Comments on: Naval Robot Wars

By: James Cowan

James Cowan — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:12:53 +0000

Imagine a small stealth carrier with stealth UCAVs. The capability would compliment that of a traditional carrier battle group and could be used independently for special operations. Cost savings would be huge.With our current trend toward an economy burdened with a ballooning social welfare budget (Social Security, Medicare, etc)this will be the future by default.

By: Dave Reeve

Dave Reeve — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:03:26 +0000

Not to push forward with unmanned combat aircraft is dangerously reactionary. Besides enhanced range and linger time, robot aircraft have other advantages. With no need for life support systems,there is room for other systems. Without a human pilot, the aircraft can pull tighter turns, making it more manuverable and hence more lethal.

By: Charles Spiegelman

Charles Spiegelman — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:26:50 +0000

Maybe the best answer to all this is that man can control and the robot can destroy without the human factor having to risk live and those of others. Maybe also we can reduce costs by using new technologies such as Robot aircraft, ships and weapon systems. The Navy can lead the way but all services should be involved. The Army with robot vehicles, the Air Force with robot bombers, and fighters, plus recon. Maybe in ten to twenty years. the skys will be controled by such weapon systems.

By: A.D.Hoffmann

A.D.Hoffmann — Mon, 21 May 2007 04:06:36 +0000

A lot of people dream of the chance to be a pilot and more. Looking ahead to the great adventure of space exploration, were will the experiance come from if not the military.
If a drone is shot down will we feel and respond the same? Were is the Honor not being at risk or to put your life in Gods hands.
I guess I know this sounds old fashioned but I rather talk to people because the conversation is adaptive. Try arguing with your computer for a responce when you key in the wrong number. One mistake could spell disaster because computers do not think. Im sure the military is careful to select good people so I trust them more than a machine. Machines must be designed to adapt to a situation were people evolve to a situation.
My advise is to design and use them as high risk Recon drones, without weapons except a self destruct.

By: Herm Chambers

Herm Chambers — Fri, 18 May 2007 15:40:03 +0000

We all know–except airdales–the expensive to build, man and operate CVN is as obsolete as the BB it replaced. Smaller amphib LPH
and SS-types will replace them. this is the first step.

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 18 May 2007 12:06:53 +0000

While unmanned aircraft may have limitations, they also have advantages. I think the advantages justify exploring and developing such capability. If it works out that the capabilites and advantages can be exploited while mitigating the disavantages, it is foolish, IMO, to ignore them.
While I often wonder about the judgement of the beauracracies who develop and procure weapons systems, I have alot of faith in the judgment of the people who utilize them. Give them a weapon, and it won’t take them too awfully long to detemine how best to utilize it — it at all.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 15 May 2007 10:32:49 +0000

Did the A-12 have an endurance of 50 to 100 hours? No. Thus with UCAS the Navy is not chasing the capabilities of the A-12, it is chasing a vast improvement over the A-12. If the Navy wanted a manned, stealthy fighter, it would not have to try once again to build the A-12, it could just build a bigger JSF. No manned aircraft, however, could provide the persistence at long range that the Navy would need in a Taiwan Straits scenario.

By: Stephen Trimble

Stephen Trimble — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:30:51 +0000

This is simply the navy chasing the capabilities of the cancelled A-12, but with unmanned technology. Sadly, using today’s manufacturing materials and methods, the baseline A-12 would probably avoid many of the weight and electronics issues that led to its cancellation. Instead of remaining with a manned version, the navy would be again flirting with developmental disaster by shifting to still-unproven unmanned technology for carrier decks.

By: AStudent

AStudent — Tue, 15 May 2007 00:09:46 +0000

I fail to see any problems with UAVs. Having read the report summery, two things, in my opinion, really stuck out.
First, the report mentioned the effective range of a CBG, without Air Force Tankers, was only about 400 nmi. That is disturbing.
Second, the report mentioned that the current technology testbed would be the most advanced carrier aircraft, in terms of range, payload, and stealth, ever made.
Those two arguements make UAVs a necessity, at least to me, if the carriers hope to continue as viable strike platforms in the face of improved coastal defense systems.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 14 May 2007 21:49:45 +0000

Hmm … as a mostly-ignorant lurker here, I note some inconsistency.
Just recently you were railing against earmarks in the article “JSF Engine Pork Continues.” Now, however we’re in favor of earmarks?
Cheers,
–Bob