....a diminishing amount of penis waggling between the towel slapping boys in the future...heck these guys may even hit the target...

So much for Pilot Arrogance from now on.

As long as there is NO WAY to operate the plane without a human in the loop, i can be comfortable. BUT i'm in no way comfortable at beign exclusively dependant on robots to fly. There HAS to be some trained corps able to fly mechanical planes ... just in case.

Also there have to be some fully manual planes aroud ... also just in case.

Call me paranoid if you wish.

First of all, the US military has had non-officer pilots going back to World War II. Nothing new there. (e..g. The P-38-equipped 82nd Fighter Group during WWII had "sergeant pilots".) The high level of automation of these RPV's does a better job at the mechanics of flying that a fully manual flight system anyway, regardless of who is at the controls. Having said that, a Predator has no more firepower than an artillary piece traditionally fired by enlisted men, it simply has different advantages, strengths, and limitations. The real change needed is some type of control handoff or real-time video link to the platoon leadder on the ground calling in the airstrike.

Sergeant Pilots:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1424

ahh i can see it now battle ships surrounded by swarms of automated defense drones

can i buy mini ones for my home please :)

mines the one without the remote control in it

Once again, the military establishment (at least over here in the US) has failed to learn from history and is therefore doomed to repeat it.

Prior to the little excursion into Vietnam, military planners/designers thought the (aircraft) gun obsolete. After all, missiles could do all that from a safe distance, with greater accuracy, blah blah blah.

Reality, as most folks know, turned out to be rather different. Relatively simple and inexpensive MiGs and their cannon were kicking butt at the beginning of the war while complex and expensive missiles failed in that miserable environment. Defense contractors and military planners had to jury rig gun pods onto early model F4 Phantoms. Later edition Phantoms had internally mounted cannon, lessons having been learned the hard way...

If we proceed too far down this path, we are going to lose an even MORE valuable military option than aircraft mounted cannon. Even though properly trained pilots are expensive (and occasionally rather obnoxious in their swagger), they are an essential option in any military equation. Just as you can't win a war without "boots on the ground,"* there will come a day when you can't win a war without a HUMAN in the air.

* before anyone starts, I remind you of the tried and true maxim "conquest is easy, control is not". There are many ways to conquer without boots on the ground, but not control.

I have a couple of hedge fund managers and dirtball banks that I'd like to have this device pay a visit to. They've screwed all of us over, perhaps it is time we return the favor.

The photo in this article is either a screen cap from a video game/simulation or real life needs better anti-aliasing...

ISTR the problem in Vietnam was that the US RoE demanded visual confirmation before engagement, so close-range dogfights were inevitable, and the F-4 and its missiles weren't ideal for that kind of thing.

"before anyone starts, I remind you of the tried and true maxim "conquest is easy, control is not". There are many ways to conquer without boots on the ground, but not control."

That's so not true. We only have that problem because modern warfare is NOT centered around killing everything in a 50 mile radius.

"This is only possible when you have complete aircontrol with no opposition. Somehow I dont think this would be happening if there was an opposing airforce to shoot them down."

Good thing Johnny Jihadist can't get his hands on any man portable SAMs is it not?

Oh wait...

Can I hack this?

Yes you can. (probably)

Sounds good until you start getting burn out in the kids flying missions all the time, until eventually one of them goes "F*** it" and nukes whatever country we're at war with.

Sure -- where there are no surface-to-air defenses to worry about and no complex situations to deal with a remotely controlled strike is fine. Against anything like a comparably-equipped enemy who is not totally "out-teched" the situation is entirely different. Try flying one of these drones into Russian air-space :)

Consider these drones as fit for purpose - blowing up stuff in 3rd world cesspits like Afghanistan, somalia etc. You don't need stealth or superjets and Tom 'Maverick' Cruise for that.

Against a more powerful adversary, yes, better kit is needed. But that doesn't preclude using more advanced drones. Though you don't want them too smart, otherwise we may need to prepare to welcome our new drone'o'death overlords.

Even, possibly, an air force of other drones. Provided they have some kind of air to air weapon.

Also note that this thing is well above the size of even a large RC plane. Its c 48' in wingspan and 26'. according to http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/predator.htm Whether or not it can remain at its normal operating height when acting as both a weapon carrier and controller (c26kft) is another matter. while its rotary engine should be a difficult target for heat seekers it may not be impossible. I think its more a question of contrast against the sky background.

Or you could just get a reasonably sized RC model and crash it into the tail. In countering the complex threat you sometimes forget the simpler options.

The good news is a real RC plane should have formidable trouble getting to the altitude and speed (120Kn flat out). History teaches that relying on altitude for immunity from attack has a very limited shelf life. The V bombers and the U2 demonstrated this is not a long term option.

You could build a UAV which could pull 15g(or more) turns at very high angles of attack and shoot down anything else in the sky. But how much cheaper than an equivalent crewed aircraft would it be? These UAVs are not designed for that and maybe that's the point.

When push comes to shove UAVs are expendable. Take their telemetry, learn from it for the next upgrade. A possible option (like some of the Vietnam era drones designs) would be to make some parts (especially the sensor packages) recoverable by better crash protection or some kind of ejection & parachute.

It might be interesting to find out what Israeli practice has been. Their use of UAVs in the Lebanon were in some cases into areas with heavy air defence. I think they expected most of them to be destroyed.