You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...

In article CAtGg.302$8J2.180@fed1read11,
"BTIZ" wrote:


I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the
first place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi
million dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a
room full of highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a government
could love.


In combat.. you have a semi disposable observation platform that has long
loiter time and that can also provide laser targeting information (and some
have shot missiles at moving ground targets and hit them).. and you have
kept the "jellyware" (a.k.a. human life form) safely on the ground and not
flying over enemy territory. Combat by remote control is a good thing.

So, are you saying the United States of America is hostile territory?

However, the cost differential between operating a $13-million UAV and
its ground-based crew of seven compared to a pilot and a suitably
equipped Cessna 182 will never support UAV operations for border
patrol missions. It's an audacious government/corporate boondoggle
supported by the DOD and Executive branch; it's the nose of Big
Brother's domestic spying camel slipping under the tent. :-)


This is a false argument.
comare like to like.
A 182 does not have anywhere near the sensor capability of a modern
UAV. Compare the UAV with something similar like a U2.
Even the U2 does not have the capability to transmit the status in
real time.

The 182 can not loiter at 15Kft beyond where people of interest notice
them. the 182 can not stay aloft for 24 hours at a time.

Maybe we need to develop a piloted survalence aircraft with the
capability of a military UAV, but I think that the UAV will be more
cost effective.

Not all UAV's cost 13M either, see the recent demo of the 3.5K UAV by
the LAPD.

I have no commercial interest in UAVs just a desire not to loose
access to the airspace as a private pilot.
I do have some experience with non commercial UAV like technology....
my project:: http://www.rasdoc.com/splinter/solar2004.htm


Paul (Same as pbreed but from home instead of from work)

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article CAtGg.302$8J2.180@fed1read11,
"BTIZ" wrote:


I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the
first place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi
million dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a
room full of highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a
government
could love.


In combat.. you have a semi disposable observation platform that has long
loiter time and that can also provide laser targeting information (and
some
have shot missiles at moving ground targets and hit them).. and you have
kept the "jellyware" (a.k.a. human life form) safely on the ground and
not
flying over enemy territory. Combat by remote control is a good thing.

So, are you saying the United States of America is hostile territory?

Been to the Mexican border recently?

HUMVEEs with .50 caliber machine guns escorting the coyotes and the drug
runners (oh, but they aren't Mexican military...wink/wink...)

Uh, yeah, I'd call that a hostile situation.

Jay B

In article ,
wrote:

Not all UAV's cost 13M either, see the recent demo of the 3.5K UAV by
the LAPD.

You mean the one that didn't work?

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:42:19 -0700, wrote in
:


However, the cost differential between operating a $13-million UAV and
its ground-based crew of seven compared to a pilot and a suitably
equipped Cessna 182 will never support UAV operations for border
patrol missions. It's an audacious government/corporate boondoggle
supported by the DOD and Executive branch; it's the nose of Big
Brother's domestic spying camel slipping under the tent. :-)


This is a false argument.
comare like to like.
A 182 does not have anywhere near the sensor capability of a modern
UAV.

That is why I qualified my suggestion of a Cessna 182 platform with
the phrase 'suitably equipped.'

Compare the UAV with something similar like a U2.
Even the U2 does not have the capability to transmit the status in
real time.

With a pilot observer, perhaps there would be no necessity for that.
If not, the same technology as installed on the UAV might be employed.

The 182 can not loiter at 15Kft beyond where people of interest notice
them.

Why not? A Skylane has a service ceiling of 18,100 ft.* And a Turbo
Skylane maintains full rated powerplant power to 20,000'.

the 182 can not stay aloft for 24 hours at a time.

Three of them can, and it would save millions and millions compared
with a UAV.

Maybe we need to develop a piloted survalence aircraft with the
capability of a military UAV, but I think that the UAV will be more
cost effective.

Not all UAV's cost 13M either, see the recent demo of the 3.5K UAV by
the LAPD.

If you're referring to the UAV the LA Sheriff's Department is
attempting to test, it's valued at $30K. There are probably range
issues that would interfere with it fulfilling the border patrol
mission. I object to its blind operation in joint use airspace also.

I have no commercial interest in UAVs just a desire not to loose
access to the airspace as a private pilot.
I do have some experience with non commercial UAV like technology....
my project:: http://www.rasdoc.com/splinter/solar2004.htm


Now, that is impressive. Bravo!

Paul (Same as pbreed but from home instead of from work)



* http://skylane.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml