Probably. 9 times out of 10. Maybe 99 times out of 100. It doesn't matter - in the long run you're either perfect or you're dead. And we're certainly not perfect. When a drone gets shot down, the pilot walks away, learns and gets better. When a human gets shot down, he's lucky to survive.

 

Our reliance on ever more expensive weapons and pilots means that the enemy has a tremendous advantage in a battle of attrition. There's a reason that the first aerial vehicles over Baghdad were cruise missiles. At $1m a pop you can launch 100 of them and still be better off than losing a single fighter. Drones are a rational next step.

 

You, Mr. Flying Ace, will get tired or low on ammunition. There will be more drones. The boring flight phases can be handled via automation or junior operators. You, on the other hand, will need to be on top of your game at all times.

 

 

 

 

More than a few infrantrymen said that 100 years ago prior to launching a bayonet charge against a machine gun position. Anyone who's actually seen combat is more than willing to use weapons that can hit the enemy without them hitting you.

 

Luke

Drones work great when your fighting an Enemy like Iraq who have little to no Airforce but try to enter Russian or Chinese airspace,their fighters will knock 99 out of 100 drones out of the sky just like you said so one drone makes it through the first wave of fighters just to be finished off by the next wave. Drones can be hacked and stolen, the Iranians stole one of ours. I just don't see why people are so against manned fighters when they are clearly better. In a war of attrition our fighters being so advanced and pilots so well trained would make up for the numerical difference.

Pilots get tired but that's why you have backup crews you fly your stortie,land the plane is re-armed and refueled and the next guy takes it out.

Manned combat aircraft are better in some respects as you've pointed out. But therevare also disadvantages that you have not pointed out. They are not as expendable as an unmanned aircraft is. Losing one will mean the loss of a crew and perhaps many more from a rescue attempt. In this day and political age, a dead or captured airman is a huge political liability. War is politics, and if it is politically too expensive to use a weapon, then what good is that weapon? All the killings we do in places like Pakistan come at the impact of a hellfire missile fired by a drone. A hellfire from a drone is apparently acceptable to the politicians while a hellfire from an Apache or Cobra helicopter is not.

 

Not having a cockpit allows a stealthier aircraft to be built. Not having a cockpit allows much longer endurance and loiter time. Not having a cockpit allows an aircraft that can pull and sustain many more G's than a manned aircraft. Not having a cockpit allows the commanders to send that aircraft where they would not send a manned aircraft. Not having a cockpit allows the politicians to go to war without admitting to themselves they are going to war and that may be a necessary factor because who knows, we may have another democrat in the White House again.

If you fight remotely it only says your scared and lack the courage and honor to fight in person. It also makes the enemy shift targets from the front line to the drone centers at home and the civilian populace. I'd rather face our enemies in person and show them that they'll have to get through me to get to my family at home.

You can also look at it this way,unless you had a decentralized structure of drone operators, the main drone centers would make a juicy target for enemy bombers because you could take down a larger portion of a drone airforce it you knocked out just one operations center,or took down the satellites. Which countries like Russia and China could easily do.

I prefer low tech options a squadron of IL-2 Stromoviks would make these isis punks history.

The smart way to fight is to kill the enemy with as little risk to yourselves as possible. Courage? Of course you will need some of that if you are scared. But 'honor to fight in person' has no place when it comes to warfare. 'Hoser' Satrapa was a well known Navy Vietnam era fighter pilot. One sunny day at Miramar, he challenges a cohort to a guns only 1v1. What can be more honorable than a 1v1 gunfight? The two arrive in W291 at the appointed time and set up for a head on pass to start the gunfight. At 5 miles, Hoser calls Fox 1 on the other guy and morts him with a head on sparrow shot. Hoser apologizes and they set up for another head on pass. Again, he kills the other guy with a simulated radar missile. By now they are out of gas and have to return. A little later at the bar, the other pilot storms up to Hoser and says '##### happened to credibility?'. Hoser answers with his pointing thumbs, 'credibility is down, kill ratio is up!'. There is no place for honor in warfare. You kill the enemy from as far away as you can and without him knowing you are even there.

The smart way to fight is to kill the enemy with as little risk to yourselves as possible. Courage? Of course you will need some of that if you are scared. But 'honor to fight in person' has no place when it comes to warfare. 'Hoser' Satrapa was a well known Navy Vietnam era fighter pilot. One sunny day at Miramar, he challenges a cohort to a guns only 1v1. What can be more honorable than a 1v1 gunfight? The two arrive in W291 at the appointed time and set up for a head on pass to start the gunfight. At 5 miles, Hoser calls Fox 1 on the other guy and morts him with a head on sparrow shot. Hoser apologizes and they set up for another head on pass. Again, he kills the other guy with a simulated radar missile. By now they are out of gas and have to return. A little later at the bar, the other pilot storms up to Hoser and says '##### happened to credibility?'. Hoser answers with his pointing thumbs, 'credibility is down, kill ratio is up!'. There is no place for honor in warfare. You kill the enemy from as far away as you can and without him knowing you are even there.

 

I recall reading this story. Made me grin to be reminded of it.

Well, I cannot argue with statistics. And I can't say anything about drones in warfare. Here's the thing. Automation takes a job one human can do and make it more efficient and multiply the work output of the machine by the productivity of a human (obviously). And I have no doubt that it will happen with aviation someday, replacing the jobs we have today and doing our job ten times better than we can, making more money (one of the only things that matter to society these days). However, you can't balance feelings with any kind of statistics. What's happening is one argument claims it is going to happen and why, and another argument is IF you agree with it or not.

 

Personally speaking, (and I mean no offense, just my OPINION) I don't really understand why any true aviation enthusiast or pilot would agree with pilots being up for replacement. Unless you just want a different job or are okay with a computer smiling at the clouds for you, while in the mean time you are on the ground, back to the way things were before 1903, watching the clouds go by. And to make it clear, I know that it will be a while before this happens, but still...

 

To tell you the truth, I could see people going at it back and forth for days trying to see who has the right opinion, trying to back it up with as much evidence as possible using methods of pathos, ethos, or logos to try and convince those who disagree with your opinion. If it were me, I would rather be in the cockpit, although I'm talking from a commercial perspective, not a military aspect so I don't confuse you. Having wanted to fly since a young boy, I always enjoyed listening to the presentations of pilots who talk about how they liked their job or never let the negatives get to them. Several years in the future, It will really be nice when kids fly in automated planes staring out the window and decide that's what they want to do for a living.

 

And then they find out that the age of pilots has long since been gone

 

Cheers!

 

taneb