Do you think UAV's should replace pilots?

[scouserlad13 0]

Personally, i think humans should have the choice there if they want to fly, i mean there will always be a desire for man to fly in those fast jets, i dont feel that its right that eventually there will be no more fighter pilots, just computers and robots.

[+Dave 2,319]

I think that there is a day coming that they will not even a human controller of a UAV.

[MAKO69 186]

NO!

 

Dave's right that day will be here soon. I don't mind UAVs flying around with weapon systems, but I don't want a computer/robot making a decision to end life. A human should call it. UAVs fly pre-programed and fluid flight paths now right, with a human pilot and ground crew overseeing the info sent back. Isaac Asimov's 3 laws of robotics look them up.

Edited July 23, 2009 by MAKO69

[scouserlad13 0]

Isaac Asimov's 3 laws of robotics look them up.

 

Yeah. but didn't the Robots turn evil in the end? Prepare for the worst people

[MAKO69 186]

Thats a story I'm talking reality.

[+daddyairplanes 9,232]

sorry i don't care how good your digital imagery is or sensors are. the is no substitute for at least one pair of eyes on scene seeing whats going on. COL Computer sees a heat source moving 20 mph with some warm bodies and says terrorist...engage. a pilot or at least uav operator will stop see if it's maybe a white toyota with a mortar in it or maybe with a family in it. how many civilians have been killed in pakistan vs al queda and taliban? not sayin don't go after them just sayin PID is a b%^&@ 8000 miles away.

[scouserlad13 0]

Thats a story I'm talking reality.

 

Yeah i know, i was only having a kid, and i do agree with what your saying. I think that just so long as that these UAV's remain in the control of Humans when it comes to combat, then well, it will be better because logical thinking can be applied about someones life. Whether to take the life, or spare it.

[FastCargo 412]

Isaac Asimov's 3 laws of robotics look them up.

 

UAVs aren't smart enough to understand the 3 laws.

 

UAVs also have some serious limitations under present technology...you just don't hear about them.

 

FC

[MAKO69 186]

UAVs aren't smart enough to understand the 3 laws.

 

UAVs also have some serious limitations under present technology...you just don't hear about them.

 

FC

I put that in there for Future ref. for when we have the tech.

[Nesher 629]

now there are still humans operating the UAV

it will take more than a few years for UAV to manage on their own

we have at least 30-40 years for pilots to fill the cockpit

[MigBuster 2,875]

UAVs are pretty much remote control planes - Unfortunately against someone who knows something about electronic warfare they would be useless - forget outflying anything if your signals don't get through - whats needed is a totally contained AI unit - like a robot - yes like science fiction - and that is a long way off - particularly in a world short of R&D money :)

Andrew Ng at Stanford predicts that the AI grand dream is still possible but its a problem that might not be solved in the next 100 years!!! - whether they will be good enough to replace pilots before then - well u never know - but in most areas of life AI has not replaced humans its turned up to help us and thats defo not what was predicted in the 50s it seems!

 

The sensors to ID targets still dont seem to be good enough - despite what the manus say - a blip on a radar even in 2003 proved to be a disaster not just once - with other near misses. of course its a few years on - but simple issues like sensitive electronics being thrown around - just does not help things that need to be 100% to work properly.

[+Stary 2,426]

Of course UAVs should replace pilots! Moreover, the military should give us, the Professional Flightsimmers, the access and jobs to fly them by remote from our homes! So obvious, really.

 

j/k

 

Seriously, hell no. But matter of time I think (20-50 years)

[TheStig 38]

Sorry; I'm not pro-Skynet

[Planejunky 0]

UCAV's do have a place in the modern inventory, operations in Afghanistan have certainly proved their worth. I'm not so sure whether they should replace pilots altogether though.

[eraser_tr 29]

Until we have true AI, we can't replace a pilot's judgement, quick thinking and reflexes. When we do manage true AI, we then run into the Skynet/matrix dilemma. Asimov called it the Frankenstein complex, to which the answer is his three laws. But having those laws essentially makes UAVs for war useless. But even then you wind up with the problem of the zeroth law allowing robots to harm in the interests of humanity at large, and taking over control to protect the whole of humanity as in I Robot.

 

So the end result is either

 

A- Skynet destroying humanity

Or

B- Losing our self government to that by AI....which might actually be a better way to go....R2D2 in 2112!

[+DoctorQuest 108]

I'll go with Mr. Spock.

 

"Computers make excellent and efficient servants but I have no wish to serve under them. Captain, a starship runs also on loyalty to one man and nothing can replace it or him."

 

Technology aside, I think from a moral and ethical standpoint a human being MUST make life and death decisions in combat.

 

I have no problems using a robot to get the weapons into range. That is hazardous duty and may not justify putting a human pilot at risk.

 

I remember watching the pilots in the "Predator" episode of "Mail Call" and thinking, "I could do that. I've been practicing most of my adult life." :)

[MaverickMike 10]

I think a quote from the Matrix is relevant here. "They are governed by rules, because of that they can never be as strong or as fast as you can be". (cant remember it word for word lol)

 

In other words untill (as mentioned earlier) we have true AI that can react to different situations as they arise, instead of reacting in a pre-programmed way based on the programming that was inserted into it at creation, pilots will always be better to have in the thick of the action. Remote controlled on the other hand is very useful. But this still has its limitations. If im correct I believe there is a slight delay in the transmission of directions to a uav as the data is sent to a satellite and then beamed to the UAV. This could cause problems when using the UAV to attack targets in a civilian area.

 

Mike

Edited July 22, 2009 by mikepie11986

[+EricJ 3,994]

UCAV's do have a place in the modern inventory, operations in Afghanistan have certainly proved their worth. I'm not so sure whether they should replace pilots altogether though.

 

No they shouldn't especially when using lethal hardware. As mentioned the "Skynet", "Stealth", and "I Robot" scenarios make it all too vivid on when things go wrong. Nope I'll deal with the human operator...

[Atreides 144]

Ask any pilot what they "REALLy" think of UCAV's. First UCAV especially the fully automated ones will still be prone to errors, I mean they are/would be flying computers and we all nothing ever goes wrong even with the most sophisticated weapons system Secondly, just since they are a weapons sysem I'm sure some country will figure out how to "hack?" their OS and bring them down or worse hack amd then use them against the original countries troops. **** UCAVS the Predator and the slightly more advanced ones are fine and stick with them.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Atreides

[JediMaster 451]

Of course, on the flipside, humans NEVER go wrong, do they?

[Bomber ace 0]

In my opinion no computer will be able to beat a fighter pilot's judgement, or that gut instinct a human has in a situation, the uav may be able to make quick decisions but the human pilot would be able to think around the problem and not just see numbers and fugures.

[+Typhoid 231]

wrong question, which is why I didn't vote.

 

UAV's absolutely can, should and largely have replaced manned aircraft for certain missions.

 

The question should be more along the lines of;

 

what missions can UAV's replace manned aircraft?

 

and what are the key technological breakthroughs needed to be able to increase the mission set?

 

what key policy issues need to be addressed in order to expand UAV's in certain mission sets and within specific geographic areas (UAV ops within the National Airspace Systems of various countries/regions)

[Silverbolt 104]

it already begun

 

 

Run to the Hills!!!

[MAKO69 186]

Deal of the century. The Peacemaker. For 40 million I can get 5 of these online to protect your country. Whaddya say is it a deal.

Edited July 24, 2009 by MAKO69

[jomni 6]

um... most UAV's still need a pilot.

and that's how I feel the future should go.

going completely pilotless is scary.

Edited July 24, 2009 by jomni