Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No more attack drones

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

  • B.Smitty
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drkfce
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • B.Smitty
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • highsea
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • B.Smitty
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Horrido
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • highsea
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • B.Smitty
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • B.Smitty
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • B.Smitty
    replied
    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! ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    IOW you'll worry when it's too late.

    LOL... ;)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X