As Military Touts Pilotless Aircraft, Top Guns Wish To Shoot Them Down

Wall Street Journal | April 29, 2002 | Anne Marie Squeo

[besieged]

Ok, if we can just get past the spoiled brat whining...

I am not an aviation expert by any means... but I read here and there. Here is how I see the technology stacking up, Manned 1st, unmanned 2nd.

1. G's. Manned is limited to <9Gs, then the pilot passes out. Unmanned - 20Gs or so.

2. Manned needs pressurised cabin, limited to missions of ~12hours because of human fatigue (hunger, elimination needs). Unmanned? Have no idea... fuel limits only.

3. All that human accomodation must take up some volume (which kills fuel economy via drag), the systems add considerable weight (the ventilation systems, pilot ejection seat system, all the displays, the motors to lift the cockpit, etc.). The weight limits payload.

4. Biggest of all, the risk to human life goes to zero in an unmanned vehicle. The $2Million saved will pay for a lot of electronics. And the extra 12-20Gs the machine will be able to withstand during dogfighting can make it totally unchallenged by the manned opposition, as well as make it immune to the missiles.

I bet these considerations will outweigh the whining and complaining of the adolescents pilots of today.

[Kenny Bunk]

Gosh, I spent quite a few anxious moments in the Air Force coming back to full alert consciousness (whether I did so completely is still an open question)

So while the F-16 driver is recovering from pulling weird G's, does it mean some 15-year-old Chicom tomboy could shoot her down from her desktop?

"fraid it's coming to that.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I see remote piloted unmaned aircraft technology as having LOT of potential. I mean without worrying, you could design a unmaned aircraft to do maneuvers and pull G's that would kill a human.

Also, your pool of pilots increases by MILLIONS!!

The only drawback I see with this technology is that jamming equipment would be a powerful counter to it.

[Poohbah]

By the time that amazing plane comes on line, it won't NEED a datalink, it will have an AI computer that can do all the stuff the pilot can, only without needing flight pay and constant ego massaging :o)

[Poohbah]

That's why we need to make sure the Chicoms pirate as many copies of Windows as possible. When our pilots G-LOC, their pilots will "blue screen." :o)

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[hchutch]

Even if it is thought of, it could be ignored. If all you do is JAM the UCAVs, then these vaunted UCAVs will be useless.

[Paul C. Jesup]

That is possible.

[Poohbah]

Even if it is thought of, it could be ignored.

Trust me, it ain't.

If all you do is JAM the UCAVs, then these vaunted UCAVs will be useless.

And, of course, the UCAVs wouldn't have enough smarts to kill the jammer. Bravo Sierra. The hardware and software out there today could do that right now. By 2025, the UCAV will be a LOT smarter than the pilots are. (It will, for instance, be able to logically infer in less than 10 nanoseconds that mooning the Wing Commander and his wife after getting crocked at the O Club are Career Limiting Moves.)

[hchutch]

Perhaps. But it never hurts to go with a mix of the UCAVs and combat aircraft in any case.

Use the combat aircraft to take out any jammers and other items. UCAVs to supplement them in hitting other targets and as "bodyguards" for the regular planes (intercepting SAMs, remote senors, that sort of thing).

Definitely, I can see them as a good supplement. If we had two UCAVs for every plane in our active and reserve squadrons, I'd feel much better. The manned planes could carry the precision-guided and standoff systems, use UCAVs for the dumb bombs.

[History is truth]

As a retired USAF officer (non-pilot) I have heard many times: "If you ain't a fighter pilot, you ain't sh*t". It serves the elitist cry babies right.

Since I have been retired I have made much more money with my master's degree in electronics engineering, had more job satisfaction, and had several former fighter pilots working for me.

The bus drivers don't run Greyhound, but the pilots do run the USAF.

[mushroom]

I agree that today's UAVs can't recognize targets with enough accuracy to be reliable. However, I don't think we're that far away from sensors/programs that can detect the size, sound, and movement of armored vehicles particularly with the help of Joint Stars type radar planes.

[surely_you_jest]

Watch the POMs and the funding profiles, that will tell you which way this is going to go. These are long-lead programs which are, in relatively early stages, proving themselves. Big time. In the meantime senior rated officers are protecting rated billets by using junior rated officers to move the joystick around - this makes sense within the bureaucracy because once the billets are gone, try and get them back!

[supercat]

Even with escort jamming and simulated anti-radar missile (HARM) employment, the SAMS still survived and shot down much of the strike package--until they ran out of missiles.

So, how about including a bunch of super-cheap drones in with the rest of the flock (super-cheap: looks like a drone, but minimal guidance and possibly no payload). Once the enemy has used up their air defenses shooting down junk, then you can send in the real pilots.