Is there a place for Traditional CAS in the 21st century?

"Paul F Austin" wrote...
You're making the assumption that the FOV will remain "soda-straw". When you
consider the DAS baselined for F-35, an operator of a UAV designed to fly a
CAS mission could have the same situational awareness as a pilot on board
and _better_situational awareness than any aircraft now flying, essentially
a 4pi steradian field of regard The camera systems (from Indigo Systems
http://www.indigosystems.com/company/PR/pr_030318.html) are quite small and
would be feasible for an aircraft able to carry the ordnance in the first
place.

Looks like an interesting concept, but probably not as straightforward as you
imagine...

Assuming the system performs as advertised, I would see the major stumbling
block to be the display to the UAV operator. A "helmet sight" display would be
too narrow for situational awareness, unless it was slaved to his head
movements. However, if you could sit him inside a dome (similar to current
advanced flight simulators) and project the "stitched" images around him, it
could work. Transmitting that much data to a remote operator and processing it
in real time could be a significant problem, though.

Another problem would be to get the operator used to visualizing the world in
IR. All his threat training would have to be based on IR imagery to be useful
with his IR sensor suite. Target ID becomes a significant problem again in
terms of blue-on-blue potential.


Current generation UAVs are designed as ISR platforms rather than as UCAVs.
Expect the sensor suite to be different for a different mission. In fact,
one of the "UCAV" platforms being bruited about is a pilotless F-35. There
are a lot of issues to be resolved and development to be done before a UCAV
flies a CAS mission but there are no laws of physics that prevent it from
happening.

I agree about the laws of physics. I still see significant problems to
overcome, and those will cost significant $$. It's difficult to guess whether
the payback will be good enough to pursue the concept in earnest.


The real question is whether a remotely piloted CAS aircraft works better
than one with a man aboard. The up side of a UCAV is more fuel and ordnance
for a given airframe, reduction of pilot fatigue and manning issues not to
mention reduction in people at risk. The down side is the vulnerability of
datalinks to jamming, airspace deconfliction and failure tolerance since an
on-board pilot can compensate to a limited extent for equipment failure and
damage..

I see more vulnerability in the UCAV than just data link jamming. In a
permissive threat environment, the vulnerability issue may not be
insurmountable. However, CAS is performed by definition in an environment where
ground troops are closely engaged. With the plethora of mobile, ground-based
anti-air defenses, a UCAV is much more likely to be shot down than a piloted
airplane, simply because the operator will not be able to detect threats as
well. Add the fact that the operator doesn't have his own butt at risk, and he
is less likely to see defensive maneuvering as a dire necessity.


Once that decision is made, then the correct requirements get levied against
the new system and off you go to the procurement races.

I certainly see a future for UCAVs in general. However, I believe the CAS
mission is one of the least likely to succeed for them.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:t1%5c.30768$_w.528631@attbi_s53...
"Paul F Austin" wrote...
You're making the assumption that the FOV will remain "soda-straw". When
you
consider the DAS baselined for F-35, an operator of a UAV designed to
fly a
CAS mission could have the same situational awareness as a pilot on
board
and _better_situational awareness than any aircraft now flying,
essentially
a 4pi steradian field of regard The camera systems (from Indigo Systems
http://www.indigosystems.com/company/PR/pr_030318.html) are quite small
and
would be feasible for an aircraft able to carry the ordnance in the
first
place.

Looks like an interesting concept, but probably not as straightforward as
you
imagine...

Assuming the system performs as advertised, I would see the major
stumbling
block to be the display to the UAV operator. A "helmet sight" display
would be
too narrow for situational awareness, unless it was slaved to his head
movements. However, if you could sit him inside a dome (similar to
current
advanced flight simulators) and project the "stitched" images around him,
it
could work. Transmitting that much data to a remote operator and
processing it
in real time could be a significant problem, though.

You should read a bit about F-35. That's precisely how DAS will work. The
HMS will project the DAS camera images depending on where the pilot is
looking. The description in AvWeek said that even if aircraft structure was
"in the way", the pilot would be given the view along the sight line he was
looking at. If a wing is in the way, he'll have "X-ray vision". And since
the DAS cameras are IR there's that extra advantage.

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in terms of
situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant visibility. DAS
promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it should work for UCAVs.


Another problem would be to get the operator used to visualizing the world
in
IR. All his threat training would have to be based on IR imagery to be
useful
with his IR sensor suite. Target ID becomes a significant problem again
in
terms of blue-on-blue potential.

That's true but it's currently true for NVG flight. CAS doesn't stop at
sundown. There's a whole lot of work being done on Blue-Force Tracking which
was used in rudimentary fashion in Iraq-II.

Paul F Austin wrote:

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in
terms of situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant
visibility. DAS promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it
should work for UCAVs.

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Thomas Schoene" wrote
Paul F Austin wrote:

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in
terms of situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant
visibility. DAS promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it
should work for UCAVs.

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's adequate for
this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink would allow more raw
data but in this case, the fusion of the six DAS thermal cameras occurs
on-board and only the FOV in the direction the user's HMS is pointed at need
be downlinked. CDL provides uplink services at various rates from T1 up to
256Mbps but that's overkill. CDL also lacks the total system capacity that
would be required. Today. The USAF is busy expanding the satellite comm
network capacity in anticipation of increased traffic.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
.. .

"Thomas Schoene" wrote
Paul F Austin wrote:

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in
terms of situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant
visibility. DAS promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it
should work for UCAVs.

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of
competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's adequate for
this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink would allow more raw

For how many nodes/UCAVs at once?

data but in this case, the fusion of the six DAS thermal cameras occurs
on-board and only the FOV in the direction the user's HMS is pointed at
need
be downlinked. CDL provides uplink services at various rates from T1 up to
256Mbps but that's overkill. CDL also lacks the total system capacity that
would be required. Today. The USAF is busy expanding the satellite comm
network capacity in anticipation of increased traffic.

"John Keeney" wrote...

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's adequate for
this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink would allow more raw

For how many nodes/UCAVs at once?

Another good point! What would the nominal/maximum number of simultaneous UCAV
missions be in a single theater? If there are ongoing UAV recce missions as
well, will there be enough infrastructure support for simultaneous control of
all the UAV/UCAVs?

Traditional CAS was seldom done with a single airplane. More often, flights of
2 airplanes would orbit an IP and alternate attacks under the control of a
single FAC. That provided a larger total ordnance loadout and reduced time
between individual attacks. It also provided backup in case one aircraft broke.

Similarly, CAS with UCAVs would likely require more than a single vehicle per
mission. With the proposed capability (DAS + TCDL, etc), the infrastructure for
UAV operator stations would be expensive as well as space-consuming. That type
of infrastructure would not likely accompany front-line units, but would be held
by separate, dedicated units.

Finally, while semi-autonomous recce UAVs could be controlled via satellite
links, time delays in control links would likely make high-altitude satellites
and/or multiple relays unsuitable for real-time control such as that needed in
CAS. One article I read on TCDL mentioned line-of-sight ranges of 100-160 KM,
which were very dependent on UAV altitude. Some CAS and target ID is very
difficult with high-altitude run-ins...

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news2G6c.42116$SR1.48965@attbi_s04...
"John Keeney" wrote...

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of
competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's adequate
for
this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink would allow more
raw

For how many nodes/UCAVs at once?

Another good point! What would the nominal/maximum number of simultaneous
UCAV
missions be in a single theater? If there are ongoing UAV recce missions
as
well, will there be enough infrastructure support for simultaneous control
of
all the UAV/UCAVs?

You are on to why atonomuous vehicles are necessary, Weiss.

Traditional CAS was seldom done with a single airplane. More often,
flights of
2 airplanes would orbit an IP and alternate attacks under the control of a
single FAC. That provided a larger total ordnance loadout and reduced
time
between individual attacks. It also provided backup in case one aircraft
broke.

The idea today is to develop a robotic wingman, where the wingman becomes a
loiterer, after the lead feeds it the buddy pack.

Similarly, CAS with UCAVs would likely require more than a single vehicle
per
mission. With the proposed capability (DAS + TCDL, etc), the
infrastructure for
UAV operator stations would be expensive as well as space-consuming. That
type
of infrastructure would not likely accompany front-line units, but would
be held
by separate, dedicated units.

That does not seem to be the case.

Finally, while semi-autonomous recce UAVs could be controlled via
satellite
links, time delays in control links would likely make high-altitude
satellites
and/or multiple relays unsuitable for real-time control such as that
needed in
CAS. One article I read on TCDL mentioned line-of-sight ranges of 100-160
KM,
which were very dependent on UAV altitude. Some CAS and target ID is very
difficult with high-altitude run-ins...

Better to lose a robot taking a look than a pilot containing vehicle.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news2G6c.42116$SR1.48965@attbi_s04...
"John Keeney" wrote...

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of
competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's adequate
for
this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink would allow more
raw

For how many nodes/UCAVs at once?

Another good point! What would the nominal/maximum number of simultaneous
UCAV
missions be in a single theater? If there are ongoing UAV recce missions
as
well, will there be enough infrastructure support for simultaneous control
of
all the UAV/UCAVs?

Traditional CAS was seldom done with a single airplane. More often,
flights of
2 airplanes would orbit an IP and alternate attacks under the control of a
single FAC. That provided a larger total ordnance loadout and reduced
time
between individual attacks. It also provided backup in case one aircraft
broke.

Similarly, CAS with UCAVs would likely require more than a single vehicle
per
mission. With the proposed capability (DAS + TCDL, etc), the
infrastructure for
UAV operator stations would be expensive as well as space-consuming. That
type
of infrastructure would not likely accompany front-line units, but would
be held
by separate, dedicated units.

Finally, while semi-autonomous recce UAVs could be controlled via
satellite
links, time delays in control links would likely make high-altitude
satellites
and/or multiple relays unsuitable for real-time control such as that
needed in
CAS. One article I read on TCDL mentioned line-of-sight ranges of 100-160
KM,
which were very dependent on UAV altitude. Some CAS and target ID is very

difficult with high-altitude run-ins...

Actually not all that good a point!

As I said elsewhere, the USAF plans to proliferate switch and relay nodes in
support aircraft like tankers, MC2A and possibly retrofitted AWACS and
JSTARs. HALE UAVs are also being considered for relay platforms. The number
of links and aggregate bandwidth planned for the not too distant future is
much greater than is available today.

That kind of network makes the UAV operators REMFs for sure. There's no more
need for a TCDL terminal in every foxhole (or in every FAC) to control UAVs
than there is now to control manned aircraft. UAVs aren't now and will be
even less in the future directly driven by a ground controller-except when
the mission requires it-. Enroute control is done by autopilot. That's why I
said (several posts ago) that airspace deconfliction is a major obstacle to
using UCAVs in the numbers required to do CAS.

Regarding the cost and ubiquity of terminals, consider Hunter UAVs. Hunter's
current Ground Control Station (GCS) occupies the back of a HMMV while IAI
Malat is developing a Compact GCS significantly smaller for installation in
e.g. C-130s. The Remote Video Terminal to recieve payload data is much
smaller and is intended to be available at the TOC.

During an actual engagement, a single controller should be able to control a
small number of aircraft, taking direct control during target aquistition
and weapon delivery and letting the autopilots handle the "cab rank"
aircraft. This is obviously complex, depending on the details of UCAV
requirements and the doctrines that derive from it. As easily, because
nobody wants a warhead on a blue forehead, all UCAV missions in proximity
with own troops might be required to be under direct control of an operator
at all times.

There's an enthusiasm to hang ordnance on the current generation of UAVs
which is probably a mistake. UAVs are designed to carry sensor payloads and
neither their sensor suite nor the ordnance loads meet the requirements for
CAS/BAI. The services and the manufacturers run the risk of screwing up and
giving UAVs an bad name as ordnance delivery vehicles by not specifying and
building UCAVs with the right characteristics to meet the mission. The first
time some idiot launches a Hellfire from a Predator at a blue target, you'll
see what I mean.

"John Keeney" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote ...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote
Paul F Austin wrote:

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in
terms of situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant
visibility. DAS promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it
should work for UCAVs.

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of
competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's adequate
for
this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink would allow more
raw

For how many nodes/UCAVs at once?

One for each TCDL link. What's your point?


data but in this case, the fusion of the six DAS thermal cameras occurs
on-board and only the FOV in the direction the user's HMS is pointed at
need
be downlinked. CDL provides uplink services at various rates from T1 up
to
256Mbps but that's overkill. CDL also lacks the total system capacity
that
would be required. Today. The USAF is busy expanding the satellite comm
network capacity in anticipation of increased traffic.



One part of the USAF's data network roadmap is to place switching nodes in
many aircraft, including tankers and MC2A to provide both the aggregate BW
and number of available links. There're complementary programs to increase
COMSAT capacity by using -less than MILSTAR- robust satellites and
transponders.

The data network roadmap is progressing "under the RADAR" because it gets a
lot less publicity than to Things That Go Fast And Explode but is IMO more
important.

Paul F Austin wrote:
"John Keeney" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote ...

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's
adequate for this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink
would allow more raw

For how many nodes/UCAVs at once?

One for each TCDL link. What's your point?

How many TDCL links can you suport in a single geographic region? The wider
the pipes are, they fewer a given segment of spectrum can support. There
are clever ways to stretch bandwidth, but there is ultimately a finite
limit.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872