Jun 5, 2008 12:27 AM

Navy: No Killer Drones, Yet

The Air Force is yanking pilots out of fighter cockpits, and ordering ’em to fly armed, robotic aircraft instead. The Navy, on the other hand, is largely staying out of the killer drone business. The sailors want to keep their robo-planes on spy duty, thank you very much. "Unmanned aircraft are good for targeted strikes, […]

The Air Force is yanking pilots out of fighter cockpits, and ordering 'em to fly armed, robotic aircraft instead. The Navy, on the other hand, is largely staying out of the killer drone business. The sailors want to keep their robo-planes on spy duty, thank you very much.

"Unmanned aircraft are good for targeted strikes, but less effective in quick-changing, dynamic combat situations Navy fighter pilots aboard the* USS Truman *[tell the AP]. The pilots contend that technicians piloting drones by video and computer from afar might not get a full visual sense - or the intangible 'feel' - for a combat scene."

Drones also perform well in places with limited anti-aircraft capabilities -
such as Iraq and Afghanistan - but could be easier targets for ground-based rockets in places with more advanced systems.
"There is a lot that I can do and relay and make decisions in real-time -
based on being at the scene - that a guy is going to have a very difficult time making from one camera," said Cmdr. Bill Sigler, head of an F/A-18 fighter jet squadron on the USS Truman*.*
The Navy officially backs that position.
"Manned aircraft still retain relevancy in scenarios where airborne decision-making is critical to mission success," said Navy spokesman
Lt. Clay Doss.

Not that the Navy is completely uninterested in killer drones. The service just wants unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, that are smart enough to fly -- and land on an aircraft carrier -- by themselves. As the AP notes, the Navy has a $646 million contract with
Northrop to do just that. The first test flight is scheduled for late 2009, with a deployment date of 2025.

Until then, naval aviators like Neptunus Lex will continue to believe that "dynamic missions such as close air support require on-scene wetware."

*If I was a Marine engaged in close combat and requesting heavy ordnance from on high, I’d want to be damn sure that the guy doing the dropping shared with me a common orientation to the battlefield -
something hard to build from a soda straw look at a flat panel display
12,000 miles away. And because we’re committed to supporting the other half of the blue/green team once they go ashore, CAS will always be a priority mission area for naval aviation.
Broad area maritime surveillance, sure. Armed UAVs?
Not so much.*

ALSO: