F-22
-
Perhaps by then all such combat would then be done in a similar manner such as the Mobile Dolls (MD) project like they showed in the anime 'Gundam W'.Originally posted by duotiga83:might as well all in unman mode, shiops, tanks....etc....all rely on driods n robots.......
And without the experiencing of actual massive battlefield loss of life, maybe future generals would stop thinking twice about launching a war next time.
-
Nothign is 100 percent good, but this new trend will certainly be better then what we are having now.Originally posted by duotiga83:u gain some , u will lose some. nothing beats actual situation awareness. With this tech, ppl tend to be 'lazy' n complacement. argue all u wan. even u say is gd, is not 100% gd.
I'm not sure "lazy and complacent" is any sort of an argument at all... it's like arguing magazine automatic rifles encourage soldiers to be lazy and complacent when it comes to fighting and they should all go back to muzzle-loading muskets. That's very faulty reasoning.
And it seems that you are either greatly underinformed, or misled on the concept of situtational awareness when you state "nothing beats actual situtation awareness". Sorry, putting a pilot in the cockpit or an infantryman on the ground is not equal to "actual" (whatever that means) situtational awareness... situtational awareness, defined, is the ability to comprehend the battlespace in three dimentions and have an accucrate picture of the location and abilities of all the players. If you think nothing can beat an infantry man or pilot when it comes to gathering situtational awareness, then you should go and join saddam's sensor blind army and fight stat and J-Stars equipped US forces, and later if you survive, try to claim that you have any sort of an idea what on earth is going on except that bombs were pummeling your butt left and right.
An infantryman or pilot or any human unit, on their own devices, have an extremely poor, if not virtually nonexistent ability to genrate proper SA. To argue that nothing can beat people, the source of much misinformation and fog of war in battle, when it comes to generating SA, esp a 21st century intergrated sensor network, is patently absurd. It's like arguing a naked mole rat can see better then an eagle. Argue all you want, you have been found faulty on all points.
Please, I urge people here to use their heads and do a little thinking before they simply post in response. It's an eyesore to see infantile, poorly thought out and ignoramus replies as quoted above. It's like their think cycle justs goes "all this must be wrong because it makes me feel bad if it's true, I must at least come up with something to respond so that I feel better." Pleazzeeeee.... -
Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs)
Do you think unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV) will replace manned fighter jets in the future?
For certain missions, I think the UCAV will replace manned aircraft. In particular, they are desirable for performing suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) missions such as destroying enemy surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites as these are some of the most dangerous missions flown by manned planes. UCAVs would also be useful in completing other types of air-to-ground attacks, especially those against heavily defended targets that would be risky to send pilots into. However, I don't see UCAVs performing air-to-air combat against other aircraft anytime soon because the computer control systems lack the decision-making skills and situational awareness of a human pilot.
Do you think unmanned aircraft are worth the effort?
In general, I think concept of an unmanned combat aircraft is an idea whose time has come. While much work still needs to be done, they are potentially much cheaper and in some respects more capable than manned aircraft. I see the UCAV as combining the low cost of a cruise missile with the reusability of an aircraft. With the way defense spending has dropped over the last decade, I think this may be the military's most cost-effective option in the future.
What are the pros and cons of UCAVs?
Pros include:
1) significantly lower cost compared to manned vehicles (although they can get pretty expensive depending on their sophistication); this should allow the military to buy UCAVs in much larger quantities than manned aircraft
2) expendability, you can afford to send them into heavily defended areas and risk losing some without endangering a pilot
3) more maneuverable than manned planes without the limitations of a human pilot
4) can be built stealthier than a manned plane since one of the least stealthy parts of the aircraft (the cockpit) is unnecessary
5) should be lighter, smaller, and easier to transport
Cons include:
1) limitations of their programming, may not be able to compensate for the changing battlefield environment (such as being able to attack a new more desirable target that appeared after the aircraft was launched or changing course to avoid enemy defenses)
2) because they are typically smaller than a manned plane, they cannot carry as large a payload (however, they do generally have a greater ratio of payload to total weight)
3) along the same lines, they may not be able to carry as much fuel and therefore may have a shorter range
4) typically tailored to specific kinds of missions and not as versatile as a modern multi-role fighter
5) if contact is lost with a ground station, the vehicle may be lost
What are the pros and cons of manned planes?
Pros include:
1) larger payload
2) better survivability features (including sturdier structure, more thorough set of countermeasures, better avionics suite)
3) a trained, thinking pilot is still far superior in understanding the battlefield and how to best utilize his assets to accomplish the mission than any computer
Cons include:
1) higher cost not only to buy the aircraft but to operate it, maintain it, and keep pilots trained and proficient
2) greater complexity
Would the success of air-to-air combat be in favor of a UCAV since it would be able to pull tighter turns than a human pilot could withstand?
This question is hard to answer because it depends so much on conditions. Air-to-air combat is often fought at ranges of 10 to 30 miles these days where maneuverability in a dogfight makes little difference. Probably the greatest advantage a UCAV would have over a manned vehicle is the greater difficulty in detecting what should be a much smaller, stealthier shape.
Are UCAVs proving successful so far?
It's still much too early to say as the only UCAV projects are still in very early stages. I believe only two such aircraft, the Boeing X-45 for the US Air Force and the Northrop Grumman X-47 for the US Navy, have even been built. The X-45 has only flown a couple of times and the X-47 not at all. These two vehicles are research craft designed to test technologies that will be necessary for future production UCAVs. The Predator might be considered a "converted" UCAV since it was designed for reconnaissance but some have been armed for combat. It's had good success in attacking targets as far as I've heard, but several have been shot down over Iraq and Afghanistan due to the vehicle's slow speed, low altitude, and lack of stealth.
What do the various branches of the military think about this kind of aircraft?
The Army, Navy, and Air Force have all shown interest in UCAVs but progress has been slow since most of the decision makers are former pilots themselves who dislike the idea of arming unmanned aircraft. I think all the services will adopt them for certain missions, but it will take time to overcome the bias against unmanned combat vehicles.
If you were a fighter pilot would you like the idea of unmanned fighters taking over your job? Why or why not?
I do know several fighter pilots, and their general opinion seems to be that UCAVs are great for going after heavily defended targets or SAM sites, but no machine can ever or should ever replace a human in any mission that requires complex decision making.
Do you think funding for UCAVs will be more or less than that spent to produce manned fighters?
In the near term, spending on UCAVs will likely be far less than on manned planes. So much funding has been dedicated to the F-22, F-18E/F, and Joint Strike Fighter that there is very little left for anything else for at least the next 10 or 15 years. I think we'll see some more experimental vehicles and maybe limited production in the meantime, but I doubt any UCAV will enter wide-spread service before 2015.
How advanced is the UCAV intelligence in terms of self-judgement?
That is the single biggest challenge remaining in the development of unmanned aircraft--the ability of a computer to "understand" the combat environment and "decide" how best to proceed. Current technology allows missiles to be programmed to attack a specific point or a human controller can override the programming to attack some other target that may be more desirable. There is quite a bit of work currently going on to develop smarter guidance systems that allow missiles to seek out targets on their own, prioritize them, and attack them with little or no input from a human controller. This too is in the early stages and won't be seen in production weapons for at least a decade.
Will a UCAV incorporate evading mechanisms such as countermeasures, flares, chaff, stealth, maneuverabilty, or jammers?
UCAVs will almost surely incorporate stealth characteristics since they are already being included on new generations of missiles and bombs and possibly greater maneuverability. Other countermeasures like chaff, flares, and jammers might be included depending on the type of mission or environment the vehicle is designed for, cost limitations, and the needs of the user.
Will all UCAVs be flown and controlled by ground crew or flown solely by the flight computer?
I would guess that any UCAV would almost surely be programmed to fly to a target area on its own, but there will likely be some kind of human interaction or complete control during the actual weapon launch.
What kind of weapons will UCAVs carry?
Probably some sort of next-generation guided weapon, the so-called "brilliant bombs." Based on how the weapons are carried (such as the size and number of bomb bays), a UCAV might be armed with a single 1,000 to 2,000 lb weapon or multiple smaller weapons in the 100 to 500 lb class. They may also carry next-generation submunitions capable of loitering over the battlefield under their own power allowing them to search for the best targets.
What would a UCAV do in case of a mechanical or electrical failure?
If the failure was significant enough to compromise the success of the mission (such as a loss of communication with the control station), the aircraft would most likely be programmed to abort and return to land at some pre-programmed location. This is already done on the Predator, X-45, and X-47.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 16 June 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
MS tech? this would take a veri long time, all MS series are power by nuclear generator/battery, i would say macross or patlabor tech mayb.......Originally posted by Spear:Perhaps by then all such combat would then be done in a similar manner such as the Mobile Dolls (MD) project like they showed in the anime 'Gundam W'. -
I doubt any of these accucrately reflect how the future's gonna turn out...
-
It is a valid point. The change from running and pulling triggers to simply pushing buttons is a very drastic one. From an evolutionary point of view, that is definitely a step backwards.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Nothign is 100 percent good, but this new trend will certainly be better then what we are having now.
I'm not sure "lazy and complacent" is any sort of an argument at all... it's like arguing magazine automatic rifles encourage soldiers to be lazy and complacent when it comes to fighting and they should all go back to muzzle-loading muskets. That's very faulty reasoning.
If you think that looking at screens and data will give you SA, I won't waste my time arguing with your point. Its like looking thru a straw and saying you know where everything is.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:And it seems that you are either greatly underinformed, or misled on the concept of situtational awareness when you state "nothing beats actual situtation awareness". Sorry, putting a pilot in the cockpit or an infantryman on the ground is not equal to "actual" (whatever that means) situtational awareness... situtational awareness, defined, is the ability to comprehend the battlespace in three dimentions and have an accucrate picture of the location and abilities of all the players. If you think nothing can beat an infantry man or pilot when it comes to gathering situtational awareness, then you should go and join saddam's sensor blind army and fight stat and J-Stars equipped US forces, and later if you survive, try to claim that you have any sort of an idea what on earth is going on except that bombs were pummeling your butt left and right.
You do not understand SA at all. SA is inherently a Human ability. Sensors play no part in SA. SA can mean Situational Awareness, it can also mean Spatial Awareness. These are things sensors cannot provide. Your arguements are not valid at all, just like how you stated that dogfighting is simply pointing in the right direction and shooting. I find it laughable.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:An infantryman or pilot or any human unit, on their own devices, have an extremely poor, if not virtually nonexistent ability to genrate proper SA. To argue that nothing can beat people, the source of much misinformation and fog of war in battle, when it comes to generating SA, esp a 21st century intergrated sensor network, is patently absurd. It's like arguing a naked mole rat can see better then an eagle. Argue all you want, you have been found faulty on all points.
This is a forum. You have to expect contradicting views from everyone, and welcome them. If you want to make a point without people commenting, go set up a website. A lot of us here have been here for a long time, enough experience to know what is trash and what is not. I do not view their replies as "poorly thought out" and "ignoramus". Please be more courteous in your words.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Please, I urge people here to use their heads and do a little thinking before they simply post in response. It's an eyesore to see infantile, poorly thought out and ignoramus replies as quoted above. It's like their think cycle justs goes "all this must be wrong because it makes me feel bad if it's true, I must at least come up with something to respond so that I feel better." Pleazzeeeee.... -
I believe that the use of UCAV will make the weakness of RSAF even greater
Somehow I miss the good old Hawker Hunter days. I KNOW those pilots were more ready for war than pilots of today.
Knowing that each flight maybe your last always turn-on 'something' in you. Also true for the A4S as well.
With F16 you have more control and take it for granted more or less.
Why was the F16 accident in Arizona caused by an American pilot? Are RSAF pilots more careful? Maybe they don't stretch the envelope or take any risk???
Lots of stories of Hawker Hunters in RSAF......engine flameouts in Clark.....pilot stalled and crashing just at the end of runways......flying low and sucking in coconuts.......
WHY DON'T THE RSAF FLY A HAWKER HUNTER ONCE IN A WHILE?
I really miss the beautiful sight and sound of the best fighter in the RSAF - Hawker Hunter! -
to EXCO:
You obviously lack the undesanding of the new wave of sensor technology and 21st century total force intergration which will reporesent a revolutionary leap in the way battlespace is percieved.
SA will no longer, in this new environment, be a human aspect. You are answering my points, which are made from the prespective of the new, from that of the old. It is as irrevelant as arguing that a M-16 is inherently inferior to a katana because it cannot be used to slash. Contray to what you think, the new era of sensor technology will not be presented in a straw-point of view as you ignoramously suggested, but instead offer capabilities that will make the full spatial SA perception of battlespace without physical human presense possible. Apparently you were thinking blips on screen, sorry, but I believe such limited form of sensor preception and information digesting is passe. Read about. Such technology or course, is still currently maturing, but it's progress is inevitible.
If you had been bothering to read around in the proposed revolution in battlespace preception, you would realize that the technologies and points I mentioned are just a rehash on the way technology is heading.
Note that the supposed cons of UCAVs like less SA, lower payload and range are not intractable. SA can be improved over current models (which are just in their infancy of reconizing their potential) with 21st once century sensor intergration, and probably better that of man in cockpit staring at instruments. And lower payload and range are more of the way the UCAVs are currently designed, I'm sure that any fool company can easily design a UCAV that would carry the payload and endurance of an F-15E, and not to mention that a UCAV will always carry more payload and fuel ratio to match.
The manned aircraft, however, has had its day. Problems like physical human limits and aircrew risk are intractable and cannot be solved, only managed with increasing costs to the system just to make sure the dumb thing arrives and brings munitions to the enemy.
At the end of the day, it makes little sense to put a man you spent millions of dollars to train and conditions, put him in an expensive platform (30 percent of which weight is devoted to keeping him alive) that is greatly limited by his own limits, and drive him into utter danger where his lifespan is measured in split seconds. And expect him not only to survive, but to still be aware of what on earth is going on despite all the stress and complete his mission. Sure, fighter pilots are a special breed to do all this, but these kinds of sacrifices will become redundant, if not sheer wasteful if they contuine in the light of emerging technology.
If UCAV technology had no greater potential then manned aircraft, despite having less funding currently, the US dod would not have moved to restrict the profiliation of such technology to other countries by now. -
Originally posted by buzz:
Sorry, you apparently do not know the line between taking calculated risks and being cowboy stupid. I believe our pilots are aggressive, smart and at the same time, know how to avoid taking unnecessary risks. Can't say the same for the americans. That's why we always ace them at turkey shoots.
[b] I believe that the use of UCAV will make the weakness of RSAF even greater
Somehow I miss the good old Hawker Hunter days. I KNOW those pilots were more ready for war than pilots of today.
Knowing that each flight maybe your last always turn-on 'something' in you. Also true for the A4S as well.
With F16 you have more control and take it for granted more or less.
Why was the F16 accident in Arizona caused by an American pilot? Are RSAF pilots more careful? Maybe they don't stretch the envelope or take any risk???
Lots of stories of Hawker Hunters in RSAF......engine flameouts in Clark.....pilot stalled and crashing just at the end of runways......flying low and sucking in coconuts.......
WHY DON'T THE RSAF FLY A HAWKER HUNTER ONCE IN A WHILE?
I really miss the beautiful sight and sound of the best fighter in the RSAF - Hawker Hunter!
[/b]
What we need are smart pilots who know how to defeat the enemy and still return home, not some jokers who gung ho dive into flack and nonsense in some lame attempt to show that they are willing to take risks in an airforce that cannot afford to take much attrition at all. -
Sorry. I stand by what I say.
You are badly deluded by watching too much Star Wars and Starship Troopers. The sensors are in place, the ways of projecting them efficiently has not. Unless all those data can be represented accurately in a 3D manner, it does not help in increasing SA. Such display technology does not exist, and we are talking about items which can withstand the rigours of military conditions, not home entertainment stuff. Maybe you should implement your idea of SA after holographic display technology is available.
I stress that SA is a *Human* ability. Sensors may enhance SA, but they cannot generate SA. You cannot replicate the subtle changes, the feelings of being in a fight thru sensors, and it must be immediate. The datalink for such a system does not exist as well, and it will be far off in the future.
I believe fighter pilots will be very upset by your remarks. To say that unmanned UCAVs can win a Human pilot by having better SA in a dogfight it simply unbelievable. -
I concur. The last thing we need are mavericks doing unwarranted stunts which endanger the lives of not only himself, but those on the ground as well.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What we need are smart pilots who know how to defeat the enemy and still return home, not some jokers who gung ho dive into flack and nonsense in some lame attempt to show that they are willing to take risks in an airforce that cannot afford to take much attrition at all. -
It appears you are unable to fully grasp the implications on battlespace paradigms emerging technologies have and have sadly chosen to instead to hide behind infantile notions and accuse all those who are familiar with the potential of such technologies as people who watch too sci-fi. I suggest you go pick up a few reads of popular mechnics, and if some of the stuff seems to already push the limits of your paradigm, that's just the surface.Originally posted by EXCO:Sorry. I stand by what I say.
You are badly deluded by watching too much Star Wars and Starship Troopers. The sensors are in place, the ways of projecting them efficiently has not. Unless all those data can be represented accurately in a 3D manner, it does not help in increasing SA. Such display technology does not exist, and we are talking about items which can withstand the rigours of military conditions, not home entertainment stuff. Maybe you should implement your idea of SA after holographic display technology is available.
I stress that SA is a *Human* ability. Sensors may enhance SA, but they cannot generate SA. You cannot replicate the subtle changes, the feelings of being in a fight thru sensors, and it must be immediate. The datalink for such a system does not exist as well, and it will be far off in the future.
I believe fighter pilots will be very upset by your remarks. To say that unmanned UCAVs can win a Human pilot by having better SA in a dogfight it simply unbelievable.
Firstly, I do not view star wars or starship troopers as a realistic potrayal of future technology, besides, they represent human-based battlespace paridigms, which is quite off the mark what we're currently moving towards. The current trend for the future is moving towards is quite different from what virtuall all si-fi genra's potray, which is expected, for most of them are not VERY imaginative and a mere extension of what we have today. What however emerging technologies like sensor intergration and advanced artifical intelligence promise are improvements that are not evolutionary (ie. faster plane or sharper sword) but revolutionary (firearm over the melee weapon).
I doubt being pummeled by 9 gees ina dogfight or flying through the air in heavy ack ack and constant sam warnings and having to dodge erratically and pump out chaff and flares manually while watching your butt 24/7 contributes to SA. If anything, the feeling of combat flight is something that has to be eliminated for increased SA, not something that has to be present for a soldier to fight.
If your point of "subtle" (whatever nonsense that is) feelings of flight contributes to SA, that's like saying a soldier can fight at the most effective if hundreds of rounds of machine gun fire, arty and the shouts and confusion of warfare is thrown at him for him to digest and fight. If what you say is even vagely true, the US might as well abandon all their Land Warrior systems whoes very puropse is to increase SA not by enhancing human senses, but by replacing them with sensor technology, with the human sense being the last and final line of SA gathering, and send their troops in bare. Human preception is greatly limited and our senses can only glimspe a mere 10 percent of the electromagnetic spectrum and much less the rest of our senses. To say human senses will be the basis on which we build our SA technology or that of the future which is already emerging is not only false. It's like saying we have a jet aircraft that is co-powered by a rubber band, sorry, but I think we know who is doing most of the work.
And contray to waht you think, the ability to handle such information already exists thanks to the decentralized mutinode information network which is being implemented by the americans. What will happen is that you no longer need to physically sense the enemy with your human senses (which are hardly subtle) but instead rely on information that is coming in from a sensor network that is arrayed in a unified display (hardly the liar straw-view your suggested) that shows the battlespace in a easily comprehensible spaital display.
And if you have a UCAV operator or even AI that's using this sensor network versus a pilot struggling to keep concious pulling gees against a UCAV, I think it's obvious who has the upperhand, and that's not even regarding the inherent superior preformance of the UCAV.
Lastly, the point that fighter pilots would be upset is moot. This is called change. If you don't change, you die. Already the USAF has experimented with AI target drone aircraft that have survived 50 aggressor engagements against F-15 fighters, and that's just relying on primitive sensors which will be nothing like that. If you still haven't believed the promise of emerging technology, believe it now.
Fighters pilots are going the way of the dinosaurs, as I said, while the positions may be lofty and seen in high esteem, in actual sense, soon they will become irrevelant. And very soon as well, we're talking in a matter of decades. Why? Because human vanity will resist, but be overwritten in the drive to win, and that's not to have the best pilots and such nonsense, but the smarter way to fight the war. And the way things are going, it's snowballing to be apparent that the UCAV is going to be a vastly smarter way to fight the war. The manned combat aircraft can persist for a while more on it's hefty traditions and such, but when it comes to crunch time, and the advantages of UCAV technology becomes obvious, they'll go, and go fast. Like polish horse calvary.
The time when mech warfare was first introduced, it was viewed with much dislain because it threatened traditional positions in the military. But once things got started and technology improved, we hardly see horses being used in battle anymore. And this is what is going to happen to the current "horse" the fighter pilot. You can't stop it any more then you can stop rain from falling to the ground, and to say that it's far off in the future is deluding as well, esp when such technology has already been set and is already emerging, and not conceptual. The time is now. -
so......in short u r implying to retire the pilots/co-pilots/wso's, driver..etc.... of the organizations(not just rsaf, mindef, USAF, USN, USArmy...etc) also..........so as to promote the unman tech which is still veri fresh to implement now...........that tech make use of less ppl and more gadgets implements to analyse the environment........well......let us wait for all unamn vehiclels to retire the pilots, driver, skipper of all organizations and IF got ny 'war' that can make use of full Unman tech.........
in short: u gain some, u lose some.........u can't have both side of the things u wanted in technologies...... -
You words do not suggest change. It is simply derogatory towards the abilities of pilots and Humans. SA is about being there and developing the sense of urgency and spatial awareness. If you are talking about sitting in front of a screen, that is no SA at all. I feel there is no basis to our debate as you do not understand what is "SA" at all, you are simply taking the word at face value.
-
To say that my words do not imply change is to look at an orange and say it is not orange.
You have not addressed the points I have raised, but instead aimed for unproductive stonewalling towards the revolutionary merits of these technologies and instead chosen for sweeping statements apparently based on emotion which are hard to quantify, let alone justify.
And once again, I must explain to you that SA as we know it is in for a revolution, and that's not a personal face value take on the term, but straight out of the horses' mouth of those dudes in american who are bringing such technology into futition. Forget everything you learned about SA, SA is a concept, not something that always need to be packaged with mark 1 eyeball. And that's what they're doing now. So please think twice before you accuse me of coming up with my own defination.
Frankly, the actual ability of humans in war in quite irrevelant if you want to look at it terms of vanity. What matters is not the pilot who can wistand the most gees and take the most risks, or those who will experience the combat the most. What matters is the ability to get the munitions to the target as cheaply and as effectively and with minimal risk to oneself as possible. You can have the best ubersodat pilot but it's no point when a UCAV system is far superior. This is about fighting smart, not fighting with all the traditional notions of fighter pilot glamour and glitz. Which is irrevelant once the bomb's fly.
The war of the future will be more of a geek's war then that of the meat on the frontline, and it such technologies bring home the bacon better then the meat on the frontline which is happening to be the case, nothing we can argue for the supposed humanistic values of biologics in a increasingly technological battlespace is going to help. They're going to go.
Frankly you should wake up and smell the roses of this new era rather then sit in your well and accuse people who tout this revolution in warfare as people who have had an overdose of si-fi. You will have to renew your paradigm to see both sides of the picture if not in a future conflict involving the new and the opld pardigm (carriers vs battleship) you might get the short end of the stick. And singapore cannot afford that, to be steeped in vanity and tradition when it comes to defence. Maybe malaysia can, but we're gonna need every single edge and that means we have to quickly reconize, and exploit technology. -
But you do have to admit that as much promise as UCAV shows right now a pilot sitting in a C&C van can never have the same situational awareness as a pilot whose butt is on the line.After all with the UCAV it becomes a game.....and we all know in a game as much as you play to win you do not play it like your life depends on it!(geeks/nerds nowithstanding).And so far apart from using a wire there is no way that the signal cannot be jammed by the enemy.....for not i think we should just stick to using unmanned planes as recon and stirkers of high risk targets!
-
What you said made little sense. The entire point of UCAV and such unmanned technology is to get the dudes out of the line of fire, and that's what matters.
If I were to follow your logic, I would conclude that equipping troops with good weapons and body armor encourages them to be slack when they fight, so I should make them go in with arcadic weapons and no protection except their own hide so that when their butt is on the line, they fight better. Nonsense.
It is the very reason that their lives are on the line, that's why they can't hit the target, not because their are at the risk of being killed, they can! Wheverever did you get that reasoning! Pls use brain, hello. Witness vietnam when US pilots would dump bombs at the sight of a mig. I'm sure they're hitting their targets... Human nature will cause them to heck care hitting the targets, drop their bombs and get out when they can, not encourage them to carry out their mission sucessfully! When your butt is on the line, you aim for the minimum requirements to get out, and if that's dumping bombs and missing everything or not getting anywhere close, that's what we'll do!
Putting pilots (which themselves cost more then a UCAV to train and are ahrder to replace) in the cockpit to send on some mission that a UCAV can do with less risk and greater effectiveness on some justification holding their life hostage so that they will fly their best lacks logic. It's like that guy who said that we should dump our falcons and go back to hunters because operating them is far more dangerous! No! That's crazy, that's nuts in war. You dun take unnecessary risks like that, aircrew, unlike UCAVs, cannot be easily replaced, and even if you do, there is going to be an attrition in general quality of aircrew! It's sucide! UCAV attrition on the other hand, can be sustained and is cheaper and easier to manage.
Tell me which is a greater vulnerability, losing aircrew which is hard to replace because you put their butt on the line to knock out some vietcong on the ground or losing a UCAV to jamming? (A vulnerabilty that is now being managed by making the UCAV automous in the event of signal loss where it will complete it last orders and return home)
When you can program a UCAV to dodge enemy air defences better then a pilot can (which they already did), and penetrate deeper into enemy airspace (which they already can) and loiter tireless and work 24/7 without tiring (which they can), tell me which is a superior system.
The fighter pilot, to put it lightly, is gonna get the boot once UCAV technology is prefected and. There's just no reason for them anymore, unless you are in the habit of throwing away lives and cash needlessly.
I am appaled by the lack of proper thought in your line of reasoning. -
[
You have a tendency to punctuate with childish insults. I see no clear logic in your statements neither, just plain stubbornness.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Said and done, I have never stated that any UCAV would be unfailable. But tireless AI relying on electronic sensors would probably be far more reliable then battle weary pilots who have to digest sensor output info who drop on friendly troops.
To scoff at the UCAV as not being able to be trusted with weapons is like scoffing at cruise missiles for carrying their warheads. As a matter of fact, if anything, these things are probably far more reliable and safer then meat in airframe airborne combat units. A UCAV is after all, basivally an extremely smart reusable cruise missile, be it human controled or not.
What is apparent here however, is that your fragile line of reasoning cannot be trusted.
You also do not answer to my points, i do not know whether it is a lack of ability to comprehend or you just cannot be bothered about others opinions but only care about yours. I will just restate my points in simple terms, the range and security of comms, the vulnerabilty and security of control centers and the current reliability and ability of technology your points on the other hand lies in imagination and techno optimism.
yes, UAVs will be useful and in a lot of scenario outperform manned planes. But that is still too far in the future. But in combat roles those roles will be limited to simple strike missions. other missions will remain too complicated for its present state of tech -
Your lack of understanding of the true implications of my points have led you again to sweeping statements, unproductive stonewalling and of course, the all important asccusation that I am engaging in sturbomess. Sadly, there is little solution in response but to keep reiteriating the facts and truth into a form you can better understand.
However, I have noticed you finally begin to see some logic, but you have not seen the paridigm shift.
These are points I understand completely. But what I am trying to point out to you, and is something you are apparently unwilling to see is that in the near future (within twenty years), UCAVs are going to take the roles I have suggested, well, actually not me, I am just rehasing the points the people who came up with such concepts did.
In short, the F-22 will probably be the one of the last generations, if not the last of manned air combat aircraft. If you see it this way, you can see how near the end of the line is.
The difference is, you think that UCAV replacement of pilots is a chancy thing, but for me, it is unavoidable.
But then again, you lack the proper information ammunition to engage in this debate, as most of the people here have. Go and read up about emergent technologies, grasp the new paridigm, before going on to debate from your old point of view, which is what you are doing now.
The difference between me and you is that I see both sides of the picture, while you appear to have only a hazy view of the unmanned side.
I am like a person trying to explain the merits of an M-16 when to a person who only knows katanas, which is you. Unless you are completely aware of how the M-16 will change the way you fight. If not, even if you had the M-16, you would view it, and use it like a katana!
In short, if we transpose this debate over to the M-16 vs Katana, your arguments would go:
"There is no subsitute in warfare for the slashing of the katana."
"The M-16 cannot slash like the katana."
"We can only use it to kill targets far away, most other things we rely on the katana."
"There is no subsitute for actually using your arms to move the weapon to slash, you can't kill just by aiming down a straw-eye view of the sight and squeezing the trigger."
"What you say about the M-16 over the katana insults us sumurai and our abilities, we are upset."
"The M-16 can never replace us when it come to war."
"Do you trust your own hands, or some chemical charge in that bullet?"
"Unlike a katana, the M-16 will jam and fail and miss, you are being optimistic by claiming that these problems can ever be overcome in the near future and that these things will become more then a battlefield noveity."
"To pull a trigger over slashing a sword with martial arts? That's a devolution in warfare, if you ask me." -
Hello, wherever have you been. These will be vulnerabilities, but you are suggesting that they will somehow be greater vulnerabilities then hurling an irreplacable multi-million dollar pilot in a complex but limited airframe into battle? Without even using much imagination, I'm sure even you could come up with ways to manage such vulnerabilities, and better brains at DoD are already doing it.Originally posted by redrooster79:[
I will just restate my points in simple terms, the range and security of comms, the vulnerabilty and security of control centers and the current reliability and ability of technology your points on the other hand lies in imagination and techno optimism.
As for technology, nothing works 100 percent, but even with current technology, UCAVs are already very reliable, and that's when they only recieve 1/25 of the funding they give to ATF programs which ocassionally crash and kill their pilots as well. And there are so far no intratable problems with UCAVs that cannot be resolved without a bit of work. UCAVs are not waiting for a technical solution to make them work, they already work and are getting better.
[/quote]UAVs will be useful and in a lot of scenario outperform manned planes. But that is still too far in the future. But in combat roles those roles will be limited to simple strike missions. other missions will remain too complicated for its present state of tech [/quote]
Hello, fifteen or twenty years into the future is hardly too far, that's the timeframe DoD has given for UCAV tech to fully mature. I'm hardly suggesting today UCAVs will kill off manned aircraft, but I'm saying, and simply saying that, soon enough, they will. And soon enough for us to see within our livetimes. And it will reach a stage that manned aircraft, like the horse calvary verus tank, will be an oddity of future warfare. Not warfare in the distant future, but we're talking some early mid 21st century conflict. -
In short, the bottom line is that the replacement of manned aircraft by UCAVs is not longer a thing of the imagination that might or might not happen, it is a real possibility that given current trends, will be eventually happen. And it will happen irregardless of all the supposed points you have raised in objections as it just rolls over.
You are seeing the UCAVs for what they are today, already military planners are seeing for what they can be tomorrow. And the potential is not even barely realized.
For the manned aircraft, it has had it's day. It's aint gonna get too much better. -
Nice to see that the heat of debate remains the same level.
It has been said that the future of UCAV is a convergence of three different developments that will make the UCAV a reality.
Firstly, the development of modern aircrafts which allow a greater degree of autonomous flight with "little" pilot interventions, with "the computers taking over the functions of targetting and weapons delivery" at the precise moment.
Secondly, new weapon platforms such as the Cruise Missiles that is becoming more sophisticated, lethal, and even more autonomous from launch, to flight and final cognitive "aimpoint selection".
Thirdly, Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) are being built with "ever higher performance levels as new technology is incorporated into their design".
The UCAV is a result of these three developments, and can only produce the logical outcome as described by SingaporeTyrannosaur.
This outcome is only logical with the combat aircraft becoming ever higher in cost - (the final acquisition price of the JSF35 will probably be four times the price of even the F15); and the Pilot training becomes as costly, while the weapons that destroy him and his aircraft becomes more lethal at a conversely lower price.
The following sites may interest all in this debate, and will give an insight into the course that is being chartered by the US Department of Defense, the USAF and the USN air wing.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/980625-ucav.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-39.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/bfrptpa4/index.htm -
The debate that has ensued so far seems to visualize the pilot of the future UCAV as being on the ground; very much similar to the current practise of operating the UAV even on a "Global" basis.
This technology is much suited for the current role of the UAV being used as an "Eye in the Sky".
However, the future UCAV is being developed as an UCAV Fighter.
The future UCAV has been envisaged with the Pilot being airborne, and a single pilot will "command and control" an entire squadron of UCAV.
This will become an immediate "force multiplier" in an air-to-air combat role.
The UCAV will no longer be a simple delivery platform with discerning "artificial intelligence" to destroy an intended target.
It is being developed with "artificial intelligence" to "identify friend from foe", and meet head on into a dogfight; with the single pilot being either remotely airborne in a combat aircraft of his own, or in an AWAC.
With new air combat doctrines being developed around such technologies, it will not be too far fetched that any aerial combat between the USAF and the numerically superior Chinese Air Force (5 to 1 advantage in numbers to the Chinese), the outcome in favor of the USAF will be obvious when the numbers are leveled off with the aid of UCAVs.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-282.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ucav-sol.html
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap13/v3c13-1.htm -
i have read the previous posts on the flaws in the chips... and other things...
i would just like to ask 3 things...
1)what is the ratio of duration to make a pilot to that of making a machine?
2)2 UCAVs for one human plane... during dogfights who wins?
3)BVR engagement... guess who is smaller (harder to detect)?
???bye pilots???