![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:50:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: I see UAVs under the direct control of the men on the ground as the replacement for the A-10. Some sort of game boy type interface to designate targets would be all the human interface required. In that manner the tendancy of the A-10 to make blue on blue incursions might be eliminated. That would take a quantum leap in sensor technology as well as an incredible level of logistic support. What you suggest would require some sort of UAV platoon attached to a maneuver element with pre-packaged UAV rounds, a launch/recovery capability, a cadre of trained operators, reload munitions, etc. etc. etc. Not a low-tech, mud-reliable sort of weapon. I fail to see how it is any different from an A-10, without the operator and operator support requirements. UAVs are already flying in US airspace using existing comercially available sensors. My vehicle in atonomous mode could come to the battle and then go home when exhasted. Such UAVs are already envisioned as loiterers, where a battle may occur in the future, or along a transportation link. Then there is the question of battle-field view. While the guy on the ground may be able to see the enemy immediately in front of him, he seldom knows what else is out there and threatening. That takes a detached, at altitude, observer. Hunkering in a foxhole or a tracked vehicle buttoned-up, looking at a 12.1 inch LCD display that reports what the eye in the nose of the UAV happens to be looking at is a difficult perspective from which to manipulate CAS. CAS is now done with a JDAM from a B-one at thousands of feet. The only thing that was holding back the technology was the moral issue of having a flying machine kill without an operator, but that was answered by CIA years ago. You proposal also doesn't address the complexities of airspace coordination for employment of a CAS system within the mix of aviation, indirect fire assets and direct fire from supporting or flanking units. Letting "game-boy" operators fly armed UAVs to deliver ordinance at the engagement level is not a trivial problem. Atonomous UAVs are the future, reguardless of the screeching of the fighter mafia. And, the "tendency of the A-10 to make blue on blue incursions" is an unsupported cheap shot. The A-10 (and any other CAS system) has made few friendly fire mistakes. They happen, but it isn't epidemic. The A-10's record vs the rotary wing equivalents for blue on blue incidents is poor. I would rather blame the machine than the inter-service reality in this forum. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Funky place to store your fuel? | BllFs6 | Home Built | 5 | August 23rd 04 01:27 AM |
FS: Soft Comm ATC-4Y 4 place portable intercom, $75.00 | Jaysen Underhill | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | October 17th 03 02:04 AM |
FS: Soft Comm ATC-4Y 4 place portable intercom, $75.00 | Jaysen Underhill | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 17th 03 01:25 AM |
Grumman 2 place Wanted | Jerry | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | September 13th 03 11:59 PM |
4 place portable intercom For Sale | Snowbird | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 26th 03 12:41 AM |