Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
No more attack drones
Collapse
X
-
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.
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
-
Originally posted by highseaWhy 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Franco LolanWhat?! The X-45C was amazing! It jsut completed it's bomb drop tests recently. It was going to come along. What happened?
Comment
-
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 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.
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.
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 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
-
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
-
Originally posted by M21SniperThere 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. ;)
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
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by M21SniperThe 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. :)
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
-
Originally posted by The_Burning_KidFrom 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.
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
Comment