US killer robo-plane makes strike without remote pilot A US killer drone has carried out a lethal strike from the skies above Iraq, for the first time remotely controlled entirely by non-aircrew-rated, enlisted soldiers. The milestone would seem to foreshadow redundancy for large communities of military pilots in coming years. Corporate art of an armed Warrior-Alpha We don't …
As long as there is NO WAY to operate the plane without a human in the loop, i can be comfortable. BUT i'm in no way comfortable at beign exclusively dependant on robots to fly. There HAS to be some trained corps able to fly mechanical planes ... just in case.
Also there have to be some fully manual planes aroud ... also just in case.
Call me paranoid if you wish.
First of all, the US military has had non-officer pilots going back to World War II. Nothing new there. (e..g. The P-38-equipped 82nd Fighter Group during WWII had "sergeant pilots".) The high level of automation of these RPV's does a better job at the mechanics of flying that a fully manual flight system anyway, regardless of who is at the controls. Having said that, a Predator has no more firepower than an artillary piece traditionally fired by enlisted men, it simply has different advantages, strengths, and limitations. The real change needed is some type of control handoff or real-time video link to the platoon leadder on the ground calling in the airstrike.
Sergeant Pilots:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1424
This is the same as troops calling in arterliry, or tanks to provide cover. This is not going to reduce manned flight!
This is only possible when you have complete aircontrol with no opposition. Somehow I dont think this
would be happening if there was an opposing airforce to shoot them down.
And got forbid, anyone, works out a way to jam satellite comunication systems, because then bye bye
drone control.
Drones are like any other weapon of war, they are only of use as part of an intregrated army.
Once again, the military establishment (at least over here in the US) has failed to learn from history and is therefore doomed to repeat it.
Prior to the little excursion into Vietnam, military planners/designers thought the (aircraft) gun obsolete. After all, missiles could do all that from a safe distance, with greater accuracy, blah blah blah.
Reality, as most folks know, turned out to be rather different. Relatively simple and inexpensive MiGs and their cannon were kicking butt at the beginning of the war while complex and expensive missiles failed in that miserable environment. Defense contractors and military planners had to jury rig gun pods onto early model F4 Phantoms. Later edition Phantoms had internally mounted cannon, lessons having been learned the hard way...
If we proceed too far down this path, we are going to lose an even MORE valuable military option than aircraft mounted cannon. Even though properly trained pilots are expensive (and occasionally rather obnoxious in their swagger), they are an essential option in any military equation. Just as you can't win a war without "boots on the ground,"* there will come a day when you can't win a war without a HUMAN in the air.
* before anyone starts, I remind you of the tried and true maxim "conquest is easy, control is not". There are many ways to conquer without boots on the ground, but not control.
There are only two jobs that an airforce has to do:
* destroy stuff
* carry things (and people) around
Now it seems like the first of these functions has been deskilled to the point where normal people can do it, So all that leaves is the logistics/air-ambulance role. Presumably, the vast majority of this work could be given to DHL or RyanAir or somesuch. The only bit they might have a problem with is moving wounded people out of a combat zone - or getting them (in an unwounded state) there in the first place.
If that is all that an airforce is destined to be, it kinda begs the question of whether they still qualify as a separate branch of the armed services, or should be treated as another specialised group within the army - such as the Engineers, or Signals.
...but I only forsee one issue, if there are several grunt officers calling for one asset (death dealing asset!) then how would it make the decision of which is priority. Being able to talk the pilot into a target is a much used tactic and also allows some human thinking and rationilisation on weapon useage.
So what if one grunt fancies laying down some massive firepower on a non-immediate threat but somebody else is up to their neck in it, how does the computer decide?
"before anyone starts, I remind you of the tried and true maxim "conquest is easy, control is not". There are many ways to conquer without boots on the ground, but not control."
That's so not true. We only have that problem because modern warfare is NOT centered around killing everything in a 50 mile radius.
This is as clear an example of a violation of strict demarkation of duties as ever I saw in my years with the ASTMS (The Association of Stroppy, Tossbag, Meanial Scum), and we're not standin' for it!
I calls for a walkout, followed by a week of sick-outs, go-slows and works-to-rule until management, in this case the supreme command, understand that they can't just trample 200 years of tradition at will!
We live in hard times, and expense must saved.
We have more and more drones, more and more surveillance footage, and fewer and fewer qualified intelligence analysts and pilots prepared to take the strain.
The surveillance drone footage can be made available on the interweb, and members of the public can log into view it live.
If someone spots a person of ill-intent bent of destroying our way of life, he can log onto one of the drones flying in a holding pattern in theatre, take control and light that sonofabitch up.
It would keep costs down, keep more eyeballs on targets and give frag-hungry teenagers something to do. Hell, people would even pay for the privilege. Win-win proposition.
..at school in warwicksire, my mates - I had a couple, honest.. -
and I debated making a model concorde. Daft as it sounds, one mate - "Chris" - reckoned he could get small jet engines going. He was fairly well qualified as:(1 - because we were at the same school where Sir Frank Whittle went - Leamington College for boys, and 2) Cos his dad was an engine designer for Rolls-Royce in Derby.*
The other mate - Leon - made random number generating machines for his science teacher. Using RTL (Resistor-Transistor Logic-- precursor to DTL - Diode-transistor Logic, then PAL - peace At Last with Transistor-transistor logic) to see if fish had sixth sense. (Shroedinger's cat-like). Control logic, if you will.
Me? I had fun making model planes. Big ones. 10cc engines - one on each wing. Half a fuc*king moped on balsawood and a prayer, in full control on a radio channel shared on CB (childrens band) by some bloke called "Big Ducky".
That plane could've had someone's eye out if you weren't careful...
Rememer, this was the era of Harold Wilson's "white-hot heat". We were right at the "Foreskin of Modern Technology"
So. Good group of engineers. EXCEPT...
We were fifteen years old at the time.
Point being, I reckon I could make a "Predator" and shoot/crash anything/anyone I wanted with the technology I can get now.
Worrying thing, I reckon I could make it viable for less than a grand. I don't need to fuc*k around buying fertiliser, and arousing the interests of BAM/YTFL/ökasg/ - whatever the Secret Plods are called now.
* We tried Jetex - solid fuel efforts, but they were about as effective as lighting farts.
"This is only possible when you have complete aircontrol with no opposition. Somehow I dont think this would be happening if there was an opposing airforce to shoot them down."
Good thing Johnny Jihadist can't get his hands on any man portable SAMs is it not?
Oh wait...
Can I hack this?
Yes you can. (probably)
Maybe we don't, any longer, need a separate air force. Maybe UK isn't big enough to afford, doesn't have the enemies, is delegated specific tasks within NATO... so that a considered review of what our De/offense forces need to have is long overdue. Do we need a separate Nuclear deterrent when when we have HBOS, RBS, Lloyds/TSB and the boats crash into the other side anyway? Do we need aircraft carriers that can't launch/retrieve aircraft we are planning to use. Do we need aircraft carriers/Gunboats in any event as we have no Empire to project control over? What sort of wars do we expect to fight? When we've answered those questions we can say what sort of air superiority we intend to have and how THE UK!! intends to acquire and/or manufacture it.
Sure -- where there are no surface-to-air defenses to worry about and no complex situations to deal with a remotely controlled strike is fine. Against anything like a comparably-equipped enemy who is not totally "out-teched" the situation is entirely different. Try flying one of these drones into Russian air-space :)
Consider these drones as fit for purpose - blowing up stuff in 3rd world cesspits like Afghanistan, somalia etc. You don't need stealth or superjets and Tom 'Maverick' Cruise for that.
Against a more powerful adversary, yes, better kit is needed. But that doesn't preclude using more advanced drones. Though you don't want them too smart, otherwise we may need to prepare to welcome our new drone'o'death overlords.
Even, possibly, an air force of other drones. Provided they have some kind of air to air weapon.
Also note that this thing is well above the size of even a large RC plane. Its c 48' in wingspan and 26'. according to http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/predator.htm Whether or not it can remain at its normal operating height when acting as both a weapon carrier and controller (c26kft) is another matter. while its rotary engine should be a difficult target for heat seekers it may not be impossible. I think its more a question of contrast against the sky background.
Or you could just get a reasonably sized RC model and crash it into the tail. In countering the complex threat you sometimes forget the simpler options.
The good news is a real RC plane should have formidable trouble getting to the altitude and speed (120Kn flat out). History teaches that relying on altitude for immunity from attack has a very limited shelf life. The V bombers and the U2 demonstrated this is not a long term option.
You could build a UAV which could pull 15g(or more) turns at very high angles of attack and shoot down anything else in the sky. But how much cheaper than an equivalent crewed aircraft would it be? These UAVs are not designed for that and maybe that's the point.
When push comes to shove UAVs are expendable. Take their telemetry, learn from it for the next upgrade. A possible option (like some of the Vietnam era drones designs) would be to make some parts (especially the sensor packages) recoverable by better crash protection or some kind of ejection & parachute.
It might be interesting to find out what Israeli practice has been. Their use of UAVs in the Lebanon were in some cases into areas with heavy air defence. I think they expected most of them to be destroyed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
