When asked at the recent Avalon Airshow, whether they
thought unmanned combat aircraft would play a part in the future fighter force
of the Royal Australian Air Force, Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown
and Defence Minister Stephen Smith both left the door ajar for armed UAVs.
Their comments echoed similar sentiment regarding armed UAVs
from newly-appointed Minister for Defence Materiel Mike Kelly at the show and
follow on from comments made by the Chief of Defence Force, General David
Hurley and Vice-Chief, Air Marshal Mark Binskin in a Senate Estimates hearing
last year.
Although the question to Minister Smith and Air Marshal
Brown at Avalon was specifically aimed at an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle which
someday in the distant future might replace the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF),
there is a growing awareness of the capabilities of UAVs with a strike
capability, such as the American Predator and Reaper platforms, which have seen
extensive use in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Ethical debate
Before an armed UAV or UCAV can make its way into a White
Paper or Defence Capability Plan (DCP) however, there must be some serious
debate around the ethics of such operations.
The so-called ‘drone strikes’ (don’t use the ‘D’ word around
Defence) carried out by US agencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and
Yemen have polarised opinion, particularly among those communities at the
receiving end of such strikes.
While western propaganda likes to use the words ‘precision’
and ‘surgical’ to describe the means of
dealing with a particular target, the ethics of striking targets and killing
people from a comfortable and safe environment perhaps many thousands of miles
distant from the missile’s point of impact is an important debate to have.
The ADF currently operates to a stricter set of guidelines
in Afghanistan than does the US and several other coalition partners, so will a
UAV strike capability fit within those guidelines in the future?
There are many advantages to an armed UAV, including a lower
casualty list for the operator as, many fewer people have to actually go into
harm’s way, and there are obvious cost benefits with operating a platform which
is cheaper to produce and isn’t as manpower intensive to operate as a
conventional aircraft.
And does it really matter who pulls the trigger? Although
the ADF does not go into detail regarding Special Forces operations in
Afghanistan, it’s a fair bet that Australian soldiers will have called for a
airstrikes to be carried out in support of their operations, which were actually
executed by US unmanned vehicles. The question is then, is this any different
to calling in an airstrike by manned USAF A-10A Warthogs, or other coalition
air assets? Can you reward UAV operators for bravery, when the most dangerous
thing they have done in any given day is to have driven to work?
The other side of the coin, in terms of current projects in
the DCP, is the ability to react quickly. Project Air 7000 Phase 1B will
acquire a High Altitude Long Endurance (but unarmed) unmanned aerial system, capable
of patrolling many thousands of square miles of ocean during a single sortie,
lasting tens of hours. But it won’t be able to do anything about what it sees.
For example, the Air 7000/1B platform will be capable of
beaming back infra-red, radar and/or video footage of merchant shipping being
sunk in the middle of the Indian Ocean in near real-time, but an armed response
could still be hours away. Should the requirement therefore be filled by a
platform which is capable of attacking the attacker, should such a platform
exist?
This is all hypothetical of course, and the above scenarios
are very much tongue-in-cheek, but the debate about the future use of unmanned vehicles
overall, not just air platforms, needs to be thorough, robust and open.
Regional capability
Australia is not the only country in the region
contemplating an armed UAV capability. China is currently developing several
unmanned systems which are capable of carrying weapons and India is reported to
have received a number of IAI Harpy weapons – a so-called ‘kamikaze drone’
which is essentially a flying munition, capable of loitering for a period of
time before being dived onto its intended target.
Some of the Chinese plans for armed UAVs include the Xi’an
ASN Technology Group’s ASN-229A, a twin-boom vehicle designed for both strike
and ISR missions.
Models at a recent Airshow China event, held at Zhuhai, show
the ASN-229A armed with a pair on underwing AR-1 missiles, a Hellfire-like
weapon with a semi-active guidance system and a range of around eight
kilometres. Western analysts credit the UAV with an endurance of around 20
hours and a service ceiling of around 20,000 feet.
Another Chinese designs displayed in model form at Zhuhai
carrying weapons include the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation
(CASC) CH-3 canard UAV and larger CH-4; and the China Aerospace Science and
Industry Group (CASIC) WJ-600, powered by a turbojet and reportedly equipped
with a synthetic aperture search radar and the ability to carry a variety of
air to ground munitions, including anti-shipping missiles.
At the 2012 show, an Aviation Industry Corporation of China
(AVIC) Wing Loong I (formerly Pterodactyl) was on display, carrying AR-1
missiles on two underwing hardpoints. Wing Loong is a Predator-like vehicle
which China claims has been sold to an export customer.
Whether any or all of these platforms progress into
operational use is open to conjecture, but it is clear that China, at least,
has no qualms about arming its unmanned vehicles, or exporting the capability.
Beyond the current Drone
Wars – the UCAV
Leaving the ethical debate around the surgical strikes being
carried out in the Middle East and North Africa and returning to the question
which began this story, will an unmanned fighter be the next combat air vehicle
for the RAAF? The answer to that is complex and the best answer at the present
time might be, not yet.
The advantages of a UCAV are reasonably obvious. It can be
argued that the Achilles heel of even the next generation fighter such as the
JSF is the human in the cockpit. Not only do humans have physiological limits,
but the design of the air vehicle has to be more complex, heavier and more expensive
to manufacture and sustain because of their needs.
A UCAV on the other hand has no need for environmental
control systems (with the exception of equipment cooling systems), they do not
need oxygen systems or ejector seats or cockpit displays and controls. Some of
the weight saved by deleting this equipment can be put into added airframe
strength and the space saved for extra fuel or weapons storage.
The platform itself is easier to maintain and sustain, with
fewer parts and less complex systems to look after.
On the physiological side, fighter pilots will tell you that
a ‘G-suit’ and breathing techniques will only give an extra ‘G’ of
manoeuvrability, so what’s the point of a 9G aircraft if the crew are reduced
to mere passengers at that point?
The UCAV also has its limitations though, some of which are
being actively addressed by manufacturers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman – but others, at least for the time being, remain challenges
for the future.
UCAVs are being developed to land and take off from US Navy
aircraft carriers, to refuel in flight and to carry out most of the functions
of a manned combat aircraft. But they do not yet have 360-degree situational
awareness, a major shortcoming in the within-visual range spectrum.
Armed UAV capability
– What they said
When answering the question regarding the fighter beyond JSF
at Avalon, Air Marshal Brown said that the current strength of unmanned
capability was still very much that of persistent surveillance.
“I think you’ve got to look at what the advantages are of
unmanned aircraft and the real advantage is that they can sustain surveillance
over the battlefield for long periods of time,” he said. “When we look at
surveillance, (it) is a real task for us, from Northern Australia down towards
the Antarctic, so a long range UAV really suits in those sorts of
circumstances.”
Given a UCAV is still will in the future, at least in an
Australian context, what about adding weapons to UAV capability either in the
current DCP, or those which may, or may not be, under consideration by
Capability Development Group.
To return to the Senate Estimates hearing in May last year,
which ignited the debate in the first place, General Hurley responded to
questions about the possibility of an armed UAV being included in a future
force structure review by saying, “You would need something slightly bigger
(than the current Heron) to have any real impact. But I would not discount the
fact that we might have armed UAVs, thinking through our force structure
review, into the future.”
“We have not got that far in the force structure review at
the moment,” added AM Binskin. “But it is one of those options that are out
there for a future force.”
Fast-forward to Avalon and Minister Smith added his weight
to the debate by saying he wasn’t averse to the idea.
“I’m not against Australia giving serious consideration down
the track, to not just UAVs that give us a greater capacity for intelligence
and surveillance in our maritime space,” he said. “I am not opposed to the
notion of giving consideration down the track to armed, unmanned aerial
vehicles, but as the Chief of Air Force has said, this is not something that
will completely dominate the future, but it is an option, (and) it is currently
utilised by a small number of countries. I am not averse to it (but) we are not
rushing to judgement.
“This is one of the things which we are giving consideration
to in the overall context of the replacement of our manned surveillance
aircraft with a mix of manned surveillance aircraft, and unmanned. There are no
proposals at the moment, but this is a conversation which in due course, both
Defence and Australia needs to have.”
“There are no current Defence plans to acquire an armed
unmanned aerial system (UAS),” advised a Defence spokesperson. “From our
experience in operating the Heron Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) in
Afghanistan, Defence has a good understanding of the capability and its
potential in the future. Defence continues to monitor and evaluate both armed
and unarmed options for future intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
requirements to support land forces.”
In the meantime, there’s a budget, a White Paper and a
federal election, to come.
