News How Many Aircraft Carriers Do Leading Nations Operate?

[Yonoz]

How much of what is going on in the 360 degrees around you is important for a given mission? Having the operator on the same location as the people with which the pilots in the cockpit currently converse remotely has its advantages. Vis a vis friendly fire incidents: remember that recording of the A-10 pilots who attacked a British convoy despite the big-*ss tactical identification sheets they used? You have so many different elements on the radio who report to the pilot something that is already on some electronic medium somewhere else - so much for high speed control loops. What if you took the pilot out of the cockpit and put them in front of that electronic medium, so they could see battle charts and intelligence data aggregated in real time?
Sure, an operator sitting in an airconditioned compartment is not as romantic an image as a Top Gun with a leather jacket - but war is never as romantic as it's made out to be.
As I said, targets have been, are being, and will be attacked by weapons operators and pilots with less than a few pixels on a monitor, regardless of UAVs.
As for expendability and such - safety in numbers: all you have to do is make sure you have more UAVs dedicated per mission than your enemy can shoot down, not so hard considering that it would be very difficult for an enemy to tell which of the many UAVs in the sky isn't a dummy - let them waste their ammunition on dummy UAVs made by the lowest bidder. Even if they do hit the real ones occassionaly, better those than manned aircraft. It's also much easier to make a "stealth" UAV than a manned "stealth" aircraft - most of them can already be considered "stealth" thanks to their inherent low signatures.
Nowadays jets outmaneuver surface-air missiles that were made in the fifties and sixties in an almost sterile environment. A well thought AA array is a serious obstacle to achieving military goals.

Regarding the communications bandwidth - there are technical solutions to that, unfortunately they're not for internet forums.

As to their limited role expanding - hopefully time won't tell.

 

[mheslep]

And remote operators have second hand, late, highly incomplete information, a fraction of the 360 sphere and in highly degraded resolution.

That situation is changing, improving.

 

[Yonoz]

if you make a UAV, you will have to make IFS for every situation (IF this then that, ect) . And what if the enemy makes a new aircraft (secretly), and that the UAV does not have the required strategy to fight it. Are you going to wait for the Millitary complex to make a new OS for your UAVS ?

Countermeasures employed by manned aircraft also require programming and reprogramming, there's no difference between them and UAVs in that sense. It is not a matter of "strategy", nor tactics - simply electronics, planning and a bit of luck.
For the last time JPC, UAVs are not meant to shoot enemy planes down, that is done by missiles. If you get your enemy's jets to waste their time on your UAVs rather than perform ground support missions you're either:
1) facing an enemy that can't prioritise, in which case you'll probably outmaneuver them;
2) on the brink of defeat.

And worst, what if there's a bug/error in the UAV OS , and you only find out when your UAVs are already at combat !

Even in 21st century militaries there's no substitute for good old fashioned practice.

So, i believe that unless if we can make machines that can think by themeselves like humans , we should continue evolving machinery as a tool for humans.

Fortunately there's no other way to go about it at this point in time.

 

[Yonoz]

I think another clarification is in order: the very reason for having an air force in the first place is ground support. Everything else is a lead-up to that, and anyone who thought otherwise was proved wrong - see Kosovo and the latest Lebanon conflict.

 

[Andre]

you guys think too much in technical terms and fallacies. Leather jackets and top gun don't count. Have you been there? Have you done that? Only if you have, you could judge the difference in situational awareness between the real thing and the computer flight simulator game, even in full dome simulators. Believe me, it's huge. Yes whole 360 sphere is equally important, especially when manoevring, turning and banking, the horizon can be anywhere. "Rubber necking" is the name of the game.

And don't underestimate the pair concept, lead and wingmen covering each other for threats. About all incoming missiles have been spotted by the wingmen first. There is no way that UAV's can do that job.

About the battle charts, available in the cockpit nowadays. You can see all your wingmens radar air pictures as well as what the magic eye sends you. It's a kind of jet-internet. Just search the info and select that you want. Moreover, there is that ever smarter threat warning thing that tells about which radars are shining on you from which direction. But it's still the visual identification in the terminal phase of whatever engagement. Sure sometimes this goes wrong ending in fratricide. But any idea how many times this would go wrong without visual identification from UAV's? All of those problems may hint why pilot training is the most expensive in the world.

Another element about not develloping full capable UAV's is the general world situation. There is no more east-west cold war. There are no more high intensity treath scenarios in which it would be paramount not to risk pilots lives. And military budgets hold world records for diminishing rates. There are simply no more funds to devellop completely different concepts.

 

[Yonoz]

you guys think too much in technical terms and fallacies. Leather jackets and top gun don't count. Have you been there? Have you done that? Only if you have, you could judge the difference in situational awareness between the real thing and the computer flight simulator game, even in full dome simulators. Believe me, it's huge. Yes whole 360 sphere is equally important, especially when manoevring, turning and banking, the horizon can be anywhere. "Rubber necking" is the name of the game.

And don't underestimate the pair concept, lead and wingmen covering each other for threats. About all incoming missiles have been spotted by the wingmen first. There is no way that UAV's can do that job.

That's all appreciated, but irrelevant nonetheless.
Fighter jets will stick around for a while, that's been agreed upon.

About the battle charts, available in the cockpit nowadays. You can see all your wingmens radar air pictures as well as what the magic eye sends you. It's a kind of jet-internet. Just search the info and select that you want. Moreover, there is that ever smarter threat warning thing that tells about which radars are shining on you from which direction. But it's still the visual identification in the terminal phase of whatever engagement. Sure sometimes this goes wrong ending in fratricide. But any idea how many times this would go wrong without visual identification from UAV's? All of those problems may hint why pilot training is the most expensive in the world.

A UAV doesn't need a threat warning thing. You don't need to watch for missiles or fly in formation - you don't even have to deal with that tiresome business of flying the damn thing. You can take your time to look at the target, around it, zoom in, zoom out, look at the maps to make sure you're looking where you should, print out a snapshot, or just give a call to the intel officer - he'll come right over if he's not busy.
You said it: pilot training is the most expensive in the world. So are the planes and their development programs. So are carriers. So is jet fuel.
A UAV array - several dozen million $US.
A captive ejected pilot - priceless.

Another element about not develloping full capable UAV's is the general world situation. There is no more east-west cold war. There are no more high intensity treath scenarios in which it would be paramount not to risk pilots lives. And military budgets hold world records for diminishing rates. There are simply no more funds to devellop completely different concepts.

That's right - they're all being spent on pilots' training, R&D, carriers, jet fuel, maintenance. How much does it cost to feed a carrier at full capacity?

BTW what's better for modern scenarios than a fleet of long haul UAVs that can reach anywhere on the globe? Those predators operating in Afghanistan [EDIT]used to[/EDIT] take off from Nevada.

 

[mheslep]

you guys think too much in technical terms and fallacies. Leather jackets and top gun don't count. Have you been there? Have you done that?

"Are you a fighter pilot?"
"You don't ask a man if he's a fighter pilot, if he is he'll let you know, if he's not, don't embarrass him."

Flight of the Intruder

 

[Andre]

Gee, there are so any jets flying around, chances are that somebody is a fighter pilot.

Anyway, let's complicate the matter a bit. We're thinking Middle East scenarios with no cloud in the sky, viz unlimited. In the Balkans there was not a day without a cloud. Rather a nuissance for a targeting pod. -BTW there is no need to contact a intell guy should a target be identified. That's part of the knowlegde.- Anyway, flying around trying to find a hole to punch through the clouds and then navigate with 40 seconds worth of visibility will be very challenging for remote operators

Another story, Mike a friend loves to tell his favorite story, he was on his way to target with his F-16 four ship during Gulf war I, when the magic eye asked him if he could help out some isolated forces that were pinned down by the bad guys. So he diverted to there and soon had the bunch visual. So when he started the attack he noticed that the own troops were way to close into the bad guys, within the lethal bomb range and that the bomb blast and fragmentation would likely be fatal. So he terminated the run dry and got an idea. He was going to give them an airshow that they would remember for the rest of their lives. So he made multiple very low dry passes with sonic booms. That worked. In no time the bad guys ran and everybody made it home safe. His portrait is in the hall of fame of that unit. Tell me how you would do that with UAV's, that is including the retasking, the identifying the individual men and judging the distance to be within lethal range and the airshow itself.

Oh, and the main job for air forces is not to support army surface operations but to achieve the political aims of our own coalition, with our without the army.

 

[Yonoz]

Anyway, let's complicate the matter a bit. We're thinking Middle East scenarios with no cloud in the sky, viz unlimited. In the Balkans there was not a day without a cloud. Rather a nuissance for a targeting pod.

And we saw how well modern fighters and bombers performed under those conditions anyway... Have you had a chance to check out some modern IR sensors? It's all a matter of technological development. In this case the technology is already available, it's only a matter of specifying how you want it put together.

BTW there is no need to contact a intell guy should a target be identified. That's part of the knowlegde.

So you don't believe there's any added value in having the people whose entire job is to know what's going on down there on the same site as the person who operates and aims the weapons.

Anyway, flying around trying to find a hole to punch through the clouds and then navigate with 40 seconds worth of visibility will be very challenging for remote operators

A decade ago, maybe. These days we have GPS, gyros, and computers that don't mind doing a bit of trigonometry. Want to know where you are? Just look at the monitor - that's you in the center, and there's the point on the ground where your sensor is looking.

Another story, Mike a friend loves to tell his favorite story, he was on his way to target with his F-16 four ship during Gulf war I, when the magic eye asked him if he could help out some isolated forces that were pinned down by the bad guys. So he diverted to there and soon had the bunch visual. So when he started the attack he noticed that the own troops were way to close into the bad guys, within the lethal bomb range and that the bomb blast and fragmentation would likely be fatal. So he terminated the run dry and got an idea. He was going to give them an airshow that they would remember for the rest of their lives. So he made multiple very low dry passes with sonic booms. That worked. In no time the bad guys ran and everybody made it home safe. His portrait is in the hall of fame of that unit. Tell me how you would do that with UAV's, that is including the retasking, the identifying the individual men and judging the distance to be within lethal range and the airshow itself.

Just one question - what sort of payload was Mike carrying? Because if it's one of those big CBUs, it's a terrific example why smaller drones with smaller payloads are much more versatile. Mike couldn't use the payload because the simple fact that we have to face more and more lately is that big, heavy jets with big, heavy cluster bombs are overkill for most targets in a modern battlefield, especially in the higher-likelihood scenarios. Why use a large fragmentation bomb when you can pick individual targets one by one with small, accurate weapons?
Retasking is simpler with UAVs than with planes that are already in the air, the operators are right there in the HQ or very near it. You can tap one of them on the shoulder and brief them inside their "cockpit" in person. Rather than converse with someone through at least a third party, over a radio, you do it in person, and you can put your finger on the monitor and say "there they are". No need to transmit coordinates or code names, less fumbling with maps and booklets, finding the right frequency etc.
It's much easier to identify ground forces and figure out who's who with a UAV - there's no need to conduct any sort of run, you can see the shell casings in the IR. Look at the detail in the footage that starts about 10 seconds into this video, you can see the detail down to the charging http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=1451741&ak=null" (around 0:55). Have you ever seen anything like that in a cockpit? You can tell the distance very accurately with a UAV, you just point, click, repeat. Or click and drag. Or whatever you ask the designers to make it.

Oh, and the main job for air forces is not to support army surface operations but to achieve the political aims of our own coalition, with our without the army.

Seems like this is evolving into a military doctrine discussion.
The political aims of your coalition, and every other political entity have everything to do with the ground and very little to do with the sky. This has always been the case and always will be, at least until we start living in airborne cities, like in that Star Wars movie, but they also had droids.

 

[Andre]

1. Technology, again all available technology is available in the manned fighters and it's no problem to know where you are, where you're going and where your target is. Now tell a blindfolded man (clouds) that he is at 42.368542255 North 028.2548889921 East and that his target bearing and range is 021.02558 degrees at 12.87433 nautical miles. And now? He can get his weapon there blindly (GPS), punching in the numbers, no problem but what if the convoy just drove away or when a crowd of citizens just had arrived? Then you'd have a formidable legal problem. Nowadays the squadrons and headquarters are crowded with legal advisors to see if targetting was done in accordance with the conventions, laws and rules. .

2. Balkan, it's quite possible to hide battaillions in a theater like that, under the trees, in sheds etc. The best possible way to have effective use of weapons there would have been with eyes on target of a SOF unit, procedures for that been implemented and this means coordination. Coordinating with remote operators or robots is a tad more difficult than with a guy in a cockpit. Meanwhile, a Predator type UAV in that area would not have lasted long, there was plenty of air defence around

3. I don't know what Mike's ordnance was but likely he was there for a bigger job and the standard ordnance in those days was the Mk84 2000lbs for busting bunkers etc. Not suitable to end a fire fight between parties some 100 feet apart.

4. Nice IR footage. Compared to targetting pod footage it's certainly remarkable but what would you do with your U(C)AV to hit the bad guys while avoiding hitting the good guys?

5. Military doctrine. Yes, the most important military philosopher, Tzun su, wrote a book, "The art of war", oh errm..some 2600 years ago. The bottom line is to try and find the best way to win a war by not fighting. Try to have your opponent lose his will to fight. Tank bataillons engaging each other seems not to be the most effective way to discourage an opponent to continue hostilities, since that's what tank bataillions are there for in the first place. Gulf War one was a good example of trying it the Tzun Su way. John Warden III became legendary by designing the air campaign according to his own idea of the 5 rings of target categories. If a hostile country is completely controlled by a tirant, then the tirant is the main target, the central ring, the "centre of gravity". It had worked with Ghadaffi before (1984). If the tirant keeps busy hiding for air raids then there isn't much time left for controlling the war. The idea is that this should be rather discouraging. Then there are no tank bataillions needed and hence there is no army around to support and hence no supporting function for the air force.

Bottom line. It takes strategists to win wars, facilitated by hardware provided by the technicians. If the latter want to adapt the hardware to meet the strategists needs, they need to know what the strategists know and they better listen.

Now a completely different story, the other week we had an airliner with a serious technical electrical emergency disabling him to navigate. The only gadget left was the emergency radio on a separate battery circuit. So, we were alerted and we sent two Quick Reaction Force fighters airborne which joined up with the airliner and guided it to a suitable airport to land. I wonder how you would do that with UAVs.

 

[Yonoz]

1. Technology, again all available technology is available in the manned fighters and it's no problem to know where you are, where you're going and where your target is. Now tell a blindfolded man (clouds) that he is at 42.368542255 North 028.2548889921 East and that his target bearing and range is 021.02558 degrees at 12.87433 nautical miles. And now? He can get his weapon there blindly (GPS), punching in the numbers, no problem but what if the convoy just drove away or when a crowd of citizens just had arrived? Then you'd have a formidable legal problem. Nowadays the squadrons and headquarters are crowded with legal advisors to see if targetting was in accordance with the conventions, laws and rules.

What if he could see where his weapon was going, like those famous 1st Gulf War cam shots of missiles going into a window? That technology is over a decade old.

2. Balkan, it's quite possible to hide battaillions in a theater like that, under the trees, in sheds etc. The best possible way to have effective use of weapons there would have been with eyes on target of a SOF unit, procedures for that been implemented and this means coordination. Coordinating with remote operators or robots is a tad more difficult than with a guy in a cockpit. Meanwhile, a Predator type UAV in that area would not have lasted long, there was plenty of air defence around

I highly disagree with that SO statement, but I'll have to leave it at that.
A high-flying UAV isn't easy to shoot down for a variety of reasons, but I think the heaviest toll extracted of NATO was that F-117 that was shot down (by an SA-3) - certainly no one made a deal of the 32 UAVs that were lost to accidents and AA fire. I believe it was even cheaper to lose all those UAVs than that F-117, but economics are only a part of the equation. What if that pilot hadn't been recovered?

3. I don't know what Mike's ordnance was but likely he was there for a bigger job and the standard ordnance in those days was the Mk84 2000lbs for busting bunkers etc. Not suitable to end a fire fight between parties some 100 feet apart.

Sounds like the perfect job for a Predator packing hellfires.

4. Nice IR footage. Compared to targetting pod footage it's certainly remarkable but what would you do with your U(C)AV to hit the bad guys while avoiding hitting the good guys?

That was just a demonstration of what operators can do to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys, without having to conduct runs etc. Imagine what IR sensors will be able to do in 5, 10, 20 years' time. Had that been a UAV with attack capabilities in a war situation, it would've attacked the enemy without requiring a ground force to go in and make sure it's not just two kids playing in the dunes in the middle of the night.

5. Military doctrine. Yes, the most important military philosopher, Tzun su, wrote a book, "The art of war", oh errm..some 2600 years ago. The bottom line is to try and find the best way to win a war by not fighting. Try to have your opponent lose his will to fight. Bataillons of tanks engaging each other seems not the most effective way to discourage an opponent to continue hostilities, since that's what bataillions of tanks are there for in the first place. Gulf War one was a good example of trying it the Tzun Su way. John Warden III became legendary by designing the air campaign according to his own idea of the 5 rings of target categories. If a hostile country is completely controlled by a tirant, then the tirant is the main target, the central ring, the centre of gravity. It had worked with Ghadaffi before (1984). If the tirant keeps busy hiding for air raids then there isn't much time left for controlling the war. The idea is that this should be rather discouraging. Then there are no tank bataillions needed and hence there is no army around to support and hence no supporting function for the air force.

I agree with everything except that last bit - what war does that tyrant have to control if there's no one on the ground fighting, or at least threatening to fight? You need those tank battallions, even if they don't fire a shot in anger, otherwise that tyrant can simply stay under cover and call your bluff. I believe Col. Ghadaffi is still in power.
BTW Sun Tzu's writings are indeed a source of great wisdom, but one has to interpret them to use in modern warfare. That interpretation is naturally quite open - mine differs from yours.

Bottom line. It takes strategists to win wars, facilitated by hardware provided by the technicians. If the latter want to adapt the hardware to meet the strategists needs, they need to know what the strategists know and they better listen.

Agreed. Unfortunately, good strategists can be defined as such only in retrospect: so far the handywork of those strategists that conducted what our analysts call "the fire wars": Kosovo, Grapes of Wrath, Lebanon etc. is pretty much agreed to be fundamentally lacking.
Lacking what? The fundamental principle of warfare: a maneuver effort.

Now a completely different story, the other week we had an airliner with a serious technical electrical emergency disabling him to navigate. The only gadget left was the emergency radio on a separate battery circuit. So, we were alerted and we sent two Quick Reaction Force fighters airborne which joined up with the airliner and guided it to a suitable airport to land. I wonder how you would do that with UAVs.

Like I said, fighters will stick around for a while - no argument there. It does not contradict my assertion that UAVs will adopt greater, more varied roles. I believe there are other types of manned crafts that can do that and don't cost as much.