The question posed regarding the loss of 12 planes vs. one piloted is of course a relative one but with the given information can’t be answered.

Questions of like: the cost of pilot and ground crew training, how many sorties and flight hours did those 12 RQ’s/MQ’s have, fuel consumption of the two platforms, how many of those missions could have been flown by a manned aircraft in respect to time duration of the missions, where they were and when the missions were flown, at what point in the mission did the accidents happen, take off and landing or over target, and finally what is the actual costs per air hour of the UAV vs. a manned A/F aircraft, of course included in this number should also be the cost of deprecation of the capital assets based and the necessary ground facilities of the expected life span of each air frame.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The question that comes to mind is how many losses there would have been if the missions were flown by manned planes. Pilot error would have dropped tremendously if the pilot was not sipping on a coke in a airconditinoned container halfway around the world.

The AF as well as the Navy are looking beyond the predator. The air described in the PM article was clearly a second generation after the X45. The AF envisions as much automation as possible for the air expeditionary wing. Returning aircraft would already have their diagnostics done while inflight and would enter an automated maintenance are, Much like a car wash, failing or defective parts would be swapped out by robots, software would be reset and finally a good washing and put aside till it’s next mission. More detailed or extended work would be done in a common area before going through the automated system.

Getting ready for a mission would be a similar process. Down an automated line, electronics switched out as needed by robots, the desire weapons put on and finally fueling the out to the flight line. Unlike today where a UAV has a ground crew of three a single airman/airwoman will be responsible for three UAV’s. Instead of flight crew of three (pilot, systems manager, and intelligence officer to OK targets) a flight of six UAV’s would have a single supervising pilot that could intervene if there was a problem.

It would appear that the AF envisions a group of UAV’s operation autonomously doing ISR. When a situation come up they would independently process data and field information and send that processed information down to command. The operative phrase here is that humans are on the loop NOT in the loop.

The UAV’s would be the agents in the decision making process, Humans would be able to pause it but would have no control short of termination. This would speed up the process and save band with by not transmitting all the data back to command and having them make the decisions. The strike would be planned and executed by the UAV’s. When a mission is planned by command an F-35 is sent up to work with the UAV’s, The F-35’s pilot role would be that of an ATC not as a combatant.

The Navy and Army are working on different Tactical uses and Command and Control of the air battle space.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

For any of you interested in more then just running off at the keyboard you might be interested in an article in the current Popular Mechanics, March 2010, by Joe Pappalardo, “Over the Horizon”. it starts in the year 2020 and shows what many in the USAF thinks the AF will look like then. This is not science fiction but what is appearing in professional journals of the AF currently.

After reading the article one item is conspicuously missing from the AF’s future the F-22. The F-35 mission is mostly as a controller for UAV’s. The article is somewhat take from a Tom Clancy novel but it make the point.

Lets see if this post gets by the censors, yesterdays didn’t.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner