Comments on: Keep Man in Cockpit

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:44:45 +0000

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.

By: Fred Pierce (former F/A-18D pilot)

Fred Pierce (former F/A-18D pilot) — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:15:44 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:21:19 +0000

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.

By: oldharleyrider

oldharleyrider — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:00:21 +0000

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.

By: Mo_Mo

Mo_Mo — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:56:44 +0000

“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.

By: wtpworrier

wtpworrier — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:55:31 +0000

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.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:15:23 +0000

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?

By: JSF MIKE

JSF MIKE — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:39:42 +0000

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.

By: Cujo

Cujo — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:23:52 +0000

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.

By: Bjørnar Bolsøy

Bjørnar Bolsøy — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:59:02 +0000

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

By: Byron

Byron — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:11:44 +0000

“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.

By: OhPlease

OhPlease — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:36:16 +0000

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!

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:24:49 +0000

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

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:16:08 +0000

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.

By: LockMartSkunk

LockMartSkunk — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:37:10 +0000

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

By: Tony Conner

Tony Conner — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:18:18 +0000

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.

By: JN

JN — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:03:27 +0000

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.

By: Pistolwhip.454

Pistolwhip.454 — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:47:00 +0000

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

By: bambooviper

bambooviper — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:22:09 +0000

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

By: paul

paul — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:55:51 +0000

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…