Will a UAV make us redundant ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NW England
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, I think the end will be in sight for multiple reasons.
Firstly, as a graduating Eng. student at Manchester, we are more or less constantly being fed UAV projects left right and centre. Our final year group design was involved in creating an unmanned recon aircraft.
The MOD are currently working with around 5 top engineering departments with regards design of a stealth UCAV. Apparently, the benefits of removing a significant G limit from the picture (ie the pilot) as well as the benefits gleaned in a stealth environment from removal of a glass cockpit, the picture looks bleak. Plus, think of the extra sensor suites that become available.
Combine that with removal of political problems occuring due to a shoot-down and you have a much improved package.
Fortunately though, by the time Bae or whoever get to build it get it front line, we will all be on our pensions anyway.
Firstly, as a graduating Eng. student at Manchester, we are more or less constantly being fed UAV projects left right and centre. Our final year group design was involved in creating an unmanned recon aircraft.
The MOD are currently working with around 5 top engineering departments with regards design of a stealth UCAV. Apparently, the benefits of removing a significant G limit from the picture (ie the pilot) as well as the benefits gleaned in a stealth environment from removal of a glass cockpit, the picture looks bleak. Plus, think of the extra sensor suites that become available.
Combine that with removal of political problems occuring due to a shoot-down and you have a much improved package.
Fortunately though, by the time Bae or whoever get to build it get it front line, we will all be on our pensions anyway.
Will it be politically acceptable to arm UAVs?
Another thing, would you want to be a infantryman supported by UAS doing CAS. With piloted aircraft you can (sometimes) talk directly you the pilot. You wouldn't be able to with a UAV.
The situation at the cutting edge may be incorrectly interpreted at control. A ground based controller will never have the same level of situational awareness as a pilot. If say a sensor broke (say an electrical joint failed due to vibration) you might failed to correctly ID a target. Another thread on PPRUNE talks about "friendly fire". These incidently would inevitably be much more common with UAVs.
As the the argument about a reduced need for communication, yes I agree, you could fly them with very little data transfer and they could fly in a "no comms" situation. But target ID and weapon release (particularly in the offensive role or with long range missiles) will not be entrusted to autonomous systems so a human bloke on the ground will have to OK weapon release. A shrewd enemy will seek to interupt communications.
Then there is the issue of infrastructure. A lot of extra infrastructure would be needed. Apart from the cost, these are now new targets for the enemy aircraft, missiles, UAVs, artillery, Special Forces or even terrorists.
Lastly.......On PPRUNE there is a thread relationg to the tragic Chinook crash in 1994. Many people, including myself, think that the most likely cause of this accident was faulty software. There is considerable evidence to support this. Software is almost impossible to test for 100% of all possible inputs, outputs, enviromental conditions, electrical noise in the system, interuptions to the power etc etc. Software based systems have failed spectacularly many times before. Consider...
Sea Wolf system software in Type 22 Frigates malfunctioning in the Falklands.
Computers "locking up" in the same conflict. This was a contributing factor in the loss of HMS Coventry.
Ariane 501. The software failed simply because a 64 bit number was put into a 16 bit register. Despite the hundred of millions of (whatever currency you like) put into the design and development, this still slipped through the net.
The loss of a pilotless Airbus. It flew right into the trees.
The loss of a US F22 due to a software malfunction.
Basically, allowing software to control things without having a human ON THE SPOT to make sure things are OK is just asking for trouble.
As for the issue of G limits, this is less of an issue now than it used to be. It a pilot losses conciousness for a second or two (and you would never experience more than 6G for longer this) it doesn't mean a crash. Modern instrumentation and controls (eg those being developed for the JSF) will tolerate transientry loss of pilot control.
Another thing, would you want to be a infantryman supported by UAS doing CAS. With piloted aircraft you can (sometimes) talk directly you the pilot. You wouldn't be able to with a UAV.
The situation at the cutting edge may be incorrectly interpreted at control. A ground based controller will never have the same level of situational awareness as a pilot. If say a sensor broke (say an electrical joint failed due to vibration) you might failed to correctly ID a target. Another thread on PPRUNE talks about "friendly fire". These incidently would inevitably be much more common with UAVs.
As the the argument about a reduced need for communication, yes I agree, you could fly them with very little data transfer and they could fly in a "no comms" situation. But target ID and weapon release (particularly in the offensive role or with long range missiles) will not be entrusted to autonomous systems so a human bloke on the ground will have to OK weapon release. A shrewd enemy will seek to interupt communications.
Then there is the issue of infrastructure. A lot of extra infrastructure would be needed. Apart from the cost, these are now new targets for the enemy aircraft, missiles, UAVs, artillery, Special Forces or even terrorists.
Lastly.......On PPRUNE there is a thread relationg to the tragic Chinook crash in 1994. Many people, including myself, think that the most likely cause of this accident was faulty software. There is considerable evidence to support this. Software is almost impossible to test for 100% of all possible inputs, outputs, enviromental conditions, electrical noise in the system, interuptions to the power etc etc. Software based systems have failed spectacularly many times before. Consider...
Sea Wolf system software in Type 22 Frigates malfunctioning in the Falklands.
Computers "locking up" in the same conflict. This was a contributing factor in the loss of HMS Coventry.
Ariane 501. The software failed simply because a 64 bit number was put into a 16 bit register. Despite the hundred of millions of (whatever currency you like) put into the design and development, this still slipped through the net.
The loss of a pilotless Airbus. It flew right into the trees.
The loss of a US F22 due to a software malfunction.
Basically, allowing software to control things without having a human ON THE SPOT to make sure things are OK is just asking for trouble.
As for the issue of G limits, this is less of an issue now than it used to be. It a pilot losses conciousness for a second or two (and you would never experience more than 6G for longer this) it doesn't mean a crash. Modern instrumentation and controls (eg those being developed for the JSF) will tolerate transientry loss of pilot control.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 11th May 2002 at 14:44.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF.
"you would never experience 6g for longer than 1-2 seconds".
You can tell you've never flown anything other than a flight sim on your PC.
Other than that probably all valid points but it will not stop it all happening as technology looks great to politicians, as do a no casualty prospect for our side.
"you would never experience 6g for longer than 1-2 seconds".
You can tell you've never flown anything other than a flight sim on your PC.
Other than that probably all valid points but it will not stop it all happening as technology looks great to politicians, as do a no casualty prospect for our side.
Hmmm, a long list of reasons why it is not safe to rely on software - ending with the statement that the system will save a pilot should he black out during high "G". Of course, to be a good fighter pilot it is important to be unpredictable!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In my Basher
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this generated more than I thought it would......
Most comments seem to state a belief that UAVs are not armed, well one of the prime reasons I asked the original question is that they are now armed. A Predator has succesfully fired Hellfire and hit real targets.
Much has been mentioned on not having a pilot would mean a loss of flexibility in response to arising situations. Well most of the more complex have multiple means of data passage to its operators, to overcome reduced bandwidth.
I believe that we will see a combination of both manned and unmanned. Read the following and you will see how close uncle sam is getting.
http://www.mat-kmi.com/features/1_2_Art2.cfm
Sensible discussion on Pprune I don`t believe it !
Most comments seem to state a belief that UAVs are not armed, well one of the prime reasons I asked the original question is that they are now armed. A Predator has succesfully fired Hellfire and hit real targets.
Much has been mentioned on not having a pilot would mean a loss of flexibility in response to arising situations. Well most of the more complex have multiple means of data passage to its operators, to overcome reduced bandwidth.
I believe that we will see a combination of both manned and unmanned. Read the following and you will see how close uncle sam is getting.
http://www.mat-kmi.com/features/1_2_Art2.cfm
Sensible discussion on Pprune I don`t believe it !
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max 'g'
What's the max 'g' that can be sustained by a "top fighter pilot"?
Good question! And as unlikely to get an honest answer as "How long is a top fighter pilot's willy"?
Being a long way past boasting on either score, I think I can recall that on the Meatbox, where we did not have 'g' suits but we did have a "upper" rudder pedals to get your feet as high as possible, descending in a spiral to maintain max permissible Mach/IAS, a chap who was in practice (v. important because special abdominal muscles are used) and who had not had too heavy a night before, could sustain 6 'g' whilst still retaining sufficient vision and mental capacity to function. Instantaneous 'g' could be much higher - as long as you did not pull the tail off!
Negative 'g' was not an issue. I know of know tactical manoeuvres that require it, and airframe stress limits are much lower in negative 'g'.
Good question! And as unlikely to get an honest answer as "How long is a top fighter pilot's willy"?
Being a long way past boasting on either score, I think I can recall that on the Meatbox, where we did not have 'g' suits but we did have a "upper" rudder pedals to get your feet as high as possible, descending in a spiral to maintain max permissible Mach/IAS, a chap who was in practice (v. important because special abdominal muscles are used) and who had not had too heavy a night before, could sustain 6 'g' whilst still retaining sufficient vision and mental capacity to function. Instantaneous 'g' could be much higher - as long as you did not pull the tail off!
Negative 'g' was not an issue. I know of know tactical manoeuvres that require it, and airframe stress limits are much lower in negative 'g'.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting stuff this. Particularly respect the commentsof WE Branch Fanatic. however:
I leared to compute on a Tandy TRS80 in 1981. The dogs hind legs, it had a 14 inch black and white monitor, twin 5 1/4 inch disk drives and 16 meg of RAM. - it was crap. Now, here we are with 2 gig processors on desktops, and flying across the atlantic on 2 engines. What we were achieving in 1982 in the falklands with weapons systems was incredible then but primitive now. Who knows what is going on deep deep in labs across the world
I leared to compute on a Tandy TRS80 in 1981. The dogs hind legs, it had a 14 inch black and white monitor, twin 5 1/4 inch disk drives and 16 meg of RAM. - it was crap. Now, here we are with 2 gig processors on desktops, and flying across the atlantic on 2 engines. What we were achieving in 1982 in the falklands with weapons systems was incredible then but primitive now. Who knows what is going on deep deep in labs across the world
When I was on detachment to an RAF aerodrome in Tchermany 20 years ago, along with our creaking old F4s there were also French Mirages and Uncle Spam's F-15s. One day we had a visit form a 'typical' French general who reckoned that he was a fighter pilot (probably used to fly Ouragons or Vautours or somesuch). The Spams offered him a trip in the back of a T-bird F-15, which he accepted. When they went to flying clothing, the Spams handed him a g-suit. With typical Gallic arrogance he announced "Non. Ah amm a fighter peelot. Ah do not need a g-suit!" The Spams asked him if he was certain, "Mais oui!" came the response. So the F-15 Detco tracked down his hardest-a$$ed pilot and said "Show the General what the F-15 can do!".
Apparently they launched in max AB and accelerated to warp several, whereupon the F-15 mate snapped to about 7g, spiralled upwards to flight level nosebleed, then came down again with idle power and full speedbrake before breaking into the circuit. Le General des grenouilles had slumped into his seat at the first 7g snap and had slept soundly throughout the rest of the trip! "How did you like the jet?" asked the Spams. "It was very...err, memorable" said the Frog as he staggered away to his colleagues!
Apparently they launched in max AB and accelerated to warp several, whereupon the F-15 mate snapped to about 7g, spiralled upwards to flight level nosebleed, then came down again with idle power and full speedbrake before breaking into the circuit. Le General des grenouilles had slumped into his seat at the first 7g snap and had slept soundly throughout the rest of the trip! "How did you like the jet?" asked the Spams. "It was very...err, memorable" said the Frog as he staggered away to his colleagues!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Will it be politically acceptable to arm UAVs?"
Already been done with Predator.
"A ground based controller will never have the same level of situational awareness as a pilot."
The ground based controller might have better SA because he may have more info feeds. If a pilot cannot see the enemy, then he has to rely on sensors in the same way as a ground based controller.
"Another thread on PPRUNE talks about "friendly fire". These incidently would inevitably be much more common with UAVs."
I disagree what do you base this supposed inevitability on?
"(particularly in the offensive role or with long range missiles) will not be entrusted to autonomous systems so a human bloke on the ground will have to OK weapon release."
Yes, but how do long range cruise missiles cope. Target ID does not need to have an operator with eyes on the target passing the "arm" code. It will be dependant on ROE.
"Then there is the issue of infrastructure."
More required for manned ac - longer runway, more fuel, more defence, more personnel etc. etc. UAVs have the potential to travel much further than manned ac, hence can be based in much safer locations.
"Basically, allowing software to control things without having a human ON THE SPOT to make sure things are OK is just asking for trouble."
Basically allowing a human to interfere will cause many accidents and has in the past. You quote various software caused crashes, however the Pilot didn't save the YF22 so how does having a human operator make it safer. The Mull of Kintyre accident has never conclusively been solved - many have their pet theories. There is no conclusive proof of what caused the accident - it COULD have been human error or it COULD have been computer error - to name just a couple of possible reasons.
Already been done with Predator.
"A ground based controller will never have the same level of situational awareness as a pilot."
The ground based controller might have better SA because he may have more info feeds. If a pilot cannot see the enemy, then he has to rely on sensors in the same way as a ground based controller.
"Another thread on PPRUNE talks about "friendly fire". These incidently would inevitably be much more common with UAVs."
I disagree what do you base this supposed inevitability on?
"(particularly in the offensive role or with long range missiles) will not be entrusted to autonomous systems so a human bloke on the ground will have to OK weapon release."
Yes, but how do long range cruise missiles cope. Target ID does not need to have an operator with eyes on the target passing the "arm" code. It will be dependant on ROE.
"Then there is the issue of infrastructure."
More required for manned ac - longer runway, more fuel, more defence, more personnel etc. etc. UAVs have the potential to travel much further than manned ac, hence can be based in much safer locations.
"Basically, allowing software to control things without having a human ON THE SPOT to make sure things are OK is just asking for trouble."
Basically allowing a human to interfere will cause many accidents and has in the past. You quote various software caused crashes, however the Pilot didn't save the YF22 so how does having a human operator make it safer. The Mull of Kintyre accident has never conclusively been solved - many have their pet theories. There is no conclusive proof of what caused the accident - it COULD have been human error or it COULD have been computer error - to name just a couple of possible reasons.
UAV infrastructure will mean dedicated comms systems. Either RF (or more probably) microwave. These would have to be speacially designed and built. If the decision was to use Satellite comms (best for security) then real time communication would require a constellation of dedicated birds in LEO or MEO orbits. Still no answer to the weather problem. Telemetry and Telecommand will require a large bandwidth due to the required data rate, in fact the trend is to increase the bandwith with CDMA and then recover the data with Signal Processing.
Do you know how much data is sent back from the sensors on the engine of a Formula 1 car? 1Mbit/s.
The Predator has been armed with Hellfire missiles. In other words using short range weapons for short range missions against fixed targets at known locations in relatively benign (to electromagnetic radiation, ie RF/Microwave and (particularly) laser) weather conditions. Now try a CAS mission against suspected enemy vehicles on a rainy day in the Balkans, 200+ miles away from the base......
I am sure that most of the pilots who use PPRUNE could tell you stories of how they saved their aircraft by intervening in things...
I have no experience of flying, not even in a sim. So there you are right.
Politicians will become weary of UCAVs when they realise how expensive and unpredictable they are. The political mood in the US has changed since 11 September, the politicians are starting to realise that sometimes you have to accept casualties. And what about the danger of hitting your own troops/aircraft/ships etc?
Cruise missiles are not UAVs. Not really. They just fly into known targets with fixed locations. I would not want to see one being used for CAS.
As for computers, they will never be foolproof. They might get faster, but software is still liable to be full of bugs.
Do you know how much data is sent back from the sensors on the engine of a Formula 1 car? 1Mbit/s.
The Predator has been armed with Hellfire missiles. In other words using short range weapons for short range missions against fixed targets at known locations in relatively benign (to electromagnetic radiation, ie RF/Microwave and (particularly) laser) weather conditions. Now try a CAS mission against suspected enemy vehicles on a rainy day in the Balkans, 200+ miles away from the base......
I am sure that most of the pilots who use PPRUNE could tell you stories of how they saved their aircraft by intervening in things...
I have no experience of flying, not even in a sim. So there you are right.
Politicians will become weary of UCAVs when they realise how expensive and unpredictable they are. The political mood in the US has changed since 11 September, the politicians are starting to realise that sometimes you have to accept casualties. And what about the danger of hitting your own troops/aircraft/ships etc?
Cruise missiles are not UAVs. Not really. They just fly into known targets with fixed locations. I would not want to see one being used for CAS.
As for computers, they will never be foolproof. They might get faster, but software is still liable to be full of bugs.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th May 2002 at 17:22.
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE Branch Fanatic
A fascinating array of opinions...taking them from the top,
An air-superiority UAV would not necessarily be controlled
directly - I can imagine a vehicle which would be given the
mission to down any unfriendly aircraft it encounters in a
nominated 'live zone'. It could receive targeting and data
feeds from friendly resources but would have its own sensor
set and sufficient processing resources to engage enemy
aircraft independently.
Just because software has bugs, it doesn't mean that it
cannot accomplish a given task - yes one-off happenings like
space shots and prototype aircraft have a high probability
of failure because of the difficulty of testing unique events.
However our modern world works because most of the time
software actually functions correctly. For every instance of
crashes related to airborne software I can give you
twenty down to human error...
In the case of your ground support mission, do the pilots actually
see the aiming-point or are they lob-bombing a ground
laser-designated target or GPS coordinate.
-- Andrew
A fascinating array of opinions...taking them from the top,
An air-superiority UAV would not necessarily be controlled
directly - I can imagine a vehicle which would be given the
mission to down any unfriendly aircraft it encounters in a
nominated 'live zone'. It could receive targeting and data
feeds from friendly resources but would have its own sensor
set and sufficient processing resources to engage enemy
aircraft independently.
Just because software has bugs, it doesn't mean that it
cannot accomplish a given task - yes one-off happenings like
space shots and prototype aircraft have a high probability
of failure because of the difficulty of testing unique events.
However our modern world works because most of the time
software actually functions correctly. For every instance of
crashes related to airborne software I can give you
twenty down to human error...
In the case of your ground support mission, do the pilots actually
see the aiming-point or are they lob-bombing a ground
laser-designated target or GPS coordinate.
-- Andrew
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting and informative debate on prune... hooray!
I have to say that, given the US progress in this area, the question is 'when' rather than 'if'. However, ROE constraints etc lead me to believe that UCAVs will form part of a force mix with other platforms, manned and unmanned.
I follow all the S/N decibel blah but... the US have changed the laws of physics before!
I have to say that, given the US progress in this area, the question is 'when' rather than 'if'. However, ROE constraints etc lead me to believe that UCAVs will form part of a force mix with other platforms, manned and unmanned.
I follow all the S/N decibel blah but... the US have changed the laws of physics before!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems a lot of sense spoken here with WEBF fighting the human interface (pilot) corner and others desperate to prove him wrong. However, what does seem likely, is that the MOD and politicians will chase after UAVs - most probably as a cost-saving measure in the first instance. Methinks that is a blind alley. However, I tend to agree that the thought of not having to train, house and pay a fair number of comabt pilots (not to mention have them come home in body bags) will be the biggest attraction for our Lords and Masters. In time, they may even be proved right.
However, to go back a way to Skylark - will anyone ever get on board a UAV transport ac (paying or not)? I know I won't and can't see Trooper Jones (Hereford) being all that enamoured that the Chinook (2030) version is controlled by some computer whizz in a nice comfy office 200 miles away! Perhaps the we will be the Royal Transport Force by 2050!
However, to go back a way to Skylark - will anyone ever get on board a UAV transport ac (paying or not)? I know I won't and can't see Trooper Jones (Hereford) being all that enamoured that the Chinook (2030) version is controlled by some computer whizz in a nice comfy office 200 miles away! Perhaps the we will be the Royal Transport Force by 2050!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
The compression techniques and other methods of maximizing bandwidth that are available today compared to 10 or 15 years ago lead me to believe that in the future we will find better methods. If I could predict what they are, I would be a rich man! Yes weather does cause a problem but it is not inconceivable that in 10 years time it would not be a problem.
1 Mbit/sec may be a large amount of data to us now but a 56K modem was considered impressive 10 years ago.
Predator with Hellfire missile is just a start. Compare Wilbur and Orville Wrights efforts compared to the Supermarine Spitfire 4 decades later, or compare the Spitfire to the F16.
Yes casualties are more politically palatable since Sept 11 but at the same time funding for UAVs has increased massively during the same period.
I'm sure most pilots could tell you a few stories of how they lost or nearly lost their aircraft due to their own actions.
"I would not want to see one being used for CAS."
Who is to say that the controller of the UAV providing the CAS is not colocated with the infanteer? The UAV could be launched from thousands of miles away and loiter for hours on end in the target area. Control could be handed over to a ground controller local to the infanteer - doesn't have to be in the firing line, could be 10 miles away.
"As for computers, they will never be foolproof. They might get faster, but software is still liable to be full of bugs."
Historically materials have failed (metal fatigue etc.) and have been replaced by better materials or better monitoring - in time computers develop in the same way. Software and processors that have been used for many years are likely to be pretty reliable as bugs are ironed out over time.
MROC,
In time attitudes change. Whilst now it may seem unthinkable to most people to have a pilotless transport, in 2030 it could be the norm. 30 years ago a driverless train would have been unthinkable, now however we are seeing automated monorails and the like beginning to pop up.
Flying an aircraft low-level using TFR whilst in IMC strikes me as a rather scary thing to do - trusting your life to a computer getting it right, but it can be and is done so I'm led to believe.
GB
The compression techniques and other methods of maximizing bandwidth that are available today compared to 10 or 15 years ago lead me to believe that in the future we will find better methods. If I could predict what they are, I would be a rich man! Yes weather does cause a problem but it is not inconceivable that in 10 years time it would not be a problem.
1 Mbit/sec may be a large amount of data to us now but a 56K modem was considered impressive 10 years ago.
Predator with Hellfire missile is just a start. Compare Wilbur and Orville Wrights efforts compared to the Supermarine Spitfire 4 decades later, or compare the Spitfire to the F16.
Yes casualties are more politically palatable since Sept 11 but at the same time funding for UAVs has increased massively during the same period.
I'm sure most pilots could tell you a few stories of how they lost or nearly lost their aircraft due to their own actions.
"I would not want to see one being used for CAS."
Who is to say that the controller of the UAV providing the CAS is not colocated with the infanteer? The UAV could be launched from thousands of miles away and loiter for hours on end in the target area. Control could be handed over to a ground controller local to the infanteer - doesn't have to be in the firing line, could be 10 miles away.
"As for computers, they will never be foolproof. They might get faster, but software is still liable to be full of bugs."
Historically materials have failed (metal fatigue etc.) and have been replaced by better materials or better monitoring - in time computers develop in the same way. Software and processors that have been used for many years are likely to be pretty reliable as bugs are ironed out over time.
MROC,
In time attitudes change. Whilst now it may seem unthinkable to most people to have a pilotless transport, in 2030 it could be the norm. 30 years ago a driverless train would have been unthinkable, now however we are seeing automated monorails and the like beginning to pop up.
Flying an aircraft low-level using TFR whilst in IMC strikes me as a rather scary thing to do - trusting your life to a computer getting it right, but it can be and is done so I'm led to believe.
GB
Any UCAV would either need a fair degree of autonomy or else some very sophisticated control methods. In an era when it is still easier to communicate with the dead than with Cyprus Flight Watch, what degree of assurance could there be that any RAF-operated communications circuit would be sufficiently reliable to control a UCAV? Even then, either someone would probably turn the on/off to off, the cleaner would pull out the plug to plug in a hoover - or Plod would ban the transmission of confidential information....
UAVs are OK for recce in hot areas - and the odd A/G munition has been pooped off by them already - but we're a very long way from sufficiently reliable systems to control anything more than over-the-air re-targetting of recce sensors, I would guess.
Quite right that the only real reason that They are interested in UAVs is to save cost...
UAVs are OK for recce in hot areas - and the odd A/G munition has been pooped off by them already - but we're a very long way from sufficiently reliable systems to control anything more than over-the-air re-targetting of recce sensors, I would guess.
Quite right that the only real reason that They are interested in UAVs is to save cost...
This may be worth watching...
"Discovery channel (UK)
Monday 13 May, 2002
16:00 BATTLE FOR THE SKIES
Showing how a piloted aircraft is still the most effective and flexible aerial option in the theatre of modern warfare. "
"Discovery channel (UK)
Monday 13 May, 2002
16:00 BATTLE FOR THE SKIES
Showing how a piloted aircraft is still the most effective and flexible aerial option in the theatre of modern warfare. "
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Agree that we're a long way off from over-the-air re-targetting but I think it will come.
I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say it's all about cost - If you can deliver the same or similar capability using UAVs rather than manned aircraft and it's cheaper then what treasury walla will go for the expensive option?
LXGB,
Thanks, I've set it up to record - should be interesting. Well OK maybe just relevant to this thread - I don't get out much!
GB
Agree that we're a long way off from over-the-air re-targetting but I think it will come.
I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say it's all about cost - If you can deliver the same or similar capability using UAVs rather than manned aircraft and it's cheaper then what treasury walla will go for the expensive option?
LXGB,
Thanks, I've set it up to record - should be interesting. Well OK maybe just relevant to this thread - I don't get out much!
GB