Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dilmah G on April 19, 2010, 07:55:59 am
-
The military's at it again (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/04/video-army-aviation-gets-mostl.html)
The US Army is not known for having a soft-spot for aviation. So it's perhaps not surprising that army aviators have been the fastest to embrace unmanned aircraft. On 14 April, the service celebrated passing the 1 million flight hour mark by unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), a milestone that will be feted next month with a celebration hosted by the Smithsonian.
Accordingly, the army released a UAS roadmap on 15 April that sets an ambitious course for aviation. By 2035, nearly every aircraft the army flies will be unmanned. The only two roles left primarily for manned aircraft will be -- curiously enough -- utility and medical evacuation. But UAVs or optionally-piloted vehicles (OPVs) will dominate flight hours for attack, armed reconnaissance, cargo resupply, communications relay and surveillance.
-
EMP!
Fwooooooosh
-
well, it's like that already.
though I would hope military grade equipment would be designed to handle EMP
-
As I understand, the real emerging issue is the connection between ground control station and vehicle. Disrupt that, and you've turned your UCAV fleet into a heap of useless plastic and metal.
-
USAF going to embrace UMBTs? :P
-
USAF going to embrace UMBTs? :P
If it's overly expensive, useless, and defies common sense, then we'll embrace it, dammit.
-
Better question: When are they going to be fully automated?
If it's overly expensive, useless, and defies common sense, then we'll embrace it, dammit.
So, what's your take on this whole UAV thing?
-
I assume it depends on your job (http://www.afblues.com/doodletoon.html) :P
-
If it's overly expensive, useless, and defies common sense, then we'll embrace it, dammit.
So, what's your take on this whole UAV thing?
They're great, but we've wasted millions of dollars by basically having a turf war with the Army on UAVs--they've got their own fleet of Ravens and Hunters and we've got ours of Predators, Global Hawks, and Reapers...and they mostly do each other's jobs anyway. So we're paying double, or sometimes triple what we should be.
-
So we're paying double, or sometimes triple what we should be.
This makes me a sad panda. Of course it's the government, so no one ever thinks having one universal design for all branches so you have one set of replacement part stockpiled to the heavens for the same money is a good idea. :sigh:
-
So we're paying double, or sometimes triple what we should be.
This makes me a sad panda. Of course it's the government, so no one ever thinks having one universal design for all branches so you have one set of replacement part stockpiled to the heavens for the same money is a good idea. :sigh:
It's actually been tried a number of times, but it's never worked out, mostly because the various branches of the military all like to fight about operational requirements and whatnot.
-
Hmmm so paying double or trippel for craft which will be useless for anything except recon or cargo hauling on pre programmed routing as soon as someone can be bothered to point a half decent radio jammer at it
-
Actually if there's one thing you can't fault American UAVs for, it's their remote control. I can't get into specifics, but that is literally the least of their concerns.
-
Actually if there's one thing you can't fault American UAVs for, it's their remote control. I can't get into specifics, but that is literally the least of their concerns.
It appears the US Air Force doesn't always end up exactly where it meant to.
(the quoted post was originally in a thread about health insurance :p)
-
Oh **** me and my low alcohol tolerance..could you send that where it needs to be?
-
could you send that where it needs to be?
Hope I got it right.
-
Yeah, got it right. Apparently two shots of Jack after being in the air for 16 hours will impair your judgment...
-
You know, I hate this idea. If I am a marine, and ask for air support to an AI, how will I know that he picked the correct target?
-
UAVs aren't AI though...
-
They're just controlled by some chap several thousand miles away... :p
-
It's not like that chap is the only person behind it. At any one time, the USAF alone has at least three surveillance aircraft over Afghanistan picking out targets in addition to the ground forces, so UAV pilots are remarkably well-informed.
-
Good point, but there is an inherent response delay due to the distances involved. Other aircraft such as the A-10 don't have any such problems.
-
For the Predator's job, the time delay is damn near irrelevant. It can do damn near whatever the A-10 can do in terms of a hit and run job.
-
Fair enough. :nod:
-
but it can't make it rain 30mm hunks of metal.
-
I thought the A-10 fired high-explosive armor-piercing rounds, so it would be raining 30mm metal hunks of explosive doom.
-
i think it depends on mission and expected opposition
-
Standard A-10 round is 30mm AP round: the round is filled with depleted uranium which tends to spall on impact.
-
i was gonna write "30mm hunks of depleted uranium" but i wasn't sure that was standard issue. i think it's actually a mix of stuff. don't they use tungsten too?
-
They're going to have to find a pill to sedate me first before I ride in a helo without a pilot present. I simply do not believe you have the situational awareness on a ****ing computer screen to effectively fly a helicopter, even if you can pan the bloody thing. How on Earth you plan to evade an RPG is beyond me. :P
Section IC: RPG, three o'clock low!
Operator: Hang on, hang on, I can't see it. I'll pan the camera down just a little bit!
*helo goes down*
But we've seen it all before.
"Pilots are going to be replaced by missiles!"
"Planes will be able to fly themselves!"
"Nukes will make you all obsolete!"
I don't dispute the effectiveness of UAVs, but I think there are some things in military aviation you will absolutely need a pilot for. If anyone can show me a UAV outmaneuvering a piloted fighter aircraft...
-
They're going to have to find a pill to sedate me first before I ride in a helo without a pilot present. I simply do not believe you have the situational awareness on a ****ing computer screen to effectively fly a helicopter, even if you can pan the bloody thing. How on Earth you plan to evade an RPG is beyond me. :P
I don't think anyone has any intention of replacing transport helos with UAVs anytime soon. But UAVs have essentially been doing the Apache's strike mission for a while now.
The military pretty much expects UAVs to be shot down at this stage. If anything, Afghanistan is more of a proving ground for them. They're doing fantastic as quick strike and surveillance aircraft, and as far as I can tell, the military's on the fast track to replacing the manned aircraft that already fill those roles. As soon as they can, they'll replace all the RC-135 variants and the MC-12 with drones.
I don't dispute the effectiveness of UAVs, but I think there are some things in military aviation you will absolutely need a pilot for. If anyone can show me a UAV outmaneuvering a piloted fighter aircraft...
Not yet at least.
-
I thought the A-10 fired high-explosive armor-piercing rounds, so it would be raining 30mm metal hunks of explosive doom.
Standard A-10 round is 30mm AP round: the round is filled with depleted uranium which tends to spall on impact.
i was gonna write "30mm hunks of depleted uranium" but i wasn't sure that was standard issue. i think it's actually a mix of stuff.
Klaustrophobia got closest. I actually talked to a guy who worked with A10s once, and they do use a mix. Specifically, he referred to the standard loadout as the "Party mix", presumably because it's full of all kinds of delectable goodies. The exact contents were, not surprisingly, classified.
Now that that's cleared up, feel free to return to the topic of heavily armed robotic terminators prowling the deadly skies :p
-
As a general aviation pilot, I'm hopelessly biased against the whole idea of a completely unmanned aircraft in general, but in Strike and Surveillance roles, I'd have to say I'm happy with that. Strike missions are inherently dangerous, especially if you come into a zone where the enemy may have anti-aircraft weaponry (not a *huge* risk at the moment I understand, but in a fully-fledged war, it's a huge risk), if you can keep a pilot out of harms way in that instance, I'm happy.
I'd still rather have an RAF Tornado pilot when I need **** done, however. :P I've read extremely good things about their Air-to-ground manner, even from US pilots. But I'd expect good things from an Air Force whose Buccaneer pilots had issues pulling up into power lines. :D
Now that that's cleared up, feel free to return to the topic of heavily armed robotic terminators prowling the deadly skies
Pshaw! I'd rather we try and have cars drive themselves before tackling the task of aircraft.
-
"UAV used Autonomous Thought!"
"...it's not very effective."
-
They're going to have to find a pill to sedate me first before I ride in a helo without a pilot present. I simply do not believe you have the situational awareness on a ****ing computer screen to effectively fly a helicopter, even if you can pan the bloody thing. How on Earth you plan to evade an RPG is beyond me. :P
Section IC: RPG, three o'clock low!
Operator: Hang on, hang on, I can't see it. I'll pan the camera down just a little bit!
*Before anyone does anything, the UAV sees a missile and shoots it down*
Pshaw! I'd rather we try and have cars drive themselves before tackling the task of aircraft.
Those are all nice and everything until there's a situation that the programmers didn't predict.
Same goes with UAV's I guess.
-
If I recall, these vehicles are going to be controlled via remote operator, aren't they?
-
How on Earth you plan to evade an RPG is beyond me.
who cares it's a UAV, it's cheap and disposable.
Pshaw! I'd rather we try and have cars drive themselves before tackling the task of aircraft.
flying is actually an easier problem for a computer.
-
"Cheap" being a matter of perspective.
-
compared to a full sized fighter and pilot. it's probably cheaper than some missiles.
-
Not really. Most missiles cost between $10K and $80K. The Predator costs $4.5 mill, and the Reaper costs $10 mill. That's still much cheaper than a $129 million F-22.
-
Even the Mk. 80 series bombs (without guidance units/packages) are fairly expensive, are they not?
-
I'm sure there is some missile somewhere that costs on the order of a million dollars.
-
Even the Mk. 80 series bombs (without guidance units/packages) are fairly expensive, are they not?
Mk 84 cost about $3,100. 1/3 the amount of a single Sidewinder.
I'm sure there is some missile somewhere that costs on the order of a million dollars.
Mostly just cruise missiles. Fighter-based missiles are far less expensive (with notable exceptions--the Tomcat-combatible only Phoenix cost about $450K per unit).
-
I don't dispute the effectiveness of UAVs, but I think there are some things in military aviation you will absolutely need a pilot for. If anyone can show me a UAV outmaneuvering a piloted fighter aircraft...
That's easy and a Predator is fully capable for the same reason the A-10 is the most manuverable aircraft in the US inventory: they're really slow so they have small turning circles.
It's just that turning circle is only one useful measure of performance. Speed is probably worth more.
-
I don't dispute the effectiveness of UAVs, but I think there are some things in military aviation you will absolutely need a pilot for. If anyone can show me a UAV outmaneuvering a piloted fighter aircraft...
That's easy and a Predator is fully capable for the same reason the A-10 is the most manuverable aircraft in the US inventory: they're really slow so they have small turning circles.
It's just that turning circle is only one useful measure of performance. Speed is probably worth more.
In a guns only dog fighting exercise the A-10 is the most despised opponent for fighter jocks.
-
UAVs can actually exceed piloted craft rather easily; they don't have to worry about g-force limits on the pilot.
-
Before certain limitations were put on their operations, the F-4 drones used as aerial targets could evade missiles by pulling insanely high-g maneuvers which would not easily be handled by the standard pilot...
...I want inertial dampners, damnit! :p
-
althought there are still limitations with airframe stressing and loss of control. but i guess if you are planning on losses, airframe isn't of huge concern.
-
yeah, the whole point of UAVs is you can get 100 of them for the price of a single fighter.
-
honestly i'd love to see a swarm tactic air engagment in the modern arena. can you imagine a guns-only furball of 100 drones? :eek2:
-
/me pictures 100 predators twirling and spinning around
/me gets dizzy and falls down
-
who cares it's a UAV, it's cheap and disposable.
Not when it's ferrying troops, it's not. I'm hoping for their sake troop transport comes under the category of utility.
And it's not really the cost of losing the aircraft that makes UAVs viable, it's the cost of a lost pilot, someone far more valuable than any hunk of metal with a computer in it. And who probably costs more in the long run.
In a guns only dog fighting exercise the A-10 is the most despised opponent for fighter jocks.
Well if it ever becomes a real issue for a knuck, he can just outrun a 'hog if he's flying something decent. And if you're in a dogfight in an A-10, I'd say you're in trouble anyway. :P
That's easy and a Predator is fully capable for the same reason the A-10 is the most manuverable aircraft in the US inventory: they're really slow so they have small turning circles.
It's just that turning circle is only one useful measure of performance. Speed is probably worth more.
That's fair enough... If it doesn't get shot down from 24 miles away first. :P
-
Not when it's ferrying troops, it's not. I'm hoping for their sake troop transport comes under the category of utility.
good point. I wasn't thinking of that particular application.
And it's not really the cost of losing the aircraft that makes UAVs viable, it's the cost of a lost pilot, someone far more valuable than any hunk of metal with a computer in it. And who probably costs more in the long run.
"compared to a full sized fighter and pilot."
-
who cares it's a UAV, it's cheap and disposable.
Not when it's ferrying troops, it's not. I'm hoping for their sake troop transport comes under the category of utility.
It is. The Huey, Blackhawk, Chinook, and (to some extent) Osprey all fall under the category of utility. I think the military understands that, for now, UAVs simply can't match a pilot's instinct or training. Predators and Reapers are essentially throwaways--it's great if they come back, but losing them isn't as great a blow as losing a Blackhawk with ten people onboard.
When the technology's more refined, I can definitely see utility aircraft being turned into UAVs though.
-
As a lover of flight and aviation, I am instinctually opposed to UAVs; however, they most certainly are viable tools for many of todays combat operations. I tend to think of them as "re-usable cruise missiles," lightweight weapon systems which can deploy lightweight payloads. The ability to drone about for hours without putting stress on an operator is quite valuable for FAC, though I would rather have the system operators in the general theater of operations so as to enhance communications between the operators and the given flight system.
However, for serious combat duty, however, I'll always side with manned aircraft, especailly for the purposes of transporting personnel.
-
Your attitude is very American. However part of the reason why "casualties" are so expensive is thanks to how much they're played up in the media and how badly images of captures and/or tortured pilots can harm the war effort.
I can't help but recall Soviet tactics that didn't give a damn.
...massed wave attacks, suicide missions and equipment that was just good enough.
It was nasty, but they *did* win the war. Also they had no choice - the war was fought on their own soil over their own town and cities, their own land.
Our "sensibility" is a new thing and is an indication of how used modern societies are to peace and prosperity.
I think there are going to be some rude wake up calls in the future when - thanks to diminishing resources almost out of necessity - the new nations with little such inhibitions will stretch their muscles.
-
Yup, and it's gonna be a rude awakening to realize that so many of us are too fat to fight (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/20/military.fat.fight/index.html?hpt=C2).
-
Your attitude is very American. However part of the reason why "casualties" are so expensive is thanks to how much they're played up in the media and how badly images of captures and/or tortured pilots can harm the war effort.
I can't help but recall Soviet tactics that didn't give a damn.
...massed wave attacks, suicide missions and equipment that was just good enough.
It was nasty, but they *did* win the war. Also they had no choice - the war was fought on their own soil over their own town and cities, their own land.
Our "sensibility" is a new thing and is an indication of how used modern societies are to peace and prosperity.
I think there are going to be some rude wake up calls in the future when - thanks to diminishing resources almost out of necessity - the new nations with little such inhibitions will stretch their muscles.
Hmmm... I think they were referring to the cost of a pilot, not about sensibility.
Let me assure you, a good fighter pilot is something really expensive to find and train. Maybe more than the fighter or the armament themselves *.
And I'm assuming an helicopter pilot is cheaper, but still expensive.
But then again, I could be wrong.
*: Is "themselves" the proper word to use there? Considering I'm not talking about persons, but about objects instead...
-
Your attitude is very American. However part of the reason why "casualties" are so expensive is thanks to how much they're played up in the media and how badly images of captures and/or tortured pilots can harm the war effort.
And, you know, the millions of dollars and man hours that go into each one. Just a little.
I can't help but recall Soviet tactics that didn't give a damn.
...massed wave attacks, suicide missions and equipment that was just good enough.
The same Soviet tactics that got nearly 10 million people killed in WWII.
-
and the same ideology that led to Chernobyl
-
Your attitude is very American. However part of the reason why "casualties" are so expensive is thanks to how much they're played up in the media and how badly images of captures and/or tortured pilots can harm the war effort.
I can't help but recall Soviet tactics that didn't give a damn.
...massed wave attacks, suicide missions and equipment that was just good enough.
It was nasty, but they *did* win the war. Also they had no choice - the war was fought on their own soil over their own town and cities, their own land.
Our "sensibility" is a new thing and is an indication of how used modern societies are to peace and prosperity.
I think there are going to be some rude wake up calls in the future when - thanks to diminishing resources almost out of necessity - the new nations with little such inhibitions will stretch their muscles.
Massed wave attacks are horribly inefficient, and a complete, utter waste of human life. You seem to have forgotten that Russia lost an amount of people equivalent to the present populations of Australia and New Zealand combined.
I absolutely do not respect a Platoon, or Company Commander who would look his boys in the eye and tell them to move forward into a killzone. I'd recommend they be stripped of their Queen's Commission and thrown in jail. Seeing rows upon rows of people dying is all fun and games when you're playing Call of Duty, not so, when those people are your friends, who are dying because of their superior's gross incompetence.
Personally, I believe there is no excuse for an Officer who believes in "massed waves". It is not necessary, and it's a bloody waste, a complete, ****ing, waste.
We have modern infantry tactics that keep soldiers alive. A dead man is useful to no-one. Sensibility, using your 'noggin on the battlefield, and luck, is what keeps soldiers alive. Not some c*nt with a bar on his shoulder telling the boys to 'charge'. No, ****ing, excuse.
I don't disagree that a large mass of people will cause some hurt. That's why Indonesia is probably one of the biggest threats in our region aside from China. But man, there are better ways to get the job done.