Replacing CAS Aircraft with Drones ?

sublight is back said:
I dont see how PCAS is a cost effective venture now that Switchblade exists. Can somebody lay it out for me?
Click to expand...


I really don't understand the question. PCAS is a command and control tool for speeding up the delivery of CAS from any available platforms. Switchblade is essentially a micro-UAV with a hand grenade for a warhead. They're not dealing with the same issues at all.
 
TomS said:
sublight is back said:
I dont see how PCAS is a cost effective venture now that Switchblade exists. Can somebody lay it out for me?
Click to expand...


I really don't understand the question. PCAS is a command and control tool for speeding up the delivery of CAS from any available platforms. Switchblade is essentially a micro-UAV with a hand grenade for a warhead. They're not dealing with the same issues at all.
Click to expand...

If your squad is pinned down and you have a switchblade, you can surgically take out the threat without breaking cover. You can also take out the threat in an urban area without causing the collateral damage you'd get with CAS. So how is this not the same issue?
 
Switchblade is great if you have identified the target, if it is within your range, and if it can be dealt with by a single hand grenade. For anything else you need CAS, and PCAS will help get it.
 
Bill Walker said:
Switchblade is great if you have identified the target, if it is within your range, and if it can be dealt with by a single hand grenade. For anything else you need CAS, and PCAS will help get it.
Click to expand...
Identifying the target, then eliminating it is precisely what it does. A switchblade has a nose cam and 15 minute loiter time. It is better at identifying a target than a CAS aircraft can, with more precision, and much lower latency.

CAS and PCAS are great for a convoy of tanks, but Switchblade and platforms like it are going to supersede most CAS engagements.
 
sublight is back said:
Bill Walker said:
Switchblade is great if you have identified the target, if it is within your range, and if it can be dealt with by a single hand grenade. For anything else you need CAS, and PCAS will help get it.
Click to expand...
Identifying the target, then eliminating it is precisely what it does. A switchblade has a nose cam and 15 minute loiter time. It is better at identifying a target than a CAS aircraft can, with more precision, and much lower latency.

CAS and PCAS are great for a convoy of tanks, but Switchblade and platforms like it are going to supersede most CAS engagements.
Click to expand...

How will Switchblade handle one tank, 100 yards in front of you? I agree the concept is great, and it will prove useful, but it doesn't replace larger munitions, that need larger delivery platforms.
 
Bill Walker said:
sublight is back said:
Bill Walker said:
Switchblade is great if you have identified the target, if it is within your range, and if it can be dealt with by a single hand grenade. For anything else you need CAS, and PCAS will help get it.
Click to expand...
Identifying the target, then eliminating it is precisely what it does. A switchblade has a nose cam and 15 minute loiter time. It is better at identifying a target than a CAS aircraft can, with more precision, and much lower latency.

CAS and PCAS are great for a convoy of tanks, but Switchblade and platforms like it are going to supersede most CAS engagements.
Click to expand...

How will Switchblade handle one tank, 100 yards in front of you? I agree the concept is great, and it will prove useful, but it doesn't replace larger munitions, that need larger delivery platforms.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I just said. Except PCAS isnt being developed because we have an ongoing tank problem, or have not been able to handle it for the last 40 years. It is to address a latency problem that the Switchblade will take care of...
 
sublight is back said:
That is exactly what I just said. Except PCAS isnt being developed because we have an ongoing tank problem, or have not been able to handle it for the last 40 years. It is to address a latency problem that the Switchblade will take care of...
Click to expand...

PCAS is intended to provide ground forces (JTACs, CTTs, etc) and air assets a more unified picture of the battlefield. As it is now, ground forces have one view of the battlefield, air assets another, and they have to talk each other through the engagement.

I think that if you told AC-130, B-1B and B-52H crews who participated in the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom that they are going to be replaced by a radio controlled hand grenade you might get some interesting looks.
 
quellish said:
PCAS is intended to provide ground forces (JTACs, CTTs, etc) and air assets a more unified picture of the battlefield. As it is now, ground forces have one view of the battlefield, air assets another, and they have to talk each other through the engagement.
Click to expand...
And that makes sense.

quellish said:
I think that if you told AC-130, B-1B and B-52H crews who participated in the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom that they are going to be replaced by a radio controlled hand grenade you might get some interesting looks.
Click to expand...
The AC-130, B-1B and B-52H made sense for the first weeks of OEF, but for the next 10+ years of insurgency, the switchblade makes a lot more sense than using sledgehammers against termites.
 
TomS said:
I really don't understand the question. PCAS is a command and control tool for speeding up the delivery of CAS from any available platforms. Switchblade is essentially a micro-UAV with a hand grenade for a warhead. They're not dealing with the same issues at all.
Click to expand...

This was the correct answer all along. PCAS is about linking views of the battlefield and better coordinating CAS. Switchblade is a standalone precision effector. With a very small warhead and the need for it to be transported it has very limited utility when compared to other CAS assets that are available, be they B-1B's, Apaches, F-15Es or Reapers.
 
JFC Fuller said:
TomS said:
I really don't understand the question. PCAS is a command and control tool for speeding up the delivery of CAS from any available platforms. Switchblade is essentially a micro-UAV with a hand grenade for a warhead. They're not dealing with the same issues at all.
Click to expand...

This was the correct answer all along. PCAS is about linking views of the battlefield and better coordinating CAS. Switchblade is a standalone precision effector. With a very small warhead and the need for it to be transported it has very limited utility when compared to other CAS assets that are available, be they B-1B's, Apaches, F-15Es or Reapers.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get yelled at for polluting the thread, I believe "B-1B's, Apaches, F-15Es or Reapers" are not cost effective, low latency, or engagement efficient enough for an ongoing 10+ year insurgency operation.
You just don't need a B1 to do what a backpack-toy-airplane-from-hell can do quicker.
 
The assumption that late-war Afghanistan is the only scenario for which US forces need to be equipped strikes me as very dangerous. Probably this is a debate more suited to the Bar, however.
 
Here. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21448.0.html
I will ask Stephane to move the posts...
 
Isn't it simply a case of 'horses for courses'? Sometimes a small UAV will be enough…other times a B-1 level of commitment will be required. There is no one size fits all.


That said, and responding to the title of this thread, I do strongly believe that there is an argument that Drones/UAVs can take up the CAS role and indeed will increasingly do so in the future. Technology will allow more and more and, just as we have already seen with inhabited platforms, the Vietnam War era Skyraider with Mk1 eyeball sensor is not necessarily the only nor the preferred means of undertaking CAS. Perhaps a series of UAVs operating in a "Cab Rank" (referring to WWII Hawker Typhoon operations) style arrangement over a war zone would be one way to go. As those on the ground need support they 'dial it up' and one drops down to deliver support.
 
Here is to hoping all future wars occur in slight wind conditions and fair weather. Here is to hoping that you can always operate in a cyber superiority environment. Here is to hoping that there are only as many enemies as you have flying hand grenades. Here is to hoping your enemies don't have the means to defeat that all seeing sensor. Here is to hoping you can carry all of the flying hand grenades you need for the fire fight (I.e., they take up a lot of space in a ruck sack).

What is the effective bursting radius of a Switchblade? What is the effective bursting radius of a 30mm? 2.75" ten pound warhead?

Is it good kit? Yup.

Is it the panacea of all future CAS needs? Nope.
 
yasotay said:
Here is to hoping all future wars occur in slight wind conditions and fair weather. Here is to hoping that you can always operate in a cyber superiority environment. Here is to hoping that there are only as many enemies as you have flying hand grenades. Here is to hoping your enemies don't have the means to defeat that all seeing sensor. Here is to hoping you can carry all of the flying hand grenades you need for the fire fight (I.e., they take up a lot of space in a ruck sack).

What is the effective bursting radius of a Switchblade? What is the effective bursting radius of a 30mm? 2.75" ten pound warhead?

Is it good kit? Yup.

Is it the panacea of all future CAS needs? Nope.
Click to expand...
yes all the above and the huge flying brick, one (too large) shot wonder called switchblade was designed in the 90s. The year is 2014.
 
JFC Fuller said:
TomS said:
The assumption that late-war Afghanistan is the only scenario for which US forces need to be equipped strikes me as very dangerous. Probably this is a debate more suited to the Bar, however.
Click to expand...

And the idea that something like Switchblade is sufficient even for that scenario is dangerous, the guys at Wanat faced anywhere from 200-500 Taliban fighters who were ultimately beaten back with the very same B-1Bs, Apaches and A-10s that sublight so hates.
Click to expand...

What about in asymmetric warfare - if the other side has switchblade - do they need 200-500 fighters to do damage?

A larger drone firing conventional unguided or disposable munitions might work as well as an Apache - the real issue is designing drones that can function without a controller. A drone that can follow the orders 'kill everything that moves in this carefully specified free-fire-zone" and then actually do it without screwing up.
 
Avimimus said:
What about in asymmetric warfare - if the other side has switchblade - do they need 200-500 fighters to do damage?
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody has the luxury of planning for one war these days. You plan for a range of possibilities, and then use what is on hand when it hits the fan. Knowing this, you use your finite budget to buy flexible equipment. And free from political interference, I think any professional military person would like to use all available resources to end the shooting as soon as possible. So yeah, if you have 200 fighters and the bad guys use model airplanes armed with hand grenades, use your 200 fighters. Quickly. And get it over with.

A larger drone firing conventional unguided or disposable munitions might work as well as an Apache - the real issue is designing drones that can function without a controller. A drone that can follow the orders 'kill everything that moves in this carefully specified free-fire-zone" and then actually do it without screwing up.
Click to expand...

Did you not see any of the Terminator movies? ;) This theory is fine, as long as there are no humans involved in building or programming your large drones. Humans always screw up, it is just a question of when. Humans have evolved to detect and correct screw ups, on the fly (so to speak), so they need to be in the picture somewhere. And again, you are talking about one war scenario only. How do you "carefully specify a free-fire-zone" in the Crimea? Are you trusting your drone software to know to shoot these guys in Russian style uniforms and tanks, but not those guys - also in Russian style uniforms and tanks?
 
Relevant wisdom;

Maxim 4: Close air support covereth a multitude of sins.
Maxim 5: Close air support and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart.

Maxim 14: "Mad Science" means never stopping to ask "what's the worst thing that could happen?"
Maxim 15: Only you can prevent friendly fire.

Maxim 17: The longer everything goes according to plan, the bigger the impending disaster.

Maxim 23: The company mess and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart.

Maxim 36: When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support.

Maxim 41: "Do you have a backup?" means "I can't fix this."

Maxim 47: Don't expect the enemy to cooperate in the creation of your dream engagement.
 
Autonomy is a great debate that gets the lawyers to vibrating in place. There are quite a number of international laws out there that can get you added to the "wanted" list for letting the autonomous killing machine loose. I think Bill W., made the case very well above. How rational does your autonomous killing machine have to be? Is your machine rational enough to know that the new order that it just got to destroy a friendly consulate in the nearby capitol is wrong? To be questioned?

I think that letting things that can rationalize faster than us have guns that it decides when to shoot people will be a bad thing. At least in the near future.
 
Team controlled 'See first, shoot first' which completely overcomes "the problem w/ shooting at someone is they can shoot back" issue would seem to closer to the thread focus. Cost/benefit of autonomy might better be for another thread.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom