Reply With QuoteThe value is in reducing the loss of human life. Also cheaper than a plane, so they can be more of them.
The Proliferation of the UAV,are they all that important?
With the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to today, the progressive use of the UAV had evolved over the years into many models and uses, the future of warfare, it seems, is going to be full of these bots filling all types of roles. Perhaps even more direct roles, replacing tanks/IFVs.
Or are they? When Tanks appeared in WW1, they were crude, inefficient(comparatively speaking), and considered "un-soldierly". Moreover, as tanks evolved, so had the ways of combating them effectively, from AT guns, to Hellfire missiles. Regarless, given just half a century practically no standing army is without tanks, despite how advanced tanks have become, they are still considered a supporting element to combat, and for good reason, a tank cant take and hold a hill. Do UAV's and other robotics of the future face a fate similar to the tank? or are they more(or less!) an important feature to the battlefield?
discuss.
The value is in reducing the loss of human life. Also cheaper than a plane, so they can be more of them.
To even question the usefulness is folly. The importance of these weapons has only began. The ability to remotely spy upon your enemy from high altitude or close and personal with a small bird bot is immeasurable. The foot soldier with armed drones will have a very distinct advantage. Stand off drone weapons will save lives. Nano-bot weapons are the next potential ugly side of these technologies. Just like all technology there will be measures and counter-measures. Keeping ahead in the technology race has always been difficult. Finding your enemies Achilles heel has always been the goal of a smart leader. These weapons are here to stay.
@Hollis, The UAV has certainly proved its worth in the dollar, but i dont think its been effective in proventing a general loss of life, its done well enough already killing Taliban in Afghanistan.
@Sct, I dont doubt their expanded use in the future, i just believe its a matter of time before a number of effective countermeasures spring up, i wouldnt doubt human innovation.
The way people talk about the impact UAVs will have in the future sounds as if it will be revolutionary, similar to the way gunpowder had forever changed warfare when it was introduced, and evolved.
Then it has saved lives. Less t-ban the more other people live.Originally Posted by khalifah
This is a big factor. Survivability for a human driver is a huge portion of the cost of modern aircraft. Also, cheap UAVs give users a great deal more latitude than platforms that need a person in the cockpit.
1. as someone allready said, the main value of a UAV is deniability and avoidance of incidents.
It is weird but the US could not operate AC-130s in Pakistan like they operate predators.
Also, if a UAV gets shot down you don't have a Gary Powers like incident, you only have some wreckage.
For the nation being spied on by UAVs it makes matters easier as well, as they can shoot down UAVs at their leisure.
2. We didn't yet see a conflict where both sides had UAVs or where one side was capable of interfering with their operations.
Any half decently armed military would have made short work of those predators with MANPADs or other ground based air defense.
The Georgians apparently could not operate their UAVs in the 2008 war, even discouting this STRAFOR stuff, UAVs can be jammed and any combatant with the technical capability will attempt to do so.
UAVs will eventually mature into a full component for a modern army or are allready beginning to become just that, but they're not a panacea that revolutionizes warfare.
From what trickles to me through vets and sons of vets I know, there is a lot to be desired in the vehicles and their use.
Effective in some areas, quite innefctive in others.
You can't ride around in a box and expect to beat an enemy. He is not going to remain in convenient target situations.
They are clumsy and ****e to tipping.
Countermeasures exist and will only get better.
Like it or not, somebody has to get out and engage bad guys eyeball to eyeball.
Some folks are going to get bloodied, some killed. It's combat in a war, not a gameboy.
It's just another tool. Nobody is talking about replacing boots on the ground with UAVs.
Yep, there will always be boots on the ground. The new weapons may be surgical, but boots are micro-surgical.
We were using UAV's since 1982. Does anyone remember the IAI SCOUT or the TADIRAN MASTIFF? they were used to folly Syrian radars in Lebanon in 82, and since that Israel ( American UAV's were used also in 1973 war) understood how important and useful they were. cheap and safe for the "crew".
They are easier to master.
No "human" constraints for engineers - they can make a craft with any abilities that current materials allow.
Posting Permissions
