Will a UAV make us redundant ?
Mike RO'Channel - I did concede earlier that it was a psychological difficulty, bur consider this:
When fly-by-wire first came in people said "no way am I flying that, unless there is a mechanical linkage" - they were afraid that the computer between them and the aircraft might screw it up. This is not a dissimilar argument. I accept that people would not want to put their families on robot airliners, but if these were proved to be far safer than humans what then?
People have eye surgery done on them by computers wielding lasers every day. Why? Is it because the human surgeons can't be @rsed to do it or is it that computers are better at some things than humans?
The reverse is also true, but if ever there was a job that could be broken down into a set of rules its flying and is therefore a prime candidate for improvement in this way.
I don't relish the days when chaps like me can never fly again, but the technology is maturing to make it happen. And saying the public won't wear it is, I feel, somewhat shortsighted. Precedents abound - moving from horses to cars; the machine wreckers; going to the moon (try doing that better without computers).
And would I put my family on an unmanned aircraft that had proved safe under the no-doubt relentless testing?
If it removed the high percentage of accidents down to pilot error then why not? Seems logical to me.
When fly-by-wire first came in people said "no way am I flying that, unless there is a mechanical linkage" - they were afraid that the computer between them and the aircraft might screw it up. This is not a dissimilar argument. I accept that people would not want to put their families on robot airliners, but if these were proved to be far safer than humans what then?
People have eye surgery done on them by computers wielding lasers every day. Why? Is it because the human surgeons can't be @rsed to do it or is it that computers are better at some things than humans?
The reverse is also true, but if ever there was a job that could be broken down into a set of rules its flying and is therefore a prime candidate for improvement in this way.
I don't relish the days when chaps like me can never fly again, but the technology is maturing to make it happen. And saying the public won't wear it is, I feel, somewhat shortsighted. Precedents abound - moving from horses to cars; the machine wreckers; going to the moon (try doing that better without computers).
And would I put my family on an unmanned aircraft that had proved safe under the no-doubt relentless testing?
If it removed the high percentage of accidents down to pilot error then why not? Seems logical to me.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admit there will probably come a time when pilotless aircraft have proved themselves to be better than those with a human interface (yuk). Until then, I'll trust one of us highly trained lot anyday to take to my family home!
UCAVs on the other hand, will come - and come quickly - probably as recce/SEAD/spiking role rather than BAI/CAS/strike.
Possibly, I may be shortsighted but I am able to get some specs/contacts, rather than have my eyes lasered at all!
UCAVs on the other hand, will come - and come quickly - probably as recce/SEAD/spiking role rather than BAI/CAS/strike.
Possibly, I may be shortsighted but I am able to get some specs/contacts, rather than have my eyes lasered at all!
I agree Mike.
And as for the comparison with the Dreadnought, you would do well to remember that Dreadnought was a new battleship with superior speed and firepower, NOT a new concept.
And as for the comparison with the Dreadnought, you would do well to remember that Dreadnought was a new battleship with superior speed and firepower, NOT a new concept.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 17th May 2002 at 08:08.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the peacetime deployment of the Dreadnought class ships certainly 'got attention', immpressive glossy brochure stuff, when the fleet action at Jutland arrived things were played for real. The quote, attributed I believe to Sir David Beatty, was:
"There is something wrong with our bloody ships"
That quote followed the dramatic loss of several British capital ships, including some in the same class as HMS Hood!!
The lessons of history remain as rock solid as ever; hence, it is a pity people do not remember them.
lm
"There is something wrong with our bloody ships"
That quote followed the dramatic loss of several British capital ships, including some in the same class as HMS Hood!!
The lessons of history remain as rock solid as ever; hence, it is a pity people do not remember them.
lm
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In my Basher
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although inadequate armour was a major factor, it had as much to do with the fact that the british fought there turrets with much ammunition in them, rather than in the magazines.
This was apparently due to the fact that our ammunition feeding system was slow compared to the Germans. An equal factor was that we had very poor sighting systems so the answer was to fire twice as many rounds. Which our boys did.
Now if they had had UAV`s sighting for them (to regain the tracks) you would have seen the following.
[URL=http://uav.navair.navy.mil/pioneer/video.htm]
If anyone is interested in how hard it is to succesfully procure a UAV that does what you want, as opposed to the Manufacturer; read the following.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avuav6.html
This was apparently due to the fact that our ammunition feeding system was slow compared to the Germans. An equal factor was that we had very poor sighting systems so the answer was to fire twice as many rounds. Which our boys did.
Now if they had had UAV`s sighting for them (to regain the tracks) you would have seen the following.
[URL=http://uav.navair.navy.mil/pioneer/video.htm]
If anyone is interested in how hard it is to succesfully procure a UAV that does what you want, as opposed to the Manufacturer; read the following.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avuav6.html
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE Branch Fanatic
As I said the launch of the Dreadnaught made obsolete every
existing capital ship in every navy in the world. Its combination
of single type main-armament, armour and speed meant that
fleets based on pre-dreadnaught designs were going to lose
against dreadnaught designs. You may not think that it was
a revolution but every other navy in the world at the time did.
The positive point is that a century ago we had the balls to make
a peacetime change of such magnitude.
Lightningmate
The fleet action at Jutland in 1915 took place between two mainly
Dreadnaught based fleets - Beatty was complaining about
the loss of three battlecruisers to magazine explosion when the
battlecruiser squadrons ran head-on into and actively engaged
the lead battleships of the High Seas Fleet before the Grand Fleet
battleships became engaged. I agree with your quote about
people not remembering the lessons of history completely.
WE Branch Fanatic
No one presently knows why the Hood was lost - there are at
least two plausible theories - certainly putting BC's against BB's
is equal numbers is a bad plan. The whole design of gun armed
warships revolved around placing them into battle at a range
where their guns would penetrate the armour of their opposition
and their likely opposition's guns would not penetrate theirs.
Apprentice
Lots of factors squeezed together here, at Jutland, the loss of
the BC's was down to flash from turret penetrations igniting
ready use ammo with the fire proceeding down the ammo hoists
to the magazine below with catastrophic results. This didn't
happen at Jutland to the Germans because in 1914 at the
battle of Dogger Bank the German BC Sedlitz had and survived
a similar turret fire - which resulted in improved ammo handling
and flash guards throughout their fleet. The British learned the
lesson at Jutland with Lion another BC that suffered a turret
fire but survived due to a posthumous Marine VC. Our optics
and ammo were not as good but the thing that saved the
High Seas Fleet at Jutland was the fact that it ran way from
full scale action twice and an British intelligence failure failed
to pass the rendezvous point of the High Seas Fleet the next
day to the Grand Fleet at sea.
Anyway, on the subject of UAV's, time will tell...
-- Andrew
As I said the launch of the Dreadnaught made obsolete every
existing capital ship in every navy in the world. Its combination
of single type main-armament, armour and speed meant that
fleets based on pre-dreadnaught designs were going to lose
against dreadnaught designs. You may not think that it was
a revolution but every other navy in the world at the time did.
The positive point is that a century ago we had the balls to make
a peacetime change of such magnitude.
Lightningmate
The fleet action at Jutland in 1915 took place between two mainly
Dreadnaught based fleets - Beatty was complaining about
the loss of three battlecruisers to magazine explosion when the
battlecruiser squadrons ran head-on into and actively engaged
the lead battleships of the High Seas Fleet before the Grand Fleet
battleships became engaged. I agree with your quote about
people not remembering the lessons of history completely.
WE Branch Fanatic
No one presently knows why the Hood was lost - there are at
least two plausible theories - certainly putting BC's against BB's
is equal numbers is a bad plan. The whole design of gun armed
warships revolved around placing them into battle at a range
where their guns would penetrate the armour of their opposition
and their likely opposition's guns would not penetrate theirs.
Apprentice
Lots of factors squeezed together here, at Jutland, the loss of
the BC's was down to flash from turret penetrations igniting
ready use ammo with the fire proceeding down the ammo hoists
to the magazine below with catastrophic results. This didn't
happen at Jutland to the Germans because in 1914 at the
battle of Dogger Bank the German BC Sedlitz had and survived
a similar turret fire - which resulted in improved ammo handling
and flash guards throughout their fleet. The British learned the
lesson at Jutland with Lion another BC that suffered a turret
fire but survived due to a posthumous Marine VC. Our optics
and ammo were not as good but the thing that saved the
High Seas Fleet at Jutland was the fact that it ran way from
full scale action twice and an British intelligence failure failed
to pass the rendezvous point of the High Seas Fleet the next
day to the Grand Fleet at sea.
Anyway, on the subject of UAV's, time will tell...
-- Andrew
The difference between the dreadnought days and today is also evident in public pride in the Armed Forces. Can anyone really imagine another "We want eight and we won't wait" campaign to increase defence spending in Tony's Utopia??
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more Beagle. (Although we are somewhat 'off-thread' here).
Guy Gibson briefly wrote on the causes of war in Enemy Coast Ahead in 1944.
"After many years, they (the people) will probably slip and ask for disarmament so that they can do away with taxes and raise the standard of living. If people forget, they bring wars on themselves and they can blame no-one but themselves."
Whether or not its more pilots/ac/UAVs/battleships/landing ships/FA2s, we need more defence investment (not spending) now (and ad infinitum).
Guy Gibson briefly wrote on the causes of war in Enemy Coast Ahead in 1944.
"After many years, they (the people) will probably slip and ask for disarmament so that they can do away with taxes and raise the standard of living. If people forget, they bring wars on themselves and they can blame no-one but themselves."
Whether or not its more pilots/ac/UAVs/battleships/landing ships/FA2s, we need more defence investment (not spending) now (and ad infinitum).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: TheDarkSide
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAVs are here to stay..no doubt. I go with Tropic and Christopher Robins reasoning. Never say never!
A Global Hawk recently flew from California to Queensland Australia, the first USAF UCAV Squadron formed (with no pilots!)and the CIA are throwing more loot at I-Gnat, than David Beckhams account can hold. Control the technology, before it controls you!!
Forget your bandwidth mularky..we are all missing the most important factor...UAV design, doctrine and employment might be irrational..but we are led by irrational politicians..who just happen to be pig sick at doshing out FRIs to irrational pilots!
A Global Hawk recently flew from California to Queensland Australia, the first USAF UCAV Squadron formed (with no pilots!)and the CIA are throwing more loot at I-Gnat, than David Beckhams account can hold. Control the technology, before it controls you!!
Forget your bandwidth mularky..we are all missing the most important factor...UAV design, doctrine and employment might be irrational..but we are led by irrational politicians..who just happen to be pig sick at doshing out FRIs to irrational pilots!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fl330
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my many years experience with a IT equipment I have come to the conclusion that the development of this stuff is driven primarily by the IT indutry's desire to flog new systems. And the potential rewards of being awarded a systems development contract by the MOD or simliar are absolutely breathtaking.
The company in question doesn't really care if the damn thing works in the end. The point is to get the development contract in the first place.
On my own personal side, I have just shelled out quite a lot of money on a new computer system, hoping that this would cure the problems of my last system crashing. I have to admit that its a lot better than the last one. But I still have problems getting to do extemely simple tasks. If it was in control of a flying machine it would have ended up as a smoking hole in the ground within a few hours of me switching it on.
I think that anyone who has driven flying machines for any length of time will know that the whole idea of pilotless aircraft is an unrealistic dream.
The company in question doesn't really care if the damn thing works in the end. The point is to get the development contract in the first place.
On my own personal side, I have just shelled out quite a lot of money on a new computer system, hoping that this would cure the problems of my last system crashing. I have to admit that its a lot better than the last one. But I still have problems getting to do extemely simple tasks. If it was in control of a flying machine it would have ended up as a smoking hole in the ground within a few hours of me switching it on.
I think that anyone who has driven flying machines for any length of time will know that the whole idea of pilotless aircraft is an unrealistic dream.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we can see the way things are going. In recent "interventions" (The Gulf, the Balkans, Afghanistan) the pattern has been to neutralise (or severely degrade) potential hostile air defences with Cruise Missiles and stealthy manned bombers, before releasing much in the way of tactical OS aircraft. In the not-too-distant future the stealth bombers will be substituted by UAVs. The targets are generally fixed, and their positions should be accurately determined by intelligence sources.
Once the opposition has been eliminated, the need for fast jet OS aircraft disappears. What is needed then is aircraft capable of delivering a heavy weight of PGWs economically and at the greatest possible range against targets designated by special forces. Unsurprisingly, once the need to penetrate defences is obviated, the bomber is once again supreme. The Yanks have been sensible enough to upgrade the B52's systems. Would that we had done the same with the Vulcan!
Someone needs to study the relative costs of delivering ordnance by a big, fat sub-sonic aircraft with a capacious bomb-bay, using current civil aviation technology, compared with delivering the same weight of ordnance via a brace of strike carriers and all their attendants.
Once the opposition has been eliminated, the need for fast jet OS aircraft disappears. What is needed then is aircraft capable of delivering a heavy weight of PGWs economically and at the greatest possible range against targets designated by special forces. Unsurprisingly, once the need to penetrate defences is obviated, the bomber is once again supreme. The Yanks have been sensible enough to upgrade the B52's systems. Would that we had done the same with the Vulcan!
Someone needs to study the relative costs of delivering ordnance by a big, fat sub-sonic aircraft with a capacious bomb-bay, using current civil aviation technology, compared with delivering the same weight of ordnance via a brace of strike carriers and all their attendants.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QH-50 DASH helicopter
Last edited by allyn; 12th Jun 2002 at 19:53.
PPRuNe Engineering Dept Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Deep in the boglands of Western Ireland
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
An interesting article in this month's "Flyer" springs to mind....
t'was about the times of "Prime Ministuh, I do say,guided missiles will replace this manned fighter malarchy wot wot. Beaaaah! Nursie!" in the 50s, and the article described a novel way to get around the red tape this ensued.
Methinks if we make the same mistake again (the missle>fighter shyte, not the tape-dodging), someone, somewhere, sometime, will have his arse rightly reddened
t'was about the times of "Prime Ministuh, I do say,guided missiles will replace this manned fighter malarchy wot wot. Beaaaah! Nursie!" in the 50s, and the article described a novel way to get around the red tape this ensued.
Methinks if we make the same mistake again (the missle>fighter shyte, not the tape-dodging), someone, somewhere, sometime, will have his arse rightly reddened
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that UAVs have a future in mud moving but perhaps not air-to-air as yet.
Unless the air combat facility is fully autonomous they will require data link to a human on the ground (or in AWACs) who will "fly" the thing. That means a second or so for the data to travel each way via satellite and then be processed by the magic black boxes. One second in air-to-air combat is a HELL of a long time.
Remember also the "intuitive" element that a human can bring. Sometimes a move that the software writer may not have thought of could be the one that gives the edge.
I believe that this means (for now at least) that we can expect to see UAVs chucking bombs at the ground while the manned aeroplanes try to shoot them down.
As for blue on blue - if the ground assets have IFF then maybe UAVs would reduce the risk?
Unless the air combat facility is fully autonomous they will require data link to a human on the ground (or in AWACs) who will "fly" the thing. That means a second or so for the data to travel each way via satellite and then be processed by the magic black boxes. One second in air-to-air combat is a HELL of a long time.
Remember also the "intuitive" element that a human can bring. Sometimes a move that the software writer may not have thought of could be the one that gives the edge.
I believe that this means (for now at least) that we can expect to see UAVs chucking bombs at the ground while the manned aeroplanes try to shoot them down.
As for blue on blue - if the ground assets have IFF then maybe UAVs would reduce the risk?
