True, plus they (UAS) have severe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
There are real and severe technical limitations to what UAV's can do.
direct fire limitations and such fire may not be mandatory but it can be really helpful on occasion. Air to ground and air to air...
'Cause. The only limitations on ground to ground
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
...why not add ground-to-ground to your list?
direct fire are imagination and will... :cool:
(Unless you're referring to G-G Unmanned Systems, then the same problems you and I both cite plus target and environmental discrimination pertain. ;) )
Just My Nickle for 2 cents is what it used to be
Okay, first of all, how do UAV's, as well as most electronic communications, react to a electronics warfare rich environment? My sources say there are problems. It's not just us, who are going to experience back/gray outs but everybody will. Again if my sources are right, electronic warfare is keeping pace with everything else technical in the world's militaries. We arent the only one working heavily on this problem. We also may not be the biggest bully on the block. When we can safely say we have solved all the problems, why do I suppose that they'll come up with a question we haven't asked ourselves yet? It's the nature of warfare.
Defence overcomes offense then offense overcomes defense, it's the nature of the beast. We've been hypnotised by the burst of technology that overcame the restrictions we though were impossible to meet. But are there certain basics that have to be maintained? I'm only asking a question here, not giving an answer.
I know what Putin and the Russians(sounds like a rock group) were by my last word, before Russia pulled the Iron Curtain down, Russian scientists and engineers were working on a way of electronically defeating our ABMs. If that is so then they aren't running from our technological superiority. If anything they're increasing tensions because we can only guess what they or the Chinese or the Indians are actually up to.
Just food for thought...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
The manned fighter is not going away anytime soon. There are real and severe technical limitations to what UAV's can do. A UAV loitering overhead is not the same thing as a fighter pulling a 9 g's while inverted. Maybe someone will figure out how to reliable maintain a satellite link under all the conditions under which fighters must operate, but it is much more difficult that most seem to assume.
The bombing mission, particularly long-range penetrators, will be going unmanned next. The Navy is already well along this road.
This makes a lot of sense to me. UAVs haven't shown a lot of situational awareness.
How mature is the technology that you are depending on here to make those unmanned fighters possible. UAVs are relatively simple compared to a fighter or bomber. There is always a need to consider what the future will bring but don't depend on it.
Also has anyone thought out just what truly unmanned fighters would do to warfare. Why have them? Cruise missles tecnology could be increased to give you similar advantages and there is no need for an expensive aircraft of any type. Remember the Tomohawks were all originaly nuclear tipped. Which brings us to a greater question, why not just throw rocks at each other. If we are willing to make warfare reduced to the lowest commonest denominator, then why have Navies because right now they are at great risk because of the Chinese large anti-ship rockets. Why have soldiers because while not as good as soldiers, robots would be adequate to blowup large sections of the frontline without harming a living being's life except for those that were there when the robot went off.
Anything electronic that isn't an A.I. or for that matter, self aware, has the method of its defeat already in its programing. Only humans are capable of reacting in unusual ways to events and because of this can defeat anything not as adaptable. And if the ECM is as bad it has been described to me then unmanned anything is a disaster waiting to happen.
I'm not a luddite. I think of myself as a realist. And in this country we have done too much damage by depending on technology that didn't work the way it it was supposed to.
We designed the F-22 fighter along a playbook that showed that it would be a frontline fighter till 2050 I believe. Then the Russians threw out our playbook and created a stick and rudder fighter (S 37) that took the F-22 down a peg or two. I'm just citing a study done by the military that wanted to know just how effective the F-22 was up against other fighters.
Create bigger nail and they will crete a bigger hammer.
Mooks makes my point for me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mooks
A2A isn't that hard actually once the decision to kill has been made. You don't need a remote pilot to maneuver the aircraft during, it can do that itself, just like an AMRAAM or a JDAM guides itself towards a target.
I'd beg to differ more than a little bit... AMRAAM and JDAM simply fly themselves within a certain distance of the target... if you are talking kamikaze UAVs, then I agree... but then, that's not a UAV, that's a missile.
You make my point for me when you talk about the decision to kill... that's the key. And that's where the state of the art just isn't there quite yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mooks
Given what I've seen in computer science, 20 years is not an ambitious timeline; some of the key technology needed for this already exists and are in commercial applications. Northrop-Grumman and Boeing are pouring billions into this area with the X-45, 47 and the bird of prey, which are integrating technology from various areas to create the next generation of UCAVs.
I agree, 20 years is not unreasonable for autonomous A-A UCAVs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mooks
In any case, as you pointed out it doesn't have to be classic aerial combat where UCAVs become dominant, but other missions like SEAD or deep penetration to attack high value targets. They can dent the overall rationale behind buying more manned fighters like the F-35 at the volumes currently considered.
Completely agree... the SEAD and INT/Strategic Attack make the most sense since pre-planned targetting is possible and ID is easier based on the planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mooks
This brings me to my overall point of my last post; we don't know what the airforce of the future will look like but it is clear a technological change is occurring. I merely raise the scenario of UCAVs being very effective as one a possible scenario of how these issues may play out. I'm personally not sold either; AlexTX may well be right about the risk to UAVs and its well known that the Chinese have been looking into countermeasures in this area. I made this exact point to several government army of the future researchers a couple of years ago (and didn't get a very sympathetic reply.) Yet its difficult to deny there is much promise for this technology to the extent it might revolutionize air warfare.
Considering this and the era of strategic ambiguity the U.S. resides in as well I believe the Pentagon is somewhat hedging its bets in purchases of manned fighter aircraft at this time.
This is why I think we should be buying some more F-22s at the expense of the F-35... the F-35 mission can be done partially by Reaper or the turbojet powered UCAVs. The F-22's mission can't... and also can't really be done by F-35. Which is why the current aircraft acquisitions plans don't seem to jibe with our stated national military strategy.