Unmanned Vs Manned Combat Aircraft

I believe the future of the USAF is the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) and Im sure that most people here agree. I can pretty much guess that current and past combat pilots cringe at the thought of being replaced by a "robot" aircraft but the reality of it is that its the best way to go.
With the current technology there will still be a "pilot" but he will be behind a remote control, instead of behind the stick but im sure that soon that will not be the case. This will be a good thing though, we will no longer have to worry about how much G's the pilot can handle, so as long as the plane can take it, the sky's the limit as far as G-Forces and elevation (if the engines allow it.) here is some info from Boeing regarding their X-45.

The X-45C is an unmanned, autonomous combat air vehicle that flies high-risk operational missions and delivers precision weapons on target. Controlled via either line-of-sight or satellite communications, the X-45C is highly adaptable to changing battle conditions and can provide 24/7 electronic attack, reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as engage in deep strikes to complement manned fighter and bomber forces.

Source Page, Boeing Website

I would imagine in the future the planes will not need a "pilot" behind the remote control. They will be able to input commands to a master computer, which will then pass it on to that particular squadron for its mission.
The military already sponsors some kind of anual competition to see who can successfully navigate a land vehicle across a desert without any user interface, except for entering the commands at the beginning of the competition.

Here is some more information on the X-45 from the same site.

Capabilities

This versatile, multi-mission aircraft can:

* Cruise at 0.85 Mach speed.
* Carry a 4,500--lb. payload.
* Fly 40,000 feet with a mission radius of 1,200 nautical miles.
* Be refueled by Air-to-Air Refueling
* Transport eight 250-lb. Small Diameter Bombs.
* Carry auxiliary fuel tanks and other payloads.
* Hit a ground target with a 250-lb. inert near-precision-guided weapon.
* Operate independently, fully integrate with manned aircraft operations or execute multi-vehicle coordinated operations.
* Be deployed from one location and controlled b

So, let me know what you guys think. I think this is inevitable but it wont happen overnight, it will obviously be a transition that will take some years but we're on the right track.
Now the other that is spoke of, (the one without a need for a remote) is obviously quite a few years away but its time will come.

In a way, I see many many flaws with this concept.

If the only benefit is saving a pilot's life - then what of the thousands of naval men and infantry? Risking one or two men doesn't seem all that pertinent in comparison.

Technology and power will always need a man to ensure complete control. A man that becomes part of the machine and knows the system inside and out. There is always limitations with RC.

Although saving the life of pilots would be a huge plus, I don't believe it is the only reason for doing this.
Imagine a UCAV going up against the best our opposition has to offer in a dogfight. Because there is no need to worry about high G's the maneuvers would be nearly limitless but at the very least it would far surpass any plane that is piloted by a man.
For the sake of argument we will take out the fighter aspect and look at it from a bombers point of view.
The potential capabilities of this plane as a bomber are very high. It would be able to fly in at top speed, performing any type of maneuvers needed to avoid SAM's and Interceptors. This would allow it completely unhindered access to its target and back out again, without so much as a scratch, theoretically of course
Here is some more info from a different site.

Advantages of Future UCAVs over Manned Aircraft

Source Page

Vehicle
Cost Cheaper to build since pilot requirements such as cockpit controls and gauges, ejection seat, oxygen, canopy, and pressurization are unnecessary. Saves about 10 percent on overall vehicle cost, including remote-control equipment. Some advantages negated by remote ground-station costs.
Range and
Endurance Longer flight times and ranges due to less drag and better engine placement without the canopy and cockpit. No human limits on flight-endurance time. Some UCAVs may fly for days over enemy territory.
No Crew Risk No political risk from casualties or POWs. Can employ nonlethal weapons to put an enemy
to sleep such as acoustic or brain-wave manipulation. Can operate in a nuclear, biological,
or chemical environment with no risk to the pilot.
Survivability Unmanned design without a canopy makes aircraft smaller and lowers radar cross section.
Absence of humans permits high 10G-plus turns to avoid enemy missiles.
Training Most training for UCAV operators is in simulators. No dependence on weather or maintenance-ready aircraft. Periodic exercise participation such as Red Flags to test doctrine and manned-flight interface.
Training and
Support Costs With only periodic flight training and little to no maintenance on the majority of "stored" UCAVs, there is a large reduction in peacetime training, fuel, and maintenance support costs.
Personnel Fewer pilots and support personnel are needed. UCAV operators can fly numerous UCAV sorties sequentially or at the same time. With few training flights, fewer maintenance personnel and less equipment are required.

Originally posted by SteveR
In a way, I see many many flaws with this concept.

If the only benefit is saving a pilot's life - then what of the thousands of naval men and infantry? Risking one or two men doesn't seem all that pertinent in comparison.

Technology and power will always need a man to ensure complete control. A man that becomes part of the machine and knows the system inside and out. There is always limitations with RC.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
For the sake of argument we will take out the fighter aspect and look at it from a bombers point of view.
The potential capabilities of this plane as a bomber are very high. It would be able to fly in at top speed, performing any type of maneuvers needed to avoid SAM's and Interceptors.
[edit on 30-4-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Let me stop you before you embarrass yourself!

The limits on the maneuveriving envelope of heavy bombers has Nothing to do with the pilot! The problem in a bomber like the the B-52 or B-1 is Airframe Stress.

Humans can tolerate 9G maneuvers, F-16 and F-22 pilots have proven this time and again. The B-52 at MTOW has a 3G limit on the airframe. If you go above 3G the wings will break off. Even if you made the B-52 into a UAV, it still couldn't go above 3G.

Second, There is a the Law of Inertia, that will slow down any maneuver you do as the plane gets larger.

No offense, but you need to reveiw the physics behind how airplanes work.

Respectfully,

Tim

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I believe the future of the USAF is the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV)

Absolutely 100% correct.


(Some) Advantages:

- much better payload to airframe weight ratio as the pilot and ancillary systems ar not required.
- much better aerodynamic configuration as there is no need for a cockpit, or support systems
- much better radar signature configuration for the same reasons
- much better tolerance of high gs because there is no need for the loadpaths to support the cockpit/pilot
- can take advantages of these higher g limits
- aircraft can be made much smaller (physically) for jobs like recon [as in, you can't fit a pilot into a predator can you?]
- pilot training costs are savagely reduced
- pilot losses are non-existent, thus not needing replaced, and mistakes can be learned from without Darwin effect.

Originally posted by Ghost01
The limits on the maneuveriving envelope of heavy bombers has Nothing to do with the pilot! The problem in a bomber like the the B-52 or B-1 is Airframe Stress.

Doesn't have to be a heavy bomber Tim. If its a development of the Falcon, then any kinda manouvre (accelerating is a manouvre) can involve extremely high interior temperatures in the aircraft - a human needs cooling to survive that = weight = reduced performance.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Doesn't have to be a heavy bomber Tim. If its a development of the Falcon, then any kinda manouvre (accelerating is a manouvre) can involve extremely high interior temperatures in the aircraft - a human needs cooling to survive that = weight = reduced performance.

kilcoo316,

My point is that a Heavy Aircraft will never be able to execute manuvers like a fighter. The fact that it is unmanned is totally irrelivent to the point I'm trying to make.

SIZE + WEIGHT = INERTIA

More inertia = Less agility


Second, Every aircraft Manned, or Unmanned has limits on what the airframe can endure. Even an UNMANNED vesion of the B-52 couldn't outmanuver an F-15, you would Break the wings off trying!

Are we straight now?

Tim

[edit on 5/1/2007 by Ghost01]

But nobody mentioned heavy bombers in the B-52 class until you did Tim, you seem to be responding to Kronos' post but to be fair he only mentioned bombers. He could quite easily (and almost certainly was) referring to aircraft in the Harrier to Tornado bracket, for which the UK is also studying UCAV's in the bomber role.

ie; bomber - an aeroplane that drops bombs

[edit on 1-5-2007 by waynos]

Well as long as ive already embarrassed myself, i have nothing else to lose.
If youll read more into my posts that ive made youll will see where ive mentioned that as long as the planes are built to handle it, we would be able to far surpass the 9G limit that human pilots are limited to.
I am not just talking about upgrading a current plane to be unmanned, Im talking about the creation of an entirely new plane much like th X-45.
What is it with people and there desires to put someone else down. Are you not able to debate people without making personal insults?
Grow up.
Exactly wayne, nobody has even suggested current bombers like to B-52 pulling 10Gs
With todays "smart bombs" etc it would not need a plane that carries 100 bombs, like a B-52.
All we need is to build a small UCAV that only needs to carry one or two bombs for specific targets, much like the F117 "fighter" which we all know is really a tactical bomber.
Now you have a squadron of these things, each with its own target.

we will no longer have to worry about how much G's the pilot can handle, so as long as the plane can take it, the sky's the limit as far as G-Forces and elevation

Originally posted by Ghost01

Let me stop you before you embarrass yourself!

The limits on the maneuveriving envelope of heavy bombers has Nothing to do with the pilot! The problem in a bomber like the the B-52 or B-1 is Airframe Stress.

Humans can tolerate 9G maneuvers, F-16 and F-22 pilots have proven this time and again. The B-52 at MTOW has a 3G limit on the airframe. If you go above 3G the wings will break off. Even if you made the B-52 into a UAV, it still couldn't go above 3G.

Second, There is a the Law of Inertia, that will slow down any maneuver you do as the plane gets larger.

No offense, but you need to reveiw the physics behind how airplanes work.

Respectfully,

Tim

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by waynos
But nobody mentioned heavy bombers in the B-52 class until you did Tim, you seem to be responding to Kronos' post but to be fair he only mentioned bombers. He could quite easily (and almost certainly was) referring to aircraft in the Harrier to Tornado bracket, for which the UK is also studying UCAV's in the bomber role.

ie; bomber - an aeroplane that drops bombs

[edit on 1-5-2007 by waynos]

Another thread need on this subject waynos? A very similar vein to what we hashed out in the fighter definition thread. Personally I dont think ghost was too wrong in going to the B-52 class weight etc. They are bombers and there has been talk of UAV versions of these types of planes. I think tims point was a point that still needed to be raised and at least be posted.

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Well as long as ive already embarrassed myself, i have nothing else to lose.

You havent and to so quickly resourt to an offensive tone isn't needed. Tim is the type of guy that makes sure everyone is thinking about everything and all possiblities.

If youll read more into my posts that ive made youll will see where ive mentioned that as long as the planes are built to handle it, we would be able to far surpass the 9G limit that human pilots are limited to.
I am not just talking about upgrading a current plane to be unmanned, Im talking about the creation of an entirely new plane much like the X-45.

A fine point but the role that the plane fills will still determine a large amount of the design. The planes handling and flight envelope does not only rely on the pilot which I'm sure you know.

Exactly wayne, nobody has even suggested current bombers like to B-52 pulling 10Gs

no one has said that we aren't talking about them till after tim posted anyways. Again Tim was only making sure all the info was on the table and its not your fault for being a little vague as the idea was what you where trying to hammer home. If your idea is though that the future in the AF is in the UCAV then the B-52, B-1, B-1 weight range needs to be open for discussion.

With todays "smart bombs" etc it would not need a plane that carries 100 bombs, like a B-52.

how smart some of those bombs are is up for debate I feel personally after some of the stats I get from the opening on the Iraqi Freedom attacks with the F-117's etc. Also you will find that the time on station is a huge deal and if that plane can do more then one run its making better use of flight time and costs etc. So no I dont the the B-52 is dead (even though you didn't come out and say that)

First of all Canada, How is that statement offensive? I made that statement in response to ghost's reply that "im embarrassing myself" or about to embarrass myself.
Second; I did not say or even suggest that the B-52 is "dead"? I dont think that our "known" technology is at the point where we could start retiring manned attack planes and replacing them with UAV's or UCAV's.
All im doing is giving my opinion on the direction that I believe the USAF is heading, not necessarily tomorrow or even next year, I'm thinking more along the lines of 2015-2025, the 2015 part is probably to soon though, Id be more comfortable in saying that its more like 2020-2030.
The link about the X-45 is just one link of several that I came across when reading about this. There were several others, another link gave some information about a project which involved modifying an F-16 to be unmanned, possibly strengthening certain areas of the plane so that it does withstand higher G's but i dont know that for sure because all i did was skim through the page.
Having said all that, Ill say this and this will be my last off topic comment on this thread.
If people want to comment on this topic, feel free but be mature about it and stop making personal comments of any kind.
I dont claim and never have claimed to know everything about this topic or any other discussion that I take part in. I come here to share ideas and to learn but I wont tolerate someone copping an attitude with me when they find something ive made a mistake on.
I threw this idea out, provided my opinion and a link to a site that is supposed to have some facts on the X-45 and since it is the Boeing site I am sure that it is fairly accurate.
I did this to form a base for a debate or discussion to grow from. If people want to challenge my opinion thats fine but be mature about it.


According to another site I ran across earlier some military analysts are starting to wonder if the todayHere

The F-35 will be the last "manned" fighter that the US will ever build.

Some people in the Pentagon and the industry wonder if the F-35 will be the last manned fighter the U.S. will ever build. I don't think it will come to that, but they say to watch UCAVs [unmanned combat aerial vehicles, or killer drones] and the possibility for deploying a UCAV/manned combination (1 plane, 1 or more UCAVs).

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by Ghost01
kilcoo316,

My point is that a Heavy Aircraft will never be able to execute manuvers like a fighter. The fact that it is unmanned is totally irrelivent to the point I'm trying to make.

Depends on what manouvres you are talking about.


Things like roll accelerations will always be lacking (which is more a function of weight distribution and wing size, for instance the F-16 has better roll properties than the F-22), but there is no reason something like maximum rated g or maximum angle of attack (sustained or transient) cannot be the same.


But anyway, no-one apart from yourself has implied that the bomber must be "heavy".

Originally posted by Ghost01
SIZE + WEIGHT = INERTIA

More inertia = Less agility

See above.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Second, Every aircraft Manned, or Unmanned has limits on what the airframe can endure. Even an UNMANNED vesion of the B-52 couldn't outmanuver an F-15, you would Break the wings off trying!

You don't design a brand new UCAV bomber to look like the B-52, thats just stupid.

For example the B-2 would have a much higer g rating than the B-52, its load paths are totally different (alot of its weight is distributed throughout the wing, so the wing spar is not under the same strains).

Originally posted by waynos
ie; bomber - an aeroplane that drops bombs

[edit on 1-5-2007 by waynos]

In that context, you raise an important point Waynos. Here in the US, we call the lighter bomb-carrying aircraft "Attack Aircraft" Here's an example:

F-117 - Attack Aircraft
F-111 - Attack Aircraft
A-6 - Attack Aircraft

B-52- Bomber
B-1 Bomber
B-2 Bomber

I think we miscommunicated the context. I pictured someone trying to pull a 9G manuver in a B-52 or B-1.

Tim