There is still value in manned technology. For example - we could quite easily make unmanned MBTs. Loading the gun is the only thing the crew actually does that is physically required to make the tank operate, but autoloaders do exist (though the reason US tanks don't use them is because autoloaders are generally a less-flexible option and require building some weaknesses into the tank to make work). However, a manned crew is great because they can make on-the-spot field repairs to a tank. If the tank gets stuck, throws a track, etc. then you have a repair crew right on the spot to try to fix it.
For fighter aircraft, there actually is no advantage to drone fighters. While anti-aircraft lasers would make air combat really boring as you just set enemies on fire from miles away (weather permitting), drones presently have a lot of liability in their use. They crash a fucking lot for reasons no manned fighter would ever crash for. Additionally, if you want to plan for major war actions, well, a shitty, laggy satellite link that could be hacked, jammed, or just straight up destroyed by ASAT technology, rendering your drones totally useless, is kind of a problem.
Someone being 'in the loop' on the spot can also make faster decisions and react to changing situations, versus our current drone technology where you have quite significant signal delay and nobody is "invested" into the fight because they're sitting in a trailer in Nevada scraping Doritos off their flight suit.
defense engineer here...
wanna know why most military brass didnt want us to make everything into drones?
because then, they are meaningless
and engineers are the military...
theres more details there, but the point was...
technology negated their raison d'etre.
imagine if you will... a micro nuclear power plant that has laser comms, laser scanning, and laser power and directed energy laser...
now that might sound all scifi bullshit...
but i can tell you most of it is pre-existing just not configured for use.
laser powered aerial drones do not require much in the way of turbines or jet fuel
so naturally, the oil and turbine industry are against it... and theres goes their defense money!
next up is laser comms... wanna know why chyna is leading the charge with quantum satellites and comms?
i can tell its not cus they want encrypted crypto coin exchanges [tho it helps]
lol...
the world as it stands is a machine... and there a big gears and little gears...
but all part of the machine...
imagine if you will. nuclear backed laser power...
while very very inefficient...
imagine if you will.. where would all the tax money go? trillions lost...
you think folks are going to give that up? my sides.
but hey. what the fuck do i know?
im just a smooth brain eating crayons and holding GME
no but really. in all serious.
space force was cus theres a battlefront in space... its been going on for a while.
and notice, who has all the cool new tech in space...
its not the US... we are playing catchup...
but its fun now to be distracted with trannies and pregnant drone pilots...
my sides
There is still value in manned technology. For example - we could quite easily make unmanned MBTs. Loading the gun is the only thing the crew actually does that is physically required to make the tank operate, but autoloaders do exist (though the reason US tanks don't use them is because autoloaders are generally a less-flexible option and require building some weaknesses into the tank to make work). However, a manned crew is great because they can make on-the-spot field repairs to a tank. If the tank gets stuck, throws a track, etc. then you have a repair crew right on the spot to try to fix it.
For fighter aircraft, there actually is no advantage to drone fighters. While anti-aircraft lasers would make air combat really boring as you just set enemies on fire from miles away (weather permitting), drones presently have a lot of liability in their use. They crash a fucking lot for reasons no manned fighter would ever crash for. Additionally, if you want to plan for major war actions, well, a shitty, laggy satellite link that could be hacked, jammed, or just straight up destroyed by ASAT technology, rendering your drones totally useless, is kind of a problem.
Someone being 'in the loop' on the spot can also make faster decisions and react to changing situations, versus our current drone technology where you have quite significant signal delay and nobody is "invested" into the fight because they're sitting in a trailer in Nevada scraping Doritos off their flight suit.
all true.
my statements were not meant to create a sense of ignominy for the war fighter.
BUT
what i missed saying was that some brass in charge, prefer to have soldiers as fodder.
so, hypothetically... if the entire force were drones...
there would be no '12315432432 were killed by ________; the atrocity continues!'
or other political theater.
my sentiment was about using humans as pawns, more than the capability of our tip-of-the-spear soldiers.
forgive me