Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Swoop on November 29, 2007, 10:29:50 AM
-
link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/29/pilots_say_they_are_essential_in_roboplane_debate/)
US Army plans robot planes operated by non-pilots
Pilots: 'This will set back robot planes for decades'
By Lewis Page
Military pilots are up in arms over US Army plans for substantial, powerful drone combat aircraft to be operated by mere mortals without wings on their chests.
The flying death machines in question are the US Army's new version of the well-known US Air Force Predator. The army's "Sky Warrior" version is a somewhat enlarged variant on the original Predator-A, though not as large and puissant as the Predator-B, aka the "Reaper". A Sky Warrior can carry much less ordnance than a Reaper.
The thing that makes the Sky Warrior different is that it doesn't need a large operating staff of fully-trained human pilots. Ordinary Predators and Reapers are normally handled during landing and takeoff by a qualified pilot on the ground at their operating base in the theatre of war. While flying missions, they are controlled via satellite by different pilots who are normally in America. As the drone planes can stay up for very long periods, these pilots normally work in shifts, requiring even more personnel.
Far from making pilots obsolete, Predator and Reaper type systems actually demand more of them, and plenty of other support personnel too. This may be one reason why air forces - traditionally run by pilots - have been so tolerant of them.
But the US Army has no interest in having lots of pilots. It just wants aircraft overhead doing a job as cheaply as possible. Thus the Sky Warrior can land and take off automatically, and - it seems - will be handled in flight by people without wings on their chests at all.
The Sky Warrior programme is the point at which unmanned aircraft move from being remotely piloted to remotely operated, a key step along the road to being fully autonomous - true killer robots. (Software has already been demonstrated which can handle groups of drones to carry out complex tasks - eg, following a vehicle - with only minimal human supervision.)
Bill Sweetman, doyen of aerospace journalists, attended a recent conference in London on flying killer robots. Most of the attendees were air force types, and unsurprisingly they were angry and worried about the Army plans.
"We're allowed to be in civilian airspace, 1000 feet away from jumbo jets. Who's going to like a non-rated Army officer doing that?" one Predator pilot asked.
"In order to apply lethal force you should be a rated aviator," commented another, referring to the Sky warrior's potential to carry eight Hellfire missiles, each capable of destroying a tank. That said, other things can apply this level of lethal force; for example another tank, often commanded by a lowly, non-aviator corporal in the British Army.
Underlying the aviators' anguish, says Sweetman, is "a real concern that if the Army has got it wrong, a blue-on-blue disaster or a midair will set back the development of UAVs by decades".
Sweetman, a staunch friend of air forces everywhere in the eternal baiting and bureaucratic warfare among armed services, also noted that the only speaker at the conference who approved of the US Army plans was one from General Atomics, makers of the Sky Warrior. (Sweetman spoke himself.)
Of course, pilots don't always prevent disasters. Indeed, in a recent case involving the crash of a Predator-B operated by US Customs, a fully-trained pilot with thousands of hours in the air caused not only the crash but a serious crisis for local air-traffic authorities. It's hard to see how a specialist Army warrant officer would be any more likely to commit this kind of error.
It's also quite hard to see a natural pathway to general rank for such a specialist, of course. In the long term, it's hard to see how such a specialist - if situated in America, as is air force custom if not Army - would seriously need to be a uniformed serviceman rather than a civilian contractor.
It is no disrespect to military pilots to say that unmanned aircraft threaten their jobs: that's just a fact - setting aside pilots who carry passengers, perhaps. It is no disrespect to air forces' bravery or technical competence to say that unmanned combat aircraft in large numbers seriously threaten their status as "warriors" and therefore as uniformed, independent fighting services.
A decades-long setback in unmanned aircraft development would be a good thing for both groups, actually.
Some at least of the pilots and air force people at the conference will be fearing the Sky Warrior force not because it might fail, but because it might succeed.
Disclaimer: Your correspondent was in both the army and the air force as a reservist before spending a long time in the navy. He has been described by a senior Army officer as "totally unsuited to military life", by various senior naval officers as a traitor to the service, and by his old airforce CO as having "agricultural" piloting skills; though the same long-suffering man eventually gave permission for solo flying.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very idea of someone with no wings piloting anything, remotely or not, scares the bollocks off me.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-8/48257/Swoop2.gif)
Edit: oops, put USAF in title line. Mean Army of course.
-
The Terminator movies are coming true, just like Star Wars is.
-
you mean the army will not have full colonels and generals flying the UAV's, outrageous.:O
after WW2, when Gen LeMay formed the airforce and he made congress say that only the airforce would have fixed wing aircraft, (except navy/marine), and the army would only be allowed rotary wing aircraft.
-
Originally posted by john9001
after WW2, when Gen LeMay formed the airforce and he made congress say that only the airforce would have fixed wing aircraft, (except navy/marine), and the army would only be allowed rotary wing aircraft.
Oh really? So these aren't US Army fixed wing aircraft?
(http://z.about.com/d/usmilitary/1/0/t/A/c23.jpg)
(http://z.about.com/d/usmilitary/1/0/f/A/c12.jpg)
ack-ack
-
after WW2, when Gen LeMay formed the airforce and he made congress say that only the airforce would have fixed wing aircraft, (except navy/marine), and the army would only be allowed rotary wing aircraft.
(http://www-rucker.army.mil/atb/1-223/c-12-9.jpg)
(http://facstaff.uww.edu/rambadtd/homepage/school%20logos/o1a.jpg)
(http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/aviation/aircraft/ov-1_002.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Oh really? So these aren't US Army fixed wing aircraft?
ack-ack
or this
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1179167002_p51-21.jpg)
-
F*ck that. If they are armed, I want military pilots controlling them.
Military flight training does a hell of a lot more than just teaching someone to fly an aircraft.
My $.02.
-Mike/wulfie
-
Hey maybe I can get a job as a civilian contractor and finally get to fly ground attack combat missions from 9 to 5 and still get home in time to fix supper, yack on the phone and watch some TV... what do you think?
Could even tele-commute from home using the laptop!
Would have to make a new voice mail recording for when I am busy flying with the laptop... "Sorry, I can't answer the phone right now... I am shooting hellfire missiles from a UCAV at the Taliban in Afganistan via the internet... please leave a message and when my missiles are expended and the UCAV is in ARAL* mode I will call you back. Have a Nice Day." BEEP
:O :noid :) :rofl :p
Just kidding but this is what they are alluding too...
TIGERESS
* ARAL - Automatic Return And Land
-
I didn't want to tell you guys this, but now I have to. I've already been contacted by the USAF to start flying remote combat missions with UAVs. The USAF recognized me as being the best Aces High pilot, and they want me to head the new remote squadron. I accepted. So far, I already have 19 confirmed kills (they say some were actually friendly fire on Iraqis, but who are we kidding, there are no friendly Iraqis on our side!), so I'm about to be a quadruple ace.
I just wanted you guys to know that I'm a real life fighter pilot now.
-
Better sell any stock you have in Ray Ban and all the oversize watch makers. :D
-
Salutations Mr Jonathan Bolton, Editor in Chief,
It is with considerable agitation that I opened to-days Chronicle-Register Tribune to read a story about a new change in the operation of some mechanical hoist-ways. These contraptions that move cargo loads of men upwards to the dizzying heights of our modern industrial towers have un-til now been operated by skilled navigators, well trained in the operation of the fiendishly complex springs and pulleys that must be precisely controlled to avoid sending these busy crashing men to their deaths in the deep pits of the metropolis we live in.
But to-day, I read of the works of a maniac who pro-poses to equip one of these clockwork devices with the means of being controlled by untrained passengers themselves. What pre-posterousnesse is this? Tonnes of heavy iron will operate mere yards from rooms of children, mothers, and the medically unfit, controlled by the careless instructions of the casual pedestrian! Why, even a well intentioned female or negro might be able to issue the feeble minded instructions that send such a machine ripping through crowds of well wishers.
The keys to the asylum, good sir, have been handed to the inmates!
The hav-oc generated by these thundering death-carriages will reign death and destruction through our fine city. The cobblestones shall run red with the blood of its victims, and the load upon our undertaker industry shall be fierce indeed. This does not even include the damage causede by the stampeding horses spooked by the loud noises of the catas-trophe.
I beg of Mr. Otis to re-consider his foolish propositione and leave the piloting of these unforgiving steel monsters in the hands of trained professionals.
Sincerely,
Michael Lipton Bigglesworth the 3rd
Citizen
-
"In order to apply lethal force you should be a rated aviator," commented another, referring to the Sky warrior's potential to carry eight Hellfire missiles, each capable of destroying a tank. That said, other things can apply this level of lethal force; for example another tank, often commanded by a lowly, non-aviator corporal in the British Army.
I think the bolded says it all.
-
Is that editorial for real CB? :lol elevator vs aircraft, a stretch, but still its funny...
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Oh really? So these aren't US Army fixed wing aircraft?
(http://z.about.com/d/usmilitary/1/0/t/A/c23.jpg)
(http://z.about.com/d/usmilitary/1/0/f/A/c12.jpg)
ack-ack
John forgot the "armed" part.
-
Thank you, thank you. Remember to tip your waitresses folks, you've been a great audience!
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
John forgot the "armed" part.
sorry, my oversight.
<>
-
Originally posted by john9001
sorry, my oversight.
<>
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/Mohawk-2.jpg)
http://www.warbirdalley.com/ov1.htm
Experience in Vietnam soon showed that the policy of operating reconnaissance aircraft unarmed was not always wise. In response, a new variant, the JOV-1A, was built with four underwing hard-points for guns and rockets.
-
I read a book about an army OV pilot, called "Cleared Hot". The pilot in the book said midway through the war, the Pentagon heard about the army's fixed wing aircraft attacking enemy troops, and ordered them to stop. So the army had to manipulate its records. In the after action reports, instead of saying "We attacked an enemy troop formation", they went with "We marked the enemy troops location with rockets". Of course they used high explosive rockets to mark the positions.
-
Originally posted by wulfie-away
F*ck that. If they are armed, I want military pilots controlling them.-Mike/wulfie
Agree!
Hi ya Wulfie. You FW dweeb. :D
Frodo
-
I already have been flying UAV Combat missions in the Middle East..
I would still be flying...but I got a scorpion in my helmet...sitting at my desk, I now have brain cancer..But my Mustang & P38 are still in the garage....I also developed a game about my life experiences, It should be out after I can see again.....The scorpion I think was placed in my helmet by the CIA..I know too much
-
Read "Enders Game"
Don't you all know that while you think you are playing a game, you are Actually in combat taking people out half way across the galaxy??
-
The enemy's gate is down.
-
Maybe it'll scare the enemy too, they might crash the thing on their heads.. :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The enemy's gate is down.
"There is a way to fight, and a way to win. They are not necessarily one and the same". I'd forgotten that line. Applies really well in AH too..
-
To the best of my knowledge, after reading links about X-plane UCAVs on the X-plane thread, there are no plans to have an air-to-air dogfighting UCAV even though the high G manuvers an unmanned aircraft can perform far exceeds present limitations.
What I am concerned about is the potential of electronic takeover of UCAVs and turning them against friendlies. You can bet if the Russians were putting UCAVs in the air the US would be figuring out how to exploit this potential.
Some interesting reading...
Below from --> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ucav-n.htm
excerpt:
"Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N)
The system is based on the concept of Network Centric Warfare. The Mission Control System will employ operators at the center of information. Using intelligent decision aids, a single controller will be able to monitor and control several aircraft simultaneously.
The air vehicle itself will be intelligent; for example it will diagnose its current health and prognose its future health so that it can maximize its mission capability with degraded functionality. At the squadron level, higher echelon tactical unit levels, and fleet levels, an autonomic logistics system will suggest courses of action to tactical commanders to maximize effectiveness of the aircraft and parent fighting units. "
TIGERESS
Edit: I suspect if the US had competitors in UCAV development the logical leap would be UCAV air-to-air combat fighter planes. Imagine a biologically limited fighter (a BLF) going up against a non-biologically limited fighter (an NBLF); or two UCAVs dog fighting each other.
UCAVs don’t have families and don't require retirement pay nor do they burden the military with veterans’ needs and benefits and expenses and can be turned out on an assembly line.
UCAVs... Generals and Admirals long wished for Robot Warriors of the Air.
Imagine a near earth orbiting UCAV Aircraft Carrier launching UCAVs from overhead a remote target zone. Just the threat of that is intimidating beyond imagination. This is the 21st Century... look how far aircraft technology has progressed in the previous century.
Imagine a paranoid Gov't survailing their population centers 24 hours a day with UAVs and enforcing civil laws with urban UCAVs. A three foot wing span urban UCAV swooping down and spraying a crowd like a crop duster with low amounts of highly potent chemicals or attacking people with deadly, or near-deadly, force.
DARPA is probably already brainstorming on all this and much more... The Terminator movie series was based on real potentials not just impossible fantasies.
If enough urban UCAVs were in operation in IRAQ right now I would expect those who plant roadside IEDs could be put out of business. See one or more people in a potential IED placement zone; Shoot a small sniffer probe; detect explosives; hunt down and kill them all within moments or track them back to their base of operations and bomb the whole thing.
If the full force of government resources are brought to bear on such scenarios, its not a stretch to imagine utilizing such technologies in the homeland against citizens for any reason the government chooses.
The job of scientists and engineers is to turn problems into solutions for profit... I am an engineer; thats what I do for a living... turn problems into solutions for profit.
-
As a pilot, I don't care if non pilots fly UAVs. It's a waste of training for a pilot to be 'operating' those things. In all probability a fourteen year old with experience playing with FSX would be the best 'operator'. The whole point of being a pilot is to fly. Much of the training revolves around safely flying an aircraft from take off to landing while carrying out whatever the mission is.
UAVs are disposable, it hardly matters if they're lost in combat. So there is no real point in employing a pilot.
There will always be a requirement for pilots just not so many military pilots and practically no fighter pilots.
-
Sheesh.
Coupla 'stories' I heard long ago:
This happened back in the early '70's...
..F-4 vs Firebee (drone operator was in a C-130 I heard) ..the firebee was unarmed, but just for laughs they got into a 'dogfight' ..it only took a few seconds for the drone to chop angles and park at the Phantom's 6, and the rhino driver could not shake the drone at all at that point.
Firebee drones were bein lost going up north on a particular 'run' and no one knew why .. so an F-4 capped one as it made its run ..
..seems the drone was impacting a bridge mid-span that hadn't been there initially ..the North Vietnamese had put a new bridge across a valley on the route, and the drone was takin it down pretty much by accident every time it made a run up there..
..as the bridge was repaired :)
Personally .. A skilled operator is a skilled operator .. I'd be all for utilizing the best possible weapon system regardless if it involved someone runnin the fight 'head in the cockpit' or a good algorithm of IF-THEN-GOTO loops :)
It's a fact that reaction time counts in ACM ..we get some itty-bitty plane up that can pull a billion g's, react faster than an eyeblink, and never misses,
.. friends .. all it would need is a colt .45 .. it could fly up an shoot a pilot right in his 'Nads.
-Frank
-
UCAVs are the future so get used to it. The time will come when there will be no pilots inside the warplane.