It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UAV's, your opinions please..

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Hi people, I was thinking the other day, while reading air forces monthly, UAV's (Unmanned Ariel Vehicles) whats the point. Yeah it gets rid of human loss on our side, but really, and i mean really, i would not trust an aircraft , with a huge payload, possible nuclear warheads, roaming our skys being controlled by a computer. For one, what point would they be to an air force, no need for pilots, no need for survival equipment fitters, no need for suppliers of parachutes, no need for pilot training, yeah save money, but people lose a job, would you really take away that human element, because if the F-22, J-35 and Eurofighter will be the last manned planes, how on earth can planes get anybetter than that.

more manouverable, if you plan to make a UAV more manouvourable than an F-22 (I would like to see that) then for one the stress will increase, oh that means a stronger fuselage and hull material. You may also make jobs in the computer engineer side of things, if they are just going to be remote controled, but then, cowards, pilots join air forces to fly and fight, otherwise they wouldnt show up at the carrers office, you have all seen t.v., you know, I.robot, terminator, if we make an advanced robot, that it thinks for itself, why would it work for us, and if we program it to prevent human loss of life, well, there goes military fighting machines. I honestly cant see many airforces using them, and if the RAF do use them, i will be dammed if i will work for them then... i hope this post makes sense, i dont know if anyone else feels like me here, not trusting computers, and the no pilot thing, if it makes no sense, ask and I shall clarify...




posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoyagerNX23Yeah it gets rid of human loss on our side, but really, and i mean really, i would not trust an aircraft , with a huge payload, possible nuclear warheads, roaming our skys being controlled by a computer.

So you do not trust an ICBM or a cruise missile to deliver it's payload either? That too is computer controlled. The only difference is that the UAV is programmed to come home after it's mission is completed.


if you plan to make a UAV more manouvourable than an F-22 (I would like to see that) then for one the stress will increase, oh that means a stronger fuselage and hull material.

Could it be that you are missing the point. It is the human element that cannot withstand the G-force, not the airframe. An F-22 can withstand far more g-force than a conscious human being can so therefore developing a more maneuverable airframe is not the issue.

But this is not even relevant as there are probably no "air superiority" UCAV projects that have gone beyond the research phase. Most of the UCAV projects are for bombers, ground attack and hunter killers.


but then, cowards, pilots join air forces to fly and fight...

I'm not sure I understand who you are referring to as a "coward"?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I can see your point, and honestly, i am not sure whether or not to trust ICBM's, the fact that the UAV is programed to come home isnt realy the point, I mean for a computer to be able to anticipate and outfly a human with combat experience, that is one deadly computer, an ICBM only has data to go in a singal direction, to the target, that has set parameters, but the UAV, may have orders to fly in and take whatever action may be necessary to destroy the target, that may mean it has to make a slight course change, what i am trying to say is, the computer, will at some point, have to be self effcient, not rely on outside orders, to do that it needs to be able to judge situations, a computer, thinking for itself, perhaps it may have a computer malfunction, it cant self detonate, at least an ICBM dosent arm itself straight away unlike the weapons on aircraft, which are armed before flight. It could mistake a city and drop the bomb on the wrong target, humans dont make that kind of mistake, computers can.

Cowards, the people sat in office, doing the things that suit them, imagine it, no more pilot deaths, it would make someone like the head of the airforce or something, real good, all because he is not willing to put peoples lives on the line, when they signed up to do just that, destroying peoples carrers. if that makes sense

Yes humans cant withstand high G, not yet anyway, at some point there will be a way to control the ability to counteract the forces.

Perhaps its just me, being paranoid, i dont know, and it is hard to explain, i just dont trust thinking computers, they are literally unpridictable.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by VoyagerNX23]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I really don't know who you are calling a coward. Flying a UAV isn't a walk in the park. Not to mention developing a UAV is not an easy job.

As far as arming weapons and such... Like any fighter out there the ground crew pulls the pin on the weapon. The pilot still arms the bomb when he goes to drop or launch it. A UAV goes through the same sequence. It is possible to tell the computer to wait till a set of coordinates and then arm your weapons. Once you reach your other waypoint launch your weapons.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I now return the comment 'coward', it was a spur of the moment thing, i wasnt clearly thinking, I agree, its just that I dont really trust them, they destroy jobs, and I would rather have planes with people in, not a computer brain. As I have said, its just this feeling I have, that there not to be trusted, its kinda the same feeling I have about the next war being with North Korea, I just somehow feel it and have being saying it for about 5 years now, but thats another story... thanks for the opinions...



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoyagerNX23
I now return the comment 'coward', it was a spur of the moment thing, i wasnt clearly thinking, I agree, its just that I dont really trust them, they destroy jobs, and I would rather have planes with people in, not a computer brain. As I have said, its just this feeling I have, that there not to be trusted, its kinda the same feeling I have about the next war being with North Korea, I just somehow feel it and have being saying it for about 5 years now, but thats another story... thanks for the opinions...


I can understand you there. I have a few Hobby UAV's I'm working on myself. I'm not quite ready to turn the machine over to the machine. I like to stay in control of operations and having a self aware UAV would be very unique.

--Scott



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Currently most UAV's can be programed and do their job w/o any human interruption, but there is still a person in control on the ground in case anything unexpected happens. Fighters, like UCAV, will probably remain in the control of pilots on the ground as soon as they get near a combat area. The craft will not have a mind of it's own, at least not for a long time.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I can understand why you would't trust RC or computer controlled aircraft loaded with missiles and the like, but at the same time you can't always trust a human with the same thing. For example like the American pilot who bombed those Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

I can especially understand the need for UAVs in high risk areas or for aerial recon where it isn't neccessary to have a human piloting the craft.

I have heard a lot of people say that the F-22 and JSF are going to be the last manned fighters, but i do recall hearing on some TLC show about a university in the US that has been working on hooking the brain up to plane. In doing so they hope to be able to control the plane through thought and reaction, rather then physical control, if i've remembered correctly.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
A lot of your fears are obvious ones, but the USAF doesn't want to take out a US city anymore then you or me. they have done there homework on this.

Global Hawk is a UAV that can do its missions by just a few click of a mouse, its whole flight path is pre-planned using GPS (there have being no incidents).

UCAV's will not pick the sites they bomb, they wont think, it will all be programed in them. Lets say in some future scenerio, that a F/A-22 pilot is shot at and the missile is about to hit, assuming its not infared and it locks on the Raptor and the Raptor cant jam it making it useless, so the pilot tries to out turn it in hopes to save the aircraft...making the missile miss its intended target. Now the same happens to some Future Unmanned Craft, once it detects the missile it goes into a 'protect itself mode', and in that program it can calculate everything, like the missiles speed, trajectory, time of impact, and can follow those guidlines and at the last moment take a quick 20 G turn, and again...the missiles misses. What the Unmanned plane did wasn't AI, it did not think for itself, it just used the written program, and then did math.

I'm not sure where your fear of computers come from, I mean your using one now...how do you knows its not going to delete all your files.

Passenger jets: its only a matter of time until they to become pilotless. You shouldn't be against this...for example, it there is no cockpit, there isn't a way for a terrorist to take control of the aircraft. Pilots only take off and land, its auto-pilot for the whole flight. The UAV called X-47 has proved that not only can computers land and takeoff perfectly, but they can do it with extreme accuracy.

What do you think is safer? Having people on the ground using radars to tell the pilots which way to turn so they dont hit another plane, OR, to have it be automated, where the planes fly preprogrammed routes and the whole system is integrated so every plane knows where their at and where all others are at...making aircraft collisions even more rare then they allready are.

I think you are starting to believe movies and shows, that all the sudden one day, all machines will unite and destroy us all.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
As i said it is just a feeling. For one, i can see a need for them in aerial recon, and for those high speed turns and getaways, just that "the more they over take the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain" the more reliant we are with computers, we will start to lose the sense of doing things for ourselves. For example, the eurofighter, one of its flaws i think is it computers, one emp and there goes flight computer unless its sheilded or if the system just happend to crash, there is no manual devices or speedometres, just computer screens, one malfunction could spell the doom of the craft and pilot. I would really feel much safer in something like a jaguar, as for beleiving the movies, not quite, I just have these feelings about things, its just me being stubborn to accept change i think...




top topics



 
0

log in

join