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

"John R Weiss" wrote
"Tony Williams" wrote...

In the CAS arena, the comparative lack of situational awareness on the
part
of a
remote UAV operator will most likely increase the probability of
friendly
fire -- not reduce it.

That's an interesting issue. A counter-argument could be that an
operator sitting safely back on the ground will be less stressed and
able to take more considered judgements - and if in doubt to call for
a second opinion from a senior officer looking over his shoulder.

I would disagree with your argument. The UAV operator will already be
handicapped by his narrow field of view, so any such judgements will be
made on
a much smaller information basis.

If the environment is such that a UAV can hang around long enough for
second
opinions, it is also possible for a pilot to make an ID pass over the
target and
get a verbal confirmation from the FAC. Also, in a multiple-target
environment,
targeting by reference to nearby visual cues (e.g., geographical features
or
smoke) is relatively straightforward for the pilot, but may be impossible
with a
narrow field-of-view UAV sensor.

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.

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.

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..

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