I am thinking about joining the Air Force

  • #51
100
1
Can someone link me to the nuclear navy program you guys are talking about?
just ace the ASVAB and they will contact you. well, except for that part of the test that measures clerical skills, that didn't seem to factor in.
 
  • #52
14
0
I'm almost positive I failed the part that had Car parts, construction, etc. on it. But the academic side was almost too simple.
 
  • #53
100
1
I'm almost positive I failed the part that had Car parts, construction, etc. on it. But the academic side was almost too simple.
um, yeah, about that... they train guys to actually work and live on the boats. the practical knowledge is a necessity.
 
  • #54
19
1
I do not see pilots being completely phased out at any point in time in the near future in air to air combat. A human brings things to the table that a machine can't think about. Nothing will be able to beat sitting in the actual cockpit and reacting to the situation.

Flying a predator is the one job every single pilot absolutely hates, every person that I have talked to and have heard from all say the same thing. "Why would I want to sit in a room for 8 hours flying a model airplane?"

I believe taking the human fully out of the cockpit really isn't the best idea. For dropping a 2000 pound JDAM on some hajji's head, well a computer can do that, but it really takes all the fun out of it.
 
  • #55
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
I do not see pilots being completely phased out at any point in time in the near future in air to air combat. A human brings things to the table that a machine can't think about. Nothing will be able to beat sitting in the actual cockpit and reacting to the situation.

Flying a predator is the one job every single pilot absolutely hates, every person that I have talked to and have heard from all say the same thing. "Why would I want to sit in a room for 8 hours flying a model airplane?"

I believe taking the human fully out of the cockpit really isn't the best idea. For dropping a 2000 pound JDAM on some hajji's head, well a computer can do that, but it really takes all the fun out of it.
Killing is fun? What are you insane. The reason why pilots will be taken out from the airplanes is because the next best flying fighter jet would have to compete on Mach levels with maneuvers and agility that no human can withstand. The pilots already dont actually 'fly' the plane - the airplane is flown by wire and controlled by computer, without which this brick will simply fall out of the sky. The human pilot is not reliable. They pass out, get wounded and die. You waste fuel carrying their weight. You can't send them on suicide missions.
 
  • #56
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
81
I do not see pilots being completely phased out at any point in time in the near future in air to air combat. A human brings things to the table that a machine can't think about. Nothing will be able to beat sitting in the actual cockpit and reacting to the situation.

Flying a predator is the one job every single pilot absolutely hates, every person that I have talked to and have heard from all say the same thing. "Why would I want to sit in a room for 8 hours flying a model airplane?"

I believe taking the human fully out of the cockpit really isn't the best idea. For dropping a 2000 pound JDAM on some hajji's head, well a computer can do that, but it really takes all the fun out of it.
Don't care how good your air force is, dismantling a sophisticated enemy's integrated air defense system with manned aircraft is going to cost lives, planes, and you'll get to see a few battered pilots paraded on TV for your enemy's propoganda purposes.

Worse yet (if you're one of the pilots picked to dismantle the enemy's IADS), all of the generals will be enthusiastically encouraging the press and the public to laugh at the enemy's ineptness once the I has been taken out of the IADS. The poor guys actually had to take out the integrated part and got shot down doing it look like fools.

Plus, as someone else mentioned, you make some incredibly capable aircraft if a human doesn't have to maintain consciousness during the maneuvers.
 
  • #57
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46
Plus, as someone else mentioned, you make some incredibly capable aircraft if a human doesn't have to maintain consciousness during the maneuvers.
Not to mention, very versatile. Without the weight of a pilot, support systems, defensive systems, and on-board human interface gear needed for manned aircraft, drones can be very light and efficient and can stay aloft for a very long time looking for targets of opportunity.
 
  • #58
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
Not to mention, very versatile. Without the weight of a pilot, support systems, defensive systems, and on-board human interface gear needed for manned aircraft, drones can be very light and efficient and can stay aloft for a very long time looking for targets of opportunity.
What really pisses me off is this fear of those planes going rogue or being hacked into somehow. We can build them with encrypted control channels that could not be hacked into in a million years. We have the technology to build a stealth fighter jet/bomber plane that will not become obsolete in next 50 years. The only upgrades would be to computer systems, mechanical engines, and energy source
 
  • #59
126
0
What really pisses me off is this fear of those planes going rogue or being hacked into somehow. We can build them with encrypted control channels that could not be hacked into in a million years. We have the technology to build a stealth fighter jet/bomber plane that will not become obsolete in next 50 years. The only upgrades would be to computer systems, mechanical engines, and energy source
In fact, this is a very real concern. Recall this recent news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/index.html" [Broken]

They stopped using the encryption because it wasn't feasible for their operation. The issue is that even if they make it feasible, you are still open to a variety of electronic attacks against your base of operation, your communication network, or any place in between. It is argueably easier to shut down a U.S. military communication channel than it is to shoot down one of it's fighter planes.

If Shiite militants can figure out how to intercept U.S. military feeds, imagine what full fledged military and intelligence agencies can do (think: China, Russia).

You can argue that, well, they should have used encryption, but the fact is they weren't, and this was during a wartime military operation. The point is that there are numerous holes in the system, some known, some not, and it is a very real concern. Your predators on the other side of the world are about useless if your communication satellites are shot down or disrupted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
81
In fact, this is a very real concern. Recall this recent news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/index.html" [Broken]

They stopped using the encryption because it wasn't feasible for their operation. The issue is that even if they make it feasible, you are still open to a variety of electronic attacks against your base of operation, your communication network, or any place in between. It is argueably easier to shut down a U.S. military communication channel than it is to shoot down one of it's fighter planes.

If Shiite militants can figure out how to intercept U.S. military feeds, imagine what full fledged military and intelligence agencies can do (think: China, Russia).

You can argue that, well, they should have used encryption, but the fact is they weren't, and this was during a wartime military operation. The point is that there are numerous holes in the system, some known, some not, and it is a very real concern. Your predators on the other side of the world are about useless if your communication satellites are shot down or disrupted.
This would be more similar to receiving free pirated satellite TV signals than to stealing a television satellite or to shutting down a TV signal. In this case, all full fledged military and intelligence agencies needed to learn how to do was have someone tell the name of the company that sold the equipment and software.

In other words, the enemy isn't going to prevent the US from getting the info we want. The question is whether we care if the enemy gets it, too. And there often is a good reason you wouldn't want the enemy to know how much you know or don't know about them.

The encryption isn't unfeasible in a general sense, but it might be for a specific situation. It's expensive and, sometimes more importantly, it limits distribution of info. If it's encrypted, the only way to receive the data is to have decryption equipment. It's conceivable that there's enough people receiving the data that the cost of all that decryption gear is more than exclusivity is worth - especially in multi-national military operations where you'd rather let the enemy receive the data you're receiving than to share your crypto with an allied nation. In today's military operations where, more and more, you have to work with military from allied nations, if it's classified, it's worthless to the warfighter. (In fact, this was a major obstacle in getting satellite reconnaissance info to theater level commanders at one time - with some compromises having to be made on both ends - classification levels being lowered and theater commanders having to accept some of the security restrictions that went with the data).

So, what you're commenting about is part of the ongoing problem of how to deal with classified info in a multi-national environment more than a problem specific to UAVs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
In fact, this is a very real concern. Recall this recent news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/index.html" [Broken]
The U.S. official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the information
Howcome we don't have some CIA agent just execute those 'US officials'? They are traitors and have no business being in the loop if they spill the beans to the media. There is a reason why we have sensitive, classified, secret and top secret designations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
19
1
You all make very great points about how Unmanned is superior to manned flight. And I do agree with most of them but, you can't match human wit and ingenuity with a computer during a dogfight. There is a lot going on that can't really be thought up by a computer.
 
  • #63
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
You all make very great points about how Unmanned is superior to manned flight. And I do agree with most of them but, you can't match human wit and ingenuity with a computer during a dogfight. There is a lot going on that can't really be thought up by a computer.
Ask yourself this question.. what is the point of a 'dogfight'. If you can destroy an enemy aircraft from 70 mile range, and without any consequences to your own unmanned aircraft, why would you risk a pilot's life to do it from few hundred feet away?
 
  • #64
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46
You all make very great points about how Unmanned is superior to manned flight. And I do agree with most of them but, you can't match human wit and ingenuity with a computer during a dogfight. There is a lot going on that can't really be thought up by a computer.
There are still humans operating the drones, and they can take risks that pilots in manned aircraft could not. A properly-designed drone can execute maneuvers that no manned aircraft could without blacking out or even killing its pilot. Computers don't operate drones - they are interfaces for humans to interact with and operate the drones.
 
  • #65
126
0
The U.S. official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the information
Howcome we don't have some CIA agent just execute those 'US officials'? They are traitors and have no business being in the loop if they spill the beans to the media. There is a reason why we have sensitive, classified, secret and top secret designations.
Not being 'authorized to discuss the information' does not mean the information was classified. It simply means that the official is not in the public relations department, and is not normally tasked with speaking to the media, or supposed to relate the department's message to the people.

People who disclose classified information are investigated and prosecuted by the FBI. This is very rare. People who disclose non-classified information they are not supposed to discuss are sometimes investigated by their department, and possibly reprimanded or fired. They are not generally criminally prosecuted.

Finally, the CIA does not operate on American soil (legally, at least). They are not assassins who kill Americans. They are talented individuals who work their hardest to protect us from terrorist threats abroad, and we owe them a lot.

I'm sure many of them would find your statement horribly offensive.
 
  • #66
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
Finally, the CIA does not operate on American soil (legally, at least). They are not assassins who kill Americans. They are talented individuals who work their hardest to protect us from terrorist threats abroad, and we owe them a lot.

I'm sure many of them would find your statement horribly offensive.
I was not suggesting there be an investigation. I simply suggested the traitors get their due by people who do these things already to terrorists. We are at war, and no 'US official' has any business running their mouth to the media - it does not benefit them, and it does not benefit the public
 
  • #67
100
1
Howcome we don't have some CIA agent just execute those 'US officials'? They are traitors and have no business being in the loop if they spill the beans to the media. There is a reason why we have sensitive, classified, secret and top secret designations.
it's probably just COTS stuff, anyway. as soon as one gets shot down and salvaged, the whole thing would be figured out in a week.
 
  • #68
19
1
it's probably just COTS stuff, anyway. as soon as one gets shot down and salvaged, the whole thing would be figured out in a week.
The only UAV's that are even remotely in harms way at the moment are the MQ-1 predators who have attached hellfire missiles, and their operating altitude is around 28,000 feet. I am pretty sure the combat that is currently going on, and will continue to go on, IE insurgency does not have the technology to knock any of these suckers out of the sky.

If we were to go up against an actual country that had SAM batteries or other AA installments there would just have to be a jammer sent up to scramble the radar signal, or with the advancements in stealth, we could make a UAV have similiar characteristics to the F117 nighthawk with the radar absorbing paint and the geometric body panels. This combined with how small the actual UAVs are would be nearly no radio signal at all, since if I remember correctly the radar signature of the F117 is like the size of a tennis racket.
 
  • #69
100
1
The only UAV's that are even remotely in harms way at the moment are the MQ-1 predators who have attached hellfire missiles, and their operating altitude is around 28,000 feet. I am pretty sure the combat that is currently going on, and will continue to go on, IE insurgency does not have the technology to knock any of these suckers out of the sky.

If we were to go up against an actual country that had SAM batteries or other AA installments there would just have to be a jammer sent up to scramble the radar signal, or with the advancements in stealth, we could make a UAV have similiar characteristics to the F117 nighthawk with the radar absorbing paint and the geometric body panels. This combined with how small the actual UAVs are would be nearly no radio signal at all, since if I remember correctly the radar signature of the F117 is like the size of a tennis racket.
yeah, just a bunch of bumpkins there. it's not like any other governments might have an interest in trade here.
 
  • #70
19
1
all of our supposed "enemies" that are not insurgent oriented already have UAVs, which are capable of anything the United States UAVs can do. North Korea has UAVs from Europe for example.
 

Related Threads on I am thinking about joining the Air Force

  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
10K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
12
Replies
290
Views
26K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
56
Views
27K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
113
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Top