Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No more attack drones

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
    I dont like the idea of automated strike aircraft as a rule, I think the discretion of a human pilot is needed when it comes time to decide whether or not that really is a command centre and not a civil defence bunker you're about to bomb.
    But yeah for e-warfare, recon etc. they seem perfect.
    I don't think they'll be so fully automated, but rather require human authorisation for every engagement. To trust it to perform combat completely autonomously is self-evidently a little silly.
    HD Ready?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
      I dont like the idea of automated strike aircraft as a rule, I think the discretion of a human pilot is needed when it comes time to decide whether or not that really is a command centre and not a civil defence bunker you're about to bomb.
      But yeah for e-warfare, recon etc. they seem perfect.
      And exactly how is a pilot going to be able to tell it's a civil defense bunker? He's probably dropping a JDAM on it from 30kft.

      A pilot in the cockpit didn't stop a B-2 from bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Nor did it stop us from hitting the Red Cross headquarters in Kabul. Or the wedding party in northern Afghanistan (AC-130).

      Or the Al Firdos bunker/civil defense site in Iraq (F-117).

      All were hit by manned aircraft.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by highsea
        Why do you say that snipe?

        I don't think they will replace manned AC anytime soon, but for certain missions like SEAD, I think they will have their place.
        I don't trust machines as much as i trust well trained highly motivated patriotic human beings.

        Oh, btw, the smarter machines get, the less i will trust them.

        PS: I noticed you didn't disagree with my assessment of the F-35B. ;)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jgetti
          UCAV is still alive, but X-45C is not. We're definately feeling the effects of this 'restructuring' here in St. Louis.
          What?! The X-45C was amazing! It jsut completed it's bomb drop tests recently. It was going to come along. What happened?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Franco Lolan
            What?! The X-45C was amazing! It jsut completed it's bomb drop tests recently. It was going to come along. What happened?
            From what I hear, the Air Force didn't like the capabilities that the X-45C gave (payload capacity mainly, if I remember correctly) and decided to go with a manned bomber program. The X-47 is still fully on schedule as the USN has continued to express great interest in a UCAV, so at least one thing may come true, though, not sure considering politics always gets in the way somehow.

            Comment


            • #21
              Maybe the USAF has some of the reservations that M21 and I share. That, or they're hoping to play it safe with a proven system rather than play around with a very radical new solution.

              Comment


              • #22
                They were only tech demons. The J-UCAS prog is being restructured, but we are not abandoning UCAV's by any stretch. In fact, there are new production facilities under construction in Seattle as we speak.
                I meant in terms of their programs progressing to operational UCAV's. I was unaware an X-45C had been manufactured (any photos?), I was under the impression that the "C" was to be the full-sized test model for future production, as the two "A" aircraft were 1/3 scale demonstrators.

                I dont like the idea of automated strike aircraft as a rule, I think the discretion of a human pilot is needed when it comes time to decide whether or not that really is a command centre and not a civil defence bunker you're about to bomb.
                A human pilot looking at a screen in a cockpit is really no different than a human pilot looking at a screen back at base flying a UCAV, other than he can't be shot down and captured/killed. The systems are already automated, your just relocating the human component to a more secure location.

                The X-47 is still fully on schedule as the USN has continued to express great interest in a UCAV, so at least one thing may come true, though, not sure considering politics always gets in the way somehow.
                Which tells me it should be cancelled NOW! Why? The Navy's history of dumping billions into dysfunctional programs, or better yet, dumping billions into successful programs only to cancel them the day before delivery.

                Maybe the USAF has some of the reservations that M21 and I share. That, or they're hoping to play it safe with a proven system rather than play around with a very radical new solution.
                The USAF has historically done all sorts of dumb and short-sighted stuff based on their touchy-feely "reservations." UCAVs ARE a proven system, what is needed now is experience and greater familiarity and experimentation. They are less expensive to manufacture, maintain, and operate than manned sytems.
                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


                • #23
                  There is NOTHING combat proven about UCAVs.

                  A predator is NOT a UCAV, it is no more than a big-assed armed remote control airplane.

                  The navy is still onboard with the X-45C cause it's the ONLY way they're getting into the deepstrike stealth business, business that they would no doubt love to secure for themselves and deny from the hated air force.

                  Of course they'll cancell it in 5 years on the eve of production after it went way over budget making it actually work.

                  It is afterall, the DoD way. ;)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by M21Sniper
                    There is NOTHING combat proven about UCAVs.

                    A predator is NOT a UCAV, it is no more than a big-assed armed remote control airplane.

                    The navy is still onboard with the X-45C cause it's the ONLY way they're getting into the deepstrike stealth business, business that they would no doubt love to secure for themselves and deny from the hated air force.

                    Of course they'll cancell it in 5 years on the eve of production after it went way over budget making it actually work.

                    It is afterall, the DoD way. ;)
                    An armed remote control airplane, is, BY DEFINITION, a UCAV. lol Predators have demonstrated their sensors and weapons combinations function quite nicely, thank you, and there's no reason to presume a purpose-designed vehicle will function any less well. The Navy is not onboard with the X-45C, their program is/(was?) the X-47, and despite being their only way to get into the deepstrike stealth business, I have full confidence that they will be true to form and screw it up! lol

                    You don't like the UCAV idea? Fine, that's your position. The Air Force didn't like jet engines (USAAF), precision guided bombs, and thought that planes don't need guns. Animosity towards UCAVs falls under the exact same heading.
                    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


                    • #25
                      The UCAV is not remote control.

                      It is autonomous.

                      Entirely different creature bro.

                      I don't like the idea of autonomous killing machines. Call me a tinfoil candidate, but it's a little too terminator for me dude.
                      No thanx, i'll pay my extra 24 bucks a year in taxes to have pilots in our aircraft...just for my piece of mind. :)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle. A Hellfire-armed Predator fits that definition, it can be operated either autonomously through programming, or actively by remote.

                        None the less, so long as you've made clear your discomfort is not with its capabilities, but in terms of how it operates.

                        I'll share your view when a cycling red light bar is installed and they start responding "By your command..."
                        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


                        • #27
                          IOW you'll worry when it's too late.

                          LOL... ;)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Horrido
                            I'll share your view when a cycling red light bar is installed and they start responding "By your command..."

                            Yeah but the newest models are HOT! ;)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by M21Sniper
                              The UCAV is not remote control.

                              It is autonomous.

                              Entirely different creature bro.

                              I don't like the idea of autonomous killing machines. Call me a tinfoil candidate, but it's a little too terminator for me dude.
                              No thanx, i'll pay my extra 24 bucks a year in taxes to have pilots in our aircraft...just for my piece of mind. :)
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                                From what I hear, the Air Force didn't like the capabilities that the X-45C gave (payload capacity mainly, if I remember correctly) and decided to go with a manned bomber program. The X-47 is still fully on schedule as the USN has continued to express great interest in a UCAV, so at least one thing may come true, though, not sure considering politics always gets in the way somehow.
                                The USAF determined it needed something with strategic range and payload rather than another tacair system.

                                Makes me wish we'd had the intestinal fortitude to keep cranking out B-2s while the line was hot.

                                The new long-ranged strike system may or may not be manned. It's still TBD.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X