Sky News - Rise Of The Machine: Who Needs Pilots?
I thought it was the guy that the Droitwich police are seeking to interview under the Unlawful Interference (Sheep) Act of 1827. (Sorry Jacko, you can stick it to me sometime.)
But the manned fighter is dead, Sky says so, and as Tom Robinson put it:
"It's there in the papers/It must be the truth."
Suuuuurrrre.....
But the manned fighter is dead, Sky says so, and as Tom Robinson put it:
"It's there in the papers/It must be the truth."
Suuuuurrrre.....
Sounds Familiar
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Certainly most of the processors in the Europhoon are not just obsolete, but totally dated. Am I right that they are Intel 486 variants?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airborne, that would be about right - 486.
Tornados in 1980 were running on nothing more than a C64. The problem is the design and spec are set 20 years before they role the aircraft off the production line.
Tornados in 1980 were running on nothing more than a C64. The problem is the design and spec are set 20 years before they role the aircraft off the production line.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IN THE PIT
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More importantly, it has only taken less than a century of aerial warfare from WW1 to now to be rid of the pilot. Is that progression or regression as we come full circle to having a flying machine without a pilot. If so then that was a short lived moment in human history, lets hope that innovation into the space race is the next 100 years challenge for human piloted vehicles! Who knows, whats next?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Little Late?
Funny how BAE try to publicise their toy as USAF and RAF introduce their UCAV. MQ-9
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071575
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071575
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Home Counties
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who should operate the UAV / UCAV?
Perhaps the most interesting and accurate comment in the Sky News report was that in future individuals will not want to join the RAF as pilots or WSOs if it means they'll just end up flying a UAV or UCAV - they will "avoid it like the plague".
As the RAF needs to develop and retain an experienced pool of UAV / UCAV operators, who as individuals will be keen to remain within that community, rather than return to regular flying operations, perhaps it's time to consider whether employing highly trained aircrew for UAV / UCAV operations is the most cost effective and efficient long-term option?
Given the performance characteristics of the Predator, I would venture to suggest that anyone with a PPL and IR would be suitable for consideration for potential training. Lets remember that the Army currently operate the Hermes 450 in Iraq without the benefit of 'aircrew' and the US Army will soon be operating a version of the Predator without using 'aircrew', so the precedent has already been set elsewhere. Given the current C4 arrangements, obtaining weapons release approval from higher up the chain is not too difficult and may already be in use, so I would even suggest opening the gate for SNCOs - that's who the Army currently employ.
Given the continual shrinkage of the RAF, it's vitally important that the service makes the very best use of it's available assets and I am sure I am not alone in believing that the debate over how best to fill UAV / UCAV operators posts is one that will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Heimdall
As the RAF needs to develop and retain an experienced pool of UAV / UCAV operators, who as individuals will be keen to remain within that community, rather than return to regular flying operations, perhaps it's time to consider whether employing highly trained aircrew for UAV / UCAV operations is the most cost effective and efficient long-term option?
Given the performance characteristics of the Predator, I would venture to suggest that anyone with a PPL and IR would be suitable for consideration for potential training. Lets remember that the Army currently operate the Hermes 450 in Iraq without the benefit of 'aircrew' and the US Army will soon be operating a version of the Predator without using 'aircrew', so the precedent has already been set elsewhere. Given the current C4 arrangements, obtaining weapons release approval from higher up the chain is not too difficult and may already be in use, so I would even suggest opening the gate for SNCOs - that's who the Army currently employ.
Given the continual shrinkage of the RAF, it's vitally important that the service makes the very best use of it's available assets and I am sure I am not alone in believing that the debate over how best to fill UAV / UCAV operators posts is one that will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Heimdall
> Tornados in 1980 were running on nothing more than a C64.
Having seen boards from original Tornados, I would suggest not even that - although they seemed to be using unnecessarily stone-age technology even for the time, presumably on the basis that stone-age technology is EMP hard.
Phil
Having seen boards from original Tornados, I would suggest not even that - although they seemed to be using unnecessarily stone-age technology even for the time, presumably on the basis that stone-age technology is EMP hard.
Phil
Phil,
NASA cite that as the reason for using stone age (relatively) IT in the shuttle/sattelites, as modern processors are constructed on such a small scale that radiation/cosmic rays etc is more likely to interfere with it's normal operation, so it doesn't seem an unreasonable concept.... suspect it's all a question of saving money though! Bet that your old 486 you put in the recycling section of the tip ends up on the 'phoon!
NASA cite that as the reason for using stone age (relatively) IT in the shuttle/sattelites, as modern processors are constructed on such a small scale that radiation/cosmic rays etc is more likely to interfere with it's normal operation, so it doesn't seem an unreasonable concept.... suspect it's all a question of saving money though! Bet that your old 486 you put in the recycling section of the tip ends up on the 'phoon!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan Sandys learned a thing or two about not needing pilots.
Maybe it's still 1957 or 1947 for your aerospace industry. But not for other peepuls'.
Better enrich your word wealth with this: "pilot optional." All US tactical aircraft with fly-by-wire, F-16's, F-18's, F-35's and so on, will in the future probably have a pilot optional mode. The USF is already, without much publicity, flying U-2's that way.
For example, what can a piloted Typhoon sent to intercept a Roosky intruder do that a robo Typhoon sending back live video and other sensor data couldn't do, except do it with less endurance?
And besides, if they're letting wimmin fly fighter planes, the manly macho silk scarf knights of the sky romance is already fading, isn't it?
Next time in your next life, go Army.
Maybe it's still 1957 or 1947 for your aerospace industry. But not for other peepuls'.
Better enrich your word wealth with this: "pilot optional." All US tactical aircraft with fly-by-wire, F-16's, F-18's, F-35's and so on, will in the future probably have a pilot optional mode. The USF is already, without much publicity, flying U-2's that way.
For example, what can a piloted Typhoon sent to intercept a Roosky intruder do that a robo Typhoon sending back live video and other sensor data couldn't do, except do it with less endurance?
And besides, if they're letting wimmin fly fighter planes, the manly macho silk scarf knights of the sky romance is already fading, isn't it?
Next time in your next life, go Army.
Way back in 1962 as a Pilot Officer on my first squadron having a beer in the bar
I was waylaid by an Engineering Branch Air Commodore who asked me what it was like to be in a dead-end job. I didn’t know what he meant so he continued.
“Don’t you know that you will not be around in ten years, you are all going to be replaced by missiles.”
Chortling in agreement with him were a couple of his minions. I tried to argue against this but I was virtually told to shut up and not to contradict Air Commodores.
That was forty five years ago and I gather the RAF is still strapped for pilots.
The civil world has a similar view from CEO’s and technocrats. The technology is there to replace the pilots and they would love to do it. No more whinging pilots complaining about their T&Cs and wanting to get some sleep in.
The problem is that one day an automated weapons system is going to bomb the wrong target or a fully loaded automatic airliner is going to fly into a mountain.
WHO DO YOU BLAME?
I was waylaid by an Engineering Branch Air Commodore who asked me what it was like to be in a dead-end job. I didn’t know what he meant so he continued.
“Don’t you know that you will not be around in ten years, you are all going to be replaced by missiles.”
Chortling in agreement with him were a couple of his minions. I tried to argue against this but I was virtually told to shut up and not to contradict Air Commodores.
That was forty five years ago and I gather the RAF is still strapped for pilots.
The civil world has a similar view from CEO’s and technocrats. The technology is there to replace the pilots and they would love to do it. No more whinging pilots complaining about their T&Cs and wanting to get some sleep in.
The problem is that one day an automated weapons system is going to bomb the wrong target or a fully loaded automatic airliner is going to fly into a mountain.
WHO DO YOU BLAME?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Bet that your old 486 you put in the recycling section of the tip ends up on the 'phoon!
