Suck On This: Predator Drone Bags Eleven RIFWs

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Now people are saying "remote operation can never be as effective." In 50 years we will laugh at that too.

Hey now, I never said remote operatiosn aren't effective. In fact, they are as effective for CERTAIN missions. Recon...I think they're as effective, if not more so for certain situations. My argument is that UAVs will not take over 100% of the jobs b/c they're limited in the sense that a computer is not capable of emmulating the human brain. I don't think that will ever be possible, some people think so; I guess we'll see.

Quote

The military of the future will be determined by what's most effective, not what the cavalry/footsoldiers/pilots want.

I understand that. I'm just arguing that UAVs won't be as effective as a human at ALL missions. THey are and will be at some, but not all. That's what I'm saying.

Quote

Rapid medical care, body armor, UAV's, aircraft and satellite reconnaisance, and new sensing technologies has already reduced losses.

I never said war deaths have lessened over time with techonolgical advances, I was saying that there won't be a time where no human life is lost in a war (and that applies to military personnel as well).

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

True. But look at the evolution of warfare. From rocks, to swords and axes, to canons, rifles, armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles, etc... Close combat is being removed more and more. Striking from as far a distance as possible seems to be the driving force.

Try telling "close combat is being removed more and more" to all the Marines and soldiers in Iraq/Afgahnistan. That statement is relatively wrong at this point in time (now I'm not speaking for 20 yrs down the road).

Sure striking from a further distance is good, but there will still be humans physically doing that job, not just 100% predators doing that job.

[ViperPilot 0]

At Tyndall a while ago, ONE Raptor killed something like 4 Vipers and 3 Eagles 3x each before any of them got a shot off. You're telling me some chinese UAV is going to defeat that? Not a chance in hell.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

The MQ-1 Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. A fully operational system consists of four aircraft (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator Primary Satellite Link, and approximately 55 personnel for deployed 24-hour operations. A SYSTEM cost $40M in 1997 dollars.

Just found out that just the aircraft itself is $4M.

Well, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info. Either way, those things are more prone to crash get shot down than a human pilot is. You can argue that we'll go to war with China and they'll shoot SAMs at us. But if that's the case, then UAVs are going to get shot down constantly. So losing 50 UAVS is still more expensive than losing 10 pilots.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

The MQ-1 Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. A fully operational system consists of four aircraft (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator Primary Satellite Link, and approximately 55 personnel for deployed 24-hour operations. A SYSTEM cost $40M in 1997 dollars.

Just found out that just the aircraft itself is $4M.

Well, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info. Either way, those things are more prone to crash get shot down than a human pilot is. You can argue that we'll go to war with China and they'll shoot SAMs at us. But if that's the case, then UAVs are going to get shot down constantly. So losing 50 UAVS is still more expensive than losing 10 pilots.

UAVs don't have wives and mothers and children.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,130]

> You're telling me some chinese UAV is going to defeat that? Not a chance in hell.

In 20 years, yes. Hell, the Chinese will probably be _buying_ Raptors through Saudi Arabia before then - and then we will need a better UAV to defend ourselves against our own UAV's. We will see our first UAV dogfight soon, and it will take place in a regime human pilots can't go - with durations and G-loadings that humans cannot tolerate.

The P-51 was an amazing airplane. But it can't stand up to an SU-27. Technology marches on, and so must we if we want to remain competitive.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We wouldn't be considered inferior if we still beat them...which we would. I can guarantee Chinese UAVs aren't going to defeat the AF.

I recall that Hermann Goering said something very similar about the RAF and the Luftwaffe in 1940.

The British strategy in the BoB wasn't to defeat the Luftwaffe (which wasn't possible), but just to make it too difficult and costly for them to win.

Defense always has the home-court advantage.

mh

.

Failing to meet objectives is defeat.

Indeed, the German objectives (Operation Sea Lion) that resulted in the BoB were poorly defined and hastily planned. There were goofs and gaffes on both sides, but the Germans made more of them; among these, having no amphibious capabilities at all and no troops trained in such techniques, and both sides dismissed the other's knowledge of Radar, but the British had an enormous advantage because of the kind of defense they had set up - a coastal radar system, which though very crude, actually worked well.

However, when Jerry got past the Chain Home screen and into the hinterland, everything depended upon the Mark I eyeball of the ground observers.

But it was the stubborn British air defense that caused Hitler to postpone and finally cancel Seelüwen. Hitler's trust in Göring to produce a victory against Britain via air power alone was, in 60+ year hindsight, misguided at best.

However, this isn't Sitting Bull's History Lesson (tm).

It's 2005, and unmanned weapons can loiter on station for hours, deliver hell-from-nowhere at the push of a button, and pilot relief comes when the guys at the consoles change seats.

It's a different world from the clumsy battles fought in places like London and Hanoi. The weapons are far more deadly and accurate.

Whereas in times past, dumb bombs addressed with "To Whom It May Concern" were the norm, they now have individual names on them.

I think that's much harder on the bad guys' morale, and it delights me to no end.

"..cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war; that this foul deed may smell above the earth, with carrion men groaning for burial."

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

UAVs don't have wives and mothers and children.

We signed up, so we know what the risk is, and so do our families. Some people just choose to make sacrificies...it's their choice to do so.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Hell, the Chinese will probably be _buying_ Raptors through Saudi Arabia before then

Well seeing as we're moving out of Saudi, I don't think they'll be getting raptors anytime soon, and by that I mean never (yes I know never say never, but this one's pretty much in the bag unless they do a 180).

Quote

Technology marches on, and so must we if we want to remain competitive.

Of course it does. But does that mean the USAF will be replaced by robots soon? Nope. If the mil saw a need for UAVs for that role in the "near" future, we wouldn't be just starting to put out billlions worth of raptors.

[billvon 3,130]

>Some people just choose to make sacrificies...it's their choice to do so.

I worked with a lot of people in the Air Force and Navy over the years. And to a man, if given a choice between losing their lives and seeing a piece of equipment destroyed, they'd go with losing the hardware (if it was up to them of course.) There's a reason we spend so much money on ejection systems currently, and it ain't because they make for good stories.

[billvon 3,130]

>I don't think they'll be getting raptors anytime soon, and by that I mean never . . .

Oh, we say that all the time. But we sold chemical weapon precursors and helicopters to Saddam Hussein, and we armed the Mujahideen. Someone we are arming today will someday hate us, and they'll be happy to sell our weapons to the highest bidder - if history is any guide.

[ViperPilot 0]

Ha, good one on the ejection seats...you sayin' it wouldn't make a cool story? Hey, we're not a bunch of suicidal nutjobs. Of course I don't want to die, and would rather a plane get destroyed, me get out, and go on with my job/life. However, I would rather do my job for real and not behind a desk. That's just my mentality. I want to get out and do it, not be 1000 mi away. I can do my job better at the location then I can 1000 mi away. If it means more risk, well I don't care. Sure I want to live, but not if it means sitting in a trailer for the rest of my career. This sentiment is not isolated.

[billvon 3,130]

>Of course I don't want to die, and would rather a plane get destroyed,
>me get out, and go on with my job/life.

And that, in a nutshell, is why we will eventually move to an automated military.

>I want to get out and do it, not be 1000 mi away.

Eh, people are willing to sit in tanks and fire sabots at people miles away instead of riding in on horseback and swinging a cutlass at them. And they still think they are 'in the action.' We'll make the same adjustment to ROV's. And look at the bright side - they'll still try to bomb the trailer occasionally.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

And that, in a nutshell, is why we will eventually move to an automated military.

For some missions, not all. That's what I think.

Quote

And look at the bright side - they'll still try to bomb the trailer occasionally.

Ah, touche!