I still don't understand why this is a misconception. I read the relevance as more an indication of how technologies one way or another will eventually be countered and defeated because it is easier to find an crack than be on the other side, patching up every crack. As I understand it, the Powers incident was a lucky shot. F-117 in Kosovo was luck and a radar modification to operate at lower frequencies. Maybe this specific incident could have been avoided with a pilot in the cockpit, but there's always something else that can go wrong: is it logical to discount UAVs because of this one incident?
I hope I'm not coming across as confrontational or (beyond civilly) argumentative - I apologize if I am. This is a subject that genuinely interests me and I want to understand Bullet's view on this. (and I see your point about budget and eggs all in one basket but then how far should it/is it being taken?)
Contrails, there is nothing wrong with asking the questions you are asking above, as your points are valid. In fact, Scout and TPG do have valid points as well: the powers that be DO consider the potential risks involved in regards to placing a human operator in a high threat environment, and the consequences if "something happens". Also, technologies continually emerge to gain the edge, for and against both sides of the battle, and as CC points out, to expect 100% mission success, regardless of type of platform, is foolish.
You ask my position on UAVs versus manned platforms. Let me provide you what I can in an open and unsecure forum such as this. I'll start off by saying I've interacted with a lot of senior officials who have sworn to me based on their "expertise" that we should never build a manned fighter or bomber after we finish with the F-35. They continually use the points that UAVs get the job done cheaper, while removing the risk to pilots / aircrew. They've seen the tremendous leaps forward in unmanned platform and weapons technologies, and make the jump that within 20 years, pilots will be obsolete.
Now, for the environments we currently are in, and for the missions we currently use UAVs to accomplish, the UAV is EXTREMELY well suited to accomplish, and well worth the investment. But, as usual, people tend to forget that the Next war is rarely exactly like the Current war, and what is needed to operate and survive in today's battle may not fit into tomorrow's battle. We call today's battle space a "permissive" environment; simply stated, they are NO threats to our air assets in Afghani and Iraqi air spaces. We can go and operate where we please without threat of being shot down. Now, in places like Iran and a few others, the environment isn't as permissive,thus the need for advanced technologies in our unmanned and manned fleets to survive and operate in those environments. The missions we are using UAVs with advanced technologies for, persistent surveillance and reconnaissance, and strike as required, make a ton of sense and justify the cost and the call to reduce operator risk. Easy missions to do, very little reaction and immediate analysis of the environment required.
But the best and most encompassing sensor to processor package remains the Mark-I eyeballs tied to the human brain. By a LONG shot when compared to today's technologies. Again simply stated, we are far from achieving technologies that can assess and understand the entire environment and react to it as quickly as the human operator in the more complex environments. And for the more advanced missions, such as strike in a high threat environment, or Close Air Support, or (the most dynamic, fast paced, and demanding of all) Air Interdiction, there isn't a sensor / processor combination even in concept phase at this point that can come close to what is required to replace the pilot / aircrew in the cockpit and still succeed.
And, that still leaves the vulnerability to the communications connection between the human operators on the ground and the platform. We simply don't have the Artificial Intelligence within the UAVs that would be required to remove that link and still operate and survive in more risky environments. Will we get to that AI level in the future? I'm pretty sure we will, and we'll have the ability to remove the man-in-the-loop, and have aware platforms operating in the battlespace, reacting and engaging as needed. IF WE WANT THAT! There are lot of moral implications to that scenario, removing the man-in-the-loop. Do we want the robot making that call, or do we want a human to confirm that the robot has indeed made the right decision? Besides, we ALL know that if we DO go down that path, SkyNet will just eventually become self-aware and wipe out most of the human race.
I can also tell you that unmanned isn't as cheap as people make it out to be. Cheaper than manned flight? Yeah, pretty much, but not by that much a difference as to be a high ranking justification as some make it out to be. You still require a network of logistics and operators on the ground (in much larger numbers than in manned flight) that need to be accounted for. The cost for that support adds up to quite a bit for each flight hour.
So, what DO I advocate when I talk to these senior officials about manned vs. unmanned? Like I said, don't believe the capabilities of an All-UAV fleet is the be all to end all, because it ain't. But don't underestimate the value of reducing risk, which an UAV provides. BL: don't put all your eggs in one basket. It needs to be a balance of both.
As to THIS incident? Yeah, for me it is a matter of "I told you so", because I'm firmly entrenched in today's argument as to what tomorrow's air fleet should look like, and this was one of the points I've used, time and again. The security implications today do indeed have me worried, but I am more concerned about mission success tomorrow, and the folks who think they have all the right answers when they've never been involved in the mission before....