Army aviation gets mostly unmanned by 2035

John21

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
150
Reaction score
11
I would just like to post this articles/link here and share my opinion. IT IS BULL-CRAP. ;D What I mean to say is that this seems a very unrealistic proposition by the Army and I can not see them doing this to the extent that they say they might. We already have a bunch of programs on record that may enter service in the next few years and that existing airframes like the Chinook, Apache, Blackhawk...etc are probably going to remain in service for another 30-40 years, I just do not see the army getting rid of manned capabilities that quickly.

Also after reading Ralph Peters book "the war after Armageddon" I feel we may be heaping too much praise on electronic wizardly and super high-tech....so to speak. Just my opinion...

Here is the link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/04/video-army-aviation-gets-mostl.html

And here is the link to the document in case you do not want to watch the video or read the article:
http://www.rucker.army.mil/usaace/uas/US%20Army%20UAS%20RoadMap%202010%202035.pdf
 
I concur with your assessment. :-X
 
As cliche as it may sound, the entire future of combat is "terminator-esque" robots and drones that can apply deadly force. If you look at the military budget for the USA, the DoD can quite literally "afford the future". The highways may fall apart, but the Generals will have their Terminators, dammit.
 
Keeping all those existing airframes and going to an all- or mostly-unmanned force might not be mutually exclusive propositions.
 
Madurai said:
Keeping all those existing airframes and going to an all- or mostly-unmanned force might not be mutually exclusive propositions.

Bingo!
 
And what exactly is the advantage of flying a Blackhawk or Apache unmanned rather than manned? There are no potential range or stealth benefits as with a purposely designed UAV. Seems pointless to me.
 
"And what exactly is the advantage of flying a Blackhawk or Apache unmanned rather than manned?"

There's at least a political advantage, I think.
Looking at the debate in the German parliament about the mission in Afghanistan (and then maybe
replacing "Blackhawk or Apache" by "NH-90 or Tiger" for the future), it's probably interesting for many
politicians to keep at least the crews out of harms way and so reduce political risks imposed by soldiers
brought home in zinc coffins. And in the public opinion, unmanned helicopters quite probably would still be
regarded as "drones", so as cheap and expendable. ::)
 
Colonial-Marine said:
And what exactly is the advantage of flying a Blackhawk or Apache unmanned rather than manned?

Well for one thing, at least as far as Kiowas and Apaches are concerned, if one get shot down you don't have to ask the logistics officer to requisition two body bags and a C-17 to Rammstein.

But I agree with the Blackhawk. If one of those gets shot down you're ordering at least 11 bodybags anyway, and reading up from Airliners.net there's a lot of flexibility demanded from those that computers just aren't capable of yet.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom