Wired: Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded

[mcsluggo]

For those of you who are proponents of UAVs consider this...

With the advancement of stealth aircraft by other countries, target acquisition in the future is going to be more and more difficult through electronic means. That means a return to the old fashioned method of putting eyes on target. And there is no video screen in the world that can replace being in the ****pit and scanning the sky in real time. Computers *can* fly aircraft. We know that. But they cant think and adapt like a human in tactical situations. Anyone who has played video games knows that even the best AI is no match for a skilled human. Can a human, safe inside a bunker, see and feel the flow of battle as well as a pilot in that airspace? Will he feel the same sense of danger, protect his aircraft, and attack with the same intensity as a real world pilot? Will he be able to distinguish friend from foe as well? What about that "seat of the pants" input that great pilots use to feel the orientation, limitations, and capabilities, of their aircraft? What happens if the enemy figures out how to jam our controllers signals? Many of these challenges can be overcome in time. Others may not. But we have a long way to go to find out.

Sure. UAVs will have a place. Along side manned aircraft. Not as a complete replacement. At least not in the foreseeable future.

really?? then why are those anoying hacker "aim-bots" in first person shooter games always kicking EVERYONE's heineys??

[HailGreen28]

We will need the manned aircrafts to fight once the machines rise up

That's what the "cheap" remote controlled drones we're building, are for.

The little drone that could. (The ONLY good part of a crappy movie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99jt1UCpDNU&feature=related

The F-35 may be the last manned fighter design we build.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael G. Mullen said, “There are those that see the [F-35] as the last manned fighter—or fighter-bomber—or jet, and I’m one that’s inclined to believe that.”

And even the F-35 may be flown pilotless in the future. LINK

[twa]

MM, what happens when we merge human intelligence with computers?

Your days are limited old timers

[China]

MM, what happens when we merge human intelligence with computers?

Your days are limited old timers

yZWUa5OR3Ho

[Larry]

The F-35 may be the last manned fighter design we build.

And even the F-35 may be flown pilotless in the future. LINK

And our new missiles will render guns on aircraft obsolete. There's no reason for a combat aircraft to even have guns any more.

[twa]

And our new missiles will render guns on aircraft obsolete. There's no reason for a combat aircraft to even have guns any more.

I hope ya mean fighters....the AC-130 is a beast

[HailGreen28]

And our new missiles will render guns on aircraft obsolete. There's no reason for a combat aircraft to even have guns any more.

Good point about false assumptions of the future.

Two things that point to drone usage though: 1. It's cheaper to train and maintain. 2. It has already been used extensively.

Only drawback I see is: You don't want to be stuck with just drones, if an enemy figures out how to jam or hack them.

The airforce keeps saying it wants a low cost alternative: The F-16 to the F-15. The F-35 to the F-22. Drones are actually the "low cost alternative".

[Larry]

Good point about false assumptions of the future.

Two things that point to drone usage though: 1. It's cheaper to train and maintain. 2. It has already been used extensively.

Oh, I remember reading a magazine article, probably 20 years ago, in Newsweek or some such. Where they interviewed a whole bunch of military people about what were our best 10 weapons systems.

The article closed with a one page article, where they looked at the question "What's the most important technology out there, that we aren't working on, but we should be?"

#1 on the list was remote piloted aircraft.

The #1 reason listed for why we shuld be working on it was "The Israeli Air Force uses them, and they work." (Which seemed like a good recommendation, to me.)

The original reason given to use them, was to find out where the bad guys have put their SAMs. (So that you can then kill the SAMs.) The reasoning was that looking for SAMs is dangerous. But that if a drone gets shot down, then a) You haven't lost a really expensive fighter, and a pilot, and Even if it gets destroyed, you still learn something.

Years later, I remember relating this story to a friend who was serving in the Air Force, and asking why the US seemed so resistant to this idea.

His answer was to go to the room's dry-erase board, and say "Because in the US Air Force, every single person who wears these (and he draws four stars) also wears these (and he draws a set of pilot wings)."

----------

Me, I don't even care if the things aren't armed. Frankly, knowing exactly where the enemy is, gives you one hell of an advantage.

[HailGreen28]

Oh, I remember reading a magazine article, probably 20 years ago, in Newsweek or some such. Where they interviewed a whole bunch of military people about what were our best 10 weapons systems.

The article closed with a one page article, where they looked at the question "What's the most important technology out there, that we aren't working on, but we should be?"

#1 on the list was remote piloted aircraft.

The #1 reason listed for why we shuld be working on it was "The Israeli Air Force uses them, and they work." (Which seemed like a good recommendation, to me.)

The original reason given to use them, was to find out where the bad guys have put their SAMs. (So that you can then kill the SAMs.) The reasoning was that looking for SAMs is dangerous. But that if a drone gets shot down, then a) You haven't lost a really expensive fighter, and a pilot, and Even if it gets destroyed, you still learn something.

Years later, I remember relating this story to a friend who was serving in the Air Force, and asking why the US seemed so resistant to this idea.

His answer was to go to the room's dry-erase board, and say "Because in the US Air Force, every single person who wears these (and he draws four stars) also wears these (and he draws a set of pilot wings)."

----------

Me, I don't even care if the things aren't armed. Frankly, knowing exactly where the enemy is, gives you one hell of an advantage.

The thing is, you're using still using pilots. (and still need the same basic training for the same missions.)

[twa]

The thing is, you're using still using pilots. (and still need the same basic training for the same missions.)

But there is no danger of losing pilots,as well as much looser physical restrictions for the pilots,it won't be long though till they are truly autonomous packs acting in concert(perhaps one pilot leading a fighter group as a transition)

Really neat breakthroughs lately

[Larry]

The thing is, you're using still using pilots. (and still need the same basic training for the same missions.)

Yes, but they don't die nearly as often.

[HailGreen28]

Yes, but they don't die nearly as often.

Precisely.

But there is no danger of losing pilots,as well as much looser physical restrictions for the pilots,it won't be long though till they are truly autonomous packs acting in concert(perhaps one pilot leading a fighter group as a transition)

Really neat breakthroughs lately

Agreed. I'm arguing they will get used more and more. Just saying you still need pilots to fly the UAVs.

[Mad Mike]

really?? then why are those anoying hacker "aim-bots" in first person shooter games always kicking EVERYONE's heineys??

An aim bot does not replace a human. It's an aiming tool just like a targeting system in a human operated fighter aircraft.

[twa]

Precisely.

Agreed. I'm arguing they will get used more and more. Just saying you still need pilots to fly the UAVs.

No, you just need gamers

[sacase]

No, you just need gamers

Not in the least, how many gamers understand the principles of flight. We have a big problem when people start thinking war is a video game.

---------- Post added August-10th-2011 at 09:47 PM ----------

An aim bot does not replace a human. It's an aiming tool just like a targeting system in a human operated fighter aircraft.

Exactly, an Aimbot works within the paramaters of the game, it basically intercepts code. It is NOTHING like a targeting system.

[twa]

Not in the least, how many gamers understand the principles of flight. We have a big problem when people start thinking war is a video game.

.

Once you have reached the point of planes being unable to fly to their capabilities w/o computer assistance your principles of flight become nearly immaterial

War is different than fighters,just as horsemanship is no longer much help for our cavalry

baby steps,while we work on strides

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/navys-first-unmanned-stealth-bomber-completes-29-minute-test-flight/

Navy’s First Unmanned Stealth Bomber Completes 29-Minute Test Flight

The X-47B is the Navy’s first unmanned stealth bomber drone, and on Fridy it completed a 29-minute test flight. How does it differ from, say, a Predator drone? The X-47B can be operated entirely by a computer, removing the need for a human to operatete the controls. And it’s also the first drone capable of taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier.

“Today we got a glimpse towards the future as the Navy’s first-ever tailless, jet-powered unmanned aircraft took to the skies,”

[HailGreen28]

No, you just need gamers

God help us if typical gamers gets control of an armed UAV on a mission. Without pesky things like ROE and target recognition. We'll be lucky if the civilians, the friendlies on the ground, and our home base aren't trashed by the time they're through.

Hell, soon as they start fighting over primary targets, they'll probably try shooting each other down.

[twa]

they'll probably try shooting each other down.

Isn't that what our fighter pilots do now in competition?

my point is the physical demands/requirements are much less and the actual skills needed are different

[sacase]

Wrong, requirements won't change, the airforce runs the RC plane program and you have to be an officer and get your FAA pilots license. Requirements won't change.

[Mad Mike]

No, you just need gamers

LOL. You are SO wrong. I remember trying to get one of my gamer friends to try going against me on an f18 fight simulator. He couldn't keep the thing in the air. Yeah, I'm not a pilot and I learned to fly the thing pretty damn well but the point I'm making is that I had to learn to fly just like a pilot. And I know damned well a real pilot would make me look stupid on it.

The thing is, a UAV is still an aircraft that is restricted by the laws of physics. Even with software to help, you have to understand what is and is not possible to do with it. You need to understand things like energy management. And the same combat maneuvers pilots have been using and advancing since WWI.

[twa]

Wrong, requirements won't change, the airforce runs the RC plane program and you have to be an officer and get your FAA pilots license. Requirements won't change.

That is likely to change as well because of some of their hardheadedness

btw...they already have changed...and more are coming

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/03/airforce_uav_audit_030109/

In September,(09) Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz unveiled plans to create a UAV-specific career field and to train officers with no flying experience to control Predators and Reapers.

added

interesting read for those interested

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/20101015.aspx

Most army UAV operators are enlisted troops, while all air force ones are officers. The Raven training only lasts 80 hours, but this tiny UAV was designed for ease of use. It takes about five times longer to train operators for larger UAVs like Shadow and Predator. General Schwartz made this point, in explaining that the largest UAVs, like the Global Hawk, can cross oceans, and requires a high degree of training and skill. But it's much more dangerous to fly a Raven within rifle range of enemy troops, and keep the little bird alive long enough to get the video feed needed to win the battle. Many of these army Raven operators are very, very good, mainly because they have hundreds of hours experience operating their UAVs while under fire. Few air force UAV drivers can claim this kind of experience.

General Schwartz was also getting pressed from above about how the air force operates its UAV fleet. The U.S. Department of Defense has been putting pressure on the air force to automate their UAV operations. The air force initially responded with complaints that they were overloaded. But then it became widely known that, while army UAVs have software that enables automatic take off and landing, similar air force UAVs do not, and this has led to higher UAV losses for the air force. At the same time, the navy, and the British, are developing flight control software that allows pilots to control two or more UAVs while flying their own aircraft. In effect, these pilots would fly into combat with two or more UAVs under their control. The U.S. Air Force is under a lot of pressure to make this happen, so one team of UAV operators can control two or more aircraft.

It's not that the air force can't make this happen, it's just that there's a lot of resistance in the air force to replacing pilots with a lot of UAVs.

[Mad Mike]

my point is the physical demands/requirements are much less and the actual skills needed are different

No, a UAV pilot does not have to condition himself for G forces. But the skills are EXACTLY the same. The laws of physics still apply.

[twa]

No, a UAV pilot does not have to condition himself for G forces. But the skills are EXACTLY the same. The laws of physics still apply.

The professionals beg to differ....argue with them

[Mad Mike]

In September,(09) Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz unveiled plans to create a UAV-specific career field and to train officers with no flying experience to control Predators and Reapers.

Predators and Reapers ARE NOT unmanned fighters. There is no comparison.

Predators and Reapers fly slow and straight. They don't do any combat maneuvers. They are to fighter aircraft what a golf cart is to a Formula 1 racecar. And trust me there isn't a single person on this board who could drive a Formula 1 car two feet without stalling. And if you could manage to get it rolling, it would probably kill you if you ever tried to get it up to speed.

---------- Post added August-11th-2011 at 03:26 AM ----------

The professionals beg to differ....argue with them

You are seriously clueless on this subject. You don't even understand what you are reading. :doh:

I just want to add... One day software may be advanced enough to handle the advanced combat maneuvers and *think* creatively enough to outsmart a human. But we are a LONG way away from that day.

[twa]

Predators and Reapers ARE NOT unmanned fighters. There is no comparison.

You are seriously clueless on this subject. You don't even understand what you are reading. :doh:

Since we have no fighter drones in service (openly) yet it is a bit difficult to prove

watch and learn who is clueless my friend

add

you do not have to outsmart them if your capabilities and numbers far outstrip theirs....it all comes back to inherent limitations,just like manned spaceflight