English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-12-11 02:57:48 · 3 answers · asked by spartan 117 3 in Politics & Government Military

and by ucavs i mean Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle..

2007-12-11 02:59:24 · update #1

3 answers

As a former aircrewman who HAS been shot at... I'm not opposed to UCAV's for certain missions, though I DO oppose replacing the human-factor in MANY missions.

As to YOUR question, sadly USAF & USN makes the "pilot" of all UCAV's an officer because an officer is required for weapons release. There may be an enlisted (or another officer) as the sensor operator, but weapon's release is ALWAYS in the hands of a commissioned officer by LAW.

MANY enlisted are skilled enough to do the job... heck, my pilots (SH-60B Seahawk & S-3B Viking) used to let us Aircrew do some of the flight time if it was a boring flight... and we were almost ALWAYS better skilled/informed in the tactical/technical aspects of the mission.

ONE thing to remember, there is an unofficial "OFFICER's CAREER PROTECTION LOBBY" out there... a FINE example was in the late 1990's when the S-3B Viking community eliminated the ENLISTED crewman from the four-man crew. MOST officers couldn't find a submarine, much less analyze and identify one, sitting in a SIMULATOR much less in flight. BUT, the 'Protection Lobby' made sure that the 2 NFO's in the crew kept THIER jobs at the expense of ASW capability.

2007-12-11 03:50:45 · answer #1 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1 1

First thing is Scott is correct, when we make war a video game and lose the perspective of life and death we are a danger to the world and a danger to ourselves. Probably enlisted but the higher ranks would not agree with that and want it to be officers. Enlisted because the video game guys would be good at it and you don't need a college degree to do that, probably lose some of the touch in general if spending time studying. No reason for it to be an officer but then no reason for pilots to be officers either. Up until after Korea the U.S. had both enlisted and commissioned officers as pilots, the Isreali's still do so it isn't an education thing. It is a prestege thing so officers should get it according to officers. Look at the raks of the worlds greatest aces from WW2 and see how many were enlisted in the Japanese, German, British and Russian forces (Americans are way down the line) and those are the final ranks they held-even some of them did most of the flying as enlisted. I have never understood how a degree in business or literature meant you could fly a plane better. Complex aircraft and computer systems don't need the lit degree and the Isrealis fly those same complex systems with enlisted non-college personnel. Sorry-off subject but something I don't understand-no not a frustrated non-pilot because eyes are not suiable for it so didn't matter to me personally.

2007-12-11 11:25:19 · answer #2 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 1 2

Neither, once we have given up the right to risk a life to kill someone. We have lost everything.

2007-12-11 11:06:04 · answer #3 · answered by Scott 3 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers