Air Force To End The Need For Pilots In 6th Generation Fighters

[FARRIER]

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/11/air-force-to-end-the-need-for-pilots-in-6th-generation-fighters/

[Eclipse]

I've discussed on more than one occasion that the last generation of fighter pilots has already been born.

The reality is that as long as you have connectivity, there's nothing that a manned aircraft can do that a properly
equipped drone can't do better, faster, and with less risk.  Existing technology as well as advancements in VR will
soon provide the option for immersive environments equal to the visual experience of being in the aircraft.

With that said, considering how heavily these aircraft rely on satellites and other RF-based communications, an enemy,
or natural disaster, that removes that capability from our arsenal could reduce our fleet to door stops.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

My original thought was, "Why is a pilots life more valuable than an Infantry Soldier's?" Then I realized, Unmanned aircraft could do more harsh, tighter, higher altitude, destructive maneuvers that would kill a pilot just because he is in the seat. Then I read the post by Eclipse. What would have to be done at a minimum is make the aircraft unmanned with a cockpit for a pilot in the case of such attacks. Then that would defeat the point of making the aircraft cheaper. It would just make it more expensive. No matter what happens in the future, there will never be the option to take the human out of the combat equation. The human mind is more complex than a computer could ever be. We make decisions based on millions and millions of factors, to us it is not a mathematical equation. To a computer, everything is.

[Eclipse]

At the point where a combat soldier could be replaced by "other" - drone, VR suit, terminator, etc., the conversation should be on the table as well.

The "Great Dilemma" is how the ability to inflict destruction and death on an enemy with no personal risk affects the use of that force.

[peter rabbit]

as someone who used to run a software company, and who did a lot of programming, we had a number of requests from customers who wanted everything done "automatically". We had to first determine if the feature would really be used, then if the feature made sense. In many cases, the system worked better without the "automatic" feature. As others have said, drones, etc make sense in some situations and don't in others. I can't see a scenario where drones and robots are the only option - or are some people advocating "Skynet"?

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I don't think anybody is advocating "Skynet". What does seem to be more along the lines of what they want to use is "Surrogates". Which is still creepy to me.

[A.Member]

A video worth watching when discussing the future of U.S. air power:
Threats to 2010 Air Supremacy

The issues discussed in the video will shape our future needs and strategic approach.

Another article on topic worth reading:
The Sixth Generation Fighter

The Air Force declined to offer official comment on the status of its sixth generation fighter efforts. Privately, senior leaders have said they have been waiting to see how the F-22 and F-35 issues sorted out before establishing a structured program for a next generation fighter.

The Air Force has a large classified budget, but it seems there is no "black" sixth generation fighter program waiting in the wings. A senior industry official, with long-term, intimate knowledge of classified efforts, said the F-22 wasn't stopped at 187 aircraft because a secret, better fighter is nearly ready to be deployed. He said, "What you see is what you get."

As to the question of whether it'll be manned:

Moreover, the rapid advancement of unmanned aircraft technologies could, in 20 years or so, make feasible production of an autonomous robotic fighter. However, that is considered less likely than the emergence of an uninhabited but remotely piloted aircraft with an off-board "crew," possibly comprising many operators.

Who knows.

Regardless, the point remains, a 6th generation solution does not appear imminent.

[sardak]

My original thought was, "Why is a pilots life more valuable than an Infantry Soldier's?"

This reminded me of an editorial I read last week that applies to this thread. It was written in response to SSgt Salvatore Giunta, an infantry soldier, being presented the Medal of Honor at the White House. SSgt Giunta is the first living soldier to receive the Medal of Honor since Viet Nam. The authors were two retired generals - one a former commander of the Army War College and the other a former commander of the Marine Corps Combat Developments Command.

The editorial points out that over 80% of combat deaths since WW II have been infantry soldiers, a force that makes up less than 4% of the uniformed manpower in the Defense Department. Yet DoD spends its money on "science projects" - such as worrying whether the sixth generation fighter should be unmanned. The two generals urge the "defense gurus" to think about helping the guys on the ground - which requires, among other things, the proper application of air power.

The editorial originally appeared in the Washington Post but was picked up nationally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805015.html

Mike

[Eclipse]

This is a question about the realities of the state of technology, not who is more valuable.

An aircraft is simply a delivery system - people, stuff, intelligence, ordnance.  It has been operated by a human being until this point because the technology did not exist to operate one in any other way which was economically and technically viable.

As we all know, short of killing the entire population of an adversary, while you can win a traditional war with airpower, you can't occupy the country, rebuild it, or end the war in the traditional sense, from the air, so effective ground forces are necessary - even more so in today's non-linear, non-traditional, flagless conflicts.

Unfortunately there isn't a viable alternative to a human being at the front line.  Yet.

Assuming we progress in robotics and power sources at the same rate we have been, within the next 30-50 years there will be full exo-skeletons and robots that will replace a lot of the traditional soldier as we know it.  In a lot of cases it will be similar to the UAV's - a "trained" operator in a remote location.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the idea that a war can be won in the air. Ground soldiers are there for a lot more than winning the hearts and minds. If that were true, our Infantry soldiers wouldn't be trained the way they are, and would not carry anywhere near the firepower that they do. Yes, if you control the air you control the war, but you won't win the war with air power. The ground Soldier is a very needed entity. Probably (most likely) the most important part of the fight, after the vessels used to get there. You will never be able to win hearts and minds with a robot. No Sheik will want to conduct peace talks with a robot, if you talk to a Sheik with your shades on, it is disrespect. How do you think he will feel talking to a robot? I would have to say we are at least 200 years away from the technology needed to really mimic the movement and agility of the whole human body. You are also not going to be able to train another countries Army with a robot. There are so many things that are just impossible with robots (or drones), no matter how advanced technology gets.

[Eclipse]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the idea that a war can be won in the air.

No one actually said you could, however it all depends on the definition of "winning".  Winning the hearts and minds is not always the
mission.

The colonies could not care less about winning HRH G³'s heart, they just wanted to be left alone.  We weren't particularly
interested in tea with AH, either.

If regime change and sustenance of the existing culture is your goal, then no, you can't win it from the air, alone.  However if your
goal is to simply end a problem, eliminate a culture, or something in between, we have the technological capability to "end" a war in
a few hours from the air alone.

The will to use that power, or the collateral damage in the court of world opinion is a separate discussion.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the idea that a war can be won in the air.

No one actually said you could, however it all depends on the definition of "winning".

But you did.

As we all know, short of killing the entire population of an adversary, while you can win a traditional war with airpower, you can't occupy the country, rebuild it, or end the war in the traditional sense, from the air, so effective ground forces are necessary - even more so in today's non-linear, non-traditional, flagless conflicts.

There is no way at all to win a war with strictly airpower.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I get what you are saying now, I got a bit tunnel visioned on the whole idea that you can win a war without soldiers. I don't think there is a place for a computer to fight on the ground at all. Yes, I am all for the use of an RC robot for EOD, but there is a person right there in the thick as well who has the massive threat knowledge that is imminent. If there were a person who was controlling the robot from Las Vegas, he doesn't have his mind on the big picture the way he should, even though he may be thinking if I don't get this right, civilians could die. He is still not thinking, (SHAKING) oh god if I don't get this right me and my brothers will die. That bit of worry is what makes these EOD personnel so stone cold and excellent at their job. Same with Infantry types who have to make sure that the SMAW-D that they are about to launch from their shoulder will hit it's target. Same with every round put down to the enemy.

There will be no such wall of hate put towards our enemies with gunfire that a human soldier can lay when a drone soldier is used. The feeling of necessity that is there with humans will be gone completely when a drone soldier is used. The same Idea comes into play when there are no soldiers with feet on the ground.

[cap235629]

last time I checked, hand grenades were not nuclear capable.  What eclipse was saying is that 1 bomber can drop 1 bomb and eliminate the problem immediately. The question is at what price.....

[manfredvonrichthofen]

last time I checked, hand grenades were not nuclear capable.  What eclipse was saying is that 1 bomber can drop 1 bomb and eliminate the problem immediately. The question is at what price.....

That is not a win by any measure. Everyone looses out with that. I cannot think of one single person who would win with a nuclear bomb wiping out a country.

[SABRE17]

unless that country was hell-bent on destroying its neighbors, in which the deaths of 25,000 may save 25,000,000

[manfredvonrichthofen]

unless that country was hell-bent on destroying its neighbors, in which the deaths of 25,000 may save 25,000,000

What is one country that you could think of that only has 25,000 people in it? If there were a country of less than 500,000 then they wouldn't be much of threat to anyone would they?

Ok, so you got countries like; Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, and Maldives , oh and lets not forget about the "most peaceful country in the world" Vatican City. But they are all less than 200 square miles. What could they possibly do?

[HGjunkie]

Have anti-matter hidden in them.


(Couldn't resist bringing up Angels and Demons)

[Al Sayre]

See: "The mouse that roared"

[coudano]

There are still issues with remote control, including sensor quality and more importantly, latency and bandwidth.  The sensor quality will probably continue to improve over time, however it comes with a price...  the more sensor quality and the more sensors you add, the more bandwidth they take to transmit.  Bandwidth *is* a limited resource, and it *is* a contested combat domain.  There simply are a limited number of 'devices' that you can have operating out there in space, it's not infinitive.  Look for jamming, and interference, to start playing a bigger role with rpa's.   shut off their feed back to home, and they become dum dum.

The only solution to latency, short of a breakthrough in physics, is to put the remote control station closer to (within line of sight) the remotely operating airframes.  As long as they have to go up to geosync and come back down (maybe more than once), it simply takes time for waves to make that trip...   Time that can fatally flaw the decision cycle.  For this reason, RPA's would make a terrible "visual range dogfight" aircraft.  700ms is simply too long to wait before reacting to the other guy.  On the one hand, it doesn't matter, because we kill airplanes from 20+ miles away, the visual range dogfight is a thing of the past.  However, if someone did, somehow, close, to 'gun fight' range, it would be pretty flawed.  Like a stealth bomber...  it's untouchable, but if someone did, somehow, managed to get a visual on one, it would be toast, immediately.

With regards to the army of robot infantry controlled remotely, people still have to pick up arms, at some point...  while one side has them, and the other does not, it seems to provide a clear advantage, though the 'other guy' has to fight the bots conventionally.  When two sides both employ bot vs bot eventually one side runs out first, leaving the other side to fight bots conventionally, eventually progressing to people vs people.  just like any other technology, once both sides shoot out all their guns they start killing eachother with sticks and rocks and fists.

Morally, the human factor of the equation should never be removed.  There should always be a real life person making the decision to take someone's life or break their stuff, regardless of what tools they use to accomplish it.

There are various reasons that wars are fought, one of which is to take and hold contested resources.
another though might be to neutralize enemy military or industrial capability or will to fight.
another might be to upheave political structure.
to prevent, stop, or repel military action by another party.

some of these can, and have been accomplished through air power.

ultimately though, one of the most important aspects of air power is that because of air superiority, our ground forces have not come under attack from enemy aircraft since korea.  That is how we have maintained an edge on the ground, and it is indispensable, and by far the best case for maintaining air dominance.  The spectre of our army and marines being cluster bombed, naped, and strafed by enemy aircraft is simply unacceptable.


it does make you wonder why we didn't run our convoy ops in iraq using rp trucks though, eh
maybe a real possibility for the future.