Really, how are they justifying this much use of drones?

[RiverAux]

Okay, obviously the military services have gone nuts over the use of drone aircraft.  I certainly don't deny that they have their place, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that they have become more a part of that old military industrial complex rather than being the right tool for every job. 

Take this story on AF Times: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/08/air-force-automation-uav-082710/

Not only do the Predators and Reapers each cost millions of dollars, but it takes up to 174 airman to really operate each one of them? 

How in the world is this more efficient in both time and cost than using regular old light aircraft with a pilot or two on board?  Sure, you might need 2-3 more airplanes to ensure the same amount of time over target as you might get with a drone, but the cost is still going to be so much less.  You can mount the exact same gear on the airplane as on the drone. 

Sure, if you've got a really hot area where the aircraft face a high risk of being attacked, a drone might be a better choice, but how many drones are being shot down anyway.  It seems to me that most of their missions could easily be flown by real people.  The little man-carried drones that can be carried by troops do fill a niche that light aircraft probably couldn't easily or safely fill so I don't have any issues with them. 

As we regularly talk about drones and ES work this is an issue that more and more is going to effect us.  So long as people are making tons of money making and selling drones, there is going to be more pressure to drop the use of resources like CAP even when we could do it just as well or better and at a tiny fraction of the cost. 

We better start gathering whatever data is available on this topic and and prepare to prove to folks that we will continue to be a good option even when every NG infantry company in the state has their own drone.   

[lordmonar]

The article is not really giving a clear picture of what they are saying.

It take 174 Airman to operate a single COMBAT AIR PATROL or lines.

That is not just one air plane....but a continous 24 hours 7 days a week 52 weeks a year operation.

The 174 Airman are the basic over head that any combat squadron needs to get the job done.

It did not say that most of those Airman could help maintain and operate more lines with out adding much overhead.

Once you start adding more lines then you use less people per line.....but you got to pay the initial overhead first.

And to put things into perspective......a combat ISR capability for a manned asset with the same 24-7-365 capability would be much, much higher!

1) you need more airplanes to keep the same on station time. (manned air planes have less endurance)
2) You will need more pilots for those airplanes (even if you had a plane with same endurance it would have to carry 2-3 extra guys in the back to take over once the pilot's crew rest was met (increaseing the weight and cost of the airplane in the process not to mention increasing the number of people at risk in a crash and/or combat).
4) Increasing the number of planes increases the number of maintainers need to maintain them.

UAVs are not the end all beat all of our military problems.  Little man carried drones are good for the tactical level....but not nearly as versatal at the batallion or Brigade level...and nearly useless at the Division/Corps/Theater level.

Ain't no one looking to replace CAP with UAV's anytime soon....we still give good bang for our buck.   However, there will come a time (20 years hence maybe) where CAP as we do it today will be no more.

There is no need for use to go out and prove to anyone that we can still do the job.  1) they already know. 2) when the time comes for use to fade away and or find other ways to help our community, state and nation, we should do just that.

If the USAF or the NG can do our job.....then good on them.  I will bow out and let them.  I will focus my attentions on CP or AE or go with what ever ES evolves into.

[blackrain]

I've heard a (rough) comparison made of a Reaper to an F-16. The Reaper can carry a "similar" ordnance load to an F-16 while it burns a fuel load over its entire sortie the F-16 burns taxiing out for take off.

[Pylon]

I've heard a (rough) comparison made of a Reaper to an F-16. The Reaper can carry a "similar" ordnance load to an F-16 while it burns a fuel load over its entire sortie the F-16 burns taxiing out for take off.

And while both are very capable for their intended roles, they also have major differences.  For one, the Reaper isn't going to be able to get to a hot spot at supersonic or near-sonic speeds.

[blackrain]

I've heard a (rough) comparison made of a Reaper to an F-16. The Reaper can carry a "similar" ordnance load to an F-16 while it burns a fuel load over its entire sortie the F-16 burns taxiing out for take off.

And while both are very capable for their intended roles, they also have major differences.  For one, the Reaper isn't going to be able to get to a hot spot at supersonic or near-sonic speeds.

Absolutely, no argument. Persistent stare/loiter is great for the guys on the ground. When your right on top of the target for several hours straight without having to hit a tanker you don't have to use supersonic  dash.

Now a fight between a manned F-35 and unmanned F35 would be great. I've actually heard an unmanned F-35 is in the works.

[simon]

I've actually heard an unmanned F-35 is in the works.

Nice. Let's take a plane already running $100 to $200 million a piece, most of that over budget, and turn it into a UAV, which we already have. But let's not let that stop us.

"The United States Navy has projected that lifecycle costs over a fleet life of 65 years for all of the American F-35s will be $442 billion higher than the U.S. Air Force has projected." http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/05/25/02.xml&headline=USAF%20Disputes%20Navy%20F-35%20Cost%20Projections

Rumsfeld would brush that off as a rounding error.