Posted on 07/01/2002 7:11:31 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Humans slow electronic attacks, so planners pick unmanned aircraft as EA-6B Prowler replacement
By David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall, Washington
The U.S. Air Force has changed the requirements for Boeing's high-performance unmanned combat aircraft to include electronic attack as part of its initial operational capability.That change would make the Block 10 UCAV--which is to evolve from Boeing's X-45--the Air Force's replacement for the Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler. The Navy has already selected the two-man EA-18 as its follow-on.
This latest shift is only one of a series of twists and turns in the Pentagon's attempt to define the road map for fielding a modern electronic attack capability against increasingly sophisticated air defenses available on the world market. Among them are the Russian-built SA-10, SA-12 and SA-20, but they also include digitally upgraded versions of older missiles. Another reason for the delay in deciding how to proceed has been the concern among top Defense Dept. officials that all the Pentagon's electronic warfare (EW) systems must be networked efficiently.
The Air Force's UCAV would be able both to drop bombs, as originally planned, or block radar, communications and other electronic signals with a high-power RF signal produced by an EW payload that fits in the weapons bay. The strategy calls for the first 12 UCAVs to be focused on air defense suppression.
The push for UCAVs is an outgrowth of a meeting between Boeing officials and Defense acquisition chief E.C. Aldridge, Jr., last month. The UCAV had already been accelerated to an operational date of 2008. That schedule may be moved up again.
Aerospace industry officials say that Air Combat Command's requirements staff sent a letter in early June to the Air Force's operational requirements office altering the UCAV's primary mission for the first block of operational aircraft to include electronic attack. The decision comes at a time when senior Air Force leaders have been expressing increasing doubt about using UCAVs in an attack role because they believe those highly dynamic missions are still better performed by manned aircraft. Aldridge also told the service to improve the quality of the receivers they would use on the UCAV and to more adequately fund the project.
The need for an EW-focused UCAV is escalating because the Prowler has aged dramatically in the last year, according to Stephen Cambone, a top policy official for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
HOWEVER, ENGINEERS are still scratching their heads to determine how the mission change will affect the UCAV's design. While the shape isn't expected to change radically, its size and demand for power may have suddenly increased, one industry official speculated. It could also alter the demonstrations the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had planned for the X-45. So far, design work on the X-45B hasn't been affected.
Industry officials admit they are working on the daunting problem of battle management of a jamming system distributed among several manned and unmanned aircraft. "Those boxes and those platforms tied together is certainly an area where we are going to work," said Mark Ronald, president of BAE Systems, North America. "At the speed at which things are done and the complexity of the signals that you're trying to work on, increasingly there is less value added by a man. A man just slows things down. Distributed systems are a lot more complex, but inherently you're much better off with unmanned."
The U.S. Air Force UCAV's emitter will not be omnidirectional. Instead power will be concentrated in a limited arc to cover aircraft in the target area or jam air defense radars at a particular site. Being able to direct the jamming beam would provide a measure of self-protection from air defense missiles that home on jamming signals.
EW PLANNERS envision a distributed architecture with a small number of UCAVs carrying receivers and a larger number with jamming payloads. In both cases, the payload would fit into the weapons bay. Baseline equipment is slated to be the ICAP-3 receiver upgrade currently in development for the EA-6B.
The distributed architecture concept and plans by the services to pursue different approaches to electronic attack has created interest at senior Pentagon levels in naming a contractor team to oversee the process. The goal is to make sure all receivers measure a foe's radar signal in exactly the same way so information can be shared and acted on instantaneously. If there are differences, it could lead to delays that give a modern air defense system the time to track and kill an airborne target, an industry official said.
In the Block 30 version of the Air Force's UCAV, developers expect to take the next step in electronic attack by inserting a high-power microwave weapon (HPM)in the weapons bay to attack targets with vulnerable electronics. In particular, radar installations are vulnerable to sharp spikes of energy that can damage components and scramble computer memories.
THE AIRCRAFT would have a fixed aperture, not a turret, but the jamming signal could be directed within a limited field of view, probably 90 deg. or less, by electronic scanning--roughly the same steering system used in the emerging generation of active electronically scanned aperture radars that will equip the F-22, JSF and F/A-18E/F. It's a new technology, and so far, controlling the energy has proven difficult. However, the kill mechanism is much faster than a laser that can take several seconds to kill a target. Those with insight into Boeing's efforts say that generating the power is not an issue. The problem is developing an aperture that can focus and direct the pulse of energy predictably. However, when the target shifts to computers, planners believe an omnidirectional burst of energy would likely be the best mode of attack.
Some UCAV proponents fear the Air Force's maneuver to change the mission could undermine the program, particularly in Congress where it has been sold to lawmakers as fighter/attack aircraft.
You have an electronic warfare aircraft jamming all electronic signals in an area
But it is controlled by you remotely by electronic signals
First how do you not jam you own link.. and if you work that out
What keeps the enemy from jamming your link to the aircraft?
In fact this could be a problem for all UCAV, the enemy just jams your link to the aircraft
And unmanned attack/survelliance/defensive/utility aircraft will NEVER replace the human pilot effectively and I don't care what the educated idiots in white coats say it will do. I realize they are talking ECM here, but then the article goes on to add bombs and yes I've read other articles about unmanned dogfights coming in the future as well.
True, it has it's functions and can be applied effectively in some tactical situations. But there is no substitute for battlefield wisdom and experience. The ability for a human to assess the situation as it unfolds and react instinctively. The ability to take the initiative and get creative as the situation warrants. We didn't become the greatest nation on earth because we kept our pilots 6,000 miles away sitting in an air conditioned trailer looking at a video screen. It takes a warrior, on the ground, at sea and in the air to get the job done. His aircraft is merely his instrument and weapon assigned to him. Technology is helpful but not the answer. Courage, intelligence and experience and human ingenuity always has been. Apparently the paper pushers who graduated from war college (and have never seen a shot fired at them in anger) don't understand this concept. This space age whiz toy is merely a political boondogle.
You need a real time data link to the aircraft; video and telemetry downlink from the aircraft and your control uplink to the aircraft
What keeps the enemy from jamming the link from & to the aircraft?
Doesn't sound like the JSF, F-22, or any other fighter is in danger of being replaced by the UCAV.
A UCAV’s can not be quiet from an electronic signal perspective, unless its a total robot.
It has to communicate back to you in some manner to let you let you know what going on so you can tell it what to do.
So it emits a signal that an enemy can jam or have a missile home in on.
Think on there own... and be (electronic) quiet
Probably not. But what the military wants and what they get are two different things in the political world. Politicos will lobby to keep their constituents working regardless of whether the weapon/equipment has any practical use or not. Why not take those millions per copy spent and provide units with more F-22's or JSF's?
I suppose another example of my "against" argument would be the Wild Weasel missions. Who needs UCAV's? Weasels are capable of jamming and destroying at the same time. Talk to any current or former Weasel pilot/GIB at length, and it becomes apparent it was the crew who performed the missions. It was the crew who made the split second decisions. Not a pre programmed database. Put the money to use developing better equipment for the WSO's. Technology is fine to a point. I'm just uncomfortable with relying on it too much. Nothing beats a man who's on the spot and situationally aware of his environment and able to act upon that awareness. Nuts and bolts and circuit boards don't have that capability.
Well its what I would sure try to do
Agreed, sadly the ability to THINK (particularly on the fly) is highly underrated today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.