-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hypersonic Weapons
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
I am quite fortunate, as a defense historian, to realize that I don't need the scrutiny of contemporary actors, history is filled with page after page of really smart and capable people saying "that won't happen for years and years...because..." But hey, I dig your enthusiasm as well. If Air Warriors is still around in 5 or 10 years we will see where we stand!
Check it out Grizz.... The thing is that you're not wrong - or course technological advances (to include automation) have and will continue to make their way into DoD. It's cool that you were there to witness early UAV Hellfire strikes. I think what Brett is trying to offer here is that your commentary suggests that we all ought to just throw up our hands and turn the place over to the robots - because technology. Stats, hours, sorties rates, yeah man, those are all impressive and it's cool that you work/study/know the stuff, but it doesn't change the the fundamental truth that fleshy pink bodies are going to be in cockpits for a LONG time. All cockpits? No. Most? Yes.
Somewhat related: it's worth remembering that of the multiple COAs presented to POTUS for Bin Laden raid - the one that was selected involved real-live people. There's something there to pay attention to.
But you're not acting as a historian, you're acting as a futurist in this thread. The written works of futurists are also filled with page after page of really smart people making predictions that never come to pass.
Expect continued scrutiny.
That's because you need humans in the cockpit for quick decision making in rotary missions - for the fixed wing just program the computer and let it go.
When will we get our first robot CAG???
^And why were they using rotary wing air in the first place?
Last edited:
Combat that for aircraft has been, with the exception of about 10 days total, in about as permissive an environment as possible for aircraft in war. Loss rates of fixed-winged aircraft to enemy action have been extremely low in the past 15 years of war, 25 if you count OSW, ONW and OAF. That is what I mean by a permissive operating environment for aircraft, we operate over the current combat zones completely at will and that has allowed UAV's to thrive as combat and support aircraft.
The moment a viable threat to aircraft makes an appearance almost every single UAV in the military's inventory could become vulnerable, depending on the threat system, and if it is a full spectrum of threats the survival of any UAV would be measured in minutes. That is a contested threat environment and virtually none of our current UAV's or near-future ones can survive for very long in that sort of environment much less be operationally feasible. Again, the OSCE along with the Georgians provide a cautionary tales as to the survival of UAV's in a combat zone more hostile to aircraft.
And that is exactly the problem, limitation and challenge faced by UAV's now and in the foreseeable future. The 'man in the loop' can be cut out very easily by everything from cutting the link to power failure killing the AC, not for the 'pilot' but for the computers or comms. There is a huge difference between having a man in the loop thousands of miles away and one literally at arms length, not only physically but also everything from technologically to logistically.
These aren't just parochial concerns of aviators worried about losing their jobs but professional officers who are very knowledgeable about aircraft and their capabilities along with their limitations. For every battleship or sail advocate in history you will find rigid airship advocates and folks who thought the grunt was obsolete with the advent of whatever the latest weapon (machine guns, gas, nukes, etc) has been for the past hundred or so years.
Last edited:
Both blockbusters which clearly shattered records at the theater. With Hollywood against me, how could I possibly have a future in the cockpit? I might as well quit right now.
In all seriousness, the bulk of your argument revolves around RPA/UAVs being used in a permissive environment for ISR and light attack. With their low operating cost and long on-station times, it was a transition that made sense, and occurred over a period of 10+ years, yet manned aircraft were (and still are) on station the entire time. There are other UAVs being developed which also make sense, and they'll likely do their jobs just fine. But how will they adapt to unexpected changes in AOR or intelligence gaps? My point is merely that the "all or nothing" replacement ideology has yet to bear fruit, even with missions that UAVs arguably can do better. I imagine an intellectual man such as you would also admit that UAVs have their drawbacks, (edit: see posts from others above.) I'm not a military strategist, but a mix of interoperable assets seems to be a strength in any theater of operations. One popular concept I've heard about uses one or more manned platforms to control a series of UAVs, improving resistance against theater jamming by signal proximity and misalignment. I do not dispute UAVs have earned a place in our arsenal, but manned systems are not the obsolete dinosaurs you would have them be.
But I'll embrace your 100% robotic future when it arrives. Hell, maybe then I'll have time to catch up on reports and evals, and inspire future generations of officers join up and help with the mountain of paperwork. Because that's certainly not being made any easier by all these wonderful technological advancements.
Last edited:
We agree. I heard this at tailhook, but it's literally the only place I've heard it- and I work in the flight test community.
Are you serious?
First of all, and perhaps I chose my words poorly, but I do not mean an all robotic force when I use the term "unmanned." Perhaps the correct term is RPA. Next, I am not an engineer, but I don't need to be Elon Musk to see that technology is advancing far faster than at any time in human history. Lastly, I absolutely agree that UAV's are very limited and my premise is not that we simply remove the pilot from the F-35, but that we field thousands of RPAs that will allow us to absorb losses faster than any enemy can knock them down. Faster and fewer is not the future, deadly and replaceable is.
In the end all I can say is that I sit at a desk. I am not an operational guy and I am not in the test or procurement fields. If you guys say "that won't be ready until 2020," I won't argue...you know better.
But when you say it will take 50 years to field a technology that exists today...well...all I can add is that up one level from my area I can ask the USAF and they tell me that RPA flight hours current exceed manned flight hours 7 to 1 and they don't expect that to change. Around the corner the Army tells me they are looking at unmanned systems to operate their future THAAD program. Keep going and the Navy tells me one of SecNavs primary goals is, and I quote, "Joint and Coalition forces will encounter contested and denied environments that preclude the use of manned assets for SEAD/DEAD, Strike, SUW, and AAW missions By physically moving the human out of the strike platform, these missions can be completed without endangering the human and gains in endurance, maneuverability, and lethality can be realized."
I did not write that, someone senior to all of us did.
In the end all I can say is that I sit at a desk. I am not an operational guy and I am not in the test or procurement fields. If you guys say "that won't be ready until 2020," I won't argue...you know better.
But when you say it will take 50 years to field a technology that exists today...well...all I can add is that up one level from my area I can ask the USAF and they tell me that RPA flight hours current exceed manned flight hours 7 to 1 and they don't expect that to change. Around the corner the Army tells me they are looking at unmanned systems to operate their future THAAD program. Keep going and the Navy tells me one of SecNavs primary goals is, and I quote, "Joint and Coalition forces will encounter contested and denied environments that preclude the use of manned assets for SEAD/DEAD, Strike, SUW, and AAW missions By physically moving the human out of the strike platform, these missions can be completed without endangering the human and gains in endurance, maneuverability, and lethality can be realized."
I did not write that, someone senior to all of us did.
How does a downing MAF get written in a UAV/RPV? Probably not as much……..that and they are mostly pretty new aircraft unless you are talking preds….ie they aren't broken yet……..
No argument that unmanned assets reduce the endangerment of humans. Lethality is an entirely different discussion. As a 2 year service SWO LTJG, SecNav doesn't speak from experience, regardless of how many quad slides he has slept through.
No argument that unmanned assets reduce the endangerment of humans. Lethality is an entirely different discussion. As a 2 year service SWO LTJG, SecNav doesn't speak from experience, regardless of how many quad slides he has slept through.