Your flying robot has no mother at home waiting for him and don't expect a search&rescue party. It doesn't even need training. It has a mark and serial number with known operating procedures and none personalized view on things. It is then far less expensive to bring to the battle & can die cheaply while performing his role with excellence. .
If flying robot is substantially less effective than a manned asset - while operator's mother will get her child back, mothers of infantrymen will weep. Many more of them at that.
So it's important to strike balance. Preferably the balance shall be flexible enough so as to not just work against opponents that can't shoot back.
And here aircraft relying on 1980s solutions(low&fast) are still doing vastly better than loitering drones with an insufficient standoff - thus
at least for now there is good merit in actually doing the reverse - unmanned asset doing the stand off observation&target recognition from the altitude, manned asset going in.
Even if it can do only a fraction of what an A-10 pilot can do him[her]self, it is there to stay (and improves). There is no conflict b/w the two. A robot is a tool just like any kitchen appliance and the future is for them to be an extension of the aircraft systems (MUM-T).
Totally agree.
"Painless war" is an oxymoron. When all of the superior robots are rendered useless through cyber or kinetic operations are you going to surrender? Do any of you have data on how many aircraft sorties have been flown vice number of aircraft lost? Do any of you have the number of reported aircraft lost to air defense missiles vice how many missiles have been launched? How many UAV have been lost versus manned platforms by sortie ratio? YouTube video and Twitter are not sound bases for accurate observation and analysis.
The Russians started the war using massed helicopter formations in daylight with very little in the way of aircraft survivability equipment. Tactics that had not changed at all since the Soviet days. Through Darwinian selection they have modified their tactics and are using more western-like tactics of stand-off with long range missiles (LMUR/Izd.305?) and operating closer only at night. The Ukrainian helicopters flew at night in small groups (through the very same Russian Integrated Air Defense that is going to sweep the sky) on a number of occasions. Both are now using their helicopters to conduct flying artillery barrage attacks from behind the front line trace. MANPADS are not everywhere and they don't see well at night, even with night visions devices. Nor do they last long in enemy territory. Most regular soldiers prefer to be unnoticed behind enemy lines.
Now before everyone gets excited with my diatribe, the US Army FVL program is looking at exactly what you are discussing. The Air Launched Effects (ALE) is launched outside of the WEZ (Weapons Effects Zone) to do the very reconnaissance that used to be done by manned platforms. The manned platform acts as the decision point for the reconnaissance conducted by the attritable unmanned air vehicle. The US Army is also acquiring very long range missiles for sniping their nemesis from behind friendly lines.
Why am I blathering about rotorcraft, because USAF is not going to do CAS early in any fight. In fact I seriously doubt that the US Army field commanders expect any CAS at all. So they have their own. Did you know that a helicopter at 50ft AGL can target a radar 10 miles away without being detected (its geometry folks).
In conclusion: The CAS mission will be conducted in close proximity to ground forces by people in close proximity to the ground forces and not to somebody in a box somewhere far away. Occasionally having an F-35 drop a JDAM on a bridge or building will be great but how many F-35 do you need to kill a battalion of tanks? Keeping a couple of squadrons of A-10 in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve in case we decide to be stupid enough to do "small wars" again might be prudent.
