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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |