Watchkeeper
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
UAVs may be the way ahead as long as we don't assume the next conflict will be over mountainous and/or remote, enemy dominated ground, where the threats are extremely low tech (but deadly nevertheless). Even these insurgents figured out how to grab some UAV downlink pretty quicky, just wait until we are up against someone with a sophisticated set of countermeasures and see then if UAVs are indeed the cure for everything wrong with the military today.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah ..Air superiority...always nice to have...especially if you have some rather ungainly slow prop driven machines droning around for great lengths of time. Ah...but we have forgotten all about that now haven't we...especially when we only have enough Tiffies for one QRA flt at Lossie. Perhaps the only thing to reassure us is the distinct lack of future deployed ops...Rule Britannia...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon Jabachjabicz
Jeez calm yourself will you, it was a light hearted comment that was meant to be fully tongue in cheek. You feel free to leave me to my Haynes manual, the less input from aircrew the more we engineers get done!!!
Jeez calm yourself will you, it was a light hearted comment that was meant to be fully tongue in cheek. You feel free to leave me to my Haynes manual, the less input from aircrew the more we engineers get done!!!
Mr Grim
You said:
I am probably one of the ill-informed majority, so what are the real limitations?
You said:
I would agree that many in the RAF still don't understand the full capabilities of Reaper, but with that there has to be an understanding of the limitations as well. Those limitations are often not the issues the ill-informed majority often spout, but other issues.
".....the US have been looking at the next generation of UAS that may have automated ground refuelling and rectification from robotic servicing (similar to the robots that conduct car manufacture) ......"
So when exactly will Skynet be complete?
So when exactly will Skynet be complete?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko - sorry I was being deliberately obtuse because talking too much about limitations in a war is generally not a good thing, but generically speaking: control through a satellite is problematic if you fight someone who can blow up satellites. Icing isn't good for Reaper
. All recent wars have been where ISTAR works well (fairly open) - how would we be in a jungle? And sometimes having a person sat in an aircraft for quick manoeuvre and being separated from real-time scrutiny by the entire "command" chain can be a good thing.
Things that are bollox:
It is a computer game.
You aren't immersed in theatre.
X-box users would be good at it.
The "drones" do the killing.
Biggus, guess what the system that coordiantes Reaper/Pred is called?
. All recent wars have been where ISTAR works well (fairly open) - how would we be in a jungle? And sometimes having a person sat in an aircraft for quick manoeuvre and being separated from real-time scrutiny by the entire "command" chain can be a good thing.Things that are bollox:
It is a computer game.
You aren't immersed in theatre.
X-box users would be good at it.
The "drones" do the killing.
Biggus, guess what the system that coordiantes Reaper/Pred is called?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Grim
I do hope your comments re Xbox were not aimed at me, as said previously, it was a tongue in cheek comment and meant to be light hearted!! If it was aimed at me then your are proving that you are no better than a FJ jockey at taking your self way to seriously!!!
I do hope your comments re Xbox were not aimed at me, as said previously, it was a tongue in cheek comment and meant to be light hearted!! If it was aimed at me then your are proving that you are no better than a FJ jockey at taking your self way to seriously!!!
Sturbs
I don't believe that you are the only person to "tongue in cheek" about X-Box et al - the trouble is, if it is not rebutted then some idiot will believe its true.
Twosin , Tallsar
Another great myth is the "its only good for non contested environments". Preds have been used over Iraq, Kosovo and Libya - all have SAMs and fighter jets. The only Pred loss to a fighter of note was when it tried to exchange shots with an Iraqi MiG 25 - the Hellfire isn't a quick missile so it didn't do very well. If they put an Aim-9X on it the result probably would have been different!
Jacko
Another limfac for the current system is that the use of geo sats means that Polar regions are out of reach. However, a Molnya orbit constellation could fix that.
As for icing, the Predator B Guardian, built for the US Coastguard has electrically heated surfaces for flight in icing. Howrver, Ku band rain fade would probably be a problem so an X band satellite is going to be preferable (not sure what Guardian uses).
LJ
I don't believe that you are the only person to "tongue in cheek" about X-Box et al - the trouble is, if it is not rebutted then some idiot will believe its true.
Twosin , Tallsar
Another great myth is the "its only good for non contested environments". Preds have been used over Iraq, Kosovo and Libya - all have SAMs and fighter jets. The only Pred loss to a fighter of note was when it tried to exchange shots with an Iraqi MiG 25 - the Hellfire isn't a quick missile so it didn't do very well. If they put an Aim-9X on it the result probably would have been different!
Jacko
Another limfac for the current system is that the use of geo sats means that Polar regions are out of reach. However, a Molnya orbit constellation could fix that.
As for icing, the Predator B Guardian, built for the US Coastguard has electrically heated surfaces for flight in icing. Howrver, Ku band rain fade would probably be a problem so an X band satellite is going to be preferable (not sure what Guardian uses).
LJ
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sturb199
I could almost agree with some of your aircrew-bashing were it not for the fact that the aircrew get relatively little say in any engineering project. I know, I've just worked on a major project for 10 years and saw most of the other current ones and most meetings I went to, I was one of the few aircrew there. Aircrew tend to get called in when most of the design and development work has already been done. They then have the audacity to turn round and point out one or 2 shortfalls to the designers and chief engineer, which then gets labelled "whingeing" because it is too late and too damned expensive to change it.
SFO
Well said.
That is why safety has been wrestled away from DE&S as it had become too engineer centric - let's hope it doesn't swing too far the other way, though!
iRaven
Well said.
That is why safety has been wrestled away from DE&S as it had become too engineer centric - let's hope it doesn't swing too far the other way, though!
iRaven
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven,
Responsibility for acceptance of the risk does now lie with the operator, undertaking the legwork to achieve safety hasn't changed. I think you will find that safety professionals have always called for user input. The user's are only now realising that it is actually important that they take an interest.
sw
Responsibility for acceptance of the risk does now lie with the operator, undertaking the legwork to achieve safety hasn't changed. I think you will find that safety professionals have always called for user input. The user's are only now realising that it is actually important that they take an interest.
sw
