The end is nigh...

[Guest Curt2000]

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/new-air-force-drones-in-pakistan-061709

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/06/airforce_uas_automation_061009w/

A couple of interesting reads, not as much doom and gloom for pilots. FYI these articles were spwaned from a briefing that I gave in Paris at a UVS convention...it was spun out of context a few times, but what can you do?

Edited July 24, 2009 by Curt2000

[nsplayr]

Part of me believes there should always be the risk to life and limb in armed conflicts. If we reduce that danger to near zero, I think we’ll quickly desensitize ourselves to the abhorrence of war.

You're in a stovepipe of airpower. War is a joint effort and most conflicts are gonna have some type of ground warfare element, where the dangers of being killed are almost always greater. Don't think the Army won't go to automated tanks and robot soldiers someday too, but as of now I don't think there's much of a risk of humans being entirely out of danger so long as there is ground warfare.

But isn’t that also a hold-over from the nation-state conflict of the past. Today’s enemy doesn’t follow those old rules. They don’t mass, they don’t store, and they don’t produce. They’re mobile, agile, and versatile. It’s a little hard to destroy the AK in their hands with a Mk-82 and not kill the war-fighter too.

Firstly, I don't think nation-state conflicts are "of the past." I think non-state enemies are more likely in the future but nation-states still pose a threat. Second, the same principles Toro posted about are applied to non-state enemies. They're not beating us with their AKs...we f*cking school their AKs whenever they present themselves on the battlefield. They beat us with their propaganda and their persistence. In order to beat an al-Qaeda type enemy you have to take away their ability to spread propaganda or reduce it's effectiveness on target audiences, and you have to take away their ability to hide out in sympathetic areas until we get sick of fighting and leave. Killing the actual warfighter with his AK is still not the objective (HVTs excluded). Lastly, if we could find a way to destroy the gun from a guy's hand but not kill the guy you bet we'd do it. That one tranny bad guy from X-Men 3 who could clap it's hands and make our guns blow up...something like that would be sweet.

Anyway, do you think at some point in the near future we’ll see an F-22 with a pair of fast-burning UAVs for wingmen?

Yes. In the same way we have satellites and Global Hawks supplementing manned high-flying ISR birds there's no reason not to automate if you get greater effects. I think that's kind of the point people pushing the "nobility of war" argument are missing. Up to this point we as a military have automated as much and as quickly as possible in order to achieve greater effects, lower costs, and lower risk (think how many instructors we don't have to employ now that CBTs teach me everything I need to know!). Why are UAVs suddenly a red line in the sand which we must not cross because suddenly war will be meaningless?

[Spoo]

You're in a stovepipe of airpower.

Please dude, it's 2009. They're vertical cylinders of excellence.

[Whitman]

Anyway, do you think at some point in the near future we’ll see an F-22 with a pair of fast-burning UAVs for wingmen?

Yes. This article talks about "loyal wingman" (as opposed to the not-so-loyal, human ones????) and how one manned aircraft could potentially lead a dozen or so unmanned attack vehicles to targets. Apparently this is already in the works.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/drones-the-future.html

[nsplayr]

Please dude, it's 2009. They're vertical cylinders of excellence.

Wow...I actually laughed out loud at that. I say you ride that phrase all the way to your first star

[EvilEagle]

Spoken like someone who's afraid to lose his job. 70 years ago they couldn't imagine flying faster than the speed of sound. 50 years ago they couldn't imagine a plane invisible to radar. 20 years ago they couldn't imagine flying an unmanned a/c and firing a missile or dropping an LGB/JDAM from half a world away. Give it 20-30 years...when we're looking for the F-35's replacement.

While I appreciate the good witty put-down that every non-Eagle driving person in the world has already used 6-9 million times.....

I'm hosed on Eagle flying anyway, so me worrying about loosing my job is a non-issue. I'm on my last Eagle tour even if they opened more Eagle squadrons - 3 tours in a row with no alpha, no remote and no wic means I'm on the short list for bad deals. I know that's just the business, I've had a good run, but big blue is going to make me do something different now.

Having said that - UAV's can't replace manned fighters. I'm all for taking people out of harm's way, but until every person that OCA is protecting is in a cubicle somewhere (also flying UAS's), I won't believe that a UAS is the right call for the A/A mission.

I'll admit I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but believe it or not, I know that people thought the world was flat, that we'd never break the sound barrier and all of the other very enlightening information that you shared with me. I'm not saying that we don't need new technology, but I think that the a/a mission is the last one that should be replaced with it.

[Spoo]

While I appreciate the good witty put-down that every non-Eagle driving person in the world has already used 6-9 million times.....

I'm hosed on Eagle flying anyway, so me worrying about loosing my job is a non-issue. I'm on my last Eagle tour even if they opened more Eagle squadrons - 3 tours in a row with no alpha, no remote and no wic means I'm on the short list for bad deals. I know that's just the business, I've had a good run, but big blue is going to make me do something different now.

Having said that - UAV's can't replace manned fighters. I'm all for taking people out of harm's way, but until every person that OCA is protecting is in a cubicle somewhere (also flying UAS's), I won't believe that a UAS is the right call for the A/A mission.

I'll admit I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but believe it or not, I know that people thought the world was flat, that we'd never break the sound barrier and all of the other very enlightening information that you shared with me. I'm not saying that we don't need new technology, but I think that the a/a mission is the last one that should be replaced with it.

Dude, I wasn't referring to your job as an F-15 pilot, or the F-15 itself. Are you paranoid or what? Relax, I really don't give a shit. I have better things to do than try to slam someone else's community. My "witty put-down" was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek commentary about your apparent lack of imagination and refusal to believe that a UAV could do your job, whatever that is. You tee'd up the softball with your "Spoken like someone..." line, so I swung.

Trust me, I'm no proponent of the UAV. I love my job (not this job, but the flying one I hope to return to). I don't like watching the erosion of our profession. Hell, they've been trying to replace my jet with a crappy sub-par unmanned POS for ten years now. I don't know if it'll be all UAV's or none in the future, probably somewhere in the middle. My point was this: 30-40 years from now, there will be a dramatic difference in what UAVs can and will do. Right or wrong, it won't surprise me if a UAV takes on the a/a role at some point.

EDIT: I was going to make a jab about the days of the pure a/a manned fighter being over...but changed my mind.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Spoo

[Jughead]

But when it's just machines blowing up machines, a war/conflict goes nowhere. I don't think countries or political entities will give up, surrender, etc. unless there is a real consequence for their actions. The only way a point is going to be made is if people die. Why not just have the leaders play Halo, and the winner get's his political desires?

Am I the only one here who's a big enough geek to remember