Short History of the Navy's Long Dislike of Drones
By David Hambling
Feb 5, 2016
A Lockheed DC-130 drone control aircraft carrying two BQM-34S Firebee target drones under its wing, circa 1975.
U.S. Navy
They Navy does not like drones. That's why they keep terminating them.
Nobody wants to be told that a computer can do their job better than they can, and pilots are not the least egotistical of individuals. Given how many commanders are ex-pilots, it is no surprise that the Navy's new combat drone has been re-assigned to less glamorous duties. This is just the latest case of a drone that presumes to rival human fliers getting the thumbs-down.
UCLASS, the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike system, was supposed to be a stealthy, unmanned warbird which could take on targets too dangerous for manned aircraft. However, during the long years of development–UCLASS was originally supposed to be in service by 2017, it will now be 2023 or so—the strike element was gradually downplayed in favor of "Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting." Some suggested that the Navy did not want a plane that would compete with the F-35. Now UCLASS has been pushed further down the food chain and will serve as a flying gas station, providing aerial refueling for the manned aircraft doing the real work.
UCLASS's ancestors had an equally rough ride. Few have heard of the Interstate TDR-1, America's first combat drone. It was a largely wooden aircraft with a mediocre cruising speed of a 150 miles per hour, but with a remarkable new camera. Television pioneer Vladimir Zworykin helped shrink the standard three-hundred-pound TV camera into a package no larger than a suitcase and weighing a hundred pounds, including the transmitter. The TDR-1's operator flew in a specially equipped Avenger torpedo bomber, controlling the drone from up to eight miles away.
The TDR-1 EDNA III drone, now hanging in the National Naval Aviation Museum.
U.S. Navy
Lieutenant Commander Delmar Farhney commanded Special Task Air Group One, the first ever drone unit. Farhney had worked on drones for years – he was the first to call his unmanned aircraft "drones"—but had trouble persuading his superiors to send his unit into action. A grounded Japanese freighter off Guadalcanal being used as an anti-aircraft gun platform finally provided a suitable trial, and the TDR-1 showed its effectiveness when scored three hits out of four.
The drones worked well enough in real combat, dropping bombs and carrying out kamikaze-style attacks on ships, artillery positions and anti-aircraft sites. But by 1944 it was decided that manned aircraft could meet all the Navy's needs, and STAG-1 was disbanded. Farhney continued his drone work during the Korean War, but unmanned remained unpopular. Even now the Navy prefers to look on his developments as mere cruise missiles rather than drones.
In 1962 the conflict between pilots and drones turned ugly. The Ryan Firebee was a target drone, a sleek jet 23-feet long which could fly at over 700 miles per hour on a pre-programmed flight path. It could be recovered mid-air by a C-130 Hercules with a capture net, or parachute into the sea for recovery. A modified Firebee with cameras called a "Lightning Bug" could fly over a target area and take aerial pictures without needing to risk a pilot. After the 1960 incident in which U-2 pilot Gary Powers was captured by the Russians, this was a big consideration. But the top brass were not convinced that the Firebee would work. It had to prove itself by flying against Air Defense Command off Florida.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
The interceptor planes had live missiles and cannon, but the little drones were too slippery for them. During the first trials, the F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart pilots never even saw the drones and only glimpsed them briefly on radar. The manned aircrafts high approach speeds meant that by the time a pilot could get a radar-guided missile locked on, he had already passed the Firebee. One pilot succeeded in chasing a Firebee at high altitude, but only got off one burst of cannon fire before his engine flamed out in the thin air and he had to descend to re-ignite it.
Some of the best pilots were assigned to the mission, and managed to salvage their honor–though the pilot who shot down a Firebee on the last trial admitted that luck had been a factor, and that he had managed to get a missile off at the last second.
The case had been made. Lightning Bugs went on to perform well, carrying out over 3,000 reconnaissance missions in Vietnam, flying against the toughest defences at both high and very low levels. They were even credited with MiG kills as defending fighters crashed or ran out of fuel pursuing the elusive drones. However, despite these successes, the drone program was terminated in 1975 immediately after the war.
While the Firebee spyplanes might have been bad for human pilots, MASTACS was much worse. Short for "Maneuverability Augmentation System for Tactical Air Combat Simulation," MASTACS was a Firebee target drone modified for dogfighting. Normally target drones flew straight and level; MASTACS was remote controlled and could pull 6G turns, making it as agile as manned fighters – if not more so.
William Wagner's book "Lightning Bugs" recalls how in 1971, Teledyne Ryan developer Bruce Jackson showed MASTACS to Commander John C Smith, head of the Navy's Top Gun air combat school.
"I'll bet you can't shoot it down," Jackson told the Commander.
The resulting showdown pitted Smith and his wingman flying F-4 Phantoms with live ammunition against a single MASTACS Firebee. It was like trying to swat a hornet with a sledgehammer: the pilots fired two Sparrow radar-guided missiles and two Sidewinder heat-seekers, but the Firebee's tight turns meant all the missiles flew without scoring a hit. Meanwhile the Firebee kept circling around and lining itself up in firing position behind the Phantoms. Had it been armed, the Firebee would have had easy shots.
"You guys build a pretty good drone," Commander Smith admitted afterwards.
MASTACS was the ultimate in "threat simulation," but the Navy was not interested. Apparently it was too sophisticated for training purposes, and the Top Guns had no interest in developing robot dogfighters for actual combat, so the program led nowhere.
These are not isolated cases; my new book Swarm Troopers has a chapter on the fate of early drone programs. Resistance to drones is deeply ingrained, and that once dismissed they are quickly forgotten. A 2014 Navy press release said, "Truman will be the first aircraft carrier in naval aviation history to host test operations for an unmanned aircraft," but drones have not only been tested on carriers, they have flown in combat: the TDR-1s launched from the USS Sable in 1943, and the Firebees took off from the USS Ranger from 1969 to 1970.
It has been suggested that the UCLASS may start out as a flying gas station and gradually take on other roles, but that seems optimistic. Budgets are tight, but while the Navy cut funding for UCLASS from $403 million to $135 million, the money keeps dollars flowing for the troubled F-35. Rather than being bound for glory, the UCLASS is likely headed for the museum of forgotten drones, joining its other successful—but overlooked—ancestors.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19306/a-short-history-of-the-navys-long-dislike-of-drones/
