personally I think It's good that restarted the Comanche program and are investing less in UAV's and predators.

I think that the government should have limited investments in UAV. They are great recon and some targets of oppertunity. The problem is they cost a lot of money. I read part of the DOD spending bill and the Air Force is spending cash on developing a UAV bomber that can go into outer space and then come back into the atmosphere to hit its target. It is a nice concept but is it really needed? I think the billions of dollars should be saved for other things.

Both please...

UAVs can be a great resource if it's used correctly.
We are getting UAVs in the Norwegian Army now, for ISTAR (Surveillance,
Target Acquisition And Reconnaissance) purposes.

But UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles) is a different story IMO, they can't beat a manned combat aircraft (yet)..

So UAVs for recon/ISTAR and manned aircrafts for combat!

Manned Combat Aircrafts have a definate over UCAVs because the pilots in the manned aircraft can adapt to next to any situation while UCAVs are limited by there programming. Also less people are going to want to be a UAV pilot on the ground instead of in the air. Also without a sense of danger or threat to their lives pilots of UAV are bound to perform worse than if they were up in the air.

Originally Posted by Trevor

personally I think It's good that restarted the Comanche program and are investing less in UAV's and predators.

They did? Nice! That was a sweet aircraft, I was soooo incredibly pissed when they killed it...you have no idea.

I would have to go witha mix of manned and UAV, as manned machines cannot do everything UAVs can do and vice versa. And with manned the pilot can adapt and change decisions wheras UAVs are either programmed or are flown off the ground where the pilot is too remote to adapt!

Expect teh US to make a serious push for unmanned fighter interceptor aircraft. Given the early exposure to arcade games, kids today can react as well as pilots. In fact, they might be more daring, considering their life is not at stake.

However, the single greatest advantage of unmanned aircraft is maneuverability.

Humans black out when they push beyond Mach 9 (or so I've been told). Unmanned interceptors could conceivably pull 20+ Gs, outmaneuvering AAMs, SAMs, and enemy aircraft.

Expensive? Yeah.

Worth it? Only if you want to stay ahead of the pack by a generation or more.

I think UAV's should be kept in their survaillance role. If there is a ToO, then attack it while you're there. But the main combat role should be played by real pilots who can make real life or decisions.

Unmanned doesn't mean there's no human guiding the aircraft.

I think it's the future. Not all missions can be unmanned, but some of the hairier missions can be.