- Reaction score
- 5,608
- Points
- 1,360
:crybaby: :crybaby:...your not playing fair!.. :crybaby: :crybaby:
B Bty 1 RCHA to get UAV's
- Thread starter scotty884
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bruce Monkhouse said:
No smart guy, flying period. Maybe read and quote the rest of the sentence.
The only difference between manned aircraft and UAVs is that UAVs are unmanned, pretty simple eh? Bernoulli's principle and Newton's 3rd law apply to both situations and you need to be familiar with them in order to accomplish a flight, otherwise you stall, overspeed, over G, etc.
- Reaction score
- 5,608
- Points
- 1,360
No smart guy, flying period. Maybe read and quote the rest of the sentence.
The only difference between manned aircraft and UAVs is that UAVs are unmanned, pretty simple eh? Bernoulli's principle and Newton's 3rd law apply to both situations and you need to be familiar with them in order to accomplish a flight, otherwise you stall, overspeed, over G, etc.
Really that simple, eh? Well lets see in that case two years of model airplane flying, some home study and voila, pilot.
I really don't think these are the same "birds of a feather" at all.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
If they can meet the standard then yes, voila, pilot. Though I did say 2 years of training, not home study, so I highly doubt they'd make the standard, even guys that do the 2 years of training don't always meet the standard.
I already mentioned it, but by definition, a pilot is someone who flys, so whether or not you Arty guys want to admit it, your UAV Bty is a bunch of pilots. ;D Welcome to the club, now all they have to realize is that if they want to change a light bulb, all they have to do is stand still and the world will revolve around them.
I'm out. Peace.
I already mentioned it, but by definition, a pilot is someone who flys, so whether or not you Arty guys want to admit it, your UAV Bty is a bunch of pilots. ;D Welcome to the club, now all they have to realize is that if they want to change a light bulb, all they have to do is stand still and the world will revolve around them.
I'm out. Peace.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Sorry, what's H2H? Marines are soldiers, aren't we all? If I'm not a soldier than what am I? People don't say "soldiers and pilots and navigators and ...." There's no distinction except between those of us in the know. For the record, if someone told me they were a pilot, the first question I'd ask would be what they flew.
Cheers
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
UAVs are unmanned thus they do not need a pilot they need an operator.
Change the lightbulb? We use Illum.
Change the lightbulb? We use Illum.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I think what Inch is trying to say is that a UAV behaves a lot like an airplane with respect to how wind and the such affects it which pilots are familiar with because of there trainging. He isn't saying that it should be a pilot per se but that the "operator" should have similar training as a pilot so as to operate the UAV in all climates and situations which pilots are already trained for.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'm sorry Inch, please don't take this as an attack on pilots. TacHel guys have been very accomodating, within their individual span of control. First off, want to get this Jab in there: correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't one of the airforce guys in afganistan was responsible for one of the crashes, heard that.
Alright, I'm all for pilots teaching the principles of flight to the operators of UAVs, like you said they are the ones who understand how a plane flys. But your attitude toward the whole thing is typical of the airforce mentality, "thing in air....therefore we take the lead" the fact that the UAV is in the air is a minor thing compared to the role and use of the instrument. The next thing that that airforce could have role in, airspace deconfliction....well surprise our air defence guys have been doing that for years, both in the BAI and in the CAS bands. Can say that an Air Space controller instructor would assist greatly.
Also the problem with the airforce taking on a tactical asset like that is, focus, the focus is more likely to be on that aims and prinicples of our airforce. Which quite frankly has shifted into self-preservation mode. And a person/unit with two bosses gets little accomplished especially when their strategic aims are quite different. Also, as you know Inch and I'm pretty sure you can appreciate the airforce works on thier own time and schedules
Finally, think of it this way, Armd Recce guys have the ability to call in fire from the artillery, that doesn't make them a FOO nor does it make me Recce because I have 25 and an MSTAR....because vehicles that operate in the same elements does not mean that the functioning of the vehicle in that element out weights that aims and uses of that vehicle/crew. It's just a way to get to the war and fight it....
Alright, I'm all for pilots teaching the principles of flight to the operators of UAVs, like you said they are the ones who understand how a plane flys. But your attitude toward the whole thing is typical of the airforce mentality, "thing in air....therefore we take the lead" the fact that the UAV is in the air is a minor thing compared to the role and use of the instrument. The next thing that that airforce could have role in, airspace deconfliction....well surprise our air defence guys have been doing that for years, both in the BAI and in the CAS bands. Can say that an Air Space controller instructor would assist greatly.
Also the problem with the airforce taking on a tactical asset like that is, focus, the focus is more likely to be on that aims and prinicples of our airforce. Which quite frankly has shifted into self-preservation mode. And a person/unit with two bosses gets little accomplished especially when their strategic aims are quite different. Also, as you know Inch and I'm pretty sure you can appreciate the airforce works on thier own time and schedules
Finally, think of it this way, Armd Recce guys have the ability to call in fire from the artillery, that doesn't make them a FOO nor does it make me Recce because I have 25 and an MSTAR....because vehicles that operate in the same elements does not mean that the functioning of the vehicle in that element out weights that aims and uses of that vehicle/crew. It's just a way to get to the war and fight it....
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Boy you all make good points. I'm torn.
- Reaction score
- 5,608
- Points
- 1,360
Well then, if the infantry guy is confused than the Arty. and Air Force guys should talk down a bit. 
Thought I forgot, CFL? ;D
Thought I forgot, CFL? ;D
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Why I oughta...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Scott,
No offense taken, this is a discussion isn't it?
For the airforce mentality, I don't want to fly the UAVs, but if I'm a flight safety guy in NDHQ that keeps having to do paperwork for a crash by an Arty soldier, not to mention the fact that the UAVs have gone down quicker than Monica Lewinsky, I'd start to ask questions about their operation as well as who is operating them.
A point on the self-preservation mode. If I was required to fly into a hot LZ to get you guys out, I would do it. On the flip side, if no one else's life is in danger, I'm not going to risk mine or my crew's lives or my aircraft in a training environment. We fly a little more volatile platform than an armoured vehicle. If you guys hit a tree, buh-bye tree. If we hit a tree (not to mention the ground, wires, towers, other aircraft, etc), people get folded Cdn flags and the airforce is out a multi million dollar machine.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I fly MH, you can put me in a navy uniform and I'll still do the same job I'm doing now, proof....we have a British exchange pilot from the RN, he wears a navy uniform and we wear air force uniforms and we both do the same job. Believe me, I could care less which uniform I wear.
Cheers
No offense taken, this is a discussion isn't it?
For the airforce mentality, I don't want to fly the UAVs, but if I'm a flight safety guy in NDHQ that keeps having to do paperwork for a crash by an Arty soldier, not to mention the fact that the UAVs have gone down quicker than Monica Lewinsky, I'd start to ask questions about their operation as well as who is operating them.
A point on the self-preservation mode. If I was required to fly into a hot LZ to get you guys out, I would do it. On the flip side, if no one else's life is in danger, I'm not going to risk mine or my crew's lives or my aircraft in a training environment. We fly a little more volatile platform than an armoured vehicle. If you guys hit a tree, buh-bye tree. If we hit a tree (not to mention the ground, wires, towers, other aircraft, etc), people get folded Cdn flags and the airforce is out a multi million dollar machine.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I fly MH, you can put me in a navy uniform and I'll still do the same job I'm doing now, proof....we have a British exchange pilot from the RN, he wears a navy uniform and we wear air force uniforms and we both do the same job. Believe me, I could care less which uniform I wear.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Inch, I copy what your saying, but I meant in the strategic sense "self preservation". Meaning the airforce is trying to maintain a viable mission, and that is not always good for TTPs to be developed.
Main problem with the UAVs that we sent overseas, if that we sent minimum trained operators with untested equipment to a brand new mission, in adverse wx conditions. But Inch you really don't equate what you do with operating a UAV from a ground control station. Here is a point on the Air Force priorities, they required that all the operators for the UAVs have an Aircrew medical, doesn't that kinda sound silly... and sort of missing the point.
However, if goes both ways, do I think that air force guys can be taugh to evaluate and interpret tactical data, and decide a method of engagement, yes they can but that training and experience that they would require to bring them to the level needed. The "tactical training would far outweigh the piloting training in terms of time and space. Another question to ask yourself is : What trade primarily were the airborne observers in Kiowas? For the most part they were Arty(for missions with Fast Air or indirect fire), not Flt Engrs.
Main problem with the UAVs that we sent overseas, if that we sent minimum trained operators with untested equipment to a brand new mission, in adverse wx conditions. But Inch you really don't equate what you do with operating a UAV from a ground control station. Here is a point on the Air Force priorities, they required that all the operators for the UAVs have an Aircrew medical, doesn't that kinda sound silly... and sort of missing the point.
However, if goes both ways, do I think that air force guys can be taugh to evaluate and interpret tactical data, and decide a method of engagement, yes they can but that training and experience that they would require to bring them to the level needed. The "tactical training would far outweigh the piloting training in terms of time and space. Another question to ask yourself is : What trade primarily were the airborne observers in Kiowas? For the most part they were Arty(for missions with Fast Air or indirect fire), not Flt Engrs.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Understood. I too think the aircrew medical is a little overboard, but in a problem solving sense they're just trying to eliminate variables.
You bring up a good point on the Kiowa, though it was an observer and a pilot in the helo. So why wouldn't it work having a pilot flying the UAV with a FOO or other Arty type watching over his shoulder telling him what he wants to see and where to direct fire? After all, they are sitting in a trailer, I don't imagine you'd be too concerned with weight and balance and payload in a trailer. I think a problem we're running into is that technology and information avail to troops is almost advancing faster than we can absorb it. The airforce has countered the increased workload by putting 2 pilots in every aircraft (minus the F18). This allows one pilot to fly and keep the crew alive while the other one does navigation, operates on board systems (we also have Navs and AESOps on Sea Kings due to the massive amount of info to process) and other tactical jobs. Do you guys still do recce with the Griffon, sort of like the Kiowas used to do? If so I know there'd be at least 2 pilots on board plus the observer. An extra set of eyes is never a bad thing.
I definitely think that a happy medium can be found that will allow the Arty to do what they want to accomplish without crashing aircraft every few weeks. However, I'm not a "grown up" yet and not in a position to push those kinds of ideas.
Cheers
You bring up a good point on the Kiowa, though it was an observer and a pilot in the helo. So why wouldn't it work having a pilot flying the UAV with a FOO or other Arty type watching over his shoulder telling him what he wants to see and where to direct fire? After all, they are sitting in a trailer, I don't imagine you'd be too concerned with weight and balance and payload in a trailer. I think a problem we're running into is that technology and information avail to troops is almost advancing faster than we can absorb it. The airforce has countered the increased workload by putting 2 pilots in every aircraft (minus the F18). This allows one pilot to fly and keep the crew alive while the other one does navigation, operates on board systems (we also have Navs and AESOps on Sea Kings due to the massive amount of info to process) and other tactical jobs. Do you guys still do recce with the Griffon, sort of like the Kiowas used to do? If so I know there'd be at least 2 pilots on board plus the observer. An extra set of eyes is never a bad thing.
I definitely think that a happy medium can be found that will allow the Arty to do what they want to accomplish without crashing aircraft every few weeks. However, I'm not a "grown up" yet and not in a position to push those kinds of ideas.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I say push hard and push often. As long as you can back up what your talking about.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Damn Bruce Monkhouse you have a lot of numbers in your rating. Did you figure away to promote yourself. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Maybe the 2 person concept would work, in fact it would probably be ideal. But maybe over kill, a waist of a million dollar pilot... be don't even have FOOs working in those trailers.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
What is the States and the Brits way of dealing with this?
