Why the Next Fighter Will Be Manned, and the One After That - War on the Rocks

[dimsum]

An unmanned replacement for the manned fighter is often believed to be just over the horizon, but the reality is that it is nowhere close and may not even be possible. Combat aircraft that actually have to operate in contested airspace are just the wrapper — it is the aircrew that really matters. An artificial replacement will have to solve three major aviation challenges now readily and regularly surmounted by the human aircrew: basic aviation (flying the aircraft), tactical execution (rapid adaptation of the plan under combat conditions), and weapons employment (shooting the right weapon, at the right target, at the right time, for the right reasons).

http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/why-the-next-fighter-will-be-manned-and-the-one-after-that/?singlepage=1

It's a decent article on the manned v. autonomous aircraft debate, and I'd agree that autonomous fighters aren't going to happen anytime soon, but I'd suggest that Remotely Piloted Aircraft (as opposed to UAVs) be in its own category then based on the three challenges he stated.

Since aircrew are still involved, albeit at a distance, RPAs can fulfill tactical execution and weapons employment. No, they won't be flying low and fast (yet), but changing mission details on the fly and connecting warheads to foreheads is already happening. Basic aviation is still a challenge (no IFR capability, lack of manoeuvrability) but given that the Predator (and its counterparts) are only about 35 years old, what were the crash rates for airplanes in 1938, or for that matter, how easily would a pilot recover an inherently-unstable fly-by-wire fighter built for the sake of manoeuvrability?

One still has to remember that this is new and rapidly-evolving technology, and I tend to think that manufacturers aren't pouring in the tech for IFR, etc as they think RPAs are "expendable" and a crash to them means more $. I'm not convinced that Skynet will be the successor to the F-35, but I'd be willing to fork over a few dollars to say that an RPA would.

 

[Infanteer]

The Russians are dropping Ukrainian UAVs out of the sky with EW systems.  I think we have a while yet before we lose the pilot.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We will always have 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots as long as we have Air Forces because only 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots can fly and lead 'all things air' effectively, right?

Despite all evidence to the contrary, it's a huge cultural paradigm that will continue to drive our approach to things that fly, and the equipment we procure, as long as we continue to organize and think about the way we do 'air' things like we did in WW1 and WW2.

 

[George Wallace]

The Russians are dropping Ukrainian UAVs out of the sky with EW systems.  I think we have a while yet before we lose the pilot.

I would not be too sure on that.  With everything now fly by wire, what EW countermeasures would be necessary to ensure onboard electronics are not affected?  What frequencies do you cover?

[EDIT:  Think Navigation, Communications, and perhaps hacking such as done recently with automobiles.]

 

[dimsum]

The Russians are dropping Ukrainian UAVs out of the sky with EW systems.  I think we have a while yet before we lose the pilot.

Combining your point and GW's point, that's why I propose that RPAs be separate from UAVs as a category of aircraft.  Especially with the fly-by-wire systems being potentially hacked, the difference between RPAs and manned aircraft will continue to get smaller.

 

[dimsum]

We will always have 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots as long as we have Air Forces because only 'Commissioned Officer' fast jet pilots can fly and lead 'all things air' effectively, right?

Despite all evidence to the contrary, it's a huge cultural paradigm that will continue to drive our approach to things that fly, and the equipment we procure, as long as we continue to organize and think about the way we do 'air' things like we did in WW1 and WW2.

I know I'll get flak from this from my light-blue brethren, but IMHO aircrew do not need to be Officers if they have a specialized "line driver" stream like the US Army Warrant Officer Aircrew.  However, what could come up is that other militaries that are more culturally/socially hierarchical may look down on, or disregard, anything coming from said NCM aircrew.

 

[George Wallace]

I know I'll get flak from this from my light-blue brethren, but IMHO aircrew do not need to be Officers if they have a specialized "line driver" stream like the US Army Warrant Officer Aircrew.  However, what could come up is that other militaries that are more culturally/socially hierarchical may look down on, or disregard, anything coming from said NCM aircrew.

Don't tell Max or any of the other Fighter Jocks, but during the Battle of Britain, we had Sergeants flying planes.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Don't tell Max or any of the other Fighter Jocks, but during the Battle of Britain, we had Sergeants flying planes.

This guy couldn't even read but that didn't stop him from crushing Nazis and the Japanese  ;D

Ok I know it's fiction but still!

 

[observor 69]

Thanks for raising this topic Dimsum.  Discussions like this at the top of the reasons I hang on to following army.ca.

BZ

 

[dimsum]

Don't tell Max or any of the other Fighter Jocks, but during the Battle of Britain, we had Sergeants flying planes.

And NCM Navs, and Commissioned Wireless Air Gunners, etc. 

Genuinely out of curiosity, what was the difference between the Commissioned and NCM folks of the same trade?  Did the Sergeant Pilot not get x training as the FLTLT Pilot?  ???

 

[Old Sweat]

And NCM Navs, and Commissioned Wireless Air Gunners, etc. 

Genuinely out of curiosity, what was the difference between the Commissioned and NCM folks of the same trade?  Did the Sergeant Pilot not get x training as the FLTLT Pilot?  ???

My understanding of it was that the training was the same, and the decision of who was commissioned was made based on a variety of factors. Incidentally the RCAF objected to the practice, which was imposed on the Commonwealth air forces by the RAF, but the other air forces accepted the British policy. The Canadians had objected on the grounds that it was unfair to have air crew of different privilege and pay doing the same job.

 

[SupersonicMax]

To be fair, the flying WOs (or WOs in genreral) in the US army have a much more rigorous selection than ours.  They become the technical experts in a certain field.  Ours are streamed more into leadership roles.

GW: if you had read the last 9 years of my posting history (and I know you have, for the most part), you'd know that rank is of very little interest and importance to me.  If the pilot trade was only opened to Privates (I guess Aviators now) with no chance of advancement, I would have still applied to become a pilot. 

In an organization where rank is important though, I believe you need officers in those roles, even if only for instant credibility.  I don't see a bunch of pilots from diverse background (from Lt to Col) listening to a Sergeant, Mission Commanding 80 pilots in combat.  Line Captains, in turn, will command packages into combat with little problems.

I am sure they could be fine pilots.  I am not sure, in most cases, they could be tactical leaders in their units.  And if they could be (because we use a similar selection process and training program for both officers and NCO), then it begs the question Old Sweat brought up: why would we pay them less for the same job?

 

[PuckChaser]

You're bringing up issues with culture and hierarchy, not why we can't have technical WOs as pilots. Just because an officer thinks he's above following the direction of a non commissioned member who's been given authority to lead by that officers boss, doesn't make the ncm incapable of leading. It makes those officers incapable of putting the mission first.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You're bringing up issues with culture and hierarchy, not why we can't have technical WOs as pilots. Just because an officer thinks he's above following the direction of a non commissioned member who's been given authority to lead by that officers boss, doesn't make the ncm incapable of leading. It makes those officers incapable of putting the mission first.

When you are dealing and operating with coalition partners, you have to take that into consideration.  Not a single other nation allows NCOs to lead coalition missions ( they don't get the qual). 

Technically, it is relatively easy to get NCOs to become pilots: put them through pilot selection and training.  That's it.  What will be the deal breaker, imo, is indeed culture and hierarchy.

As opposed to what Dimsum said, being a pilot is a lot more than technical skills.  Initial training solely focus on those skills, however the second you become a line pilot, you are given roles (in the air and on the ground) in which you need to use you officer skills.  This begs the question: why have two different class of pilots, if there is no difference in their jobs and required skills?  Do we then keep them as First Officer/Wingmen to create that difference and justify the (huge) difference in pay?  Do we keep them from getting leadership roles airborne?

If we were in serious lack of applicants, I could see merit in this proposal.  Right now, we have more than enough and don't see any reason to consider that.

 

[Infanteer]

Max raises a good point.  In the fighter world, a pilot is a pilot - what does having a WO rank on do for the service?  It certainly gains you disadvantages in the allied operations context.  If you are going to pay them the same (which I'd suggest you'd have to - create the pilot WO with a very similar payscale to the pilot officer), then other advantages do "flying WOs" have?

What may be required is a more formal split between "guys who focus on flying" and "guys who focus on running the air force".  I don't know how you'd do that, or if you'd want to do that, or even if you need to do that - perhaps it's as simple as a PER opt out?

The "Flying WO" may be more approriate and functional in the Army Aviation Tac Hel or Naval Aviation Maritime Hel worlds where the "pilot WOs" (or pilot POs?) would stay in the squadrons for most (all?) their career while the flying officers would go off to brigade HQ, etc, etc.

 

[Baz]

The "Flying WO" may be more approriate and functional in the Army Aviation Tac Hel or Naval Aviation Maritime Hel worlds where the "pilot WOs" (or pilot POs?) would stay in the squadrons for most (all?) their career while the flying officers would go off to brigade HQ, etc, etc.

As I understand it, in the US system the reason it works is because the units fight and fly just like that, as units.  That's what allows them to have flying WO (and they aren't the same as our WO'S,  they are an entirely separate rank structure between NCMS and Officers), as the flying "unit" is led by an Officer.

You 'could' adopt that model for fighters... a new rank structure using non- commissioned officers (ie flying WO'S,  but not how we view it), trained in flying leadership but not eligible for Command, led by Flying Officers.  But what really do you gain?  Now you have two trades instead of one.

If you are suggesting flying units not led by aircrew then I'd say you'd have a credibility issue sending them off to fight... but I'm biased...

There needs to be a director level officer on the aircraft in MH.  I suppose we could have flying WO'S as pilots in MH and have the crew led by the TACCO... never going to happen in a pilot led Air Force.

More realistically we could remove the TACCO (replace with the a second AESOP) and Crew Commander qual and just have the two pilots, one of which is the Aircraft Captain).  However, we would lose the Battle Management function, and become more tied to ship direction, like the US.  That's why the UK, Australia,  and Canada all carry TACCO.

 

[George Wallace]

In an organization where rank is important though, I believe you need officers in those roles, even if only for instant credibility.  I don't see a bunch of pilots from diverse background (from Lt to Col) listening to a Sergeant, Mission Commanding 80 pilots in combat.  Line Captains, in turn, will command packages into combat with little problems.

Just to be clear, the rank of the pilot is not as important as the rank of the person doing operational planning.  The example you put forward still does not exclude a Sgt from being the pilot, but it does exclude the Sgt from being in a position to do Mission Planning and Command.  I am sure that the system would not be so rigid as to restrict promotion through the ranks as one gains experience and skill sets.  Even today, our system permits the NCM to progress through the ranks and even CFR.  We do not currently have our junior pilots doing Mission Planning or commanding 80 +/- pilots on missions.  Pay scales will still exist where the member has IPC and raises with promotion.  It is a cultural thing as you state.  A culture that changed over the years, from when we had pilots who were not officers to a culture where all pilots are officers.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

CAF members often forget the fairly unique relationship NCOs and Officers have in our military.  We would probably make it work but no one else would so the efforts would wasted energy.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The "Flying WO" may be more approriate and functional in the Army Aviation Tac Hel or Naval Aviation Maritime Hel worlds where the "pilot WOs" (or pilot POs?) would stay in the squadrons for most (all?) their career while the flying officers would go off to brigade HQ, etc, etc.

Before we start talking about "pilot CPO's" for the MH world, to resolve a non existent problem in my mind, I would much rather see the pilots in the MH world be reintegrated into the naval family.

They would be required to acquire their watch keeping certificates once they get to sea, but would then be able to progress along a career of : flying, leading to HOD (AIr dept), leading to Combat O, leading to ship's XO, leading to ship's CO, and up the ladder if warranted.

After a fashion, it would provide the Navy with a number of CO's that have a much greater understanding of the employment of air assets and to a much better employment of all airplanes operationally assigned to the RCN.

I have a strange feeling that there are many officers in the MH world that wouldn't mind that career path as opposed to leaving the naval world if they make it above Major.

 

[Good2Golf]

I've seen WO2s plan and command multi-ship RW ops. Granted, they were probably close to promotion to CW3, but command the mission and package they certainly did.

That said, I'm pretty certain it won't ever happen in  Canada, nor will aviation branches ever repatriate to the sister elements.

:2c: