NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Aerial Refueling For UAVs

July 7, 2009: Three years after the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA successfully tested a robotic in-flight refueling system, both the air force and navy are now developing systems of their own. Each service uses a different in-flight refueling system, and both are going to use the automated refueling systems to ease the workload of the manned aircraft giving, or getting, fuel. The original DARPA test has an F-18 fighter, modified to operate without a pilot, equipped with new refueling software and hardware, that was able to successfully refuel in the air. The new air force and navy systems are going to use UAVs (an air force X-45C, and a navy X-47B) to get refueled. With this capability, a UAV can stay in the air longer, and no longer have to spend several hours returning to base, landing, refueling, and taking off and returning to its patrol area.

Both services will used manned aircraft, but under control of the automatic refueling software, to test the systems, before using the UAVs. The navy will use an F-18 as a surrogate UAV first. The air force will use a Learjet, then an F-16 as surrogates, before they use the UAV.

For several decades, old fighters have been rigged with remote control capability, so they can be flown without pilots. This way, the old aircraft can be used as targets for air-to-air, or ground-to-air missiles. As far back as the 1970s, such robotic fighters were even successfully used in tests of air-to-air combat operations. All this experience has been used in developing a new generation of robotic combat aircraft. Actually, the first generation of such aircraft will be remotely controlled from the ground, or another aircraft, most of the time. This is possible now because of improvements in communications (especially via satellite links) and sensors (cameras and radars) to give the remote pilots a better sense of where they are. This "situational awareness" is essential for air combat. It is not as essential for delivering the current generation of smart bombs (especially the GPS guided bombs.) Thus UAVs are already being used for bombing missions.

But new advances in flight control software, and sensors (more of them, cheaper and with better capabilities), make it possible to build robotic fighters, and bombers that can operate by themselves. Such capabilities already exist, as current flight control software will act to protect the aircraft if communications is lost with the human controller. Actually, robotic bombers have been around for half a century, they're called cruise missiles. Before the Tomahawk was developed, the navy had several pilotless aircraft designed to deliver nuclear weapons all by themselves. But the new generation of robotic (as opposed to remotely controlled) bombers will receive their orders, and then be sent off to do the job (with a human flight commander observing it all remotely, ready to abort anything not going according to plan.

The in-flight refueling is necessary because unmanned, as well as manned, aircraft can carry more weapons if they can refuel during the mission. For UAVs, such refueling enables these aircraft to stay in the air for days at a time. That's what UAVs are built for. Since fighter pilots have to sleep, and their aircraft are not built for round-the-clock missions, UAVs have a major edge.

 


 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article WARPLANES: The Predator Brigade


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

LB    New Frontier    7/7/2009 2:41:05 PM
It's a new engineering challenge to design an aircraft built for continuous operations with mean time between failure of at least mission critical equipment drastically reduced in order to allow the aircraft to remain on station.  There have already been experiments in rearming aircraft during flight.  At some point we might see an airborne mothership to refuel, rearm, and perform repair and maintenance on UAVs- aircraft have been operating from other aircraft for almost 100 years.  In any case I would predict UAVs doing AAR with other UAVs avoiding the need to leave the operational area for the safer tanker track to be with us soon- especially given a stealthy recon UAV where it would be far better to send in another to refuel it.
 
At some point when the sky is full of enemy UAVs there's going to be a premium on shooting them down.  Right now most UAVs are not exactly robustly designed.  Might ground based directed energy weapons eventually become affordable enough to become another asymetric anti air, and especially anti UAV, weapon?  DOD seems very focused on systems that gather and share information.  One hears less about systems designed to deny the other side the use of their information gathering systems and penetrate their networks; furthermore, one wonders how vulnerable we are to such actions?
 
Historically, aerial warfare began with denying the enemy the use of their recon aircraft.  Air forces were thus originally designed to gather information and morphed into tasks like air to air combat and air to ground operations.  We are starting to fill the skies with UAVs and one wonders how analagous this might be to 1914 and the dawn of aerial warfare?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Game Changer   7/7/2009 4:06:08 PM
How many sortie equivalents compared to manned platforms is a UAS that can stay airborne for week at a time thanks to refueling? Makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE. Combined with autonomy, air to air rearm and eventually DEW and this goes well beyond 1914 IMHO.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Sorry not clear   7/8/2009 1:26:37 AM
The analogy I was thinking about was the early dominance and importance of aerial recon.  There were a number of battles in 1914 where air recon is historically credited with a pivotal role for the winning side.  The importance of aerial recon eventually led to both sides wishing to deny and disrupt this asset and the first purpose built fighters enter the scene in 1915.  Eventually air forces end up with more fighter planes than recon planes.
 
The new paradigm is continual surveillance in real or near real time.  This includes micro air vehicles.  This level of possible information dominance can be seen as similar to the 1914 leap aerial recon provided over the cavalry it replaced in that it opened a new depth of operations in information gathering.
 
The question I would pose is whether the focus will continue to be on information gathering or, like 1914, morph into more anti UAV systems.  Including systems designed to defeat micro air UAVs.  One could buy model aircraft kits in any hobby store and just ram them into the micro UAVs being used today on one level and on another target them with ground based directed energy systems.
 
To put it another way is it more complex and more expensive or less complex and less expensive to target enemy UAVs, including the entire spectrum of types including micro, than it is to target a traditional air force?  How small does a UAV get before one does not bother trying to shoot it down with a BVR missile?  Exactly how would one wage a winning and cost effective campaign against an enemy's micro air UAV force.  The Raven (RQ-11) has had over 8,000 produced and is under 5 lbs.
 
Consider Russia was favorably impressed by Georgian use of UAVs in the recent conflict.  How might Russia and Azerbaijan, if at all, seek to deal with or target Georgian UAVs in potential future conflict?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @LB - Like this...   7/8/2009 2:21:03 AM


Consider Russia was favorably impressed by Georgian use of UAVs in the recent conflict.  How might Russia and Azerbaijan, if at all, seek to deal with or target Georgian UAVs in potential future conflict?


link width="425" height="344">
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @LB    7/8/2009 2:54:13 AM
RE: Micro UAVs,

Actually it's a lot harder to make smaller UAS unless we are talking about hypersonics or other advanced flight profile. When you miniaturize, you have to resolve issues of power generation, power management, thermal, acoustic, ESD and weight. Then you also get into issued of flight physics and aerodynamics. That small breeze that feels good to us on a warm day plays hell on a MUAV. Even the updraft of heat if the platform is small enough. Also, and this is a big deal, you need to work out a CONOPS for control. If we are talking MUAV then it's probably flying close to the ground which will limit your operational range due to LOS issues associated with your onboard TX/RX and GCS being able to see each other. Most smaller nations like Georgia will not have technology like this and nations that have it will be cautious about losing control of it for obvious reasons. That pretty much shuts out smaller countries in a lot of cases. Of course anybody can make or modify a primitive lawnmower sized UA with basic sensors and a radio. These will have significant effects. However, I'm referring more to actual micro vehicles like DARPA is working on.


 
-DA

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/8/2009 6:26:06 PM
Also, and this is a big deal, you need to work out a CONOPS for control.
might be a cultural loss in translation here but......
 
usually you design the control around the conops...  unless there is something groundbreaking thats changed the warfighter dynamics, then conops is king - as it's the community who have given the project manager/engineer their vignettes on how they do their business.  the whole idea of the vignettes is to establish if, how, what, why the warfighters mission can be improved upon and made easier.  ultimately, any change to the conops is driven by the warfighter communities project contact. (and after much debate and gnashing between every man and his dog)

engineers and project managers should never tell people how to do their job.  they can provide them with opportunity to be aware of what else can be bought to the table, but constructing conops on behalf is a recipe to get their heads administratively "punched in" 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/8/2009 6:35:24 PM


Also, and this is a big deal, you need to work out a CONOPS for control.


might be a cultural loss in translation here but......

usually you design the control around the conops...  unless there is something groundbreaking thats changed the warfighter dynamics, then conops is king - as it's the community who have given the project manager/engineer their vignettes on how they do their business.  the whole idea of the vignettes is to establish if, how, what, why the warfighters mission can be improved upon and made easier.  ultimately, any change to the conops is driven by the warfighter communities project contact. (and after much debate and gnashing between every man and his dog)

engineers and project managers should never tell people how to do their job.  they can provide them with opportunity to be aware of what else can be bought to the table, but constructing conops on behalf is a recipe to get their heads administratively "punched in" 

Agree. I fouled up the language...;) What I meant is to figure out a way to make the machine do what you want. Unless it's an open ACTD where you are simply trying to demonstrate MUA were you go to the customer vs the other way around.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy