Drones May Be Cool, But the Air Force Isn't Done With Humans

That adrenaline thing is tough to capture in an algorithm. JL

Eric Adams reports in Wired:

Sure, drones have their upsides, like reduced risk and cost. But the fact is that in spite of all their capabilities, (the Air Force brass) are just not comfortable enough with the operational realities of these things. “The death of manned combat aircraft has been well oversold.”
Drones may dominate the future of flying, but human pilots aren’t going extinct for a while: The ultra-high-tech F-22 and F-35A fighters are finally entering service, and should spend decades aloft.
That’s why the US Air Force is launching a competition to find the jet that will educate its next generation of fighter pilots. Trainer jets are a bit like driver’s ed cars. Their two seats each offer a full set of controls, so the experienced Top Gun can mold noob pilots into air jocks without risking their lives. The Air Force’s current top trainer, the T-38 Talon, has been flying for 50 years; the youngest of the planes are in their mid-40s.
The T-X program has produced four competitors, all of them used to this sort of work. Lockheed Martin partnered with Korea Aerospace Industries to upgrade the existing T-50A trainer, which first flew in 2003. Northrop Grumman has a clean-sheet design, called Trainer-X, that made its maiden flight in August. Raytheon is positioning its T-100—an upgrade to its Italian partner Leonardo’s M-346 trainer—for the promotion. And Boeing, which teamed up with Saab Group for this effort, unveiled its all-new T-X last month. The Air Force is still finalizing its required specs, but the new trainer must prepare pilots for contemporary air warfare, which demands as much managing data streams and communication as high-G maneuvering. Pilots should train in aircraft more capable than the T-38—packing contemporary pilot assists the outgoing plane can’t support—but also learn to manage complicated combat scenarios.
Whichever jet the Air Force selects will also manage a range of sensor inputs, simulate air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons systems, and potentially sync up with pilots in ground-based simulators. It will bring combat training fully into the modern age.
Still, this program makes one wonder about the future of aerial combat. The Air Force may not spend much on the new trainer—it’s buying just 350. But Pentagon budget cuts and the evolution of unmanned systems have nearly pushed it to drop the program several times in the past few years. Yeah, the T-38 is aging out, the thinking goes, but the F-16 could help plug training gaps, and the number of next-generation fighters is so small anyway that the Air Force could make do.

The death of manned combat aircraft has been well oversold.

Now, though, the Air Force is ready to formally launch the competition, and two of the contenders are investing in clean sheet designs. What’s changed? Call it a victory for the so-called fighter-pilot mafia—the cadre of Pentagon personnel who advocate for continued human operation of combat vehicles.
Sure, drones have their upsides, like reduced risk and cost. “But the fact is that in spite of all their capabilities, we’re just not comfortable enough with the operational realities of these things,” says military aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, with the Teal Group. “The death of manned combat aircraft has been well oversold.”
Along with the T-X program, this rededication to the flesh-and-bone controlling stick-and-rudder has changed the fate of the Northrop Grumman X-47B. The kite-shaped plane, envisioned as an autonomous ground-attack aircraft for the Navy, proved it could safely launch from and land on an aircraft carrier.
In February, the Navy announced the drone, which it originally meant to use for ground attacks, would serve instead as a surveillance and refueling tanker. The military isn’t ready to let go of the notion that the eyes making life and death decisions in the skies need to be human, Aboulafia says. Yes, current drones fire missiles and drop bombs, but there’s always a human pilot at the controls and making decisions.There’s more to it than the “white-scarf mentality,” says military analyst Peter Singer. “If unmanned combat squadrons proliferate, that bumps up the costs of manned systems everywhere else.” Manned systems like the painfully expensive F-35 program. And, he adds, a new trainer can be a good investment. Manufacturers can sell it to foreign nations without worrying about giving away the classified technology it packs into its more capable fighters. It could modify it for combat by adding guns, missiles, and bombs that wouldn’t be included in the training models.
As for the immediate future of the T-X program, it’s hard to pick out the winner so early on. Lockheed Martin reportedly has the inside line, in part because it also produces the F-22 and the F-35, which American pilots will be practicing for. Boeing promises a budgetary edge, claiming its stealthy “Black Diamond” manufacturing tech will keep costs down for the cash-sensitive Air Force. Northrop designed and build the outgoing T-38. And Raytheon’s partnership with Leonardo could give it an edge in terms of simulation capabilities.
The Air Force expects to announce the winner by the end of next year, and to start flying the aircraft as soon as 2024—ready to raise many more generations of fighter jocks.