41 replies to this topic

[Strategia]

Eddy01741, on 18 Aug 2008, 0:30, said:

drop bombs full of infected fleas/mosquitos?

That's exactly what Unit 731 did in China.

[Zero]

You guys have forgotten the main reason why those UCAVs will never replace good old pilots: we won't let them! A hell of a lot of pilot, no, most pilots love their jobs, or else they wouldn't have necesarily taken the "fighter pilot" job during career day. If the military had the balls to that (which they probably don't), they would have to face with endless protest and such. Also, as had been said:jamming, the loss of logic and common sense, the loss of thinking outside the box (ask any pilot and he'll tell you thats one of the top five things in surviving a dogfight), and the loss of cunning, are just too big a thing to lose. Even if its not AI and remotely controlled, then that would still be bad: jamming (again), and the sheer fact that you cant do as much with a computer as you can do with a plane and not nearly as efficiently- Also, the adrenaline rush and need to survive would no longer be present, because they are no longer risking their live/ are in danger and that factor plays a major part in a pilots skill and if you lose that you lose at least 69% of their combat efficiency. A test in a controlled enviroment, where everything is controlled, is nothing close to a real field test.

Also, my single biggest problem is this: If this happens, what will come next, the entire army, navy, and USAF, will computerize, what then? Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid 4? It would be like that except we would have Dalek-like robots doing it for us. War would change, it would just become a game, it would no longer matter, civilian lives would be impossibly expendable. The world would plunge into chaos and war, it would mean the rise of green collars (people who use war and exploit it to make money, and usually, lots of it). War would become routine, it would become a game and it would whoever could make the most machines in the least amount of time, would win. In the words of Solid Snake (MGS4):

"War, has changed. It is no longer about nations, ideologies, or ethnicity, it is an endless series of proxy battles fought by mercinaries and machines, war and its consumption of human life has become a well-oiled machine has become a well oiled machine. War, has changed, ID tagged soldiers, carry ID tagged weapons, carry ID tagged gear. Nanomachines inside their bodies enhance and regulate their abilities:genetic control, informtation control, battlefield control, everything is monitored and kept under control. War, has changed. The age of deterance has become the age of control, and all in the name of adverting disaster from weapons of mass destruction, and he who controls the battlefield, controls history. War, has changed. When the battlefield is under total control, war becomes routine."

[Wizard]

tskasa1, on 19 Aug 2008, 14:58, said:

Also, the adrenaline rush and need to survive would no longer be present, because they are no longer risking their live/ are in danger and that factor plays a major part in a pilots skill and if you lose that you lose at least 69% of their combat efficiency.

You never had an adreline rush playing a game before?

[Eddy01741]

tskasa1, on 19 Aug 2008, 9:58, said:

You guys have forgotten the main reason why those UCAVs will never replace good old pilots: we won't let them! A hell of a lot of pilot, no, most pilots love their jobs, or else they wouldn't have necesarily taken the "fighter pilot" job during career day. If the military had the balls to that (which they probably don't), they would have to face with endless protest and such. Also, as had been said:jamming, the loss of logic and common sense, the loss of thinking outside the box (ask any pilot and he'll tell you thats one of the top five things in surviving a dogfight), and the loss of cunning, are just too big a thing to lose. Even if its not AI and remotely controlled, then that would still be bad: jamming (again), and the sheer fact that you cant do as much with a computer as you can do with a plane and not nearly as efficiently- Also, the adrenaline rush and need to survive would no longer be present, because they are no longer risking their live/ are in danger and that factor plays a major part in a pilots skill and if you lose that you lose at least 69% of their combat efficiency. A test in a controlled enviroment, where everything is controlled, is nothing close to a real field test.

Also, my single biggest problem is this: If this happens, what will come next, the entire army, navy, and USAF, will computerize, what then? Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid 4? It would be like that except we would have Dalek-like robots doing it for us. War would change, it would just become a game, it would no longer matter, civilian lives would be impossibly expendable. The world would plunge into chaos and war, it would mean the rise of green collars (people who use war and exploit it to make money, and usually, lots of it). War would become routine, it would become a game and it would whoever could make the most machines in the least amount of time, would win. In the words of Solid Snake (MGS4):

"War, has changed. It is no longer about nations, ideologies, or ethnicity, it is an endless series of proxy battles fought by mercinaries and machines, war and its consumption of human life has become a well-oiled machine has become a well oiled machine. War, has changed, ID tagged soldiers, carry ID tagged weapons, carry ID tagged gear. Nanomachines inside their bodies enhance and regulate their abilities:genetic control, informtation control, battlefield control, everything is monitored and kept under control. War, has changed. The age of deterance has become the age of control, and all in the name of adverting disaster from weapons of mass destruction, and he who controls the battlefield, controls history. War, has changed. When the battlefield is under total control, war becomes routine."

I'm sure fighter pilots would be far better off not wearing over 20 pounds of shit like inflatable pants and also not experiencing blackout due to g forces. If you have them fly via computer, they can push the planes to their limit. Seriously, just face it, planes that are remotely controlled will beat manned planes every day of the week. The manned plane an barely sustain 9 gs and only for a few seconds, a missile can go to 10+gs, the UCAV can do that too. UCAVs can fly higher, go faster, and turn tighter than a manned plane. How would people lose 69% of their combat effectiveness if they don't get an adrenaline rush from being scared of dying? Adrenaline can make your strength 10 times higher than normal, but eh, that's why we have fly by wire and not hydraulic controls. Also, when people are fearful of losing their lives, they panic, and make wrong decisions if they don't have the proper training or experiences. Why would you lose thinking outside the box by remote controlling the plane? Anyways, if you can turn 2 times as tight as the opponent, you don't need cunning. If this was WWII, where everything was fought with guns, I might agree with you, but now, you get a missile lock, what are your honest chances of not getting hit? Flares and chaff barely help, and the missile can turn 10+ gs and travel mach 2.5+ while turning 10+gs, you cannot POSSIBLY out manuver that in a manned plane.

By having UCAVS (NOT ROBOTS) in the battlefield, we don't needlessly risk human lives, and also, such machines perform at a much higher level. I also wouldn't try to argue facts with something said in a video game in an imaginary world that we will never become.

Honestly, other than the "human cunning" and "adrenaline" factors, I do not see a reason that you wouldn't use UCAVs instead of manned planes. Plus, if you know what is at stake, then you should be using all your wit and having an adrenaline rush even when remotely controlling a plane (people are basically in a flight simulator for a UCAV anyways).

[Zero]

Eddy01741, on 19 Aug 2008, 15:53, said:

I'm sure fighter pilots would be far better off not wearing over 20 pounds of shit like inflatable pants and also not experiencing blackout due to g forces. If you have them fly via computer, they can push the planes to their limit. Seriously, just face it, planes that are remotely controlled will beat manned planes every day of the week. The manned plane an barely sustain 9 gs and only for a few seconds, a missile can go to 10+gs, the UCAV can do that too. UCAVs can fly higher, go faster, and turn tighter than a manned plane. How would people lose 69% of their combat effectiveness if they don't get an adrenaline rush from being scared of dying? Adrenaline can make your strength 10 times higher than normal, but eh, that's why we have fly by wire and not hydraulic controls. Also, when people are fearful of losing their lives, they panic, and make wrong decisions if they don't have the proper training or experiences. Why would you lose thinking outside the box by remote controlling the plane? Anyways, if you can turn 2 times as tight as the opponent, you don't need cunning. If this was WWII, where everything was fought with guns, I might agree with you, but now, you get a missile lock, what are your honest chances of not getting hit? Flares and chaff barely help, and the missile can turn 10+ gs and travel mach 2.5+ while turning 10+gs, you cannot POSSIBLY out manuver that in a manned plane.

By having UCAVS (NOT ROBOTS) in the battlefield, we don't needlessly risk human lives, and also, such machines perform at a much higher level. I also wouldn't try to argue facts with something said in a video game in an imaginary world that we will never become.

Honestly, other than the "human cunning" and "adrenaline" factors, I do not see a reason that you wouldn't use UCAVs instead of manned planes. Plus, if you know what is at stake, then you should be using all your wit and having an adrenaline rush even when remotely controlling a plane (people are basically in a flight simulator for a UCAV anyways).

Okay, first of all: If the instinct of survival is the single most powerful thing, true, a rookie might panic, but there's training for that. Second: once we made a plane that only had missiles and no gun, it's called the Phantom II and if I remember right it was a bloody bad plane and as soon as the F-14 came out, the pilots flocked to it (in fact, only our soldiers training and the lack of Vietnamese MIGs saved our asses). Then, of course, about maneuvers, a skilled pilot can dodge a missile, just like a UCAV can, but it also has cunning, cunning is very important in a dogfight (and all planes must be able to dogfight, at least if they want to survive-I don't know about you, but I'd like to get back home. The best part, however, is to not get locked on to. About the adrenaline, think before you post! When's the last time you got hyped up playing Ace Combat to the point where you where almost superhuman? Adrenaline is good in a battlefield, when your heart beats faster, it delivers more oxygen to your muscles and brain, in short: better reflexes, better thinking, better strength, and better reaction speed. About Gs... big damn deal! Sooner or later we will find a way around it. Oh, and what about jamming? You can't stop that very easily, and also, UCAVs will just be responded to by EMP-based (such as attaching an EMP warhead to a missile which detonates when it comes into range) defenses, and if you take down the piloting system.... and lets be honest, if you make an EMP field (which could be pretty damn big in terms of area), you wont get away from it, at least not with any plane we have now. As for EMP countermeasures, they can be bypassed easily enough.

Also, don't make fun of MGS, it is very viable and if the right factors came together, that could happen pretty easily. And to make sure you understand: I'm pointing out the part about war, if no people died, then how long would wars last? Forever! Since there is always a fresh supply of soldiers and no one dies except the innocent civilian, war will just be a game! Companies will compete to make more than the others and green collars will be there to exploit it! Wars will never end because the soldiers will never stop being produced. The one part about war that makes us so hasty to do it is that we don't want to lose soldiers (the politicians don't care about civ. very much) and although u cant replace a human, u can replace a machine.

[Eddy01741]

Unless you go under hte kind of training that the Spetsnez go under (which is brutal and inhumane and US would never allow it) you would still panic sometimes.

The Phantom II didn't have a gun, then they promptly fixed that after seeing how the hit rates of sidewinders and sparrows were less than 50%. Pilots don't choose their plane either, the military pretty much assigns them in most cases.

I just LOLed so bad when you said a skilled pilot can dodge a missile, a normal human can sustain about 6 gs for a good while (space shuttle takeoff) and can sustain 9 gs for very short moments when properly trained (tense up abdominal muscles to keep proper circulation, etc.), a missile can sustain 10+gs CONSTANTLY, any modern missile will hit a fighter plane 95+% of the time, that is just an awful argument. Also, a sidewinder travels at an excess of mach 2.5, planes are usually flying below mach 1, and in a dogfight, way below mach 1. Meanwhile, UCAVs can also sustain 10+gs, it just depends on how manuverable the design is.

Adrenaline rush doesn't make up for all human deficiencies, period.

G forces, BIG DEAL? Are you fucking kidding me? If my UCAV controlled by me can turn two or three times tighter htan your plane, and can sustain it till I run out of fuel or stall out, I will win the dogfight, period. Plus, you can accelerate and decelerate faster, the human body cannot overcome such things, and eh, maybe they can make a 100lb suit or something to combat G forces, maybe in a hundred years, there would have to be so many counter G devices (newtons third law). The reason that we are going for stealth in the raptor instead of manuverability like in say... the Su-37 (which was just a prototype) is because a plane can never match the manuverability of the missile, so might as well make it so you can't be locked onto in the first place.

Jamming? As in radar jamming? If your in a fighter jet and get radar jamming, your screwed anyways in a combat zone.

EMP? Are you serious? If you are hit with an EMP you are going down, electronic fly by wire controls are in all modern jets now, no more hydraulic controls. So bascically, you lose controll of your rudder, ailerons, etc., You lose control over your engine, no communications, no radar, nothing. The modern fighter plane is just a computer that control everything, and you decide what the computer will do. I mean, hell, if you are caught in an EMP, you might not even be able to eject. So if I got EMPed, I'd rather that it was my UCAV that got EMPed rather than a manned jet, saves a life (or keeps one from being trapped behind enemy lines).

MGS is about as likely as WWIII. It's an artificial universe created by game developers. You must also understand that everything that happens in the world is determined by the people, people won't stand for constant wars even if it is just UCAVs being shot down.

Plus, the goal of war is always self gain (self meaning yourself, your company, your country, etc.). Why did the Roman empire conquer almost all of Europe? To get more land, to control more people, etc.

Honestly, besides the adrenaline rush, I cannot think of a single reason why I would rather have manned fighters than UCAVs.

[Wizard]

tskasa1, on 19 Aug 2008, 17:27, said:

Oh, and what about jamming? You can't stop that very easily, and also, UCAVs will just be responded to by EMP-based (such as attaching an EMP warhead to a missile which detonates when it comes into range) defenses, and if you take down the piloting system.... and lets be honest, if you make an EMP field (which could be pretty damn big in terms of area), you wont get away from it, at least not with any plane we have now. As for EMP countermeasures, they can be bypassed easily enough.

Have you read anything in the above thread? EMP's will affect UCAVs and manned aircraft together. The difference is that in one a human dies and in the other a screen goes black. Not much of a choice for the appropriations committee is it?

[Zero]

Eddy01741, on 19 Aug 2008, 17:07, said:

Unless you go under hte kind of training that the Spetsnez go under (which is brutal and inhumane and US would never allow it) you would still panic sometimes.

The Phantom II didn't have a gun, then they promptly fixed that after seeing how the hit rates of sidewinders and sparrows were less than 50%. Pilots don't choose their plane either, the military pretty much assigns them in most cases.

I just LOLed so bad when you said a skilled pilot can dodge a missile, a normal human can sustain about 6 gs for a good while (space shuttle takeoff) and can sustain 9 gs for very short moments when properly trained (tense up abdominal muscles to keep proper circulation, etc.), a missile can sustain 10+gs CONSTANTLY, any modern missile will hit a fighter plane 95+% of the time, that is just an awful argument. Also, a sidewinder travels at an excess of mach 2.5, planes are usually flying below mach 1, and in a dogfight, way below mach 1. Meanwhile, UCAVs can also sustain 10+gs, it just depends on how manuverable the design is.

Adrenaline rush doesn't make up for all human deficiencies, period.

G forces, BIG DEAL? Are you fucking kidding me? If my UCAV controlled by me can turn two or three times tighter htan your plane, and can sustain it till I run out of fuel or stall out, I will win the dogfight, period. Plus, you can accelerate and decelerate faster, the human body cannot overcome such things, and eh, maybe they can make a 100lb suit or something to combat G forces, maybe in a hundred years, there would have to be so many counter G devices (newtons third law). The reason that we are going for stealth in the raptor instead of manuverability like in say... the Su-37 (which was just a prototype) is because a plane can never match the manuverability of the missile, so might as well make it so you can't be locked onto in the first place.

Jamming? As in radar jamming? If your in a fighter jet and get radar jamming, your screwed anyways in a combat zone.

EMP? Are you serious? If you are hit with an EMP you are going down, electronic fly by wire controls are in all modern jets now, no more hydraulic controls. So bascically, you lose controll of your rudder, ailerons, etc., You lose control over your engine, no communications, no radar, nothing. The modern fighter plane is just a computer that control everything, and you decide what the computer will do. I mean, hell, if you are caught in an EMP, you might not even be able to eject. So if I got EMPed, I'd rather that it was my UCAV that got EMPed rather than a manned jet, saves a life (or keeps one from being trapped behind enemy lines).

MGS is about as likely as WWIII. It's an artificial universe created by game developers. You must also understand that everything that happens in the world is determined by the people, people won't stand for constant wars even if it is just UCAVs being shot down.

Plus, the goal of war is always self gain (self meaning yourself, your company, your country, etc.). Why did the Roman empire conquer almost all of Europe? To get more land, to control more people, etc.

Honestly, besides the adrenaline rush, I cannot think of a single reason why I would rather have manned fighters than UCAVs.

What are you saying!?! People won't take constant war? We fought for 1000+ years straight over a city! We will fight for billions of dollars easily! You proved yourself wrong when you talked about the Romans, self gain! WWIII is very possible, its just that it seems that for once in history, logic prevailed over bloodlust during the Cold War. Also, when I meant jamming I meant jamming the signal coming in and out of the UCAV, without that its...... poof. Also, you can dodge a missile, you need skill, and Sparrows only had about a 1/4 hit rate. You can do more inside a cockpit than in front of a computer because when you are in the middle of the battlefield, inside the cockpit you can access things a lot more easily and a lot more accurately. Also, pilots won't have much motivation to bring the plane home, if a pilot is in it, if he screws up he dies, if its a UCAV, if you screw up the government loses anywhere from 30 milllion to 1.5 billion dollars (B-2s cost about that much a piece depending on how its built).

I know pilots don't choose their planes, I also happen to know that pretty much every pilot hated the F-4 and when I said flocked to it, I meant that everyone wanted to be in one. Also, if you're radars jammed a human pilot can still navigate, a computer won't be able to do that as easily if at all. Ever heard of WWI and WWII, we had no radar back then and did we fly? Yes! The EMP, it is easier to compensate for it with a pilot because there are foolproof ways of countering it, but it requires a pilot! If an EMP shuts a UCAV down, you're screwed, but if it shoots down a normal piloted plane, there are ways of helping to even it out but you would need a human for that. And if you can turn tighter than me that means nothing if you're no good. From this day until the end of days one thing will always be true: skill and cunning are the single most important factors in dogfighting. Also, of course some people will still panic, but for the most part training can help control fear by a lot, especially when you know that if you screw up you die. Also, missiles run out of fuel relatively quickly and with the new defensive laser systems I've been seeing, I give missiles about 20 years before we rely on bullets again- or maybe plasma........ again, you are exagerating, a skilled, well trained pilot (like 95% of the US Air Force) are skilled and trained (bombers and fighter/bombers are excused since they are less maneuverable than AS fighters). Finally, with stealth, missiles are no longer as useful, save the heatseekers which are a lot less expensive and have !!lot!! less range.

And finally, come up with a viable argument against unions will ya, or even pilot protest, after all the government wouldn't have the balls to opposse an army of angry people.

[Wizard]

tskasa1, on 19 Aug 2008, 19:24, said:

Yes! The EMP, it is easier to compensate for it with a pilot because there are foolproof ways of countering it, but it requires a pilot! If an EMP shuts a UCAV down, you're screwed, but if it shoots down a normal piloted plane, there are ways of helping to even it out but you would need a human for that. And if you can turn tighter than me that means nothing if you're no good. From this day until the end of days one thing will always be true: skill and cunning are the single most important factors in dogfighting.

Please elaborate for me, based on your "obvious" hands on experience of modern aerial combat, how a plane flown by wire can countered by having a pilot in the seat if struck by an EMP?

All through this pathetic argument you are forgetting the fact that pilots are rarer than rocking horse shit in combat situations and there isn't a General or politician out there that wouldn't put a UCAV out there instead of someone whose mother they'd have to write to tell him he has been scattered across about a mile area.

[Eddy01741]

Jesus, this is futile, talking to a brick wall.

Yes, people won't stand for constant war around here, Jerusalem and Israel is special, since everybody proclaims that it is their land (such a stupid feud IMHO...). Do you see how many americans are getting pissed off that we are still in Iraq? Even if companies are manipulating and starting wars for profit, sooner or later the public will find out and they won't be happy and definitely will be using their 2nd amendment rights (the right to bear arms, which means both to own guns AND to form a militia against the government when neccesary).

EMP=kill whether manned or unmanned as Wizard pointed out.

Jamming? Well, htat also takes away radar, and the ability to lock on, so yeah, it does make a big difference, manned or unmanned.

Sparrows had a 1/4 hit rate in VIETNAM, for gods sake, the sparrow is already replaced on most planes by the AMRAAM (except for the Tomcat, which couldn't use AMRAAMs due to obsolete electronics unable to multi-target, but the Tomcat has already been phased out in favor of the F-18 anyways). I would like to see somebody that can CONSISTENTLY dodge missiles, at most they could do it maybe 1 out of 30 times, in which the enemy plane has to have shot the missile from a bad angle, you ahve to do the right manuver, and use chaff/flare at the right time.

WWI and WWII didn't have missiles, so the radar wasn't as neccesary. And in WWII, the ground forcess had basic radar.

Skill and cunning can't compare to a smaller, faster, and more agile craft, that uses missiles that hit more than 95% of the time, Skill and cunning were great in WWII, not so much anymore. I mean, c'mon, put a rookie straight out of training in a raptor up against an ace in say.... a F-4 Phantom II, guess who wins? The rookie, the F-4 pilot can't even see the Raptor on radar, it is also slower, and less agile and has absolute shit missiles.

Lasers? On fighter aircraft? Do you honestly know HOW MUCH power those use? Because if you do, please do entertain me and tell me how a fighter jet could possibly generate that much power.

Missiles run out of fuel quickly? A sidewinder can go up to over 5 miles, and its travelling at mach 2.5, so basically, it's travelling 5 times faster than you, you will be dead in a couple of seconds. The pheonix (which is now decommissioned, since it was only fitted on teh Tomcats) had a range of 100 miles, low fuel my ass. AMRAAMs and Sparrows have ranges of about 25 miles, I don't think you can play keep away for that long.

Pilot training? Yeah.. I have a cuz in the airforce as a aircraft repair technicians (works on F-15s and F-16s), all the guys that come back from a dogfight are pretty shaken up (of course, most of them the next day are pretty boastful, since they are fighter "jocks").

Protest? Look att he protest against our people dying in Iraq, all those angry parents that lost their children. I'm sure they would be extremely happy to hear that when a plane is shot down, nobody dies. WIth that much political pressure, they will replace manned planes in a jiffy.

[The Wandering Jew]

Perhaps that's the reason why no known military forces used biological/chemical-based offensive weapons installed on aircraft because such weapons can affect themselves later on. The same result when you shot the 'craft in mid-air.

[CommanderJB]

UCAVs aren't just going to become a reality, they are a reality. The cost of not having a pilot is directly proportional to the sensors and control systems your UCAV has - if you can control a UCAV just like you would a fighter plane, why would it be any worse in combat? Because you're not being squished by G-forces? I think not. Comm jamming is a major issue - the largest one from my viewpoint - but it doesn't outweigh the huge benefit of having an aircraft which can do more than a jet fighter in terms of manoeuvrability, speed, weapons storage and durability, and has a huge loiter time, making them perfect for bombers. The reason we're not seeing them as primary strike elements today is because communications, sensors and remote command systems aren't good enough, but they soon will be.

[The Wandering Jew]

The time UCAV's can be used as a primary fighter, chances are, the comm jamming devices will also follow suit. Too bad, military equipment follows Darwinian theory of Natural Selection.

[CommanderJB]

The race between jamming and improved signal modulation techniques, encryption and decryption, and other methods of producing and compromising communications isn't something that's going to be 'won' in the next few years, I think. Even if they employ full-spectrum jamming powerful enough to overcome dedicated command circuits with extremely powerful signal boosters, with transmitters and recievers on multiple platforms, including satellites, other aircraft and ground units, then it's a given that the UCAV will be loaded with rudimentary contingency plans; either return-to-base or automatic target selection and subsequently suicide; while I don't argue that these would be anything even close to what you'd have with a pilot controlling the aircraft, it's not as if the thing would just go 'oh, I'm not under control anymore. Oh dear.' and fall out of the sky. And if they've jammed all frequencies and modulations, good luck shooting it down - the UCAV might not be able to transmit or receive anything, but neither will your side, removing wireless communications between fighters, missile batteries and air-defence units, all IFF transponders, and if I'm correct you'll also end up with so much electronic noise that radars will be compromised as well. Simply there's no tactic completely without risk, least of all jamming. Like I said, this will be one of the greatest threats to a UCAV, but it's not going to prevent their operation in combat at all.

Edited by CommanderJB, 20 August 2008 - 05:42.

[Zero]

I'm not saying that UCAVs will not go out on the battlefield. I know they will, I want that! Hell, everyone wants that! What I'm saying is that they will never replace pilots. We won't let them, unions won't let them, and if we still have some common sense left over from the cold war, politicians won't let them (hopefully, but most bastards might try to get more popularity). Also, I'm saying pilots can do things UCAVs can't and can do some things even better and vise-versa. Also, in today's battlefield, the use of radar-guided missiles is pretty much dead (at least against the US), and although we will still have heat seekers, they have are a more expensive and also have lower range (although they are also more accurate to make up for it).

Again, the best thing to do is to not get a missile locked on you. About pilots being shaken, of course! You just took a life! It's horrible! The problem is if you have a computer or a guy in front of a screen doing it, what happens then? War will become even more merciless, and look at what you said, those pilots bounce back, but at least they can feel it. Jammning is still a major problem and will always be, and although UCAVs can pull off a lot more Gs than a piloted plane, it is also a lot more vulnerable.

And finally, radar. Radar, if a UCAV loses it its screwed, it can't navigate as it uses radar and GPS to navigate, but at least human will be able to still be able to fly and find his way out.

[Strategia]

tskasa1, on 20 Aug 2008, 16:28, said:

I'm not saying that UCAVs will not go out on the battlefield. I know they will, I want that! Hell, everyone wants that! What I'm saying is that they will never replace pilots. We won't let them, unions won't let them, and if we still have some common sense left over from the cold war, politicians won't let them (hopefully, but most bastards might try to get more popularity). Also, I'm saying pilots can do things UCAVs can't and can do some things even better and vise-versa.

And who do you think would control those UCAVs? Ace Combat players?

Quote

Also, in today's battlefield, the use of radar-guided missiles is pretty much dead (at least against the US), and although we will still have heat seekers, they have are a more expensive and also have lower range (although they are also more accurate to make up for it).

Which is related to UCAVs..... how?

Quote

Again, the best thing to do is to not get a missile locked on you. About pilots being shaken, of course! You just took a life! It's horrible! The problem is if you have a computer or a guy in front of a screen doing it, what happens then? War will become even more merciless, and look at what you said, those pilots bounce back, but at least they can feel it.

"Dogfights" today take place at distances of several miles. It won't matter if the pilot is 10 feet from where the missile was fired, or 100 miles, your enemy is still a speck in the distance (if even that) and you still took a life. I don't really see any large-scale UCAV-on-UCAV fights take place any time soon. Also, I doubt the shakiness comes from taking a life so much as almost having your own life taken, but that's an endless and pointless discussion.

Quote

Jammning is still a major problem and will always be, and although UCAVs can pull off a lot more Gs than a piloted plane, it is also a lot more vulnerable.

How exactly are UCAVs "a lot more vulnerable" than manned fighters?

Quote

And finally, radar. Radar, if a UCAV loses it its screwed, it can't navigate as it uses radar and GPS to navigate, but at least human will be able to still be able to fly and find his way out.

And how do you think manned fighters navigate? Exactly.

[Wizard]

Ok I have had about enough of this now. Whilst I appreciate that no flaming is involved and it has been civilised I hope everyone can realise that this is going no where fast.