B Bty 1 RCHA to get UAV's
- Thread starter scotty884
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Do you have some supporting info on this happening?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
My buddy is the mortar platoon comd in Shilo (they took over the mortars from 3PPCLI), he told me that the guns were gone in favour of UAVs. My understanding is that they're not going to be put in another bty.
Role of the Arty: to drop short and prod the infantry along
just kidding guys. ;D
Cheers
Role of the Arty: to drop short and prod the infantry along
just kidding guys. ;D
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Are they suppossed to support UAV's for all of Canada or just their specific area. Wouldn't it make more sense if that is the case to have them fall under the intelligence branch and keep the big guns where they are?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Well I said Int because the UAV's gather intellegince but I can agree with the airforce as well.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
The idea behind having the UAVs under control of the guns, as opposed to int guys, is that if they spot a target that needs to be engaged quickly the "eyes" are on the same net as the firepower. All artillery batteries in a regiment monitor the Regimental net, and so B Bty could report a target with UAVs and have rounds dropping on it within a couple minutes. Try picking through different arms and levels of command that fast if they were under int control. Furthermore, with arty guys controlling the UAVs, they'll have the knowledge of how to adjust the fire for accuracy.
The surveillance / target acquisition role of UAVs complements the forward observation role that gunners require. And remember that the use of aircraft by the artillery, for target acquisition, predates any other military use of aircraft.
The surveillance / target acquisition role of UAVs complements the forward observation role that gunners require. And remember that the use of aircraft by the artillery, for target acquisition, predates any other military use of aircraft.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Well that makes sense if that is the role they are being used for. Going with that same logic then some sort of Int det should be attached for survelince purposes to report up their specific net. That said one of my orginal questions asked if B Bty was supporting the whole army with UAV's or just there area ie Western.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
We push our info up our net, all Int has to do is put down the coffee and listen to our net.
Last thing I want is some spook telling me where he "thinks" the enemy is.
"No sir, thats not a tgt, it is the chinese embassy."
Hey sideshow feeling spooky?
Last thing I want is some spook telling me where he "thinks" the enemy is.
"No sir, thats not a tgt, it is the chinese embassy."
Hey sideshow feeling spooky?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Cool. Wasn't sure how closely they were tied in with you.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
xxx
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Out west is where the basis for Canada's UAV program will be held (after a temporary stay in Val Cartier), I don't know any specifics on who will be manning and staffing the positions, however, I do know that the majority of the people they want for this comes from the guys trained for Athena from 2 Horse and 5 RALC. And Inch, you were joking about using the Air Force to run the UAVs right? Because you guys are very good at doing what you do, flying, but the tactical use of UAVs should be left to soldiers who can form a direct sensor - shooter link. However, if Tac Hel became an army unit and left the airforce in the dust, employability would increase, and something like that should be considered. But that is a discussion for another thread.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
No, I'm not joking. Since they're air vehicles, when they crash they fall under our flight safety system. So if we're going to do the paper work on the crash, we want to implement some of our know how (we have been doing it for 80 years, and the army hasn't done much flying since 1968). The tactical stuff is a very small part of aircraft ops, can the UAV drivers tell me anything about thunderstorms, or wind shear? Those are pretty significant factors beyond the tactical stuff that's required, weather will put a 747 into the ground and is even more significant to lighter aircraft. Us guys in blue are all a little curious as to why the army would take a guy that's done battle school and let him fly UAVs when air force pilots take over 2 years to train. Are we doing something wrong? I don't think we're doing anything wrong considering out of 300+ aircraft in our inventory, we haven't had 6 crashes in the past 2 years vs the 6 or 7 or whatever UAVs that crashed in doing 100 sorties. I'm not getting into why they crashed, that's a whole other discussion.
Also, there's no difference in training required for what we do to support the army/navy, we don't just do things our own way, we do them to support you guys. So putting pilots in green uniforms isn't going to change their employability, it's the same as him wearing a blue uniform. The problems lie in the way we co-ordinate between the 2 command structures, you still need to train a pilot to be a pilot, the colour of his uniform is not important. In MH, we have no problems integrating with the navy and supporting them, I can't speak for the TacHel crews.
Cheers
Also, there's no difference in training required for what we do to support the army/navy, we don't just do things our own way, we do them to support you guys. So putting pilots in green uniforms isn't going to change their employability, it's the same as him wearing a blue uniform. The problems lie in the way we co-ordinate between the 2 command structures, you still need to train a pilot to be a pilot, the colour of his uniform is not important. In MH, we have no problems integrating with the navy and supporting them, I can't speak for the TacHel crews.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 5,608
- Points
- 1,360
I think you answered your own question with " when air force pilots take over two years to train". $$$
Also to be blunt, basically the artillery needs other things to do as they keep cutting the number of guns, etc. but in case of operational necessity I'm sure they will want trained artillerymen at the ready to man those pieces.
2 cents, Bruce
Also to be blunt, basically the artillery needs other things to do as they keep cutting the number of guns, etc. but in case of operational necessity I'm sure they will want trained artillerymen at the ready to man those pieces.
2 cents, Bruce
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Just because it an air vehicle doesn't mean it has to be flown by a pilot. In the early 80's, the arty had drones to fly (insert model aircraft) to be used for the Air Defence Bty to conduct trg against hostile aircraft. Theses machines were flown by Arty soldiers. These are the same concept nowadays only that they now have advanced sensor capabilities to locate targets. this of course is still an arty function. Target acquistion is a major concept of combat ops.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I never said it had to be flown by a winged pilot (though by definition a pilot is someone who flys or is qualified to fly) I said that some airforce guys are going to Shilo to help the arty out with a few aviation related things to try and prevent crashes in the future. The aviation related stuff will provide a little insight into weather and other factors affecting flight, which would be nice to know, that's all stuff that we cover in our 2 years training.
$$$? Those UAVs cost $38 million, that's just the purchase, not to mention the fuel and maintenance on them. Maybe they would have lasted longer if the guys flying them went through more extensive training. It costs $1 million to train a pilot, it may have cost more in the beginning but at least you wouldn't have spent $38 million+ and have nothing to show for it.
Like I said before, we've been doing this for 80 years and 2 years is what it takes to train a pilot, and trust me, the learning curve is steep. Now if the army thinks that 100 sorties is a good thing, we do 80 sorties a day in Moose Jaw, that's right 80 every day (weather dependant of course), and we certainly don't have 6 crashes every 100 sorties.
$$$? Those UAVs cost $38 million, that's just the purchase, not to mention the fuel and maintenance on them. Maybe they would have lasted longer if the guys flying them went through more extensive training. It costs $1 million to train a pilot, it may have cost more in the beginning but at least you wouldn't have spent $38 million+ and have nothing to show for it.
Like I said before, we've been doing this for 80 years and 2 years is what it takes to train a pilot, and trust me, the learning curve is steep. Now if the army thinks that 100 sorties is a good thing, we do 80 sorties a day in Moose Jaw, that's right 80 every day (weather dependant of course), and we certainly don't have 6 crashes every 100 sorties.
- Reaction score
- 5,608
- Points
- 1,360
Flying UAV's?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
You both make good points. To be blunt though if the arty has nothing to do they could always rebadge to the infantry.
