Strategy page rubs salt in it:
The U.S. Air Force has a morale problem with its combat pilots. The issue is lack of action for the pilots. That, plus the increased use of unmanned aircraft, and the very real prospect that the age of the manned combat aircraft may be coming to an end. This is made worse with hundreds of fighter pilots being assigned to operating Predator and Reaper UAVs. This was not popular duty, even though the pilots still draw flight pay. It is tedious work, although the UAV operators often saw more combat action than they did when piloting F-16s or F-15s..
It’s not just that most of the those American air force generals began their careers as fighter pilots. No, the reason is more practical. American air superiority has largely been the result of superior pilots. The U.S. didn’t always have the best aircraft, but they always had the most talented and resourceful pilots. And that’s what gave the U.S. its edge. Will that translate to software piloted fighters? Research to date seems to indicate it will…
The potential superiority of U.S. pilotless fighters is partly driven by the fact that most American fighter pilots are geeks. Many can create software, and have a deep understanding of the many computers, and their software, that modern aircraft contain. It’s the fighter pilots who will play a key role in creating the best “software pilots.” Thus the thinking is that American control of the air will be maintained by a new generation combat aircraft controlled by software, not someone in a cockpit.
We prefer the term “tech savvy.”
Now give me all your lunch money, before I break an AMRAAM over your pointy little head.
Plus there is that minor difference about being shot at in real life versus hitting SAVE on the video game and restarting at that point.
It has been studied that the heart rate, adrenaline levels, and breathing go up similar in video game players and pilots….. but the video game is missing the visceral feedback inherent in flying real metal versus an LCD. Maybe if there was a pain feedback along with those thump seat speakers, olfactory stimulus machines, and a electronically controlled hammer artfully poised overhead would provide some of those same feelings of death that a real plane would provide.
I could drive a video race car (or plane) all day but it still isn’t the same as running the I45 (I10, 290, U.S. 59) Houston raceway at 2pm (or even I35, 30, 20, 635 in Dallas). Somehow the real chance of being killed on the roadway versus the virtual video chance just ain’t the same.
I always thought that you boys were Naval Aviators, while the Air Force had mere fighter pilots…
No matter… in a couple of decades they’ll both go the way of the horse cavalry and the costal artillery. Best
Yep, don’t need live pilots anymore cuz the software is so good. Sorry, I’ve heard this one before, only it went “air-to-air missiles are so fast and accurate we don’t need guns any more.”
yeah – and remember when they replaced horses with trucks and tanks? what a debacle that was.
you’re right that it didn’t work as well immediately – that doesn’t mean it wont ultimately be true. moving forward is inevitable and unless the technological level of the world gets somehow reset, humans will be less directly involved in combat at an ever increasing level.
we are too slow and too limited to outperform automated systems.
JR, for response time, maybe. For decision cycle speed, the software does not match the “wetware”, i.e., the human brain. Besides that, software tends to think in pattern response, whereas Naval Aviators tend to think in terms of, “Whats the best way to shoot that SOB in the snot locker when he ain’t expecting it?”
We are no where near the level of artificial intelligence we need to replace the guy at the stick. We are also a long way from where we need to be to be able to place an all drone force in the air that can perform like the Air Wings do now either.
Another issue is the comm link. With ASAT capability the comm links are all terribly vulnerable, and line of sight RC is woefully insufficient. One of the first things, if not THE first thing, to happen will the loss of the satellite network. That, in fact, may be the opening gambit in any war against us. We are so technologically dependent the AF has removed warm body Navigators from most, or by now all, large AC and I think the inertial navigators are gone as well. GPS rules the roost and if those satellites get negated there will be hell to pay.
Stealth may make it hard for radar to find you, but the old Mark 1 Eyeball still functions just as well. Given the combination of factors I see, trying to go to an unmanned AF would be a foolish act. There are applications where drones make a lot of sense, but not a complete drone AF.
The Thunderdrone joke is just that, a joke.
It will happen in stages but as things move forward, it is inevitable that manned systems wont be able to keep up. The infrastructure to support this will develop at the same time. In World War I it was impossible to support a large armed force without horses. The infrastructure wasn’t in place to allow the fragile and (for then) complicated mechanized vehicles to do the job. By WWII that had all changed.
The same will happen with unmanned air, sea and land systems.
I would assume that the issue you mention with satellites is a large part of the reason that Darpa is working on unmanned aircraft that can stay at very high altitudes for long durations. I don’t have any kind of clearance (or I probably wouldn’t even be in this conversation I guess) but I’d be shocked if more isn’t in the works based on what I see out there in the very public eye.
In Afghanistan it got some attention that special forces folks were using animals. There will always be niches for throwback stuff. But ultimately – manned aerial combat wont make sense as a normative way of doing business.
Speaking from personal observation, real fighter pilots drove Vettes or rode their Harley nekkid going out the gate, talked a lot with their hands, kept the breweries in positive cash flow, damn well had a good game face at the Poker table, and thought if it didn’t have a gun it wasn’t worth flying…
The new generation were pretty good gamers, too, but it wasn’t a prerequisite to flying Fighters.
PS A lot of the Fighter Pilots I knew unlocked their wings PRIOR to landing…
God, if fighter guys are geeks, what does that make patrol bubbas?
Gomers, Best
People who sucked too much per diem out of the coffers?
Eight men and a truck?
Joe, it takes a surprising amount of time to write and debug software. The S/W for a UAV intended to do anything more challenging than basic flight will take decades to write.
Assuming that the desired end result is a fighter that acts like the current manned fighters. If that isn’t the case, a lot of the software is already written. And the better the machines get at writing the software, the quicker the turnaround will be on new products.
Even so – decades isn’t that long. What will be out there in 20 years? And who will have the most and best of them? It will be interesting at the very least.
JR, what they are talking about IS replacing that fighter jock in the cockpit.
As for DARPA working on comm drones at high altitude, that’s not something that takes an awful lot. That’s a matter of endurance at altitude.
The weakness is the problem of RF radiation that says to a missile, “here I am, come shoot me down.” Bottom line – there is no substitute for a man at the stick, in the air. The “Price of Admiralty” is the risk of men in combat. The button pushers have dreamed for years that we will be able to push buttons to fight the enemy, with little risk to men. While it has been many years since I was involved in Software Engineering, I am all to aware of what it takes, and the weaknesses of software systems. We are still taking baby steps in the realm of artificial intelligence, and this after more than 20 years of work. Unless there is some massive breakthrough, we will not be very much further down the road towards producing any sort of artificial sentience. And sentience is the very sort of thing that will be required. So far, only God has been able to produce such a thing, and you and I are it. I hold little hope that man will ever be able to do it.
Call me anything you want, jes don’t make me wear them birth control glasses with the tape on the nosepiece, and a scarf – ugh scuze me – unit ascot.
Who Are You Calling Geek, Journo-boy?
Umm… maybe the blogger with the “Tech Lust” category?
Having been in charge of 14 project managers, mostly for CG (ACDS Blk 0)/DD/DDG/FFG, but also JTIDS, BFTT and some international work, I will tell you no one wanted to pay for testing software “Oh, you write good stuff, we should have to worry…” was the common comment from DC and other places.
Near the end of the gig, I got into System/Software Safety…which, for the record was pioneered with the POLARIS Missile program, and well developed in NASA, and I was involved in a few projects. Sat in on the WSERB for a major program and told them: You have to do the analysis. They promised the reviews why would man up and devote several man years to it. The CS safety guy was ecstatic, the program was given the green light to move ahead. The safety guy calls me a few weeks later, tells me his asst is chopped and he is put on it for 1/2 a man year. Later, testing happened at sea and, OMG! LOOK AT THE TRACK OVERLOAD! HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!
So…stand by to stand by when geeks encounter bean counters!
Xformed
I worked briefly in the aerospace industry before joining the Navy. Americans aren’t going into engineering anymore in college, especially post-grad, and if they aren’t taking underwater basket weaving studies they’re taking econ/business. Every DESIGN and TECHNICAL meeting I went to was nearly 50/50 engineers/business types. Some were over half biz types. The biz types did NOT understand engineering, nor did they add any value since at the end of the day the engineers were the ones making the product which had value added. The old-timers alerted me to this as being weird BTW, since they were used to more of a 90/10 split, with the business rep keeping them in check and letting them know if what they wanted to do was affordable or worthwhile.
I’m afraid this is going to be a growing problem in American industry just demographically (number of Americans getting engineering degrees, not race or anything like that) and that policy reform will be trying to fix the wrong problem. A tangible crystallization of this fear I personally think the JSF is a bean counter’s wet dream that will prove both too expensive and not capable enough, the apotheosis of jack of all trades, master of none.
I don’t mean to be too mean to the business development side of the house, they really do provide a vital service. It’s just that you only need so many of them and usually more engineers, but our colleges are turning out more of them than engineers so we’re putting them in positions that really do require specialized training that they lack. The results won’t be satisfactory.
I know this is a day late and a dollar short (or more, on both counts), but I have to say that most of the people I’ve met in engineering schools over the last ten years have been American citizens, born and raised in the US. That goes for the code guys as well as the hardware guys, and the ones who insist on pursuing the math and theory versus the ones who demand lab data to back things up. I will admit that we don’t churn out the PhD-level engineers quite like the Chinese and Indians do right now, and we don’t have nearly as many engineers in total as anyone even remotely connected to the field would like. But I’ll also admit that for most things – even most things in defense and aerospace – you don’t really need the full PhD level of training. If the task is evolutionary – including making avionics, manned and unmanned – then a BS or MS should get you along just fine, to the extent that the concept allows. If the task is truly revolutionary – DE guys, I’m looking at you – then I’d expect everyone on the program just about down to the janitor to either have a PhD or be working toward it. But that’s only because you’re honest-to-God writing the textbook as you go along.
Upthread QM mentioned that the RF signal coming into a remote-piloted drone is like having a big “HIT ME” sign. And earlier he mentioned that the weak link is the satellite that handles the traffic. Those are what I see as showstoppers at this point. But that’s more of an “is this a good idea in the first place” kind of problem, not a “how can we make this good idea work” one. If you’ve got bad assumptions underpinning the foundation for your work, nothing you build on it will stand, no matter how good the engineering on it is. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that ship has probably already sailed.
Blacksmith/
Your last para about the ship having sailed on the underlying assumptions is oh so right. And while I’ll admit it’s great to have when the stuff is working and it would be stupid not to take advantage of the capability as long it is working; to hang everything on something that might disappear overnight due to enemy counter measures is equally stupid–and obvious–yet that’s just what we’ve done. No Plan A.2 let alone Plan B. One doesn’t need 30 yrs, 4 stars and every command and staff school extant to figure that one out; it is blindingly intuitively obvious–to everyone except the big kids.
You got something against us excessively earnest and socially awkward folks?