Could this be case for using SCADS/Arapaho instead of a $12B CVN?



wrote in message
ups.com...
On 14 heinä, 01:03, wrote:
But I think the UCAS programme MUST
have some weak points, for example:

1. Increased exposure to jamming and communication breakdowns (let's
imagine a large-scale conflict again - with GPS satellites splashed
and some "small" tactical nuclear warheads detonated), or just a
broken communication link between UCAS and its mother-station on a
ship or manned aircraft.

Jamming communication links or killing GPS kills much of the manned
fighter capabilities. Fighters do have various auxiliary navigations
systems and I would guess an UCAS would be perfectly capable of using
the same ones, such as TERCOM and INS systems. (TERCOM with manned
fighters, being Mk 1 Eyeball...) The US military is already hugely
dependant upon its space capabilities, UCAS's won't change this.

2. No real ability to tell the difference between friend and foe (much
higher risk of blue-on-blue kills), to prioritize variety of tasks and
targets, to be "more humane" in situations where collateral damage is
highly possible.

It's a matter of ROE programming, really. In case of BVR environment a
human pilot is already completely dependant upon information provided
by IFF and battle management for his decision. In case of visual
recognition an UCAV would be far better off, as it could take images
for analyzing them, instead of a human seeing just a black dot far
away. An UCAV in autonomous mode would not be able to distinguish
between situations of less and more collateral damage, to be sure, but
these considerations would be more relevant in a limited conflict
environment, such as OIF, than in a major war.

I agree with you that there will be situations where airplanes must
have pilots. It's just that I think that the correct place for a pilot
is not in the aircraft itself, but in a van eating pizza... Advantages
of getting the humans out of the aircraft far outweigh adantages of
having humans onboard.

Mvh,
Jon K