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.

 

The UAV's Are coming, & I'm not happy!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Sorry again Tim, but you really, really need to do some more research on this. Weapon release is consented by the UAV pilot who is located at the mission control area. For current UAVs, the weapon of choice is Hellfire, which relies on line of sight to the target (ie you need to have it visual), so targeting errors have the same risk as manned aircraft.



Sorry to come back at you, but YOU are the one who needs to do some Reading and Research! We Are NOT talking about Current UAV's! I'm talking about a PLANNED UAV Bomber, the has not yet left the drawing board!

There is a Big difference between Global Hawk and an unmanned replacement for the B-52! Below is the headline:


The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to make the next generation heavy bomber an unmanned aircraft.


Do you see what I'm saying? This is NOT Global Hawk!

Tim




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
The computers aint self aware, just tell them what to do and they'll do it. As for bugs, well, ummm, computers have been in jets for almost 20 years, no crashes as a result.

If one does something wrong, I'd think that a human at base could self destroy the UAV, or re program it.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
The RPV aspect has been around for a very long time so we know that technology works. Most UAVs today are Remotely Piloted Vehicles. There's a guy in fatigues in sitting at a desk in what is more like a PC flight sim set up than a cockpit. UCAVs simply have armament that can be deployed by the pilot/operator.

The part that is inevitably coming are craft that are more autonomous. Know how computer can search through programmed memory to choose the best move in chess? Same thing in a combat scenario. Once the UCAV has been told the rules of engagement it will avoid any event that will be a catalyst for combat. If we desire all force meted out must be at the command of humans. Once we say "go for it" it will engage the enemy vehicle using its reportoire of programmed maneuvers chosen just like the chess-playing computer does.

Humans will always be in the loop unless we choose not to be.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
The computers aint self aware, just tell them what to do and they'll do it. As for bugs, well, ummm, computers have been in jets for almost 20 years, no crashes as a result.


I wasn't talking about self aware computers, I was talking about a glitch in the program!

No Jet have because of a computer problem? Umm, one of the first F-117's was lost because of a computer problem. Also, you may want to look up the YF-22 that crash landed during testing at Edward AFB because a computer glich caused the plane to go out of control during Touch-and-Go testing. The aircraft was later repaired but it did happen!

Tim



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
You haven't been watching the movie "Stealth" again have you? That stuff will rot your mind.


There are system failures on passenger aircraft, and the results are too often unpleasant - but that does not keep us from flying the friendly skies. Likewise, there are occasional system failures with UAV's, but that should not keep them from being utilized to their fullest potential, which to me is to keep the human out of harms way while conducting high risk ops.

There really isn't a whole lot of difference between employing a UAV to do your bombing run and sending a cruise missile to do your dirty work. The only significant difference is that the UAV is a reusable platform that can disperse multiple munitions with precision and return home whereas a cruise missile is a rather expensive, single munition (usually) on a one way trip.



[edit on 10-2-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
The computers aint self aware, just tell them what to do and they'll do it. As for bugs, well, ummm, computers have been in jets for almost 20 years, no crashes as a result.


I wasn't talking about self aware computers, I was talking about a glitch in the program!

No Jet have because of a computer problem? Umm, one of the first F-117's was lost because of a computer problem. Also, you may want to look up the YF-22 that crash landed during testing at Edward AFB because a computer glich caused the plane to go out of control during Touch-and-Go testing. The aircraft was later repaired but it did happen!

Tim

There are a few tens of thousands of jets with Fly-by-wire and look at the bugs in them, there aren't many to be honest.

The YF-22 was a prototype, they iron out the bugs before they use them in real situations, and with the weapons it's in the middle of the Desert. Hell if one goes crazy test a few F-22s on it





Originally posted by intelgurl
There are system failures on passenger aircraft, and the results are too often unpleasant - but that does not keep us from flying the friendly skies.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by intelgurl]

Nearly all of them are caused by lack of understanding of the computer systems, or pilot error, not the computers itself


[edit on 2-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Tomahawk is just a flying bomb that can follow a map! A Bomber is a different creature entirly. Not Only are they reuseable and carry lots of weapons, they flexable in their response. You can Use a bomber for deterrance, flying it over an area as a show of force. Bombers can be retasked or recalled at Any point before weapon release. They can also be assign multiple targets in one misssion. They can loiter and provide support to ground forces. Remember in desert storm when the B-52 was used to bomb Republican guard positions close to allied forces? Are you ready to trust a computer to dump 20 tons of bombs 10 yards from you?


You do realize that today's cruise missiles can:

* Attack different/multiple targets.
* Loiter looking for targets.
* Abort attacks at any point until impact.
* Allow man-in-loop control at all times.

Second question: how involved is that B-52 crew in the battle? At 40,000 feet up, you think they could tell which uniform a guy on the ground is wearing? At 10 miles out, do you think they can see what the vehicle they're aiming for looks like? Reality is they're recieving target coordinates from a forward air controler (FAC), programming that data into a JDAM, and pulling the release handle on the bomb.

The two things controlling the accuracy of the B-52's close air support attack:

1) The guy on the ground spotting the target and relaying its position.
2) The GPS/INS computer housed in the tail of the JDAM taking the warhead to the desired location.

So with your bomber crew's job being data entry, with no real contact with the battleground miles away, is there any point lugging the added weight and expense of a crew and their "office" into battle? Risking pilot's lives to do a job they could do just as effectively at a computer station back on the ground?

Alternatly, because UAVs cost less to procure and operate, what do you think will make the bigger difference for the troops on the ground: a crew up front doing data entry and adjusting the autopilot, or having more aircraft carrying more bombs and covering a broader section of the battleground?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedMatt
So with your bomber crew's job being data entry, with no real contact with the battleground miles away, is there any point lugging the added weight and expense of a crew and their "office" into battle? Risking pilot's lives to do a job they could do just as effectively at a computer station back on the ground?

Alternatly, because UAVs cost less to procure and operate, what do you think will make the bigger difference for the troops on the ground: a crew up front doing data entry and adjusting the autopilot, or having more aircraft carrying more bombs and covering a broader section of the battleground?


I was thinking of the penatrator role! Flying into the target like the B-2 does.

Alternatly, If the UAV is the "Do it All" platform your claiming it is, why not let it take over the Air-to-Air mission first? Surely an aircraft without a pilot onboard could beat the F-22 in pulling G's! 60G's wouldn't mean anything to a computer, you, on the other hand, would be dead before 30G's!

Tim



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Alternatly, If the UAV is the "Do it All" platform your claiming it is, why not let it take over the Air-to-Air mission first? Surely an aircraft without a pilot onboard could beat the F-22 in pulling G's! 60G's wouldn't mean anything to a computer, you, on the other hand, would be dead before 30G's!

Tim

The technology is not yet mature for air2air, it is however mature enough for autonomous precision bombing.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
The technology is not yet mature for air2air, it is however mature enough for autonomous precision bombing.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by intelgurl]


Intresting! I wasn't aware that going from Precision Strike to Air to Air was much of a Technical Leap.

Tim



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The whole point of use of UAVs and UCAVs is the fact that this country simply can't tolerate it anymore when our people are POWs. Since we've lost the fortitutde to stomach the fact that combat results in casualties we need to find an alternate path to explore.

Whether anyone likes it or not they are working toward craft that will one day engage in air-to-air in at least a semi-autonomous way. To deny this or any emerging technology is tantamount to rejecting jet turbine-powered aircraft in favor of spinning props in 1945!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join