![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Drones Vs. Pilots
Jul. 10th, 2009 11:19 amSo, over on the always-entertaining blog Lawyers, Guns and Money they are having a discussion over whether we will continue to need manned fighters or switch to remote-piloted drones after the F-22.
Obviously current drone technology is not quite up to the air-superiority task. Dogfights still require a human touch, but it's clear to me at least that the technology will continue to improve. There are clear advantages to a human-less cockpit, such as less weight and allowing higher G-force maneuvers, not to mention being less concerned with casualties.
But there is a potential single point of failure - loss of the control signal from the remote pilot. If a manned fighter looses its radio, the pilot can at least defend him- or herself. In many instances, they can continue the mission, if at a degraded level, with onboard sensors. Current drones have a fly-back capability, but that means a mission kill.
In air superiority terms, a "mission kill" means bombs falling on the heads of American soldiers. This is obviously not good.
Moreover, the farther back from the front lines and the more centralized the remote pilot control is, the worse this vulnerability gets. For example, the majority of current Predator drone missions are controlled by pilots sitting in an office building in Nevada. Imagine a well-placed car bomb taking out that office building. Now assume that the office building is controlling all US air interceptors during war.
Obviously we're nowhere close to that scenario yet. But if I can imagine it, so can a host of other people. The solution is multiple control links, including direct line of sight. That means piloted aircraft in close proximity.
What I expect to see is another generation of manned fighter, but they will be two-seaters. One seat will be a pilot, flying the plane. The second seat will be a drone operator, controlling a handful of semi-autonomous drones. The drones will go forward and engage, while the pilots, escorted by a drone or two, will hang back and control the fight.
At least that's my prediction - what's yours?
Obviously current drone technology is not quite up to the air-superiority task. Dogfights still require a human touch, but it's clear to me at least that the technology will continue to improve. There are clear advantages to a human-less cockpit, such as less weight and allowing higher G-force maneuvers, not to mention being less concerned with casualties.
But there is a potential single point of failure - loss of the control signal from the remote pilot. If a manned fighter looses its radio, the pilot can at least defend him- or herself. In many instances, they can continue the mission, if at a degraded level, with onboard sensors. Current drones have a fly-back capability, but that means a mission kill.
In air superiority terms, a "mission kill" means bombs falling on the heads of American soldiers. This is obviously not good.
Moreover, the farther back from the front lines and the more centralized the remote pilot control is, the worse this vulnerability gets. For example, the majority of current Predator drone missions are controlled by pilots sitting in an office building in Nevada. Imagine a well-placed car bomb taking out that office building. Now assume that the office building is controlling all US air interceptors during war.
Obviously we're nowhere close to that scenario yet. But if I can imagine it, so can a host of other people. The solution is multiple control links, including direct line of sight. That means piloted aircraft in close proximity.
What I expect to see is another generation of manned fighter, but they will be two-seaters. One seat will be a pilot, flying the plane. The second seat will be a drone operator, controlling a handful of semi-autonomous drones. The drones will go forward and engage, while the pilots, escorted by a drone or two, will hang back and control the fight.
At least that's my prediction - what's yours?
