Commander William Earl Fannin, Class of 1945, Capstone Essay Contest
Arming reconnaissance drones or building unmanned combat aerial vehicles such as the X-45A allows these craft to compete for missions previously flown by combat pilots. Manned aviation is not gone yet, but the future points toward empty cockpits.
Many of today's military pilots cringe at the mention of unarmed aerial vehicles (UAVs) because they view them as a threat to their dominance of the skies. These machines could render aviators obsolete. The Pentagon currently is funding multiple corporations and research institutions to develop new and viable UAV technologies for future battlefields.
Risks to aircraft and their crews continue to grow as enemy weapon systems become more sophisticated. There appears to be no relief in sight from the demand for ever higher operational tempos. Aeronautical technology already has exceeded the limits of human physiology and will continue on at a fantastic rate. The combination of these factors does not bode well for American youth who aspire to be military pilots.
Fortunately for today's aviators, current air assets still are the best option for combat missions. Unmanned aerial technology remains in its infancy, but the day of the UAV is coming.
Real Risks for Real People
After eight months of the war on terrorism, munition stocks are running low, aircraft are showing their age rapidly, and military aviation's safety record is deteriorating. The services have seen a spike in accidents after several years of record low rates. The rate for Class A mishaps, those with more than $1 million in damage, has risen to 1.92 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, versus .85 in the comparable period last year.
Numbers sometimes are easy to disregard when they are not put in a human context. In February, a Navy F/A-18C pilot had his canopy shattered when the fatigued refueling hose of an Air Force KC-10 broke in two and began beating against his fuel-hungry Hornet. The pilot was forced to fly for more than an hour in freezing temperatures to Pakistan, where he was able to land without incident. The next morning the pilot was returning to his carrier, after his canopy had been fixed, when he experienced a partial hydraulics failure during landing. It is clear that wear is beginning to show in the form of increased mechanical failure rates and maintenance problems caused by the extreme operational tempo our forces are attempting to sustain.
Risks incurred by aircraft and their crews because of routine operations can be kept within acceptable limits under most circumstances. Indeed, the military is to be commended for its many aggressive programs (operational risk management procedures and foreign object debris tracking, for example) that reduce human and material losses. When other forces seek to harm our assets, however, the ability to control the outcome of an event declines dramatically. Despite our technological advantage, our enemies still fight back. In October 1993, 19 men and multiple helicopters were lost in Mogadishu, Somalia. In June 1995, Air Force Captain Scott O'Grady's F-16 was shot down by Bosnian Serb surface-to-air missiles, leading to a rescue operation that endangered still more service members. Even relatively passive missions such as reconnaissance are not free from the possibility of attack; the EP-3 incident off China in 2001 exposed one of the acknowledged risks of manned reconnaissance.
It is clear from these cases and the hundreds of others like them that manned aerial exploits are risky endeavors regardless of their purpose. Despite our best efforts to shield air crews from danger, we never will be totally successful until they are removed from the equation.
UAVs for Dummies
The arguments for UAVs are twofold: their use can free manned assets by flying many of the dull, dangerous, or otherwise routine missions; and, in combination with smaller and more potent and precise weapons, both manned and unmanned aircraft of the future will have the potential to engage 15 to 20 times more targets per sortie than today.
Unmanned aircraft are evolving into three basic forms. The first is a large UAV flying at altitudes greater than 80,000 feet for weeks on end. Such platforms will be launched primarily from ground bases in the United States and will act as reconnaissance and communications platforms. These monsters will carry elaborate packages capable of monitoring vast swaths of enemy territory. They will replace the EP-3s in use today.
The next type is the unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV). With wingspans of 3050 feet, they will be deployed locally from surface combatants. With endurances from a few days to several weeks, and operating at altitudes of 5,000-45,000 feet, UCAVs will be the principal tactical targeting and killing platforms of the future. Although newer models of UCAVs are being fitted with beyond visual range air-to-air capabilities, it is likely that the danger of misidentifying and possibly downing a civilian aircraft will produce rules of engagement so stringent as to prevent a commander ever from using this option.
Third, a new class of UAV recently has emerged, with wingspans of 6 to 12 inches. These systems carry inexpensive electro-optical and infrared sensors that allow troops in urban environments to see what is lurking around corners and in rooms. Plans also include various devices that may be employed to neutralize adversaries through both lethal and nonlethal means.
With these basic designs it is possible to construct a command-and-control hierarchy whereby larger and higher-flying UAVs will manage smaller ones in tasks ranging from direct attack to remote weapon guidance. For this final state to be reached, the issue of airspace coordination must be resolved, as it remains a sizable obstacle to unmanned aviation. Current models of UAVs are restricted to airspace reserved for their own use. This will be done as a risk-management technique until such a time that technology permits otherwise. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics has convened a professional committee to study air traffic management issues, including UAV airspace control.
Uncontrolled Aerial Vehicles?
One of the most frequently cited drawbacks to UAVs is that no one is present to control the airframes safely and precisely. At first glance it seems obvious that no aviator can maintain situational awareness without seat-of-the-pants sensory input. On further inspection, however, this is not the case. In fact, when various parts of the body begin sending the pilot's brain conflicting information, disorientation can result. This can provide an incorrect mental image of position, attitude, or movement in relation to what actually is happening to the aircraft. An operator in a fixed location is not susceptible to such influences and instead would be focused solely on the information being provided by his computer console. The bottom line is that unmanned is not synonymous with uncontrolled.
If human factors are studied and incorporated into designs as completely as they are in existing programs for manned aviation, then applications of existing technology can make UAVs operable in concert with manned aircraft. Broadband satellite access, better topography and environmental sensing tools, improved processing, and training can overcome sensory deficiencies. In addition, current UAV design philosophies are geared toward non-pilot operators. The logical pilots of UAVs are not highly trained aviators, but those familiar with radio-controlled model airplanes or computer-based simulators. For this reason, future UAV squadrons should be organized around intelligence units that recruit and train their own operators. While units will require aviation mechanics and electronics specialists to maintain both airframes and payload packages, there is little reason other than tradition to require aviators in such squadrons.
The usefulness of UAVs long has been recognized because they can perform dangerous missions at low cost without risking lives. Relatively speaking, unmanned aviation barely has passed the Wright brothers level of sophistication, and existing unmanned aerial vehicles are too few and too limited in capabilities to be used operationally as described here. For this reason, the pilots of today can sleep well with the knowledge that their jobs will be waiting for them in the morning. Nevertheless, the designs and payloads of future UAVs will be limited only by the imagination of their builders and the ability to configure sensors to increasingly smaller aircraft. As the inevitable march of progress continues, the pilot in the cockpit will become an obsolete relic of a bygone era.
Ensign Winberry will work at the oceanography department at the Naval Academy before entering flight school at Pensacola.