A-10 UAV

[Mr_Burns]

The USAF is requesting proposals to remove the pilot from the A-10 and make it a UAV, which means that maybe there will be loads of spare HOTAS on sale!

 

So why the Hog, someone on this forum said you need a good screen to run the A-10 Simulators cos thats what the Hog was all about, treetop hight looking for the tanks with your eyes, so if you remove the pilot, all you have is a platform to carry weapons.

 

I doubt if it were remotely piloted that you would be able to use the cannon cause there would be some lag.

 

But for CAS, completely autonimous but without a master arm, your ground units select cannon, shoots a laser at a tank gives the master arm command and shoots, the A-10 flies in a follows the FACs instructions!

 

Awesome?:unsure:

[Oscar]

Minor, but significant correction: The RFP was issued by "DARPA" - not the USAF. The USA (as in US Army) is behind this action, along with a few 'politico's' in Washington who are still waging the 60+ year old "Who's responsible for CAS on the battlefield" war within the Pentagon.

 

The proposal also includes the option of usng F-4 and F-16 aircraft as UCAV demostrators also.

 

In the end, it is unlikely there is a large scale plan to convert A-10s into QA-10 UAVs. Instead, the technology demonstration will be integrated into future UCAVs; in one potential scenario, hosts of UCAVs could be loitering as “on call” air support and be activated when a ground controller called them in under his control.

 

Think of it as a "Global Hawk" armed to the teeth: long loiter time, CAS on-call but JTAC.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Oscar

[cheezy]

I though I'd add this though it's an old thread, I never liked uavs, people joining the military know they are going to be putting their lives at risk, and the are proud of it. I think spending money on uavs is a waste. If aircrews were afraid of getting shot down they probably wouldn't be joining the military.

[Markdude]

I though I'd add this though it's an old thread, I never liked uavs, people joining the military know they are going to be putting their lives at risk, and the are proud of it. I think spending money on uavs is a waste. If aircrews were afraid of getting shot down they probably wouldn't be joining the military.

 

Although I have my doubts about the true effectiveness of UAVs, I think that is outrageous logic. I'm sure glad you're not a military commander. "Why bother creating a safer and more productive battle plan? These men agreed to die for me, and I've got plenty more that will do so after them! Results by numbers!"

 

If you think engaging in the pursuit of protecting lives (which possess skills and minds; far more difficult things to replace than machinery) is a "waste of money", then I pray you never have to go to war. Might as well get rid of military doctors too, huh? And search and rescue teams? Since everyone's life should apparently be viewed as completely expendable...

Edited October 8, 2010 by Markdude

[nscode]

I though I'd add this though it's an old thread, I never liked uavs, people joining the military know they are going to be putting their lives at risk, and the are proud of it. I think spending money on uavs is a waste. If aircrews were afraid of getting shot down they probably wouldn't be joining the military.

 

 

It's not about protecting their lives, it's about protecting your investment. Mighty expensive a pilot is.

[CyBerkut]

I though I'd add this though it's an old thread, I never liked uavs, people joining the military know they are going to be putting their lives at risk, and the are proud of it. I think spending money on uavs is a waste. If aircrews were afraid of getting shot down they probably wouldn't be joining the military.

 

Well cheezy, there are a number of reasons to increase the use of UAVs (where they can fulfill the mission requirements).

 

- The value of human life. Sadly, the value level varies between cultures, circumstances, etc. Generally speaking, in the west we place a pretty high value on our people. One only need look at the enormous resources that get employed / risked to rescue personnel in trouble. Another example would be some special forces units that won't even leave a dead member behind, let alone a live one. Part of this goes to a related aspect... unit morale / cohesion. Military personnel count heavily upon their brethren to come through when needed, and know that their side of the bargain requires them to do the same.

 

- The investment in training. Not only of the pilots / crew that would be initially at risk, but also of the pilots / crew / special forces, etc. that participate in rescue / recovery efforts for downed pilots /crew. Then there is the potential to eventually need fewer medical personnel to treat wounded air crew members, etc.

 

- Simplified logistics. While a UAV may have some high technology on board, it probably does not differ much from what is already being maintained on manned aircraft. Meanwhile, things like life support systems and ejection seats do not need to be dealt with on the UAVs.

 

- Potential for maneuvers that could exceed human endurance. Not an issue with something like the current Predator drones, but in missions that traditionally get handled by high performance fighters, aircraft design/employment has already run up against the maximum G's of acceleration that the human body can withstand while retaining some semblance of functionality. Unmanned aircraft can be engineered to function under higher stresses.

 

- Potential for missions that no human life should be placed at risk for. UAVs open up the possibility to send aircraft on missions that the current political / moral climate in the nation will not tolerate risking air crew on.

 

- Reduced risk to intelligence / security. A UAV that has been shot down has far less to potentially reveal than a live pilot or crew member.

 

- Reduced opportunity for enemy propaganda. The enemy can make a video of the UAV wreckage, and make whatever claims they want to about the events, etc. But that is far less dramatic/useful than trotting out a bound/blindfolded crew member, or making them read some statement/confession on video.

 

The potential benefits are too great to ignore. Any major power that rules out the future development of a high performance combat aircraft than can exceed human limits, does so at its own peril... because someday other countries will have an edge over them.

 

This is not to say that the technology is ready to take people out of the equation altogether at this time. But technology marches on.

[cheezy]

I don't completely hate uavs, I think the predator is a good uav and I think they are very useful for observation but I think there are things that can't be replaced by computers. But that is my opinion, don't flame me for it. I think your trying make it sound like I'm saying pilots are dime a dozen. No, what I mean is why spend money on on making a million diferent kinds of uavs when you can use that money to help improve airframes to protect the men that fly and improve armor for the men on the ground. And someone might say that is the point of uavs, but that's not what I'm saying. I think we should keep some of the uavs such as the predator but don't spend billions on replacing everything with uavs, which is what it seems like the military wants to do.

Edited October 8, 2010 by cheezy

[mikoyan]

What if this loaded uavs get hacked or electromicaly interfered? That is my objection. I hope they don't put artificial inteligence on this things, we all know how bad an ai can be.

[cheezy]

What if this loaded uavs get hacked or electromicaly interfered? That is my objection. I hope they don't put artificial inteligence on this things, we all know how bad an ai can be.

 

That's another thing I don't like about uavs, every seen eagle eye? :pilotfly:

[DTWD]

I don't think you could realistically use the avenger near friendly units with the lag involved doing it remotely.

 

Missles or bombs for static/slow moving targets well away from friendlies it will be fine for.

 

Oh and probably no more tree top flying.