darn it - fully examining range and altitude losses from the type of mission packages being proposed. Our lack of a discussion about bandwidth access also bothered him.
UAS are good - but as with all things - be sober and factual when talking about them.
Firescout is simply an unmanned helicopter. It is delicate with limited range. Unlike a manned system, it cannot effectively counter any threat coming its way. If there is a mechanical problem, most of the time there is no way to trouble shoot it while in the air or to recognize a problem early enough to get back to the ship before the problem becomes terminal. If there is a problem with navigation or communication, as there isn't a human in the loop - odds are you will lose the UAS. If they go down - there is no one there to make sure any classified items are destroyed first. Loss rates of UAS are not small.
No one should really find this a surprise. All the above - as that nice engineer reminded us almost a decade ago - are well known shortcomings from unmanned systems. Let's just hope that the engineer in the last decade succeeded with other groups more than he did ours. The senior person in our little group did not include any of the engineer's unpleasant truths in our evaluation/recommendations. Why? Something about how "they" didn't want to hear about potential problems, only our recommendation.
I can hear you now, "Oh Sal - you are just being a fussbucket!"
OK, guilty as charged .... but ....
Ahem,
Their dependence on a constant control signal has contributed to a UAS accident rate 100 times greater than manned aircraft A threat could exploit this need for an uninterrupted data feed by using Electronic Warfare to disrupt this signal, potentially crippling unmanned systems.Ummmmmmm,
Because UMSs may not have a human in the loop, they possess unique safety concerns and issues. Autonomous UMSs are inherently hazardous to humans for many different reasons, ranging from unpredictable movements, to inherently hazardous components/subsystems, to loss of absolute control, to potential failures in both hardware and software. Weaponized UMSs present even more significant and complex dangers to humans.Ehhhhh,
... butumm,... the lifetime Class A ($1 million in damage or death) mishap rate for the Predator/Reaper — as of December 2009 — was “multiples” above that of, say, the F-15 fleet. It takes a little finessing, but combining the lifetime totals of flight hours for the RQ-1 Predator (which begins in 1997) and the MQ-9 Reaper (which starts in 2004), we get a Class A mishap rate of 10.2 per 1,000 flight hours. [CLARIFICATION: The services’ safety centers canlculate mishap “rates” per 100,000 flight hours, typically. But I made my calculations based on Winslow’s 1,000 hour benchmark. Running the numbers, the Predator/Reaper official mishap rate would be 9.7 per 100K flight hours — still very high] The Air Force says it lost a total of 57 Predators since 1997 and seven Reapers. Both aircraft have flown a total of nearly 655,000 flight hours.
Looking at the F-15 rate, USAF stats show over the lifetime (since 1972), the F-15 platform has a Class A mishap rate of 2.42, with 140 aircraft damaged. It’s lifetime destroyed rate is 2.04 with 118 aircraft lost — and that’s over a lifetime total of almost 6 million flight hours. But the stat that 43 pilots have died behind the stick of an F-15 and two of those were killed in fiscal 2009, speaks volumes to the family and loved ones of the fallen. Despite the high mishap rate of the MQ-9, no pilots are dead because of it.
But, yes, the Predator/Reaper mishap rate is more than five times that of the F-15.
The reliability aspect of the project is directly tied up to cost. Repairing and refurbishing UAV platforms quickly are an expensive proposition. As redundant subsystems are incorporated in the UAV to prevent accidents, reliability will increase. For example, most current UAV and RPA platforms are single-engine systems. Twin-engine systems may prove to be more reliable in the battlefield. But the need for reliability must be balanced against the added cost to the overall program, weight and complexity.Do we need more? No - dad'l do. Remember - everything in moderation.
43 comments:
Sal,
You left out the most obvious shortcoming of the Firescout. It is not designed as a search sensor. It has a narrow field of view, manually-controlled video sensor (FLIR and LLTV). Unless you know exactly where your target of interest lies, it is like doing surface search while looking through a soda straw. Until it can carry a surface search radar, it is pretty useless for finding and identifying surface threats.
The only weapon capability it has is in buddy-lasing targets for laser-guided weapons fired from elsewhere. Again, you have to find the target before you can lase it, and you don't want to know how hard it would be to kill a swarm of small boats by lasing them one at a time.
..."<span>dependence on a constant control signal"...</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>The potential for disruption is obvious. If true, this is folly beyond belief.</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>As for the controller, for my mission, I love nothing better than a target that always has to transmit. You quickly become a located target.</span>
Which is one reason why I keep "harping" on Lighter-than-Air (manned mainly, but unmanned as well). Unlike fixed wing or rotary, airships can remain airborne even with loss of control/mechanical problems/damage. Airships have more range and more linger ability than any other aircraft type. The knee-jerk reaction to "blimps" being slow or limited, is dead on correct.......I do NOT promote the use of blimps, or dirigibles.
The idea that airships are especially, uniquely "vulnerable" is misinformed.
A new type of airship, one constructed as robustly as an airplane of aluminum and carbon fiber, designed to be amphibious, can perform many of the types of missions that UAS craft are being touted for, at less cost. If manned, they allow for instant pilot-in-control decisions.
built in various sizes, from small UAS sized, to one/three man patrol craft, upwards to craft that carry a couple of dozen crew (boarding parties w/deployable RHIB, to very large logistics craft; all can bring immense benefits to the fleet.
FOD, <span>..."<span>dependence on a constant control signal"...</span> is not quite as bad as it would seem. They don't fall out of the sky if they lose lock. You can program them to do several things in that event. Generally they would fly closer to the presumed location of the ship in order to regain the signal. Failing that, you can program it to fly to a divert field and land. If there is no divert field within range, then you are going to lose a bird. Even in the best case, you will probably not finish the mission for that sortie.</span>
... or they fly up the east coast towards DC on their own ... like happened a few months ago.
Skynet, call your office!
Sal, I hereby issue you one HUGE "Dude, I owe you a beverage of your choice, on me" chit. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Many of my peers, predessors and successors in several air warfare and "other" warfare specialties and sub-specialties have been raising the very same issues for FIFTEEN-PLUS YEARS!!!!!! We were told to STFU and sit down, becuase People Smarter Than Us (and wearing very expensive suits) knew better than us operators who were not part of Big Navy. UAV's, etc. have a nice, useful niche role, but they have become so much old-fashioned snake oil that my stomach turns everytime I read in DTI, Ares, Danger Room, Defense Tech, Jane's how wonderful they all are and how seamlessly they'll integrate and how much cheaper they are than even sliced bread. Why we really don't need to man anthing that flies, floats or...sinks voluntarily. GMAFB!
You have hit the high points: Bandwidth, lag times, soda-straw, mishap rate, lack of "feel," programming over hands-on. I could go on. But they are New! Shiney! Innovative! A part of RMA! Diverse! (yes, I even heard that once) Your guy knew exactly what he was talking about. And I guarentee you this: There isn't a data-link out there, no matter how much you spread spectrum, encrypt or jitter, that, sooner or later, I can't ^&*% with. Give me enough RF Out and I will %^&* it up. And, nicely, there are times it just does it all on its merry own.
BUT DON'T GET ME STARTED!!! >:o
Lets not forget that the datalinks on the Predators and Reapers were hackable. There was that story from about a year ago where some folks in one of the terror networks in either the "stan or Iraq was reading the same video/audio data that CentCom was reading back in Tampa. So lets not forget that what is our unit today could be our hostile vampire tomorrow (or even with in the hour). I am sure that has been fixed and can't happen again right?
I always like looking at the photos you see from WWII where you can see all the blimps I. The background.....they must have served "some" good, otherwise why do I see so many of them in the photos?
As a degreed aerospace engineer I can tell you from experience that the curriculum thirty years ago was designed with "faster, more thrust" in mind....stuff like blimps or lighter than air stuff was simply ignored or glossed over. Not sure if anything has changed in the past thirty years as I am no longer in the industry.
Much better topic Phib (closer to the real Naval World) - and good to see a weak hat tip to the UUV world - left it 5 years back as the 40 hr mission paradigm and $200K energy envelope required to meet the mission killed the program (LMRS). Nothing in warfare is free - always a tradeoff, glad to see you keepin 'em honest. (P.S. "Joint" is something the Deck divcision smoked, JPME is for people who made too many enemies in their own world!)
Regards
OK, people. Put the beer and pitchforks down. :-D
Several points, from someone who's been working heavy unmanned aviation for well over a decade...
First, unmanned aviation is a maturing technology. Loss rates are dropping rapidly as the technology matures. A major factor behind the Predator loss rate was the refusal of the USAF to buy autoland systems. Which is why Army Predators DO have it...and why aircraft like the RQ-4 never had a manual landing option.
Second, higher-end UAVs don't "go stupid" when the links (and they have several) fail. They execute preprogrammed lost comms procedures.
Third, and most important, Sal latched onto the Great Big Truth - an unmanned aircraft does not get an exception to the laws of physics. Or economics. That means no 20-G Bat-turns, no buying something as sophisticated as an F-18 for $5 million. It's a niche technology - powerful when used wisely, but not the panacea it's touted as by people who haven't worked intimately with it.
Err, those aren't blimps per se, they are barrage balloons
Andy mentions the "snake-oil" bit. A little historical perspective. Remember back in the early 50s when the Army couldn't get Congress to appropriate money for beans, bullets, bunks, barracks, belts, blankets, bazookas or anything else unless it had the word "atomic" attached to it? Which is why we got the shoulder-fired atomic "Davy Crockett" fired by cpls and the jeep-mounted "Lacrosse" fired by Lts--until the Army finally rethought the wisdom of giving the nuke trigger to the lower echelons of command. The same mania that gripped Congress and much of the Army re nukes in the 50s is present today regarding use of UAVs--the present-day "silver bullet" (along with all things "stealth" and "automation" of naval crew duties) that is touted by bean-counters and Generals alike as solving ALL our problems--both manpower-wise and operational. Be VERY afraid of this "true believer" mind-set--it's leading to very bad things; namely, the effort to build the entire core of our tacts AND strategy around these wpns. You want to see the TRUE "Hope and Change" mind-set at work? Look no further..
US Navy acquisitions don't do moderation...they make like college freshman and drink till they're comatose and then F everything [up].
It was Iran.
Firescout/VTUAV (it's still called that) is a nearly complete success at FAIL. Although the recent AV loss almost certainly was a shootdown because it was operating under a fairly low overcast, that simply underscores how stupid a UAV is.
BTW, it doesn't require constant communication to remain airborne; it's supposed to squawk 7600 and go to a rally point when all comms are dropped (which happens regularly).
The Navy was told the program was a N-G money pit five years ago, but they went into production anyway.
Now, the Navy is trying to jam VTUAV down the Army's throat as the system for MRMUAS, soon to be a new MDAP.
Leatherneck
It's even more reminiscent of the missile mania of the late '50s and early '60s. Missiles were useful, but the technology was badly oversold by people not familiar with the details. And that overselling poisoned the well for years afterward.
I have seen the claim that no ship was lost from a WWII convoy that was accompanied by a blimp.
back in the sixties there was a class of heavy cruisers that the navy converted to missile boats. the back end at least.
i met a fellow who had been on one of them, Canberra, i believe. he told the following sea story.
they were out shooting missiles one day and were at general quarters. (this being at general quarters during missile shoots was seen to be a worthless evoloution inflicted on the crew by rusty crusty shellbacks for torture purposes.) they launched one and things seemed to go well, when on the 1mc came the word "shoot, shoot, shoot. its comming back at us."
in about thirty seconds canberra developed the best aa gunners in the fleet (at least from the motivational side). i guess that one of the quad 40mm mounts finally got it but it got every ones attention. shortly thereafter they did get an E for AA gunnery.
take it for what its worth.
after that there was no problem with practice loading sesions particularly for the 40's and the 5".
c
back in the sixties there was a class of heavy cruisers that the navy converted to missile boats. the back end at least.
i met a fellow who had been on one of them, Canberra, i believe. he told the following sea story.
they were out shooting missiles one day and were at general quarters. (this being at general quarters during missile shoots was seen to be a worthless evoloution inflicted on the crew by rusty crusty shellbacks for torture purposes.) they launched one and things seemed to go well, when on the 1mc came the word "shoot, shoot, shoot. its comming back at us."
in about thirty seconds canberra developed the best aa gunners in the fleet (at least from the motivational side). i guess that one of the quad 40mm mounts finally got it but it got every ones attention. shortly thereafter they did get an E for AA gunnery.
take it for what its worth.
after that there was no problem with practice loading sesions particularly for the 40's and the 5".
c
back in the sixties there was a class of heavy cruisers that the navy converted to missile boats. the back end at least.
i met a fellow who had been on one of them, Canberra, i believe. he told the following sea story.
they were out shooting missiles one day and were at general quarters. (this being at general quarters during missile shoots was seen to be a worthless evoloution inflicted on the crew by rusty crusty shellbacks for torture purposes.) they launched one and things seemed to go well, when on the 1mc came the word "shoot, shoot, shoot. its comming back at us."
in about thirty seconds canberra developed the best aa gunners in the fleet (at least from the motivational side). i guess that one of the quad 40mm mounts finally got it but it got every ones attention. shortly thereafter they did get an E for AA gunnery.
take it for what its worth.
after that there was no problem with practice loading sesions particularly for the 40's and the 5".
c
back in the sixties there was a class of heavy cruisers that the navy converted to missile boats. the back end at least.
i met a fellow who had been on one of them, Canberra, i believe. he told the following sea story.
they were out shooting missiles one day and were at general quarters. (this being at general quarters during missile shoots was seen to be a worthless evoloution inflicted on the crew by rusty crusty shellbacks for torture purposes.) they launched one and things seemed to go well, when on the 1mc came the word "shoot, shoot, shoot. its comming back at us."
in about thirty seconds canberra developed the best aa gunners in the fleet (at least from the motivational side). i guess that one of the quad 40mm mounts finally got it but it got every ones attention. shortly thereafter they did get an E for AA gunnery.
take it for what its worth.
after that there was no problem with practice loading sesions particularly for the 40's and the 5".
c
back in the sixties there was a class of heavy cruisers that the navy converted to missile boats. the back end at least.
i met a fellow who had been on one of them, Canberra, i believe. he told the following sea story.
they were out shooting missiles one day and were at general quarters. (this being at general quarters during missile shoots was seen to be a worthless evoloution inflicted on the crew by rusty crusty shellbacks for torture purposes.) they launched one and things seemed to go well, when on the 1mc came the word "shoot, shoot, shoot. its comming back at us."
in about thirty seconds canberra developed the best aa gunners in the fleet (at least from the motivational side). i guess that one of the quad 40mm mounts finally got it but it got every ones attention. shortly thereafter they did get an E for AA gunnery.
take it for what its worth.
after that there was no problem with practice loading sesions particularly for the 40's and the 5".
c
back in the sixties there was a class of heavy cruisers that the navy converted to missile boats. the back end at least.
i met a fellow who had been on one of them, Canberra, i believe. he told the following sea story.
they were out shooting missiles one day and were at general quarters. (this being at general quarters during missile shoots was seen to be a worthless evoloution inflicted on the crew by rusty crusty shellbacks for torture purposes.) they launched one and things seemed to go well, when on the 1mc came the word "shoot, shoot, shoot. its comming back at us."
in about thirty seconds canberra developed the best aa gunners in the fleet (at least from the motivational side). i guess that one of the quad 40mm mounts finally got it but it got every ones attention. shortly thereafter they did get an E for AA gunnery.
take it for what its worth.
after that there was no problem with practice loading sesions particularly for the 40's and the 5".
c
sal:
look below, i posted a sea story and the system printed it 4 times.
i know my prose is riveting but why don' you get rid of the xtra three.
C
sal:
look below, i posted a sea story and the system printed it 4 times.
i know my prose is riveting but why don' you get rid of the xtra three.
C
sal:
look below, i posted a sea story and the system printed it 4 times.
i know my prose is riveting but why don' you get rid of the xtra three.
C
sal:
look below, i posted a sea story and the system printed it 4 times.
i know my prose is riveting but why don' you get rid of the xtra three.
C
sal:
look below, i posted a sea story and the system printed it 4 times.
i know my prose is riveting but why don' you get rid of the xtra three.
C
sal:
look below, i posted a sea story and the system printed it 4 times.
i know my prose is riveting but why don' you get rid of the xtra three.
C
Ahh, JS-kit turns to JSh*t one more time.
no competition at all ! right now, Firescouts have their body assembled by NG down in the Gulf Coast in Missiisippi. Then these partly built hulls are sent to California where A different NG finishes them off.
Navy acquisition professionals would have to work harder if they were to get at least one other potential vendor and have him push NG to hold down costs and stand behind their new products.
there was a science fiction story in the fifties sited in a war zone quite like viet nam. the bad guys were really up in arms because they would send armys of troops to the field and they would simply dissapear. as in gone, not there, evaporated.
turned out that the enemy had uav's that simply shot at anything that shot at them. the ground army people would "hit the ground" when they flew over. naturally the noncoms and officers would shoot at the things and on the later passes the uav would target them and gradually kill off the brains of the group and then with the commisars gone the troops would fade away into the brush.
C
Yea i've heard what really killed the wolf packs in the atlantic was in many ways the blimps. They were always watching
mmm, not quite. Useful and effective, sure. Decisive, nope.
And soon enough, a homed on one.
Kind of like Charleton Heston picking up the swarm of killer ants one by one with a pair of tweezers.
Understood. My issue was not with the drone, but the ship launching it. Assuming you are a shipborne controller sending that signal, any opposing EW type would quickly know (1) you are there and have a drone up and (2) where you are.
You don't mind being detected and located? ...we know what the next steps are.
Mike,
Only one problem in your speech. UAV's have been a heavily maturing tech for over 60yrs. Just in case anyone forgot, TDR-1, Lt. Joe Kennedy Jr, USN, Drones in Korea against tunnels, QH-50 DASH, FireBee, D-21, are just a few which were promising the moon and the stars. Yet, in the end though they were sucessful, the final tally is the tech wasn't mature enough to survive or work right. I have heard everything from DASH birds taking off and flying away to disappear over the horizion or turning to attack its mothership with the torps, Firebees launched to do aerial recon over N. Vietnam on preplanned routes just disappear or turn and crash land in PRC side of the borders, the attempts to use F6F-5K's as drone birds was very dangerous to the launching carrier and a pain to keep flying as the NORKS and PRC attempted some early forms of EW warfare on those radio signals. We all know what happened to Joe Kennedy. All sorts of other target drones that have gone rogue and become true vampires that needed to be killed by the drilling units.
I have faith in UAVs will succeed, but those who have thier fingers in the pie need to quit selling the moon with these assets and accept they have limitations. As I noted below, it was recently proved that the RQ-1s were hackable. So if they are hackable then what would prevent false data from being sent up stream. Also I don't know about closed source, but open source hasn't talked about how well a UAV with a control site back in Tampa would do once one starts to zap our ComSats or if these assets go into a heavy EW region. Those are the questions the prophets need to ask and attempt to answer with regards to UAVs.
K-ships didn't have the performance. The M-ships would have been great in 1943.
You are forgetting one of the all time classics where a drone did get the better of a pair of F-89's (http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/08/28/chronicles-of-naval-aviation-the-battle-of-palmdale)
'course they were USAF fighters... ;)
<span><span>Even in the best case, you will probably not finish the mission for that sortie.</span></span>
Loss of signal results in a mission kill, not a hard kill. OK, that's not quite as bad as losing the bird, but it still means Red doesn't have a warhead on his forehead and lives to fight at least another day...
Thank you for Thursdays depressive episode. Looking forward to Friday's morning lift of the spirits. Make it good, for the glorious 4th follows.
Post a Comment