| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| The Army's Plans for an Unmanned Air Force |
| 2010-04-17 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #13 UNMANNED BATTLESPACE FORCE, WARFARE + MANAGMENT. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-04-17 23:25 |
| #12 UAS, etc. is only the beginning - the Army wanted not only Groundbots for close infantry fire support but also recce, remore communications, + medic evacuation. They also desired LOW-ORBIT, FLOATING ARMED MULTI ROBO-PLAFORMS for REAR-AREA SECURITY AND DEFENSE. UNMANNED AFVS, IFSV, ATTACK + TRANSPORT HELOS...@ The USAF a few years back considered changing to the US AEROSPACE Force, but ultimately chose to stay with its current designation for time being while evol towards SPACE MISSIONS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-04-17 23:22 |
| #11 With semi-autonomous operation, you have a reusable cruise missile. It's ok for fixed targets but you lose any flexibility, re-targeting ability, real time intel and judgement. And let's face it, AI, presently or in the near future, is dumb. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-04-17 17:50 |
| #10 any peer enemy will attack the communications links and try to turn every UAV in theater into a rock, or worse, into their asset. In a word, semi-autonomous. The Israelis already have and doubtless others have in the pipeline. Although not suitable for CAS. As for turning your asset, thats strictly for TV shows and movies. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-04-17 17:30 |
| #9 You don't even need to own the airspace. Satellites can be jammed thousands of miles away from the battle. Closer to the battle, think of all the ECM techniques we use against enemy comms and radar. It works both ways and need only be effective for a few minutes. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-04-17 16:59 |
| #8 Excellent point Ed. You must first own the air space. If you don't own it, forget it. UAS employed in asymmetric warfare or what is not termed "irregular warfare" have become essential tools. The same missions executed by manned platforms would obviously require a significantly greater logistical footprint. Technology and miniturization are our friends. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-17 16:50 |
| #7 UAVs are great for low intensity barbarian hunting. But I don't believe it will scale up to a high intensity war. Not only because of bandwidth limitations, any peer enemy will attack the communications links and try to turn every UAV in theater into a rock, or worse, into their asset. Can't do that with a human on board. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-04-17 16:41 |
| #6 Real-time downlinked persistent surveillance streaming video is turning out to be a real asset for troops on the ground. They simply cannot get enough of it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-17 16:34 |
| #5 By the way, OS, some things are starting to change in the AF. SecDef Gates has begun purging the fighter mafia. We are buying more UAS than manned planes this year. Also, the first class of RPA operators that are not pilots graduated earlier this year as part of an experiment. So far, it appears that there is little difference between experienced pilots and non-pilots. As for pilots, we used to say that eyesight doesn't equal insight. |
| Posted by: rwv 2010-04-17 15:06 |
| #4 For what is worth, the AF terminology is UAS for Unmanned Aircraft System. A UAS consists of a Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), a Ground Control Station (GCS) and comm data links (both line of sight and satcom). The army is moving rapidly into bigger RPAs. The ER/MP Extended Range/MultiPurpose (aka MQ-1C, SkyWarrior, Grey Eagle) received Milestone C clearance to start low rate initial production earlier this year. The MQ-1C is an uprated Predator with better sensors and more Hellfires. |
| Posted by: rwv 2010-04-17 15:01 |
| #3 I have experience in a AH-1 in danger close situations as a CW-2 SE Asia. I don't believe I'd like to be in the mud calling for help from an armed UAV. Dropping spent shell casings down your ground buddies fatigue blouse at 160 knots is not a job for any machine. |
| Posted by: Flaper Scourge of the Algonquins4926 2010-04-17 14:13 |
| #2 Other diff: Army will use NCOs. Bachelors degree not really applicable in flying a UAV, and Warrant Officers show the same thing for rotors and small aircraft. USAF wants to reserve flying to officers, which is pretty stupid for the kinds of mud-moving low altitude missions the Army needs, but understandable if you're going to be staying high and far away in a starship. Completely different mindsets. Got little use for most of the Airforce mindset other than the PJs and overhead Int types. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-04-17 11:20 |
| #1 That;s why the army went to AH - we couldn't depend on our priorities for support being the same ones the Airforce had (usually the fighter mafia screwed up our GS). Let the zooms take all the SuperPlanes, give the Army A-10s, AHs, CH/UH and drones. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-04-17 11:15 |