Keep Man in Cockpit

Keep Man in Cockpit

The debate about piloted aircraft vs. unmanned has simmered down of late as Predators and others improve their effectiveness at hitting something. But as a reader notes, there may be compelling reasons to keep men and women in the cockpit — like staying alive! Secretary Donley and COS Schwartz — are you listening? Enjoy this amusing and well written piece by someone signing himself, Fred Pierce (former F-18D pilot):

On a more humorous note, here is a case study against the use of UAVs…

Consider this… You’re a Marine F/A-18 pilot flying along in enemy territory. At a pre determined time, the crypto loads reset to the next day’s code list. This happens at the same time throughout the entire theater. Unfortunately for you, you realize at that time that the COMM/NAV guys screwed up and loaded the wrong codes. They are one day off.

Just then, every aircraft in theater stays green as you turn yellow (unknown) on every allied C2 display. Your wingman just happens to be a UAV who just noticed that you lack proper authentication. He now tries to visually ID you by sending video footage of your aircraft back to C2 for confirmation, but before it can slew the camera toward you, you begin taking AAA fire. A 57mm round explodes near the UAV on your side of it knocking out it’s antennas and causing damage to the airframe. The sensors on the UAV pick up the IR signature of the explosion. It’s computer interprets it as an air to air missile launch. Given the time between signature and damage considering its location in relation to the nearest unknown/enemy aircraft (YOU) and the UAV’s location relative to your nose (in degrees), its AI process interprets it as an AA-11 Archer IR missile launched by a MIG-29 with helmet mounted sight (YOU). Additionally, AI determines its lack of response from C2 (due to its antenna being MIA) to mean C2 is now a casualty.

It formulates a course of action based on scenario threads in its database. Its primary directives (no harm to coalition personnel or equipment) clear the course of action.

You then notice your wingman conduct a flawlessly executed barrel roll to your six o-clock position as it fires two AIM-9X sidewinders right up your tail pipes. You eject and watch the UAV do a victory roll (left over code from the computer science intern at Northrop Grumman who couldn’t resist sneaking his signature code into the OS).

You spend the next seven years in an enemy POW camp while technicians all over California celebrate the first air to air kill by their “flawless” weapon system. You are listed as missing in action and assumed dead. In an effort to promote more government spending in California (in the form of UAV orders), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger uses the case to argue that UAVs are superior to piloted aircraft because it defeated the enemy MIG-29 that YOU failed to see or avoid before it blasted you to pieces. (This assumption was made because the seaman who downloaded the mission data was pissed about his stop loss announcement. When the computer reported a discrepancy in the logical sequence of events for the mission, the seaman overrode the computer and selected the suggested solution, ie. you were destroyed by the MIG-29 before UAV engagement, even though the system marked it as “Unlikely.” He then said, “Screw the Navy!” and went to midrats.

Yea man… UAVs ROCK!!!

Lets keep men in the cockpit.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

lmao.… nice story…

Yeah, that string of implausible possibilities is enough reason to keep buying manned planes at 10x the price of UAVs.

He does have a point though: friendly fire’s _never_ been a problem with manned equipment, no siree.

Ok, well I think the key is electro-optical sensors. Just as a UCAV should have a range of sensors to id a target prior to engagement, this would preclude its AI from jumping to the above conclusion in this scenario because it would have recognized the F-18 in its library as a friendly aircraft.

Just in time for a lunch response:

Fred said: “Consider this… You’re a Marine F/A-18 pilot flying along in enemy territory. At a pre determined time, the crypto loads reset to the next day’s code list. This happens at the same time throughout the entire theater. Unfortunately for you, you realize at that time that the COMM/NAV guys screwed up and loaded the wrong codes. They are one day off.” ===============================================
By the time you have a UAV wingman, you will be a Marine pilot flying in an F-35. You may also have the ability to communicate with and control your unmanned wingman. You, and other allied manned aircraft, will have all-aspect visual signatures known by the UAV that override any other case of mistaken identity.
===============================================
Fred said: “Just then, every aircraft in theater stays green as you turn yellow (unknown) on every allied C2 display.”
===============================================
Doesn’t AWACS or the Navy version thereof know where you are? Can’t you manually enter the correct IFF code? Can’t your F/A-18E/F backseater who might have the ability to control aspects of the UAVs flight, tell the UAV, AWACS, and your other manned wingman (2 manned : 1 unmanned ratio might make sense) about your problem via digital text message?
===============================================
Fred said: “Your wingman just happens to be a UAV who just noticed that you lack proper authentication. He now tries to visually ID you by sending video footage of your aircraft back to C2 for confirmation, but before it can slew the camera toward you, you begin taking AAA fire. A 57mm round explodes near the UAV on your side of it knocking out it’s antennas and causing damage to the airframe. The sensors on the UAV pick up the IR signature of the explosion. It’s computer interprets it as an air to air missile launch. Given the time between signature and damage considering its location in relation to the nearest unknown/enemy aircraft (YOU) and the UAV’s location relative to your nose (in degrees), its AI process interprets it as an AA-11 Archer IR missile launched by a MIG-29 with helmet mounted sight (YOU). Additionally, AI determines its lack of response from C2 (due to its antenna being MIA) to mean C2 is now a casualty.”
===============================================
As mentioned, on board processors would not need to send video footage to C2 for confirmation since they would have all-aspect images embedded in processors for just this contingency. Why are you flying so low to get hit by 57 mm? How did the radar 57mm know where you were since it was nighttime and both you in the F-35 and the UAV had radar stealth characteristics? Since you were probably in an F-35 and not an F/A-18, your DAS system picked up the true threat of an off-side radar SAM in ample time for you to launch chaff, steer your stealthy front toward the launch, and have your wingman (manned or unmanned) launch and advanced HARM to take out the launcher.
I might point out that IFF mistaken identity did not preclude fratricide of an F/A-18 and British Tornado via Patriot in OIF. It did not preclude fratricide of two Army Blackhawks in Turkey in the 1990s. It did not preclude “notional” fratricide by both the friendlies and Indian air forces in recent Red Flags.
===============================================
Fred said: “It formulates a course of action based on scenario threads in its database. Its primary directives (no harm to coalition personnel or equipment) clear the course of action.”
===============================================
And since it had your visual signature it would never launch to cause harm to coalition personnel.
===============================================
Fred said: “You then notice your wingman conduct a flawlessly executed barrel roll to your six o-clock position as it fires two AIM-9X sidewinders right up your tail pipes. You eject and watch the UAV do a victory roll (left over code from the computer science intern at Northrop Grumman who couldn’t resist sneaking his signature code into the OS).”
===============================================
If it had Sidewinders or better yet, AMRAAM and advanced HARM, why wouldn’t the UAV be well to your front for engagement of aerial threats and detected air defenses? You in the F-35 and AWACS could feed it digital targets using your AESA radar or AWACS standoff radar. If it did get to the point where it needed Sidewinders, it sure would be handy being able to pull 20gs, being stealthy, and not caring if it got hit!
===============================================
Fred said: “You spend the next seven years in an enemy POW camp while technicians all over California celebrate the first air to air kill by their “flawless” weapon system. You are listed as missing in action and assumed dead.
==============================================
But if your unmanned wingman had been forward of your two F-35s, IT instead of YOU, perhaps would have been shot down while simultaneously shooting down a pair of other enemy aircraft. Nobody lost to spend 7 years in a POW camp. I’m betting it would have survived the encounter, though, to save you again. I’m also betting an unmanned NGB, B-2s, sea and B-52 launched Tomahawks, F-22s, etc. would have taken out many of the guys who could potentially shoot you down long beforehand.
==============================================
Fred said: “In an effort to promote more government spending in California (in the form of UAV orders), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger uses the case to argue that UAVs are superior to piloted aircraft because it defeated the enemy MIG-29 that YOU failed to see or avoid before it blasted you to pieces.
===============================================
So you are saying that its OK for you to have a $100K plus income and half to two-thirds retirement for life but its not OK for the guy TRYING TO SAVE YOUR BEHIND to produce a defense product to do so…while stimulating the local economy.
=============================================
Come on Fred, there’s room for manned and unmanned in future warfare. Of course if ALL the aircraft had been unmanned, then you wouldn’t have been spending 7 years in a POW camp, either. But if you were, it would give you ample time to dream up other highly unlikely what-if scenarios to keep you fighter boys in cockpits, while ground guys who need UAVs to save them from REAL GROUND THREATS get shafted. You’re a Marine…you know those real ground threats.

Airplanes Fly.

uav should have a person make the final decision to fire anything.… remember what happend to the automated Patriot batteries in iraq… somehow the software thought a british tornado and f-18 were bogeys and they got blown out of the sky due to problems with the software identifying the aircraft correctly! People dont make the perfect decsisions all the time.… but where Artificial Intelligence is now.. i would not give UAV’s free run on flying and targeting themselves… automated flight might be ok… but putting iron on target you have to patch a human in to press the button..

I recall the Patriot incident and I think also it was the crew’s failure to recognize the different flight path/trajectory of a fighter aircraft in comparison to a ballistic missile. I’d imagine that POSSIBLY there is sufficient time prior to engagement to notice the difference, but I might be wrong considering it’s a SRBM.

Victory Roll?? Come on Fred! You are a Marine..the brave one, the man with the go-tee, the man we trust with our freedom. Any true Marine would know that is would be a victory barrel roll not just a roll. By calling it just a roll, you are doing a disservice to yourself, the corp, the United States of America, and the nice individual who wrote the code. Just a Roll.….Ashamed I am for being an American right now!

While Peirce’s concerns are legitimate, the role of UAVS that the OSD is talking about is essentially the same role our current UAVs are doing, but larger in size, with greater loiter time, etc. I’m curious what Peirce’s position is on the UAVs operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan currently.

Hey Cole,

Is Northrop Grumman hiring? I can fax you my resume.

LOL

Sorry Fred, only hiring folks in CA at the moment. =)

Can you guys send me the power point version?

Seriously, let’s keep the anger at the enemy.

Cole, you mentioned the ratio 2 to 1. We better work this combined flight line stuff out real soon.

Fred, you need to write the corrected movie version.

Fred,

These are my personal thoughts/opinions that are grounded in politically incorrect, but largely valid reality. Sometimes straight talk is required.

I don’t work for Northrop Grumman and have nothing to do with the UCAV. In fact, my company makes no unmanned aircraft of any kind and I sure don’t work in California or make anywhere near $100K a year. In fact, a retired LTC with 22 years service makes nearly as much in retirement pay as I do working 40 hours.

Next year when I’m finally vested in my companies retirement system that I CONTRIBUTE to, I will be eligible for around $3K a year in retirement benefits that will slowly grow each year. My wife who is has been civil service for nearly 30 years, has a current FERS annuity amount under $4 grand. A full Colonel with 30 years service makes $87K in retirement pay.

Let’s face it, THE major cost of the Armed Forces is personnel, and officer personnel at that. Some services have more officers as a percentage of the overall force. Some officers deploy and lead more troops and are at greater risk of death/dismemberment than other officers…yet they aren’t the ones who get paid more????

Personnel costs have gotten worse since 2000 and health costs are also skyrocketing. You can pay 3–4 Army private UAS operators for the price of one LTC Airman flying a Predator in Nevada. Army warrant officers are every bit as capable a pilot as any USAF Major or LTC.

With commuter airline pilots making peanuts and major airlines not that much better, the reasons to pay pilots so much incentive pay no longer exist (except maybe in the Army where deployment burdens are so extensive). We make it more tempting for fixed wing pilots to get out when so many reserve component fixed wing pilot slots exist, leftover from the Cold War.

It is, and will always be far easier to create unmanned aircraft and sea vessels than unmanned ground vehicles. Unmanned aircraft don’t have the ground navigation and electronic line-of-sight problems that unmanned ground vehicles face. Unmanned sea vessels have line-of-sight issues but also a lot of open ocean on top and underneath.

You can make an argument that airmen die in fewer numbers, so if we could win all wars from the air or stateside alone, WHY NOT DO IT? Could we have won the long war in OIF and OEF from the air alone…or have we made it worse in OEF due to the bombing? Would the Balkans have stayed quiet if we had not had ground forces there before and after 1999. Would Kosovo be indepedent without our ground forces there? Did the no fly zone dethrone Saddam Hussein?

If these wars have taught us anything, it is that extensive ground forces are required for EVERY conflict and subsequent stability operation. To avoid overloading Army ground forces with multiple year-long deployments, ground forces need FAR MORE servicemembers than other branches. That costs money and requires personnel trade-offs between air/land/sea components.

Manned-unmanned teaming on the ground, in the air, and on the sea is inevitable and will go a long way to cutting DoD personnel costs. Expensive surface systems like LCS pay much of their cost back in saved personnel and logistics costs (if they don’t go 50 knots!)and can support unmanned air and sea systems.

But the main reason manned-unmanned teaming makes sense is it SAVES LIVES. I don’t mean saving lives by having one group of Airmen sitting in Nevada while ground troops get shot at. I mean Soldier operators of unmanned aircraft and ground vehicles operating those systems in theater where they better understand the tactical situation and are accountable to tactical commanders, and answer tactical CCIR. Many Army companies now have ISR cells created out of hide because every Soldier is a Sensor and the cells interview patrols and analyze trends. You can’t analyze tactical trends through a DCGS in Nevada.

The USAF, instead of buying 500 KC manned aircraft could buy 100–200 large ones and 300–400 smaller unmanned tankers, each with booms, and that fill up from the mothership (after the initial load) and employ automated stationkeeping.

The Navy fighter gap could be filled in part through UCAV like aircraft. The F-22/F-35 fleet can similarly be supplanted by unmanned wingman, perhaps based initially on the new jet-powered MQ-1 and Reapers.

Army aircraft will team with unmanned rotary and fixed wing UAS at BCT and division level. If you want ground forces to survive, field manned-unmanned units like FCS already planned to do. If 60 Mounted Combat Systems are too small weightwise, then go to a combined arms battalion with two infantry companies and a single tank company in two battalions and a single tank-heavy battalion with one mech company in the third battalion. Result: 40 80,000lb tanks instead of 60 54,000lb FCS tanks…both using the same 20 C-17 sorties. Buy Ripsaw-like or other unmanned ground vehicles to make up the difference in numbers, but do we really need so many tanks?

Ditch the heavy FCS mortars and add 3–6 155mm artillery pieces organic in battalions. It will better support noncontiguous battalion operations with centralized fire support instead of piecemealing mortars with less range to each company. Ground scouts can be largely unmanned to reduce numbers of heavy manned recon and surveillance vehicles.

Unmanned vehicles is an equal-opportunity idea to save money and personnel resources (as unmanned systems become more automated), and to safeguard endangered remaining service personnel to a greater degree.

Cole-“Some services have more officers as a percentage of the overall force.”

Is this becuase of “up or out”?

John, it has nothing to do with up or out which I assume is the same for all services?

If Wikipedia is correct (?), as of 28 Feb 2009, the following breakdown of officers and enlisted servicemen exists in each service:

…Enlisted…Officer..Percent officer/enlisted
Army 456651.…88,093 (19.3%)
USAF 261,193…64,370 (24.6%)
Navy 276,276…51,093 (18.5%)
Marines 180,443..20,588 (11.4%)

Note the far higher percentage of officers in the USAF is due to all the officer pilots. Keep in mind that the Army officer total includes around 25,000 warrant officers. If those leaders are excluded, the officer to enlisted percentage is 13.8%, which is similar to the Marines.

Introducing warrant officer pilots to most manned aircraft and enlisted UAV pilots into the USAF, Navy, and Marines (giving enlisted personnel a way to advance without an initial college degree) would go a long ways to rectifying personnel costs and cross-service pilot-pay fairness issues.

Recognition that the lack of a Cold War threat requires fewer overall aircraft also reduces USAF officer totals.

Thanks Fred,

you just proved in a convincing way that the fighter mafia indeed exists.
But hey…actually you made a good point. Why not replace all manned aircraft in the inventory with UCAVs asap? Then you dont need to worry about the pilots risk as described above in the first place.

Cheers, para.

This argument is similar to that made by horses when trucks began to take over their missions. Progress happens.

This article reminds me of that garbage written about how Iran would totally destroy any carrier group sent into the Gulf, and the US Navy wouldn’t be able to stop them. I think that had stuff like “Iran would send Zodiac rafts packed with C4 on suicide runs targeting the nuclear reactor of the aircraft carrier, and they would split the reactor open and cause it to explode”. Yeah ok guys this isn’t freakin’ Star Trek here.

Has anyone considered the security issues of having an all unmanned drone force? I have no idea how secure our data links are with the drones, but if we ever got into it with Russia or China what if they compromised the communications, or somehow jammed the signal between the ground stations and the drones? We’ve just taken the man out of the loop, and now they will go completely autonomous doing whatever they were programmed to do in a communication failure. I think it would be unwise for any air force to completely eliminate manned aircraft from their inventory…it would kind of be like thinking that F-4s didn’t need cannons to dog fight.…oops.

You seem to assume that the enlisted people are not as dedicated as the officers. We are just as dedicated and we do our jobs as well as you. Why do you think your plane flies so well .Also why do you think you have a flight deck to land on coming home. Don’t forget the enlisted keep the ship moving so you can return to homeport.

when i think of letting robots into war autonomously… i think of those stupid robot warriors in the prequel of star wars.… combing the with regualar personel is ok. but not relying on them.. thats stupid… if somehow our enemies get a way to jam communication like alex said things go to shit.. and we have nothing to fall back on… furthermore humans have to have the decision to pull the trigger no matter if its officer or enlisted.. you cant expect a machine make those kinds of decisions…

I think it matters who controls the joy stick. Just ask a lot of combat vet marines or combat 101ST AB. USS Liberty was a neutral ship, but our good friends couldn’t tell that even with an over sized flag strieghed acrossed her deck, thier jets were maned, unless they lied about it. It probably also depends on how the person with his fingure on the trigger is feeling that day and how him or her is getting along with their better half.

They were lying about it bamboo. The attack was deliberate. This is quote from an artical from a couple years ago:

“The latest news on the Liberty, the Navy spook ship attacked by Israel on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, is that recently released National Security Agency documents are backing up what many — including the survivors of Liberty — have been saying for 40 years: that Israel knew full well that it was attacking — with aerial strafing, napalm and torpedoes — an American vessel.”

The link to the rest of the story:
http://​www​.defensetech​.org/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​s​/​0​0​3​7​7​6​.​h​tml

I think that robots are okay as long as they are SEXY robots like Motoko Kusanagi, or awesome transforming F-14s like in Macross.

The Air Force has already been considering reinstating enlisted pilots… for UAV’s anyway. It’s my understanding that the Air Force’s official stance is that a human operator will always be at the helm and control of a UAV, and that the only things that would be automated would be non-combative in nature, e.g. taking off and landing, surveillance patrol routes, etc. The idea of an artificial intelligence being given the ability to choose to pull the trigger frightens even the Air Force’s top brass, so they wouldn’t allow it. So for the Air Force’s side of the house, this scenario is dead in the water. Especially since aircraft simply doesn’t disappear. Not without either radar, radio or at least visual confirmation.

The Air Force’s top brass is also considering the return of the Warrant Officer corps… for what kind of madness, I can’t see any good reason. The chain of command is already chaotic and convoluted as is, and would only get worse with an added layer of supervision.

The AF is suffering from years of promoting folks too fast. Our leadership doesn’t understand the aviation industry and can’t articulate a strategy to procure aircraft that meet decisive mission requirements. The F-35 is the worst example of this, F-111 all over again. Let’s buy one airplane that does everything but nothing well. This all is coming off the heels of the career long F-22 lesson where all the eggs were put in one giant technological basket. Somehow the same AF that fielded and evolved several distinct models of the F100, F101, F102, F105, F106, F4, F15, F16 (let alone the B-47, B-52, etc., etc.) can seem to find a way to field a F22A, F22B… over a number of years. All this giant program building is KILLING us and we need leadership to move back to an evolutionary process to procuring effective combat power where one acquisition mistake doesn’t cripple the future of the USAF!!!

Hello everyone,

My family has served and documented our service in the military of hundreds of years. In June of 2009 I will be commissioned as an Lieutenant in the U.S. Marines. Having said this, I also have a masters in computer science specializing in AI for robotics. My thesis was on UAVs and UGVs (I will not get into detail in this area).

Alright, lets get this started.

I will agree with some of the information that was listed above for both sides of this debate. However, I will agree that we should keep the men and women in the cockpit. I have seen and done research with some of the top AI minds on this planet (some work for the DOD when not teaching) and I can without shadow of a doubt tell you that the AI that is being used is not ready to be let free to make any decision without a human making the final call. There are to many probabilities for error when using Machines Learning, Reinforcement Learning, and Rough Sets. AI is not magical. Most AI being used for the DOD is a simple version of Constraint Solving. If there is anyone in here that has seen Constraint Solving and Programming it is literally made up with simple IF and ELSE statements with a few while and for statements even in ADA programing language used by the DOD.

Sorry for that guys, I just had to make a few things known. Sorry for the rant.

I for one say pilots should stay and that UAVs should be used in tandem with our pilots. I am saying this is a soon to be officers and saying it from the point of view with respect for all my friends who are flying in the war zones and all are men and women who should be safe not having to worry about a computer system that was designed by a junior programmer from the lowest bidder ( AND YES THEY ARE DESIGNED BY JUNIOR PROGRAMMERS! PHDs JUST TELL THEM WHAT TO MAKE!) who gets paid 40,000 and never has to seen a war zone. A human should always make the choice, not a machine.

Roger

All UAV fanatics.…answer one question: How does your UAV work when the link is interrupted or exploited? The notion of using UAV for DDD missions (dull, dirty & dangerous) is laudable…but there are some real constraints on the control of such vehicles.
And Cole…have you had your drug test lately? It’s time.

Roger,

Congrats on your pending commission. Thanks for your coming service and informed comments on AI not being an end-all replacement for human judgment.

But would you not agree that AI could make informed decisions to assist positive target ID? In Fred’s example, there might be no need to advance to a human release authority because the UAS could ID the friendly on its own.

Aided target recognition is just an aid. A radar warning receiver or the 360 degree DAS sensors on an F-35 are forms of aided target recognition, are they not, especially if tied into automated release of countermeasures?

Now superimpose something like DAS onto a UAS flying forward of manned jet aircraft and above manned Army rotorcraft. Sure, a secure/reliable data link, some form of autonomous and aided navigation, and autonomous and aided sensors are now required/involved.

That data link/sensor/navigation challenge is greater for some air/land/sea systems than others. Would you not agree that the navigational, sensor, and E-line-of-sight challenge of flying a UAS AT ALTITUDE is far less than flying a UAS rotorcraft down in the trees/ridges/wires, or UGV driving the terrain, roads, urban areas, and traffic for UGVs?

Thus the potential for wholesale REPLACEMENT of men and manned systems with unmanned systems is probabably greater for the air and sea components than it is for the land component…especially when the interpersonal requirements of stability (counterinsurgency)and disaster civil support are involved. There is also an added transportation burden imposed by many early land component unmanned ground and air vehicles that need trucks and drivers to carry them when traveling hundreds of kilometers.

But, would you not agree that an aerial or ground unmanned vehicle can send information to servicemen in ground control stations next to command posts (ship bridge, CAOC), manned combat vehicles/aircraft/smaller ships, and systems like One System Remote Video Terminal (and eventually Transceiver)and JTAC ROVERS where manned release authorities can act on the full motion video or SAR/MTI radar?

Have you read about VUIT-2 on AH-64Ds and the coming Block III Apache where manned aviators can exploit UAS combat information and pass it and their manned MTADS video to ground forces? Have you seen some of what is planned for unmanned air and ground systems in FCS?

What are your thoughts on the bandwidth issue, and how extension of the USAF satellite approach becomes untenable when multiplied by tens of thousands of unmanned systems?

Finally, are there ethical and inadequate tactical intelligence dilemmas in having some servicemen subjected to danger and 12 month deployments where they learn/exploit/fight the tactical situation, while other servicemen fight an unmanned/unexposed/undeployed war? What makes some servicemen worthy of being home with mama and kids while others endure a greater burden? Are we planning to carry that to its illogical conclusion of Global Warfare fought in the air and on/under the sea fought from the U.S., while you as Marine and Army Soldiers are fighting up close and personal?

Why don’t commercial airlines have transmitters/
receivers in the airplane for outside security
observation?They should be in seats,bulkheads etc…It would prevent lots of pain…

Rick, I would say, you have done your home work well. The world needs more people like you, to many just except what they are told, others demand facts. Semper Fi

LOL!!

Amusing story!

..but how many times do you have to flip a nickle on the tile floor before it eventually lands on it’s edge?? .. I DID that once!!

…kinda like this scenario… LOL!!!! :)

.454

I think its important to remember Robots are not human assets. That irregardless of their monetary value they are more expendable than human pilots in human piloted vehicles. The scenario given is a one in a million incident, but no less valid. The expendibility of a Robot means when A, B, C, and D, that one in a million sort of error, happens something as simple as an automatic recall with the aircraft moving in a purely defensive posture to return to base is more ideal than letting it risk lives. Don’t think of Robots as something that has to be protected at all costs, taking offensive actions to protect itself.

Sounds like a pissed off sailor can make things really interesting, I doubt the US Navy lets that happen without checks and balances. There’s alot of room for error, but the UAV/UCAV scenarios are in the future for the US Navy. More likely the human pilot will be replaced in many mission scenarios where there is high risk to the aircraft. We will need good programmers to keep from hitting our own troops.

Haha nothing like sneaking in some signature code. I prefer my UGV post-kill NFL style victory dance.

There will always be manned aircraft. Drones could be used in high risk environs, like SEAD, or first strikes [cruise missles, UCAV’s] but there is no substitute for a pilot in an A-10 or B-52 answering ur call for help. Drones have thier place, as well as manned aircraft. Keep pilots in the cockpits.

Is an F/A18 unable to outmaneuver a UAV, and outrun it, although shooting it down would be my preferred action.

If we can’t use UAVs because they might accidentally shoot down or bomb a human someday, does that also mean we can’t use manned aircraft? Human pilots have accidentally killed thousands of people by firing on the wrong targets. Human pilots get tired and angry, leading to friendly fire incidents. Robots don’t.

But yeah man, pilots rock, let’s keep pilots in the cockpit! Blue on blue is AOK just so long as humans do it!

“You’re a Marine F/A-18 pilot flying along in enemy territory… Your wingman just happens to be a UAV…”

OK, so in this scenario we have UAVs that are capable of flying autonomously in enemy territory as well as defending themselves in air-to-air combat. Why is the F/A-18 even there? Sounds to me like the manned aircraft is the weak link in the equation — less persistent, less stealthy, needs CSAR support — and should have been left on the carrier deck while the UAV did the job.

Excellent article which highlights a crucial debate over how (when) UAV-technology is going to be mature enough to be deployed in combat theaters (let alone civilian airspace).

I’m no expert, but let me offer my 2 cents on the issue.

I suspect future UAVs, like their manned cousins, will have sensor fusion from multiple on and off plattform sensors. Thus it will have capable NCTR oppurtunities even in the absence of one or more systems.

It will also communicate through a number of features: UHF/L/S band antennas, phased IFDLs, laser coms using IR-pointers, as well as the AESA-radar, so that you always have backups.

Then I imagine that there would be some strict ROEs, for instance a requirement positive indentification by at least two band-discrete sensors (for instance RF and IR, but never two IR-sensors as they could provide a similar false image), or off-board cueing and confirmation by a wingman or another UAV. Or any capable friendly within range.

In the event that all contact is lost and the fog of war dwindles into the usual chaos, then the UAV might simply be prohibited to fire at anything and return to base. Or at least try. After all, it is expendable.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

WE can never take people out of the equation,the heroes who have sacrificed their lives or daily live with loss of limb or sight to maintain our freedom.
I think of “chief” a retired DoD HR war planner who from his wheelchair was a genius at finding the right people to get the job done, whether it was the person flying in a cockpit or the person “flying” a joystick in Nevada.

There’s a pilot flying his jet. There’s another “Pilot” flying the UAV. Imagine a furball starts with 4 bogies. Whose’s situational awareness is better? The UAV driver has a small video screen for his visual sensor feed and some other computer generated displays to try to give him a better SA. The jet driver just looks out the canopy. The reality is that the UAV is at a distinctive disadvantage and is more likely to get shot down than the man-in-the-cockpit jet. The matter of cost is ilrelevant. The goal is to kill or have the bogies bug out.

JSF Mike: Whose situational awareness is better? Well, I’d say it’s the UCAV twenty miles out, supported by AWACS, loaded with AMRAAM.

It’s common wisdom that UCAV will be crap in a close-range dogfight. It’s also commonly known that the F4F was crap in a close-range dogfight. The solution to the latter problem was, “don’t get into a close-range dogfight”. Why won’t that apply to UCAV operations?

After reading this article, I’ve determined that Navy pilots and support personnel don’t trust each other. If that is true, the Navy have some big problems.

“Unfortunately for you, you realize at that time that the COMM/NAV guys screwed up and loaded the wrong codes. They are one day off.”

No one EVER sets codes without a superior checking behind them to ensure they are correct and then someone else checking after that. And if the pilot didn’t check those himself before the sortie, well then he’s a dumbass.

Hmmmmm, since current and future production military fighter aircraft ALREADY possess the ability to pull G’s far in excess of human tolerances, the actual performance capabilities must be governed to fall within human thresholds.
Doesn’t that make the pilot the weakest link?
Remove the pilot and pull all the 20 G maneuvers you want. Hand writing is already on the wall.

Mo_MO is exactly right…it has been SOP to do a check of the codes before every sortie…for a long time.…never-been-there warriors strike again

Again.…UCAVs are a good idea and are being actively explored but the full UCAV concept is only as good as the size & security of the comm links.

The crypto codes for the next day are impossible to check prior to flight. The pilot has no choice but to trust the comm/nav guys. You wouldn’t know if they made a mistake until the predetermined time.

I know this because I have-been-there.

Also, keep in mind the first line of this article. It was in good jest. The point was more a restatement of Murphy’s Law than anything else. When I was in theater, the “highly unlikely” happened about twice a day.

There’ll be manned combat a/c for the next generation and a half, if not longer, at least. This probability is beyond our lifetime, those of us posting here.

There are scenarios in play this very day that an all ucav/uav force could do as well or better than manned assets.

In anycase, 40/50 years hence I suspect that there’s likely to be intuitive AI suitable to overcome challenges presented in the op.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement