| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Gates says next-generation bomber might fly without pilot |
| 2009-05-15 |
| Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers Thursday he is considering making the Air Force's next-generation long-range bomber a pilotless aircraft -- an ambitious undertaking that would put unmanned technologies at the forefront of U.S. offensive military capabilities. The Air Force had planned to field a manned bomber in 2018, but Gates canceled the nascent program in the fiscal 2010 budget request sent to Capitol Hill last week. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Gates said advances in unmanned technologies since the Air Force launched the bomber program in 2006 were among the reasons he stopped the program, which was not under contract. "Does it need a pilot in it?" he asked. Gates said he will review requirements for the bomber during the Quadrennial Defense Review of military capabilities and needs, now under way. The Air Force, long steeped in the culture of combat aircraft pilots, had been expected to field a manned bomber, but officials in recent years left open the option of an unmanned version of the aircraft. In recent weeks, Gates and other top Pentagon officials have emphasized in statements that the future of aviation rests largely in the unmanned aerial vehicle-technology that has been used increasingly in Iraq and Afghanistan, for traditional surveillance and reconnaissance missions, and striking targets. Indeed, the fiscal 2010 budget request includes nearly $1.3 billion to buy 60 Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles, $1.5 billion for five Global Hawks and $225 million to buy 1,232 smaller Raven and Shadow UAVs -- with more investments expected. During Thursday's testimony, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen said the military is at a "real transition time here" regarding the mix of manned and unmanned aircraft. The four-star admiral added he is "inclined to believe" that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in development will be the last manned fighter jet procured by the U.S. military. Meanwhile, Gates shot down any suggestion that the Air Force needs more than the 187 F-22 Raptor fighter jets planned, saying the F-22 fleet, when combined with F-35s and UAVs, will be more than adequate to meet any threat, including one from China. "If you're only talking about the F-22, there may be merit to some of these arguments," Gates said. "But the fact is the F-22 is not going to be the only aircraft in the tac [tactical] air arsenal." Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., whose state has the F-22 assembly plant, said the military needs more Raptors, which have air-to-ground capabilities, because of the proliferation of surface-to-air missiles. But Gates replied that "the only defense against surface-to-air missiles is not something that has a pilot in it." |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #9 Shaking GREEN LANTERN fists angrily. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-05-15 19:34 |
| #8 Unmanned strategic bomber versus UNMANNED ARMED DIRIGIBLE = UNMANNED AIRBORNE ARSENAL/FIRE SHIP. * D *** NGED "NICK FURY" + SHIELD, SHADO, etc! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-05-15 19:33 |
| #7 As incompetent as the Department of Defense seems to be at cybersecurity, the idea of placing vital segments of our national defense in a position to be operated remotely seems somewhat... short-sighted. Prove to me that you actually take network security seriously, and maybe then I might believe that you could successfully fight a war with oh, say, China via remote control. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-05-15 18:00 |
| #6 Most of the newer mods of F-16 and F-15 can easily outfly the pilot, pulling enough Gs to incapacitate or even kill pilots without overstressing the airframe. The flight control software does not permit such movements as a normal flight item, but can be disabled for known combat situations. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2009-05-15 17:52 |
| #5 any signal can in theory be jammed... Arificial Intelligence. Programs that not only deliver a payload to a defined target, but can react to threats, divert to alternative targets, even re-evaluate the target. Even cruise missiles can do some of that now. Not only can an unmanned aircraft be lighter without the human support system, it can be designed to the limits of the materials and not to the limits of the crew. You can make aircraft that will stay glued together as they pull g's to the point of killing the pilot even with the anti-g suits. Take out the pilot and pull g's til the airframes break. Then build stronger airframes. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-05-15 16:50 |
| #4 With all the cockpit accoutrements needed only for a human pilot stripped out, a given craft can maybe be lighter or cheaper or both. With the ability of one UAV "pilot" to fly several craft at once, the savings would add up. Of course, any signal can in theory be jammed... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2009-05-15 16:03 |
| #3 Careful, you're rapidly approaching "Skynet". |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-05-15 15:34 |
| #2 Perhaps it is time to consider an alternate force structure. A robot airforce would suggest just folding the robots into the existing Navy and Army. But is that the best solution to our nation's defense. Perhaps it an Object Oriented view might be better. A quiet discussion of alternatives could be useful. Example - Maybe rearrange into something like: special forces Attack forces occupation forces shock forces defensive forces Coin forces no typical army navy airforce with troops able to transition from one type of command to another. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-05-15 14:59 |
| #1 I think Gates is correct. His position will cause all sorts of political turmoil though, until contracts for unmanned aircraft get distributed amongst the districts of the various power brokers. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-05-15 11:14 |