Dyke Weatherington, the deputy director of the Pentagon’s unmanned aircraft systems task force, had some curious comments for Aviation Week & Space Technology in the last issue. Before beating on him a bit, I should state that I appreciate all that he has done over the past several years to advance unmanned aviation in the US Armed Forces. Now, on to the beating. In Amy Butler’s article on how the “high number of MQ-9 mishaps prompts worries at the Pentagon,” Dyke says
We don’t have any system today that fulfills current requirements, let alone the future requirements... We have pretty significant limitations. Predator was utilized by the Air Force because that was what was available. It was not what they wanted... it was what they got.
If I worked at General Atomics, I’d possibly take umbrage at that. Not what they wanted? As Edna Mode once said, “yet here we are.”
It is not that Predator, the Sky Warrior, or even the Reaper are without limitations. Rather, it’s the statement’s revisionism and presumptive reaching. The USAF effectively got dragged kicking and screaming into the reconnaissance drone business in the early 1990s. Today, the USAF and Army Aviation aren’t exactly settling because that product line is all that is available. There are plenty of options for buyers in drone aircraft; General Atomics is leading the market by consistently innovating and building aircraft ahead of its customers’ needs.
David Chu’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committee two weeks ago is rather telling here. DoD Buzz entitled its article "Fix Requirements, You Fix Costs"; Chu went as far as to say that the word requirement needs to be removed from the lexicon—objective would much better describe what military services are trying to attain. More pointedly, recasting system performance preferences as objectives would encourage officialdom to consider more seriously the reasonable tradeoffs that should be made in weapons acquisition. As that classic old school conservative Edmund Burke put it, “those things which are not practicable are not desirable.”
Amazing! Predator + Hellfire is a "here is how to do it right" example taught in Acquisition classes. Gen Jumper, the USAF CoS, said "I like it, make it happen - here's $3 milion" - and it did. Using in-service components, Hellfire capability was implemented in record time and under budget.
In the AW&ST article, Predator / Reaper losses during landing were highlighted. Small wonder - landing is the most demanding and critical phase of flight. General Atomics has auto-land capability available for the Army Warrior - why hasn't the AF added it to their birds??
Control latency seems to be built in to the equation when trying to control an air vehicle from half a world away. Why not control them from in-theater?
They may not be "perfect" - every system has limitations. You learn to live with them and compensate for them. These platforms have shown remarkable adaptabiity to doing things not originally envisioned in their original "requirements". Requiremetns that "somebody" signed off - right?
An 80% solution right now is better than a 100% solution in the future.
Posted by: R.J Clarke | 27 May 2009 at 12:04