UAVs SUCK: Can't Fly Enough and Crash Often

The USAF recently admitted they could only get less than a dozen UAVs up into the air over Iraq/Afghanistan! Is it a wonder the rebels are free to lay land mines on roads to blow up lazy Americans in wheeled trucks? As we have been saying all along, (since 1997) UAVs cannot be flown in enough numbers, can't see beyond a "soda straw" that wears out operator's eyes on the ground looking at TV screens (see 1:37 into the video) and are constantly getting shot-down and crashing at a 50% rate:

http://www.geocities.com/usarmyaviationdigest/grasshoppersmustreurn.htm

How did we get into such a mess where we'd misguide ourselves into thinking UAVs are a panacea?

1. Pilot Egos
2. Corporate Greed

Pilots of fast jets are threatened by slower observation/attack (O/A) aircraft getting all the action and glory, and helicopter pilots fear the long loiter time/efficiency of fixed-wing planes so both ego groups got rid of all our O/A aircraft: no more O-1s, O-2s, OV-1s, OV-10s. To WORK AROUND these egomaniacs, pilot-less UAVs are sought by GROUND maneuver units needing air surveillance since the aviators don't want to do it.

http://www.combatreform.org/killerbees.htm

The sad fact is it doesn't work and all the chest beating when an UAV finds a bad guy pales in comparison to when we routinely KILLED BAD GUYS DAILY in O/A aircraft! We had over 300 x O/A aircraft at one time over Vietnam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZKiuZkSHdI
http://www.combatreform.org/johnpaulvann.htm

Corporations like UAVs because they can charge more than a manned aircraft while providing LESS aircraft = MORE PROFITS FOR THEM. That UAVs crash constantly only sweetens their pots even more because they need to build replacements! Ka-CHING! $$$$

We need MANNED O/A aircraft that can be flown en masse without colliding, have survival instincts to get back to base, that can see with human eyesight plus sensors to get 24/7/365, comprehensive, air pressure on the enemy in sub-national conflicts and to find well-camouflaged enemies in nation-state wars. UAVs have a role to play helping manned O/A aircraft as long as they don't become cash-cows for greed and work-arounds to ego rackets. Congress should re-establish the U.S. Army to have its own Air Force and mandate that it flies its own fixed-wing aircraft for O/A, CAS and short-range tactical transport by creating a new social class of pilots and enlisted observers who are there to serve ground units.

http://www.combatreform.org/enlistedpilots.htm
http://www.combatreform.org/aircommandos.htm

Having ALL air power functions in the central USAF bureaucracy using the 1943 North Africa paranoia

http://www.combatreform.org/killerbees3.htm

or even the alleged "TacAir friendly" USMC bureaucracy has resulted in O/A and CAS aircraft to nearly vanish from our arsenal with our troops paying for it with their lives and limbs.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• uavs
• stink
• suck
• hubris
• rma
• bureaucracy
• pilot
• egos
• tunnel-vision
• incompetence
• fubar
• iraq
• afghanistan

[bck08]

This is new technology. Not only that it's highly sophisticated. Add in the factors or gravity, flight conditions, and WAR, then you'll see this industry is just getting started. Sure pilots are nice, but they would have a difficult time flying 22 hour missions for surveillance. In summary, UAVs haven't replaced pilots (yet), but they add a new alternative for gathering intelligence without risking human life

[dynmicpara]

@bck08 SUPPLEMENT not an alternative; that's the lazy American mistake we are making. Rebels are successfully hiding from our dullard UAVs, in WAR you need HUMANS actively HUNTING the enemy with sensors PLUS (+) their vision, hearing and intuition. Maybe after we admit to failures in Iraq/Afghanistan, the UAV cheerleading BS will stop and we will have manned, fixed-wing O/A aircraft again. We already have manned observation aircraft (RC-12s, Liberty birds etc.) but they need armament

[6Quinn]

UAV's don't suck. I work on the shadow and I can tell you right now that the unit I'm attatched to would rather go outside the wire with a bird in the air than without one. These larger uav's have more that can go wrong with them because there is more that can go wrong. The army loves the smaller airframes like the shadow because they are much more cost effective and do exactly what they are designed to do. They are even looking into weaponizing them. Plus aircraft go bad all the time.

[dynmicpara]

@6Quinn UAVs are AIRCRAFT and "go bad" all the time: 50% crash rate.

[coloradoraider]

Sure human eyes are better and having someone 'on site' makes for better judgement calls than watching a video screen. The benefit of someone not dying far outweighs the possibility we might lose four or five times as many UAVs are regular aircraft. A UAV is far more easily replaced than a human life that has had millions of dollars of training time spent to make them a combat pilot.

[debdog7]

they should use blackbird its better

[CelestialVulpes]

This is like having a Humvee with TOW get caught by a T-55..........no, that doesn't mean Humvee suck (more), just unfortunate.

[dynmicpara]

@PHeMoX ON-BOARD PILOTS-OBSERVERS ARE NOT THE SAME AS WATCHING VIDEOS FROM MILES AWAY. The fidelity of the human eye is far superior to video feed; go take a videocamera and compare some time. Men + Sensors beats sensors alone.

[PHeMoX]

@dynmicpara There are still human eyes involved in looking at the live video feeds. The first thing a pilot would respond to will really be the same thing as the pilot of the UAV would.

Problem is, some of those live feeds apparently can be quite easily hacked into and then it becomes useless entirely.

[6Quinn]

I never said pilots aren't needed. There are some jobs that a UAV could never do, but for things like area recon, target marking, and in the near future close fire support the UAV does a great job. UAV's will never totally replace manned aircraft what you are talking about will never happen. Take the fighter pilot for instance or even a attack helicopter pilot those guys will always have a place in the sky because a UAV operator/pilot can never have the instict to do that job.

[Sk8er1337PWNZOR]

@dynmicpara For now, for now.

[dynmicpara]

@6Quinn You try to make the argument that UAVs are better than NOTHING.

That's NOT what the situation is.

The situation is we should have MANNED observation/attack aircraft that can actively investigate and ascertain the enemy far better than any UAV--but do not because of weak pilot egos and the BS UAV panacea mentality--which you inadvertently express.

Look up "zero sum thinking".

I do not say we should not have some UAVs.