UAV's or Manned Aircraft

View Poll Results :What do you think the military should invest the future in?
Predators and other UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehical) 4 44.44%
Manned aircraft 5 55.56%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

July 9th, 2004  

Topic: UAV's or Manned Aircraft

personally I think It's good that restarted the Comanche program and are investing less in UAV's and predators.
July 10th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
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.
July 10th, 2004  
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!
July 29th, 2004  
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.
July 30th, 2004  

Topic: Re: UAV's or Manned Aircraft

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 have no idea.
August 1st, 2004  
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!
August 1st, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
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.
August 3rd, 2004  
silent driller
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.
August 3rd, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
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.