Pilots? What Pilots?

[Knight26]

I'm such a teasing little bitch, all I can say, check global security dot org or maybe air force technology dot com they should have some juicy public domain info for you.

[Warmaker]

Hahaha! There was a thread in the "Movies and TV Series" subforum here where the discussion drifted towards unmanned combat aircraft. I'm a firm believer that it is coming whether we like it or not, disregarding the pretty image of a pilot in an airplane with a white scarf doing battle with another pilot in the sky like some sort of knight.

Like Cavalrymen fading away for newer forms of weapons and warfare.

Technology grows fast, and so too can new doctrines in warfare involving these things in the future.

[Sulendil Ang]

OMG! What can be worse than reviving a 5-year-old thread (and continue to post in that thread)?

BTW, any related news about the topic?

[Coota0]

I don't think there's a real place for traditional "fighters" in the 21st century battle plan. With long range missiles and stealth technology there's no real need to mix it up any more except to satiate egos.

I love people like you. Many times before it has been said that technology (specifically long range missiles in one case) would lead to the end of the fighter, but they're still here.

I think UAVs/UCAVs will support manned aircraft. Dale Brown's take is one of my fovorites, his EB-52s use UCAVs for recon and escort and are controlled from the bomber, he also talks about using F-15Es for the same job with the WSO doing the flying. In the realworld UAVs can already download real time imagery to our aircraft and one day will be contolled by the pilots of the aircraft they're scouting for.

You'll never see unmmaned aircraft in the utility, cargo missions, or civilian airline industry, nobody is going to turn their trust over to a computer completley. The aircraft may be largly computer controlled, but not fully...example the UH-60M and CH-47F can both be flown pretty much by computer, you load up a memory stick with a flight profile, plug it into the aircraft and the bird can take off, fly the waypoints, dodge trees and hills and wires, and then land at the designated point, but the pilots are still monitoring the aircraft the hole time. It's great for offloading pilot workload on long flights but you still need the pilots in case there is a problem with the system or somebody starts shooting at you.

The best networks can be hacked and the most secure signals can be jammed you'll always need a man in the air with any system you send up. Pilots working with UAVs/UCAVs as wingmen, direct recon, support, or supplement to their misison...absolutley, it will happen and already does, but you'll always need pilots. Hell, maybe I'm biased because I am one, but that's my two cents.

[F-ZeroOne]

"Why do they call you J.C., J.C?"

Theres a very old joke about this. In the future, aeroplanes will have a crew of three: a computer, which does the actual flying. A man, who is there for insurance purposes. And a dog, whose job is to bite the man if he attempts to touch the controls.

[Noyhauser]

You'll never see unmmaned aircraft in the utility, cargo missions, or civilian airline industry, nobody is going to turn their trust over to a computer completley. The aircraft may be largly computer controlled, but not fully...example the UH-60M and CH-47F can both be flown pretty much by computer, you load up a memory stick with a flight profile, plug it into the aircraft and the bird can take off, fly the waypoints, dodge trees and hills and wires, and then land at the designated point, but the pilots are still monitoring the aircraft the hole time. It's great for offloading pilot workload on long flights but you still need the pilots in case there is a problem with the system or somebody starts shooting at you.

The best networks can be hacked and the most secure signals can be jammed you'll always need a man in the air with any system you send up. Pilots working with UAVs/UCAVs as wingmen, direct recon, support, or supplement to their misison...absolutley, it will happen and already does, but you'll always need pilots. Hell, maybe I'm biased because I am one, but that's my two cents.

Oh there will always be a need for the "man in the loop," though I don't think Dale Brown has the answer, though I'd love to see a semi-stealthy B-52, armed with SLAMs and a rear firing stinger turret

Seriously though there are just too many things that require situational awareness, which you can't get sitting in a shed at Nellis or Yuma (or wherever we fly Preds from these days.) Like missiles, AIs can be fooled, spoofed, decoyed, whatever, but operating semi-autonomously must be a huge force multiplier for a human pilot in the area. Moreover the Chinese watch our developments and are constructing effective countermeasures. Who wants to bet they have the ability to jam datalinks for our present day UAVs? I think its a fair bet.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Noyhauser

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Researchers are currently studying the bio-mechanics, behavior & habits of swarming insects so that they might successfully apply such principles to AI based robotic airframes. Actually, by removing the human body from the airframe, there is no limit to the design possibilities & configurations we could see. Delicate but deadly insect-like craft, or ornithopters, could literally swarm the skies of future air combat zones! Think of the flying Hunter-Killers from the Terminator movies... but remote piloted by human pilots.

I got an image of space invaders and galaga in my head when I read that.

[Knight26]

*biting lip, biting lip*

[SilentCrossHairs]

Now all we need is a YF-21 to kill it...

We did....It was called the YF-23. Looks just like it don't it

[Ghost Train]

I've always felt that Macross Plus was in some ways based on the Advanced Tactical Fighter competion between the YF-22 and YF-23. But yea... I can definitely see the resemblance: