So, Who'has read all the way through Obama's Budget?Follow

Much of flying is instinctual, an artform.

Only pilots think this. The idea that having a guy physically in the aircraft moving a stick that tells the computer what to do is better than someone miles away moving a stick that tells the computer what to do is silly. There will come a time when having manned aircraft adds nothing but liability.

Cat is correct. While much of what is done can be replicated by a machine-- and far better in many cases such as an instrument approach --the operations which occur outside of "straight and level" flight is where the UAV begins to suffer degradation in the operator's abilities. Why? Because despite having an abundance of data and information collected by multiple sensors and instruments, it takes a human to instantly extract what data is important, and, more importantly, how to react.

While the day will likely come where a machine will outperform a human in every situation, that day is not today. Nor is it likely to occur in the foreseeable future. A UAV operator is limited by the very information collections capability of these pilotless planes, and is further one step removed by not being on-scene, thus not giving him the big picture.

Case in point: The Commanche, a helicopter which has been scuttled by the brass, was giving the battlefield commander in simulations of it's capabilities too much information. The sheer volume of data overwhelmed not only the commanders and their staffs, but also the computers which governed threat assessments. They attempted to rig discriminators, but physical and digital, but still the sytems were feeding the commander through a firehose-- way too much stuff and no way to cull it down to managable pieces, and more importantly, determine what was significant and what was dross.

As it was, they more or less turned off many of the collection systems and went back to letting experienced pilots pass tried and true information back to the rear. This was a significant reason why the program was trashed beyond the cost overruns. As a flying machine it was extraordinarily well designed, but it was hampered by what it was being tasked to do.

Ultimately it isn't the stick wiggling which demands a human, because as I have already said, a machine, as a rule, can do that better. It's the other stuff which a machine isn't capable of yet, the threat assessment, the actions required, and a response which tilts the results in your side's favor which cannot be mimiced or derived from inside a box dozens or thousands of miles away. It's not the individual parts of flying which requires a real pilot, but the sum of which produces a greater whole via the human brain with all it's senses applying experience and judgement gained not by mere data, but through time.

Totem

If you recreated the entire control ensemble at a remote location, how would that create a worse representation of the situation? You could still could receive all of the same stimulus, through exactly the same tools. UAV's don't need to be about removing the pilot from the equation entirely, but instead they serve as a way to use their best and brightest pilots, even in situations where it would traditionally be too risky to do so, allowing a broader range of capabilities. It serves as a way of reducing the risk to the pilot, reduces cost, as well as negates the need to consider human physiological limits when designing crafts.

Does the keeping the risk aspect associated with flying grant enough of a psychological benefit that it allows you to fly better? And does it grant enough of a benefit that it is worth losing good pilots if they **** up?

Ultimately it isn't the stick wiggling which demands a human, because as I have already said, a machine, as a rule, can do that better. It's the other stuff which a machine isn't capable of yet, the threat assessment, the actions required, and a response which tilts the results in your side's favor which cannot be mimiced or derived from inside a box dozens or thousands of miles away.

Yeah, no. Firstly, the greatest pilots in history are dead in seconds in a dogfight against a faster, more maneuverable opponent who doesn't black out in a 12 g turn. Secondly, dogfighting essentially doesn't exist anymore. What you're arguing is that pilots offer a unique magical human element that machines don't when deciding when to release munitions on a target 6 miles away, which is just stupid. For every magic moment where a pilot makes a great decision counter what instruments indicate he should do, there are a dozen pilots who think they're doing that and turn $100,000,000 into a smoldering crater.

Trust me, the reason we use pilots today is that it's cheaper, period. When that changes, we won't.

The beauty of this statement made me laugh.

Magnetic railroads, volcanic monitoring, remodeling of federal buildings, all very valid expenditures since they create jobs, but Obama Forbid we should spend money on equipment keeping our nation safe and giving our Armed Forces an edge when in mortal combat, that's just criminal.

I didn't mean we'd take you over by invasion. Our stuff is even more outdated than yours would be in 20 years. No, I meant you're slowly becoming Canadian.

Besides, we're not really worried about wombats. We have moose and beavers. And squirrels the size of bobcats.

Republican scaremongering!

The devil's a Goodman's mouse lemur?

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/obamas-defense-budget-mystery/

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/defense_budget.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/obamas_busted_budget.html (Overall budget commentary, not specifically defense spending)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/defense-official-obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/ (Start of February, pre-budget release)

On the surface it seems you'd be right, but it doesn't quite tally up. Come, now, it's Washington. Nothing is ever cut and dried.

Let's also note repeated pledges during the campaign to curtail military spending. Also, some fun commentary on the side, dated around a year ago. 0.o It's from the other point of view, but nothing wrong with that.

http://www.progressive.org/mp_ford011508



Edited, Mar 1st 2009 8:07pm by KinleyArdal

No, you're just an idiot. o.o~

EDIT: Since this seems to be really difficult to understand, let me walk you through this slowly so you can comprehend the implication of the data.

(A. Earlier there was complaining about how Bush never included Iraq/Afghanistan war spending in the official budget.

(B. Obama is now including Iraq/Afghanistan (complete with drawdown in 2010 and surge in Afghanistan later this year, plus the whole Kyrgyzstan airbase bit o.o did I even get the name right?) in the yearly budget.

(C. Spending budget for military going up 8%.

(D. Suspecion on whether that 8% is before or after Iraq/Afghanistan are added to the books.

o.o Is this comprehensible or do I require a jackhammer?

Edited, Mar 2nd 2009 10:37am by KinleyArdal

Tsk, tsk, Mister Cole.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/216azciy.asp

Let's keep an eye on the situation and see how it pans out in the next few months/year, eh?

Is there such thing as a moderate conservative in America? Or a moderate liberal for that matter?