Is there a place for Traditional CAS in the 21st century?

"Paul F Austin" wrote...

You should read a bit about F-35. That's precisely how DAS will work. The
HMS will project the DAS camera images depending on where the pilot is
looking. The description in AvWeek said that even if aircraft structure was
"in the way", the pilot would be given the view along the sight line he was
looking at. If a wing is in the way, he'll have "X-ray vision". And since
the DAS cameras are IR there's that extra advantage.

I didn't read all that capability (e.g., "X-ray vision") into the stuff I have
read about DAS, but it sounds plausible in concept. However, for a UAV there
will be a cost/weight bogey to overcome, plus the data bandwidth and reliability
to transmit all that video real-time to the operator.


Another problem would be to get the operator used to visualizing the world in
IR. All his threat training would have to be based on IR imagery to be
useful
with his IR sensor suite. Target ID becomes a significant problem again in
terms of blue-on-blue potential.

That's true but it's currently true for NVG flight. CAS doesn't stop at
sundown. There's a whole lot of work being done on Blue-Force Tracking which
was used in rudimentary fashion in Iraq-II.

Yep... and the time when the expected transponder or other tracking device
isn't working is the time blue-on-blue will be most likely. That is when the
hard decisions have to be made real time, sometimes in a few seconds or less.
Even assuming comparable sensor suites, the pilot over the battlefield will have
a distinct advantage over the remote UAV operator.

I'm not trying to say CAS with UCAVs is impossible; I just cannot accept the
contention that blue-on-blue will somehow be reduced or eliminated because of
their use.

"John R Weiss" wrote:


I'm not trying to say CAS with UCAVs is impossible; I just cannot accept the
contention that blue-on-blue will somehow be reduced or eliminated because of
their use.

While this is certainly not my field it would seem to me that it
'would' indeed help to mitigate B on B because of the old "OH MY
GOD!, if that 'target' actually _is_ enemy then I've got about 2
seconds to live!...do I shoot or not?!?. Whereas if the operator
is quite safely installed in an airconditioned trailer miles away
then he might be thinking "Jesus!, if that target really is enemy
then our multi-dollar UAV has only 2 seconds to live".

Big difference I'd think (but then, whadda I know?)
--

-Gord.