If a safe and effective autonomous vehicle could be built, then a safe and effective lifting assistant should be a whole big bunch simpler.
But don't count on any real cost savings. Sperwer - the French-built UAV that we had in Afghanistan - was the most expensive aircraft in the whole CF fleet to operate, all costs included, per flying hour, even with a wingspan of only thirteen feet and a little Rotax snowmobile engine. No, it probably did not have to be, but it was.
We trained a whole new Flight, from scratch, every six months. That added to the cost considerably, but was really the only practical way at the time. It was also maintenance-heavy - a recovery without damage was unusual - and the loss rate was high. We wrote off six on my Roto (including one during the work-up period), at $2.5 million each, for various reasons and came very close to losing a few more, and previous Rotos had higher loss rates. We were concerned that our preceding Roto wasn't going to leave us any by the time that we got there.
We probably could have bought a small fleet of D-Model Kiowas or any of several similar machines on the market and operated them for less, with the added benefit of carrying reasonable armament. There is nothing more frustrating than watching juicy targets for hours and not being able to shoot them, and I'd rather be able to shoot them myself than guide somebody else in to do it for me.
UAVs are not cheap if one wants them to carry payloads of more than a few pounds, carry out complex tasks, and operate at any useful distance from an operator, and they are far less capable and flexible than manned machines. Control and video signals require line-of-sight between AV and Ground Control Station (GCS). That means either very tall directional antennae for the GCS and/or increased operating altitude for the AV or satellites. The tall antenna may be practical in major urban areas, but operating altitudes will be restricted by normal aviation requirements, and once the AV drops below rooftops to land, signals in both directions will be lost. Landing a large UAV autonomously in an urban environment at an accident scene, where situations can change rapidly, does not strike me as a good idea.
They sometimes decide to do odd things as well - like rudely wander off. I almost lost an AV one night early in my tour. The tracking symbol froze on the monitor and we had no idea when, exactly (probably no more than thirty seconds), that had occurred or how far the thing had flown. It is very, very difficult to navigate solely by the narrow view afforded by a camera (IR in that case) over terrain with almost no distinguishing landmarks. Afghan "countryside" or Canadian urban areas would not be much different for that purpose.
But don't count on any real cost savings. Sperwer - the French-built UAV that we had in Afghanistan - was the most expensive aircraft in the whole CF fleet to operate, all costs included, per flying hour, even with a wingspan of only thirteen feet and a little Rotax snowmobile engine. No, it probably did not have to be, but it was.
We trained a whole new Flight, from scratch, every six months. That added to the cost considerably, but was really the only practical way at the time. It was also maintenance-heavy - a recovery without damage was unusual - and the loss rate was high. We wrote off six on my Roto (including one during the work-up period), at $2.5 million each, for various reasons and came very close to losing a few more, and previous Rotos had higher loss rates. We were concerned that our preceding Roto wasn't going to leave us any by the time that we got there.
We probably could have bought a small fleet of D-Model Kiowas or any of several similar machines on the market and operated them for less, with the added benefit of carrying reasonable armament. There is nothing more frustrating than watching juicy targets for hours and not being able to shoot them, and I'd rather be able to shoot them myself than guide somebody else in to do it for me.
UAVs are not cheap if one wants them to carry payloads of more than a few pounds, carry out complex tasks, and operate at any useful distance from an operator, and they are far less capable and flexible than manned machines. Control and video signals require line-of-sight between AV and Ground Control Station (GCS). That means either very tall directional antennae for the GCS and/or increased operating altitude for the AV or satellites. The tall antenna may be practical in major urban areas, but operating altitudes will be restricted by normal aviation requirements, and once the AV drops below rooftops to land, signals in both directions will be lost. Landing a large UAV autonomously in an urban environment at an accident scene, where situations can change rapidly, does not strike me as a good idea.
They sometimes decide to do odd things as well - like rudely wander off. I almost lost an AV one night early in my tour. The tracking symbol froze on the monitor and we had no idea when, exactly (probably no more than thirty seconds), that had occurred or how far the thing had flown. It is very, very difficult to navigate solely by the narrow view afforded by a camera (IR in that case) over terrain with almost no distinguishing landmarks. Afghan "countryside" or Canadian urban areas would not be much different for that purpose.
