Comments on: Drone Losses Debate http://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:05:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: CK757http://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-200697 CK757 Fri, 14 May 2010 03:34:37 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-200697 Remote controlled aircraft have had and logically will have a higher loss rate than manned aircraft. At least that's the history. Today's (whatever you call them) remote controlled aircraft are still fairly primitive by manned military aircraft standards. As "computing power" is developed/refined, and available to meet military requirements for reliability and environment, things will change. A pilot in a manned aircraft is still better able to respond to "unplanned" or "unexpected" events than is a remote controlled aircraft. It's still cheaper to replace an unmanned aircraft than a manned aircraft and it's pilot/crew. Not to mention the replacement pilot/crew time to train, etc. While the military has been "fooling around" with remote controlled aircraft since WWII, it's only in recent times that serious effort and resources have been utilized. We are a the position with remote controlled aircraft that in some ways is similar to that of jet aircraft in the early 1950's. The past reluctance of the air force and military to commit major efforts towards development and common use of remote controlled aircraft was mainly based upon a preference for manned aircraft. The loss of Joe Kennedy's son in a experimental remote control aircraft program towards the end of WWII was an early setback that had far reaching and long lasting effects. It's interesting to note that, outside of the military, and government sponsored R&D efforts, etc., use of remote controlled aircraft beyond the operator's "line of sight" is against the law in the US. Further restrictions include a weight limit of 55 pounds without government permit/license. Remote controlled aircraft have had and logically will have a higher loss rate than manned aircraft. At least that’s the history.

Today’s (whatever you call them) remote controlled aircraft are still fairly primitive by manned military aircraft standards. As “computing power” is developed/refined, and available to meet military requirements for reliability and environment, things will change.

A pilot in a manned aircraft is still better able to respond to “unplanned” or “unexpected” events than is a remote controlled aircraft.

It’s still cheaper to replace an unmanned aircraft than a manned aircraft and it’s pilot/crew. Not to mention the replacement pilot/crew time to train, etc.

While the military has been “fooling around” with remote controlled aircraft since WWII, it’s only in recent times that serious effort and resources have been utilized. We are a the position with remote controlled aircraft that in some ways is similar to that of jet aircraft in the early 1950’s.

The past reluctance of the air force and military to commit major efforts towards development and common use of remote controlled aircraft was mainly based upon a preference for manned aircraft. The loss of Joe Kennedy’s son in a experimental remote control aircraft program towards the end of WWII was an early setback that had far reaching and long lasting effects.

It’s interesting to note that, outside of the military, and government sponsored R&D efforts, etc., use of remote controlled aircraft beyond the operator’s “line of sight” is against the law in the US. Further restrictions include a weight limit of 55 pounds without government permit/license.

]]> By: kuzindwighthttp://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-200548 kuzindwight Wed, 12 May 2010 22:42:06 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-200548 The problem is that some, such as the JCS, advocate the era of manned fighter could be over. If the force replaces manned aircraft on a one for one ratio, which is the plan, then they will fail just from reliability faster than man aircraft. This will increase, not decrease, budgets which is one of the driving rationales for the use of UAS. These things fail at greater rates than manned aircraft in the current low air threat conflict. When intentionally targeted by a peer or near peer nation, they will fall from the sky like rain. The US will lose air superiority because we would rather invest in UAS than advanced fighters <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/22/georgia.russia/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/22/georgi...</a> <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Predators-Falling-From-The-Sky-Everywhere-9-21-2009.asp" target="_blank">http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Predator...</a> The problem is that some, such as the JCS, advocate the era of manned fighter could be over. If the force replaces manned aircraft on a one for one ratio, which is the plan, then they will fail just from reliability faster than man aircraft. This will increase, not decrease, budgets which is one of the driving rationales for the use of UAS.

These things fail at greater rates than manned aircraft in the current low air threat conflict. When intentionally targeted by a peer or near peer nation, they will fall from the sky like rain. The US will lose air superiority because we would rather invest in UAS than advanced fighters
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/22/georgi… http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Predator…

]]> By: nicolashttp://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-194156 nicolas Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:58:04 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-194156 "It’s lifetime destroyed rate is 2.04 with 118 aircraft lost — and that’s over a lifetime total of almost 6 million flight hours.” I dont understand : are you talking of a rate (loss/time unit), or of actual losses ? If you talk about rate, why do you mention its over "6million flight hours”.... since its a rate, it’s not supposed to go up with the length. the whole thing seems so superficial, who has time for this ? “It’s lifetime destroyed rate is 2.04 with 118 aircraft lost — and that’s over a lifetime total of almost 6 million flight hours.”

I dont understand : are you talking of a rate (loss/time unit), or of actual losses ?
If you talk about rate, why do you mention its over “6million flight hours”.… since its a rate, it’s not supposed to go up with the length.

the whole thing seems so superficial, who has time for this ?

]]> By: Thunder350http://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-194048 Thunder350 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:10:47 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-194048 The UAV's are still fairly new. Technology gets more advanced everyday. Just wait and see. Soon UAV's will out perform the best manned aircraft, and be 10x cheaper after you add up the aircraft, pilot training, etc. And we wouldn't have to worry about sending them into harms way when theirs no one on board the craft. The UAV’s are still fairly new. Technology gets more advanced everyday. Just wait and see. Soon UAV’s will out perform the best manned aircraft, and be 10x cheaper after you add up the aircraft, pilot training, etc. And we wouldn’t have to worry about sending them into harms way when theirs no one on board the craft.

]]> By: Jonhttp://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-194025 Jon Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:54:39 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-194025 Some maths for ohwilleke: The F-15 loss rate over life is one every 50,847 hours and 24 minutes. The fatal loss rate is one every 139,534 flying hours. The Predator/Reaper loss rate is one every 10,234 hours. UAVs have a role to play, but it's a niche role. Sensor limitations mean that they will never have the situational awareness you get with a man in the cockpit, even when other weaknesses (slow speed, bandwidth consumption, etc.) have been solved. Some maths for ohwilleke:

The F-15 loss rate over life is one every 50,847 hours and 24 minutes.
The fatal loss rate is one every 139,534 flying hours.

The Predator/Reaper loss rate is one every 10,234 hours.

UAVs have a role to play, but it’s a niche role. Sensor limitations mean that they will never have the situational awareness you get with a man in the cockpit, even when other weaknesses (slow speed, bandwidth consumption, etc.) have been solved.

]]> By: guarddoghttp://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-194033 guarddog Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:16:02 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-194033 So much discussion from so few facts and no first hand knowledge of the subject. So much discussion from so few facts and no first hand knowledge of the subject.

]]> By: DarthAmericahttp://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-194020 DarthAmerica Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:02:42 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-194020 The facts are that comparing UAS lose rates to manned platforms is like apples and oranges. a. Different design philosophy b. Different TTPs/CONOPS c. From the system level perspective immature technology just getting out of dev d. designed with post cold war threat matrix in mind The facts are that comparing UAS lose rates to manned platforms is like apples and oranges.

a. Different design philosophy
b. Different TTPs/CONOPS
c. From the system level perspective immature technology just getting out of dev
d. designed with post cold war threat matrix in mind

]]> By: Mikehttp://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-194002 Mike Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:23:43 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-194002 Why not rig them so they can be destroyed by the operator if they are lost for any reason to prevent valuable technology from the enemy? Why not rig them so they can be destroyed by the operator if they are lost for any reason to prevent valuable technology from the enemy?

]]> By: Boogelhttp://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-194001 Boogel Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:21:10 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-194001 Would the ALS change how the Air Force categorizes the aircraft? What I mean is if a AF pilot was flying a drone that had ALS would he get the same flight hours credit as if he were flying one without. I've read that there is a cultural resistance to the drones within the AF which has made it harder to recruit pilots for the program. Just curious if this is related. Would the ALS change how the Air Force categorizes the aircraft? What I mean is if a AF pilot was flying a drone that had ALS would he get the same flight hours credit as if he were flying one without. I’ve read that there is a cultural resistance to the drones within the AF which has made it harder to recruit pilots for the program. Just curious if this is related.

]]> By: CreasePanther17http://defensetech.org/2010/02/09/drone-losses-debate/#comment-193987 CreasePanther17 Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:15:32 +0000 http://defensetech.org/?p=5641#comment-193987 In the latest Popular Mechanics, it discusses the problem of landing a Reaper and how they are going about to fix it. Most of the Reaper losses are from malfunctions and landing gone wrong from oscillation. In the latest Popular Mechanics, it discusses the problem of landing a Reaper and how they are going about to fix it. Most of the Reaper losses are from malfunctions and landing gone wrong from oscillation.

]]>