Swarm Force

Opinions Astronomy Aviation Pictures Bits & Pieces Travel Pictures

Note: This wild speculation about the future of military aircraft was originally written in December 2001 for my weblog, which I stopped updating in July 2003. It is reproduced here unchanged. UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are definitely the future for Western air forces. Since they don't have to carry a crew they can be smaller and lighter, and can be put at risk much more readily than would be acceptable for a human pilot. Also, future unmanned combat vehicles will be much more manoeuvrable, since they won't be limited by the maximum g-force that a human can withstand. However, the way to maximise the effectiveness of UAVs is to make them as cheap and expendable as possible, so that they can be used in large numbers. The current trend in manned aircraft towards ever more complex and costly planes is reaching a dead-end, because countries can afford so few aircraft that their operational flexibility becomes more and more limited. It also makes it harder to justify risking a plane and its pilot on a potentially dangerous mission because they're so valuable. Therefore UAV design should take the opposite approach. UAVs should be simple and expendable, with all the really advanced technology being in the control software, to ensure that there is little sensitive technology in them that can be recovered when they are shot down. They should have a modular design, so that a single basic airframe can be equipped with different packs containing weapons, reconnaissance equipment, etc., as the mission dictates. To reduce costs and introduce more competition to the aerospace sector the basic design should be "commoditized", so that a large number of manufacturers can compete to provide parts for a common platform. To maximise time over the target area they should normally be launched close to it, either from the ground or by air-drop from a manned aircraft or long-range carrier drone. They should also be capable of landing (even if it is just by cutting the engine and opening a parachute) so that they can be re-used. Most importantly, they should be designed to operate in groups rather than singly. For example, when attacking a ground target the UAV attack group should include some that carry bombs or missiles to attack the target, some with air-to-air missiles to engage enemy fighters, and some with electronic counter-measures equipment or anti-radiation missiles to suppress enemy air defences. The group could have a much more comprehensive set of weaponry than a single manned aircraft could carry but for a lower overall cost, and it would be much harder for enemy air defences to destroy a number of small targets than a single large one. More novel types of vehicle could also be used, such as "kamikaze" drones that collide with enemy aircraft, or "flying bombs" that can be steered right into a trench before they detonate. A swarm of the latter could loiter over an area as a flying minefield to deny it to an enemy. However, to fully realise the potential of remotely-controlled UAVs it would also be necessary to re-think the concept of piloting. In my view, they should be designed to operate in three modes: (1) Fully under the control of a human pilot (2) With a human acting as mission commander (3) Fully autonomous, making their own decisions about how best to carry out their mission objectives - it would take some years to develop this capability Mode (2) should be the default. The individual UAVs would fly themselves, maintaining formation and heading. They would also be programmed with some simple automatic responses, e.g. to dispense chaff or flares when an incoming missile is detected, and a limited set of tactical manoeuvres. A human pilot would act as mission commander, making all the tactical decisions. For example, he or she might instruct that UAV number 2 in the group should attack a particular enemy position using a particular attack profile. The UAV would then attempt to carry this out. Instead of the view from a cockpit, the mission commander would have a computer-generated overview of the mission, combining data from the UAVs with data from observation systems like Joint STARS and AWACS. He or she would be able to view any aspect of the mission from any angle. This person would therefore be chosen for their tactical acumen rather than actual piloting skills. However, it would also be necessary to have a group of pilots standing by to take full control of individual UAVs for parts of the mission, for example when engaging an enemy fighter. These pilots would switch between different aircraft - or even different missions - as needed. This would also change the recruiting standards for pilots, as the physical demands of remotely flying a drone would be much less than those of flying a real aircraft - you'd have fighter nerds as well as fighter jocks. Of course it will be some time before UAV technology, and the secure communications technology needed to control them remotely, is sufficiently advanced for manned combat aircraft to be replaced completely. Indeed, it will be necessary to have manned aircraft available until UAVs are sufficiently advanced to be able to carry out complex missions autonomously, even if they lose all contact with their home base. However, given the huge costs and long timescales of modern aircraft development, Western air forces are probably now deploying their last generation of manned combat aircraft. The model for the future should not be the Eagle or Fighting Falcon, but the killer bee.

		Last Updated: 1 Oct 07