The Last Stand of the Human Fighter Pilot

The military’s stubborn attachment to manned combat aircraft is a relic of a bygone era, rapidly being made obsolete by the proliferation of cheap and effective unmanned systems. In the 1920s, cavalry officers in the US and UK resisted the introduction of tanks, arguing that horses were superior on hilly terrain. Similarly, today’s military leaders are clinging to manned fighters despite overwhelming evidence that drones and other unmanned vehicles have revolutionized modern warfare.

The world’s biggest militaries, including the US, continue to pour billions into legacy systems like the Boeing F-47 – a $300 million fighter jet with flight tests not expected until after 2031. This reluctance to adapt is a testament to their attachment to established technologies and methods. The U.S. military’s refusal to acknowledge the shift towards unmanned warfare has serious implications for national security and defense budgets.

By prioritizing expensive manned equipment, Western militaries are diverting funds from more efficient systems that can provide greater flexibility and reach on the battlefield. For example, the helmets worn by F-35 pilots cost up to $700,000 each – a staggering expense when compared to the relatively low cost of drones. The U.S. military’s continued focus on manned combat aircraft also reflects a broader cultural resistance to change within defense bureaucracies.

Procurement officers and lawmakers are hesitant to adopt new technologies that challenge established procurement processes and job markets. Defense-industry leaders have dismissed the impact of drone technology, but evidence from Ukraine and other conflicts suggests otherwise. The world’s biggest militaries would do well to learn from the Ukrainians, who have successfully integrated unmanned systems into their war effort against Russia.

By reducing the number of human soldiers on the front line and turning over much of the fighting to remotely controlled systems, Ukraine has gained a significant advantage in terms of cost and effectiveness. The U.S. military’s continued focus on manned combat aircraft is a stark reminder that defense bureaucracies are often slow to adapt to changing circumstances.

The fact that Brigadier General Douglas Wickert, the US Air Force official in charge of AI piloting technology, insisted that robotized warfare was still “centuries” away in 2024 speaks volumes about the military’s lack of urgency on this issue. The world’s biggest militaries would do well to learn from history: every major conflict has been characterized by a revolution in military affairs – and unmanned systems are no exception.

The Soviet Union first recognized the potential for modern technology to radically change the battlefield, particularly after the lopsided results of the first Gulf War. Today, Western militaries continue to prioritize expensive manned equipment over more efficient unmanned systems. By diverting funds from these new technologies, they’re leaving themselves vulnerable to disruption from newer technologies that can provide greater flexibility and reach on the battlefield.

The U.S. military’s continued reliance on legacy systems is a recipe for disaster in an era where speed and adaptability are essential to survival. It’s time for Western militaries to stop clinging to the past and start building for the future – one where cheaper, more agile unmanned systems will play a dominant role in modern warfare.