"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.