Expendable Remotely Piloted Vehicles for Strategic Offensive ...

There is one major difference between a manned aircraft and an unmannedaircraft that studies rarely address: Humans can form strongemotional bonds to manned aircraft (at least in Western societies). For pilotsand aircrews, this is especially true. 68 UAVs do not conjure up comparablelevels or intensities of similar sentiments. For a UAV there is nosteadfast requirement for recovery; the absence of humans on board eliminatesthe major driving factor to have a vehicle safely return and land.Political and military leaders should thoroughly explore various characteristicsof airpower, both positive and negative, to determine what meansare best suited for what roles. A part of this process is to determinewhether missions exist that are worth the intentional loss of flying machines.At the same time, decision makers must consider how to overcomelimitations associated with human emotional attachment to aircraft.In summary, unmanned aircraft do not elicit human emotions associatedwith life or spirit, and they do not attract the attention given tomanned aircraft. Manned aircraft are designed not only to perform aerialfunctions but also to sustain and protect humans on board. They musthave protective qualities to safeguard the pilot. This means manned aircrafthave inherent defensive characteristics. RPVs, with operators physicallyresiding elsewhere, can be more offense oriented. As such, they offerpotential advantages over manned aircraft in serving as a strategic forceand as an offensive weapon. These advantages can be further exploited bydesigning RPVs to be “more economically replaced than rescued, salvaged,or protected.” 69Notes1. Noel Falconer, “Expend! Expend! Expend!” in RPVs Conference, Bristol 1984 (spinetitle), RPVs: Remotely Piloted Vehicles (cover title) (Bristol, U.K.: Royal Aeronautical Society,1984), 4.1.2. Steven M. Shaker and Alan R. Wise, War without Men: Robots on the Future Battlefield(Washington, D.C.: Pergamon-Brassey’s, 1988), 30. In contrast to Japanese suicideaircraft, there was a manned version of the V-1 Buzz Bomb (named the Reichenberg) developedby the Germans towards the end of World War II. While some Allied observersthought it was intended for kamikaze attacks, instead it “was an experimental test aircraftdesigned to iron out some control problems, rather than becoming a suicide bomber.”3. Information and data contained in this paragraph were obtained from display andvideo presentations found at the USAF Museum located at Wright–Patterson AFB, Ohio.The O h k a (Cherry Blossom) was carried beneath a “mother” aircraft, such as a twin-engineMitsubishi “Betty” bomber. When the pilot reached a favorable position for his attack, hefired the rockets and dove at high speed into his intended victim.4. “Predator, DarkStar and Other Cult Classics,” The Economist, 17 June 1995, 81.5. Peter R. Murray, “B-17 Flying Fortress—Unmanned Version,” IEEE Transactions onAerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-15, no. 5, September 1979, as referenced inJay Womack and Arthur Steczkowski, “Review of Past and Current Trials and Uses of UnmannedVehicles,” Report no. HSD-TR-87-011/United States (Dayton, Ohio: Air Force SystemsCommand, 1988), 2–7.6. Ibid., 30.59