the timeline for UAV's is established so it will be interesting to see which way it goes...  unfort it looks like we might keep the shornets longer as a transition for that capability.

I attended a "discussion" about NCW today given by Norman Friedman - he obviously is unimpressed with the continued emphasis on manned combat aircraft for anything but interception - and pilots being used as truck drivers rather than weapons delivery...

He'd much rather see UAV's do the strike mission - reduced through life cost, reduced buy in costs, same mission set and argues that the ground controllers have better intel at the theatre and region awareness level than any pilot. 

More envy on my part.....I have a stack Norman Friedman books and would have enjoyed attending something like that. Did he express any opinions on UCAV's revitalising small and medium aircraft carriers?

Question without notice: What happens when some obsolete dumb pilot in an old piece of Military avine equipment stumbles across a command centre/UAV home and just happens to bomb the crap out of it?

 

BJ:)

Question without notice: What happens when some obsolete dumb pilot in an old piece of Military avine equipment stumbles across a command centre/UAV home and just happens to bomb the crap out of it?

 

BJ:)

Question without notice: What happens when some obsolete dumb pilot in an old piece of Military avine equipment stumbles across a command centre/UAV home and just happens to bomb the crap out of it?

the same as when a UAS geek with his sidekick ewarfare crew sniff out an airbase - they'll bomb the crap out of it.

just because you have bums on seats doesn't make the sensor/detection  loop at an airbase any dumber.

 

 

 

but I'm not suggesting that they are the replacement for pilots, but are complimentary - and in some instances far more effective at strike roles than manned aircraft.

the geek sitting in the shop fronted with the information wall has far greater and immediate access to changing global events in that area of interest than any pilot.  where its approp it makes sense to use them.  

often or not we treat fighter pilots like pandas - i think we're moving beyond that.  RAAF certainly thinks so as the timeline is already coming up in meetings, and cetainly in discussions about future network, netcentric, coalition issues, comms or sensor discussion we now talk about UAS rather than manned. 

Yes but you know the four-eyed git will be surfing SP while he is supposed to be looking for Osama ... ;-).

 

Anyway, I'm sold on the notion that UCAV's are complementary and agree that "pilot prestige" gets in the way of getting the things operational. The whole USAF thing where they insisted on using fighter pilots to fly them was a joke IMHO. I just don't think they should be more than say 25% of any strike force though, for the reasons that I described.

 

I do however think they would be the best SEAD/EW platform imaginable as the identification and neutralisation of an enemy radar emission is something that could be done in an entirely automated fashion right now. That combined with UCAV's long loiter times and ability to take greater risks than a manned aircraft would make them just the shit for that mission IMHO. A potential EF-18G replacement for the RAAF in the mid-20's do you think?

 

What a load of bollocks. If these sneaky UAV's or whatever acronym you choose to use are that darned good, why is the US still spending billions on F22's, Stealth Bombers and the likes?

 

C'mon now, you have to admit that there's a slight condradiction in terms of interest here.

 

The day the 'greatest airforce on Earth' finally decides it's going to do everything with radio-controlled bombs is the day I'll believe they are the, and only THE, weapon of choice.

 

I think the word 'balance' has left this discussion a loooong time ago...

 

BJ:)