Comments on: Drone Wars Moving Closer to Reality

By: RTLM

RTLM — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:54:48 +0000

I’ve often thought that converting the F-117 to a drone. They’re keeping them sound in NM for a reason. Bought & paid for and we got ~60 of them.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:35:56 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
From the sounds I’m hearing it appears that there is some doubt that UAV’s might not happen, wake up and smell the roses. Both the Navy and Air Force are LOSING PERSONAL and are training ground combat support units with there excess personal.
The X-47 was so successful for the Navy at Carriers TO’s and Traps that the software for this is being installed into ALL CARRIER FIXED WING AIRCRAFT, a successful first landing everytime. The results of Fire Fox are not yet conclusive but rotary wing pilots may be next along just for the ride.
The X-45 did so well in hands off refuling that this has become the standard procedure for pulling up to a tanker and getting fueled. It has reduced the apporach and hook up time by about 20%. Shorter pit stops equal more time on station.
Note for new officers don’t pick aviation as a carreer path, it may end before you do.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: C-Low

C-Low — Thu, 31 May 2007 13:22:58 +0000

Africamafia
I don’t think the US will or should go all robot army anytime soon or even I would dare for a very very long time. Electronics fail and or can be jammed, hacked, overall disrupted. Unmanned vehicles will bring alot of added benefit but to put all our abilities in one basket dependent on signals and communications wuould be very dangerous. A easy example would be a war with say China or Russia were we could very realistically lose half our Sats over theater including those all important communication and GPS sats that Unmanned Vehicles rely on.

By: africanmuffia

africanmuffia — Thu, 31 May 2007 08:27:29 +0000

Way to go! Its not hard to imagine that in the future., America won’t be sending any wetware into battle. All robots controlled from home.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Thu, 31 May 2007 02:23:59 +0000

I am not sure why or how I double posted only did the confirm number onces
Sorry thou.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Thu, 31 May 2007 02:22:27 +0000

One major added benefit of UAV’s is even once they become obsolete technology wise and are thrown in those dark warehouses or desert storage fields they will still be a viable weapon system fo the most dangerous missions we don’t want to splat our top notch stuff on.
Imagine 50yrs from now pics of those desert storage yards not as scrap parts and the occational target drone but high risk hard target strike platforms. Why sacrifice on top notch fighter attacking a hardened target when you could instead splat 5 or 10 40yr old obsolete drones?

By: C-Low

C-Low — Thu, 31 May 2007 02:22:06 +0000

One major added benefit of UAV’s is even once they become obsolete technology wise and are thrown in those dark warehouses or desert storage fields they will still be a viable weapon system fo the most dangerous missions we don’t want to splat our top notch stuff on.
Imagine 50yrs from now pics of those desert storage yards not as scrap parts and the occational target drone but high risk hard target strike platforms. Why sacrifise on top notch fighter attacking a hardened target when you could instead splat 5 or 10 40yr old obsolete drones?

By: Skyler

Skyler — Thu, 31 May 2007 01:00:10 +0000

Do modern systems have backup electronics? Yes, of course they do. Would we lose all COMSEC if one of them crashed in enemy hands? No. There’s simple reasons why. In that case, there are other issues anyways that are a factor — like inadvertent technology transfer.

By: Foreign.Boy

Foreign.Boy — Wed, 30 May 2007 22:34:48 +0000

I guess in someways it's step one... However.. more 'structural' air craft design is getting more complex. New air craft are becoming more reliant on 'software' to fly themselves due to complex structure design. They used an example with a 'proven' design (F-18?) which was designed 'mechanical' controls which are much more reliable in my opinion. Mechanical air craft have backups. Will UAV's and 'software' jets have a 2nd 'backup' processor on board? The F-22 Went y2k... I'd be very concerned if 1 chip gets blasted off in combat... Recovery of UAV's is very important in my opinion... if communication chips were recovered by the 'enemy' after shooting down a UAV, you could be handing over your wireless 'access codes' and lose control or be fed incorrect information. I'd say this is very much a 'proof of concept' as it isn't using any modern air frames, very little battle damage, and as someone pointed out.. no deformity of the craft. True... you don't want to send 1000 variables at a 'proof of concept' unless you already have a very solid idea and are trying to impress everyone!

By: C

Wed, 30 May 2007 20:54:16 +0000

Sven, this was a “proof of concept” sort of experiment, which couldn’t be reliably proven without a field test (external stimulus, actual physics to contend with). more than likely it had already run through a simulator. nobody shows off video games as a proof of concept.
with these experiments, one has to move in increments. you don’t send off the first test in an actual high-threat environment with more variables than you need. the method simply isn’t scientific. the next tests will probably include an embedded explosive or perhaps a nearby airburst.