![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:32:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "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. OK, I misunderstood your initial post. When you said "direct control of the men on the ground" I assumed you were suggesting an organic UAV capability in the maneuver element. What you explain now, is simply a full-blown tactical system with everything but the pilot-in-the-loop. At some future time, data processing may make that practical, but right now the wetware is still the most size/weight effective solution. The loiterer doesn't seem a practical model over an ongoing engagement. Much too MANPAD intensive to be tolerated. Certainly the current use of UAVs as recce platforms or even very limited (due to small payload) interdiction systems is working well. CAS, however is often very critical in terms of "danger close" criteria, run-in directions, and other factors. 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. Some CAS is done from a heavy type at altitude with JDAM, but I think the questioner's phrase "Traditional CAS" refers to troops-in-contact and immediate fire support situations which may require a nose-to-nose look at the enemy. I'll be the first to agree that modern weapons with stand-off capability and high accuracy make the definitions of what CAS really is more debatable. I don't think there is any moral issue involved with or without an operator. If the targeting is against a military objective, I'm comfortable. 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. I don't think I was screeching. I agree that there is a bright future for UAVs with increasing missions. But, I don't go so far as to accept the sensationalized concept of video game whiz-kids snapped off the back streets of the inner city to do the job. If you check out the operators of the current crop of UAVs, you'll find a lot of active and former fighter types. The hands and the mind still function pretty well long after the body quits tolerating the high-G environment. 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. Sorry, I won't accept that assertion. The A-10s record is very good with regard to CAS. And, there is nothing inherent about "the machine"--it is as vulnerable to fratricide mistakes as any other system. Taking the pilot out of the loop is the real issue and there's no evidence to indicate that the potential for fratricide goes down. I'd contend that taking the man out of the system will increase the probability of error. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:32:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "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. OK, I misunderstood your initial post. When you said "direct control of the men on the ground" I assumed you were suggesting an organic UAV capability in the maneuver element. What you explain now, is simply a full-blown tactical system with everything but the pilot-in-the-loop. At some future time, data processing may make that practical, but right now the wetware is still the most size/weight effective solution. The ground operator would have the capability of designating targets and the ability to change the level of agression of the autonomous vehicle. I want to get pilots out of the mud, not send them into harm's way. There is a similar autonomous vehicle envisioned for the F-35, but it can wait until the F-22 is either produced, or cancelled. The loiterer doesn't seem a practical model over an ongoing engagement. Much too MANPAD intensive to be tolerated. Certainly the current use of UAVs as recce platforms or even very limited (due to small payload) interdiction systems is working well. CAS, however is often very critical in terms of "danger close" criteria, run-in directions, and other factors. The loiter vehicle is moving forward first, as it is funded for paper investigation of the idea. That way it stays out of the obvious reality check issues for "silver bullet" type assets. 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. Some CAS is done from a heavy type at altitude with JDAM, but I think the questioner's phrase "Traditional CAS" refers to troops-in-contact and immediate fire support situations which may require a nose-to-nose look at the enemy. I'll be the first to agree that modern weapons with stand-off capability and high accuracy make the definitions of what CAS really is more debatable. A 2000 pound bomb dropped accurate does the same job from 15,000 feet as it does from 200 feet; perhaps even better, as the man on the ground has better control of the target's coordinates. That is not always true, as my brother has a story of his company commander calling a strike on his own company's position, but that is another issue. The CO got his bronze star and never went out again. (ie heroin addict) I don't think there is any moral issue involved with or without an operator. If the targeting is against a military objective, I'm comfortable. How about a wedding? (Afghanistan) 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. I don't think I was screeching. I agree that there is a bright future for UAVs with increasing missions. But, I don't go so far as to accept the sensationalized concept of video game whiz-kids snapped off the back streets of the inner city to do the job. If you check out the operators of the current crop of UAVs, you'll find a lot of active and former fighter types. The hands and the mind still function pretty well long after the body quits tolerating the high-G environment. Which is why we are discussing autonomous vehicles for filling the role of "traditional CAS". I have the impression that the Infantry is as pleased to stay out of that type of situation as a fighter pilot is to have BVR weapons. 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. Sorry, I won't accept that assertion. The A-10s record is very good with regard to CAS. Not as good as the Army's own rotary wings. And, there is nothing inherent about "the machine"--it is as vulnerable to fratricide mistakes as any other system. That depends on how well the operator can see the battle and follow instructions. Taking the pilot out of the loop is the real issue and there's no evidence to indicate that the potential for fratricide goes down. The Army's own assets are statistically less likely to blue on blue. I'd contend that taking the man out of the system will increase the probability of error. My man is on the ground, saving his own life. Do you think Cleland was fragged? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:44:13 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: Do you think Cleland was fragged? No, Cleland was a victim of his own clumsiness. He dropped the grenade out of his own hand. That story is pretty well known. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Ed Rasimus wrote: On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:44:13 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Do you think Cleland was fragged? No, Cleland was a victim of his own clumsiness. He dropped the grenade out of his own hand. That story is pretty well known. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 Actually, recently the story was changed due to another soldier coming forth and admitting that it was his grenade, and that he had straightened the pin, having been told that was the warrior like thing to do. The story was well covered here in Georgia. I guess I could find a link if you wish. Bob McKellar, former Cleland constituent |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:44:13 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Do you think Cleland was fragged? No, Cleland was a victim of his own clumsiness. He dropped the grenade out of his own hand. That story is pretty well known. Actually, Ed, if you do a Google on it there is some evidence to support that may not have been the case. Cleland thought that was what must have happened, but another man who was on the ground with him now claims it was another individual who dropped the grenade. Nobody can no for sure, and it really does not matter in the end. Brooks Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:44:13 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Do you think Cleland was fragged? No, Cleland was a victim of his own clumsiness. He dropped the grenade out of his own hand. That story is pretty well known. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 For what it's worth, we just got a USMC Hornet exchange pilot on our squadron who was in both Afghanistan. He did a LOT of CAS, and his experience was that JDAM and LGBs just weren't working for the job. The solution - "traditional CAS - in his own words they were operating " as low as they could "- often down @ 100-200 feet. I watched a zillion of his HUD tapes from Iraq. Believe it or not, his unit used almost exclusively dumb bombs, unguided rockets, and CBUs. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:44:13 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Do you think Cleland was fragged? No, Cleland was a victim of his own clumsiness. He dropped the grenade out of his own hand. That story is pretty well known. Ummm....No. One of his men, who didn't know how th rig his pin properly, dropped his grenade, and Cleland THOUGHT that it was one of his. Since he knew that he rigged his properly, he picked it up. All the planning in the world doesn't matter when an angel pees down the barrel of your rifle. -- --Matthew Saroff Rules to live by: 1) To thine own self be true 2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash 3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page |
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 |