About ucaf vs pilots
|July 15th, 2010||#2|
| || |
Not from all - unless one day this whole planet is going to be run by one master-computer and a billion robots.
The main difference IMHO, is that most of the pilots will stay on ground - remote, satellite - controlling a UCAV that is assigned to him or right now already up to 50 units. Or from an airborne command centre respectivly from an accompaning fighter aircraft.
The USAF is already training far more ground controllers then pilots.
Groundtroop support, recon and strike missions can be easily conducted via a UCAV fighter or bomber. Basically a Global Hawk or Eurohawk or a Barracuda in its present test mode isn't doing much of a different job. A dogfight would be a different issue since the technical requirements would certainly outway a pilot in $ by a very far stretch.
The issue right now is, if a ground based - or remote pilot will display the same attention and concentration as a pilot that is onboard an aircraft. There is a huge difference in a persons attitude and aptitude towards flying in real or basically running a real time computer game. Like " if it's going down" it won't be me inside.
The "multifunction" is also a major issue in regards to international law.
These kind of issues can cost billions and endanger a mission status - so a lot will depend on the kind of psychological and situation awareness training. - the remote jockey's will receive. Furthermore advanced UCAV's or drones and especially UCAF's need satellite assistance - just an inertial navigation system or radio guidance is not enough.
And every military on this planet for the past fifteen years is thinking about how to knock those satellites out, or to disable them. A conventional pilot is still able to fullfill a mission without datalinks via satellites. I am quite confident that within the next ten years it will be possible to obtain the algorithms needed to translate a RaSigma/AMI equation into a computerised reading - this automatically will lead to dissableing measures towards datalinks, video relay and the antenna positioning on aircrafts or UCAV's. A UCAV would be totally unable to conduct its mission without a remote access. A directly piloted aircraft would be strongly hampered but still able to conduct it's mission to a certain degree.
So I would say that the "real" future of ACAV's / ACAF's and conventional pilots strongly depends on the progress in regards to a computerised RaSigma/AMI reading.
It's like first the untrackable aircraft - then radar - then steallth - and then RaSigna/EMI reading - and then? back to doubledeckers
Man who goes to bed with itchy bumb - wakes up with smelly finger - Confucius?
|July 15th, 2010||#4|
| || |
The average Air Force mission is divided into tasks that take hours, minutes and seconds. A computer is better at split-second reaction and hours-long repetitive functions. But tasks that take minutes require judgment. And here is where the UCAV hits a snag. In an unstructured environment like a chaotic battlefield, UCAV's would have to make decisions, distinguishing between friend and foe, reconfiguring moving targets or even aborting missions. For that reason a human finger will have to be on the trigger, even if that finger is connected to a person sitting hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from the aircraft.
But the emergence of unmanned fighting machines has tactical, moral and political consequences that will become ever more apparent as the technology develops
Such technology will have the effect of first sending the enemy farther underground. Adversaries may try to look less and less like the military in the future, driving civilian vehicles, hiding their weapons in schools, hospitals and religious institutions and blending into crowds. Counteracting these tactics will necessitate a whole other array of technology, including special cameras that can indicate who in a crowd is carrying a weapon and facial-recognition software that can scan crowds and pick out the known terrorists and military officers.
Adversaries will inevitably figure out new methods of fighting back as well, and the most immediate way they'll do this is by developing better surface-to-air weapons, to knock out not only drones and other unmanned aircraft but perhaps eventually the satellites that make these operations possible.
The spectacle of, lets say, Americans fighting wars with robots runs the risk of reviving the perception of the United States as a cowardly nation unwilling to back up its principles with genuine sacrifice. The ease with which the United States could enter into armed conflicts might initiate a wave of new resentments, good old anti-Americanism mixed with a new, virulent strain of antimodernism. Taking away any chance of the enemy's inflicting losses on the battlefield might also spur a more ominous development.
Adept enemies will search for weaknesses, and if those weaknesses can't be found on the traditional field of battle, that might mean exporting the fight to other places. It could mean coordinated attacks on the civilian population of the United States, and state sponsored terrorism on a scale we have not yet seen.
I saw a ghost behind the door, when the kids were coming home from the war, with broken dreams and nothing more!
|July 16th, 2010||#5|
| || |
Nadd, good articles you blended together. Here's the links to both of the articles he mixed for his post in case anyone wants a reference.
Ut ceteri vivant.
|July 16th, 2010||#7|
| || |
but in order to achieve zero fatalities - one needs to solve ($$$$ and time) all of these complexities first. And UAV's aka Global Hawk and Co. is something very different from the complexity of a UCAF.