Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No more attack drones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    I don't trust machines as much as i trust well trained highly motivated patriotic human beings.
    I agree with that. Even though we have had the capability for autonomy for some time (YF-16, B-1A), I don't think it's wise to try to take the man too far out of the loop.

    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    PS: I noticed you didn't disagree with my assessment of the F-35B. ;)
    Lol, I didn't catch that earlier. STOVL's are a b*tch, worse than swing wings, but we'll have to wait and see. There's a need for the F35B, hell we can't fly Harriers forever.
    "We will go through our federal budget page by page, line by line eliminating those programs we dont need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by B.Smitty
      Where'd you get the impression J-UCAS was supposed to be fully autonomous?

      For preplanned targets, possibly, but that's little different than a cruise missile strike today. Are you against TLAMs?

      IIRC, there was always the intention of having a man-in-the-loop in some capacity.
      Im not worried about UCAV so much as it's descendants.

      Every REALLY BAD IDEA has a starting point, a genesis if you will.

      UCAV looks like one of those genesis ideas to me.

      I say kill it, bury it, and never, ever revisit it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        Im not worried about UCAV so much as it's descendants.

        Every REALLY BAD IDEA has a starting point, a genesis if you will.

        UCAV looks like one of those genesis ideas to me.

        I say kill it, bury it, and never, ever revisit it.

        You'd rather they be small, mice-sized robots that swarm over you as they slice and dice?

        You were frightened by the movie BladeRunner as a child, weren't you?
        The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

        I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by M21Sniper
          Im not worried about UCAV so much as it's descendants.

          Every REALLY BAD IDEA has a starting point, a genesis if you will.

          UCAV looks like one of those genesis ideas to me.

          I say kill it, bury it, and never, ever revisit it.

          Hmm, I guess I have the opposite opinion. I think they're a REALLY GOOD IDEA. ;)

          You're never going to see a manned, fighter-sized aircraft that can loiter over the battlefield for 50+ hours. Pilots just can't do it. A UCAV with a few air refuelings could.

          Using 78% of the deckspace, the X-47 promised to have nearly twice the range of the F-35C with the same payload, while having a greater degree of all aspects stealth and zero CSAR worries.

          The biggest worries about the J-UCAS program, IMHO, had nothing to do with autonomous targetting, comm hacking or anything like that. My biggest concern was validating that it could safely cat/trap and AAR. And that cost could be kept under control.

          Comment


          • #35
            Slightly off topic, but has there been any unclassified indications of trying to produce an unmanned aerial refuling vehicle?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by drkfce
              Slightly off topic, but has there been any unclassified indications of trying to produce an unmanned aerial refuling vehicle?
              Never heard of such an idea. Not sure why you'd want one, since tankers are usually far enough back from the action that they are not really at much risk.

              We are working on a LACM with AAR capabilities though.

              Further off topic, but I just have to ask, is your screen name short for "dark force" or "dork face"? Lol, it's a little ambiguous....
              Last edited by highsea; 10 Mar 06,, 00:39.
              "We will go through our federal budget page by page, line by line eliminating those programs we dont need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by B.Smitty
                Hmm, I guess I have the opposite opinion. I think they're a REALLY GOOD IDEA. ;)

                You're never going to see a manned, fighter-sized aircraft that can loiter over the battlefield for 50+ hours. Pilots just can't do it. A UCAV with a few air refuelings could.

                Using 78% of the deckspace, the X-47 promised to have nearly twice the range of the F-35C with the same payload, while having a greater degree of all aspects stealth and zero CSAR worries.
                I could care less. I am totally uninterested in any form of "unmanned combat anything" technology. I am willing to make the sacrifice, i want pilots in our aircraft.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper
                  I could care less. I am totally uninterested in any form of "unmanned combat anything" technology. I am willing to make the sacrifice, i want pilots in our aircraft.
                  Ok.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by M21Sniper
                    I could care less. I am totally uninterested in any form of "unmanned combat anything" technology. I am willing to make the sacrifice, i want pilots in our aircraft.
                    Right on, war is about people, we should remain responsible for it's execution as well as it's instigation.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by highsea
                      Never heard of such an idea. Not sure why you'd want one, since tankers are usually far enough back from the action that they are not really at much risk.

                      We are working on a LACM with AAR capabilities though.

                      Further off topic, but I just have to ask, is your screen name short for "dark force" or "dork face"? Lol, it's a little ambiguous....
                      Dorkface :) It was a nickname my brother gave me back in high school, and it has stuck since.

                      As for the benefits, perhaps an unmanned vehicle would not need the extra space that a crew would take up, thus allowing more room for fuel. How much more, not exactly sure if it would benefit.

                      That, and perhaps longer flight sustainability; unless, of course, the plane has enough crew for pilots to take shifts.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                        Right on, war is about people, we should remain responsible for it's execution as well as it's instigation.
                        We are responsible, whether we're pushing the button in a cockpit or in a ground control station. UCAVs don't decide to take off and bomb targets on their own.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X