UAVs, any good?
Thread Starter
UAVs, any good?
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mare Nostrum
Age: 41
Posts: 1,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Surprisingly, these unmanned aircraft need MORE personnel to get them flying and keep them airborn. There is a manning shortage for "unmanned aircraft.". Ironic.
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Lonewolf . . . a quick googly,
http://defensetech.org/2011/08/17/mi...130-and-a-uav/
. . And reference to another incident.
When Drones Go Rogue In Friendly Skies, How Do We Bring Them Home? | Popular Science
IMHO you will never keep pilots out of the cockpit.
http://defensetech.org/2011/08/17/mi...130-and-a-uav/
. . And reference to another incident.
When Drones Go Rogue In Friendly Skies, How Do We Bring Them Home? | Popular Science
IMHO you will never keep pilots out of the cockpit.
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:
and when the drone's software goes out to lunch:
Yet the drone community want to be allowed to operate these things in normal airspace....
Drone operators are still needed for portions of a drone's mission.
When drones aren't deconflicted, this sort of thing can happen:
and when the drone's software goes out to lunch:
Yet the drone community want to be allowed to operate these things in normal airspace....
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Feb 2012 at 08:22.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 'Merica
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Access to airspace is being addressed, again through procedural AND technological means.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Age: 53
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAVs & Turkeys voting for Christmas
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!
CWD
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!
CWD
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
One more point to consider... the unmanned version of PPrune would be awfully dull!
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...
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.
One more point to consider... the unmanned version of PPrune would be awfully dull!
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......
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 - 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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.