Military: more uavs than traditional a/c

Don't think it will reach the more than traditional point in the near future. Just my opinion though.

Best,
 
When was the last time an American "fighter" aircraft actually engaged in an air to air battle with another enemy "fighter"? We have spent billions on fighter aircraft that have never engaged an enemy. We have spent an equal amount training pilots and arming their aircraft for those non existent missions.

I hate to say it, because I think the American fighter pilot is even more American than mom and apple pie, they are the reason little kids dream of flying, they are American heroes. I am convinced they are part of a dieing breed, soon to be relegated to old war movies. I just do not see little kids dreaming of growing up to become airborne bus drivers, it just lacks the appeal of becoming a fighter pilot somehow.

I agree with the article, we are heading toward a type of warfare that more replicates the opening scenes of 'The Terminator' movie, than anything else. In not so many years, our enemies will also be using the same sophisticated weapons we are using today. The fate of nations will not rest on the bravery of it's soldiers, but more on the sophistication of it's robots.

There was a time that the machine gun was a technological marvel, now kids in the streets use them in turf wars. Scary to think about the streets of American cities in about a hundred years. What is considered advanced technology today will be commonplace in a few years.

John
 
Last edited:
"Fighter" aircraft have long had roles beyond the historic air-to-air mission, back to WWII. We didn't even carry air-to-air weapons on the F-111 (probably more a medium bomber, or medium/heavy attack aircraft in Navy parlance, but still called a fighter by the Air Force). The fighters of the future (F-22 and F-35) all have significant or even primary air-to-ground roles. That's important, because we can't build enough bombers to provide air-to-ground weapons delivery everywhere we need it, every time we need it, and most of their capability would be wasted flying an entire mission just to deliver a couple of 500-pounders on the only target in a particular location. Having them go from target to target on a long mission would create long delays in provision of potentially time-critical support. Thus, small tactical aircraft (which the Air Force calls "fighters") will still be needed even if there's nobody to dogfight with. Whether we will still need a person in the plane as UAV technology matures remains to be seen, but UAV or otherwise, we're going to have a continuing need for such aircraft.
 
I agree, we will have a continuing need for that type of aircraft for many years to come. I also believe as these UAVs become more and more sophisticated, they will easily outmaneuver a maned aircraft. Robots do not have to be overly concerned with extreme load factors other than what the aircraft itself can handle.

I think we will continue with manned aircraft as long as we can, until our enemies start employing advanced UAVs that can outmaneuver us. Then it will be all ground controlled. Eventually, as artificial intelligence continues to be improved upon, they will not even need ground control. At the rate our technologies are advancing, all of this is probably not that far into the future.

John
 
One last time -- the issue of outmaneuvering is only an issue in a dogfight. Dogfighting is today an extremely low priority on the "fighter" totem pole. With the weapons systems we have today, our air dominance has been achieved by other means. The need for the person in the cockpit is more an issue of independent operation not relying on jammable datalinks than anything else, and no matter how maneuverable a UAV is, if you can't talk to it, it's useless. Also, you can't sneak a UAV in anywhere if it has to electronically transmit data back to base to operate. Until we can achieve the same level of control of the EM spectrum as we have of the air, UAV's will be a complement to, not a replacement for, occupied* aircraft.

*Almost said "manned," but that's a 20th century term.;)
 
There's a lot of interesting work going on in the UAV world - and some recent statements by the Pentagon that they see more UAV than traditional planes in the future. There will still be need for planes with onboard human pilots for the forseeable future, but there will come a time in the not too distant future where we have more UAVs than traditional aircraft.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not in a dogfight, that's for sure. And I don't remember any such loss even via a long-range missile shot.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that LCDR Scott Speicher? Originally thought to be from a surface-to-air missile, then later claimed to be a long range shot from the Mig-25? I have a friend who still gets pretty passionate about that shot not coming from a Mig.
 
ausrere said:
Wasn't that LCDR Scott Speicher? Originally thought to be from a surface-to-air missile, then later claimed to be a long range shot from the Mig-25? I have a friend who still gets pretty passionate about that shot not coming from a Mig.
Click to expand...

The Hornet was shot down by a SAM as was the F-15E and a couple of 16's. The last time the US engaged in a/a was not desert storm - it was in Allied Force, 1999. The 493rd Fighter Squadron had 4 MiG 29 kills.
 
Ron Levy said:
One last time -- the issue of outmaneuvering is only an issue in a dogfight. Dogfighting is today an extremely low priority on the "fighter" totem pole. With the weapons systems we have today, our air dominance has been achieved by other means. The need for the person in the cockpit is more an issue of independent operation not relying on jammable datalinks than anything else, and no matter how maneuverable a UAV is, if you can't talk to it, it's useless. Also, you can't sneak a UAV in anywhere if it has to electronically transmit data back to base to operate. Until we can achieve the same level of control of the EM spectrum as we have of the air, UAV's will be a complement to, not a replacement for, occupied* aircraft.

*Almost said "manned," but that's a 20th century term.;)
Click to expand...

Right on the cranium Cap'n Ron! Pulling G's is the magic thing that everyone talks about as the limiting factor for a fighter. Yes, pulling G's is an important part of what we do, but just because a fighter can pull 69 G's doesn't make it better (necessarily) than another fighter. It has a lot more to do with E-M diagrams (thank you John Boyd!) and experience. I've seen lots of footage of "less capable" aircraft beating something they should get crushed by. It has much more to do with the guy in the aircraft than the aircraft itself (in many cases).

UAV's have come a long way - yes we are a dying breed, but we aren't dead yet! I still firmly believe that there are oceans between where we are now and where the sensors would have to be to successfully participate in A/A combat.
 
With no disrespect for Ron intended, I believe that as UAVs become more sophisticated, an occupied jet fighter would have no hope in h ell should it come under attack by one. If they can figure a way of human bodies to be able to handle a lot more G forces without blacking out, then perhaps the odds of prevailing would improve. Our UAVs are in their infancy, think about twenty or thirty years from now.

I'm not so sure our military would be all that interested in spending the money to keep it's fighters occupied. UAVs are a whole lot more cost effective, and they also help our politicians show that they really do care about the lives of our warriors.

John
 
EvilEagle said:
Right on the cranium Cap'n Ron! Pulling G's is the magic thing that everyone talks about as the limiting factor for a fighter. Yes, pulling G's is an important part of what we do, but just because a fighter can pull 69 G's doesn't make it better (necessarily) than another fighter. It has a lot more to do with E-M diagrams (thank you John Boyd!) and experience. I've seen lots of footage of "less capable" aircraft beating something they should get crushed by. It has much more to do with the guy in the aircraft than the aircraft itself (in many cases).
Click to expand...
...or the guy (or today, gal) who plans the tactics. A long time ago, I watched a squadron of Marine F-4J's wipe out a squadron of Air Force F-15A's at Red Flag by taking the initiative and using tactics which played to the F-4's strengths in speed and acceleration while avoiding any kind of a turning fight the F-15's would win easily.
UAV's have come a long way - yes we are a dying breed, but we aren't dead yet! I still firmly believe that there are oceans between where we are now and where the sensors would have to be to successfully participate in A/A combat.
Click to expand...
Concur.
 
John Baker said:
With no disrespect for Ron intended, I believe that as UAVs become more sophisticated, an occupied jet fighter would have no hope in h ell should it come under attack by one.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think that day is a very long way off -- like several decades.
I'm not so sure our military would be all that interested in spending the money to keep it's fighters occupied.
Click to expand...
For now, they are, but with the current life cycles of fighter aircraft (30 years or so), the generation coming on line (F-22 and F-35) may be the last. I just don't think I'll live to see the total replacement of occupied air combat vehicles by UAV's.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree, but I think that day is a very long way off -- like several decades.
For now, they are, but with the current life cycles of fighter aircraft (30 years or so), the generation coming on line (F-22 and F-35) may be the last .I just don't think I'll live to see the total replacement of occupied air combat vehicles by UAV's.
Click to expand...

My entire stand on this issue is looking several decades into the future, right now, for fighter pilots, it is a non issue. There is still plenty of flying ahead, at least for the next ten or so years.

Yes, you will probably live to see it. I have more than a few customers to my business who are in their early to mid nineties. They are as viable as anyone else. They drive to my store, they walk around and articulate like most all of us. Pilots tend to look after themselves a lot more than most people, it's that darn medical that has to be passed all the time.

When I was a kid, people in their eighties sat in a chair and were fed pablum and baby talk, not so anymore. We are living longer and better, at least most of us are.

Like it or not, UAVs are our future.

John
 
Of course, the UAV can maneuver at higher G than a manned aircraft... But, that is only one small factor...
Another factor is that a UAV can/will take on an enemy flight even though heavily outnumbered and likely to be shot down in the engagement, but if the UAV has at least 50/50 odds of getting its missiles away before being destroyed, then the enemy will suffer severe losses in trained pilots, a rate of attrition that it cannot support in the long term...
A UAV can be a subsonic loiter and wait weapon that does not have escaping intact as its primary mission, as manned aircraft do... The enemy flight that detects and attacks the UAV with manned aircraft, will pay a heavy price for their victory...

The next factor is the UAV is able to do air suppression loiter/attack of ground troops over much longer time periods than a manned aircraft...
If one looks at the Terminator movies as simply a source of thinking outside the box - then the idea of suppressing a battlefield - where your troops would have an unacceptable loss rate if they invaded - by putting hunter/killer UAV over the area that will attack anything that moves and any EMF emissions it detects, becomes a simply a strategic decision and not science fiction...

Look at the Swat Valley, and other dangerous areas in our current conflict... Hunter/killer UAV's given a certain patrol area on autonomous programming, would attack anything that moves within that area denying an enemy freedom of movement day or night...

Fear not, it is coming sooner than you think... The flight hardware is there now... The air to ground weapons are present... The AI computer control needs only development funding to move it along within months... The only thing lacking is the political will to do it..

denny-o
 
My son-in-law is working on data acquistion aspects of unmanned autonomous flight for his PhD in aerospace. That's all he can tell me. His office at the lab is "classified" as the Navy is providing the funding.

Dr. O said:
...
Fear not, it is coming sooner than you think... The flight hardware is there now... The air to ground weapons are present... The AI computer control needs only development funding to move it along within months... The only thing lacking is the political will to do it..

denny-o
Click to expand...
 
Dogfighting is more or less dead, I know, they said that in 'Nam, but back then they did not have the reliable guided missiles they do now. Odds are most fights these days are going to be over before the aircraft even come close. For what our fighters do in this era UAVs are more than adequate.
 
steingar said:
Dogfighting is more or less dead, I know, they said that in 'Nam, but back then they did not have the reliable guided missiles they do now.
Click to expand...
They also were not allowed to shoot anyone without a positive visual ID to confirm that it was an NVAF aircraft. You get that close, you're inside your missile's Rmin. Today, we have more effective technology to confirm what and who we're shooting at, and don't need the visual ID before shooting. That allows more missile shots, including BVR shots.
Odds are most fights these days are going to be over before the aircraft even come close.
Click to expand...
I agree. But that's not the only mission of tactical jet aircraft, and for many weapons delivery situations, you have to get up close before firing, and then make a fast decision.
For what our fighters do in this era UAVs are more than adequate.
Click to expand...
Assuming you have absolute freedom of electronic communication. Unfortunately, that's not here yet. There's the risk of loss of signal, as well as jamming/interference, and the loss of stealthiness inherent in transmitting a signal from the UAV back to the control site. For those reasons, occupied tactical aircraft will be here for quite a while yet.
 
Cruise missiles can hit targets feet across from hundreds of miles away using 20 year old technology. I have little doubt that UAVs can be programmed to function autonomously in the event of signal loss to prosecute their targets return to base using current technology. Sky's the limit for what they'll be able to do in the future. This stuff moves fast.
 
Ron Levy said:
...or the guy (or today, gal) who plans the tactics. A long time ago, I watched a squadron of Marine F-4J's wipe out a squadron of Air Force F-15A's at Red Flag by taking the initiative and using tactics which played to the F-4's strengths in speed and acceleration while avoiding any kind of a turning fight the F-15's would win easily.
Concur.
Click to expand...

Kind of like an F4F vs. Zero fight.
 
steingar said:
Cruise missiles can hit targets feet across from hundreds of miles away using 20 year old technology. I have little doubt that UAVs can be programmed to function autonomously in the event of signal loss to prosecute their targets return to base using current technology.
Click to expand...
Sure, but just try retargeting a Tomahawk after launch, or getting it to abort the mission because the targeted folks on the ground just authenticated their identity.
 
steingar said:
Soldiers have died from friendly fire from manned weapon delivery systems.
Click to expand...
And your point is? I didn't say manned systems would eliminate friendly fire (although at the end of the day, all systems are human-controlled/programmed, and a bad coordinate punched into a Tomahawk could result in a friendly fire incident), but rather that a Tomahawk can't be retargetted or recalled after launch -- an F-35 can. Maybe someday we'll have the capability to put real-time off-board control over UAV's in a way which is 100% reliable and does not compromise the vehicle's location, but that day is a long way off.
 
What I'm saying is that collateral and friendly casualties have not caused us to cease making war, and I doubt the potential will slow down UAV or UCAV production one iota. While such a hypothetical occurrences would be enormously regrettable, they are as inevitable as those with manned weapon delivery systems. One needs conditions for autonomous function along with the initial mis-targetting. Put together a sufficiently long accident chain and any weapon system can misfire.

You also assuming that all future weapon platforms will conform to the limitations of the current crop. You should know better.
 
Anything's possible, but I'm talking foreseeable future while you're talking hypothetical. Apples/oranges.
 
Then we're on the same page. The systems you're discussing were developed over a decade ago. Like I said, things move fast.
 
steingar said:
What I'm saying is that collateral and friendly casualties have not caused us to cease making war, and I doubt the potential will slow down UAV or UCAV production one iota. While such a hypothetical occurrences would be enormously regrettable, they are as inevitable as those with manned weapon delivery systems. One needs conditions for autonomous function along with the initial mis-targetting. Put together a sufficiently long accident chain and any weapon system can misfire.

You also assuming that all future weapon platforms will conform to the limitations of the current crop. You should know better.
Click to expand...

There's a fair amount of work going into retrofits, including electronically scanned radar antennas, EW systems, and the like. Some of that work is lengthening the life of manned aircraft.
 
The real key will be autonomous weapons that do not require mother-may-I to give them permission so that jamming of the satellite by the enemy becomes a non issue...
If you are flying in their arena and you have lost your transponder, or have last weeks code, or you are a civilian trying to slip opium across the mountain, there is going to be an 'accident'... War is hell..
The hack writers on the Terminator scripts had a better grasp of where the technology is likely to go, than many at the Pentagon right now...

Besides the UAV, there will be R2D2's, sensor loaded boxes that sit on the mountain sides, delivered by air to a ledge, that will use FLIR and Microwave Radar, Motion sensors, Microphones, Radio Scanners, etc. that watch everything... Anything that moves across the valley or the mountain passes will have death called down on it from above - it will be a true, dead zone... Nothing will move across the pass, not fighters, not sheep, not opium...
Again, the only thing lacking right now is the will to win...

denny-o
 
a pps on the carrier-able UAV X47B
 

Attachments

  • X-47B.pps
    1.4 MB · Views: 8
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top