| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| You say "drone," I say "remotely piloted" |
| 2009-12-17 |
| In the high-testosterone world of U.S. military jets and aerial dogfights, the names "drone" and "unmanned aerial vehicle" just don't fly. The Air Force now prefers to use "remotely piloted aircraft" when discussing its fast-growing fleet of planes that do not have a pilot in the cockpit. And the thing about an "unmanned aerial vehicle" is that it is not unmanned, said U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, speaking at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington this week. The new term better reflects the presence of a human operator, who sits at a computer control panel thousands of miles away. The old term is wrong, he said. "I think it mischaracterizes how the aircraft are operated," Donley said. "So I think 'remotely piloted aircraft' captures it a little bit better." The change is significant to the Air Force as it recruits a new generation of pilots who may spend little time inside a jet plane. It wants the world to know that humans have "positive control over these vehicles," he said. The United States and countries around the world have used remotely piloted aircraft for decades as weapons and for reconnaissance. Last week marked the public debut of the newest unmanned plane built by Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), the RQ-170, known in some circles as the "Beast of Kandahar." Donley said the push for a new reference to the aircraft has been under way for several years. "We have discussed this among the Air Force leadership, and it is really sort of a commitment that we make together," he said. "It just kind of changes ... the way the Air Force is represented in print." Rockwell Collins (COL.N) Chief Executive Clay Jones, who flew an F-15 in the 1970s, acknowledged that military technology is changing the traditional role of a pilot. But he said human pilots are in no danger of becoming extinct. "I think a human will always be in the loop on certain aircraft," Jones told the Reuters summit. "There is a clear opportunity for both types of systems to exist." At the same time, he could not resist bragging about a Rockwell project to develop a holographic cockpit display mounted inside the visor and helmet of pilots who fly Lockheed Martin's new F-35 jet. "This is very, very cool," he said. "It's real Buck Rogers stuff." |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #7 Why is this any different than any "fly by wire" plane? It's just a really long wireless wire, right? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2009-12-17 17:09 |
| #6 1 : the male of a bee (as the honeybee) that has no sting and gathers no honey 2 : one that lives on the labors of others : parasite 3 : an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-12-17 16:08 |
| #5 The term 'drone' makes me think of an aircraft whose only purpose is to fly a straight line, such as a pilotless plane used as target practice. I've always thought it an inappropriate term to use for a vehicle doing surveillance and firing weapons. Otherwise the term 'drone' might apply to our military satellites, also. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-12-17 14:11 |
| #4 Not so, I remember they were discussing unmaned aircraft in the 60's, the limits on aircraft performance are what the onboard pilot can stand, when the pilot's NOT flying the performance can be near unbelievable, turns that would kill a onoard pilot and such become routine, not life-or-death maneuvers. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-12-17 13:42 |
| #3 You say to-may-to, and I say to-mah-to.... |
| Posted by: Mike 2009-12-17 13:37 |
| #2 Didn't cost a dime. All it took was to put a regular AF pilot in charge of flying a drone -- for his own career he had to come up with a name that still allowed him to be a pilot. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-12-17 13:36 |
| #1 "remotely piloted aircraft" Oh it sounds so PC.....pobably cost the AF a couple billion to come up with that. what a buncha MAROONS |
| Posted by: armyguy 2009-12-17 13:15 |