[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How long til we see fighter drones? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:40:30 AM EDT
|
Out of curiosity, most of the unmanned drones I've seen seem to be either for spying or air to ground attacks and support.
How long til we see an unmanned air to air drone, or do they have them? |
|
Quoted: 20-30 years. The power of the fighter mafia, in both the AF and Navy, is strong. The first truly fighter-like UCAV isn't even on the drawing boards yet.  i have to say i bet they are already fucking with fighter drones as of now. having no G force limit other than the max the structure of the plane can take is a gigantic advantage. its actually huge deal for everything even for ground attack roles... |
|
Probably being developed as we speak. I don't think it would be too difficult to mount a few stingers on a predator drone. Not sure a true dog fighting fighter drone will be possible because of latency between the controller and the plane. Ever play a FPS over satellite internet on a server in Japan? That should give you an idea of how bad the lag would be. |
|
Quoted: Probably being developed as we speak. I don't think it would be too difficult to mount a few stingers on a predator drone. Not sure a true dog fighting fighter drone will be possible because of latency between the controller and the plane. Ever play a FPS over satellite internet on a server in Japan? That should give you an idea of how bad the lag would be. I imagine they can do this via radio control towers with nearly no lag for defensive flights. however yea sattelite , IIRC i think you get a 3 second delay between communications. or is it 5...... 5 doesnt seem right, quick google knows  |
|
The problem is SA. Fighter pilots still depend on the good ole Mk I Mod 0 Eyeball when in ACM, and we just don;t have the means to provide comparable SA to the Vehicle Management computer (VMC). Until we can crack that nut, Air to Air will still require the good ole Organic Actuator (pilot).
|
The last time we fielded a maneuverable UAV even as a test vehicle was 1983.  Trust me when I say fighter type UCAVs are nowhere on anybody's radar right now. The fighter guys who run DoD simply won't allow it. Until this generation dies off (retires) and some of the current pred driving types make it into the flag officer ranks fighter UCAVs threaten way too many rice bowls. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably being developed as we speak. I don't think it would be too difficult to mount a few stingers on a predator drone. Not sure a true dog fighting fighter drone will be possible because of latency between the controller and the plane. Ever play a FPS over satellite internet on a server in Japan? That should give you an idea of how bad the lag would be. I imagine they can do this via radio control towers with nearly no lag for defensive flights. however yea sattelite , IIRC i think you get a 3 second delay between communications. or is it 5...... 5 doesnt seem right, quick google knows
Remotely piloted vehicles are not the answer. To be effective, a UCAV will need to be able to operate autonomously. |
|
Most everything I've read is geared towards dropping bombs and the like.
However, Predators have been armed with Stingers in the past, and one did shoot it out with a MiG-25 over Iraq. The Stinger missed and the MiG shot the Pred down. So it isn't outside the realm of possibility that, say, an operation x-47B couldn't be armed air-to-air. I personally think the "future" will be planes like the F-22 leading packages of Air to Air drones. ETA: video of the MiG-25 incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8 |
|
Quoted:
The last time we fielded a maneuverable UAV even as a test vehicle was 1983. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/Small/ECN-14273.jpg Trust me when I say fighter type UCAVs are nowhere on anybody's radar right now. The fighter guys who run DoD simply won't allow it. Until this generation dies off (retires) and some of the current pred driving types make it into the flag officer ranks fighter UCAVs threaten way too many rice bowls. I don't agree. There are plenty in DoD who are considering it. I know whereof I speak. The problem is technical, and will be for some time. But the the current generation of UCAV's CAN be capable of high dynamic flight, though that hasn't been the focus of their development so far. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The last time we fielded a maneuverable UAV even as a test vehicle was 1983. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/Small/ECN-14273.jpg Trust me when I say fighter type UCAVs are nowhere on anybody's radar right now. The fighter guys who run DoD simply won't allow it. Until this generation dies off (retires) and some of the current pred driving types make it into the flag officer ranks fighter UCAVs threaten way too many rice bowls. I don't agree. There are plenty in DoD who are considering it. I know whereof I speak. The problem is technical, and will be for some time. But the the current generation of UCAV's CAN be capable of high dynamic flight, though that hasn't been the focus of their development so far. You're talking out your ass. We have EO/IR sensors as good as any mkI mod 0 eyeball. LOS datalinks have no latency problem. You have no clue what pathetic pieces of shit the current generation of UAV airframes (which are good to maybe 4 Gs) are. Get back to me when you've worked in the UAV field for a few years. If we had any intention of creating UCAVs that can fight ATA we'd have some of those low time F-16As from AMARG outfitted with datalinks and sensors and in the fight. We could do it in 6 months, but we don't and we wont. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Probably being developed as we speak. I don't think it would be too difficult to mount a few stingers on a predator drone. Not sure a true dog fighting fighter drone will be possible because of latency between the controller and the plane. Ever play a FPS over satellite internet on a server in Japan? That should give you an idea of how bad the lag would be. I imagine they can do this via radio control towers with nearly no lag for defensive flights. however yea sattelite , IIRC i think you get a 3 second delay between communications. or is it 5...... 5 doesnt seem right, quick google knows Even with radio towers you are limited to speed of light. Computer circuits don't yet operate at that speed so you get more latency. Between the control center and the AO you are probably still looking at a good 1 second latency which is enough time for a pilot in an SU-34 to sneak up behind you. |
| What is the difference between a long range air to air missile and a fighter drone? I have seen some scenarios whereby a B-2 would launch large numbers of long range air to air missiles at opposing fighters, while remaining at a range that is undetectable to the enemy. This seems like a pretty good strategy to me. |
|
Quoted: Most everything I've read is geared towards dropping bombs and the like. However, Predators have been armed with Stingers in the past, and one did shoot it out with a MiG-25 over Iraq. The Stinger missed and the MiG shot the Pred down. So it isn't outside the realm of possibility that, say, an operation x-47B couldn't be armed air-to-air. I personally think the "future" will be planes like the F-22 leading packages of Air to Air drones. ETA: video of the MiG-25 incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8 This. With the networked sensors shared between aircraft, it becomes less problematic to have a couple F-22's act as shepherds on a large number of drones. The F-22's or even AWACs could do all the target designation for the drones. Drones would most likely be semi-autonomous - target selection would be by a human. The engagement then becomes the responsibility of the drone. One controller could probably easily direct a dozen or more drones in either air to air or air to ground actions.
From a price performance perspective, this will happen sooner than most appreciate. |
|
Wide stare sensors are still not quite sufficent, but they're maturing rapidly because of active defence and surveillance systems. Drones can already find and kill targets autonomously, it's unlikely they'd use a link in a serious air to air fight. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: Right. The link is only for target acquisition and target selection. Once you give the engage, the link is not needed. I doubt we will go to completely autonomous target selection at the drone level - at least not for a long time.Wide stare sensors are still not quite sufficent, but they're maturing rapidly because of active defence and surveillance systems. Drones can already find and kill targets autonomously, it's unlikely they'd use a link in a serious air to air fight. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The last time we fielded a maneuverable UAV even as a test vehicle was 1983. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/Small/ECN-14273.jpg Trust me when I say fighter type UCAVs are nowhere on anybody's radar right now. The fighter guys who run DoD simply won't allow it. Until this generation dies off (retires) and some of the current pred driving types make it into the flag officer ranks fighter UCAVs threaten way too many rice bowls. I don't agree. There are plenty in DoD who are considering it. I know whereof I speak. The problem is technical, and will be for some time. But the the current generation of UCAV's CAN be capable of high dynamic flight, though that hasn't been the focus of their development so far. You're talking out your ass. We have EO/IR sensors as good as any mkI mod 0 eyeball. LOS datalinks have no latency problem. You have no clue what pathetic pieces of shit the current generation of UAV airframes (which are good to maybe 4 Gs) are. Get back to me when you've worked in the UAV field for a few years. If we had any intention of creating UCAVs that can fight ATA we'd have some of those low time F-16As from AMARG outfitted with datalinks and sensors and in the fight. We could do it in 6 months, but we don't and we wont. Oh Really? What UAV programs have YOU worked on? You're full of shit. EO/IR sensors are not anywhere NEAR good enough to be an autonomous sensor, and they are typically NOT very good at the things which are intuitive to humans, such as rapid search and trajectory analysis. Work is being done there, but it is in its infancy. 20 years away is my bet, at least. Heck, we're having trouble making EO/IR sensors work well enough for probe and drogue-style refueling. FWIW, I've been working in the UAV field for 10 years. If you REALLY think we could have autonomous fighters NOW, you're utterly deluded. |
|
Quoted:
If we ended up fighting a top tier opponent what are the chances of our drones being jammed, hacked, or satellites taken out? Is it worth going all in on the drone bandwagon if someone figures out how to take our control methods out. The UCAV's we have today can operate autonomously in a loss of comms scenario. Modern links also allow relaying and are pretty tough to jam. Hacking would be difficult since the links are encrypted. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The last time we fielded a maneuverable UAV even as a test vehicle was 1983. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/Small/ECN-14273.jpg Trust me when I say fighter type UCAVs are nowhere on anybody's radar right now. The fighter guys who run DoD simply won't allow it. Until this generation dies off (retires) and some of the current pred driving types make it into the flag officer ranks fighter UCAVs threaten way too many rice bowls. I don't agree. There are plenty in DoD who are considering it. I know whereof I speak. The problem is technical, and will be for some time. But the the current generation of UCAV's CAN be capable of high dynamic flight, though that hasn't been the focus of their development so far. You're talking out your ass. We have EO/IR sensors as good as any mkI mod 0 eyeball. LOS datalinks have no latency problem. You have no clue what pathetic pieces of shit the current generation of UAV airframes (which are good to maybe 4 Gs) are. Get back to me when you've worked in the UAV field for a few years. If we had any intention of creating UCAVs that can fight ATA we'd have some of those low time F-16As from AMARG outfitted with datalinks and sensors and in the fight. We could do it in 6 months, but we don't and we wont. Oh Really? What UAV programs have YOU worked on? You're full of shit. EO/IR sensors are not anywhere NEAR good enough to be an autonomous sensor, and they are typically NOT very good at the things which are intuitive to humans, such as rapid search and trajectory analysis. Work is being done there, but it is in its infancy. 20 years away is my bet, at least. Heck, we're having trouble making EO/IR sensors work well enough for probe and drogue-style refueling. FWIW, I've been working in the UAV field for 10 years. If you REALLY think we could have autonomous fighters NOW, you're utterly deluded. I'm a "plankowner" in the USAF's very first UAV squadron, in 1995. I worked on predator air vehicle #1. The very first ACTD airframe we ever flew. I can name 50 UAV programs in service or in development that are completely air to ground focused. Manta, Taranis, X-47, etc. Name one that even has a secondary air to air role. There isn't one. I didn't say anything about autonomous ATA UCAVs, you did. We can operate any number of existing fighters in an unmanned role via LOS datalink. The will to do so is completely lacking, not the capability to do so. |
I was wondering why it took so long to have these guys posted  Quoted: They are already here: http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/terminator/images/8/88/HK-Drone_Retracted.JPG These are their friends: http://cache.io9.com/assets/resources/2008/04/Terminator3-07.jpg |
|
Quoted:The will to do so is completely lacking, not the capability to do so.
Wasn't it just a couple years ago that Gates had to beat the Air Force in the head with a stick to get them to concentrate on UAV's at all? IIRC the brass turnover in 08' had a lot to do with UAV operations, or lack thereof. |
These started testing in 2008, with sea trials planned in 2011 according to wikipedia.
It's designed to carry JDAMs, but IMHO it's only a matter of time before someone sticks AMRAAMs on the thing. |
|
Quoted: These started testing in 2008, with sea trials planned in 2011 according to wikipedia. http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7304/ngx47b.jpg It's designed to carry JDAMs, but IMHO it's only a matter of time before someone sticks AMRAAMs on the thing. It's no more a fighter than the B-2 is. It's basically an unmanned A-12, 20 years late. ETA: We could easily launch an amraam off of a cessna 208, but that doesn't make it a fighter. Combat caravan FTW!  http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A968de512-23e1-4749-b79e-6db8ee90931a |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
These started testing in 2008, with sea trials planned in 2011 according to wikipedia. http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7304/ngx47b.jpg It's designed to carry JDAMs, but IMHO it's only a matter of time before someone sticks AMRAAMs on the thing. It's no more a fighter than the B-2 is. It's basically an unmanned A-12, 20 years late. ETA: We could easily launch an amraam off of a cessna 208, but that doesn't make it a fighter. Combat caravan FTW! http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/11/15d2e306-5d54-4682-9b08-cd1403dcd14b.Large.jpg http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A968de512-23e1-4749-b79e-6db8ee90931a I guess it depends on what you mean by a fighter. But I don't see why you couldn't stick AMRAAMs on the thing and guide them with an AWACS or a manned fighter. |
|
Quoted: A fighter is an aircraft that can maneuver with, and has a chance of survival against, a manned fighter. I guess it depends on what you mean by a fighter. But I don't see why you couldn't stick AMRAAMs on the thing and guide them with an AWACS or a manned fighter. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 20-30 years. The power of the fighter mafia, in both the AF and Navy, is strong. The first truly fighter-like UCAV isn't even on the drawing boards yet. Not so. My brother works for Martin Lockheed and said 3 companies have flying prototypes NOW. The programs are called ? Which companies ? Or is it so super secret we can't be told? I get AW&ST each week, among many other aviation publications. I'm sure they'd like to know about these mythical programs. |
| The autonomous technology exists now in various forms. The limiting factor is politics and rules of engagement. Current rules require human eyes-on-target before permission to engage is received. I don't think the politicians or generals would risk an autonomous device making a shoot decision. |
|
We will see them first in the squire role.
Cheap ordnance carriers flitting about in the battle space nominally cued off of manned fighter craft. Imagine a f-22 pilot with a handful of autonomous squires in formation with him. He can see whatever they see through a datalink, and he can designate how close he wants them to hang with him. He can sorty drones where he wants, and they are programmed to take an intercept course if a ordnance is released at the manned fighter. When he performs manuevers the drone craft respond in kind, and he gets a tone whenever ANY of them have a shot on the enemy. Potentially he could designate a target and the drones would attempt to line up on them while the manned fighter performs evasive manuevers. Ultimately he is the one responsible for releasing ordnance however. This is viewed as one of the better setups as it maintains the "Man in the loop" for contextualized situational determinations, while giving him tremendously more options. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
20-30 years. The power of the fighter mafia, in both the AF and Navy, is strong. The first truly fighter-like UCAV isn't even on the drawing boards yet. Not so. My brother works for Martin Lockheed and said 3 companies have flying prototypes NOW. Remind your brother not to talk to you anymore. |
|
Quoted: We will see them first in the squire role. Cheap ordnance carriers flitting about in the battle space nominally cued off of manned fighter craft. Imagine a f-22 pilot with a handful of autonomous squires in formation with him. He can see whatever they see through a datalink, and he can designate how close he wants them to hang with him. He can sorty drones where he wants, and they are programmed to take an intercept course if a ordnance is released at the manned fighter. When he performs manuevers the drone craft respond in kind, and he gets a tone whenever ANY of them have a shot on the enemy. Potentially he could designate a target and the drones would attempt to line up on them while the manned fighter performs evasive manuevers. Ultimately he is the one responsible for releasing ordnance however. This is viewed as one of the better setups as it maintains the "Man in the loop" for contextualized situational determinations, while giving him tremendously more options. The "knights and squires" arrangement has much appeal, but it also has significant drawbacks. First off, the F-22 (and the F-35) are single seat aircraft. The lone pilot doesn't have the time to devote to monitoring and operating a horde of even semi-autonomous UCAVs. What do the "squires" do at the end of the normal boring ass patrol? Can they in flight refuel along with the "knight", can they land themselves to be used again? By the time we build "cheap" squires that can refuel in flight, and takeoff and land autonomously we've spent as much as we did on the F-22 or F-35 to start with. So much for "cheap". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The last time we fielded a maneuverable UAV even as a test vehicle was 1983. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/Small/ECN-14273.jpg Trust me when I say fighter type UCAVs are nowhere on anybody's radar right now. The fighter guys who run DoD simply won't allow it. Until this generation dies off (retires) and some of the current pred driving types make it into the flag officer ranks fighter UCAVs threaten way too many rice bowls. I don't agree. There are plenty in DoD who are considering it. I know whereof I speak. The problem is technical, and will be for some time. But the the current generation of UCAV's CAN be capable of high dynamic flight, though that hasn't been the focus of their development so far. You're talking out your ass. We have EO/IR sensors as good as any mkI mod 0 eyeball. LOS datalinks have no latency problem. You have no clue what pathetic pieces of shit the current generation of UAV airframes (which are good to maybe 4 Gs) are. Get back to me when you've worked in the UAV field for a few years. If we had any intention of creating UCAVs that can fight ATA we'd have some of those low time F-16As from AMARG outfitted with datalinks and sensors and in the fight. We could do it in 6 months, but we don't and we wont. Oh Really? What UAV programs have YOU worked on? You're full of shit. EO/IR sensors are not anywhere NEAR good enough to be an autonomous sensor, and they are typically NOT very good at the things which are intuitive to humans, such as rapid search and trajectory analysis. Work is being done there, but it is in its infancy. 20 years away is my bet, at least. Heck, we're having trouble making EO/IR sensors work well enough for probe and drogue-style refueling. FWIW, I've been working in the UAV field for 10 years. If you REALLY think we could have autonomous fighters NOW, you're utterly deluded. I'm a "plankowner" in the USAF's very first UAV squadron, in 1995. I worked on predator air vehicle #1. The very first ACTD airframe we ever flew. I can name 50 UAV programs in service or in development that are completely air to ground focused. Manta, Taranis, X-47, etc. Name one that even has a secondary air to air role. There isn't one. I didn't say anything about autonomous ATA UCAVs, you did. We can operate any number of existing fighters in an unmanned role via LOS datalink. The will to do so is completely lacking, not the capability to do so. Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that no AtA role is being considered for any of these? 'Cause if you are, you are wrong. Very wrong. How do I know? Because I am working on one of these programs RIGHT NOW. I obviously cannot go into details. But the limitation, as I said, is based on the the capability of giving these aircraft SA in close range ACM. We cannot do it atm. The capability you are talking about is not nearly enough.... such an aircraft would be little more than a target drone once ranges were closed. You obviously know something of the subject, but on this matter, you are just plain ole wrong. What did you do on UAV's if I may ask? Based on your avatar, I'd say senior NCO Aircraft Munitions Maintenance? |
|
Pure conjecture on my part, but considering the lag time between development and actual declared capability is as much as 10 years for some projects, like the F117 etc...
I think we already have UCAV's that can fulfill an air-to-air mission. I don't think they can dogfight, especially with guns for the reasons Strongbow states, but I'd think that ones that can get into ATA missile range and fire it at a target an AWAC's or similar confirms is "unfriendly" are possible. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A fighter is an aircraft that can maneuver with, and has a chance of survival against, a manned fighter.
I guess it depends on what you mean by a fighter. But I don't see why you couldn't stick AMRAAMs on the thing and guide them with an AWACS or a manned fighter. What makes you think this a/c cannot be made capable of doing so eventually? Keep in mind the current airframes were built for a very specific purpose. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
20-30 years. The power of the fighter mafia, in both the AF and Navy, is strong. The first truly fighter-like UCAV isn't even on the drawing boards yet. Not so. My brother works for Martin Lockheed and said 3 companies have flying prototypes NOW. I think your brother is in error. I WILL say I know of at least two companies that have plans and early developments. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
20-30 years. The power of the fighter mafia, in both the AF and Navy, is strong. The first truly fighter-like UCAV isn't even on the drawing boards yet. Not so. My brother works for Martin Lockheed and said 3 companies have flying prototypes NOW. The programs are called ? Which companies ? Or is it so super secret we can't be told? I get AW&ST each week, among many other aviation publications. I'm sure they'd like to know about these mythical programs. Just 'cause it's not in Aviation Leak, doesn't mean it ain't happening. |
|
Quoted:The "knights and squires" arrangement has much appeal, but it also has significant drawbacks. First off, the F-22 (and the F-35) are single seat aircraft. The lone pilot doesn't have the time to devote to monitoring and operating a horde of even semi-autonomous UCAVs. What do the "squires" do at the end of the normal boring ass patrol? Can they in flight refuel along with the "knight", can they land themselves to be used again? By the time we build "cheap" squires that can refuel in flight, and takeoff and land autonomously we've spent as much as we did on the F-22 or F-35 to start with. So much for "cheap".
I think the single seat thing isn't a huge limitation, what with technology and automation. Navy managed to turn a four seat EA-6B into a 2 seat Growler. Plus, in one article about simulated combat the writer talked about F-22s that had expended all their ordnance going high up and spending the rest of their time ordering -16s and -15s about and guiding their weapons. If you can get the programming good enough, a UCAV could be used there instead. I highly doubt the first few generations of UCAVs will be doing ACM, but "go here, shoot AIM-120 at target 1 and 2 that i have illuminated with my radar, leave area" is a good starting point and little different from what UCAVs like the X-45A have already demonstrated against ground targets (before it was cancelled). (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q1/nr_050214s.html) I personally think the whole "knight and squires" thing is what will come first, but I agree that it won't be cheap. Refueling in flight and landings are all possible, of course. ETA: Strongbow, somebody once told me that if you have to start or end a sentence with "I can't really talk about it" you shouldn't have completed the rest of the sentence. ETA2: \/\/ I think a missile truck is where will start. Tie them to a F-22 and you've basically got stealthy reloads for the Raptor. The only real point would be to give extra missiles to the F-22. |
|
Quoted:
These started testing in 2008, with sea trials planned in 2011 according to wikipedia. <a href="http://img9.imageshack.us/i/ngx47b.jpg/" target="_blank">http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7304/ngx47b.jpg</a> It's designed to carry JDAMs, but IMHO it's only a matter of time before someone sticks AMRAAMs on the thing. Sounds more like a missile truck than a fighter. 
|
|
strongbow and chairborne:
take it offline. you guys know how this works on forums. you both are in the field, and you both have info that can't be shared on an open forum. but you disagree strongly, so both of you are going to be tempted to demonstrate your bona fides by hints and circumlocutions about stuff that shouldn't be addressed openly at all. i'm glad to know that both of you are working to keep us safe, but i'd feel a lot better if you guys weren't at each other's throats using sensitive info as weapons. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
These started testing in 2008, with sea trials planned in 2011 according to wikipedia. <a href="http://img9.imageshack.us/i/ngx47b.jpg/" target="_blank">http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7304/ngx47b.jpg</a> It's designed to carry JDAMs, but IMHO it's only a matter of time before someone sticks AMRAAMs on the thing. Sounds more like a missile truck than a fighter. If the missile out-legs the enemy because it's a third-world pest-hole using old Soviet tech and 2nd/3rd gen fighters and missiles, a "missile truck" is all we need. And can splash them without any chance of embarrasing pilot deaths or POW/MIA situations wich inflames political agitation at home, which has been our main Achilles Heel since Viet Nam... |
|
Quoted:
The autonomous technology exists now in various forms. The limiting factor is politics and rules of engagement. Current rules require human eyes-on-target before permission to engage is received. I don't think the politicians or generals would risk an autonomous device making a shoot decision. Really, human eyes on target. Care to source that claim? |