The Day Of The Droids Is Fast Approaching

Senior Israeli Air Force leaders believe that unmanned aircraft are the future, including autonomous (at least some of the time, under software control) fighters and bombers. Israeli UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) manufacturers, who have long been leaders in the field, were asked to move more aggressively in this direction. The Israelis are following the lead of the U.S. Navy, which is currently out front when it comes to UCAV (unmanned combat air vehicle) development.

 

For example, in late 2012 a U.S. Navy X-47B UCAV made its first catapult launch. This came 22 months after the first flight of the X-47B. This launch was not from a carrier but an airfield built to the same size as a carrier deck and equipped with a catapult. This first launch was to confirm that the X-47B could handle the stress of a catapult launch. Another X-47B was then loaded onto the deck of a carrier, to check out the ability of the UCAV to move around the deck. The first carrier launch of an X-47B will take place this year, along with carrier landings. Two years ago the navy tested its UCAV landing software, using a manned F-18 for the test, landing it on a carrier completely under software control. Recently an X-47B successfully made a landing on an airfield built to the same size as a carrier deck and equipped with a wire for the hook on the rear of UCAV to catch on. That worked, and the X-47B came to stop as it would during a landing at sea.

 

It was five years ago that the navy rolled out the first X-47B, its first UCAV. This compact aircraft has a wingspan of 20 meters (62 feet and the outer 25 percent folds up to save space on the carrier). It carries a two ton payload and will be able to stay in the air for twelve hours. The U.S. is far ahead of other nations in UCAV development, and this is energizing activity in Israel, Russia, Europe, and China to develop similar aircraft. It’s generally recognized that robotic combat aircraft are the future, even though many of the aviation commanders (all of them pilots) wish it were otherwise. The Israeli Air Force is an exception to this and all major air forces have a growing number of senior officers who accept that the day of the droids is fast approaching. Whoever gets there first (a UCAV that really works) will force everyone else to catch up or end up the loser if they encounter these UCAVs in combat.

 

The U.S. Navy has done the math and realized that they need UCAVS on their carriers as soon as possible. The current plan is to get these aircraft into service five years from now. But many carrier admirals want unmanned carrier aircraft in service sooner than that. The math problem that triggered all this is the realization that American carriers had to get within 800 kilometers of their target before launching bomber aircraft. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with range greater than 800 kilometers. The navy already has a solution in development since the X-47B UCAS has a range of 2,500 kilometers and all they have to do is get these UCAVs operational. 

 

For the last two years navy leadership has been seeking ways to reduce orders for the new F-35B and F-35C manned aircraft and use that money to buy the X-47Bs and similar robotic combat aircraft instead. The navy currently plans to buy 680 F-35B and F-35C aircraft for (on average) $100 million each. A UCAV costs less than half that and provides most of the same capabilities, plus much longer range and no risk of losing pilots.

 

For most of the last decade, the navy has been hustling to ready a UCAV for carrier operations and combat use. Within three years the navy expects to have the X-47B demonstrating the ability to regularly operate from a carrier and perform combat (including reconnaissance and surveillance) operations. The new efforts aim to have UCAVs aircraft perform ground attack missions as well, something the Predators have been doing for over a decade. The larger Reaper UAV was designed to expand this combat capability and has proved that it can replace F-16s and other bombers in the combat zone.

 

The 20 ton X-47B weighs a little less than the 24 ton F-18A and has two internal bays holding two tons of smart bombs. Once it can operate off a carrier, the X-47B will be used for a lot of bombing, sort of a super-Reaper. The navy has been impressed with the success of the Predator and Reaper. But the Reaper weighs only 4.7 tons. The much larger X-47B uses a F100-PW-220 engine, which is currently used in the F-16 and F-15.

 

The air force and navy have always differed about the widespread use of UAVs in combat. When the air force agreed to work with the navy on UCAVs a decade ago the idea was that the air force ones would largely remain in storage, to provide a rapid "surge" capability in wartime. The navy, however, wanted to use theirs to replace manned aircraft on carriers. The reason is simple, carrier ops are dangerous, and carrier qualified pilots are more difficult and expensive to train and retain in the service. The navy still has these problems and senior admirals are pretty much in agreement that UCAVs are the future of carrier aviation. The sooner these UCAVs prove they can safely and effectively operate from carriers, the better. The X-47B (or planned, slightly larger, X-47C) is not the definitive carrier UCAS but the navy hopes it is good enough to show that unmanned aircraft can do the job. Normally, "X" class aircraft are just used as technology demonstrators. But the X-47 program has been going on for so long, and has incorporated so much from UAVs already serving in combat, that the X-47B may end up eventually running recon and bombing missions as the MQ-47B.

 

The Department of Defense leadership is backing the navy efforts and spurring the air force to catch up. At the moment, the air force has a hard time building enough MQ-9s, which are used as a ground support aircraft, in addition to reconnaissance and surveillance. But, as the navy is demonstrating, you can build UCAVs that can carry more weapons, stay in the air longer, and hustle to where they are needed faster.

Warplanes - India And The Tejas Tragedy

Despite enormous political pressure in India to get the locally made LCA (Light Combat Aircraft or "Tejas") jet fighter into production the government has quietly delayed that for at least two more years. Production was supposed to begin at the end of 2012, but the number of technical problems with the LCA was too great to clear up in time for production to start then. Many essential electronic items are not functioning properly or reliably. The prototypes that are flying are maintenance nightmares and after each test flight it takes several days to get the aircraft in shape to fly again. The managers of this government financed project tried to keep the problems quiet while they were quickly and quietly fixed but failed at both these tasks.

 

This was not the first major failure for the LCA. Earlier this year India admitted defeat and dropped plans to use the locally developed Kaveri engine in the LCA. After 24 years and over $600 million the Kaveri was unable to achieve the necessary performance or reliability goals required. The government plans to see if the Kaveri can be used in a combat UAV that is being developed locally but that aircraft is not expected to fly for another five years or more.

 

The LCA developers saw this coming and several years ago ordered 99 American F414 jet engines for $8.1 million each. These were to be used for the first LCAs being mass produced. At that point it was still believed that eventually most of the LCAs were to be powered by the Kaveri engine, which has been in development hell for over two decades. The F414s were to substitute only until the Kaveri was ready. 

 

The failure of the Kaveri project is just one of many examples of how the Indian defense procurement bureaucracy misfires. Efforts to fix the mess even led to calling in foreign experts (from the U.S., Israel, and other Western nations). For example, three years ago India made arrangements with French engine manufacturer Snecma to provide technical assistance for the Kaveri design and manufacturing problems. Critics in the Indian air force asserted that help from Snecma would not save the ill-fated Kaveri program. But the government apparently believed that it was necessary for India to acquire the ability to design and build world class jet engines, whatever the cost. Only a few nations can do this and India wants to be one of them, soon, no matter what obstacles are encountered. Despite decades of effort, the Kaveri never quite made it to mass production. Now the government will continue funding development of jet engine design and manufacturing capability, but with some unspecified changes.

 

There is much to be learned from the Kaveri debacle. When work began on the Kaveri, in the mid-1980s, it was believed that the LCA would be ready for flight testing by 1990. A long list of technical delays put off that first flight until 2001. Corners had to be cut to make this happen, for the LCA was originally designed to use the Indian built Kaveri engine and the engine was never ready.

For all this, India only plans to buy 200-300 LCAs, mainly to replace its aging MiG-21s, plus more if the navy finds the LCA works on carriers. Export prospects are dim, given all the competition out there (especially for cheap, second-hand F-16s). The delays have led the air force to look around for a hundred or so new aircraft (or even used F-16s) to fill the gap between elderly MiG-21s falling apart and the arrival of the new LCAs. However, two decades down the road the replacement for the LCA will probably be a more competitive and timely aircraft.

Warplanes - F-16s Step Up For Tardy F-35

The U.S. Air Force has increased the number of F-16s it wants to refurbish to 1,018. Last year the plan was to refurbish a few hundred of its 22 ton F-16 fighters because their replacement, the 31 ton F-35 was not arriving in time. So far 11 F-35s have been built and another 19 are to be built this year. 

That’s too slow to deal with number of F-16s that are growing too old to fly. The air force is doing a similar refurb on 175 F-15C interceptors. It may take a decade or more for F-35 production to get to the point where most F-16s can be replaced. Until then the F-16s must be ready to get the jobs done.

 

This is one of several reasons why many nations upgrade their F-16s. Some of these nations are holding off on ordering F-35s (or cancelling existing orders), either because of the high price or doubts about how good it will be. Aircraft manufacturing and maintenance companies see a huge market for such upgrades. Half or more of the 3,000 F-16s currently in service could be refurbished and upgraded to one degree or another. That’s over $25 billion in business over the next decade or so.

The F-35 began development in the 1990s, and was supposed to enter service in 2011. That has since slipped to 2017, or the end of the decade, depending on who you believe. Whichever date proves accurate, many F-16 users have a problem. Their F-16s are old and year by year more of them become too old to operate. 

 

No matter how late the F-35 is, the U.S. Air Force now plans to refurbish at least a thousand Block 40 and 50 F-16s. The work will concentrate on extending the life of the airframe, plus some electronics upgrades. The air force does this sort of thing frequently to all aircraft models. It's called SLEP (Service Life Extension Program), and this one is special only because it concentrates on very old aircraft and is intended to keep these birds viable for another 8-10 years.

 

Many air forces are finding that it’s more cost-effective to upgrade via new electronics and missiles and, as needed, refurbishing engines and airframes on elderly existing fighters, rather than buying new aircraft. This is especially the case if the new electronics enable the use of smart bombs or more capable air-to-air missiles. One of the more frequently upgraded older fighters is the American F-16. Even the U.S. Air Force, the first and still largest user of F-16s had always planned to do this with some of its F-16s.

 

The F-16C was originally designed for a service life of 4,000 hours in the air. But advances in engineering, materials, and maintenance techniques have extended that to over 8,000 hours. Because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, F-16s sent to those areas have flown over a thousand hours a year more than what they would in peacetime. The current planned SLEP will extend F-16C flight hours to 10,000 or more.

 

The F-16 has proved to be remarkably adaptable and is one of the most modified jet fighters in service. The most numerous F-16 is the C model. The first version of this, the F-16C Block 25, entered service in 1984. The original F-16, as the F-16A Block 1, entered service in 1978. While most F-16s still in service are the F-16C, there are actually six major mods, identified by block number (32, 40, 42, 50, 52, 60) plus the Israeli F-16I, which is a major modification of the Block 52. Another special version (the Block 60) for the UAE (United Arab Emirates) is called the F-16E. The F-16D is a two seat trainer version of F-16Cs. The various block mods included a large variety of new components (five engines, four sets of avionics, five generations of electronic warfare gear, five radars, and many other mechanical, software, cockpit, and electrical mods).

 

The F-16 is the most numerous post-Cold War jet fighter, with over 4,200 built and still in production. During The Cold War Russia built over 10,000 MiG-21s and the U.S over 5,000 F-4s, but since 1991 warplane production has plummeted about 90 percent. Since the end of the Cold War the F-16 has been popular enough to keep the production lines going.

 

The F-16 can also function as a bomber and ground attack aircraft (although not as effectively as the air force experts would have you believe, especially compared to the A-10). It can carry four tons of bombs and has been very effective using smart bombs. In air-to-air combat F-16s have shot down 69 aircraft so far, without losing anything to enemy warplanes. Not bad for an aircraft that was originally designed as a cheaper alternative to the heavier and more expensive F-15.

 

Although the F-35 is designed to replace the F-16, many current users will probably keep their F-16s in service for a decade or more. The F-16 gets the job done, reliably and inexpensively. Why pay more for new F-35s if your potential enemies can be deterred with F-16s. This becomes even more likely as the F-35 is delayed again and again. Finally, the upgrade is a lot cheaper, costing less than $20 million per aircraft, compared to over $100 million for a new F-35. If your potential enemies aren’t upgrading to something like that, a refurbed F-16 will do.

Warplanes - China Trains To Take On Vietnam

At least one Su-30 of the Chinese Air Force Aggressor Squadron has been spotted painted in the colors of the Vietnamese Air Force (which also uses Su-30s). Relations with Vietnam have been increasingly tense in the last few years, and this paint job on a Chinese Su-30 may just be a warning to Vietnam or it may indicate a lot of Chinese pilots are being trained to quickly identify and deal with Vietnamese Su-30s.

The Chinese Air Force now has a training unit that will accurately (as possible) portray enemy (especially American and Indian) aircraft and combat tactics. Thus there are three Blue-Army Aggressor Squadrons (Blue is the bad guys in Chinese training, Red is the good guys) for this. One is equipped with Su-30s, to represent American F-15s or Indian or Vietnamese Su-30s. Another has the J-10A, which is similar to the F-16. The third squadron has J-7s (Chinese copies of the MiG-21), which represent low end threats, like the many MiG-21s India still uses.

Using your own aircraft for "aggressor (or dissimilar) training" began in the 1969, when the U.S. Navy established the original "Top Gun" fighter pilot school. This was done in response to the poor performance of its pilots against North Vietnamese pilots flying Russian fighters. What made the Top Gun operation different was that the training emphasized how the enemy aircraft and pilots operated. This was called "dissimilar training". In the past, American pilots practiced against American pilots, with everyone flying American aircraft and using American tactics. It worked in World War II, because the enemy pilots were not getting a lot of practice and were using similar aircraft and tactics anyway. Most importantly, there was a lot of aerial combat going on, providing ample opportunity for on- the- job training. Not so in Vietnam, where the quite different Russian trained North Vietnamese were giving U.S. aviators an awful time. The four week Top Gun program solved the problem. The air force followed shortly with its Red Flag school. In the early 1980s, the Russians established a dissimilar air combat school, and the Chinese followed in 1987.

Over the last four decades the two American training programs have developed differently, and the entire concept of "dissimilar training" has changed. The navy kept Top Gun as a program to hone fighter pilot's combat skills. The air force made their Red Flag program more elaborate, bringing in the many different types of aircraft involved in combat missions (especially electronic warfare). But after the Cold War ended, it became increasingly obvious that none of our potential enemies was providing their fighter pilots with much training at all. In other words, the dissimilar training for U.S. fighter pilots was not as crucial as it had been during the Cold War. Actually, it had been noted that flying skills of Soviet pilots was declining in the 1980s, as economic problems in the USSR caused cuts in flying time. During that period American pilots were actually increasing their flying time. Moreover, U.S. flight simulators were getting better. American pilots were finding that even the game oriented combat flight simulators had some training value.

So in the late 1990s, Top Gun and Red Flag found their budgets cut. But the programs remain, as does the memory of why they were set up in the first place. If we find that, say, China is continuing to improve its combat aviation, gives its fighter pilots more flying time, and their politicians maintain a bellicose attitude towards the U.S., there will be a need to increase American Top Gun training. Because of the new Chinese "dissimilar training" effort, the U.S. Top Gun and Red Flag schools are being restored to their former prominence, sort of. The Chinese move is certainly a very meaningful one, as it shows that they are serious about preparing their pilots to fight and defeat Taiwanese and American pilots. Dissimilar training is how that is done.

The U.S. Navy has refurbished surplus U.S. Air Force National Guard F-16 flight simulator to help keep its F-16 pilots in shape for using F-16s to train navy pilots (in F-18s) how to best deal with Chinese and other potential enemy pilots. The navy uses F-16s because these aircraft are best able to replicate the performance of likely high end enemy fighters. That's because Russia and China have used the F-16 as the model for most of their latest fighters (the Russian MiG-29 and Chinese J-10). The navy bought 26 of a special model (F-16N) of the aircraft in the late 1980s. But in the 1990s, the navy retired its F-16Ns, because of metal fatigue, and had to wait nearly a decade before it got sixteen more. The refurbished simulator had its cockpit modified to reflect the one the navy F-16s uses.

The navy also uses F-5s to simulate lower performance enemy fighters. The navy has also bought and modified 44 F-5E fighters from Switzerland. The U.S. uses F-5s, a 12 ton fighter roughly similar to the MiG-21. The F-5 is normally armed with two 20mm cannon and three tons of missiles and bombs. The U.S. Navy modified and refurbished the Swiss F-5s so their performance better matched that of Russian or Chinese aircraft.

The MiG-21 is still widely used, although it is rapidly disappearing. It is a 9.5 ton, 1950s design, the most widely produced post World War II fighter (over 10,000 built). It is cheap and easy to maintain but not so effective in the air. Many nations keep them in service because of the low cost and because a wide range of avionics and weapons upgrades are available. Not really designed for ground attack but it can carry 1.5 tons of bombs. U.S. pilots are much better at killing MiG-21s once they have trained against an F-5 being flown like a MiG-21.

Warplanes - Russia Versus China

Russia is seeking ways to halt unauthorized Chinese production of Russian jet fighters. This has proven very difficult, especially since Russia and China are supposed to be allies these days. Earlier this year the extent of the problem was made quite stark when China refused to buy Su-35 fighters from Russia if a "no unauthorized duplication" clause was included in the contract. The Chinese wanted to buy the Su-35s but were not willing to sign a binding agreement to not copy the Russian design.

China is already producing unauthorized copies of the Russian Su-27, as the J11. They have since designed a two-seat fighter bomber version as the J16, a stealthy version (J17) and obtained an aircraft carrier version of the Su-30 (the Su-33) from Ukraine and are producing a copy (as the J-15). China insists these are all Chinese designs that just happen to bear some resemblance to Russian fighters. In response Russia has halted combat aircraft sales to China but will still sell jet engines for these aircraft. So far, China has been unsuccessful in building copies of these engines. The engine sales are too lucrative to pass up, as they enable the Russian engine manufacturers to continue developing new designs. The Chinese plan to steal these as soon as they figure out how to handle the exotic manufacturing skills required to build these engines.

The original J-11 entered service in 1998, but production was very slow and only a hundred were produced. It was during this process that the Chinese mastered all the technical details of building and modifying the Russian aircraft. Chinese officials were dismayed with the performance of the obsolete Russian electronics. After that, at least a hundred of the 33 ton J-11A were built. This model was equipped with modern, Chinese made, electronics and is capable of hauling eight tons of radar guided air-to-air missiles and smart bombs. Then came the J-11B, which was the same size and weight as the J-11A but had a more capable AESA radar and is intended to specialize in air-to-ground missions, while also being able to take care of itself in air-to-air combat.

China is also working on a two-seat strike (like the U.S. F-15E) version of the J-11. This model, the J-16 would basically be a two-seat J-11B. There is also a stealth version of the J-11B, the J-17, with internal bomb-bays and changes in shape to make the aircraft less visible on radar.

There appear to be over 200 J-11s in service, with about 40 percent of them J-11Bs. This is deduced by the number of cell phone photos showing up, from different air force and navy air bases.

Over the last seven years China has been developing a carrier version of the Russian Su-27, calling it the J-15. There is already a Russian version of this, called the Su-33. Russia refused to sell Su-33s to China, when it was noted that China was making illegal copies of the Su-27 (as the J-11) and did not want to place a big order for Su-33s but only wanted two, for "evaluation." China eventually got a Su-33 from Ukraine, which inherited some when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. The Russians are not happy with this development. Russian aviation experts have openly derided the J-15, casting doubt on the ability of Chinese engineers to replicate key features of the Su-33. That remains to be seen, as the Chinese have screwed up copying Russian military tech in the past. But the Chinese have a lot of experience stealing foreign tech, so the J-15 may well turn out to be at least as good as the Su-33. Meanwhile, Russia itself has stopped using the Su-33.