UAVs, any good?

[Finningley Boy]

I was watching a good programme the other day about Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the prospect of their increased use in the future. This American chap was demonstrating the remote control of the XBox 47, or whatever it's called, and he described his simulated control of it as being far superior in terms of fine handling and so forth, than if the pilot was on board. He said that he was able as a result of the finer tuned control over the moving surfaces, to cut his turn to land on a carrier down to a third. Or by a third?

Anyhow, the intended UACV in question was attracting the interest of the U.S.Nav, not surprisingly. But I was wondering what people o n here thought about the realities, practicalities and so forth about the remote piloted strike Fighter are. Some senior Air Force Officers from ours and other countries claim that whatever the projected capability of the UAV/UACV it is not a panacea answer to manned combat aircraft outright!?!

FB:)

[L J R]

Some senior Air Force Officers from ours and other countries claim that whatever the projected capability of the UAV/UACV it is not a panacea answer to manned combat aircraft outright!?!

.
They are correct. Despite being a fan of RPA's, I will challenge anyone who says differently in today's tech world. They are not yet the be-all and end-all of manned combat aviation.

[Courtney Mil]

Aeroplanes need pilots in them to fly them.

Standing by...

[zondaracer]

Well that UAV still had a pilot... Remotely piloted. Placing the pilot in a remote location decreases SA. The gain is that you don't lose a human life in the event of aircraft loss. Taking a pilot out is good when a pilot doesn't want to be there, fr example long loiter times, aka when you need long persistence like the predator.

Surprisingly, these unmanned aircraft need MORE personnel to get them flying and keep them airborn. There is a manning shortage for "unmanned aircraft.". Ironic.

[Lonewolf_50]

One of the largest problems of current UAV ops that I see is the simple lack of ability to see and avoid ... other traffic.

A few Predators seem to have begun flying surveillance along our southern border, for DHS or someone like that.

No few pilots flying in American airspace are aware of how a Pred works, and what it can see, and how it sees. Not pleased, in general.

Most UAVs are hard to see.
Most UAV's can't "see" as a pilot does for visual separation.

Expect more midairs.

I seem to recall that at least one midair was recorded in Iraq between a fixed wing and a UAV (military, both of them), and also a midair between more than one helicopter and UAV(again, both military) but my memory is a bit shaky on that. Been a few years.

There are a wide variety of UAV's, from hand launched to things the size of a pred and larger. You fill the air with enough of them, close proximity is bound to crop up more often.

Only one party to the close call has ANY ability to See and Avoid.
That is the manned aircraft.

[Pontius Navigator]

Whilst it is axiomatic that only a manned aircraft and see and avoid there is a possibility that a UAV can sense and avoid.

If sensors can pick up ordnance aimed at you then so can the UAV sensor and evasive action can be taken. The sensor package will add to the payload however.

[garyscott]

Lonewolf . . . a quick googly,
http://defensetech.org/2011/08/17/midair-collision-between-a-c-130-and-a-uav/

. . And reference to another incident.
When Drones Go Rogue In Friendly Skies, How Do We Bring Them Home? | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-09/when-drones-go-rogue-friendly-skies-how-do-we-bring-them-home)

IMHO you will never keep pilots out of the cockpit. :ok:

[BEagle]

Whilst drones have their place, they are not the universal panacea which their protagonists would have us believe.

Drone operators are still needed for portions of a drone's mission.

When drones aren't deconflicted, this sort of thing can happen:

_NOar22TX2k

and when the drone's software goes out to lunch:

byS2UcA1QKk&feature=player_detailpage

Yet the drone community want to be allowed to operate these things in normal airspace....:uhoh:

[Lone Kestrel]

BEagle,

I take it that the above incidents have never happened to manned aircraft!!

Come on boys, wake up and smell the coffee. RPAS are coming and we need to be ready.

[mmitch]

At the Waddington Air show in 2009 the was a 'UAV Pavillion' Several impressive small scale UAVs were on display. What startled me was a large display of a UAV project which would patrol the coast around Kent and Essex! Most of this area of North Kent is busy/ controlled air space.
An Assistant Chief Constable was in charge. It was due to start patrols in 2010 and be fully operational for the Olympics. Haven't seen it over here yet.....?
mmitch.

[Bear 555]

garyscott - RPAS Pilots (certainly those with a 'traditional' flying background) consider the Ground Control Station (GCS) to be our cockpit on the ground. It is BF'd and signed off as part of the aircraft.

zondaracer - You're correct to a point in that there is a reduction in elements of the overall SA position, but my view is that these are being addressed in the main either through procedural or technological means. Current work (including ours) into See & Avoid/Sense & Avoid/Detect & Avoid (delete as appropriate) is proving what works and what does not. One of the most routine failures is a lack of predictable and repeatable performance of the human eye . . .

BEagle - 100% in agreement. RPAS have a job to do just like any other aircraft or system. We cannot make them all things to all men. Access to airspace is being addressed, again through procedural AND technological means. By that I mean adherence to recognised standards and international rules and regulations starting at design, build, operation and maintenance of aircraft. Problems only occur here when the rules are 'set aside' and an organisational, cultural position of waivers and consessions is adopted - either by operators, regulators or industry. Is that not the same of any airctraft?


As a note, there are some benefits to being on the ground in terms of access to information, phone lines, internet, mission/aircraft/system specialists - not to mention crew 'facilities' ;)


I believe in the phrase 'equivalence and transparency' - that means equivalence with existing regulations and procedures (wherever possible) and transparency to other airspace users. When everyone gets that idea (and my other points) and we start treating these like real aircraft instead of toys, gadgets and 'killer death spy drones' the progress will be made.

1. This will work.

2. It's just another aircraft.

3. The 'machines' are coming - get over it.


cheers



Bear
(awaiting incoming)

[dead_pan]

Access to airspace is being addressed, again through procedural AND technological means.

I remember talking to some bods at DERA in the late 90s who were in discussion with the CAA on this very topic. I'm amazed its taken so long to sort this out, given the advances in technology (TCAS, DGPS not too mention our ATC infrastructure) and thinking on the topic.

Their application in the military arena has already reached a level of maturity and sophistication, unlike their application for civilian uses. As for the UK police using them, I'm not holding my breath.

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

I'm not sure if asking about the prospects of UAVs replacing "manned" aircraft on a forum dominated by pilots is going to result in a balanced discussion. It would be a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas!

I happen to agree that there will be a need for a traditional pilot-aircraft relationship for any aircraft that carries pax, for the foreseeable future anyhow (civil regulators accept change very slowly). However; I think that sixth gen fighter aircraft could well have a cockpit in a trailer. Not to worry though, you'll most likely still get flying pay! :ok:

CWD

[Poose]

Have the US military not backed away from the UCAV concept?

I refer to the shelfing of Phantom Ray. I believe the reasoning behind this was that the level of spatial awareness and processing power required was unattainable; when compared to a human pilot sat in the cockpit under such high workload situations as a dogfight.

Good job really - I don't want computers that can 'think' to a human level... VCRs used to outwit me... :uhoh:


Hasn't the USAF funding for Global Hawk been reduced too?

I think that the rationale behind this decision was the requirment for more personnel and increased cost in comparison to a manned platform. Kind of shoots a few of the main reasons behind having UAVs out of the water, somewhat.

I stand to be corrected, if I'm not up to date.

I do believe there is a place for UAVs. That is over war zones and well away from 'regulated' civilian airspace. Anywhere, that longer loiter times are required. Perfect for a counter insurgency operation like Afghanistan. Other than that I struggle to see any real wider usage, despite what UAV manufacturers and futurists would have you believe. :8

One more point to consider... the unmanned version of PPrune would be awfully dull!

[Not_a_boffin]

Unless I'm mistaken, pretty much all UAV ops (standfast what the Israelis were doing with drones in the Bekaa in 82) have been in "permissive" environments. By that, I mean that there have been no large-scale or co-ordinated attempts to disrupt the control and comms systems for them.

You could argue that dedicated target-specific UCAVs would not need external info (in essence they become a meaner-looking potentially more manouevrable TLAM), but I think that case would be hard to make for more reactive (in-flight retargetable or autonomous) assets.

That pretty much imples a continuing role for manned aircraft, although whether it's a majority role is another question......

[Tourist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geqip_0Vjec&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-dkonAXOlQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4&feature=player_embedded


They are coming, and only getting better......

[dead_pan]

Tourist - that last video is fantastic, especially the figure of eight. Still, they would be quite easy to counter using a fly-swatter. I'd imagine these little blighters would have limited endurance.

[hval]

Finningley Boy,

UAV's can be good, very good, or, if designed by BAE, hopeless.

Manned aircraft have advantages over UAV's in some areas, UAV's have advantages over manned aircraft in other areas.

Manned aircraft and UAVs should be used in a complimentary manner. I would not wish to depend upon either alone.

The improvement rate with UAV design and technology is currently much greater than with manned aircraft. This is to be expected with a relatively youthful technology.

My belief is that even in the future, when UAV technology does catch up with manned aviation, there will still be situations where a manned aircraft will be better than a UAV. I also believe that there will also be more situations where UAV's should be used over manned aircraft.

[Finningley Boy]

Thanks for the input Gentlemen, I always understood that the principal aim of the UAV/RPA as a military requirement, was because the demands of manoeuvrability which was getting to G limits beyond Aviation Medicine's ability to counter with new suits. Buta part of me thinks its just another opportunity for the systems specialists to prove how automation can further squeeze human endeavour and skill out of the picture.

I think there'll always be a place for the manned aircraft in all areas. One thing I don't think has been at all properly understood yet is just how, certainly the present, RCAs will manage in truly hostile airspace against manned enemy aircraft and more realistic Surface to Air Weapons than the Taliban have.

FB:)

[Mr Grim]

I think that hval has it about right and good comments from those that have actually operated UAVs. The usual ill-informed, daily mail level comments from those that clearly never have.

UAVs can be far better than manned aircraft at many things, but they are not a panacea, manned military aviation has a good many years in it yet.

On the flight in civil airspace point, they already fly in civilian airspace in many parts of the world, but the CAA has displayed its usual proactive, forward leaning approach to new ideas so not in the UK yet (and now it's more european so not optimistic). For see and avoid, how much lookout do you think an airline pilot does in the cruise? Somewhere between zero and none? For SA, in my experience UAVs have far more SA than manned aircraft because they can get so many different feeds and they don't have to look through the soda straw!

I am referring to large scale pred / reaper type UAVs of course, not the radio control aircraft that are a completely different kettle of fish.

[Sun Who]

I think I might have posted this here before so apologies to those who've read it.
[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Page not found (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DCDC/OurPublications/JDNP/Jdn211TheUkApproachToUnmannedAircraftSystems.htm) Ignore the fact it says -Page not found- it still works for me.

Amongst other things it says:

After many false starts and broken promises, a technological tipping point is approaching that may well deliver a genuine revolution in military affairs. However, despite the growing ubiquity of unmanned aircraft, key questions remain over how to best procure, employ and support them.

I think it's a balanced document.

An awful lot of work is being done 'behind the scenes' in MOD and elsewhere to better understand the potential, cost and limitations of unmanned systems.

Sun.

[EAP86]

some general thoughts:

"Have the US military not backed away from the UCAV concept? "

Some months ago I was talking to a US Army person with part of the airworthiness responsibility for their aircraft. He claimed they had 12000 a/c; 5000 conventional and 7000 unmanned. UCAVs might be waning but UAVs look to be there for the long term.

"On the flight in civil airspace point, they already fly in civilian airspace in many parts of the world, but the CAA has displayed its usual proactive, forward leaning approach to new ideas so not in the UK yet..."

A conversation with a CAA man this time. He suggested that given our relatively congested airspace, it was politics which was holding progress back; given time the technical and associated regulatory issues can be sorted out fairly readily. Nobody wants another Hindenberg.

[Sun Who]

EAP86 said:
"Have the US military not backed away from the UCAV concept? "

Possibly, read the US DoD Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2011-2036, released only 3 months ago and found here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/sts/docs/Unmanned%20Systems%20Integrated%20Roadmap%20FY2011-2036.pdf

Not a single mention of UCAV/S (accept in the glossary). Another good document though. A UK equivalent would be useful in my opinion, enabling us to plan our development of unmanned technologies and approaches, rather than knee-jerk our way into the current unmanned ORBAT consisting of purely UORd capability (stand-by WATCHKEEPER).

Sun:).

[garyscott]

Bear 555 wrote - "garyscott - RPAS Pilots (certainly those with a 'traditional' flying background) consider the Ground Control Station (GCS) to be our cockpit on the ground. It is BF'd and signed off as part of the aircraft."

I hear you, and whilst i don't debate that - i just think that no matter what sensor fit that UAV's/UCAV's etc may be fitted out with, there is just no substitute for having a pilot in the A/C, SA just cant be the same if you are not 'there'.
I have absolutely no first hand experience of ops with these systems, so i may be completely bass ackwards on this, but i just cant see the timely interventions and situational judgements being made from a ground station that can be several time zones distant.
There are (IMHO) times where you just have to 'be' there. . . .

( . . duck and cover . . )

[orca]

I have first hand experience of manned and unmanned working brilliantly as a team.

My strengths were weapon fit and SA of the battlefield - I had a big transparency to look through, not a drinking straw. The drone chap was able to chat to CAOC for ROE issues and track discrete targets that I couldn't, he and his buddies could also be on station for hours when I was asleep and they stayed out there after the job was done and I reached 'urine crit'.

Once you got your head around the fact that the drone's voice was actually coming from thousands of miles away, and that he was relaying information from decision makers hundreds of miles in the other direction it all worked swimmingly.

[FFP]

situational judgements being made from a ground station that can be several time zones distant

Other than the satellite delay (which is just over a second) the situational judgement is actually enhanced. Why ? Because UAV pilot hasn't been living in a portacabin by the airfield, hasn't lived off chow food for 2 months, isn't strapped to a bang seat for hours on end and has the world's communications at his disposal, including a phone to call just about everyon e and everyone, including the JTAC s/he's working with as the radio's are a bit crap today.

There's physically and mentally removed. I can assure you they are very different.

[Finningley Boy]

Other than the satellite delay (which is just over a second) the situational judgement is actually enhanced. Why ? Because UAV pilot hasn't been living in a portacabin by the airfield, hasn't lived off chow food for 2 months, isn't strapped to a bang seat for hours on end and has the world's communications at his disposal, including a phone to call just about everyon e and everyone, including the JTAC s/he's working with as the radio's are a bit crap today.

There's physically and mentally removed. I can assure you they are very different.
When points like this are being put forward as decisive, its clear to me that the actual advantages of the UAV are still very much a trade off or aren't there. Suggesting that a pilot aloft won't have had a decent meal before hand or that he's not in a comfortable seat are rather simple, what the pro-UAV brigade miss is just what motivates someone to want to do that in the first place, especially given the lengths they have to go to to succeed. Arguments of the kind above take no account of this, the age we live in sees points like this being given far too much consideration. So here's a counter, what about the excessive boredom and lack of prestige for the ground pilot. He's little more than a sim driver in terms of his experience, will he have the sharpness and keen edge which the pilot/WSO actually in the air have? As for communications on board the aircraft, are
we suggesting here that all they've got is an HF set or something? just like aircrew at the start of the Second World War.

FB:)

[TheInquisitor]

There seems to be a broad split of opinion here between those who have operated large scale UAVs (Pred/Reaper) and those who haven't. In terms of current usage, such as ground attack through a targeting pod, there really is no need to be physically 'there' - and trust me, as one of those who 'has', you are very much mentally 'there'. Air-Air is probably a totally different ball game, but as I have no experience in that arena I can't comment.

Your battlefield SA from operating a UAV is usually far superior to that of a manned aircraft, particularly FJ types that are endurance-limited. By the time you get into a fight, you have probably already 'been there' for several hours and built up a very broad picture of the battlespace. It is often you who is briefing-in the FJs that rock up much later on in the party. And as already mentioned, the range of SA tools available to a UAV crew is vast.

I echo the comments from the likes of FFP, Mr Grim, Bear 555 and L J R here. They reflect the reality of my own experience. UAVs are most definitely not a panacea, and will only ever complement, not replace, manned aviation.

[FFP]

lack of prestige for the ground pilot

Herein lies a misconception that I find from those that haven't operated UAV's. Were you to spend a week with one of these units, you'd find that ego stroking and resentment at what they do is non existant amongst the crews. In fact, it only seems to be those that haven't done it, ranting about why they are all wearing flying suits and getting flying pay that see operating UAV's as a step down in the aviation world.

I've got about 3000 hrs manned and about 900 hrs operating UAV's. I'll admit that most of that 900 hrs is less than exciting (but ultimately important in what it achieves) but those hours that do the exciting stuff make up for it and I'd swap them for the manned flying I've done any day.

Inquisitor has it spot on. The concept of "there" is being re defined.....

[garyscott]

I guess this is just one of those things that as i have no direct experience of UAV ops, the lack of true understanding is what's clouding my perception of the attributes that these systems can bring to the party.

But there is one thing from FFP's post that makes me think a little (not good, the wife tells me!), the time delay for instance on a very distant mission.

Going with the 1-ish sec delay (assume one way, 2 - 2.5 sec total?), if a rapid reaction to threat is required, then could that delay mean that unless there is a programmed-in automatic reaction from the system that could be taken without operator authorisation, the UAV loses out to manned A/C for a TIC situation? (Manoeuvring into position for release of ordnance times assumed similar for both platforms.)

Not sniping or anything, just wanting to gain a little knowledge, mates. :ok:

[onetrack]

Current UAV's can really only be considered to be in the same category as motor cars of 1910... showing tremendous potential, but with a long way to go before all the bugs are ironed out.
The UAV field is further complicated by the sheer variety of "UAV's" appearing. All these will complicate matters until numerous interaction and control issues are solved.
Projects such as CICADA, WASP, VOYEUR, & MAV are all promising projects, but they still need a lot more development work before we see them taking over from piloted aircraft.

CICADA - CICADA Micro-Drones Opens New Opportunities for Future Covert Surveillance | Defense Update (http://defense-update.com/20111208_cicada-micro-drones-opens-new-opportunities-for-future-covert-surveillance.html)

WASP - Missile or UAV? UVision Introduces the WASP | Defense Update (http://defense-update.com/20110622_wasp_uvision.html)

MAV - Miniature Aerial Vehicle (MAV) - Class I UAV for the Future Combat System (FCS) | Defense Update (http://defense-update.com/20090126_mav_vtuav.html)

T-HAWK MAV - T-Hawk Micro-Aerial Vehicle (MAV) | Defense Update (http://defense-update.com/20090201_t-hawk-mav.html)

[Sun Who]

Onetrack,

Your post regarding T-Hawk is a little out of date.
The aircraft has been flying in Th as part of a larger UOR for almost 3 years and has (mostly) been a success.

Sun.

[bcgallacher]

It would appear to a non expert that UAVs are extremely effective in areas where there is no enemy air defence capability.The talk of long loiter times etc are nonsense if the enemy has aa missiles or fighter defence - they would last minutes over a conventional battlefield. There is a video taken from a Ukranian (I think) UAV being shot down by a Russian fighter which fits the sitting duck category.

[Lonewolf_50]

Yep. They are great in a permissive environment. They've not been tried out very often in a non permissive environment, the shoot down video (which I have seen) being a nice data point to consider, and the Iranians having their way with a fancy American drone is another data point.

My experience with coordinating manned and unmanned ops tells me that as with most air power scenarios, you first establish air superiority, air supremacy, or air dominance (pick whichever doctrinal term you like and see if you can apply the conditions) and then have at it with the remotely armed reconnaisance.

That said, there is an entire family of small UAV's organic to ground units that you'd expect to see used regardless of the above. They'd be expected to have a medium to high attrition rate while hostilities are in progress.

[Sir George Cayley]

Actually, dropping kettles of fish might take the enemy by surprise:eek:

UAS. Piloted or autonomous - world of difference. Current examples all have their limitations.

But it's what is currently under a black project that counts. If the MH 60 that crashed in Pakistan or the Sentinel gifted to the Iranians are any pointer to the state of art in UAS then craft we find out about in the future should be quite impressive.

Apart from taxing isn't a 787 a UAV ish?

SGC

[Mechta]

They've not been tried out very often in a non permissive environment, Maybe not recently, but Vietnam wasn't exactly what one might call a permissive environment (ok, so its from Wiki, but its mentioned elsewhere):

The target vehicle was successful enough that Ryan was asked to develop a reconnaissance version of it, which became the highly successful Model 147 Fire Fly and Lightning Bug series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Model_147_Lightning_Bug) which saw extensive service in the Vietnam war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war)....and the Iranians having their way with a fancy American drone is another data pointIs there any real evidence yet that the Iranians did more than use a jammer (which may or may not have actually had any effect), and got lucky when the RQ-170 had a flameout in when in return home mode?

[L J R]

...or did our friends at the 30th RS in Tonopah actually 'give' an RQ 170 to Iran to ascertain Iran's Technology.....?

[rubberband2]

The life of Kelly Johnson's Lockheed U-2 has been further extended.

This is due to the unreliability, high cost & dubious efficacy of current high altitude drones.

Warplanes: U-2 Defeats The Robots Again (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20120214.aspx)

[GreenKnight121]

For BEagle and garyscott... lost UAVs is not a new thing...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/F6Falive.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/F6Falive2.jpg

All those years have passed, and they still lose control of their toys.

[garyscott]

GK121 . . . . :D

Impressive article there . . . Good job there were no shacks on the Bermite Powder Company premises! :}

Wow.

[Finningley Boy]

UK to announce joint drone project with France - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-to-announce-drone-project-with-france)

Andrew Brooke has just been on Channel 4 news commenting on UAVs.

FB:)

[ORAC]

Grauniad: British reliance on drones in Afghanistan prompts fears for civilians (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/18/british-drones-afghanistan-taliban)

MoD says four non-combatants and an unknown number of Taliban fighters have been killed in strikes since 2008

The British military is increasingly relying on unmanned drones to wage war against the Taliban, and has fired more than 280 laser-guided Hellfire missiles and bombs at suspected insurgents, new figures reveal. In the last year alone, the remotely controlled Reaper aircraft have flown more than 11,000 hours over southern Afghanistan and attacked targets with 105 high-impact precision weapons................

The UK has been using drones in Afghanistan for the last four and a half years, having bought six Reapers from the US as part of an 'urgent operational requirement'. The RAF currently uses five Reapers on constant rotation to support Nato's military campaign, and is providing 36 hours of coverage every day. This means two drones are in use much of the time.

Last July, the MoD admitted UK drones had flown a total of 23,400 hours and fired 176 missiles and laser-guided bombs since 2008. By the end of May this year, the totals had risen to 34,750 hours and 281 weapons........

[TheInquisitor]

More ill-informed tosh in that article... :zzz:

Looking at the stats, I'd say the answer to the original question is... YES.

[Roland Pulfrew]

And let's not forget (and I am NOT trying to start a new Nimrod topic) that the future of LRMPA for the UK is unmanned! It must be true; a senior officer said so!! :mad::ugh: Anyone really believe that there is/will be a UAV capable of doing ASW??

[Wensleydale]

Its a rumour caused by all the old AEOs droning on.....

[fltlt]

Bloomberg Study Shows Drones Most Accident-Prone In Air Force - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-study-shows-drones-most-accident-prone-in-air-force-2012-6)

[Mr_B]

During March alone it ferried over half a million pounds of cargo. It can lift up to 6,000lb of cargo at sea level, or 4,000lb at 15,000ft density altitude.

IN FOCUS: K-MAX variant offers glimpse of pilotless future (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-k-max-variant-offers-glimpse-of-pilotless-future-373066/)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

fltlt, as you exhibited some knowledge on the matter in another thread, I'm sure you realise that the vast majority of RPA accidents are in the takeoff and landing phase.

Invent a system which has to be landed remotely from a TV screen with no depth perception, with hugh glider-style wings and springy undercarriage, and you're going to have the odd incident when you try to put them down.

I don't think they're demonstrably more dangerous than many other things when you get them actually up and about.

[fltlt]

5&6

It is not the launch and recovery phase that concerns me per se. It always has been over the past almost 30 yrs the incidents that result in lol (for whatever cause, and some you just couldn't think of and/or believe) and the failure of the onboard gubbins to follow sometimes multiple cascaded fail safe commands and literally wander off on its own. Granted, it doesn't happen that often, however when everybody and their dog wants to continue making money off them when the wars end and (to me) rushing headlong down the road of "integration" into manned airspace over folks heads, in my humble opinion somebody is going to get hurt.

As for the use in LAX airspace, today a reaper was wandering around the circuit with a Bonanza chase plane, same as usual, way out in the high desert.

There are serious man (woman) interface issues with autonomous vehicles of all kinds air/ground etc., and it is not in the control loop. It is in the programmed response mapping. 99.9% of the time I can insert multiple totally autonomous vehicles into a single environment. They will react to each other because they "know" what the reactive response will be to action a/b/c etc. Introduce a human into the environment and it all goes to hell, because no matter how hard one try's to replicate the response matrix for however many folks are on earth it is so far beyond our capabilities it isn't funny. So the million dollar question is do we try, or do we train us monkeys to react to them?

Yes, done the take off and landings with the cyclops cameras, flown with them, caught things in nets, arrester wires, deployed recovery chutes to watch the ac self destruct on landing in wind, usually to prove to the nth person who thought it was a great idea that it really isn't a good idea, the list is endless. Yes they do have uses, yes make the onboard systems as reliable as the ELECTRONICS in manned ac and you will be heading down the right road.

Enough from me.

[Exascot]

The air force men who fly drones in Afghanistan by remote control - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9552547/The-air-force-men-who-fly-drones-in-Afghanistan-by-remote-control.html)

[Tourist]

Nice article, but is it just me, or did he get their names mixed up?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Looks like he did. Confusing if you know them!

Also:

'We can give more an interpretation of what’s going on,’ a Tornado flight commander says. 'It’s hard to put into words, but there is just that feeling of being there. You can see the whole situation and not just the target. The fact that you can look out of a cockpit and say, “There’s a village next to us.” We could be talked into thinking that a couple of men kneeling in the middle of the road at night look dodgy when it’s actually a guy changing a motorbike tyre that’s just had a puncture.’

... Really? You're going to look out of the window at several thousand feet and say "no, silly UAV, that's a guy changing a tyre?" Or assess that from a grainy Litening screen? Good bit of anti-UAV propaganda from someone who doesn't know what SA tools they have, how good the picture is, etc etc.

Having tried it both ways, I'd say the pressure of being there for just 100 days means you're more likely to want to push to get a weapon off.

[Easy Street]

Yes, that Tornado flt cdr was talking sh*te. I say that as a Tornado operator! Understanding of pattern of life and context is exactly one of the strengths of a long-endurance UAV. If I was going to pick on a weakness of current UAV to make FJs look good in a press interview, I would highlight:

1) Speed of response to a distant 'situation'
2) Time to get back on station after expending all weapons
3) Ability to transit through/around very poor weather, and operate in it (to an extent)

Granted, 2) is not particularly relevant to Afghanistan given the low-ish rate of weapon use. However all 3 of these points came to the fore during Op ELLAMY. That's not to say that UAV were a sideshow in ELLAMY - far from it - but the balance of 'usefulness' favoured FJ, unlike what we see in Afghanistan.

Of course, one of the great 'strengths' of UAV is that its video feed can be widely distributed. I sometimes feel this is more of a hindrance - particularly when senior commanders get the long screwdriver out in the CAOC. There comes a point when you have to trust crews to act within ROE and make appropriate decisions; Mission Command, I think it's called in staff college-speak. The viewing of PredCam can get the CAOC too close to the action at times, focussing 'the war' on the view down one soda-straw and causing other opportunities, unseen in the CAOC, to be missed.

[ORAC]

Alarmingly high accident rate - maybe they should 13 Sqn fly them instead? :hmm:

Also interesting is the Iranian clone in the embedded link. Reverse engineered from one we lost in Afghanistan?

Hermes accident rate prompts UK action (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/10/hermes-accident-rate-prompts-u.html)

The British Army's interim use of leased Hermes 450 unmanned air vehicles has involved an eye-watering 11 crashes in Afghanistan since 2007, according to armed forces minister Andrew Robathan............