Aviators - your opinions, please

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

With a nod to the first astronauts (whom I understand vehemently resisted the original plan to make them mere passengers in the Mercury capsule - like the chimpanzees before them - and demanded the right to exercise control over the craft)...

 

What do you who flew/fly war planes think of the ever-expanding drone programs in the military? What started out as land-based remote control spy planes now are looking more and more like full-fledged fighters - including carrier launch capability.

 

http://defensetech.org/2013/05/14/navy-to-launch-drone-from-carrier/

 

How does that sit with you?

 

Is there less honor in remote-control warfare, or is that an antiquated concept?

 

Are we looking at an approaching end to man-to-man aerial combat?

 

Is that good, bad or a matter of indifference?

 

LL

[Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life]

I'm not a pilot, but worked my whole career (40 years) in the aerospace industry. IMHO we started to get away from what true pilots are (were) when we added missles and computer controls to aircraft....espicially fighter aircraft.I used to see Chuck Yeager in our plant a lot and had lots of conversations with him about this very subject. One time he was guest speaker at our monthly management club dinner and someone during a question/answer asked him "What made him such a great pilot?" Other than the obvious answers like hand/eye coordination, reflexes, etc, he said his eyes. He said he could see an enemy plane at 25+ miles while everyone had trouble over 20 miles. He liked the smaller, more agile fighters (especially the F5G & F15) because he could "feel" the plane and fly it.

 

We have taken more and more away from the pilots and gave it to computers. Remember when the space program first started and they were recruiting astronauts, Yeager was quoted as saying they were just "Spam in a can". Think about it. Recently the astronauts on the space station had to make some external repairs, just like maintance mechanics....not pilots!

 

Drones are just another step in that direction. Yes they are cheaper and smaller, but you don't have to be a "pilot" to fly one

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

So...can you win a war without killing anyone?

 

Or will the new strategic targets of robotic, remote controlled drone/fighters become those buildings and ships where the kids with the joysticks are "flying"?

 

Will a power "lose" the war when it runs out of geeks to "fly" the drones?

 

Starting to feel a bit like a Star Trek episode, where two planets have been at war for generations, and all fighting is accomplished by alternating rounds of missles and a following body count.

 

LL

[Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life]

I wanted to add one more thing.......

 

Carrier pilots are probably the best pilots in the world!! I know you USAF type are going to flame my butt, but it is probably the most difficult skill to master. Think about it, landing a fighter on a moving target (carrier deck), at night and no landing lights. That has to take some huge cajones, with lots of skill added.

 

Like I said before, drones are cheap to build and fly and don't require a pilot. Another example of the young, computer game kids growing up and entering our military. More to come...........

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

Now fellows don't leave the Helicopter pilots out, the dang things aren't suppose to be able to fly anyway. Flying a helicopter is a true test of hand eye coordination.

 

KK

 

PS Drone operators are nothing but Joy Stick wannabe warriors.

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Drones are cheaper, do not put a pilot at risk and can kill the enemy. I don't see drone operators as pilots only "computer operators" real pilots develop a sense of flying as well as stick and rudder skills, that's going away now days with more automation and better designs.

[S. Quentin Quale, Esq. SASS 9953]

I am a retired Naval Aviator, but an ASW type (S-2/P-3). Our most reliable, "automated" system was the autopilot. We had other automated tac/nav systems but they were all over the map in terms of reliability.

 

Drones, today, fly in a no/low/weak threat environment. The Iranians claimed to have downed one of ours. The Isrealis say they've knocked some down, but they were small ones. The Pakistanis have an effective air defense system but they let them alone. So right now the drone guys have the world to themselves. What happens when the ground pounders get more effective anti-drone weapons? Or when satcomm systems are disrupted? I suspect the drone effectiveness index will plummet badly.

 

This does not mean that some types are wildly useful to friendly ground pounders. The small, hand launched versions appear to be a real "game changer" for some actions. They are cheap and allow the platoon commander to look over a hill without sending out a patrol or getting in the queue for aerial surveilence. I don't know how they feel about close air support from an automated system. The human eye can piece the "fog of war" in many circumstances as they are "on the scene" and have a "360 degree" view of the situation. The drone pilot can see better, in theory, but the information reaching his brain is filtered by the screens he's watching. That would make me modestly uncomfortable.

 

There are many other areas of air warfare where drones might be very effective as an adjuct to manned ops.

 

For strategic warfare drones would be a big step forward. If you build them in sufficient quantity you can saturate a defensive system by simply "eating" the loss of platforms. Once the Bad Guys expend all their missles on drones they won't have them for use on manned aircraft. Ditto for AAA rounds.

 

For over water ops they could also be very valuable. Here you can often maintain "line of sight" control (meaning if somebody KOs a satellite it's no big deal). Let the drones do the recon and the manned platforms do the strike. Or the drones do the strike. They might also be quite valuable for maintaining a CAP over fleet units, particularly in dispersed operations. Right now the CVA gets lots of air cover but I wonder about the DDs. While they are quite capable in their own right the ability to engage threats "over the horizon" would give the captain a "warm fuzzy."

 

In ASW ops they might be valuable, if only for their endurance. The S-3 is gone, the P-3 is going, the P-8 is on the horizon but there won't be very many of them, and the burden now seems to fall mostly on the SH-60s. The drone has the potential to carry sensors and weapons with the analysis done on a ship nearby. This, again, can give a task group commander a "warm fuzzy" that sub-surface threats can be handled.

 

The area of "one on one" dogfights with a drone is open to a lot of discussion. If anybody ever develops an "EMP weapon" then the drone is pretty much toast. Ditto for a "jammer." Anything that would affect ground control gives the advantage to the manned platform.

 

This is a new area and will require some new thought.

 

SQQ

[DocWard]

So...can you win a war without killing anyone?

 

Or will the new strategic targets of robotic, remote controlled drone/fighters become those buildings and ships where the kids with the joysticks are "flying"?

 

Will a power "lose" the war when it runs out of geeks to "fly" the drones?

 

Starting to feel a bit like a Star Trek episode, where two planets have been at war for generations, and all fighting is accomplished by alternating rounds of missles and a following body count.

 

LL

 

Eventually, to win a war requires boots on the ground, not just air superiority, IMHO.

[Subdeacon Joe]

I am a retired Naval Aviator, but an ASW type (S-2/P-3). Our most reliable, "automated" system was the autopilot. We had other automated tac/nav systems but they were all over the map in terms of reliability.

 

Drones, today, fly in a no/low/weak threat environment. The Iranians claimed to have downed one of ours. The Isrealis say they've knocked some down, but they were small ones. The Pakistanis have an effective air defense system but they let them alone. So right now the drone guys have the world to themselves. What happens when the ground pounders get more effective anti-drone weapons? Or when satcomm systems are disrupted? I suspect the drone effectiveness index will plummet badly.

 

This does not mean that some types are wildly useful to friendly ground pounders. The small, hand launched versions appear to be a real "game changer" for some actions. They are cheap and allow the platoon commander to look over a hill without sending out a patrol or getting in the queue for aerial surveilence. I don't know how they feel about close air support from an automated system. The human eye can piece the "fog of war" in many circumstances as they are "on the scene" and have a "360 degree" view of the situation. The drone pilot can see better, in theory, but the information reaching his brain is filtered by the screens he's watching. That would make me modestly uncomfortable.

 

There are many other areas of air warfare where drones might be very effective as an adjuct to manned ops.

 

For strategic warfare drones would be a big step forward. If you build them in sufficient quantity you can saturate a defensive system by simply "eating" the loss of platforms. Once the Bad Guys expend all their missles on drones they won't have them for use on manned aircraft. Ditto for AAA rounds.

 

For over water ops they could also be very valuable. Here you can often maintain "line of sight" control (meaning if somebody KOs a satellite it's no big deal). Let the drones do the recon and the manned platforms do the strike. Or the drones do the strike. They might also be quite valuable for maintaining a CAP over fleet units, particularly in dispersed operations. Right now the CVA gets lots of air cover but I wonder about the DDs. While they are quite capable in their own right the ability to engage threats "over the horizon" would give the captain a "warm fuzzy."

 

In ASW ops they might be valuable, if only for their endurance. The S-3 is gone, the P-3 is going, the P-8 is on the horizon but there won't be very many of them, and the burden now seems to fall mostly on the SH-60s. The drone has the potential to carry sensors and weapons with the analysis done on a ship nearby. This, again, can give a task group commander a "warm fuzzy" that sub-surface threats can be handled.

 

The area of "one on one" dogfights with a drone is open to a lot of discussion. If anybody ever develops an "EMP weapon" then the drone is pretty much toast. Ditto for a "jammer." Anything that would affect ground control gives the advantage to the manned platform.

 

This is a new area and will require some new thought.

 

SQQ

 

Excellent points, sir.

 

It may decrease the "honor and glory of war," but I'm all for anything that keeps our people out of harms way while at the same time inflicting damage on the enemy. If sending a drone over a hill for a look keeps one solder alive, it's worth it. If a tracked drone being sent around a corner can find and trigger an IED, better that than sending in "boots on the ground." A drone with just a little bomb on it can kamikazi in a courtyard where the enemy has set up a mortar that is killing our people at just a minor monetary cost.

 

They are not a cure all panacea, by any means. But if widespread use of them can prevent "We deeply regret" telegrams from being sent out, they're well worth the cost.

 

[Chantry]

Not a pilot, but been interested in military history for a long time. We've reached a point that a fighter's performance can exceed the limitations of the pilot. We've also almost reached the point where it will require a technological breakthrough to significantly increase an airplane's performance, combine that with the ever escalating cost of manned aircraft, I don't see that we have any other choice then increase the use of drones. I do think there will remain a role for piloted aircraft for some missions that require on the spot decisions or for planes that carry nuclear weapons.

 

I think the concept of honor between enemies probably died in WWII.

[Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680]

Now fellows don't leave the Helicopter pilots out, the dang things aren't suppose to be able to fly anyway.

 

Come on, everybody knows helicopters don't really fly, they're just so ugly the earth repels them!

 

Hahaaaa just giving you a hard time, I know the real saying goes like this - - Helicopters don't really fly, they just beat the air into submission!

 

 

As far as the original question, all I can say is the whole reason they came up with ejection seats is because the pilots are more valuable than the planes. The role of drones will most likely continue to expand as they get more advanced, but there are limits to their capabilities and there always will be.