Deep thoughts

[Hacker]

Grand canyon's worth of difference between FedEx pushing for an unmanned freighter -- where the reason is cost savings -- and the USAF's reason for going unmanned is the safety of people.

Completely opposite motives.

We'll see it at FedEx before we see it at Uncle Sam airlines.

[brickhistory]

Grand canyon's worth of difference between FedEx pushing for an unmanned freighter -- where the reason is cost savings -- and the USAF's reason for going unmanned is the safety of people.

Completely opposite motives.

We'll see it at FedEx before we see it at Uncle Sam airlines.

Cost savings for FedEx but not Uncle Sam? You're kidding, right?

Remember any of the 40K folks who were in our ranks about 18-24 months ago?

No pilot at risk in a combat situation is one of, probably THE, aspect of DoD's interest in UAVs, but so is saving/cutting dollars. Besides the human in the jet, there's the life support, flight docs, etc, etc. that are there to support the blood/guts-filled operator. Those folks will be replaced with far fewer programmers/trouble-shooters eventually. No retirements to fund for another 30 or more years, no TRICARE for life for the gizmos in the UAV, just a trip to the junkyard. So tell me again that cost-savings aren't a DoD consideration?!

I partially agree with you that you'll see an unmanned civil cargo hauler before you'll see a C-5-type USAF UAV, but not totally. DARPA has a big budget and is using it.

[Guest L Unit]

I'd like point out three things:

1. You will never truly control an area without a man with a rifle on the ground. You can bomb the opposition into the stone age, but unless you wipe him out completely, you do not own that property.

2. I agree with the troops not wanting to be flown around by a computer. (I have been the guy on the ground, FYI.) I would not get into a C-130 without a human behind the controls. Even if the plane were piloted remotely, I'd be pretty pissed that my ass was riding in a plane and the guy in charge of said plane was safe and happy in an air conditioned room hundreds of miles away. Same for CAS. It would be very demoralizing to know that your ass was about to get shot off, and another team member was not taking the same risk.

3. The distinction should be made between unmanned aircraft and autonomous ones. I'm OK with a predator droning around as long as someone is at the controls and can comply with my requests. I'm NOT OK with a machine with no complex decision-making capabilities. I.E., my craft is crashing, do I steer into that empty field or the school full of children? What about communications from the ground troops? I don't know how an autonomous drone could identify the "long football-shaped field, running east-west, with the stream running through the middle of it." In that circumstance a human being can identify, process, and comply with information from the ground much better than any computer agorithm.

The whole point of the UAV program is to provide the same service with less money and risk to human life. The question is, whos life? A highly-trained pilot or a Private First Class on the ground?

[brickhistory]

L Unit, well said.

But the 'man' is working on 'sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads (STS)' for the ground combat role as well.

I'm not advocating for that or the unmanned airplanes either, but it's gonna happen.

Shades of the Star Wars combat 'droids.........................

[Guest Cam]

I'd like point out three things:

1. You will never truly control an area without a man with a rifle on the ground. You can bomb the opposition into the stone age, but unless you wipe him out completely, you do not own that property.

2. I agree with the troops not wanting to be flown around by a computer. (I have been the guy on the ground, FYI.) I would not get into a C-130 without a human behind the controls. Even if the plane were piloted remotely, I'd be pretty pissed that my ass was riding in a plane and the guy in charge of said plane was safe and happy in an air conditioned room hundreds of miles away. Same for CAS. It would be very demoralizing to know that your ass was about to get shot off, and another team member was not taking the same risk.

3. The distinction should be made between unmanned aircraft and autonomous ones. I'm OK with a predator droning around as long as someone is at the controls and can comply with my requests. I'm NOT OK with a machine with no complex decision-making capabilities. I.E., my craft is crashing, do I steer into that empty field or the school full of children? What about communications from the ground troops? I don't know how an autonomous drone could identify the "long football-shaped field, running east-west, with the stream running through the middle of it." In that circumstance a human being can identify, process, and comply with information from the ground much better than any computer agorithm.

The whole point of the UAV program is to provide the same service with less money and risk to human life. The question is, whos life? A highly-trained pilot or a Private First Class on the ground?

L Unit, I understand where you're coming from. The important thing to keep in mind is what risk-mitigation is all about. You're absolutely correct when you say we can't hold a piece of real estate without men on the ground with rifles. Therefore, if we want to seize and hold ground, risking soldiers lives is unavoidable. If there were some way to seize and hold land without soldiers on the ground, I'm sure we'd do it, but until we start mass-producing terminators, it's not going to happen.

So, if we can't avoid risking the lives of soldiers, why should we flinch when it comes to risking pilots lives? Why bother with UAVs, aside from cost savings? The answer lies in the necessity of the risk. In the past, we could not conduct ISR, shoot down enemy air planes, bomb targets, or provide close air support without a human at the controls. In the past and even into the present, risking pilots' lives was necessary. Well, times are changing. With UAVs, we can conduct many of the aforementioned missions, to include CAS, without risking the pilots' lives; with UAVs, taking that risk is no longer necessary. Why take a risk when you don't need to? Because someone else has to risk his life?

I think your argument is essentially that we should risk the lives of our pilots, because we have to risk the lives of soldiers on the ground. My answer to that is we risk the lives of the soldiers on the ground because have to. We don't risk the lives of our pilots (operating UAVs) because we don't have to.

Don't get me wrong- I'm a pilot and I'd MUCH rather be in the jet with the controls in my hands, and I dread the thought of being reduced to a console operator controlling a UAV, but I'm also realistic when it comes to the rationale behind unmanned flight.

Now, regarding putting life and death decisions in the hands of a computer, I'm with you. I think it will be a long time before technology has advanced to the point that we can count on computers to make ethically, legally, or morally correct decisions autonomously. We need a human in the decision loop to make those kind of calls.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Cam

[Guest L Unit]

Cam, I re-read my post, and I realize I didn't phrase my point #2 correctly.

I believe that humans in the cockpit are better able to serve the "guy on the ground." I can imagine two scenarios that have been brought up.

The first was troop transport. In the case of a transport being piloted by a human, it is in his best interests to fly that plane in a manner that will not only get the job done, but bring himself home in one piece. (I'm not suggesting that the remote pilot would be so dehumanized as to have his plane crash or be shot down (with troops on board), recieve a "game over" flash on his screen, and just say "Oh well, let's go get a cup of coffee before I put another quarter in.") Additionally, some mechanical issue may go wrong in said transport plane. Some problems are fixable in-flight, provided an individual is in the aircraft and has the knowledge of how to fix it.

The second scenario was ground support. I waver here, because I imagine that the PIC (an officer) with a regularly updated tactical map, along with an enlisted subordinate to monitor critical systems, can drastically increase SA. The added ability of optics to zoom on target makes for easy target ID. At the same time, however, I feel that peering through a camera lens actually lowers SA. You might have flown with NVGs on. I've walked with them on. It's hilarious how hard you have to concentrate. And the fact is, unless you stop every few seconds and do a 360 degree sweep, you don't know what's in your periphery. I can imagine a UAV dealing with a potential threat, while a few degrees to it's left there is an even larger threat, going undetected.

(Please, if there are any UAV pilots reading this that can correct me, feel free to do so.)

Finally, I agree to the "UAV is here to stay." The fact is that you can build a drone faster than you can train a pilot. If a UAV gets shot down, and the pilot is in a bunker in safe territory, just link him to another aircraft.

P.S. The short story is: While I don't advocate putting pilots at risk for no reason, I have a problem with removing risk from one group and dumping it onto another.

Edited February 10, 2008 by L Unit

[Guest Cam]

Cam, I re-read my post, and I realize I didn't phrase my point #2 correctly.

I believe that humans in the cockpit are better able to serve the "guy on the ground." I can imagine two scenarios that have been brought up.

P.S. The short story is: While I don't advocate putting pilots at risk for no reason, I have a problem with removing risk from one group and dumping it onto another.

Yeah, I'm definitely not an advocate of transporting people with a transport-version UAV. One of the leading causes of UAV losses is datalink failure. It would be pretty shitty to lose a plane full of people because the datalink went tits-up.

Regarding ground support/CAS, I believe UAVs can effectively supplement human-piloted CAS platforms, but may not yet be able to replace them. I don't know enough about current UAVs to be sure, but I assume they can select a wide-field of view to scan the terrain and follow the JTAC's cues during the talk-on, and then enter a narrow-field of view for PID and targeting. Assuming my understanding is correct, then there shouldn't be much difference for the CAS user on the ground between a UAV and a high-altitude CAS platform, like a bomber (I fly B-52s by the way, and have conducted an extensive amount of CAS). Now, when the shooting starts (troops in contact situations) and the fog of war sets in, there are no-doubt advantages to be had with an A-10, F-16, F-18, etc, piloted by a human, due to the limited SA I would expect from a UAV operator during an intense TIC scenario.

Anyhow- I definitely agree that the risk shouldn't be taken off of us at the expense of the ground soldier's safety. I'm more than happy to risk my ass to help the guys on the ground.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Cam

[ellsworb]

I am one of the guys going to Creech because of the miserable wench that is called TAMI. Me and the other bros that are getting screwed over have talked over beers about drones and the moral questions that they bring up, the main one being "Is killing without any risk to yourself honorable?" I'm not talking about lobbing a JDAM from the bozosphere. I mean no risk at all. None. Or are drones just a part of the natural progression of warfare? i.e. fists-rocks-spears-arrows-guns-etc. I realize this is a pretty deep topic for this forum, but I'm curious what you guys think, specifically the old skulls who've been shot at and dropped in anger before. Discuss...

P.S. Please don't mistake me for some smelly hippie SNAP. There are people out there that deserve to meet their maker and I am happy to arrange that meeting and won't hesitate to hit the pickle button when/if the time comes, whether I'm in my mighty viper or in a glorified Winnebago "flying" something with a smaller motor than my snowmobile.

According to Sun Tzu, it is the MOST honorable way to win, putting ZERO of your own men and MINIMAL of your own resources at risk.

effing SOS

[joe1234]

okay, dude.

BENDY

Sorry for trying to start a discussion in a forum entitled "General Discussion".

Anyway, L-Unit, I think you hit it right on the head as far as troop transport. It just wouldn't make sense to take the pilot out of the equation for minimizing risks when there's other people on there anyway. If a UAV goes down, or even an unmanned cargo-only transport, only money is lost. Once you add human lives to the equation, there's literally no benefit whatsoever to making it an unmanned platform.

[M2]

Hell, I'm just waiting for the car that will drive me home when I get drunk! In the mean time, I've gotta rely on the old lady for that!

A remotely-piloted vehicle would be a lot easier to build than a remotely-piloted transport plane, and do you see any of those around yet? Nope.

The day might come; but for the time being, I think everyone can relax knowing that the days of nothing but unmanned aircraft are still a ways away...

Cheers! M2

[Guest Bender]

...do you see any of those around yet? Nope.

It's already been done...I believe it was GM (I wouldn't have won that bet.) I'll have to look up my source, however I know they aren't ready to sell it yet. I'm not sure what the hold up is though. I have to go fly right now, but I'll try and dig that up later.

EDIT: First off, a remotely piloted vehicle would still require your wife to drive you home, so just wouldn't have to go out with your ass all night to do it...might still be worth it.

Second, It was GM, but it's not the full up thing...they are only releasing the "Traffic Assist" parts of the system. So...in essence, yeah, your drunk ass would still have to get the thing to the highway and engage the system, be awake before you either miss your exit or run out of gas, then get the thing parked in your driveway safely.

So, no..you're right...still not there yet. If you can even buy this thing in the states... First link I could find about it, I'm sure there are many more.

BENDY

Edited February 12, 2008 by Bender