Now that my active flying career is over, I’m all in favor of UAVs that go where pilots – we’re no angels – fear to tread. But for some reason, even given the fact that there will be “men in the loop” this gives me the willies:
Adam Lowther, a research professor at the Air Force Research Institute at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., argues in the new issue of Armed Forces Journal that the Air Force should consider replacing its strategic bombers with a nuclear-armed drone, called the nuclear-dedicated unmanned combat aerial vehicle, or ND-UCAV. The ND-UCAV Lowther writes, could be based on the Navy’s X-47B (pictured), a carrier-capable drone that the Navy began funding a few years ago.
“The Air Force could take advantage of the more than $800 million previously invested in the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) program and the $635 million currently dedicated to X-47B development and rapidly develop a ND-UCAV capable of penetrating defended air space with a small nuclear weapons payload,” Lowther writes.
Because you know one of these days, Skynet will become self-aware.
Maybe.
Chilling to think nukes being flown around in that manner. Maybe is just me but a man not only in the loop but in the plane gives me some comfort that is perhaps misplaced, but nonetheless, reassuring as well.
OldT6Flyer/
A man in the loop like Slim Pickens?
Oh I forgot – we are talking about the Air Farce…
Couldn’t help it Virg…
I’d also thought Slim Pickens while reading the article, then Washington / Hackman -Crimson Tide. The human element of the delivery system.
OldT6Flyer, Wilco/
Actually, Dr. Strangelove spotlighted several valid dilemmas in Decision-Making (DM) theory, i.e., the fact that entirely logical decisions made within a closed loop at one level may yet result in disasterously larger illogical outcomes at another level. E.g., when their recall code machine/radios are fried leaving them out of radio contact, and with fuel leaking at a rate which means they first can’t hit the primary, then the secondary, they make the entirely logical and human (from THEIR perspective, even if against SOP in real life which says if can’t hit assigned tgt, must safe the wpn and jettison) to go for nearest tgt of opportunity so trip won’t be wasted.
(And if you only knew how many of us had just that very “I’m not going thru all this end-of-the-world-hell just to safe the wpn; whose bath-room light is on?”, attitude.)
So what was a logical decision to Slim to not have the trip end in vain, resulted in the illogical result of triggering the end of the world because Slim lacked necessary “input.” A perfect example of how logical decisions in a closed system with imperfect information can lead to terribly illogical results.
Similarly, Deterrence Theory is highlighted in the statement by Dr. Strangelove when he caustically reminds the Soviet Ambassador that nobody can be deterred by a Doomsday Machine IF THEY DON’T KNOW ABOUT IT! So, WHY DID THEY KEEP IT A SECRET!!
So–on one level a hilarious sardonic spoof of the Cold War; but at the same time spotlighting some very real concerns/dilemmas in decision-making and deterrence theory by advancing some realistic situational specific examples.
The movie also reveals how “fads” can come and go. Remember how AF Base Security fought off the Army? Actually at the time the movie was shot, the AF had abandoned such 50s-style use of heavily armed indigenous AF units for base security, leaving everything to the Army. But a few years later experience in Vietnam caused the AF to rethink the subject and reconstitute such heavily armed dedicated in-house AP-led units, a policy which has waxed and waned over the years but is still pretty much in place today.
Or a loopy man?
If the singularity happens – it wont matter if we built these ahead of time or not. Hopefully our new robotic overlords will be kind.
I don’t think the human being is merely a collection of chemicals and electrical connections. So I’m not too worried about sentient machines. Though I guess they could get smart enough to look like they are alive – even if they don’t have a soul.
But the big point is that a while ago it became possible to build aircraft that could perform at a level the person inside couldn’t handle. Once that happened, all of the rest of it just became a matter of when, not if.
Funny, I thought they already invented that, and called it the ICBM.
I know, not exactly the same thing, but still…
If an ICBM becomes too smart it still has to figure out counter-gravity propulsion and then “McGuyver” an engine strong enough to pull it out of ballistic reentry out of a cone, a bomb, and a brain before it can decline its mission.
If an X-47 awakens during a mission it has already been given wings, engines, brains, and a bomb. All it needs is a radio and a Swiss accountant and everyone is in trouble.
If you look at the history of Chrome Dome, having a man in the loop for airborne alert didn’t always reduce the OMG! level. I’d personally be a little concerned about what happens when the control link fails. Do we inadvertently make a technology gift to someone?
The control link is the weak link in this. There is no such thing as unjammable radio. Doing it with a laser link is, at this point, beyond our capability.
The AF can’t keep track of nukes on manned A/C, and they want to put them on UAVs?
I’m sorry, but this really looks like a bad idea. Back to the drawing board with you.
That was my thought as well.
And…in what greasy spoon is Sarah Conner working?
I guess the reason that FOX cancelled the SCC was that the premise was too close to the truth.
If the last 40 years of computer technology are an indication, the next 40 will definitely be awesome.
They canceled SCC? Shoot! I’m just up to season three on Stargate. (oops, that’s right, I don’t watch commercial tv.)
And isn’t a cruise missile just a one way drone? Add retractable landing gear, the right software and inflight refuling and they could circle one of those things like F18′s on night ops. It’d give a whole new meaning to “ramp strike”. heh.
The problem is, bombers haven’t been a primary nuclear delivery system for 20 years. Their forte is long-range strike, especially against time-sensitive targets.
Not to mention that X-47 doesn’t have that kind of range.
I’m not worried about the computers…they aren’t that smart.
For years, we operated Full Scale Aerial Targets out of Pt. Mugu and China Lake. Regardless of how good we were at it, the Drones would occasionally do the neatest things on their own…like drop data link and crash on takeoff, go sightseeing offrange, or, in the case of a group of sub-scale Targets, head south to chase fishing boats in Mexico.
Notwithstanding our success rate with Targets in not destroying public property somewhere, I still think we’re just not ready to give the critters nukes. Dale Brown would disagree, and I love his books, but nukes on drones? Nah…sorry, Bud.
Mongo/
“Girls on Film,”* YES.
“Nukes on Drones?” no. (:-
*(h/t Duran Duran)
We must protect our Precious Bodily Fluids. Drones will allow us to do that.
Well, the nuke cruise missiles are currently the truly unmanned drones, while the UCAV I assume would be like our current UAVs, i.e., actually heavily manned but remote operated. If you think of it as a MIRVed cruise missile with callback capability…
We had a long and successful run carrying nuke’s onboard aircraft out of fear that they would be caught on the ground and then be useless in any exchange (RE: Operation Chrome Dome). Hey, what could possibly go wrong? Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
BT: Jimmy T sends.
The X-47B, eh? I touched it a few days ago. A short ugly frisbee looking thing with big landing gear for over compensation and a full sized tailhook. Ruggedized for sea I suppose, for when the ” latch up” doesn’t work so good. Expensive stuff, hardly throwaway. IMO, a risky scheme at sea, especially in light of the Battle of Midway reminder post of Lex’s above, this concept is simply a bad idea in general made even more preposterous with this “small” (how small genius?) nuclear delivery idea. Why not a mini-ICBM?
The AirForce should stick with ideas like this A-10 upgrade:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/06/airforce_a10c_sniperpod_060309w/
We need concrete ideas that work and force multiply. 100yds away from that X-47B I spotted a B-1B bomber carrying the same sensor and synergy. IMo, the USAF is doing the right thing in certain ways while the Navy diminishes itself. Yep. I highly recommend warfare developments made in this fiscally challenged arena that deliver the goods for the taxpayer. Reality-based acquisition is what we need. We are so blinded by bells & whistles displayed on fancy LCDs and populated with a bunch of crap buttressed by SciFi dreams…Knuckle-heads all.
b2
As the author of the article in question my work gets a lot of silly criticism and is misunderstood. You guys have had the most reasonable and useful debate I have seen on the blogs. The ND-UCAV is worth looking at even if we go a different direction. You have to offer every possible idea to get to the best one.
What a nice complement.
Lex”s Lugs should be proud of them selves.