You just had to ask, didn't you?
Cheers!
Posted on 02/10/2010 9:10:31 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) could demonstrate within two to three years a new unmanned aircraft designed to provide aerial cover for troops in close proximity to enemy forces.
Proposals from industry are requested by DARPA by 21 February to demonstrate in 2012 or 2013 an unmanned component for a next generation close air support system. The complete system may eventually assume a role now traditionally served by the Fairchild Republic A-10 and other manned fighters, such as the Boeing F/A-18 and Lockheed Martin F-16.
More recently, armed unmanned air systems (UAS), including the General Atomics Aernoautical Systems Inc MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper have performed close air support missions, firing missiles on enemy forces in contact with friendly troops in addition to their surveillance roles.
DARPA's solicitation, dated 29 January, seeks both purpose-built UAS for close air support, as well as unmanned versions of manned fighters, including the "QF-4, QF-16 and UA-10". The QF-4 and QF-16 designates target drone versions of the original fighters, while the UA-10 is presumably a reference to an unmanned version of the A-10.
DARPA has set different performance requirements for unmanned versions. An unmanned variant of the A-10 would have to demonstrate comparable endurance to the manned version, while a purpose-built UAS would have to equal the persistence of the MQ-1 or MQ-9.
The payload of weapons and sensors sought by DARPA compares to the MQ-9, with only 907kg to 2,270kg (2,000lb to 5,000lb) requested. The aircraft, however, should have more agility than the Reaper. DARPA has asked for high sub-sonic speed greater than Mach 0.65 and capable of manoeuvres imposing higher than 3g pressure on the airframe.
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
I absolutely do not like this idea. There is no substitution for a pilot when providing close air support of troops on the ground.
Wouldn’t want to be on the other end, manned or not.
It’s hard to imagine what you could replace the A-10 with, that would as equally combine ugly, mean and dangerous.
This is at the same time when the skill being requested on the battlefield that we weren't training to is night strafe.
Unmanned aircraft make me nervous. Not because of some fantasy Terminator robot uprising.
With unmanned craft there is a higher chance that some punk kid with only flight sim experience can be strapped into the controller chair and fill the role of the Air Force officer who refused to use his UAV against American civilians.
>>There is no substitution for a pilot when providing close air support of troops on the ground.<<
So far.
I firmly believe that we are going to, very soon, look at our A propeller driven WWII aircraft today.
I believe unmanned will replace manned as handily and effectively as jets replaced propellers. Maybe moreso. The pilots will live in places like North Dakota and go home to their wife and kids after a few missions.
I believe we will have hybrid “drones” where the planes take off and fly to the battle completely on their own where they will then be taken over by the human pilot back in the states. He will fly until the plane is out of ammo or low on fuel and then simply give control back to the computer. The computer will fly the plane back to base and land. Meanwhile, the pilot will have taken over a fresh arrival, and repeat the cycle for his 4-8 hour shift (with lunch and coffee breaks) and then go home to the wife and kids - Where he can grab a Bud Light and watch Black-hawk Down on his 10 foot screen with 7.1 surround.
As technology continues to advance, even the pilot back in the states will be unnecessary.
I know the B-2 pilots who bombed Serbia were more than glad to be able to have a family life instead of deploying for months at a time.
And there is no such thing as an unlawful order to a machine...
Remember just after Obama was elected Libs lemented the “red state army”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/14/AR2008121401815.html
Now a bigger push for all types of unmanned equipment....no thanks...
Kamikaze missions also come to mind.... The options are limitless.
Fight fire with fire!
You just had to ask, didn't you?
Cheers!
If there are U.S. soldiers on the battle field, unmanned aircraft will fail them.
IMHO, if we have push button wars, we will have more wars. Some of which will be aimed at American citizens.
What about a virtual interface so sophisticated that the “pilot” experiences it as though he were there. And add to that his ability to sacrifice his plane without risking his own life - to save the men on the battlefield. And if he does sacrifice it, he simply takes control of one of the drones circling, waiting to be called into action?
If the “pilot” is controlling the plane romotely, then the plane can be hacked and turned against our soldiers on the ground. No thanks.
That is a risk, and it may be exploited some day. It is also one that has been on my mind since I first heard of the predator test flights.
Every system has it’s potential risks, but they are weighed and mitigated against the impact and likelihood of those risks being realized.
The benefits are huge while the risk seems to have been successfully mitigated so far. I wondered why it was hard to break the security until I found out they get their instructions from satelites. Apparently they are selectively blind to anything coming from the ground so the key to hacking them is taking out the satellites. That may be off in the future, and by then we may have measures to deal with it.
Then again, you never know.
I could see where there would be mitigating factors when you have a limited number of drones in theatre. However, if they go to a more wide spread use including combat aircraft, perhaps those mitigating factors may not provide the same level of security? I’m skeptical and would prefer to have someone in the combat aircraft using all their senses on the battlefield - something that cannot be done remotely.
I’m with you on everything you are saying. My only point is that we have proven that, with the right tools and technology, what did not work or work well yesterday becomes a piece of cake today.
One of my favorite analogies is the old tuners on tv’s. When I was a kid (early 60’s) my grandfather had a remote control tv. I could bang two forks together to get it to change channels. The technology involved a barrel tuner, a motor to tune it and solonoids operated by a sensor that detected certain sound pitches from a remote control that LITERALLY clicked a piece of spring steel against a metal rod that vibrated to a particular pitch.
It was cumbersom and expensive, and not all that reliable. Sure, the technology and quality improved, but it was a far cry from what we have today.
And what we have today is so reliable and cheap because it performs the same task with completely different technology at every link in the chain.
As this functionality (unmanned combat aircraft) continues to improve, new technologies will be discovered and applied to the point where maybe a future version will make what we have today look like the old barrel tuner with a motor drive.
It is inevitable, if the Lord waits.
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.