Comments on: No Robot in the Loop Here!

By: maybe_I_Know_something

maybe_I_Know_something — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:25:08 +0000

I think in general the military does what it can to maintain technical knowledge/operational experience of their systems so they know HOW to fight a war. The actual men and women in uniform need to be informed customers of these systems and not just their civilian technial advisors. Alot of the decisions AF military personel have to make during wartime and during the aquisition process depends on piloting skills. This will probably still be the case when the AF goes mostly robotic. I don’t think this is an issue of figher jocks and their egos. Its about maintaining a culture of ownership of their overall mission and the skills and systems that enable them to accomplish it.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:52:55 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
I’ve been wanting to respond to Cole and TB arguments here but I would have to go into information that I promised a source I would use till it became public.
Knowing that Cole is pimping for Boeing I just had to wait my time and the time has come. Yesterday the Special Operations Command place a contract with Boeing for $250 million. A saml change contract to be sure but after FCS I’m sure Cole is not his on Boeing list of favorite mouth pieces.
In summary the contract is:To supply “Scan Eagle” UAV’s on a fee-for-service basis to the U.S. Special Operations Command. Boeing will supply both the operators and drones fitted with sensors and cameras to gather video and still images for the Pentagon. Boeing is is said to have a similar arrangement with the U.S. Navy.
I have never been in favor of all the private increasing roll with the military since the 1980’s, I don’t care if it’s in CONUS with gate guards or mess hall or the tactical use of “civilian experts” in the field. Since these practices begun there has developed serious doubt about the loyalty of both the corporation or their employees. Be it former nuclear scientist (Lawrence Livermore) or satellite engineers (Lockheed) who sell information to foreign countries or companies like IBM who are more then willing to include secret DoD work to the Chinese when they sold off their PC unit. Somethings should be kept with those in uniform.
I would think that Project Thor might have something to add on this.
As for TC’s statements. They are correct as of today, but the U.S. Army is a dynamic institution and the 120 “Warriors” on order have yet to find a place in the Army.
Also the Army is showing interest in the new predator ” The Jet Powered Predator C Avenger” with a 3Klbs. vs. 8Clbs. for the prop driven Predator C weapons load.
The Navy and Marines are already juiced because the “Avenger” (named after the wing hinge of the TB of WWII) will be able to launch and recovered from a carrier. A version of the Predator B, prop driven is also being developed that will be able to fly off and be recovered by ah LHD, needless the marines are near orgastic about this.
Now a couple of aviation items to watch. First the Airbus A400, the C-130 is nearing 60 years old and although it has been up dated it is still a WWII design. The C-130 is being worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan and this would be the time for a replacement that fits better for the future as Sec. Gates sees it.
The second item is a Brazilian entry into the Med. Transport area, the Embraer KC390 was introduced on April 14, dod officials were in attendance of this event.. This is a military style jet transport that can use short unimproved runways, be quickly for transport to a tanker, fly by wire and ease of maintenance features, in tother words it is by design to be used in a tactical third world environment. With both the tanker deal and the C-17 not being funded this might be an attractive solution to address both needs.
The current Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz’s former command was at Scott AFB Ill as head of the U.S. Transportation Command and is fully aware of the shortages of U.S. air lift. With the price of the C-17 above $200 million a copy, I’m sure the KC-390 will be somewhat less expensive, and best of all delivery can start in one year. it appears to be inviting international competition which of course is called capitalism.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:14:51 +0000

Before Y’all get too excited about ALS try this on a half mile final with autoland.
“W007 sidestep to the parallel for “amber” (emergency declared) traffic 3 miles in trail.“
Pilot in the loop..“OK, down in thirty seconds.“
ALS “?????? Ahh stanby…ahhhhh back in twenty or thirty minutes?”

By: Steve G

Steve G — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:05:14 +0000

Let’s say for a minute no crashes were caused by human error during take off and landing. Is that really the best use of a pilot’s time? I’m surprised AF isn’t using waypoint navigation or ATL. This would reduce mission cost.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:16:14 +0000

15W UAS Operator. Training currently split between Fort Huachuca and Fort Rucker. (All moving to Rucker soon).
98H is Signals Intelligence MOS trained at Fort Sill and has nothing to do with operatintg UAS.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:38:16 +0000

There’s a phobia of automated systems being less able to respond (or not respond fast enough) to unique situations.
Could a ATL execute a river landing like Sullenberger? Do a test-off with live aircraft, and if so then I would be sold. However, ATL’s are probably only as good as their programmers, who might not even be pilots. Hence the aversion to trusting flying to a system designed by non-flyers.

By: Earlydawn

Earlydawn — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:11:57 +0000

A good article, Christian, and I agree that the Air Force needs to embrace automated landing systems; I’ve heard the microwave-based ones were spot-on. I’ll just say that I think aviation as a whole is fairly resistant to automated landings. Once talked to an airline pilot who said that the only job left for commercial bus drivers is the take-off and landing, and that the systems could be pretty easily enabled to do that too. I think there’s a real fear of obsolescence. Human nature.

By: gsak

gsak — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:58:44 +0000

CR: Yeah, I guess I worded it wrong. I was saying it would be ridiculous to think about landing via satellite.

By: CJ

CJ — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:17:56 +0000

The AF has a grand history, but objectively, its days are numbered when it comes to the combat support component. It would be nice if they would show some graciousness and just let the army take control of anything under 20,000ft (or whatever).
The Army, rightly so, is usurping the functions of the air force by the use of more cost and combat effective tools, in particular, ground-based smart weapons. Compare the cost effectiveness, speed, mobility and combat responsiveness of new weapons like GLMRS or soon NLOS-LS to that of training, equipping, fueling, repairing and launching a combat pilot and aircraft. This is to say nothing of UAVs, which are doing a much better job of supporting the troops under Army control due to a shorter C3I loop, squad-lvl UAVs, etc. The advent of the Small Diameter Bomb will give UAVs the same combat power as much larger manned aircraft at far less cost. I’m just waiting for someone in the Army to figure out that they should just load the tip of an ATACMS with 20+ SDBs. Fire 50 ATACMs and you knock out 1000 targets. The Army could shut-down all key infrastructure targets in a country in 15 mins right from the bivouac. And do it all at a fraction of the cost.
And the air force brass realizes their purpose in the air is quickly shrinking which is why they’ve shifted their focus toward the space and cyberspace arena to continue to justify their budget.
Hell, the Navy is doing a better job than the AF in controlling air space. It was the Navy that shot down the spook satellite. AEGIS is the world’s keystone air defense system.
In the grand scheme of things, the AF dudes shouldn’t feel bad. They’ve done great. The world has changed, there’s just nobody left worth fighting with in the air.

By: CJ

CJ — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:17:22 +0000