So why do we still have "manned" aircraft at all? So much money wrapped in 1 bundle for a 100K missile to burn up?

The technology is there, but then the jobs for the boys won't be!!

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.

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

Israel has, and has had for some time, female Infantry. I have zero doubt that they already have female pilots, as well.

The IDF back in the late 1990's made a public statement (not picked up be the liberal American press) that, it is without prejudice against women, the IDF is removing women from front line ground combat. Part of the responsibilities a countries has to its military people is to whatever possible to reduce casualties. The IDF has discovered that sexually integrated ground combat units suffer more casualties than all male units. Women still serve in ground combat units but, just not front-line ground combat units.
The problem is two fold. First young women run slower and therefore are exposed to enemy fire for longer periods of time. Second young men are protective of young women and incur greater casualties. Despite training young men remain more protective of young women than they are of other young men.

The IDF/AF have women flown combat in helos (Apaches, Blackhawks, etc) as well as aggressor fighter pilots in fighters but, flying fighters in combat is exclusively the domain of young men.
Israel is an extreme case, they remember Black Thursday. That was the second day in the Yom Kippur War when SAM-6s and ZSU-23-4s shot down thirty-four fighters and attack aircraft over the Golan Heights, in one afternoon! The IAF feels one distinct reason they prevailed over the Syrian mobile AD, is because the youthful aggressiveness of its pilots. Men can fly combat fighters in the IAF until age twenty-eight! After that they consider a man to be more cautious and use more common sense and will fly a desk for as long as he remains in the IAF!

The US Navy has done studies and one study in particular, evaluated a sexually integrate crew and their effectiveness in situations such as the USS Stark being hit by two Excocets Missile and the USS Samuel B Roberts hitting a sea mine. The conclusion was the high number of young men, their strength and endurance was a critical factor in both ships surviving. That a sexually integrated crews would have led to one if not both ships sinking. The massive number of young men being able to fight a sustained effort for fifteen plus hours was a telling factor in both ships surviving. Again this was anther story that the mass media decided not to cover.

Naddoður, you have some very good points but, when America uses robots and they don't care who thinks what, they are only concerned with saving American lives. This is another example of my machine being able to inflict unacceptable level of casualties upon the enemy. Much like the US air forces (in PGW#1) after destroying the Iraqi AD moved all attack aircraft above 8,000-ft. This greatly reduced the casualties of US forces while annihilating the enemy ground forces. Yes, the Iraqi ground force felt it was gutless but, who cares they loss. Accuracy was less but, survival was far higher and return attacks took care of problems of inaccuracy in the first attack.

There a moral aspect most don't think about, if in making war, one side looses robots while the other side looses people.... will politicians be more willing to get involved in combat rather than trying to solve the problem through negotiations. We have already seen the usage of the Tomahawk Missile as one example of politician's willingness to use a machine to go to war instead of using people.

Had a course on human development years ago.

The forces in modern airceaft eventually will eliminate human pilots.
Primarily in fighter types that need speed and maneuverability.

It was taught that the last human fighter pilot will be a short female with high blood pressure.

YES! Thank you American men for thinking kindly of my 5'6" short stature but I am proud to fight for my country.
And who cares if I have high blood pressure....I Run my butt off & have the whole "swimming with the dolphins" that will help.

Well, we have to think about two things.

First, the cultural context. Some cultures think that women have no room in the world of war.

Second, there is the skills.

The skills problem is very simple. Let the women pass the same tests as the boys. And take the best.
Let's admit that women have generally less stamina than men. It still means that some women will have more stamina than same men. Who cares if the number one is a man or a woman?

Just do the testings. And if a woman get high scores, take her.

Now, some people think that women have nothing to do on the battlefield. Galantry, sexism...

It's not a matter of skills. But of culture. And we can say that women were somehow isolated from the battlefield in our cultures.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it. While a woman would try to have surgery to take them off. Why? Because society dont want women with scars...

Just one aspect. A very simple aspect.

And then, there is the logistic problem. We would have to make rooms for women to sleep in. We will have to think about discipline problems. women and men in the military where there is ranks and such... sexual relations. Even sexual abuses...

And the military is seen as a brotherhood. Men arent the same next to women.

well, allowing women in will change everything... I'm personally against it.

Who would let his daughter/wife/sister join an army?

As men, we dont let our women in harms way. Men go to battle to protect women and children. If we allow women on the battlefield, we are nothing but savages.

And I dont care about women's skill complex. You are very skilled indeed. But you have to be stupid to want to go to war. There is only pain and suffering there.

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law. They find no pleasure doing it.

The day women will be fighting in the front line. It wouldnt be a victory for women. It's not a right you give them. But the heaviest duty you could put on a human being. The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by LeMask

Well, we have to think about two things.

First, the cultural context. Some cultures think that women have no room in the world of war.

Second, there is the skills.

The skills problem is very simple. Let the women pass the same tests as the boys. And take the best.
Let's admit that women have generally less stamina than men. It still means that some women will have more stamina than same men. Who cares if the number one is a man or a woman?

Just do the testings. And if a woman get high scores, take her.

Now, some people think that women have nothing to do on the battlefield. Galantry, sexism...

It's not a matter of skills. But of culture. And we can say that women were somehow isolated from the battlefield in our cultures.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it. While a woman would try to have surgery to take them off. Why? Because society dont want women with scars...

Just one aspect. A very simple aspect.

And then, there is the logistic problem. We would have to make rooms for women to sleep in. We will have to think about discipline problems. women and men in the military where there is ranks and such... sexual relations. Even sexual abuses...

And the military is seen as a brotherhood. Men arent the same next to women.

well, allowing women in will change everything... I'm personally against it.

Who would let his daughter/wife/sister join an army?

As men, we dont let our women in harms way. Men go to battle to protect women and children. If we allow women on the battlefield, we are nothing but savages.

And I dont care about women's skill complex. You are very skilled indeed. But you have to be stupid to want to go to war. There is only pain and suffering there.

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law. They find no pleasure doing it.

The day women will be fighting in the front line. It wouldnt be a victory for women. It's not a right you give them. But the heaviest duty you could put on a human being. The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.

You've never been in a war zone and you have never served with women. If you had, you'd never come up with such nonsense.

It's not whether you are male or female when you are standing in the middle of sh#%&. It's more whether you are mentally strong enough to do what has to be done.

You have a very romantic notion of war. I hope for you that you never get to experience it yourself

Can you explain how it's romantic?

I never said that women were spared in wars. I know my history well my friend. Women suffered in war. But as civilians.

I wish we could say that women are innocent from all these power games. If women were potential fighters, their situation would be worse. Much worse.

I saw videos of Marines in Fallujah, they arrested every male they saw for questioning. Women were somehow spared. They were grouped with children. They didnt leave them with sand bags on their heads in the sun.

And maybe that I'm an idealist. But our modern society thinks that war is like a business. That we should allow women to fight too.

And those who push these issues are just the same people who sent the men to war to make their wives make weapons for them.

I say that war can only exist if it's in auto-defense. And we shouldnt ask our women to protect us. We should be the ones protecting them. It's our duty.

And how serving with women would change my view?

Originally Posted by LeMask

Well, we have to think about two things.

First, the cultural context. Some cultures think that women have no room in the world of war.

Second, there is the skills.

The skills problem is very simple. Let the women pass the same tests as the boys. And take the best.
Let's admit that women have generally less stamina than men. It still means that some women will have more stamina than same men. Who cares if the number one is a man or a woman?

Just do the testings. And if a woman get high scores, take her.

Now, some people think that women have nothing to do on the battlefield. Galantry, sexism...

It's not a matter of skills. But of culture. And we can say that women were somehow isolated from the battlefield in our cultures.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it. While a woman would try to have surgery to take them off. Why? Because society dont want women with scars...

Just one aspect. A very simple aspect.

And then, there is the logistic problem. We would have to make rooms for women to sleep in. We will have to think about discipline problems. women and men in the military where there is ranks and such... sexual relations. Even sexual abuses...

And the military is seen as a brotherhood. Men arent the same next to women.

well, allowing women in will change everything... I'm personally against it.

Who would let his daughter/wife/sister join an army?

As men, we dont let our women in harms way. Men go to battle to protect women and children. If we allow women on the battlefield, we are nothing but savages.

And I dont care about women's skill complex. You are very skilled indeed. But you have to be stupid to want to go to war. There is only pain and suffering there.

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law. They find no pleasure doing it.

The day women will be fighting in the front line. It wouldnt be a victory for women. It's not a right you give them. But the heaviest duty you could put on a human being. The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.

A man can go back home with scares and be proud of it.
Tell that to the guy who comes home without arms or legs.

Men go to battle to protect women and children.
In the Middle Ages maybe.

There is only pain and suffering there.
Really; Been there?

Men join the military because it's their duty to protect the law.
No; then you join the police.

They find no pleasure doing it.
Then why join something you dont like?

The day women will be fighting in the front line
They are already there.

The duty to kill and to die on the battlefield.
It must be a joke

Originally Posted by LeMask

Can you explain how it's romantic?

I never said that women were spared in wars. I know my history well my friend. Women suffered in war. But as civilians.

I wish we could say that women are innocent from all these power games. If women were potential fighters, their situation would be worse. Much worse.

I saw videos of Marines in Fallujah, they arrested every male they saw for questioning. Women were somehow spared. They were grouped with children. They didnt leave them with sand bags on their heads in the sun.

And maybe that I'm an idealist. But our modern society thinks that war is like a business. That we should allow women to fight too.

And those who push these issues are just the same people who sent the men to war to make their wives make weapons for them.

I say that war can only exist if it's in auto-defense. And we shouldnt ask our women to protect us. We should be the ones protecting them. It's our duty.

And how serving with women would change my view?

I know my history well my friend. Women suffered in war. But as civilians.
Do you know your history??? Over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces in World War II.

It is simply idiotic what you write

Come on man, are you playing with me? I know that women took arms in history. And I know that there is women on the battlefield right now. That's not my point at all.

Well, point by point.

When I was speaking about scars, I meant scars, I dont speak about all the battle injuries.
But what I meant to say, is that culture/society made room to accept men with war injuries. You can even lose an eye in battle, and you will find some chicks to say that it's sexy somehow.

Women dont have this "chance". If a woman have a scar on her face. Just an injury from training, not even in battle... It would be a serious issue for her. It's to show how society dont know how to deal with women as soldiers. Not yet at least.

- Why? I have to fight a war to say that there is nothing good in war?
In war you kill and get killed. Did I miss something?

- Police man or soldier... Same job, different levels. Share if you have a different opinion.

And it would be sad if people went to war to gain something. It would be immoral. Because it's the case, then we should start wars just for the sake of it.

We should wage war only in self-defense.

Now, I know that the situation is messed up. We wage war for power, lands, money, influence, resources... Men and women join the army to make money and serve useless nation and follow corrupt governments...

But we want to reach an ideal situation where people join the military to serve justice and protect innocent people.
If you think that this is a romantic unreachable dream... I dont know what to say. For me it's just normal.