Comments on: Naval Combat Drone Could Save Carrier Fleet

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:54:31 +0000

All I can say to Sec. Gates is — where is John Connor when you need him.

Does anyone really believe what is portrayed sci-fi will not or cannot come true some day.

Killer robots are just killer computers, all computers can be reprogrammed.

Is AI our future or our end??

By: Joseph B. Cryer

Joseph B. Cryer — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:59:25 +0000

I have not researched it extensively but the initial thought is that it has some potential. It needs to work in conjunction with our current Naval Air Strategy. Navy Pilots have saved me with air support during operations before so I am not to incline to jump in wholeheartedly without a degree skepticism.

By: R Hahn

R Hahn — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:19:54 +0000

Has anyone watched the documentary about the latest Russian torpedo that travels in excess of 300+ mph underwater. It’s labeled as the Carrier Destroyer. They have even talked to the Chinese and other nations about the purchase. We even sent a Naval specialist to try and accurire the rights to it, to no avail. My question is, what drone can track it, let alone stop it. We already deploy the E-2C Hawkeye and the latest destroyers with their hi-tech radar. and sonar. There is even a drug interdiction aircraft that is being used to help with the fires in California. None of which can stop a high speed underwater weapon. The only short term solution would be to deploy unmaned blocker sub drones to take the incoming blast that would shadow the carriers or as is being done in Iraq, buy the SOB offs. Just my oppinion.

By: Woodey

Woodey — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:48:50 +0000

Hasn’t anyone ever heard of jamming? If we fight a sophisticated enemy I wouldn’t want to count on having uninterupted contact with a drone.

By: Steven Skovranek

Steven Skovranek — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:19:19 +0000

Why not scrub the plane/drone and launch inflight refuel capable cruise missiles from space and use satellites to take the pictures and beam the info? They could drop drone cameras from space if there was cloud cover and use them to also beam the info.

Lasers from satellites are also a future option.

By: JDAM

JDAM — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:03:37 +0000

Paul:
Thank you for that theological treatise on the evils of technology. I suggest you and a couple of “well-trained” humans with sticks and knives take a shot at resisting a Predator with a Hellfire. You contradict yourself–well-trained “men” inside war machines are increasingly marginalized by those war machines because they are more and more automated due to the inherent limitations in those “men.” Nukes remain critical to national security, unmanned satellites are critical to national security, and I could go on.
The “worst seduction” is thinking that somehow you can minimize the contribution of technology, which is, after all, created by man, and glamorize the human’s role. Reactionary, Luddite thinking doesn’t win wars, people and their machines do–but only the latter improves.

By: Paul Aguilar

Paul Aguilar — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:45:52 +0000

General MacArthur opposed the use of the A bomb. Many military planners thought that weapon was the future of warfare. Those same planners also did not see the need for a “gun” on modern fighter jets. Yes, meet the future.

In practical and REAL warfare that followed, the Nuke force is being dismantled from it’s excesses, our allies want us to remove Nukes from their soil and the “all missile” airborne weaponry for dogfighting has been proven farcecal. Gentlemen, THAT is the FUTURE!

Over enthusiasm for and reliance upon technology is the worst seduction. Aren’t we discovery the severe limitation of Surveillance satellites? That too was thought to be the future of warfare.

Aren’t we having difficulty relying upon our present “hi tech” armed forces in accomplishing the simplest of man hunting tasks?

It comes down to a simple conclusion: well trained men on the ground and inside our war machines.

Perhaps it is the Human power of “intuition” itself that differentiates our abilities from that of a machine. Likewise, a Human’s compassion, long thought to be a liability, is what gives us the greater insight necessary in prosecution all acts and actions of war.

By: Matthew G. Saroff

Matthew G. Saroff — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:37:06 +0000

Ummmm.…if the UAV can do all that, why not just dump the carrier, and launch it directly from an air field in San Diego?

By: 1-Z

1-Z — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:41:02 +0000

The purpose of deploying these things on a carrier is so that they cna be stregically positioned and for quick response. If we tried to fly them from a base somewhere, you would lose any quick strike / response capability.

By: Garry Higgins

Garry Higgins — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:31:46 +0000

The unmanned craft will not fly themselves but will require “experienced pilots” in seats at distance providing real-time control based on sensor information. The enormous benefit is the loss of an unmanned craft will not automatically mean the loss of the most expensive component of that system — the pilot. Additionally, an unmanned craft can conduct evasive flight maneuvers physically impossible for a human to tolerate such as 10 to 12 g’s which a composite craft can. By employing sets of pilots, each one rested and ready and physically prepared for their portion of the mission, the outcome will be far superior than attempting to fly the entire mission with a $1.2B B1 bomber. This will also allow for “swarms” of unmanned craft to conduct “shock and awe” while selected targets are picked off amid the chaos.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:26:02 +0000

Is there not some way to combine the virtues of a carrier and the not-built “arsenal ship”? Has a carrier, existing or to be built, not room for a half-deck of missile cells? Or couldn’t
“containerized” missiles be carried in the hanger deck and elevatored to the flight deck for launch? It seems the Navy could use a triple threat carrier, armed with manned and unmanned aircraft, and a hefty strike package of “one way” aircraft = missiles>

By: Reader Bob

Reader Bob — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:26:50 +0000

Time has come for the entire Navy to open their eyes, greet the future of military avaition and accept it. The future is here now and it does not include placing a pilot in the seat of fame and glory. Man is not needed to ride along any longer. The aircraft will operate better doing more longer safer without him. It is called fantastic progress that has been proven and demonstrated.

By: Jeff Huber

Jeff Huber — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:40:34 +0000

With this kind of thing you don’t need the aircraft carrier. Wait till NG figures that one out.

Thanks, Chris. This will be the subject of my next column.

Jeff Huber