End Manned Air Recon?

[Zeppelin]

In one of the opinion columns in Proceedings, a "forum" publication of the U.S.Naval Institute (Jan. 2004 issue), I was stunned to read a proposal to "take the air breathers" out of the air reconnaissance system. The author, Cmdr. Kevin Sudbeck, USN, is an experienced commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance. His argument is that the job being done by Global Hawk and other unmanned aerial recon craft is better off without the additional cost, and weaknesses of a human pilot.

There is a lot going for this argument, regarding the additional weight savings, performance, and safety factors of new UAVs. Certainly lives can be saved.

Aerial Recon started in WW1. Can a robot or r/c craft really take the place of human eyes and intellect? Can a remote operator miles away really have the same "situational awareness" that is felt by the pilot on the spot?

I wonder if there was a similar argument at first between the spotters in balloons and the spotters in aircraft. Did one feel superior to the other? Wouldn't one have said theirs was safer while the other touted better performance?

I remember that there was a time when some US Air Force officers only wanted missiles on their aircraft (Chuck Yeager is still a proponent of that view). Sanity returned when dogfighting reappeared in the skies above Vietnam. Is this a temporary view then, or will we really see the end of what started the warplane revolution?

Best Regards,
Zeppelin

[Barrett]

This has the makings of a Megathread because it touches on so many points: hardware, tactics, doctrine, and stuff.

Briefly, we keep rediscovering the need for manned aircraft. Over 40 years ago Scott Crossfield said "There'll always be pilots because no other guidance system can be produced so cheaply by unskilled labor."

Nyuk-nyuk!!! WOOO-wooo-wooo...

The SR-71 was brought back after several years of retirement, then was retired again. Satellites can do amazing things but you need a whole bunch of 'em because reprogramming one of those hummers is a serious Nontrivial Function. Tactical recon likely WILL become more RPVs but there's still need for a man in the loop to make quick decisions.

My first thought is to forget the argument that unmanned craft are better than manned craft because of the "weaknesses of human pilots." Last I checked, you still need human personnel to operate the unmanned craft, the only difference being they are many miles away. Human error, if that is indeed the weakness they are referring too, is still a risk.

Second, I've always been a proponent that machines can help people and improve their work, but cannot entirely replace them. Can't think exactly right off the bat what a human on the scene would provide that a human on the game controller back at headquarters wouldn't, but surely there's something? Since its my opinion, there outta be, at least! I think the "situational awareness" that you speak of is a key.

The one major benefit, and probably why its so attractive to some brass and politicians, is that if your unmanned recon plane gets shot down, you don't loose any life.

[Barrett]

Believe it or not, some Very Senior Persons advocate RPVs not because you don't risk a life, but because you avoid the Bad Press of a POW crisis. I'm not permitted to cite names but you may guess.

On a related note, there's been references to the Martin-Baker Hostage Delivery System...

[Zeppelin]

I think that it is inevitable that there is a large increase in the unmanned aerial recon craft. However, I hope there will be a holdout for some manned aerial recon.

In all of my reading on military history, there always seems to be one inevitable outcome: that eventually, one technology is superseded by another. So if we western powers become so proficient at ROVs, eventually, no doubt about it, someone will find a way to cut the electronic signal link between the ROV and the remote operator. Then one side becomes blind at a critical moment, probably just before a counter attack or important enemy operation. Having a manned component to our reconnaissance programs would be an important backup as well as reliable for special circumstances.

Regards,
Zeppelin

[Zeppelin]

There's been some follow-up letters regarding the article, showing up in the latest issues of Proceedings. One respondent pointed out that the Global Hawk sensory package is limited compared to the U-2, and that the original author miscalculated the costs of planned development, which is really about three times the quoted cost.

The most recent responses indicate that both UAV and manned recon is vital together, and should not be separated. Narrowness of field of view is stated as a possible weakness of UAV recon. Also, it is pointed out significantly, I think, that the UAV costs more than manned since the costs of production combat aircraft go down during production runs with only costs to be added for recon modifications instead of a complete vehicle.

Most significantly, it was pointed out that the UAV's in US service experience mishaps or get destroyed 20-50 times greater than all manned aircraft! Even lower when compared to manned recon.

Looks like manned recon is here to stay for a while.

Best regards,
Zeppelin