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.
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