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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb wrote:
So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the shapes of armored vehicles operated by the United States military? So Henry, when was the last time you tried to identify armored vehicles in urban terrain, probably shrouded in smoke, from the cockpit of a fast-moving jet aircraft? Same here (never), but I know folks who have, including a Marine OV-10 FAC pilot who flew in the Gulf War. They tell me it's damned hard to do. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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. Pat Carpenter |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:p9u5c.18281$1p.326709@attbi_s54...
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. 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. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Schoene wrote:
So Henry, when was the last time you tried to identify armored vehicles in urban terrain, probably shrouded in smoke, from the cockpit of a fast-moving jet aircraft? Same here (never), but I know folks who have, including a Marine OV-10 FAC pilot who flew in the Gulf War. They tell me it's damned hard to do. Then you just don't attack the first thing you see. Did the A-10 pilot have the proper clearance to attack? If so, who gave it to him? And why wasn't this coordinated with the troops on the ground? -HJC |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:52:08 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
Thomas Schoene wrote: So Henry, when was the last time you tried to identify armored vehicles in urban terrain, probably shrouded in smoke, from the cockpit of a fast-moving jet aircraft? Same here (never), but I know folks who have, including a Marine OV-10 FAC pilot who flew in the Gulf War. They tell me it's damned hard to do. Then you just don't attack the first thing you see. Why do you assume that anyone would? When you operate a weapon, whether a fast mover tactical aircraft or a hunting rifle in the field, you verify your target. Did the A-10 pilot have the proper clearance to attack? That would depend upon the particular circumstances--the ROE. If working in support of ground forces, he would have to be controlled. He would be coordinated into the area to deconflict with artillery and aviation assets. He might be under FAC control. He might be operating on a 9-line or maybe with an illuminator. He might be in an interdiction role on a fixed reported target. He might be in a "kill-box" where he has free-fire discretion. Are you assuming that fighters commonly operate as some sort of autonomous cowboy? If so, who gave it to him? And why wasn't this coordinated with the troops on the ground? See above. -HJC Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:L%t5c.18641$_w.370665@attbi_s53... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... The Bone may have dropped JDAM, but I question whether it was in a "traditional CAS" role. Can you provide specifics? You want me to do a google search for you, Weiss? I didn't think you could provide specifics... Anyone could provide specifics. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news9u5c.18653$po.222112@attbi_s52... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase blue-on-blue, and they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses. Right now a RPG in the flight deck takes out a rotary wing, so effectively that the commanche is toast. Perhaps you would like to rethink your supposition. No need to rethink on that scenario. An RPG is relatively slow and emits a significant smoke trail. It is also unguided, so evasion is probable if it is seen soon enough. Well you had best get down to the Pentagon and let them know they made a mistake cancelling the comanche. While you are there, perhaps you can talk up the F-14. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:L%t5c.18245$1p.325253@attbi_s54... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... The UAV is of course atonomous. Of course -- in your dreams! Soon enough. The Army has $25 billion to spend. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news9u5c.18281$1p.326709@attbi_s54... "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? Blue-on-blue has happened in every war to date, and will happen in every war in the future. The trick is to minimize it. Scrapping the A-10 is a step in that direction, but ill advised at this time. 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. The UAV is of course autonomous. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |