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

In article ,
Peter Kemp writes:
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.

Which, with the way that the business of who is on who's side is
stacking up these days, won't help a damned bit anyway. For example,
in 1991, during the Second Gulf War, you had among the Coalition
members Syria and re rump Kuwaiti Liberation Force, equipped with
Soviet T-62 and T-72 tanks, BMPs adn BTRs, (Or, in the Kuwaiti case,
the Yugoslav clones of same (M-84?). Fat lot of good recognizing
shapes is going to do you. Paint jobs don't help either, Once an
armored vehicle's been out of the Kaserne for 20 minutes, the only way
to tell what colors it had been painted is to wipe off the dust.

And somebody ele's point of having "Higher Authority" around to settle
policy matters doesn't particularly stack up, either. Consider the
case of teh U.S Army UH-60 that was nailed by an F-15 in '91 or '92.
The pilots weren't 100% sure, one way or another, about their visual
ID of the aircraft. But they also had Higher Authority, in the form
of an AWACS Controller, screaming for them to shoot it.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"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.

Get the price down and noone else can play.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:15:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"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.

What no excuse for the Patriot then?
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.

You called them toys, and when you start calling them toys you start
treating them like toys.

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...?

I don't remember blaming any Americans in that case, correct me if I'm
wrong.

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."


"The American air force bombed the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division as
they were in a staging area ready to attack the enemy"

"
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

Pat Carpenter

"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:15:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"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.

What no excuse for the Patriot then?

Excuses? We don' need no stinkin' 'scuses... Like I said, **** happens.

From

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...93575&sub=Secu
rity%20and%20Defence :

""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.

You called them toys, and when you start calling them toys you start
treating them like toys.

Not really. You are rather clueless regarding modern weapons, eh?


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...?

I don't remember blaming any Americans in that case, correct me if I'm
wrong.

Actually, from the beginning you have taken a rather singleminded approach
to pointing out the US related incidents. When it was merely pointed out to
you that fratricide events have been common to both our respective forces,
you wanted to start tossing out more allegations of US responsibility. Hate
to tell you this, but fratricide is a factor of war; we try to control it as
best we can, but it *will* continue to rear its ugly little head...even
within HM forces.


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."


"The American air force bombed the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division as
they were in a staging area ready to attack the enemy"

We sure did, a bit earlier; we also hammered our own 30th Inf Division not
once, but twice during the COBRA effort. Malmedy got bombed not once but
twice by both B-24's and B-26's. And as we see from the above, so did you.
See what I mean about "**** happens" being applicable to everyone, not just
we 'mercans?

Brooks


"
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

Pat Carpenter

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

You're making the assumption that the FOV will remain "soda-straw". When
you

A reasonable assumption on his part I'm afraid.

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.

Cameras haven't been the problem for at least the last 30 years, the band
width
to move their product back to the controller is.

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.

Agreed.

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..

An item of concern is the numbers of UCAV you could have up at any given
time to perform CAS or other missions. With manned planes the limit is
pretty much how many planes you have. With UCAVs, unless they are
autonomous,
there are limits to how many ways you can divide up the available control
band width to use theUCAVs concurrently.
It may be that manned planes will continue to be needed for high intensity
operations long after UCAV become capable of CAS.

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

You're making the assumption that the FOV will remain "soda-straw". When
you

A reasonable assumption on his part I'm afraid.

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.

Cameras haven't been the problem for at least the last 30 years, the band
width
to move their product back to the controller is.

In the near term, TCDL will provide sufficient connectivity to (for
instance) provide uplink video from a DAS-like system. The higher rate CDL
services should be available to support UCAVs_if the need drives the
requirement_.


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.

Agreed.

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..

An item of concern is the numbers of UCAV you could have up at any given
time to perform CAS or other missions. With manned planes the limit is
pretty much how many planes you have. With UCAVs, unless they are
autonomous,
there are limits to how many ways you can divide up the available control
band width to use theUCAVs concurrently.
It may be that manned planes will continue to be needed for high intensity
operations long after UCAV become capable of CAS.

That may be the case but I don't think datalink BW will be the limiting
factor. There are several other network and platform requirements that are
driving the satellite up/downlink and inter-aircraft datalink data rates, so
this isn't a UCAV-driven development. As I said, deconfliction is an
issue-because-most of the time, puttative UCAVs will operate autonomously
with operator direct control and sensing being intermittent, depending on
what's going on. Operators may be located remotely and communicate over
satellite links or they may be "in the area" and communicate by TCDL.
There's obviously trades to be done there.

"Paul F Austin" wrote...
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.

Looks like an interesting concept, but probably not as straightforward as you
imagine...

Assuming the system performs as advertised, I would see the major stumbling
block to be the display to the UAV operator. A "helmet sight" display would be
too narrow for situational awareness, unless it was slaved to his head
movements. However, if you could sit him inside a dome (similar to current
advanced flight simulators) and project the "stitched" images around him, it
could work. Transmitting that much data to a remote operator and processing it
in real time could be a significant problem, though.

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.


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.

I agree about the laws of physics. I still see significant problems to
overcome, and those will cost significant $$. It's difficult to guess whether
the payback will be good enough to pursue the concept in earnest.


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..

I see more vulnerability in the UCAV than just data link jamming. In a
permissive threat environment, the vulnerability issue may not be
insurmountable. However, CAS is performed by definition in an environment where
ground troops are closely engaged. With the plethora of mobile, ground-based
anti-air defenses, a UCAV is much more likely to be shot down than a piloted
airplane, simply because the operator will not be able to detect threats as
well. Add the fact that the operator doesn't have his own butt at risk, and he
is less likely to see defensive maneuvering as a dire necessity.


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

I certainly see a future for UCAVs in general. However, I believe the CAS
mission is one of the least likely to succeed for them.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:44:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:15:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"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

So on that logic then you are saying that you were providing the
majority of the allied targets. So why weren't the Brit's, Canadians
etc. killing large numbers of American participants?

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.

What no excuse for the Patriot then?

Excuses? We don' need no stinkin' 'scuses... Like I said, **** happens.

Sorry but **** doesn't just happen, it is normally caused by a string
of events ( try going on an accident investigation course). One should
never just accept it but try to stop it ever happening again.

From

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...93575&sub=Secu
rity%20and%20Defence :

""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.


I have been on the close recieving end of some of your modern "toys"
twice in the last decade and a half, have you?

You called them toys, and when you start calling them toys you start
treating them like toys.

Not really. You are rather clueless regarding modern weapons, eh?

I've targeted them, fired them and nearly been killed by them, hence I
think the reverse may be more the case.


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...?

I don't remember blaming any Americans in that case, correct me if I'm
wrong.

Actually, from the beginning you have taken a rather singleminded approach
to pointing out the US related incidents. When it was merely pointed out to
you that fratricide events have been common to both our respective forces,
you wanted to start tossing out more allegations of US responsibility. Hate
to tell you this, but fratricide is a factor of war; we try to control it as
best we can, but it *will* continue to rear its ugly little head...even
within HM forces.

Please re-read the start of my contribution and you will see than I
just added to an American's request that A-10's recieve better ID
training.

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."


"The American air force bombed the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division as
they were in a staging area ready to attack the enemy"

We sure did, a bit earlier; we also hammered our own 30th Inf Division not
once, but twice during the COBRA effort. Malmedy got bombed not once but
twice by both B-24's and B-26's. And as we see from the above, so did you.
See what I mean about "**** happens" being applicable to everyone, not just
we 'mercans?

Brooks


"
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?


I think that maybe that you are still living in those far off days.
"**** happens" won't cut it any more in this day and age, if you
really believe that then please stay away from any thing more lethal
than a pocket knife.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:t1%5c.30768$_w.528631@attbi_s53...
"Paul F Austin" wrote...
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.

Looks like an interesting concept, but probably not as straightforward as
you
imagine...

Assuming the system performs as advertised, I would see the major
stumbling
block to be the display to the UAV operator. A "helmet sight" display
would be
too narrow for situational awareness, unless it was slaved to his head
movements. However, if you could sit him inside a dome (similar to
current
advanced flight simulators) and project the "stitched" images around him,
it
could work. Transmitting that much data to a remote operator and
processing it
in real time could be a significant problem, though.

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.

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in terms of
situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant visibility. DAS
promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it should work for UCAVs.


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.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:19:11 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp writes:
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.

Which, with the way that the business of who is on who's side is
stacking up these days, won't help a damned bit anyway. For example,
in 1991, during the Second Gulf War, you had among the Coalition
members Syria and re rump Kuwaiti Liberation Force, equipped with
Soviet T-62 and T-72 tanks, BMPs adn BTRs, (Or, in the Kuwaiti case,
the Yugoslav clones of same (M-84?). Fat lot of good recognizing
shapes is going to do you.

Which is why most of the allies were kept the hell out fo the way to
avoid really bad fratricide issues, just like the Omani (or was it
UAE?) Mirage F-1s were kept doing CAP in the rear areas to avoid
getting splashed forward where the trouble was. IIRC the basic role of
our Arab allies was to look good on paper, and enter Kuwait City
first, while the toughest work was being done in the desert by the US,
UK, and French.

And somebody ele's point of having "Higher Authority" around to settle
policy matters doesn't particularly stack up, either. Consider the
case of teh U.S Army UH-60 that was nailed by an F-15 in '91 or '92.
The pilots weren't 100% sure, one way or another, about their visual
ID of the aircraft. But they also had Higher Authority, in the form
of an AWACS Controller, screaming for them to shoot it.

True, you're always vulnerable to someone in authority overriding
those with more info.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster