Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pilots Surrender to UAVs
Strategy Page ^ | 1/17/06

Posted on 01/17/2006 6:57:49 AM PST by pabianice

WARPLANES: Pilots Surrender to UAVs

January 17, 2006: The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to make the next generation heavy bomber an unmanned aircraft. The Department of Defense also wants the new aircraft in service by the end of the next decade, some twenty years ahead of schedule. At the same time, the current combat UAV program (J-UCAS, run by the air force and navy) is to be changed as well. The current X45 project will be split up, with the air force and navy allowed to develop a shorter range combat aircraft to suit their particular needs. These will be bombers, with some air-to-air capabilities. The X45 was meant mainly for those really dangerous bombing missions, early on, when enemy air defenses have to be destroyed. But the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the J-UCAS developers were coming up with an aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator (in finding, and attacking, targets) and Global Hawk (in finding stuff after flying half way around the world by itself.)

The X45 program started out, two years ago, as a DARPA research project. But last Fall, it was taken from DARPA and given to the air force, with orders to move as quickly as possible. At that time, the plan was to build the X45C version and get it through all the tests needed to certify it for combat. At the time, it was thought another four years would be needed to do that. Now, no one is sure it will take that long.

The X45A has passed tests with formation flying, and dropping a JDAM (actually the new 250 pound SDB version). The X45C will carry eight SDB (250 pound small diameter bombs), or up to 4500 pounds of other JDAMs. The X45A has already shown it can fly in formation and refuel in the air. The X45C will weigh in at about 19 tons, have a 2.2 ton payload and be 39 feet long (with a 49 foot wingspan.) The X-45A, built for development only, is 27 feet long, has a wingspan of 34 feet and has a payload of 1.2 tons. The X-45C will be able to hit targets 2,300 kilometers away and be used for bombing and reconnaissance missions. Each X-45C will probably cost about $30 million, depending on how extensive, and expensive, its electronic equipment will be.

The one topic no one wants to touch at the moment is air-to-air. This appears to be the last job left for pilots of combat aircraft. The geeks believe they have this one licked, and are giving the pilot generals the, "bring it on" look. The generals are not keen to test their manned aircraft against a UAV, but this will change the minute another country, like China or Russia, demonstrates that they are seriously moving in that direction.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alteredtitle; miltech; pilots; pilottraining; robots; skynet; terminator; training; uav
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last
Sad but inevitable. We are now training the last group of combat aircraft crews.


1 posted on 01/17/2006 6:57:51 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Dale Brown would be proud...


2 posted on 01/17/2006 6:59:34 AM PST by grobdriver (Let the embeds check the bodies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

To really screw things up, let a computer do it.

Bad idea, really bad idea.


3 posted on 01/17/2006 7:00:22 AM PST by brownsfan (It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan; Excuse_My_Bellicosity

ping


4 posted on 01/17/2006 7:01:16 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny. "--Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

However, there are serious concerns about UCAV's--notably the potential for someone to sabotage the mission by re-programming the UCAV in flight. Small wonder why there is still a need for manned aircraft.


5 posted on 01/17/2006 7:01:30 AM PST by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

hmm...


6 posted on 01/17/2006 7:02:25 AM PST by Jonx6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Bump... got any pictures? Should I be glad that I didn't make it into the Marine Corps Aviation program two years ago?


7 posted on 01/17/2006 7:02:37 AM PST by ericthecurdog (The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
To really screw things up, let a computer do it.

A person is still flying it, FWIW.

8 posted on 01/17/2006 7:03:12 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The one topic no one wants to touch at the moment is air-to-air.
-----
Never happen in reality. Not for close air combat / dogfight...the trained human mind is too versatile and variable.


9 posted on 01/17/2006 7:03:38 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Some Pics


10 posted on 01/17/2006 7:03:58 AM PST by Mcirrus (Future Reference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
True. Most anti aircraft will switch from gun/missile to electronic means. Imagine an enemy turning their opponent's planes against them.
11 posted on 01/17/2006 7:05:08 AM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ericthecurdog

12 posted on 01/17/2006 7:05:35 AM PST by oldleft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Oldie but a goodie:
What is the ideal cockpit crew?

A pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog, and
the dog is there to bite the pilot in case he tries to touch
anything.


13 posted on 01/17/2006 7:06:00 AM PST by Fixit (UAV pilots are cheaper than fighter jocks, but who'll fly my fat butt from Hartford to Duluth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

"with the air force and navy allowed to develop a shorter range combat aircraft to suit their particular needs"

How do you land one of these things on a carrier?


14 posted on 01/17/2006 7:06:04 AM PST by conservative barking moonbat (2000 Light years from home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

I love the idea of unmanned aircraft taking out air defences. I doubt we would be letting a computer take the decisions on when to drop weapons. I imagine a predator-style system with aircrews using telepresence. Ideally, it should be just like being in the cockpit, except you're sitting on the ground thousands of miles away.

But i agree with you - computers taking combat decisions would be bad ;) Think we're a long way from that though.


15 posted on 01/17/2006 7:06:48 AM PST by fragrant abuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: conservative barking moonbat
How do you land one of these things on a carrier?

Computer.

16 posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:17 AM PST by Lazamataz (I have a Chinese family renting an apartment from me. They are lo mein tenants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

In many ways fighter aircraft performance is limited by the g loads a human pilot can sustain. UAV can perform turns up to the airframe limits. In addition, by removing humans the aircraft will be smaller and stealthier.

It’s a great idea; the sooner the better.


17 posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:48 AM PST by ElTianti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
However, there are serious concerns about UCAV's--notably the potential for someone to sabotage the mission by re-programming the UCAV in flight.

These are unmanned, not autonomous. The pilot is back in the States with a coke and a bag of doritos in the "cockpit". You can also go to much larger crews if you don't have to put them on the plane. That way you can have a pilot, electronic combat officer, bombadier, mission commander, etc. as separate people instead of just one person trying to handle all of that.

Unmanned fighter planes will soon go away because one of the major design limitations is the pilot. Imagine a F-22 cabable of super cruise and 15-G turns which no pilot could survive. The USAF sees air-to-air combat as its forte and will probably not give it up until they run into an enemy working on something which will trounce them. Even then, I think the first version will be something more like a cruise missle with some air-to-air munitions and jamming on it to go in on the first wave of an attack.

18 posted on 01/17/2006 7:11:28 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Hey Fat Ted: Alito is the judge, Mojito is what you're drinking. Try to remember the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fixit
What's the difference between an Air Force 4 engine-qualified pilot and a Northwest Airlines 747 pilot ?
About $150,000.
19 posted on 01/17/2006 7:12:22 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

money saved by not using pilots,
could be spent on the USMC


20 posted on 01/17/2006 7:13:21 AM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson