waka
Emasculating the Right
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 1,972
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What's with all of the lamenting over an unmanned Air Force? If it can be done with more efficiency and safety, it should be.
Granted, it is a a bit sad. However, the future is now.. Learn it, know it, live it, or it will come back a bite you in the ass!
Uhhhh...No. An unmanned Air Force is neither more efficient nor more safe. There can be arguments made for certain missions to be handled by unmanned vehicles, but it's grossly naive to think that the overall role of the USAF can be handled by unmanned assets.
Actually, UAV's are far more efficient and UAV's are far safer. It is more naive to live in denial.
True, but at considerably more risk and cost than unmanned platforms, and that's what's driving the paradigm shift in the five-sided building. And at the rate of technological progression, you're still going to be virtually in that cockpit in every respect, except for pulling those Gs that would kill you if you were actually there. We ain't seen nothing yet.Have a human in the cockpit, on station, brings a dynamic to the fight that may have been underestimated.
This statement is very naive...
Having a 2-ship of strike eagles in a cap for 4 hours vs. a UAV....dollars and cent, we agree. But, I think we are finding that UAV's are not always the right answer. Have a human in the cockpit, on station, brings a dynamic to the fight that may have been underestimated.
There sure is much loose throwing of the word "naive" around.
They are more efficient as aircraft. They're lighter because they don't have to have the systems necessary to support a meat bag. As for attack efficiency, you probably have a point. HOWEVER, they have already replaced manned aircraft on many missions and that number WILL increase as technology advances.
They ARE safer because there are no pilots to get injured or die.
Look, I know this is an emotional issue for many. This steps on the toes of the knighthood and the "glory" of manned combat aircraft. FACE REALITY FOLKS.
The era of manned combat aircraft will not go on forever. This has been stated ad nauseum by folks at the Pentagon.
Just replying in kind.
I agree that they do good work and have a good mission. But take a look at the increase in ISR assets that the AF has bought since the UAV's have been around. If the UAV(UAS/RPV/whatever bull$hit buzz word they are using this month) was the end all, be all...why are we investing in so many of these aircraft.
Again, just wait. History is rife examples of two steps forward, one step back.Just take a look at the pilot training drops. There are a good amount of dudes heading to U-28s/MC-12s/NSA aircraft...and we are only buying more. Why are they looking for a light attack aircraft as well. These are all missions the reaper could do....but for some reason we are counting more and more on these aircraft.
Thanks for proving my point.Dang, I crashed again.....coffee break anyone?
I used quotes around "glory" to indicate sarcasm. I should have been more clear.We are way past that point...there is no "glory" in any combat! There are
dudes out there asking for UAVs to take a break from the long deployments.
Ya, there was also a time when the fat cats at the Pentagon said the era of dogfighting was over. So we are not longer going to put guns in our fighter aircraft....we are even going to make it illegal to practice BFM (dogfighting). Then a little war call Vietnam came along and we quickly learned the sidewinder wasn't all it was touted to be. We learned a lesson the hard way on that one. Our kill ratio was terrible, then we hung a gun on the F-4 and started teaching BFM and our kill ratio significantly improved.
Well then, we had just better ditch all digital technology in any application involving national security and go back to analog because it will never get better!Let's not forget this little incident. Terrorists hacked a UAV feed! If these people hacked a feed, I don't even want to know what other countries can do. There is a very real security threat with UAVs. The enemy using our weapons against us....awesome.
No, you're not. My use of the word was directed at CFI2766 and it was a valid use.
Thanks for proving my point.
I used quotes around "glory" to indicate sarcasm. I should have been more clear.
Well then, we had just better ditch all digital technology in any application involving national security and go back to analog because it will never get better!
(NOTICE; THE LAST SENTENCE WAS SARCASM)
Yes I am, my post was directed at yours...
That's just plain ol' back-pedaling. So, my use of the quotes were accidental? Oops!No it was quite clear...
I never said that we don't have a long way to go. However, you didn't at all indicate that you're not ready to move on. In all fairness, perhaps I should have given you the benefit of the doubt....although, kind of hard to do with your clumsy use of the word "naive"!See now your putting words in my mouth. I never said, don't move on with technology....just that we have a long way to go.
Talk about twisting words, I never said that they are the end all be all "right now". All of my posts in this thread are very clearly in the context of the future.Look man, I'm not for or against UAVs. I'm just saying that they are not the end all, be all that everyone thinks they are, right now. If you have access to SIPR, check it out...if not, I'm done talking on this subject.