Comments on: Who Killed the Killer Drone? (Redux)

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 04:38:30 +0000

That may be true, Noah, but it doesn’t mean the Air Force is wrong to do so.
Obviously, there’s a manned-aircraft preference in the Air Force. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be right. We need a next generation bomber. Are we really ready to make it unmanned? Having an unmanned alternative WILL cause problems for the financing of a next gen manned bomber. So ask yourself, how much do you trust UAV technology? Obviously, Mr. Boeing is all for it.

By: Robot.Economist

Robot.Economist — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:19:12 +0000

Rip, I think we’re on the same page here. UAVs are definitely the future of warfighting — they are fairly cost effective, have high endurance and allow us to push the envelope of traditional vehicle design. I’m just not sure that the current state of robot technology is completely ready to replace the human element — but the day changes is flying towards us very fast (no pun intended).
USAF is in the same position as the Army and Navy were in around the 1920s and 1930s. The flyboys need to adapt or get left behind. Hopefully it won’t take another world war to popularize the use of robot weaponry.

By: Noah Shachtman

Noah Shachtman — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:27:23 +0000

Actually, Brian, I spoke with DOD official who pretty much confirmed what Mr. Boeing said.
nms

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:15:09 +0000

Gee, guys, let’s try a little bit of critical thinking, okay?
Boeing employee: “The new BOEING aircraft which I WORKED ON is obviously superior to that other thing made by some other company. It’s obviously a case of pure Air Force bias which would lead to them using a NON-BOEING PRODUCT, especially one that does not contribute to my job security. Boeing… protecting the future of America.”

By: Rip

Rip — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:41:05 +0000

Let’s see.…..
UAV’s don’t need sleep, food, to pee or poop. They don’t or shortly, will not need, a pilot, just a babysitter who oversees a bunch at once.
So you get extensive persistence at minimum cost, you are esentially remoting the decision making on the “PICKLE” button. The operator is going to have 95% of the situational awareness of a pilot. Is the additional 5% worth the billions of dollars to provide a manned vehicle?

By: Robot.Economist

Robot.Economist — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:31:43 +0000

This has happened before — a new type of technology is fielded, in this case combat robotics, and soldiers are loth to field it.
When airplanes were first introduced around the time of World War I, generals and admirals were more than happy to field them for ISR purposes. When the first military pilots broached the idea of equiping their vehicles with weapons, there was some natural push-back.
New technology always threatens the way military services traditionally define combat. The USAF is clearly hesitant to bring robotics anywhere near the core of their service, fighter and bomber pilots. I mean, it is harder to justify those hip leather jackets and scarves when you fly a joystick at HQ all day.
In the USAF’s defense, I don’t know if unmanned systems are sophisticated enough to replace most manned missions. Human pilots in the theater have faster reaction times and more situational awareness than the current generation of robots. I would much rather have a flyboy handling close air support for now than a Predator.