Slashdot Mirror


First All-Drone USAF Air Wing

bfwebster writes "Strategy Page reports that the United States Air Force has announced its first air wing that will consist entirely of unmanned craft. The 174th Fighter Wing has flown its last manned combat sorties; its F-16s will be entirely replaced by MQ-9 Reapers. Reasons cited include costs (maintenance and fuel) and the drone's ability to stay in the air up to 14 hours, waiting for a target to show itself."

18 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Not the first UAV wing.... or the last. by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This has been in the works for a while now, but I should mention that this is not the first all-drone USAF wing. The 432nd is. Last year when I visited Creech AFB and the 432nd wing, I was briefed on the Air Force's plans to start transitioning a number of wings to unmanned wings and the ANG wing from Syracuse was the first one on the list. Interestingly, it will not be the last either as the UAV mission has become the Air Forces single most requested asset. Additional ANG wings in California, Arizona, North Dakota, Alabama, Texas and Nevada are next. Look for additional changes at March AFB and Minot AFB.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Not the first UAV wing.... or the last. by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just remember this moment when you're running over a field of skulls from a hunter-killer UAV controlled by SkyNet.

    2. Re:Not the first UAV wing.... or the last. by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Afraid I can't be too specific about what division, etc. but Beale AFB in Northern California has a "permanent temporary flight restriction" over it. Since it's just south of me, and on the way to just about anything interesting, I run into it all the time when I fly privately. (I'm a private pilot)

      It's not a big deal, really - in order to fly above the AFB's airspace, I have to be in touch with regional (NorCal) Approach Control and have to submit to their direction. (Why else would I be in touch with ATC?!?) But at least 1-2 days/week this "temporary" flight restriction is in effect, so they're flying UAV's all the time.

      The biggest problem with ATC is that it's completely segregated. Since it mostly works, it's not often criticized, but it does put a significant amount of load on the pilot. For an hour-long flight, it's not atypical for me to fly for 20-30 minutes before I get a flight plan opened and in positive contact with ATC, what with all the frequency change requests, briefings, waiting in line, and other handshaking chatter I have to do! God forbid I should crash in the first half of the flight!

      Another example, if I'm flying 3,000 feet over X airport, I'd think it would be a good idea for pilots at X airport to know. But unless I actually announce on the appropriate frequency, there's no way for them to know. And there's no easy way for me to know if I'm near an airport unless I'm using a GPS. And, cruising at 140 MPH means I'm only going to be over the airport and associated traffic for anywhere from 1-2 minutes. And the next airport is 20 miles away, 1/7 of an hour away, another 8 minutes or so. Remember when I said it took 20 minutes to get a flight plan opened? Further, it's perfectly legal for me to fly just 2,000 feet over the vast majority of smaller airports without announcing anything at all, even though it's common for traffic to fly in to airports a few thousand feet high if they aren't familiar and sort of "drop in" after announcing.
      effort to do things that should be 100% computerized. If aviation radios had the equivalent of TCP and self-announced their position a la GPS, it could be a real-time, fully-coordinated, highly secure and all-but-automatic system that required almost no actual human intervention on the radio for most tasks.

      Note: I wouldn't use TCP - it sucks ass when the packet loss gets any higher than a few percent - but there are a number of protocols that have been developed for such a purpose. For example, many game developers use UDP and then code lots of logic into the application, which extends UDP into a quasi-protocol.

      The technology really wouldn't be all that hard. Just break down the Earth into groups of coordinates, perhaps 30 seconds or so on a side. Then, a GPS unit would "announce" it's position into an IRC group of the coordinate block that applied. Depending on the speed of the aircraft, it would also "subscribe" to the coordinate blocks that are deemed appropriate - the faster the plane, the larger the radius of coordinate groups it would request updates from.

      Running a radio-based packet-switching network is pretty well understood - HAMs have been doing it for a long, long time, along with cell phone providers, Wifi, WiMax, UWB, and gobs of other technologies, any of which would probably be quite sufficient for the task. There is a *lot* of radio space available for aviation, since aviation radio is one of the older technologies around, and simple packet-switching technologies allow many radios to share a common communications channel.

      Think IRC, with SSL enabled as appropriate. (granting an FAA-granted 4096-bit certificate would make it damned hard to spoof a radio call!) I could write the software in a few months. I could program the GPS unit with a GPU and a bare-bones Linux core in perhaps 6 months. But it would take me 10 years (at best) to get this rammed through the Gubbmint if I had nearly unlimited funds and some damned good lobbyists on my speed-dial. Augh.

      But, I digress. What was I talking about, again?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  2. Simpsons was Prescient by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

    --
    I feel like death on a soda cracker.
  3. Drones = racist by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

    The correct term is Unmanned American.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  4. Hive mind by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny
    First All-Drone USAF Air Wing

    What, they were all queens before?

    That explains Top Gun, I suppose.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    1. Re:Hive mind by jcr · · Score: 4, Funny

      That explains Top Gun, I suppose.

      Careful, Tom Cruise is going to sue your suppressive ass!

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  5. Moving to UAV's by rossdee · · Score: 4, Informative

    Inthis area the Air National Guard is also moving to UAV's. The 119th (Happy Hooligans) based in Fargo retired their F16s a while ago, and now flies Predators. The refueling wing based in Grand Forks also flies UAV's now.

  6. Re:What happens when a drone malfuctions... by eclectro · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and fails to follow orders? Do they court-martial it?

    Actually no. They make a movie about it with a hot babe.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  7. Re:Fighter ?? by drik00 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is that very few of the talented pilots want to do this stuff. I have quite a few friends that are either instructors or students in the USAF. Two I was talking with the other day said that if they were forced to do UAV flying, they'd have to find some way out of flying all together. For most of them, they signed up to be fighter pilots, so even flying a bomber would be a let down.

    They're competitive as hell by nature... I'm interested to see how this turns out for the USAF considering the antipathy I've seen towards piloting these things.

    J

    --
    Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
  8. Re:It is at moments like this... by dougisfunny · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, but as the article says, its unmanned so you can't ride in it.

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  9. Next in "Bangalored" list? by kamathln · · Score: 5, Funny

    SO when are these jobs getting Bangalored?

  10. Re:Fighter ?? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that very few of the talented pilots want to do this stuff.

    So?

    Put the best pilot in the world in an F-16, and a much less skilled pilot on the ground, controlling an aircraft that can out climb, out turn, and out run him, and it's game over. Whatever his skills are, if he blacks out at 12 Gs, he loses.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  11. Re:Fighter ?? by HuguesT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's potentially. Right now drones are itty bitty things with props, meant for long times in the air essentially for surveillance.

    Dogfighting requires situation awareness that is very difficult to achieve in a drone. One big problem is image throughput and controller display. It's not an unsolvable problem but it would cost a lot right now.

    On the other hand, dogfighting is a rare occurrence in modern wars. I don't think there were even one instance in Iraq. I think the F-14 did dogfighting in anger exactly twice in its entire career with the US Navy (a lot more in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s, of course).

  12. Re:Fighter ?? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I was talking with the other day said that if they were forced to do UAV flying, they'd have to find some way out of flying all together. For most of them, they signed up to be fighter pilots, so even flying a bomber would be a let down."

    That's why the Army needs to take over the drone program. The AF has shed a stunning number of missions and aircraft (it didn't originally want the A-10) and wants to only do air dominance.

    Fine, take away all other missions and give them to the folks who need them most. Have Army and USMC UAV operators do rotations on the ground as forward controllers, and they will surely be motivated to fly UAVs effectively.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  13. career death, probably by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Pilots in the AF want to grow up to be generals one day. Do you think a UAV pilot has the same shot at being Chief of Staff (with the subsequent job on the board of Boeing or whoever) as the YF-22 pilot? Neither do I, and neither do they.

    The fighter pilots are the aristocracy of the aristocracy of the AF. Even aside from the love of flying that drove them into that job, the perks of being a fighter pilot, the status and career path that conveys, are not things they're going to surrender willingly.

    1. Re:career death, probably by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      , the perks of being a fighter pilot, the status and career path that conveys, are not things they're going to surrender willingly. ...which is why mounted knights maintained their position and status when firearms made their favorite mode of battle obsolete, right?

      Oh, wait.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  14. More humans in the loop by DG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call me a heretic, but I'm coming around to the idea that armed UAVs are a better way to do business.

    A traditional piloted ground-attack aircraft is an expensive, valuable thing with an expensive, amphetamine-fueled, scared-shitless pilot stuffed in it.

    That pilot has a handful of seconds to ID his target, execute the attack, and then evade ground fire. Even in an environment where the USAF had total air superiority, there have been case upon case of pilots attacking the wrong target at the wrong time.

    And modern air-ground weapons are so powerful that the smallest mistake can have catastrophically bad results.

    But with the UAV, that element of personal risk is gone. Furthermore, instead of just one hopped-up, terrified, sleep-deprived individual making the go/no go call (and aiming the weapon to boot) you can have a series of targeting experts watching the video feed and making a soberly analyzed decision on fire/no fire.

    And yet, as mentioned, while the people shooting the weapons may be isolated from personal risk, the incredible clarity of the visual feed does not isolate them from personal *cost* - and that's not a bad thing. Taking a human life should never be a painless endevour.

    If we have to drop explosives on people, I'd rather that the people pulling the trigger have the opportunity to do a proper job of IDing the target, of assessing the likely collateral damage, and then making a calm and unrushed shot.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book