Comments on: Top Gun (Sans Top Gunners)

By: Joe from SC

Joe from SC — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:24:20 +0000

Let us not forget why we build all these machines — manned and unmanned. We build and fly them to defend the USA and its interests. Period.
Use the unmanned platforms if they do the job. Use a combined manned and unmanned force if needed to do the job, but never forget the reason for the job.
Sometimes it sounds like ego is the driving force behind folk’s positions and I don’t know if that is such a good idea, but I figure most will do the right thing. Of course, that don’t mean they gotta be happy about it if it means they gotta stop flying.

By: mike j

mike j — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:26:40 +0000

I just have to laugh at calling a fighter pilot (or, uh, sorry, Naval Aviator), a Luddite.
I can imagine situations where having drones as a force multiplier could be extremely useful. There’s no doubt that they’re a great recon platform.
Can’t shake the feeling, though, that this ‘unmanned’ stuff is mainly about having our wars without the coffins coming home. That just ain’t gonna work.

By: The Cenobyte

The Cenobyte — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:49:13 +0000

I don’t have a problem with wo/man in the loop at all. I think until technology advances significantly it would be unwise to say the least to remove that wo/man from the loop.
However the bashing of the UAV pilots and not being really pilots that Ward regularly does, leaves me to believe that he has real problems with advancement in technology. Honestly it feels like he thinks that UAVs are going to take way the jobs of ‘real pilots’, a very Luddite way of thinking.
I think Ward BTW is a pretty smart guy from reading the stuff he has posted, but I am forced to disagree with him on his apparent assesment of UAVs and the wo/men that run them.

By: Zingo

Zingo — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:48:14 +0000

Cenobyte - I get your use of "luddite" but you clearly assume that the "man in the loop" concept is no longer applicable. You may be right at some point, but that day is more distant than you might expect. This is probably a good thing. I don't see Ward's comments as disrespectful to the men and women of the services at all (excepting a slight tweak at the new USAF desk-only patch-wearers). Barnacle Bob - your comment, "Teams on the ground don't need to roll the dice calling in some "live driver" who's been amped on Dexedrine for the last 12 hours and who'll "hopefully" miss the friendlies." assumes that computers can avoid blue-on-blue better than humans. That's a huge assumption and hasn't been shown to be true in any technology we've advanced so far. If you have contrary evidence, pony up!

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:24:45 +0000

I agree with Paul. The AF needs to get its officer corp out of the UAV business and turn the button mashing over to the enlisted ranks. They already to that with other vital technical fields (aircraft maintenance, air traffic control, etc).
This would let their officers focus on their core competencies — chiefly providing leadership, planning social events, polishing their OPRs and playing golf.

By: Paul R.

Paul R. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:16:49 +0000

Fighter pilots and Predator drivers use distinct and separate skills. A driver of drones never feels G’s, sits is a chair playing a real-world video game. Todays kids do that for hours at home on today’s software.
Its time for the AF to use and grow both types of skill sets in the separate weapons systems.
It really IS a waste of talent and money for fighter pilots to do what many non-flyers can do.

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:08:36 +0000

some thoughs from another blog
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/06/will-5th-be-last-manned-fighter.html
“The next great challenge in air war will not be about complex fighters and bombers; it will be about drones of one pound to few hundred kilograms weight.“
“Miniaturized low level air war will be completely new and probably surprisingly low-level. Classic air superiority is here equally irrelevant as in space. Any country with some electronics companies could participate. There will be air-air, air-ground and recce drones.”

By: Barnacle Bob

Barnacle Bob — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:30:47 +0000

My money is on the butthole boys (& girls) to occupy the senior ranks of the AF.

By: NoseGunner

NoseGunner — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:16:44 +0000

AF promotion boards will have no problem distinguishing airborne pilots from desktop pilots.
Guess which pilot-flavor will totally dominate senior ranks.

By: Barnacle Bob

Barnacle Bob — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:34:38 +0000

UAVs support the teams on the ground in Afghanistan. A UAV gets shot down, you don't have to waste time sending a rescue team out to recover the guy/gal. UAVs can loiter (and loiter some more). Theoretically, fresh flight crews on the ground can rotate at the controls until the UAV's fuel runs out (Years in case of Global Hawk, which is recon only). Teams on the ground don't need to roll the dice calling in some "live driver" who's been amped on Dexedrine for the last 12 hours and who'll "hopefully" miss the friendlies. US and allied Combat fighter/attack pilots certainly rock and are a highly skilled elite. But these days their only peer competition is basically... themselves. As such, civilians probably view fighter pilots/planes these days as kind of like an NFL team in a League of 1: "Yeah its fun to hear of their "practices" and "scrimmages," but the last air-to-air "game day" was, what, 1990-91?" My advice to fighter/attack pilots, all the military, fast-moving, "live drivers" in combat jets: Go in to business manufacturing one and two seat super-sonic jets for the civilian market-place. That's where you'll see renewed appreciation for your skills and know-how.