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

"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:11:01 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:26:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase
blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the shapes of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/spr...friendly.fire/

-HJC
Please include UK Warrior vehicles in that training.

Before you get too smug, recall who clanged that Challenger around Basra
during the latest visit to the area...twasn't the Yanks, and twasn't the
Iraqis.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Agreed we did but the A-10's mangaged it in both GFI and GFII.

Well, heck, when it is your side that is providing the bulk of the toys and
the men to operate them, you can expect that the greater percentage of
untoward incidents will also be in their pocket. Now, can you enlighten us
as to just how a RN *AEW* helo (of all things--one would imagine that such
aircraft are generally better informed about their surrounding traffic
conditions than most) managed to collide with *another* AEW helo (and in the
process killed a USN officer on exchange duty)?

As I said earlier, in war "**** happens". Even in the UK forces...

Brooks

Pat Carpenter

"Tony Williams" wrote...

In the CAS arena, the comparative lack of situational awareness on the part
of a
remote UAV operator will most likely increase the probability of friendly
fire -- not reduce it.

That's an interesting issue. A counter-argument could be that an
operator sitting safely back on the ground will be less stressed and
able to take more considered judgements - and if in doubt to call for
a second opinion from a senior officer looking over his shoulder.

I would disagree with your argument. The UAV operator will already be
handicapped by his narrow field of view, so any such judgements will be made on
a much smaller information basis.

If the environment is such that a UAV can hang around long enough for second
opinions, it is also possible for a pilot to make an ID pass over the target and
get a verbal confirmation from the FAC. Also, in a multiple-target environment,
targeting by reference to nearby visual cues (e.g., geographical features or
smoke) is relatively straightforward for the pilot, but may be impossible with a
narrow field-of-view UAV sensor.


There would also be the opportunity for more realistic training in
that it would be easy to record UAV films showing what different
friendly and enemy vehicles look like in various circumstances.

I don't see how a remote UAV operator could get more realistic training than a
pilot who has seen the battlefield personally.

In the case of the pilot, training with gun camera tapes and other visual
training aids already supplements his experience in actual target ID. While a
UAV operator could get similar experience while operating the UAV, the
limitations of his sensors will not allow him to have as broad a picture as the
pilot there in person.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 15 Mar 2004 23:54:03 -0800,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

There would also be the opportunity for more realistic training in
that it would be easy to record UAV films showing what different
friendly and enemy vehicles look like in various circumstances.

You must be aware that aircrews currently train on friend/foe
recognition.

Of course, but the opportunities for recognising different vehicles in
different conditions from an aircraft must be limited, and looking at
films isn't quite the same thing. My suggestion is that viewing
training videos from UAVs would look exactly like what the operator
would see on his screen for real. And he could do it again and again.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:49:55 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:11:01 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:26:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase
blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the shapes of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/spr...friendly.fire/

-HJC
Please include UK Warrior vehicles in that training.

Before you get too smug, recall who clanged that Challenger around Basra
during the latest visit to the area...twasn't the Yanks, and twasn't the
Iraqis.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Agreed we did but the A-10's mangaged it in both GFI and GFII.

Well, heck, when it is your side that is providing the bulk of the toys and
the men to operate them, you can expect that the greater percentage of
untoward incidents will also be in their pocket. Now, can you enlighten us
as to just how a RN *AEW* helo (of all things--one would imagine that such
aircraft are generally better informed about their surrounding traffic
conditions than most) managed to collide with *another* AEW helo (and in the
process killed a USN officer on exchange duty)?

As I said earlier, in war "**** happens". Even in the UK forces...

Brooks

Pat Carpenter

Probably the same way as the Patriot shot down two allied aircraft
before a brave F16 pilot smoked the *******. Trouble is too many
systems are treated like toys and not lethal weapons.
As to the RN choppers, they both had their radomes stowed and were
relying on shipboard radar control.

To quote from a WWII saying :-
"When the Luftwaffe bombed the Allies ducked, when the RAF bombed the
Germans ducked but when the Americans bombed every f**ker ducked"

Pat Carpenter

"Tony Williams" wrote...

Of course, but the opportunities for recognising different vehicles in
different conditions from an aircraft must be limited, and looking at
films isn't quite the same thing. My suggestion is that viewing
training videos from UAVs would look exactly like what the operator
would see on his screen for real. And he could do it again and again.

The training opportunities you describe would be available equally to pilots and
UAV operators. The pilots would still have the advantage of being able to see
or visualize the broader picture available from the cockpit.

Also, repeating the same "canned" scenarios ad nauseum may not provide any
additional training. Without experience, any difference from the already-seen
perspective may be unidentifiable.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:55:50 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"Tony Williams" wrote...

Of course, but the opportunities for recognising different vehicles in
different conditions from an aircraft must be limited, and looking at
films isn't quite the same thing. My suggestion is that viewing
training videos from UAVs would look exactly like what the operator
would see on his screen for real. And he could do it again and again.

The training opportunities you describe would be available equally to pilots and
UAV operators. The pilots would still have the advantage of being able to see
or visualize the broader picture available from the cockpit.

Also, repeating the same "canned" scenarios ad nauseum may not provide any
additional training. Without experience, any difference from the already-seen
perspective may be unidentifiable.

But the pilot is unlikely to be able to fit his copy of Janes Armour
and Artillery in the cockpit, and the UAV jockey can have his next to
his terminal.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:55:50 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"Tony Williams" wrote...

Of course, but the opportunities for recognising different vehicles in
different conditions from an aircraft must be limited, and looking at
films isn't quite the same thing. My suggestion is that viewing
training videos from UAVs would look exactly like what the operator
would see on his screen for real. And he could do it again and again.

The training opportunities you describe would be available equally to
pilots and
UAV operators. The pilots would still have the advantage of being able
to see
or visualize the broader picture available from the cockpit.

Also, repeating the same "canned" scenarios ad nauseum may not provide
any
additional training. Without experience, any difference from the
already-seen
perspective may be unidentifiable.

But the pilot is unlikely to be able to fit his copy of Janes Armour
and Artillery in the cockpit, and the UAV jockey can have his next to
his terminal.

A simple laser surveying device can target laser or GPS guided weapons as
selected by the terminal operator. Just drop a couple into the tube ... bye
bye.

"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:49:55 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:11:01 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:26:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb
wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase
blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the shapes
of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/spr...friendly.fire/

-HJC
Please include UK Warrior vehicles in that training.

Before you get too smug, recall who clanged that Challenger around
Basra
during the latest visit to the area...twasn't the Yanks, and twasn't
the
Iraqis.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Agreed we did but the A-10's mangaged it in both GFI and GFII.

Well, heck, when it is your side that is providing the bulk of the toys
and
the men to operate them, you can expect that the greater percentage of
untoward incidents will also be in their pocket. Now, can you enlighten
us
as to just how a RN *AEW* helo (of all things--one would imagine that
such
aircraft are generally better informed about their surrounding traffic
conditions than most) managed to collide with *another* AEW helo (and in
the
process killed a USN officer on exchange duty)?

As I said earlier, in war "**** happens". Even in the UK forces...

Brooks

Pat Carpenter

Probably the same way as the Patriot shot down two allied aircraft
before a brave F16 pilot smoked the *******. Trouble is too many
systems are treated like toys and not lethal weapons.

From
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...nd%20Defen ce :

""History shows that fratricide is an unavoidable feature of warfare,"
admits the National Audit Office, Britain's public spending watchdog, in a
2002 report on the MoD's attempts to improve combat identification."

Treated like "toys" huh? From that statement one can assume you have little
first-hand experience with a profession at arms.

As to the RN choppers, they both had their radomes stowed and were
relying on shipboard radar control.

Gee, and not a single Yank around to take responsibility for the act (unless
you were planning on blaming the one who was killed...?


To quote from a WWII saying :-
"When the Luftwaffe bombed the Allies ducked, when the RAF bombed the
Germans ducked but when the Americans bombed every f**ker ducked"

Regarding Operation Tractable (Falaise Gap):

"Bomber Command carried out this operation without American involvement, but
a large number of bombers, many ironically from 6 Group of the Royal
Canadian Air Force, bombed short."

Those short bombs caused casualties. Like I said, **** happens, even when
you Brits are the ones doing the dealing. George Washington noted a
Brit-on-Brit fratricide incident that occured during the French and Indian
War, when the detachment he was commanding came within sight of another
British element and both sides opened fire on each other. Maybe you think
Washington bears the sole burden for that event, too?

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

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

"John R Weiss" wrote
"Tony Williams" wrote...

In the CAS arena, the comparative lack of situational awareness on the
part
of a
remote UAV operator will most likely increase the probability of
friendly
fire -- not reduce it.

That's an interesting issue. A counter-argument could be that an
operator sitting safely back on the ground will be less stressed and
able to take more considered judgements - and if in doubt to call for
a second opinion from a senior officer looking over his shoulder.

I would disagree with your argument. The UAV operator will already be
handicapped by his narrow field of view, so any such judgements will be
made on
a much smaller information basis.

If the environment is such that a UAV can hang around long enough for
second
opinions, it is also possible for a pilot to make an ID pass over the
target and
get a verbal confirmation from the FAC. Also, in a multiple-target
environment,
targeting by reference to nearby visual cues (e.g., geographical features
or
smoke) is relatively straightforward for the pilot, but may be impossible
with a
narrow field-of-view UAV sensor.

You're making the assumption that the FOV will remain "soda-straw". When you
consider the DAS baselined for F-35, an operator of a UAV designed to fly a
CAS mission could have the same situational awareness as a pilot on board
and _better_situational awareness than any aircraft now flying, essentially
a 4pi steradian field of regard The camera systems (from Indigo Systems
http://www.indigosystems.com/company/PR/pr_030318.html) are quite small and
would be feasible for an aircraft able to carry the ordnance in the first
place.

Current generation UAVs are designed as ISR platforms rather than as UCAVs.
Expect the sensor suite to be different for a different mission. In fact,
one of the "UCAV" platforms being bruited about is a pilotless F-35. There
are a lot of issues to be resolved and development to be done before a UCAV
flies a CAS mission but there are no laws of physics that prevent it from
happening.

The real question is whether a remotely piloted CAS aircraft works better
than one with a man aboard. The up side of a UCAV is more fuel and ordnance
for a given airframe, reduction of pilot fatigue and manning issues not to
mention reduction in people at risk. The down side is the vulnerability of
datalinks to jamming, airspace deconfliction and failure tolerance since an
on-board pilot can compensate to a limited extent for equipment failure and
damage..

Once that decision is made, then the correct requirements get levied against
the new system and off you go to the procurement races.