Keeping pilots in cockpits

[xmid]

I was wondering with all of the talk of pilots being a "dieing breed" and all military aviation going to UAV's, I wonder if there will be a back lash on this logic in the future. In todays battlefield we can call in cruise missles or air strikes, but many times send in special forces like the SEALs to take out key targets. I have heard the logic behind this as being the value of having "eyeballs on the target" or a human decision maker there. The argument of "well, we should keep our men out of harms way" is not an issue with SEALs the job is understood to be incredibly dangerous. Why is military aviation not looked on in the same way? Is the public truly naive enough to believe that our aviators are not as much of a warrior as the SEALs? I can't see how someone sitting in a trailer flying a drone will be able to get the same job done with the situational awareness of a pilot on the scene. What if the enemy starts using unmanned aircraft? If there is no human life in the equation then it kind of takes away from the point doesnt it? Are we going to hire 12 year old video game junkies to sit in trailers and "fight" our "wars" for us? I wonder if there will be a backlash with the need for pilots when the realities of an unmanned warplane come to focus. Any opinions on this? Obviously everyone here that is a pilot is going to want to stay in the cockpit, but from a tactical standpoint I dont see how we can possibly do away with pilots in the future. Maybe I have to much time on my hands...

 

[HeyJoe]

I was wondering with all of the talk of pilots being a "dieing breed" and all military aviation going to UAV's, I wonder if there will be a back lash on this logic in the future. In todays battlefield we can call in cruise missles or air strikes, but many times send in special forces like the SEALs to take out key targets. I have heard the logic behind this as being the value of having "eyeballs on the target" or a human decision maker there. The argument of "well, we should keep our men out of harms way" is not an issue with SEALs the job is understood to be incredibly dangerous. Why is military aviation not looked on in the same way? Is the public truly naive enough to believe that our aviators are not as much of a warrior as the SEALs? I can't see how someone sitting in a trailer flying a drone will be able to get the same job done with the situational awareness of a pilot on the scene. What if the enemy starts using unmanned aircraft? If there is no human life in the equation then it kind of takes away from the point doesnt it? Are we going to hire 12 year old video game junkies to sit in trailers and "fight" our "wars" for us? I wonder if there will be a backlash with the need for pilots when the realities of an unmanned warplane come to focus. Any opinions on this? Obviously everyone here that is a pilot is going to want to stay in the cockpit, but from a tactical standpoint I dont see how we can possibly do away with pilots in the future. Maybe I have to much time on my hands...

It won't happen overnight and likely will be a mix of UAVs providing persistent ISR with Special Ops folks calling the shots with all types of aircraft in support.

SEALs can do direct action, but the more likely CONOPS is Special Ops personnel relying on aviation for support and to bring in the heavy iron. There is more interaction between Special Ops types on the ground (and flying in Naval Aviation platforms like P-3 AIP assets), TACAIR and UAVs than ever before. Manned cockpits are a long way off from disappearing and UAVs make sense for some roles that manned aviation cannot accomplish with same efficiency.

 

[KBayDog]

Is the public truly naive enough to believe that our aviators are not as much of a warrior as the SEALs?

Who said this?

 

[A4sForever]

Who said this?

Hollywood ....

 

[RivrGuide]

I think Uav's are the only way America will be able to maintain its superiority when some other, larger countries really start spending on air forces...
Imagine though if several UAV's could be controlled by a pilot/crew on target ..kind of like playing SOCOM or splinter cell..

 

[Brett327]

I think Uav's are the only way America will be able to maintain its superiority when some other, larger countries really start spending on air forces...

How so? Please explain with specifics.

Brett

 

[HH-60H]

I think Uav's are the only way America will be able to maintain its superiority when some other, larger countries really start spending on air forces..

When you say larger, what do you mean? Just area or population, surely not economy. We out spent one other "larger" country, and broke it.

 

[RivrGuide]

When you say larger, what do you mean? Just area or population, surely not economy. We out spent one other "larger" country, and broke it.

True... and we are still paying off that excessive trillions figure.

In my limited and somewhat skeptical view, America became the powerhouse it did because of the mobilization during the first half of last century to industrialize, and produce more, better war machines than anyone else. In retrospect, our industrial output was unlimited compared to the competition.

Now, as a country we have lost much of that mfg. capacity to up and coming nations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia (the new one) to name a few.) We may still spend more, way more than they do for defense, but they also get more bang for their buck once they no longer have to buy from us.

The last figure I can recall was an annual defense US expenditure of $450+ Billion (not to include operating expenses for Iraq and Agstan), with #2 being China in the neighborhood of $65 Billion/ year. My brother, a former SF Marine made the excellent point that twenty dollars in parts of Asia buys a lot more of everything than it does at home.

Also, the population has to be accounted for. While we have technical superiority for the forseeable future, spies, outsourcing, our arms race with ourself, etc are making that advantage diminish faster than it would otherwise, and once the other guys catch up, if they do.., then they will be able to field a much bigger team than we can.

Kind of like football, once your in the same league, the smaller schools have to be innovative if they want to keep a winning record in the face of the big guys. China has 1.3 billion population, India 1.1 billion, the list goes on, with USA in around 0.3 billion.

So....

It would make sense for us to have some serious backup going into a firefight.

A good metaphor, for you scifi channel freaks out there is Seaquest DSV. The Sub show with roy schieder? anyone, anyone?
It had those drones called WHSKRS that surrounded it like a mini posse. If an aircrew could manage a squadron of drones (or less) it would be one way to make up for the disparity in numbers.

At least, that is one of a hundred things DARPA could have up their sleeve with the UAV's,
I wouldn't put any crazy idea past those guys.

 

[Brett327]

The Sub show with roy schieder? anyone, anyone?
It had those drones called WHSKRS that surrounded it like a mini posse. If an aircrew could manage a squadron of drones (or less) it would be one way to make up for the disparity in numbers.

I don't even know where to start with this. My advice to you - start drinking heavily. Upon recovery, start reading about history and economics instead of watching the Sci Fi channel. Our national debt has very little to do with our military expenditures, as it typically accounts for just 4-6 percent of our GNP. Start learning to think in terms of percentage of GNP in lieu of raw dollars spent. You can't make a worthwhile cross country comparison without that perspective. Everything else you said should be flushed right down the toilet.

Back to your original premise, how is it that UAVs are going to provide us with this nebulous "superiority" that you elude to? What's our force structure compared to some of these nefarious "big countries?" Are there any current or future intentions for UAVs to provide any kind of counter air capabilities? What's the plan there, Capt Kirk?

Brett

 

[Schnugg]

I was wondering with all of the talk of pilots being a "dieing breed"...

What talk exactly?

 

[Coota0]

If an aircrew could manage a squadron of drones (or less) it would be one way to make up for the disparity in numbers.

Somebody's been reading Dale Brown.

 

[RivrGuide]

Everything else you said should be flushed right down the toilet.:sleep_125

Not sure why you care, if you don't like what I said, great, come up with your own thoughts and ideas and put them out there.
I do read economics, don't even have a functioning TV, and as far as history goes, it tends to be the fanatical naysayers that turn out to be dead wrong in the end.
Darpa has done some cool stuff, and its their job to speed development of tech so far ahead of our time that they usually get laughed at.
For instance, a car that can drive itself across mountains and desert? A worldwide network of computers linked to become a giant supercomputer? Amphetamines for pilots, etc, etc,
In 100 years, I wouldn't be surprised if something like what I just described is completely functional.

 

[East]

Unmanned Transportation

IMHO, the only unmanned transportation will be the guided trains at airport terminals and whatsoever, and even that is highly questioned nowadays by the general public. I am sure that will change over the years, but no one will ever board an aeroplane without flightdeckcrew.

 

[Shakey]

Us pilots have something a UAV/computer will never have: fighting spirit.

 

[bunk22]

Us pilots have something a UAV/computer will never have: fighting spirit.

Whoa tough guy......have to be a pilot first and a fighter pilot at that. I do like your motivation though:

Biography:
I am a freshman at ERAU and a 4/C MIDN. I am going to fly Super Hornets for the US Navy, and probably shoot down some MiGs/Sukhois some day...

Go get em Tiger!! :jump_125: Midn 4/c Shakey!!!