Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots
Yahoo! News - Technology -m Reuters ^ | Sun Nov 23, 9:43 AM ET | By Chelsea Emery

Posted on 11/23/2003 2:32:10 PM PST by Bobby777

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Wright Brothers demonstrated that man could fly. A century later, we're looking at a future in which planes fly without humans.

Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, are taking to the skies as military and civilian organizations turn to remote-operated planes or helicopters to perform tasks considered dull, dirty or dangerous.

Already, drones have dropped bombs in the Middle East, snapped images of dangerous terrain from thousands of feet in the air and monitored traffic on congested roads.

Some commentators have even suggested that Lockheed Martin's high-tech F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the last inhabited fighter plane needed. At the very least, analysts say, drones can be used for potentially dangerous environmental monitoring, such as checking air quality for chemical and biological weapons.

"It's no longer 'yes or no' -- the technology and the systems are accepted," says Daryl Davidson, executive director at the trade group Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). "These things are here to stay and they are proliferating."

Proliferating, yes, but not without doubts about their ability to operate safely over urban centers, their cost, and a crash rate that for some far outstrips fighter jets.

In addition, uninhabited vehicles demand extremely high bandwidth -- a measure of how much information can be carried at any given time -- so their use is limited until the technology catches up with the inspiration.

Most fears center on their safety for civilian use, such as monitoring traffic over urban areas.

"They don't have a pilot to get them out of trouble," notes Steve Zaloga, an analyst with Teal Group, an aerospace and defense research firm. "The local TV station isn't going to be happy to have a million-dollar plane crash into traffic or someone's house. It's going to be a hazard and it's going to be a cost issue."

DRONES

The use of drones took off during the Vietnam War, when soldiers strapped cameras onto target planes and flew them remotely through high-threat areas.

But real leaps have come recently amid breakthroughs in technology, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's clarion call for military transformation, and their success in action in the Balkans and elsewhere.

Advances in satellite-guided global positioning systems and wireless (news - web sites) communications have helped scientists jump numerous hurdles.

Networking technology and increasing bandwidth, too, have driven invention, since they allow the complex machines to communicate simultaneously with centers that send them directions, as well as other locations to which they beam their images.

These innovations have led to the development of combat UAVs like Boeing's formerly top-secret X45 plane, which can carry at least 1,000 pounds of precision-guided bombs and be either pre-programmed on the ground or have its mission plan changed mid-flight.

If operations go as hoped in 2006, the Department of Defense (news - web sites) will start fielding the systems in 2008, Boeing says.

The Marine Corps has also been testing 5-pound, backpack-portable UAVs called Dragon Eye for "over-the-hill" reconnaissance. Missions are programmed via wireless modem and the planes can be launched by hand or bungee cord.

The Marines plan to field at least 311 in coming years. Drones' successes at reconnaissance and bombing in Kosovo, Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites) have also garnered support for the technology.

"Much to the chagrin of fighter pilots in the Pentagon (news - web sites), UAVs are here to stay," says John Kutler, an industry watcher and chief executive of U.S.-based defense investment bank Quarterdeck Investment Partners.

Combat drones were used for the first time in Afghanistan, where the U.S. military deployed a Predator UAV armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles.

But the biggest coup came in November 2002, when the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) used a Predator to blow up a car carrying six suspected al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, including one man suspected of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole (news - web sites) in 2000.

"Everyone saw their use in operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, so there's growing confidence in the systems," says George Guerra, deputy program manager for the Global Hawk at Northrop Grumman. "What we are able to do is remarkable."

Advances in technology attracted defense contractors and scientists to the UAV workshop.

Visions of huge profits are keeping them there: Rumsfeld's mandate for a fully connected, wired battlefield has directed billions of dollars into remote vehicle development.

The United States is expected to spend about $680 million on military applications alone for drones in 2002, estimates the Teal Group. In a mere two years, that figure is expected to almost double to about $1.1 billion.

Israel, Japan and Australia are getting into the act, too.

Worldwide spending on UAV development is likely to run to about $3.35 billion in 2012. That's up from $1.88 billion this year.

Wall Street is taking note.

"UAVs could be the next very big growth area," says Jun Zhao, a defense analyst for U.S.-based fund manager Federated Investors. "The Department of Defense has to make a decision whether they will fund legacy programs or skip a generation and go directly to transformation."

His bet? Traditional-platform budgets will suffer. "With civil aviation in the doldrums, drones represent an entirely new market," says Zaloga. "It's a great way to grow a business."

Some UAVs, like the Global Hawk, carry synthetic-aperture radar that can penetrate cloud-cover and sandstorms. Other, smaller drones carry electro-optical cameras, similar to TV cameras, that can capture details as small as helmets or hats from thousands of feet in the air. And they can do it for hours longer than any piloted plane.

The General Atomics reconnaissance Gnat 750, for example, can fly for 48 hours and reach altitudes of 26,250 feet.

COMMERCIAL USE

But while UAVs are becoming standard equipment in combat, their commercial use has far to go and they are still rare outside the military because of their high costs and the concerns over their safety.

NASA (news - web sites) has tested drones over California grape crops to monitor frost conditions and the U.S. forest service is considering using remote-operated planes to beam images of forest fires back to base camps.

Countries such as Australia are planning to buy drones to monitor their borders for illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Other nations are exploring the possibility of using drones to monitor the seas for both piracy and storms.

Even as the Pentagon and local governments in the United States are fast-tracking the technology, critics are raising some troubling issues.

For one, UAVs are expensive. The General Atomics Predator costs about $3 million for the plane alone, and the costs quickly skyrocket to tens of millions once the ground crew and other operating systems are added.

The Global Hawk system costs between $33 million and $35 million, while the futuristic manned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter costs about $37 million to $47 million, depending on its operating system. F-16s can be had for about $38 million.

The Global Hawk may cost slightly less than the JSF, but its crash potential is high compared to manned aircraft -- some 50 times higher than that of an F-16 fighter jet, says Victoria Samson at the think tank Center for Defense Information.

Of the 80 Predators in service as of March, 30 had crashed, says Samson. (Some had been crashed intentionally for testing purposes and others had been shot down by enemy fire.)

There are also worries about how well drones can communicate with civilian planes. In August, the Global Hawk finally won permission to fly in civilian airspace. That makes it the first pilot-less airplane to get such clearance, but it was on the condition that it takes off and lands in military areas, and stays thousands of feet above the path of most commercial planes.

Nonetheless, development of military and civil-use UAVs is driving ahead. "The future is promising," says AUVSI's Davidson. "It won't be The Jetsons," he says, referring to the science-fiction cartoon. "But we'll see very utilitarian uses of UAVs. We'll see them on every runway of every airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks.

"They're going to be used in commercial markets for things we haven't even thought of."

(This feature appears in the current issue of REUTERS magazine, Issue 59, November/December 2003. Copyright Reuters Ltd 2003. www.reuters.com/magazine.)


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: domesticdrones; drones; dronesus; fighters; miltech; uav; uavs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last
Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

the landscape is changing but I think it will be quite awhile before we don't have humans in the sky ... I'd hate to be setting on a carrier depending upon drones (only) to protect my battle group ... but hey, that's me ...
1 posted on 11/23/2003 2:32:11 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I'll bet you might have a thing or two to say ... 8)
2 posted on 11/23/2003 2:33:24 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
No technology is smarter than the human brain.
3 posted on 11/23/2003 2:36:36 PM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
Depends on the brain :)
4 posted on 11/23/2003 2:37:52 PM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cindy; yonif; Alouette; Yehuda; dennisw; Lent; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; rdb3; mhking; MeeknMing; ...
technology ping ...
5 posted on 11/23/2003 2:37:57 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777


In this file photo, the remote-controlled drone aircraft Proteus is seen during a news briefing at the Mojave, Calif., airport Thursday, April 3, 2003. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon)
6 posted on 11/23/2003 2:41:29 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
And what happens if the remote control (or the computers controlling it) fail?
7 posted on 11/23/2003 2:43:51 PM PST by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Impressive. Reuters Islamic News (RIN) is precisely ten years behind the rest of the news business.

http://www.jedonline.com

http://www.navlog.org.

8 posted on 11/23/2003 2:47:34 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
It was reported that the Navy has landed an F-18 on an aircraft carrier using a GPS autoland system.

The Kettering Aerial Torpedo, nicknamed the "Bug", was invented by Charles F. Kettering of Dayton. It was developed and built by Dayton-Wright Airplane Company in 1918 for the U.S. Army Signal Corps.

The unmanned Bug took off from a dolly which ran along a track. It was stabilized on course toward its target by a system of internal pre-set vacuum pneumatic and electrical controls. After a predetermined length of time, a control closed an electrical circuit which shut off the engine. The wings were then released, causing the Bug to plunge to earth where its 180 pounds of explosive detonated on impact.

Although initial testing was successful, World War I ended before the Bug could enter combat. Fewer than 50 Bugs had been completed at the time of the Armistice. After the war, the Air Service conducted additional tests on the weapon, but scarcity of funds in the 1920s halted further development. The full-size reproduction of the Bug was built by Museum personnel. It was placed on display in 1964

9 posted on 11/23/2003 2:49:40 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: College Repub
well, with them flying over commercial traffic (now), I'd hate to think ... I just hope they know what they are doing ...
10 posted on 11/23/2003 2:51:50 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
I remember in the 60's reading a Popular Mechanic's magazine that said we were all going to be flying to work in out own personal aircars by now. Right.
11 posted on 11/23/2003 2:52:04 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
You don't?
12 posted on 11/23/2003 2:53:17 PM PST by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Star Trek accurately predicts the future ;)

Anyone remember the episode "A TASTE OF ARMAGEDDON"?

Here's a synopsis.

ST:TOS Episode 23

Kirk learns that the war is fought by computer simulations instead of real weapons, and the people calculated as casualties voluntarily report to disintigration chambers to die, but the planets' culture and infrastructure survive. Since the Enterprise is in orbit, it becomes a target in the virtual war, and in the latest attack, the ship is listed destroyed by a tricobalt satellite explosion, and everyone on the Enterprise is ordered to beam down to the planet to be killed.

Coming to a battlefield near you! Heh.

13 posted on 11/23/2003 3:03:26 PM PST by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles.

'scuse me but when the heck did Unmanned Aerial Vehicles become Uninhabited?

Such PC baloney.

14 posted on 11/23/2003 3:13:19 PM PST by jigsaw (God Bless Our Troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Reminds me of a joke about automated airliners of the future:

Their cockpits will have two occupants -- a pilot and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog; the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

15 posted on 11/23/2003 3:29:01 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
ACLS (Automated Carrier Landing System) has been an available option for Hornet pilots from the moment they entered service. D model F-14's carry a similar system.
16 posted on 11/23/2003 3:32:39 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
I'll bet you might have a thing or two to say ... 8)

Not much, actually.

These systems are good for single-mission aircraft, where we dont care much whether or not the aircraft comes back. When decisions and adjustments need to me made during a mission, you really need a man in the cockpit. Air to Air Combat will likely always require a man, because you could probably never duplicate SA (Situational Awareness) with a computer.

Besides, who would ever join the Navy, except for the opportunity to fly a hot-rod? I sure as hell didnt sign up for the food and benefits.

17 posted on 11/23/2003 3:36:58 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777

The future has already arrived.

18 posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:02 PM PST by SamAdams76 (198.2 (-101.8))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Computer-controlled aircraft? I hope it's not Windows-based. The thing will lock up and kill you.
19 posted on 11/23/2003 3:46:01 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Who'd thunk that she would have to Lewinski him to keep the flight aloft.

And don't call me Shirley!

20 posted on 11/23/2003 4:02:31 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

The real beauty is that it also removes the need for anyone to fly. Why, can can go anywhere and do anything from our own livingroom.

Not only that, technology has even made it unnecessary, or perhaps impossible for anyone to hold a job, including pilots someday.

Yes, technology has done so much for our lives. Without technology, why, we could even have ... a life?

21 posted on 11/23/2003 4:03:03 PM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
Computer-controlled aircraft? I hope it's not Windows-based. The thing will lock up and kill you.

Actually, the Flight Control Computers are all Wintel-based. The other day I was in our CRJ trainer when they booted the system and sure as sugar the Microsoft logo came up. I suspect that's why there's triple redundancy on all the systems.

22 posted on 11/23/2003 4:09:10 PM PST by Archangelsk (Simplistic solutions for free. Real solutions are the usual consultant fees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Malsua
I was thinking more of "The Ultimate Computer". How long until a remotely piloted vehicle is controlled by "M5"? That's frightening.
23 posted on 11/23/2003 4:11:34 PM PST by buccaneer81 (Plus de fromage, s'il vous plait...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Ping.
24 posted on 11/23/2003 4:13:05 PM PST by Archangelsk (Simplistic solutions for free. Real solutions are the usual consultant fees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
"Much to the chagrin of fighter pilots in the Pentagon (news - web sites), UAVs are here to stay,"

The Air Force seems to have the same romantic view of manned fighters as the world's navies had of battleships before WWII. Sure, manned jetfighters are reaching the pinnacle of their development, but the future of combat aviation is probably going to involve cheap UAVs flown by kids who played a lot of X-Box or PS2 growing up.

25 posted on 11/23/2003 4:14:33 PM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw
'scuse me but when the heck did Unmanned Aerial Vehicles become Uninhabited?

Good catch.

26 posted on 11/23/2003 4:19:40 PM PST by dighton (NLC™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Do you realize the potential?????

With remote piloting we can eliminate an expensive part of our Air Force and Navy by outsourcing it to India!

27 posted on 11/23/2003 4:30:03 PM PST by chickenlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Yes, technology has done so much for our lives. Without technology, why, we could even have ... a life?

So...why didn't you go out and talk to somebody, instead of typing at the web?

28 posted on 11/23/2003 4:52:07 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
In the early 60's technologists were certain that these new fangled missiles would remove dogfighting from Air to Air combat. The things were supposed to be so smart that a pilot could fire at a target, turn around and go home. You probably know how that turned out, right? The missiles proved ineffective, touchy, flaky, and almost worthless. The Navy started TopGun, while the Air Force continued on relying on the missiles and left Vietnam with a 1 to 1 kill ratio. The Navy raised theirs to 12 to 1 after going back to teaching advanced dogfighting skills to their pilots.

That lesson having been learned, It is going to be a very long time before you remove a man from the pilot seat. Technology will never replace judgment, guile and situational awareness to the point of becoming an advantage against a worthy adversary. Maybe you could use this technology for bombers and recce, but not likely in fighters for a very long time.

29 posted on 11/23/2003 5:00:47 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Air to Air Combat will likely always require a man, because you could probably never duplicate SA (Situational Awareness) with a computer.

Prediction: inside of 15 years, there will be no more fighter pilots. The machines will be too cheap and too lethal. Whether or not machine pilots are the "equal" of human pilots by that time (they will be eventually), the survivability of a combat mission will drop to something very low.

30 posted on 11/23/2003 5:02:25 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
ALAS!!-- for SOME 'Perverted Reason,'--the "Real World" just seems to DIFFER FROM the predictions of our Best mathematicians!!

So--despite our Best efforts to avoid It--a "Real'Life Human Pilot" is Often the "Difference Between" Success & Failure!!"

Despite the "Hubris" of our BEST "Theoretic Mathematicians," a Well-Trained Human, "On The Spot," is OFTEN the difference between Success & Failure!

Doc

31 posted on 11/23/2003 5:05:41 PM PST by Doc On The Bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Technology will never replace judgment, guile and situational awareness to the point of becoming an advantage against a worthy adversary. Maybe you could use this technology for bombers and recce, but not likely in fighters for a very long time.

Your quote is spot on. Machines can be spoofed much more easily than an experienced human being.Think about the MacNamera Line as an example of this kind of wizardry gone awry.

I doubt anyone on the ground would be too thrilled with a robot flying close air support. I do think an armed drone is a great force multiplier and terific in areas that need deniability or ,frankly are worthwhile targets , but not worth the life of an aircrew.
32 posted on 11/23/2003 5:09:38 PM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I don't think you're going to have 100%-computer-flown fighters any time soon, but we will get to the point where hauling meatware around in the airplane, instead of leaving it in a trailer on the ground, is a tactical liability.
33 posted on 11/23/2003 5:12:03 PM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
15 years? Not a chance. The machines will be too expensive, have too many problems mechanically, be found to be subject to jamming of their control signals by the smarter nations, and so on. Survivability of a combat mission rarely has anything to do with the vehicle used, but of the men using it. The only aircraft with technology proven in combat to enhance survivability are Steath aircraft.

When I got hold of my first fighter, it was considered to be the most dangerous aircraft to go against ever built. 23 years later, that same aircraft is still the most dangerous, (although the F-22 is promising) though soon to be phased out of service. If in 23 years, the Services have yet to build an weapon that can defeat the Tomcat/Phoenix, I doubt fighter pilots have anything to worry about for the next 30-35 years, when the next generation fighters are retired.

34 posted on 11/23/2003 5:30:56 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
hauling meatware around in the airplane, instead of leaving it in a trailer on the ground, is a tactical liability.

Air Force = Meatware.

Navy = FiletMignonware.

35 posted on 11/23/2003 5:37:36 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
When I got hold of my first fighter, it was considered to be the most dangerous aircraft to go against ever built.

Harrier or F-4 (which I once saw go to pieces during a video on PIO)?

36 posted on 11/23/2003 6:14:13 PM PST by Archangelsk (Simplistic solutions for free. Real solutions are the usual consultant fees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
15 years? Not a chance.

Yeah, that's what Gary Kasparov said. What he forgot is that computers double their capabilities every 18 months.

There's no reason why the robot-piloted plane itself needs to be any more expensive, less mechanically sound, or worse in communication than any human-piloted aircraft; the worst-case scenario is that you simply replace the pilots of existing aircraft. But that's already a winner: computers are capable of executing much higher-g turns than humans. Also, they're much better at taking calculated risks, because they know to several decimal places how much leeway they have...and they are only as risk-averse as they're told to be.

What I expect, though, is that the "fighter planes" of the future will essentially be intelligent missiles. Extremely intelligent missiles.

37 posted on 11/23/2003 6:14:24 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Dog is my co-pilot!


38 posted on 11/23/2003 6:19:46 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Far out, man, heavy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
What I expect, though, is that the "fighter planes" of the future will essentially be intelligent missiles. Extremely intelligent missiles.

I don't see that happening anytime soon. My posit for this opinion is that it takes an equal competitor to move technology forward. Thus, aerospace science and aeronautical engineering (along with automation) only moved forward during WWI, II, Korea, the Cold War and Vietnam. Since we have no competitors in this realm at this time (China is still 10 years away) I suspect we will rely on stagnant technology until something earth shattering hits us. (My bet is China landing on the moon).

39 posted on 11/23/2003 6:20:13 PM PST by Archangelsk (Simplistic solutions for free. Real solutions are the usual consultant fees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

Maybe so, but can a computer service the stewardesses? I think not.

40 posted on 11/23/2003 6:24:48 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Roger that Bro! Im all for the Mil aplication of the UAV , but about the Civi side.....I dunno
41 posted on 11/23/2003 6:24:55 PM PST by JETDRVR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
See 9/11 for an interactive demo of this technology.
42 posted on 11/23/2003 6:26:17 PM PST by lodwick (Wake up, America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
Problem isn't the brain, it's the body, especially in combat aircraft. The human body can take less of a beating than any component in a modern fighterplane, it can withstand fewer g-forces, fewer hours of high stress flight and needs to spend more time in recouperation. It also sits in the least armored part of the plane (thanks to people's need to see outside and the canopy that requires), takes up a huge amount of space and requires even more space to be take up in life sustaining equipment. If we leave the body (and the brain) on the ground we can make significantly more effective aircraft that will be able to out perform anything carrying a person.
43 posted on 11/23/2003 6:31:11 PM PST by discostu (You figure that's gotta be jelly cos jam just don't shake like that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
Check my profile.
44 posted on 11/23/2003 6:38:44 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Heres a question. In todays environment{post accident} the Lawyers have a sure fire out...... PILOT ERROR.
Who are they going to crucify in a future of civi UAVs?
45 posted on 11/23/2003 6:38:45 PM PST by JETDRVR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
That lesson having been learned, It is going to be a very long time before you remove a man from the pilot seat. Technology will never replace judgment, guile and situational awareness to the point of becoming an advantage against a worthy adversary

Oh, I certainly agree with that statement. What I'm trying to say (and doing a poor job of) is that the future of air combat probably consists of a guy sitting in a control station and flying a UAV remotely, rather than being in the cockpit. I don't think we'll see air combat conducted by artifical intelligencew in our lifetimes.

Would you agree with me that removing the frail human body from the equation (and the cockpit) would give us a major advantage over our potential enemies when it came to air combat?

46 posted on 11/23/2003 6:41:50 PM PST by Modernman (I am Evil Homer, I am Evil Homer....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
What he forgot is that computers double their capabilities every 18 months.

Capacity, is only number crunching. The rules for Chess do not change. ACM tactics change constantly, and it is the pilot that recongnizes those changes, in able to best use his aircraft against any one of dozens of potential fighter threats, at different speeds, altitudes, weather conditions, day-night, radar and hundreds of other factors, that will win the day. From the ground, you stand as much chance against another pilot, as some child with a video game.

You will never create a computer that can tell me whether my tally is losing energy in a turn, or how hard he is pulling based solely on the vortex coming from his LEX. Oh wait, does he have a LEX, or canards, what might his fuel state be; depending on what base he probably came from, how much burner time has he got available? Is he a 2ship or a 4ship from my radar return alone? Can I beam him if he gets a snap off against me? I could go on for days.

Now, someday, someone could likely program all those sensors into a fighter aircraft and return that data to the ground in about 3-4 seconds allowing someone to take positive action. The only problem is that if I'm in the plane, and I cant figure out and act on that information in less than 2 seconds, I will probably get my ass shot off. I wont be holding my breath waiting for some badass computer fighter jock to take the place of a man in the seat.

47 posted on 11/23/2003 6:51:46 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Would you agree with me that removing the frail human body from the equation (and the cockpit) would give us a major advantage over our potential enemies when it came to air combat?

No.

Computers do not have the eye-brain combination, and wont process information as fast as that for another 50 years. Fighter pilots are taught to determine what their opponent is doing based on very loosly associated sets of information, and to react in time to gain advantage, shoot, kill, in less time than it would take for a computer to transmit that same information to a ground station, have someone read it, confirm it, act upon it, gauge results, act again, and so on.

How is a computer to remain in formation with another computer controlled aircraft through a 5G break without crashing into it? Are you going to have omni-directional cameras and sensors all over the airframe? My eyes can tell me what I need to know, before you can say "Pukin", and my brain can react in time to save my ass.

Computers are precise, but they dont do well at dead-reckonning or forcing an aircraft to do something it is not supposed to do.

48 posted on 11/23/2003 7:00:27 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Only a 5g Form break? I know you can do better than that hehehe
49 posted on 11/23/2003 7:11:04 PM PST by JETDRVR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JETDRVR
You never know if the other guy can do better than that.
50 posted on 11/23/2003 7:13:27 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson