US Navy Is Giving Up on Fighter Pilots and Turning to Drones

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
If you were contemplating a career in the Navy as an aviator, better start looking toward the Air Force for your flight fix, the Navy is about to go pilotless.

By moving away from crewed aircraft, Mabus said the Navy could develop new fighting craft without needing to factor in the pilot's safety, a process that extended the time and cost of projects
 
This is awesome. After serving in the navy and knowing a few pilots this is best for everyone. Yes, they're cocky just like Tom cruise.
 
I suppose it makes sense as good pilots are valuble and cost lots of money to train.

I'm glad to hear it. In the past, generally speaking, it seems as though institutions such as a navy was hesitant to give up on current technology... in the 1930s, aircraft designers were trying to steer these guys away from their 'indestructable' super-drednoughts and battleships and the biz-political feuds went into decades ahead. It was an attitude that predates the Top Gun movie and school, these gentleman officers thinking that their battleships were these great unsinkable floating fortresses... thanks, hindsight!

On the otherhand, I'm interested to see what maneuvers can be performed when piloting some jets in fly-by-wire mode. I get the feeling something will get lost in translation, at least initially, sort of like driving a car stick vs. automatic -- generally speaking, you fly to the advantages of the aircraft and without being directly there... :confused:
 
Still need to train pilots, they just don't need to be as physically fit as they were before, and yeah you remove the human factor from any plane you increased your options as to what you can cram into it a ton, simply put a bunch of external cameras facing every which direction so you have a true all around view.

The downside to drones is that they can have signals scrambled or hacked, and there is some non-zero response time associated with them that increases quite a bit as they get farther, and more so when they leave line of sight because they pinging signals off a satellite just increases that lag even more so.
 
Although I would think you'd still want search and rescue helicopters to be manned vehicles. But then again those pilots are not fighter pilots.
 
Nothing like being able to ground an entire air force by jamming it or EMP'ing either end. I guess robot vehicles will be easier to get to shoot on civilians, there's and ours.
 
Although I would think you'd still want search and rescue helicopters to be manned vehicles. But then again those pilots are not fighter pilots.

THEY can do it to fighter pilots, but not fast food workers? :p ;) :D

I forgot about the electronic warfare aspect, yeah, Iran grounded a drone by spoofing GPS... guess that drone didn't have backup inertial guidance or someone was sleeping at the... stick? Heh.
 
I suppose it makes sense as good pilots are valuble and cost lots of money to train.

I'm glad to hear it. In the past, generally speaking, it seems as though institutions such as a navy was hesitant to give up on current technology... in the 1930s, aircraft designers were trying to steer these guys away from their 'indestructable' super-drednoughts and battleships and the biz-political feuds went into decades ahead. It was an attitude that predates the Top Gun movie and school, these gentleman officers thinking that their battleships were these great unsinkable floating fortresses... thanks, hindsight!

On the otherhand, I'm interested to see what maneuvers can be performed when piloting some jets in fly-by-wire mode. I get the feeling something will get lost in translation, at least initially, sort of like driving a car stick vs. automatic -- generally speaking, you fly to the advantages of the aircraft and without being directly there... :confused:

Maneuverability will go up because you don't have to worry about G's that could kill a pilot as long as it's structurally sound.
 
Nothing like being able to ground an entire air force by jamming it or EMP'ing either end. I guess robot vehicles will be easier to get to shoot on civilians, there's and ours.

Hmm, I never thought of that aspect. I think people looking at this at first glance will assume this will be a boon, a positive thing; taking for granted the "human element".

Maneuverability will go up because you don't have to worry about G's that could kill a pilot as long as it's structurally sound.

Yup. I have too many hours logged into combat flight sims.

Something that might be desirable is to add some sort of haptic feedback to let you know you're going to black or red out. I don't see how the technology is there yet for first world equipment, though. It's all good if all you want to do is bomb your third-world dictators and developing countries who don't have any sort of technological edge or massive budgets like the US does.
 
Nothing like being able to ground an entire air force by jamming it or EMP'ing either end. I guess robot vehicles will be easier to get to shoot on civilians, there's and ours.

EMP would kill all human piloted aircraft too....... I dont think you thought this one through,...
 
Nothing like being able to ground an entire air force by jamming it or EMP'ing either end. I guess robot vehicles will be easier to get to shoot on civilians, there's and ours.

Yeah robots just follow orders and 'software glitch' is a convenient excuse.
 
Something a lot of people don't think about is the life support systems that are added in for the pilots. This is costly and realistically it's risky for a pilot to be on a rocket (could also mean ejection seat).
 
EMP would kill all human piloted aircraft too....... I dont think you thought this one through,...

Aircraft can be hardened but if you need a continuous uplink, I don't know how you make an antenna that works continuously that's also immune to EMP. Maybe its possible but I would have to see one to believe it. You may not bring it down, but no longer able to take direction, the default is likely fly home which in the short term amounts to the same.
 
Granted this years down the road but this goes against my best interest. I maintain flight sims for Naval students. But I see this happening across the board in the military eventually. I think Commanders would rather loose a drone instead of having to tell a mother or wife that their loved one has died.
 
Yeah robots just follow orders and 'software glitch' is a convenient excuse.
Not just that, if they are remotely piloted the persons involved could have complete anonymity. Combat pilots stationed in certain countries during certain events would be hard to erase. Some schlub in a basement somewhere can be moved away and under no pressure internal or external to whistleblow. If he does, he can be disappeared and/or his role clouded so he can't whistleblow or has no credibitlity if he does.
 
It's the future. We'll probably need hundreds of small interceptors in the air to protect cariers from a multitude of Chinese anti-ship missiles.
 
This is awesome. After serving in the navy and knowing a few pilots this is best for everyone. Yes, they're cocky just like Tom cruise.

It is best for no one in the long run.

I suppose it makes sense as good pilots are valuble and cost lots of money to train.

I'm glad to hear it. In the past, generally speaking, it seems as though institutions such as a navy was hesitant to give up on current technology... in the 1930s, aircraft designers were trying to steer these guys away from their 'indestructable' super-drednoughts and battleships and the biz-political feuds went into decades ahead. It was an attitude that predates the Top Gun movie and school, these gentleman officers thinking that their battleships were these great unsinkable floating fortresses... thanks, hindsight!

On the otherhand, I'm interested to see what maneuvers can be performed when piloting some jets in fly-by-wire mode. I get the feeling something will get lost in translation, at least initially, sort of like driving a car stick vs. automatic -- generally speaking, you fly to the advantages of the aircraft and without being directly there... :confused:

Take the human cost out of killing and you'll see the USA politicians get even more war-hawkish. As though McCain and Graham weren't already hankering to invade and start a war with friggin Luxembourg already. War becomes a meaningless video game without cost to the idiots in charge, and cease taking the endeavor of war (and killing people) at all seriously.


And as far as penny penching goes....remember simply firing a lone Tomahawk cruise missile is a $2 million USD endeavor. All these "we'll save money doing XXXX" strategies never end up saving money, "We'll save money..." is always a preface one uses when they want newer toys.
 
It is best for no one in the long run.



Take the human cost out of killing and you'll see the USA politicians get even more war-hawkish. As though McCain and Graham weren't already hankering to invade and start a war with friggin Luxembourg already. War becomes a meaningless video game without cost to the idiots in charge, and cease taking the endeavor of war (and killing people) at all seriously.


And as far as penny penching goes....remember simply firing a lone Tomahawk cruise missile is a $2 million USD endeavor. All these "we'll save money doing XXXX" strategies never end up saving money, "We'll save money..." is always a preface one uses when they want newer toys.
You beat me to it. While it may result in less loss of life for military personnel, I doubt it will have much bearing on how many civilians die or on the amount of property damage.
 
Granted this years down the road but this goes against my best interest. I maintain flight sims for Naval students. But I see this happening across the board in the military eventually. I think Commanders would rather loose a drone instead of having to tell a mother or wife that their loved one has died.

Also attrition. If you lose a drone, you still have the trained pilot behind it hopefully safe somewhere vs the trained pilot being right there.

It seems one thing a lot of people forget is training cost time and money..
 
This is a huge mistake. Drones have their place but, as front line air superiority? Stupid. Remote pilots don't fly their best BECAUSE they have no stake in the fight. Then there's the whole latency issue. Let me ask how many billion dollar drones will get 'accidentally' shot down by manned aircraft flying two generation old hardware before the joint idiots wake up and smell the coffee? What about close air support? Drones aren't up to these jobs. This is a bad plan. I would expect something like this from the Air Force but, the Navy?
 
/Great. Now the politicians and the generals they own will have one more way of killing by simply pushing a button. Imagine how much more efficient business can be when you totally bypass any morality issues that a human pilot might face.

/Then again, you don't get to be a military pilot by questioning authority.
 
It is best for no one in the long run.



Take the human cost out of killing and you'll see the USA politicians get even more war-hawkish. As though McCain and Graham weren't already hankering to invade and start a war with friggin Luxembourg already. War becomes a meaningless video game without cost to the idiots in charge, and cease taking the endeavor of war (and killing people) at all seriously.


And as far as penny penching goes....remember simply firing a lone Tomahawk cruise missile is a $2 million USD endeavor. All these "we'll save money doing XXXX" strategies never end up saving money, "We'll save money..." is always a preface one uses when they want newer toys.

/Golf clap
 
Aircraft can be hardened but if you need a continuous uplink, I don't know how you make an antenna that works continuously that's also immune to EMP. Maybe its possible but I would have to see one to believe it. You may not bring it down, but no longer able to take direction, the default is likely fly home which in the short term amounts to the same.

Newer jets are specifically made to be unstable so they can maneuver better, an EMP hitting it would cause it to drop like a rock.
 
i wonder what jobs will be left in 50 years? i can only think of a very few jobs that might still be around
 
i wonder what jobs will be left in 50 years? i can only think of a very few jobs that might still be around

From a maintenance perspective you're still going to need people to maintain them. In 50 years the amount of people needed to maintain them could be decreased drastically. It will have a trickle down effect as well to many other areas. I see a decrease in recruiting pilots/aircrew per year. The jobs that affect the training of pilots will negatively affected. In 50 years hopefully I'm long retired. Maybe I can retire before that scenario can affect me.
 
From a maintenance perspective you're still going to need people to maintain them. In 50 years the amount of people needed to maintain them could be decreased drastically. It will have a trickle down effect as well to many other areas. I see a decrease in recruiting pilots/aircrew per year. The jobs that affect the training of pilots will negatively affected. In 50 years hopefully I'm long retired. Maybe I can retire before that scenario can affect me.

All be sealed numbered plug in modules with a red or green light on them. The guy who re-fills the tampon machine in the ladies toilet will have the job of swapping them out.
 
Aircraft can be hardened but if you need a continuous uplink, I don't know how you make an antenna that works continuously that's also immune to EMP. Maybe its possible but I would have to see one to believe it. You may not bring it down, but no longer able to take direction, the default is likely fly home which in the short term amounts to the same.

Yes hardening works, also EMP and more importantly effective EMP are not what they are in movies. Most people have totally the wrong idea how it can be used and how it can be even generated. and you are right It is NOT a magic win pill vs tech and robots.
 
Back
Top