# UAVs in the military



## MBuzzy (Dec 29, 2008)

A very interesting discussion from the gun martial arts thread.

The military has been ramping up its use of UVs for the last few years.  We are now at the point that the Congress is funding UAVs as quickly as we can build them and field them.  They want more...in fact, recently the Secretary of Defense stated that we are "halfway there" in terms of how many UAVs we need.

UAVs have a great many benefits - primarily, they take the people out of harm's way.  They can do more things, for example, an F-16 is capable of doing at least 13 g's, if not more....but a pilot can only withstand 9.  The feed from a UAV can be infrared, thermal, plain visual, you name it...a human would need goggles, which are still very limiting for field of vision and mobility.  A UAV can give just as much range of vision and is just as controllable as a manned vehicle, if not more.

But there are a lot of disadvantages as well.  As we add more UAVs we add more bureaucracy.  Our senior leaders want more information and more control and with UVs, they can get it.  They can see what a pilot sees and talk directly to them; micromanagement to the extreme.  The use of UAVs is taking away the decisions of the warfighter and placing them at the hands of leaders who are too far from the battlefield to make an informed decision sometimes.  

UVs are very expensive to develop, some are expensive to maintain, some are expensive to even operate.  Although some are a cost savings over manned vehicles, the Total Life Cycle costs can get very high when development and technology is added.  

So what is their place?  Where is the balance?  As CN said in the other thread:  "I think it will be awhile before we see the large-scale use of UAVs in the military."  How far are we?  Are we going in the right direction.

This is a new weapons platform with no precedent and we are rushing to try to keep up with what the technology can provide....


----------



## grydth (Dec 29, 2008)

Those (non)leaders have indeed been interfering, with catastrophic results... the decision not to take the shot at Mullah Omar..... the decision to scrap 2 plans to kill Osama bin Laden. But meddling by compromised bureaucrats dates back to at least Sun Tzu's era, so the machines are not to blame.

Those who oppose us view the USA as a boxer with terrific punching power, but having a glass jaw. That is our inability to take casualties back, even in relatively small numbers.

Now, if you send machines out to do the killing, that weakness ends. No bodies destined for Arlington, no maimed veterans, no hostages to be taken.

Yes, by the next installment of war, expect the Islamoterrorists to feel as if they were reliving the Terminator series of movies. I expect we will field them everywhere we can, in the greatest numbers we can.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I know, but I have a feeling that it is easier to tell the nationality of a tank if you have a front view.


 
I would partially disagree.  The intelligence gatherers have at their finger tips the collective resources of the entire intelligence community and the technology of all of our satellites that could probably read the "made in Russia" on the shell.  

Now, if it is a question of a pilot in a plane versus a guy on the ground, it depends on the guy on the ground and the pilot in the plane.  Some can, some can't.  The error of the human element is why we HAVE friendly fire incidents.  For planes, it also depends if we're talking about a kill box or a mission.  If it is a mission, the pilot knows what it is hitting and the target has been vetted by A LOT of people.  If it is a kill box.....well, that is a lack of communication.  TECHNICALLY, no friendly forces are supposed to be IN the kill box, so they're not supposed to have to worry about it.  Although, they still have to use discretion and be able to identify one tank versus another.  But then, the genius pilot never bothered to call back and check on the identity of the thank.  SOMEONE knew it was there.



CuongNhuka said:


> I hope I am wrong. I just have a feeling that there is going to be quite a long time till the entire military is being operated out of a computer room somewere under a mountain.


 
I hope so....but I fear that it is coming.  Right now, UAVs are controlled by pilots the same way that manned aircraft are.  The cockpit even looks identical....its just in Nevada, not over Iraq.  Same field of vision, same controls, you name it.  For some, anyone with a SIPR account can see the feed.  What scares ME is that the guys in the computer room in the mountain will start talking directly to the pilots micromanaging every sortie.  Then we're screwed.  We put individuals up there for a reason.  UAVs work, in the way we're using them now.  One machine, one pilot, one mission, one chain of command.  But things will grow....



CuongNhuka said:


> And I agree. But, do the pencil pusers in Washington agree? Thats the problem. For pretty much everything (expect flights) a UAV would be massivly more expensive. Thats why I think it will be awhile before we see the large-scale use of UAVs in the military.



I don't know....they definitely think that we need MORE UAVs.  In my experience, the bottom line ($$$$) is more important than a soldier's life, but then, that's nothing new.  

UAVs and UVs are kind of a cost enigma. They're usually smaller than their manned counterparts, but with more technology inside.  But at the same time, they have a quarter of the maintenance requirements, cut manpower in half, and take less training.  If you look at the cost of a single UV, who knows, it may be higher or lower depending on the vehicle.  But if you look at the life cycle cost, I would venture to say that the UV is always going to be cheaper.  Which is good for us, because no troops in harm's way!


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 29, 2008)

grydth said:


> Those (non)leaders have indeed been interfering, with catastrophic results... the decision not to take the shot at Mullah Omar..... the decision to scrap 2 plans to kill Osama bin Laden. But meddling by compromised bureaucrats dates back to at least Sun Tzu's era, so the machines are not to blame.
> 
> Those who oppose us view the USA as a boxer with terrific punching power, but having a glass jaw. That is our inability to take casualties back, even in relatively small numbers.
> 
> ...



Good point, micromanagement has ALWAYS run rampant, although as technology advances, it is allowing the leaders to get closer and closer to the battle.

That is a great analogy....we really can't take casualties.  For every one of us killed, there are probably 10 of them.  But take away that fear of losing people and we can REALLY do some damage.  I hope it IS like terminator.  They can suicide bomb as many UVs as they want.  How about a HMMWV that just drive around by remote control and looks for IEDs...all day long.  Never gets tired, never misses something, only needs to stop to refuel.  Need to get supplies from one base to another?  Plop it on a remote controlled convoy and control it from base!  

Problem is....for every new technology that create, there is another counter for it.


----------



## Bikewr (Jan 21, 2009)

Some years back, Discovery ran a series of cutting-edge science shows narrated by Gillian Anderson of X-files fame.
Quite well done, one segment dealt with the developing UAV technology.

Much as the show predicted, these things have become mainstream; from the full-sized Predator-type down to little man-carried items.

One of the problems they are having is with the Air Force, which maintains the UAVs must be operated by a fully-trained pilot.   The other services use much lower-ranked technicians, and the Air Force has essentially been told to shape up in this regard.
(At least, that was the case a few months ago; with the new administration who knows?)
I understand that autonomous UAVs are in the works; they could be programmed for a specific mission, fly it, locate and identify targets, and take them out as required.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jan 21, 2009)

Bikewr said:


> One of the problems they are having is with the Air Force, which maintains the UAVs must be operated by a fully-trained pilot.   The other services use much lower-ranked technicians, and the Air Force has essentially been told to shape up in this regard.


While you are right in all regards about who does it and what the leadership has said.  I can't say that I agree with these.  The UAVs that we're talking about perform different missions and are different types of aircraft.  


Bikewr said:


> I understand that autonomous UAVs are in the works; they could be programmed for a specific mission, fly it, locate and identify targets, and take them out as required.


For interdiction and combat missions, I would prefer a human behind the stick and would also prefer a trained pilot.  But there are certainly some missions that could be just programs, like convoy route sweeping.  There is some pretty interesting stuff in development that will revolutionize that UAV world and will change the way that ground ops are done.


----------

