Quote Originally Posted by AlexTX ret View Post

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.

In response to your overall query, Peter W Singer wrote an article in the Atlantis Science and Tech Magazine (an abridged version of his book apparently) discussing some of these issues from a policy and law standpoint. It might be worth a read.