Unmanned (But Armed) Aircraft Experiments In 2001

John Warden, architect of the Gulf war air campaign, believes that by 2025 90% of combat aircraft will be unmanned. Next spring, the first armed aircraft without pilot, the X-45A UCAV will make its maiden flight. Replacing the pilot by a ground controller cuts the price of each unit by two-thirds, and makes it easier to transport. The Economist has more, and states 'the decision to fire weapons should be made by a human, to reduce the risk of "friendly fire."' This is not logical: Since the planes can be networked and thus know each other's relative positions, preventing friendly fire is a much simpler problem than the visual recognition required to determine what to shoot at, unless you don't mind hitting non-military targets. I wonder what Asimov would think.

Comments

Incorrect assumption

[SuiteSisterMary]

This is not logical: Since the planes can be networked and thus know each other's relative positions, preventing friendly fire is a much simpler problem than the visual recognition required to determine what to shoot at, unless you don't mind hitting non-military targets. I wonder what Asimov would think.

Ok, so they won't shoot each other. But what about other friendly forces? Sure, put a location beacon on them, too. Then the enemy either a) tracks in on the frequency and shoots them, or b) jams them and watches chaos ensue. Humans will always point the trigger, if only so that the brass knows who to point the finger at later.

Re:Incorrect assumption

[Sinical]

As someone who works in the defense industry,
let me just say that weapons systems are *hard*.
You do not have the luxury of going "dang, a bug"
when your missile just decided to blow up
friendlies by mistake

Now, I work entirely on missiles, which have a
fairly small operational scope (kill *that*),
and I know how many hours (read, YEARS) missiles
spend in development, how much testing is done,
how many simulation runs are made, and the idea
of trying to build algorithms that try and decide
whether a *human* *being* should DIE is not
something I would relish or encourage.

IFF sytems break, they are destroyed in combat,
and maybe they are jammed. Allied systems aren't
compatible, or a wire gets loose, or whatever.

In my very not humble opinion, only PEOPLE get
to decide when people die. Remember, KISS,
and AI fire systems are most definitely not simple.

I am worried.

[shren]

The US Government has avoided or gotten pressured out of a lot of wars because American Soldiers were dying. Each technology designed to fight a battle without putting men on the field or in the sky will help move a political impediment to war.

Most people would consider this a bad thing.

Disturbing Trend

[vergil]

I've noticed a disturbing trend when it comes to modern weaponry, war and the public's perception of both.

Recall the "conflict" (it wasn't formally a "war") in the Persian Gulf and the lavish media coverage fawning over the tricked-out American arsenal of depleted uranium, ship-launched cruise missiles and so-called "smart bombs."

I was in high school at the time, and remember well the glossy graphics in the corporate press extolling the efficiency of "fire-and-forget" rockets.

Later came a few insightful (but quickly forgotten) editorials criticizing America's "video game mentality" of combat.

Perhaps automated weapon systems are more efficient than those manned by humans. Maybe they'll even cut down on "friendly" casualties, and, in the long run, shave some dollars off of our bloated defense budget.

What really concerns me ain't efficiency, or cost savings. It's accountability. I think many fail to realize that war -- whether conducted with knives or napalm, whether hand-to-hand or computerized -- is about killing. Smart bombs and fire-and-forget missiles abstract killing to a small blip on a phosphorescent screen far removed from the actual event.

Unmanned flying gunships, I'm afraid, are a step in the wrong direction.

Sincerely,
Vergil