Pilotless warplanes are proliferating across the Pacific. This poses a big problem for US defence planners, according to one retired US Air Force general.
In recent months, the United States, China and Taiwan have all revealed new or planned Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). The US Navy is considering replacing some or all of its future F-35 manned fighters with armed drones, potentially based on the experimental X-47B. Taiwan has announced ambitious plans for at least two types of killer drones to supplement its aging manned fighter fleet. China, meanwhile, is working on a wide range of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV); the Japanese navy spotted a small, apparently ship-launched drone over a Chinese fleet this summer.
In light of these and other drone developments, the Pentagon must consider ‘the design and establishment of an effective air defence architecture that can rapidly deal with adversary RPA capabilities without fratricide of friendly aircraft and missiles, retired Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula told The Diplomat.
‘Keep in mind that for the past 20 years, we’ve dominated the airspace where we have fought – what’s been in the air is “ours,”’ Deptula said. ‘This condition won’t last forever. Imagine a contingency where there are hundreds of adversary UAVs operating. Who and how will we be able to detect friend from foe, and how will we effectively engage the ‘bad guys’ while allowing our UAVs and other aircraft to continue their missions?’
A system to help sort out ‘friendly’ and enemy drones could be based on existing Identification Friend or Foe radio beacons installed on manned warplanes. The future RPA identification system could also dovetail with a possible command-and-control architecture for integrating drones into civilian airspace crowded with freighters and passenger planes. ‘This issue goes hand in hand with the airspace control issue,’ Deptula said.
‘If these issues aren’t addressed and solved today, we will have some enormous challenges to face when confronted with this kind of a situation for the first time in battle,’ he added.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
yang zi
all these chess games are getting tiring. can relevant party sit down and sign some treaties? just manage the problems and get on with life.
Frank Murphy
I think it’s a step forward by taking the human out of the fight. Eventually it won’t be any fun to fight.
Jimmy Cracks Capricorns
Yeah!! Hoiw will you earn any medals for Gallantry, COurage Under Fire, or Bravery on the Battlefield?!
venkat s .kanakamedala
AMERICA N NATO SHOULD RELY ON RPA LIKE RAPTORS N X-47B FOR A LIMITED WAR.IN THE SAME WAY MISSILE CARRIERS SHOOULD BE DEPLOYED IN ALL SEAS SO THAT LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR N DRONE STRIES CAN BE CARRRIED OUT O ANY WHICH DOESN’T COMPLY TO INNTERNATIONAL NORMS.THIS WILL HELP IN FUTUURE WARSS AGAINST ROUGE STATES.
racetrackfighter
If the US Navy is considering replacing its F-35s, then shouldn’t its allies be doing the same? What does this mean for Lockheed and its partners? Are they the ones who will be manufactuing the drones? It has to shift the bucket of money being spent some way. Since Boeing is in the lead on space and command and control systems, maybe it goes there? Or, maybe Lockheed is building cpaabilites there as well? I don’t know – more questions than answers for me. It all reminds me of that Japanese movie Sky Crawlers.
Reason
@Yang zi
Treaties would be fantastic.
The Washington Naval Treaties in the mid 20thC definitely contributed to a shaky peace for decades.
But…
the chances of getting the CCP to sign any treaties is virtually nil….
Their perception on treaties is – until we have parity- No treaties… which can make sense if you’re CCP… but doesn’t prevent an arms race in Asia
So – no treaties in the pipeline. Therefore chances of peace in Asia – very slim
yang zi
@Reason, it all depends on the content of treaty. the early 20th century treaties are about arms control with unbalanced restrictions. the new treaty should be about how to resolve certain issues. such eliminate the war option.
the future expansion of a country should be its trade, economy, technology and culture, not territory. the game has changed.
so a treaty can be drawn among asia majors (US,China,Japan, India etc). the treaty can say no one should stop commerce traffic in the sea or land of each other. this should eliminate a lot of distrust.
another treaty can say U.S. has right to fly spy planes 30 miles out (what ever number), china can do the same around US bases in Japan or other asia location. same goes with sea surface activities. All countries should inform each other about mil exercises and missile launches.
China and US don’t want to kill each other, neither asian countries, so just be mature and stop playing games. life is too short.