- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Good question CFL, I imagine the americans have an 40 pers staff per UAV and it's probably a trade in the air force for them. But I'm only guessing.
B Bty 1 RCHA to get UAV's
- Thread starter scotty884
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Just a little historical perspective here. The first Military flights in Canada were in Petawawa, as were the first Military Air Crashes. The Silver Dart flew and crashed in Pet, back in 1908. The first military flights of manned aircraft were not so successful, so why the heavy play on the first UAV flights?
If the Air Force wants to play the deciding and governing role in UAVs, then they will likely have to add a couple more years to their pilots training as then they will have to successfully pass the Common Army Phase of Officer Trg. Airfield Engr, Int, CELE, and other non Cbt Arms Officers must take CAP if they are to fill a posn in the Army.
To me it is a waste of manpower to have Pilots piloting UAVs. I can see the odd pilot, unfit for some reason, being attached in as an advisor, but to pilot a UAV seems like too much of a waste. Most young kids are getting very valuable lessons using MS Flight Simulator and have proven to have learned many of the skills taught in Flight School that they have been able to quickly progress through actual Flight Schools at an accelerated rate and become Pilots. If that is the case, do we need to actually send them to Flight School? Not all of them would past the medical, but may have the exact skills required to continue their interests in computers and fly UAVs.
GW
If the Air Force wants to play the deciding and governing role in UAVs, then they will likely have to add a couple more years to their pilots training as then they will have to successfully pass the Common Army Phase of Officer Trg. Airfield Engr, Int, CELE, and other non Cbt Arms Officers must take CAP if they are to fill a posn in the Army.
To me it is a waste of manpower to have Pilots piloting UAVs. I can see the odd pilot, unfit for some reason, being attached in as an advisor, but to pilot a UAV seems like too much of a waste. Most young kids are getting very valuable lessons using MS Flight Simulator and have proven to have learned many of the skills taught in Flight School that they have been able to quickly progress through actual Flight Schools at an accelerated rate and become Pilots. If that is the case, do we need to actually send them to Flight School? Not all of them would past the medical, but may have the exact skills required to continue their interests in computers and fly UAVs.
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
GW, you bring up a similar point to mine, you want pilots working with the army to do CAP, why don't Cbt arms officers involved in air mobility have to do at least a ground school type course so they know what an aircraft can and can't do. Everytime we say something can't be done, "f***ing airforce guys" is the response we get, mostly from people that have no idea the true capabilities of an aircraft. When we do what is asked, they say "it's about time". I see a pretty one sided view in that aspect. I was a Armoured weekend warrior, and I heard the comments first hand, everyone seems to think they can do a better job.
For the first flights crashing, yes we didn't know things like density altitude, stalls, critical angle of attack, the effects of G, etc. All this has come to light in the past 96 years, and most of the theory can be applied to UAVs. As for the kids playing MS flight sim, they fail out of Moose Jaw just as easily as the non-video game types do. Video games don't result in multi-million dollar crashes, they can just reset the game. I've flown simulators and played MS fight sim, and certain things like stalls, spins and the effects of G aren't portrayed well on a TV screen, these are things that you have to feel and know how to counteract.
So do UAV operators need to be trained to CF wings standard? The answer is no, but 10 weeks of ground school covering theory of flight, weather and aerodynamics would be a big help.
Cheers
For the first flights crashing, yes we didn't know things like density altitude, stalls, critical angle of attack, the effects of G, etc. All this has come to light in the past 96 years, and most of the theory can be applied to UAVs. As for the kids playing MS flight sim, they fail out of Moose Jaw just as easily as the non-video game types do. Video games don't result in multi-million dollar crashes, they can just reset the game. I've flown simulators and played MS fight sim, and certain things like stalls, spins and the effects of G aren't portrayed well on a TV screen, these are things that you have to feel and know how to counteract.
So do UAV operators need to be trained to CF wings standard? The answer is no, but 10 weeks of ground school covering theory of flight, weather and aerodynamics would be a big help.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Inch said:
It would make sense that they would, much the same as Cbt Arms Hel Observers had to.
That would make sense too, but then we are getting away from the statements that Pilots should be doing this and not Gunners.
GW
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Was that Inch's recommendation? At the start, I only noted this:
To me, there's nothing wrong with the Flight SMEs doing some flight theory with the future Operators. I didn't get the impression this was shaping up to be a turf war, at the beginning of the thread...
Maybe Inch could clarify his position. Sir? Air Force to provide some Physics of Flight Theory, etc., or do you think they should be doing the actual piloting?
The point seems to have morphed, however......
To me, there's nothing wrong with the Flight SMEs doing some flight theory with the future Operators. I didn't get the impression this was shaping up to be a turf war, at the beginning of the thread...
Maybe Inch could clarify his position. Sir? Air Force to provide some Physics of Flight Theory, etc., or do you think they should be doing the actual piloting?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
My recommendation is to have winged pilots provide some tutelage to the UAV operators, stuff like theory of flight, weather and it's effects, basic stuff like that. I haven't read the flight safety bulletins on the UAV crashes so I can't comment on the causes, but if it's things like density altitude and winds, then a little more in depth knowledge about those things will greatly enhance the operators abilities.
I can see the need to have the arty control them since their main purpose is target acquisition. Having a winged pilot flying the UAVs wouldn't be a total waste but in our current shortfall in preferred manning levels, it's not necessary. Especially since our training is far more than learning how to fly, stuff like navigation (navigating at 250' @ 100kts is a little different than being on the ground) and instrument procedures are a complete waste of time for UAV operators.
So to sum up my point of view, the UAV operators don't have to be nor do I think they should be winged pilots but the operators would benefit greatly from some instruction on the aerodynamics and weather sides of flying, stuff that's common dog to us since we do it everyday.
Cheers
I can see the need to have the arty control them since their main purpose is target acquisition. Having a winged pilot flying the UAVs wouldn't be a total waste but in our current shortfall in preferred manning levels, it's not necessary. Especially since our training is far more than learning how to fly, stuff like navigation (navigating at 250' @ 100kts is a little different than being on the ground) and instrument procedures are a complete waste of time for UAV operators.
So to sum up my point of view, the UAV operators don't have to be nor do I think they should be winged pilots but the operators would benefit greatly from some instruction on the aerodynamics and weather sides of flying, stuff that's common dog to us since we do it everyday.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
We need UAV operators with a sound knowledge of flight and their aircraft. There is going to have to be an overlap in training but that is par for the forces. By having arty train with the airforce we can learn from each other. It is to bad that our only UAV is such a large expensive system as I think we would have been better off learning from mistakes on a smaller manpack system.
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/air-skylark.htm
or we could buy off the shelf right down to a proven training program.
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/air-skylark.htm
or we could buy off the shelf right down to a proven training program.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Our UAV guys did have a ground school and were provided Pilots as advisors, does anyone one know the depth of the ground school, was it a couple of days or weeks.
S
SigPigJerry
Guest
I heard UAVs in the fall for B Bty but I'm not holding my breath.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Would it be worthwhile to create a "Joint Tactical Intelligence" unit to operate UAVs? You could take Airforce guys to operate the UAVs, because flying is what they know best. Then you'd have representatives from each of the Combat Arms sit with him and radio information back to their respective units. In command of each "UAV Team" would be a Combat Arms officer who would be advised by an Airforce officer as his 2ic. This way, everyone gets a slice of the UAV pie and the right people are on hand to relay tactical information back to their respective units. Imagine what it would be like for an Infantry Coy commander to have his own personal eye in the sky, while the Arty guys can focus on their job. This is, of course, based on my assumption that all branches of the combat arms would want to be looking at the same area...
I dunno, maybe thats a stupid suggestion. This obviously isn't my area of expertise. But maybe someone can humor me and offer an opinion on my bright idea.
I dunno, maybe thats a stupid suggestion. This obviously isn't my area of expertise. But maybe someone can humor me and offer an opinion on my bright idea.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Like an ISTAR Coy, Ghostwalk?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
ISTAR is one of those terms I always hear thrown around, but no one ever bothered to explain what it is. I'm under the impression its some sort of brigade level communication and control system, but thats about it (and I wouldn't be suprised if I was WAY off).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Intellegence, Survailence, Target Acquisition and Recce.
In the roughest form it is a unit which ties all these sensors together to provide a commander with a near real time picture of the battlespace or the AO. Someone on this forum, who has more experience, please correct me and expand. Counter mortar radars, coyote RRUs, UAVs, Satelite imagery and stuff like that, so that there are mutiple "observers" of the same area.
The new silver fox TUAV will be small enough to use at the Coy level. So the Coy Comd will have enhance sight, in the near future the Coy comd may have near real time data links to all sensors on the battlefield.
In the roughest form it is a unit which ties all these sensors together to provide a commander with a near real time picture of the battlespace or the AO. Someone on this forum, who has more experience, please correct me and expand. Counter mortar radars, coyote RRUs, UAVs, Satelite imagery and stuff like that, so that there are mutiple "observers" of the same area.
The new silver fox TUAV will be small enough to use at the Coy level. So the Coy Comd will have enhance sight, in the near future the Coy comd may have near real time data links to all sensors on the battlefield.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
The ISTAR concept is what we deployed to Afghanistan. We are now operating an "ISTAR Coy" more or less over there since the RCR BG and RCD Recce Sqn set up. Most of our Infantry assets have been cut back, concentrating more on ISTAR. Being what it is, there are many unsung heroes there in trades that get little or no recognition. The Gunners are flying UAVs, the EW guys are doing their thing, the Int guys are doing their thing, Sigs theirs, and Recce theirs, and so on. Bring it all together and you have ISTAR
GW
GW
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
George Wallace said:
I'd rather see them add a land forces version of the VTUAV Fire Scout with sensor package
designed to provide targeting information to smart munitions fired from support mortar
and artillery units.
That's just me....
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 5,608
- Points
- 1,360
Hey I don't know why its a suprise we keep crashing these things... we're only used to keeping something in the air for about 25-40 seconds...
