Today's Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Will Be Totally Useless In The Pacific Theater

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drones-will-likely-be-irrelevant-in-the-pacific-theater-2012-12



The vast fleet of military drones the Pentagon has at its disposal will likely be worth very little in the Pacific, against more advanced, capable enemies, according to a report by Dave Majumdar of the site Flight Global.

"We are now shifting to a theatre where there is an adversary out there who is going to have a vote on whether I have that staring eye over the battlefield 24[hours], seven [days a week], 365 [days a year], and pretty certain they are not going to allow that to happen," says Gen Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

That "vote" is a reference to the capabilities of potential enemies in that area of operations. Majumdar notes that "a drawdown is all but inevitable" and that these unused drones will have "to be parked" somewhere — in all likelihood here at home, parked in the skies.

According to the report the parking of these drones "could free up resources to build a new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform to tackle the emerging anti-access/area denial challenges emerging around the globe."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drones-will-likely-be-irrelevant-in-the-pacific-theater-2012-12#ixzz2ENXSAVYy

[dembotoz]

1. aw yes military surplus available to law enforcement agencies

that is how the university town where i was a student managed to come up with an amored personel carrier.....

yesterday a post about how verizon is working on technology to monitor what is going on with a customers house to this.....

i don't even need to wear my tin hat anymore to feel nervous.

[Recursion]

2. Back when I was doing search and rescue we could have used a few drones...

...but, yeah, something tells me this could suck

[Romulox]

3. Um, who exactly are our "more advanced, capable enemies" in the Pacific?

[Recursion]

5. Those damn Kiwis. They're killing Hollywood

Honest, hard-working American directors can't even do fantasy epics anymore.

[Romulox]

6. Kiwis? Hell! They're at least 40 years behind in this race.

[Recursion]

7. It was a Hobbit joke

Though in seriousness I'd say it's India more than China.

[Romulox]

10. I got that. Mine was a MechaGodzilla joke in response!

He's a Japanese movie monster (guy in a rubber suit, really) from the '60s.

[bhikkhu]

4. Against "more advanced enemies", our navy would be useless also

anyone who remembers how poorly it did in the war games before the second Iraq war. Anti-ship weaponry has advanced to the point that I have heard it said - if there's another real war everyone's navy goes to the bottom in the first two weeks.

Not to advocate for drones, but they won't be parked by themselves. Its more of an argument against war.

[hack89]

8. I would disagree about the anti-ship weaponry

war has always been a seesaw between offense and defense as technology advances. Most anti-ship missiles are old technology - defensive systems and tactics have been created to defeat them. It is not as unbalanced as you would think.

The hardest nut to crack is finding, tracking and targeting a ship at sea. It is not hard to maneuver at sea without being targeted - the ocean is vast and ships are hard to find.

The situation in the OP actually argues for more capable drones - which is exactly what the US Navy is doing by accelerating the development of UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle).

The U.S. Navy has done the math and realized that they need UCAS on their carriers as soon as possible. The current plan is to get these aircraft into service six years from now. But there is an effort to get the unmanned carrier aircraft into service sooner than that. The math problem that triggered all this is the realization that American carriers had to get within 800 kilometers of their target before launching bomber aircraft. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with range greater than 800 kilometers. The navy already has a solution in development since the X-47B UCAS has a range of 2,500 kilometers

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20121204.aspx

[hack89]

9. The situation in the OP actually argues for more capable drones

The situation in the OP actually argues for more capable drones - which is exactly what the US Navy is doing by accelerating the development of UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle).

The U.S. Navy has done the math and realized that they need UCAS on their carriers as soon as possible. The current plan is to get these aircraft into service six years from now. But there is an effort to get the unmanned carrier aircraft into service sooner than that. The math problem that triggered all this is the realization that American carriers had to get within 800 kilometers of their target before launching bomber aircraft. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with range greater than 800 kilometers. The navy already has a solution in development since the X-47B UCAS has a range of 2,500 kilometers

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20121204.aspx

[hack89]

11. There are many missions that slow large aircraft currently do

that will still be done with drones. Strategic reconnaissance and theater anti-sub marine warfare are good examples. There are degrees of threat - operating close to China is very dangerous and requires high tech and stealth. Several hundred miles from the coast is less dangerous - the Chinese cannot project that much combat power far from their boarders so larger, slower aircraft and drones are still viable.

[jberryhill]

12. Cell phones were bad enough...

...why anyone would want to bring unmanned aerial drones to the theater I can't imagine. That guy in Colorado was deranged, but I doubt bringing more weapons to the theater, wherever it is, is a good idea.