Singapore revives naval helicopter competition
-
SAR is definately not the top priority, putting two a/c on the ship isn't going to improve operation capabilities.Originally posted by tripwire:but the bottom line is... are we buying so many helos for SAR or for operational need of the SAF??
if our primary aim is SAR... why not build more LSD and put 2 helo per LSD and be done with it?
like i said, there is the GPU to be towed and the tie downs to be removed. unlike now where the a/c will be ready in 10mins. On a ship it will definately take longer.
Not only that, it affects the operational capabilities of the RSAF squadron by putting more men on duty away from the main building of the squadron.
And the RSN cannot take in the SAR a/c for they are not going to send people for the airframe type course, train some DCCs just to service the a/c... it will be a waste of manpower in the RSN. -
It is absurd that since start of this topic some idiot still insist using helo UAV to replace traditional marine helo for our new frigate!Originally posted by tripwire:i dont think its a good idea to pull your million dollar ship next to a wreckage for whatever reason... especially in bad weathers when there is a potential for the wreck to hit the rescue ship.
most of the time... when possible they use dingies, life boats or even ropes and nets to reach the victims.
the USV likewise... measuring 7 by 11 meters long can piggyback survivals to the FFG if needed...
or a UAV could drop inflatable raft to the victims...
but the bottom line is... are we buying so many helos for SAR or for operational need of the SAF??
if our primary aim is SAR... why not build more LSD and put 2 helo per LSD and be done with it?
the lafayette is not a ship of mercy... its a ship of war....
The UAV may perfect all the UW warfare,Anti-warship warfare and surveilance usually perform by marine helo at sea in near future.The factor of SAR may also not included in the frigate ops list,which may seems ok! But someone has already mention UAV will never able to perform as good as a pilot operate helo.I give one simple scenario to let u all readers judge whether helo UAV can perform this simple and yet noble task!
"RSS Formiable is task for a gun firing exercise located some 350km away from spore at south-china sea.The ship slip off on tuesday night and subsequently reach the location in thursday morning ready to conduct the excercise!
Just then ,a crew is reported suffering a life-threatening fever which require immediate specialist attention.The super-lynx helo is immediately prepare and ready to take off in 15mins time.A medic is told to accompany the sick crew together back to singapore.
In just 2 and half hours time from preparation to landing in sembawang airbase,the seriously ill crew is warded into TKS hospital and is soon in stable condition.
The doctor who treated the crew subsequently submit a report indicating if not for the helo rapid shipping of the sick crew back to hospital attention,he may suffer permanent brain damage for any delay in timing!"
Tripwire,can u suggest any USV can perform the same task I mention above! -
by your simplistic reasoning... EVERY DAMN FREAKING SHIP from sampang to VLCC should have a helo ready for evacuation of suddenly ill sailors!!
maybe you would like to suggest we put a helo on our MCV , MGB, PVs and DSV just in case... some one suddenly came down with a potentially fatal fever while on exercise in south china sea!!
while we are at it.... would you like an operating theatre, 4 surgeon, 10 nurses, a blood bank, a bacteriology lab, virology lab, serology lab, biochem lab,...... on the FFG just in case the FFG has to operate even beyond shores that the helo cannot reach for emergencies??
how about... we move the entire SGH inside the FFG!!?? hjahhahahahahahahhahahaa...........
anyway... for you information... fever dont usually kills unless it is uncontrollable (very very very rare) like meningitis, viremia, endocarditis or scepticaemia.
even then... generally... the ship would call for helicasevac... from base... if it has no helo available....
but... sadly... in the end... sometimes, even if the doctors is right next to you... YOU CAN STILL DIE....
as can be testified by the number of deaths in a hospital every day...
that is also why... all hospital have a morgue...
-
Do u know that by giving this kind of reply! U have lost the arguement! Yr USV theory fail and it is always yr wishful thinking of using a USV to replace a marine helo for our frigate!Originally posted by tripwire:
by your simplistic reasoning... EVERY DAMN FREAKING SHIP from sampang to VLCC should have a helo ready for evacuation of suddenly ill sailors!!
maybe you would like to suggest we put a helo on our MCV , MGB, PVs and DSV just in case... some one suddenly came down with a potentially fatal fever while on exercise in south china sea!!
while we are at it.... would you like an operating theatre, 4 surgeon, 10 nurses, a blood bank, a bacteriology lab, virology lab, serology lab, biochem lab,...... on the FFG just in case the FFG has to operate even beyond shores that the helo cannot reach for emergencies??
how about... we move the entire SGH inside the FFG!!?? hjahhahahahahahahhahahaa...........
anyway... for you information... fever dont usually kills unless it is uncontrollable (very very very rare) like meningitis, viremia, endocarditis or scepticaemia.
even then... generally... the ship would call for helicasevac... from base... if it has no helo available....
but... sadly... in the end... sometimes, even if the doctors is right next to you... YOU CAN STILL DIE.... as can be testified by the number of deaths in a hospital every day...
that is also why... all hospital have a morgue...
Guys! The arguement of using USV or marine helo for our new frigate has ended with marine helo in victory.Let's get back to which type of naval helo r suitable for both navy ops and new frigate! Can russian helix helo(KA-29) be one of the candidate? Quite unlikely for RSN but who knows? -
3 heli is selected is not wrong....nh90, seahawk and nav ver of puma....i rather go for nh90...Originally posted by zenden9:Can russian helix helo(KA-29) be one of the candidate? Quite unlikely for RSN but who knows? -
Seahawk not bad too! Any reason for NH90? Newer?
-
you are so naive....Originally posted by zenden9:Do u know that by giving this kind of reply! U have lost the arguement! Yr USV theory fail and it is always yr wishful thinking of using a USV to replace a marine helo for our frigate!
Guys! The arguement of using USV or marine helo for our new frigate has ended with marine helo in victory.Let's get back to which type of naval helo r suitable for both navy ops and new frigate! Can russian helix helo(KA-29) be one of the candidate? Quite unlikely for RSN but who knows?
i didnt lost at all... the helo can bring the sick to a hospital from a ship... but did we buy a multi-million dollar helo JUST so that we can bring a sick sailor to a hospital??
for years our navy has operated without a helo on its MCV, MGB, PVs and other vessels... so pray tell me... how many of our sailors had died of a fever during the past decades... due to the absence of a helo on our ships?
one need to be more realistic... the USV, UCAV, UCV beats the helo in so many areas from combat, surveilance and cost efficiencies... it makes no sense to purchase a helo just because it can carry a sick sailor! -
I never say we buy a helo just for carry a sick sailor! But at the same time I giving yr USV a simple task of ferrying a sick personnel back to hospital which u fail to answer me! Ferrying personnel function is one of the basic requirement of a helo frigate!Originally posted by tripwire:you are so naive....
i didnt lost at all... the helo can bring the sick to a hospital from a ship... but did we buy a multi-million dollar helo JUST so that we can bring a sick sailor to a hospital??
for years our navy has operated without a helo on its MCV, MGB, PVs and other vessels... so pray tell me... how many of our sailors had died of a fever during the past decades... due to the absence of a helo on our ships?
one need to be more realistic... the USV, UCAV, UCV beats the helo in so many areas from combat, surveilance and cost efficiencies... it makes no sense to purchase a helo just because it can carry a sick sailor!
Since USV cannot even perform a simple task yet u want to talk abt carrying UW ,ASW warfare! Their capabilities r more QUESTONABLE! -
simple task??? i think you are out of your mind.... was the UAVs designed for carrying personnel to begin with?? why not we ask if your HELO can fly at mach 2!!??Originally posted by zenden9:I never say we buy a helo just for carry a sick sailor! But at the same time I giving yr USV a simple task of ferrying a sick personnel back to hospital which u fail to answer me! Ferrying personnel function is one of the basic requirement of a helo frigate!
Since USV cannot even perform a simple task yet u want to talk abt carrying UW ,ASW warfare! Their capabilities r more QUESTONABLE!
furthermore... we are talking about which platform is more mission orientated and meets most if not exceed the RSN requirement... is troop ferrying a top priority of the RSN naval HELO? or is ASW, OTH targeting search and destroy the top priority?
lastly... the RSN spends so much money to make the FFG a stealth ship... a big hunk of metal bird like the HELO certainly in my view aint stealthy at all... and would most likely reduce the stealth factors of the FFG. -
U admit yrself!Originally posted by tripwire:simple task??? i think you are out of your mind.... was the UAVs designed for carrying personnel to begin with?? why not we ask if your HELO can fly at mach 2!!?? -
What we have the airforce now, is we need a lot of heli as we wanted to have a rapid deployment force, which the heli come in place. Also a few for delicated SAR missions.
For LST, the heli use is what we have currently, more of use for resupply and deployment role.
In Navy frigate, it is totally different. The heli is a very important asset, it is more specially equip for maritime role.
For our frigate, it is not intend to use as for SAR, for SAR will need special fixings.
The main role of the maritimeheli in this case is
1) Provide over the horizon radar coverage and maritime survenillance. As a frigate is a true blue water vessel, it in time may move out to areas that is outside our airforce coverage. Therefore, a heli radar, or even special mounted radar to provide the advantage of detect enemy beyond the frigate radar. This was successful proven in the falkland war which the british depend on this role of the heli, which they are provide enough early warning to scramble the harriers jets to intercept the argentina planes.
2) anti-sub role. It is proven to be the best sonar platform.
3) Additional weapon platform. Just imagine, the heli can be armed for anti-ship role also. During the Falklands War in 1981, a British Lynx helicopter fired a missile and damaged an Argentine submarine moored at dock. Maritimes helicopters have also been equipped with missiles for attacking small ships and boats. Remember Harpoon sometime is not the best or is too expensive to use for some small boats.
Yes it does reduce the stealth of the frigate, but the advantages of the 3 more then overweight the disadvantage. Anyway, in the even of action, the heli will be in air, where it is needed the most, thus the frigate can still fully use the stealth tech to help it avoid missiles. -
Originally posted by storywolf:What we have the airforce now, is we need a lot of heli as we wanted to have a rapid deployment force, which the heli come in place. Also a few for delicated SAR missions.
exactly..... so why raise the cost per helo by requiring the helo to meet the naval requirement as well and burden the army with unneccessary cost and limiting the army's selection range because of naval requirement?
For LST, the heli use is what we have currently, more of use for resupply and deployment role. surely our future army helo can still do likewise... landing on a LST...
In Navy frigate, it is totally different. The heli is a very important asset, it is more specially equip for maritime role.
For our frigate, it is not intend to use as for SAR, for SAR will need special fixings. yes.... now that is the reality.... our FFG are for war.. the helo was to support this primary role... not used as taxis.
The main role of the maritimeheli in this case is
1) Provide over the horizon radar coverage and maritime survenillance. As a frigate is a true blue water vessel, it in time may move out to areas that is outside our airforce coverage. Therefore, a heli radar, or even special mounted radar to provide the advantage of detect enemy beyond the frigate radar. This was successful proven in the falkland war which the british depend on this role of the heli, which they are provide enough early warning to scramble the harriers jets to intercept the argentina planes. indeed... but during the falkland war... UAVs havent entered into the picture... but now... the UAVs, USV and UCAVs can perform the roles as well at a fraction of the cost of a helo PLUS .. saved manpower and limiting lost in the event of a crash. and each FFG can carry more then one UCVs, thus ensuring the presence of at least a functional UCV at all time(redundancy)... whereas, if the helo developed major problem... the FFG effectively lost its eye in the sky, and watever benefit that a helo is supposed to provide to a FFG. the helo being more complex would require more space to store spares as well as more crews to maintain it... straining our manpower plus reducing the operational period of our FFG.
2) anti-sub role. It is proven to be the best sonar platform. depending on the configuration installed on the UAV, USV and UCAV... they can too... plus... they can act as decoy, baits and deployed in much larger number then a single helo... thus increasing the zone of coverage. and if we choose to have afew UAVs... we could multi-task!! we could send 2 USV for ASW, 2 UAVs for OTH target acquisition and identification, 2 more UCAV loaded with missile and torps standing to provide additional fire support to the FFG. whereas, one helo is just one helo... you sent it on ASW around the FFG.. and that automatically means you cant sent it to do OTH search at the same time!
3) Additional weapon platform. Just imagine, the heli can be armed for anti-ship role also. During the Falklands War in 1981, a British Lynx helicopter fired a missile and damaged an Argentine submarine moored at dock. Maritimes helicopters have also been equipped with missiles for attacking small ships and boats. Remember Harpoon sometime is not the best or is too expensive to use for some small boats. but the helo can only be armed with a limited number of missile of limited range... and there are only one helo per FFG. the same FFG could carry more UCVs including USVs and UCAVs that would be totting alot more firepower... and while some are lying in ambush, other UCVs that has exhausted their weapons could return to the FFG to rearm! providing a fire chain against enemy forces... UAVs being much smaller then a helo... plus additional design to increase stealth would create hell for the enemy's radar... while a helo would be spotted dozens of miles away...
Yes it does reduce the stealth of the frigate, but the advantages of the 3 more then overweight the disadvantage. Anyway, in the even of action, the heli will be in air, where it is needed the most, thus the frigate can still fully use the stealth tech to help it avoid missiles. but why compromise when a few USV, UCAV on a FFG would achieve much if not exceed the naval helo's function at a fraction of the cost?? -
I started this thread to discuss the selection of the 3 helos, not whether if the navy should go uav. so let's come back to the topic.
Looks like puma is the top favourite as its the cheapest route since there is a budget constrain. -
I would prefer the NH-90. It is the most advanced of the 3 and i see that it incorporates some stealth feaures though it is extremely ex.
-
Tripwire,
Don't think you are being fair comparing maritimer heli with UAV. In our frigate, you can be sure there is at least 1 or 2 UAV possible carry onboard also other then the heli.
Till now, maritime UAV use are basically use for routine maritime survillance. They are use also to provide limited over the horitzon radar coverage. UAV are at this moment more to comprement the heli, not replace it.
In future, UAV may replace heli, that is possible, but at this moment, it is far from able to.
Let see what you have not considered.
1) Seating inside a ship, and looking at 1 or 2 camera, is not like being in a cockpit of a heli. It is very limited view, cannot do a lot of maneuvers which restrict to very few type of missions that can be undertaken. Remember sub-hunting, anti-sub, anti-ship call for very precision flying, which is not achieve by UAV yet.
2) Maritime flying is under very demanding conidition, which need instant response and the only way, that can be achieve is the pilot must be in the cockpit to feel the situation himself. UAV cannot achieve that yet. There is still a limit to the amount of sensor on-board, most at not advance enough to handle bad weather yet.
3) If a UAV like you say can carry the same amount of weapon, then, it is basically 1/2 size of a heli, so it also is not suitable based on your theory of stealth. If it too small don't think it will even survive long in the sea going condition. Reminder, frigate are open ocean vessels, we are expecting, huge wind and wave, in area of operation. Not the sheltered sea around singapore.
4) Don't forget, jamming and bad weather, this may mean you will lose control for your UAV.
5) Yes let fly out 2 or 3 UAV !!!, that is better, but remember, you need space to setup the UAV controls, their personels on the ship and their spares too ! By the time all this is put in, you find the amount of space, maybe the same as needed for the heli spare.
Based on your argument, it is not valid at the moment, that is why US still use manned fighter planes, apache . That shows, there is still a long way to go. Till the day, fighter planes and other attack heli became unmanned, then I think UAV can replace the maritime heli.
If there is truth to your arguement, we may as well push the envelop further, since you insist that tech is so good. We may as well have the frigate remote control also, the crews can control the frigate from singapore instead of on the ship. Anyway we just need to put sensors on the ship and ignore other factors.
. -
Originally posted by storywolf:Tripwire,
Don't think you are being fair comparing maritimer heli with UAV. In our frigate, you can be sure there is at least 1 or 2 UAV possible carry onboard also other then the heli. then why not just carry more UAVs like USV and UCAV and throw the heli into the sea? its much cheaper too.
Till now, maritime UAV use are basically use for routine maritime survillance. They are use also to provide limited over the horitzon radar coverage. UAV are at this moment more to comprement the heli, not replace it. our last ships wont be out for another few years... why not wait afew more years then decide if we should put UCAVs on our FFG rather then splurge the money on helos?
In future, UAV may replace heli, that is possible, but at this moment, it is far from able to. who is talking about UAV replacing helos NOW? i am asking why are we in a rush to buy naval helos now and get our army tied down with less then optimun helo because of naval requirement?
Let see what you have not considered.
1) Seating inside a ship, and looking at 1 or 2 camera, is not like being in a cockpit of a heli. It is very limited view, cannot do a lot of maneuvers which restrict to very few type of missions that can be undertaken. Remember sub-hunting, anti-sub, anti-ship call for very precision flying, which is not achieve by UAV yet. you mean to say that if you can have a panoramic view of the ocean... you would be able to hunt subs better? if so... i think UAVs can be installed with panoramic cameras while the controller can don HMS... viola... all the sights plus IR + NV vision as well..
2) Maritime flying is under very demanding conidition, which need instant response and the only way, that can be achieve is the pilot must be in the cockpit to feel the situation himself. UAV cannot achieve that yet. There is still a limit to the amount of sensor on-board, most at not advance enough to handle bad weather yet. Helos with pilots have been known to crash in bad weathers as well... thus having pilots on a helo is no guarantee against crash.... BUT if a UAV is ditched... at most i lost a REPLACEABLE UAV... the FFG would also have several spare UAVs ready to go. OTOH... if a helo is ditched into the sea... i lost a multimillion dollar helo + 2 pilots or more men... and now the FFG have no Helos to either search of the downed helo AND no aerial support if the FFG was in the thick of combat station!
3) If a UAV like you say can carry the same amount of weapon, then, it is basically 1/2 size of a heli, so it also is not suitable based on your theory of stealth. If it too small don't think it will even survive long in the sea going condition. Reminder, frigate are open ocean vessels, we are expecting, huge wind and wave, in area of operation. Not the sheltered sea around singapore. there are no known stealth helos... but there are stealth UAVs like the MAV-1 by singapore technologies... and size do matter ALOT in stealth... at twice the size (RCS) of a UAV... the helo would be detected by enemy radar FAR earlier... then a stealth UAV or a low profile stealth enhanced USV. FFG is not your thrill seeking ships... they are build to handle a certain seastate... you cannot just send your FFG into any seastate... cos it WILL SINK! plus the fact... that under adverse weather... most helos on a FFG would be grounded for sure....
4) Don't forget, jamming and bad weather, this may mean you will lose control for your UAV. dont forget too that in bad weather, your helo could jolly well be kept from flying... and if the enemy do a jamming.. they effectively gave away their position... and in a high intensity EW situation... it remains to be seen if the UAV could be jammed... afterall.. many systems aboard the ship including the AShM, AMM, helo, Radar and other electronic system including the ship itself require some sort of electronic control...
5) Yes let fly out 2 or 3 UAV !!!, that is better, but remember, you need space to setup the UAV controls, their personels on the ship and their spares too ! By the time all this is put in, you find the amount of space, maybe the same as needed for the heli spare. at least for the same space... i can have 2 or 3 or perhaps even MORE UAV!... compare to one pathetic helo.
Based on your argument, it is not valid at the moment, that is why US still use manned fighter planes, apache . That shows, there is still a long way to go. Till the day, fighter planes and other attack heli became unmanned, then I think UAV can replace the maritime heli. so... why rush to buy helo?? wait afew more years when our last FFG is almost complete then decided if a helo or UCAV is more advisable lah...
If there is truth to your arguement, we may as well push the envelop further, since you insist that tech is so good. We may as well have the frigate remote control also, the crews can control the frigate from singapore instead of on the ship. Anyway we just need to put sensors on the ship and ignore other factors.
. that day would come.... mark my word. -
Tripwire,all yr explanation of yr USV is based on yr assumption and imagination! Can u link me to a website showing the capabilities and photo pictures of a complete helo USV carry 2 anti-sub torpedos,1 dipping sonar,equip with one surveilance and a paroramic eye taking off from a frigate! If not ,u r just talking cock here!
And it the day really come ,then u post yr monkey USV,advising navy to buy it! I think that day will be at least 10yrs from now which our RSN cannot afford to wait! Now we r talking abt what type of marine helo for our RSN. Talk is cheap without facts! -
indeed talk is cheap without facts... but talk is also a waste on an OX that cannot see beyond the padi field that it ploughs......Originally posted by zenden9:Tripwire,all yr explanation of yr USV is based on yr assumption and imagination! Can u link me to a website showing the capabilities and photo pictures of a complete helo USV carry 2 anti-sub torpedos,1 dipping sonar,equip with one surveilance and a paroramic eye taking off from a frigate! If not ,u r just talking cock here!
And it the day really come ,then u post yr monkey USV,advising navy to buy it! I think that day will be at least 10yrs from now which our RSN cannot afford to wait! Now we r talking abt what type of marine helo for our RSN. Talk is cheap without facts!
the following sites contain some nice pictures, reviews as well as a good source of information on USV.. by Jane's Navy International as well as by another publication.
rice padi OX need not see...
http://www.globalatlantic.com/media.html
the below are direct links... in case the first link does not work...
http://www.globalatlantic.com/unmanned.html
http://www.globalatlantic.com/janes.html
the last sites is also interesting too....
http://www.globalatlantic.com/riverinewarfare.html
http://www.globalatlantic.com/portsecurity.html
the RSN got many years before its last FFG is ready... why rush? -
The link u give shows nothng similiar to a multi-purpose marine helo! Except some unmanned surface craft and none of it can handle the same workload and perform as good as helo!Most of them can only perform for one task. We don't need a unmaned surface craft,we need a UAV helo. Can u post to a link purely descript of how a UAV can truly replace a helo in terms of all its function?Originally posted by tripwire:indeed talk is cheap without facts... but talk is also a waste on an OX that cannot see beyond the padi field that it ploughs......
the following sites contain some nice pictures, reviews as well as a good source of information on USV.. by Jane's Navy International as well as by another publication.
rice padi OX need not see...
http://www.globalatlantic.com/media.html
the below are direct links... in case the first link does not work...
http://www.globalatlantic.com/unmanned.html
http://www.globalatlantic.com/janes.html
the last sites is also interesting too....
http://www.globalatlantic.com/riverinewarfare.html
http://www.globalatlantic.com/portsecurity.html
the RSN got many years before its last FFG is ready... why rush?
Remember a navy helo is a helo multi-purpose platform which can handle ASW,surveilance,ant-ship warfare and have certain degree of payload. No USV have reached that stage and most of the article explanation is vague with simple brief of saying it can configure for ASW but using what weapon,what sonar and sensor?
SInce none of the helo UAV can perform as good as navy helo,pilot job on helo still needs to be carry out even it means danger of losing them. U may have 10 UAV onboard a frigate but none of it is going to perform as good as helo.The jeopardise of ASW mission may result sunking of our frigate by sub.Instead of saving 2 pilots,it resulted in dead of so may navy crew!
Our dear neighbour have almost complete their frigate and OPV program and with their navy helo equip with ASW capabilites which will further post serious threat to our sub and even worst,they will take delievery of their scopene class sub in few years time which will urge RSN to quickly increase our ASW capabilities to counter this threat. Navy helo is a good way to increase that capabilites. SAF is always ahead of our neighbour interms of capabilites and weapon. R we going to wait and let them overtake us? I believe the choice of getting and scout for a navy helo in a few years time will not consider rush but a immediate requirement! -
i believe i noted that ... padi field cow need not see??
we are afterall building the FFG for the future... the last FFG is supposed to ready around 2008 - 2009... a good 5 years from now...
the FFG is supposed to serve the RSN needs for around 20 years after that date... that means.. we could see the formidable in service up to 2030...
by 2030... or even 2020, naval helos would be like the dinosaurs... of yesterday...
the least the navy can do now.. is at least give the UAV a thorough look and see if a UAV would be a better, more efficient, more cost effective and more useful alternatices then having a single clumsy , overweight, overcostly and inflexible lone helo.
after which.. the navy could decide if they want to proceed with the helo, hold back the helo purchase until a later date... or switch to UAVs.
in a RMA... we cannot just blindly follow the crowd... but must raise above the crowd and look beyond what we can see in the present.... -
How u know? Get any facts to back u? Will naval helos be really outdated at that time? UAV really more cost efficient and perform better than naval helos? Talk is cheap without factsOriginally posted by tripwire:i believe i noted that ... padi field cow need not see??
the FFG is supposed to serve the RSN needs for around 20 years after that date... that means.. we could see the formidable in service up to 2030...
by 2030... or even 2020, naval helos would be like the dinosaurs... of yesterday...
the least the navy can do now.. is at least give the UAV a thorough look and see if a UAV would be a better, more efficient, more cost effective and more useful alternatices then having a single clumsy , overweight, overcostly and inflexible lone helo. -
luckily for us... there are those in SAF who sees the future of unmanned combat vehicles for all 3 services of SAF 6 years ago!!....Originally posted by zenden9:How u know? Get any facts to back u? Will naval helos be really outdated at that time? UAV really more cost efficient and perform better than naval helos? Talk is cheap without facts
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1998/Vol24_1/4.htm
Unmanned Warfare
by MAJ Tew See Mong
INTRODUCTION
Manpower scarcity has been a perennial problem for many armed forces around the world. Over the years, there has been a decline in the absolute numerical make-up of these organisations, which, if not managed properly, can affect their operational capabilities. This scarcity is a situation that is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future, given the current low birth rates and conflicting demands for manpower.
From a numerical perspective, this constraint means that the armed forces cannot mass together the sheer number of ground troops as before. From a risk perspective, every soldier on the battlefield is now a precious resource which should not be exposed to unnecessary risks. This translates into further constraints for battle planners, who may not have the leeway to select the riskier but more expedient military options. Finally, from the skills perspective, smaller population bases make it difficult to find, select, train and develop specialised combatant resources like pilots and submariners.
Thus, it is crucial that new avenues be explored to circumvent this prevalent trend of manpower shortages. One viable solution lies in exploiting technology and pushing the limits of force multipliers. Within the domain of force multipliers, there lies a relatively new discipline, unmanned warfare.
DEFINITION
The definition of 'unmanned' chosen for this article is fairly loose, as the emphasis is not solely on taking men out of machines but also on how to employ technology to make better use of its manpower. Thus, while the focus is on unmanned warfare in its literal sense, the article will also touch on some equipment or systems which result in lower manpower usage (or higher operational capability with the same manning). In so doing, please accept that some aspects of this article border on technological innovation as opposed to unmanned warfare per se.
POTENTIAL OF UNMANNED WARFARE
Unmanned warfare is a relatively new approach in the conduct of warfare, where the boundaries are not well charted and limited largely by our imaginations. Unmanned warfare will not only help overcome manpower and resource constraints but will also enhance operational capabilities, since it can now move into areas where mankind has previously feared to tread. With unmanned warfare, the competitive advantage can be swung such that human numerical superiority is no longer an overwhelming advantage or a pre-requisite for victory.
WHY UNMANNED?
The impetus to go unmanned include optimising the deployment of manpower, enhancing operational capabilities and being able to venture into territory once out-of-bounds to mankind (e.g. deep ocean, space). In particular, unmanned systems should be used to replace humans where the work is dangerous, dirty or dull.
Some specific advantages in going unmanned include:
Reduction in manpower requirement. Developments in unmanned technology now enables machines to perform tasks once undertaken by operators with equal if not better precision. This direct substitution of manpower will lead to a corresponding reduction in manpower needs.
Overcome fatigue and human error. Machines do not tire out as easily as men. Operations that require constant alert or repetitive work over long durations are thus potential areas where unmanned warfare can be profitably employed.
Minimise hazards. Risks to humans can be reduced as unmanned systems can take over hazardous jobs previously done by human beings.
Cost savings. Besides manpower savings, there are also cost reductions in the form of human cost (life) savings, training cost savings or even system cost savings as new unmanned systems can enhance work flow and improve general work cycles.
Despite these advantages, there are several limitations which must be recognised and reconciled. Some of the limitations include:
Decision making. Although unmanned systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated and 'intelligent', it is still difficult to entrust machines with subjective decision making. We must avoid careless delegation of responsibilities to technology that perform only under programmed patterns.
Applicability. In certain areas and vocations, unmanned warfare acts merely as a catalyst to facilitate achieving the ultimate goal. The claim that there is no victory until the humble foot soldier occupies the objective is likely to remain valid for some time yet.
Diminution of esprit de corps. As manpower is increasingly scattered, we could witness diminishing avenues for display of teamwork, leadership, valour and other human qualities that make up a well trained and well-oiled armed force. This gradual 'erosion' of values belonging to the profession of arms must be guarded against.
LAND THEATRE UNMANNED WARFARE
The land theatre has traditionally been the largest employers of manpower. With reducing manpower and increasing battlefield risks, technology is no longer regarded as just a force multiplier, but rather one that would produce a paradigm shift in warfighting.
Manpower requirements can be dramatically reduced in the battlefield with unmanned platforms. UAVs, coupled with appropriate sensors, are able to give commanders a bird's eye view of the battlefield, without having to incur risks to himself, observers or pilots. Such a view has obvious benefits - to the intelligence community, to manoeuvre commanders and to targeting agencies. UAVs can also be employed as rebro or electronic warfare platforms. In the longer term, armed UAVs may well become operationally and economically viable, thus enabling them to perform tactical attack roles.
Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicles (TUGV), the ground equivalent of UAVs, are able to perform some of the roles currently done by UAVs. Equipped with weaponry or sensors, they could complement or even replace some of the roles assumed by scouts and signallers. In these roles, one edge of the TUGV over the UAV is its staying power and ability to hold ground. TUGV is also able to breach and open minefields/ obstacles and clear axes for armour and logistics re-supply.
Unmanned Ground Sensors (UGS) are a cost effective replacement for manned systems that have previously been used for monitoring or for communications. They can, for example, be deployed by helicopters or C-130 to critical points to detect time critical mobile targets (i.e. manoeuvre forces, tank columns). They can also be used as signals nodes to serve as communication relay platforms, thus relieving signals personnel from performing a tedious and time consuming job.
Dramatic break throughs in robotics and tele-operated mine breaching can greatly reduce the labour-intensive nature of mine-clearing. Also, development of new mine detection technology now permits untrained troopers, using devices which incorporate thermal imaging and ground penetrating radar, to be able to detect metallic and non-metallic mines. This reduces the dependence on specialised combat engineers and simultaneously increases operational capability through speedy mine detection.
There are a few additional unmanned systems that are a long way from seeing operational employment, but which are worth mentioning in view of their long term potential. For example, developments in unmanned technology include robots that can undertake dangerous and dirty work. The US military has been pursuing the concept of 'Pointman' for some time. Pointman is a light-weight, sensor-laden, armed robot used to reconnoiter buildings, bunkers and tunnels, in order to detect booby traps, explosives and the enemy. It will be able to climb stairs, operate in all weather and light conditions, and is expected to be especially useful in what the US Army terms 'operations other than war'.
Still looking at longer term developments, armour units may one day field remotely-controlled tanks. One of the modes of employment is to have one manned tank control and operate two unmanned, remote-controlled tanks. Navigation and targeting inputs provided by the tank commander are utilised by the remote-controlled tanks to acquire and destroy targets. The firepower of armour units can hence be enhanced tremendously with fewer or similar numbers of tank crews.
Remotely-controlled self-propelled guns or howitzers could operate together with manned guns using the same concept as the remote controlled tanks. This concept seems closer to fruition than unmanned tanks, as the technological challenges appear less daunting. The need for human judgement in each individual fighting unit also appears less critical.
UNMANNED WARFARE IN THE AIR
Plagued with constraints of limited human resources and a sizable reduction in the pool of youths who fulfill stringent recruitment requirements, air forces around the world will be compelled to explore means to maintain or extend their operational capabilities with an increasingly trim fighting force.
The employment of unmanned platforms in the modern battlefield serves to alleviate problems caused by the shortage in manpower and resources. In employing unmanned platforms, pilots may also be removed from aircraft penetrating defended enemy airspace, thus reducing the danger arising from exposure to hostile fire.
The benefits are immediately obvious. First, human attrition will be reduced. Second, the aircrew whose functions are now assumed by unmanned platforms can be channeled to other crucial functions like air defence, C31 and transportation missions. Finally, planners will be able to undertake more risky but decisive combat missions, such as SEAD, without exposing aircrew to excessive risk.
UAVs can broadly be characterised as lethal and non-lethal systems. As its name suggests, non-lethal UAVs refers to the class of UAVs used for reconnaissance, surveillance, relay, target designation, ECM, SIGINT, ELINT, radar decoy and meteorological surveillance. Lethal UAVs, of course, refer to the class of UAVs which inflicts physical damage to enemy assets or installations operations.
Non-Lethal UAVs
Many non-lethal UAV roles have become well-established in many armed forces. Reconnaissance UAVs are widely used to map the enemy's defence locations, practices, electronic profiles and vulnerabilities. As their endurance and payload improve, these UAVs can take on the more demanding surveillance and airborne early warning functions as well. EW UAVs are capable of using chaff and ECM to degrade the enemy's radar or communications. Used together with anti-radiation missiles or drones, these EW UAVs can effectively shut down the enemy's radar operations. In SEAD) operations, UAVs can be deployed as decoys to entice the defenders to turn on their radars or fire their missiles at the wrong targets. Manned strikers following behind the UAVs can then move in to complete their missions with relative ease.
Lethal UAVs
Lethal UAVs can best be looked at by dividing them into two distinct categories: counter-air and strike. I will examine these two components separately and assess the viability of UAVs to replace manned aircraft during wartime.
Air-to-air combat is very dynamic and dependent upon the pilot's judgment and skill to outwit and out-manoeuver the aggressor so as to get into an advantageous position for the kill. This applies even when an aircraft is armed with the most advanced AAMs, especially if the enemy is similarly equipped. Furthermore, in an air battle, the air picture is usually a complex one, with many real-time injects like weather, use of ECM or ECCM, changes in tactics, attntion, etc. The pilots, with the help of GCI, will have to make impromptu, split- second decisions to circumvent the friction of war.
The use of UAVs as interceptors will expose one of its biggest shortcomings; its lack of decision making abilities. However advanced the UAV, it is still unable to replace the pilot in a dog-fight. The situational awareness is just not the same. More often than not, UAVs are very scenario dependent and operate well only in a predictable environment. The lack of a human on board limits a UAV to perform mostly pre-programmed standard functions.
Although UAVs cannot replace manned fighters in air-to-air combat, they can be used as decoys to reduce friendly losses. Decoys can be scrambled together with manned interceptors to complicate the enemy's air picture, distracting their pilots or causing them to expend their missiles on the decoys.
Strike missions are a hazardous task as the strike aircraft are susceptible to many threats: enemy fighters, SAMs, AAA etc. A typical strike mission would involve a lot of resources. Besides the strikers, sweepers to fly ahead and clear the path for their transit. In addition, to have accompanying escort fighters are needed to eliminate hostile aircraft that slip through to threaten the strike aircraft.
UAVs can be used to reduce the heavy demands and risks of strike missions. Many strike aircraft and bombers follow a pre-determined route into enemy territory and strike specific targets on the ground. The predictable nature of this task makes it suitable for UAV execution. Technically, the cruise missile is a small, disposable UAV. These missiles are cost-effective, proven in war, and do not need escorts or sweepers. Re-usable bomber UAVs are also under development, but these are probably less flexible and effective than missiles as they would require a great deal more support for them to fulfill their role.
A final benefit of using UAVs is that they are less dependent on runways. Most unmanned platforms are easier to store and deploy than fixed wing aircraft, and many do not need a long runway to launch from. Of particular significance, land or sea launched cruise missiles would allow an armed force to retain a long-range strike capability even if its runways were closed and its aircraft temporarily grounded.
NAVAL UNMANNED WARFARE
Unmanned platforms are relatively new naval forces. Naval forces should consider adopting more unmanned systems in the naval theatre, with manned warships deployed as a controlling force or a follow-up strike force when a high casualty rate has been inflicted on the opposing force.
They are the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) and Sound Ocean Surveillance System (SOSUS). The following discusses the ways these platforms can replace or supplement a navy's manned platforms and improve its operational effectiveness.
UAVs
Navies should acquire a mix of ground based and sea launched UAVs. Complete surveillance packages configured for tactical surveillance should be available in the sea launched version. Real time data-linked, probably through satellite communications, should be the main command and control requirement so that commanders ashore and at sea are able assess the reconnaissance picture. High adaptability to mission changes and reassignment should also be essential features of the vehicle.
Land based UAVs should augment the manned Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) so that round the clock surveillance and intelligence collection can be achieved. These UAVs would be especially useful at the beginning of war when naval warships have to be deployed beyond NADA controlled areas. The UAVs will remove the need to send manned MPAs to unprotected airspace, thus reducing the risk to the aircraft and its crew.
Sea-launched UAVs would by necessity, be lighter and have less endurance than their land based counterparts. However, they have an important role in that they provide flexibility and autonomy to the commanders at sea, who can then solve immediate tactical surveillance problems without assistance from shore.
For littoral warfare, UAVs should be able to solve some of the problems when ships operate in proximity to land. When warships operate in hostile coastal waters, the risk is invariantly higher as they are subjected to threat from ashore and ambushing enemy military or para-military craft. Surveillance pictures provided by UAVs would finish task group commanders with valuable early warning of enemy presence.
Clearance of island groups by warships is another challenging task. In this case, a naval force should further exploit unmanned technology by acquiring remote controlled arsenal craft equipped with short to medium range high discrimination missiles to engage hostile craft detected by the UAV.
In the area of naval gun fire support, UAVs can provide spotting and eventually Target Damage Assessment to the Shore Bombardment Commander.
Undersea Vehicles
The application of unmanned vehicles for underwater warfare is predominantly in the area of mine clearance. Mine clearance in hostile waters can be fulfilled with the Self-propelled Acoustic and Magnetic Minesweeping System (SAMMS). This unmanned, remotely controlled mine sweeping craft is capable of establishing a safe route through mined waters.
Navies could consider acquiring a passive mine clearance capability so as to expand their mine-sweeping versatility. The US Navy is currently developing a tactical scale Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) to conduct covert, fully autonomous, long duration mine warfare and tactical oceanography in littoral waters. To date, the UUV has demonstrated a navigational accuracy of 0.18% of distance traveled. Such a vehicle allows naval forces to conduct covert mine clearance and seabed surveys during POT when aggressive counter-mine measures could not be conducted. Another advantage of the UUV is that it can be launched covertly from a submarine.
Anti-Submarine Warfare
Manned assets are still largely used in the area of Anti-Submarine Warfare, as it remains the playground for tacticians. However, SOSUS can be used to monitor submarine movements at various key points in our area of operations. This will reduce the demands on manned anti-submarine warfare assets. With further development in UAVs, ASW packages can also be fitted onboard to provide an extended arm to airborne ASW.
TECHNOLOGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNMANNED SYSTEMS
Competition to dominate the battlefield of the future is competition to create, adopt and dominate emerging technologies. In the area of unmanned warfare, getting ahead requires:
a. A keen understanding of how future battles would be fought and how unmanned warfare fits in.
b. A developmental process for exploring, assimilating and exploiting current and emerging future technologies applicable in unmanned systems.
The unmanned warfare paradigm may be defined in three dimensions. Service groups broadly describe the various services in the Armed Forces, or who is being satisfied. Service functionalites describe service needs, or what is being satisfied. Technologies describe the way, or how the service groups needs are satisfied. The who and what, having already been discussed, we can see that the how may be classified into three main areas of required technologies. These are:
a. Sensory. This is predominantly in the departments of sight & sound (e.g. to detect the enemy), touch (e.g. to ascertain reality) and smell (e.g. to determine toxicity of air).
b. Mechatronics. This entails the delivery systems upon which the unmanned systems would ride on. It would include technologies such as propulsion, aerodynamics and robotics.
c. C4. For the human operator to command the unmanned systems, technologies that need to be mastered include artificial intelligence, radio-frequency technology and micro-controllers.
The key to mastering unmanned warfare would include the complex tasks of cross-selecting the technological components and integrating them into our military hardware. The selected components should be seen as capabilities a country's armed forces and defence industries must master, for they constitute the very essence of its future fighting capabilities.
Through a systematic and rigorous programme of developing this unmanned capability, new core competencies would emerge and these are potential highways to the future for our local defence industry. Besides providing a country's armed forces with a military advantage, technologies applied in unmanned systems have potential for a myriad of commercial payoffs. For instance, car manufacturers are beginning to explore unmanned driving on highways for safety as well as time and highway efficiency. Hence, unmanned technology offers our defence industry an attractive area to venture into, with additional potential for commercial payoffs.
CONCLUSION
The employment of unmanned platforms in the battlefield serves not only to overcome the constraints arising from manpower and resource shortages, but also increases the operational capability of a fighting force. They will provide tangible increases in combat range, firepower, speed, element of surprise, command and control, etc. As unmanned warfare and the mastery of unmanned technology will become increasingly important parts of a nation's strategic architecture, her armed forces and her defence industries will need to pay appropriate attention to this aspect of warfare.
Note: The writer wishes to thank MAJ Lai Chin Kwang, MAJ Gregory Loh, CPT Chiang Sin Ann, CPT Hi Cheong Leong, CPT Ho Kok Wei, CPT Lee Cher Heng, CPT Ngoh Sien Sen, CPT Soh Teck Kwee, CPT Tan Chee Khiong and CPT Tham Kah Weng for their contributions.
MAJ Tew See Mong is currently in G3-Army. He obtained a BSc (Hons) from NUS in 1990. MAJ Tew attended the Singapore Command and Staff College in 1997. -
U called this facts(Meaning of facts:true to exist or be true:reality) of a navy Helo UAV!
In yr previous posting ,yr article talk abt this
Does all the above thing can perform the same anti-sub,anti-suface,cargo payload as this super-lynx which is a naval helo?
The damm thing in the first place cannot fly which has already fail the compettiton! Or can u at least link me to a pic photo of a helo USV which can let us understand in some way can equip ant-ship missile or anti-sub torpedo!! Can u pls enlighten me?????
By the way,pls don't post some predator photo pic carrying hell fire missile or javelin missile to try to cheat the reader through. We all know predator is a land base surveilance and the missile is meant for anti-tank mission ,not for naval ops and predator can hardly carry any ant-sub torpedo! -
Double posting
-
an OX like you... has less brain then the terrorist that nearly sank the USS COLE....
with the money from a single helo purchase,i can buy a hundred of those USV, strapped them with explosives and surveilance equipment and deployed them like sea mines all around the FFG and command a large area and exert massive ZOC stretching for miles upon miles!
i can have real time images of a massive area live on the FFG.. that no helo can provide.
once a target or enemy fleet moves into view... i can remote control the USV to track them from a distance... and move the rest of my USVs and lay a trap for them...
come night... i can send those KAMIKAZE USVs by the hordes against the enemy fleet... and send them all into the bottom of the sea.
your freaking helo is good for nothing except for target practice if the enemy has SAM that outranged your pathetic ASM.