![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 15, 12:15 pm, "John Carrier" wrote:
Not really. The sensor suite and latency in control doesn't make these things ideal for turning and burning. Higher fuel fraction leads to greater persistency, elimination of crew makes stealth easier to achieve and the asset better for high threat environments. A cheaper, smaller and more readily disposable interdiction tool. The price is you've eliminated the decision maker in the cockpit, something you can't always and wouldn't always want to do. R / John With respect to your years of experience John I've heard that argument and agree there will always be situations that back it. But I've also seen counter examples. Harlan Reep used to fly as a contractor here for decades. He was a combat vet and normally flew the drones in the live A/A tests. Occasionaly he would fly other targets in non-shooting tests and flew for us several times when I was working in flight test (89-91.) I remember near the end of his career he flew a QF-86 against a couple Hornets. It was the last Sabre drone in our inventory so there was a lot of attention/nostalgia on the test. It was planned that the Sabre would be shot down even if it survived the test so both Hornets went up with the test missiles and rounds for the cannon. In a nutshell the Sabre survived the test, and then they allowed players to go into the shootdown with Harlan being allowed to 'do his best' to evade. He did, and although there was some hits, the Hornets landed with empty magazines and racks. IIRC Harlan crashed the drone because they didn't want to take the chance that thee was damage to the drone that would cause a crash on landing. They featured a story on the encounter in the Base paper so it wasn't just O'club stories that I remember this from. Of course, I _do_ remember some of the O'club excuses being offered that week ![]() worry about g-block, he could 'fly the wings off... etc.) All in all it made a great day for all the nostalgiac people who had been involved with the Sabre's during their years of use as targets here at the Lake. BB I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "BlackBeard" wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 15, 12:15 pm, "John Carrier" wrote: Not really. The sensor suite and latency in control doesn't make these things ideal for turning and burning. Higher fuel fraction leads to greater persistency, elimination of crew makes stealth easier to achieve and the asset better for high threat environments. A cheaper, smaller and more readily disposable interdiction tool. The price is you've eliminated the decision maker in the cockpit, something you can't always and wouldn't always want to do. R / John With respect to your years of experience John I've heard that argument and agree there will always be situations that back it. But I've also seen counter examples. Harlan Reep used to fly as a contractor here for decades. He was a combat vet and normally flew the drones in the live A/A tests. Occasionaly he would fly other targets in non-shooting tests and flew for us several times when I was working in flight test (89-91.) I remember near the end of his career he flew a QF-86 against a couple Hornets. It was the last Sabre drone in our inventory so there was a lot of attention/nostalgia on the test. It was planned that the Sabre would be shot down even if it survived the test so both Hornets went up with the test missiles and rounds for the cannon. In a nutshell the Sabre survived the test, and then they allowed players to go into the shootdown with Harlan being allowed to 'do his best' to evade. He did, and although there was some hits, the Hornets landed with empty magazines and racks. IIRC Harlan crashed the drone because they didn't want to take the chance that thee was damage to the drone that would cause a crash on landing. They featured a story on the encounter in the Base paper so it wasn't just O'club stories that I remember this from. Of course, I _do_ remember some of the O'club excuses being offered that week ![]() worry about g-block, he could 'fly the wings off... etc.) All in all it made a great day for all the nostalgiac people who had been involved with the Sabre's during their years of use as targets here at the Lake. A somewhat simpler exercise with latency NOT a problem. I was thinking on the order of a machine being maneuvered somewhere in Afghanistan by a driver in Colo Springs. When you consider the distances, even at the speed of light the satellite relay and delay offer enough time to make the job difficult. Perhaps with sufficient nintendo skills, that might be overcome. R / John |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 15, 2:49 pm, "John Carrier" wrote:
A somewhat simpler exercise with latency NOT a problem. I was thinking on the order of a machine being maneuvered somewhere in Afghanistan by a driver in Colo Springs. When you consider the distances, even at the speed of light the satellite relay and delay offer enough time to make the job difficult. Perhaps with sufficient nintendo skills, that might be overcome. Perhaps you are right. For the record I believe we are a very long way away from the 'pilotless air battle' scenario. But I can't help but wonder if the scales will tip when technology allows virtual cockpits or other devices that can let the remote pilot obtain SA comparable or better than piloted vehicles. One pilot in the virtual cockpit and 3 WSO's monitoring sensors and aux systems? An independent rear-facing gunner or two (bring back the TBF ![]() If you can build a half-dozen small UCAV's (RPV's) for the price of one JSF and pilot, any latency problems might be negated by the ability to send up 3v1. Then if everyone moves to RPV's the the latency problems balance each other out. Just some thoughts... BB I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Carrier wrote:
SNIP A somewhat simpler exercise with latency NOT a problem. I was thinking on the order of a machine being maneuvered somewhere in Afghanistan by a driver in Colo Springs. When you consider the distances, even at the speed of light the satellite relay and delay offer enough time to make the job difficult. Perhaps with sufficient nintendo skills, that might be overcome. R / John Apparently they've done/tried to use simulators in Australia vs simulators in USA (F/A-18) for air combat.. The latency was a problem... It doesn't matter how good your "nintendo skills" are.. You can't get information there/back fast enough to do real time combat |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
Not air combat, but a kissin' cousin... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD61V80.html The new 'Reapers' being deployed. BB I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .com,
BlackBeard wrote: On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote: Not air combat, but a kissin' cousin... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD61V80.html The new 'Reapers' being deployed. This is an interesting topic. It reminds me of the first "stealth ship" that Lockheed built. IIRC no one in the Navy wanted to command such a ship. The problem was not technical, it was sociological. Promotion is based on how many men are under your command. The stealth ship had a radically smaller crew. So despite it's greater capability, the general concensus was that if you captained it you would be at a disadvantage career-wise. I wonder if the same factors are at play here. How many men make up a UCAV airwing, versus a manned wing? -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
X-45A unmanned combat air vehicle 060922-F-1234P-103.jpg | [email protected] | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 19th 06 09:27 PM |
Indian naval variant of the Light Combat Aircraft by 2010. | Henry J. Cobb | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 6th 04 03:30 PM |
Future Combat Systems program networked vehicles and drones | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 1 | December 13th 03 07:24 PM |
Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems | buf3 | Military Aviation | 0 | November 5th 03 10:31 AM |