WT Forums

Well the Apache is out and the Warthog is in so says Fred Kaplan.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2081906/


Chop the Chopper
The Army's Apache attack-helicopter had a bad war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 3:42 PM PT

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is gearing up for his next war—not with the Syrians or the North Koreans but with the hidebound generals of the U.S. Army. These are the generals who criticized Rumsfeld's battle plan while Gulf War II was still raging and who beat back his efforts, over the past few years, to "transform" the Army into a lighter, lither fighting force. With Rumsfeld's star rising and the generals' tarnished, he can be expected to mount a new offensive on their bureaucratic turf at the first opportunity.
He might want to start by junking the Army's attack helicopter. The current version, the AH-64D Apache Longbow, is in many ways a vast improvement over earlier models, but it is still too dangerous to the pilots who fly it and not dangerous enough to the enemy it's designed to attack.
The U.S. Army's only disastrous operation in Gulf War II (at least the only one we know about) took place on March 24, when 33 Apache helicopters were ordered to move out ahead of the 3rd Infantry Division and to attack an Iraqi Republican Guard regiment in the suburbs of Karbala. Meeting heavy fire from small arms and shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled grenades, the Apaches flew back to base, 30 of them shot up, several disablingly so. One helicopter was shot down in the encounter, and its two crewmen were taken prisoner.
After that incident, Apaches were used more cautiously—on reconnaissance missions or for firing at small groups of armored vehicles. Rarely if ever did they penetrate far beyond the front line of battle, out in front of U.S. ground troops or without the escort of fixed-wing aircraft flying far overhead.
Shortly afterward, when a speech by Saddam Hussein was broadcast over Iraqi television, some armchair commentators observed that the speech was probably live, or at least very recent, because he referred to the downing of an Apache. In fact, that proved nothing. If one thing could have been predicted before the war started, it was that an Apache would be shot down.
Last year, during the Afghanistan war, seven Apaches were flown in to attack Taliban fighters as part of Operation Anaconda. They all got shot up, again by RPGs and machine-gun fire. None crashed, but five were so damaged they were declared "non-mission-capable"—in other words, unable to go back into combat without extensive repair—after the first day.
In the 1999 air war over Kosovo, 24 Apache helicopters were transported to the allied base in Albania. Their arrival was anticipated by many officers and analysts as a turning point in the war. Yet, within days, two choppers crashed during training exercises. Commanders decided not to send any of them into battle; the risk of losing them to Serbian surface-to-air missiles was considered too great.
Attack helicopters have always been troublesome. The U.S. Army lost over 5,000 helicopters in the Vietnam War. (Nor is this a uniquely American problem: The Soviets lost hundreds of Hind helicopters to mujahideen firing shoulder-launched Stinger missiles during their Afghan venture.)
This sorry chronicle raises the question: Why did the Army build helicopters in the first place?
It all goes back to the end of World War II, when the Air Force became an independent service of the armed forces. (Before and during the war, air forces were a branch of the Army.) In its first few years of independence, the Air Force became involved in tumultuous budget battles with the other services. Finally, in April 1948, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal called a meeting with the service chiefs in Key West, Fla., where they divvied up "roles and missions." The emerging document was called the Key West Agreement. An informal understanding that grew out of the accord was that the Air Force (and, to an extent, the Navy) would have a monopoly on fixed-wing combat planes.
The Key West Agreement specified that one mission of the Air Force would be close air support for Army troops on the battlefield. However, it soon became clear that the Air Force generals—enamored of the A-bomb and then the H-bomb—had no interest in this task. To their minds, the next war would be a nuclear war. Armies would play no serious role, so why divert airplanes to giving them cover?
The Army realized it would have to provide its own air support. Blocked from building its own fixed-wing planes, it built rotary-wing planes (or, in civilian parlance, helicopters). And it built thousands of them.
During the Vietnam War, the Air Force's reluctance—at times refusal—to provide close air support became a grave problem. Congressional hearings were held on the lack of any airplane dedicated to that mission. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara briefly brought a wing of the Navy's late-'40s A-1 fighter bombers out of mothballs to take up some of the slack.
Finally, the Army got bold and began research and development on a hybrid aircraft, a bizarre-looking fixed-wing helicopter called the Cheyenne.
McNamara killed the Cheyenne before it got off the ground, but meanwhile, an Air Force general named Richard Yudkin was furious about the Army's maneuver. He saw it as an infringement of the Key West Agreement and a raid on the Air Force's share of the budget. In response, he initiated the Air Force's very first dedicated close-air-support attack plane called the A-X, which grew into the A-10.
Yudkin was a bit of a rebel within the Air Force. The establishment generals (who, by the early '70s, were still dominated by the nuclear-bomber crowd) hated the idea of the A-X for the same reason they hated the close-air-support mission: It had nothing to do with the Air Force's bigger, more glamorous roles. Yudkin couldn't even get the Air Force R & D directorate to work on the project, so he set up his own staff to do it.
The A-10 rolled onto the tarmac in 1976. The brass still hated the thing. It survived only because of pork-barrel politics—it was built by Fairchild Industries in Bethpage, Long Island, home district of Rep. Joseph Addabbo, who was chairman of the House appropriations' defense subcommittee. The plan was to build 850 of the planes. By 1986, when Addabbo died, Fairchild had built just 627, and the program came to a crashing halt. No more A-10s were ordered, and 197 of those in existence were transferred to the Air National Guard and allowed to rot.
When the first Gulf War was being planned in 1990, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the chief of U.S. Central Command, had to fight the Air Force to send over a mere 174 A-10s for his use. Yet in the course of the war, those A-10s knocked out roughly half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks that were destroyed from the air, as well as several hundred armored personnel carriers and self-propelled artillery guns. They also conducted search and rescue operations, blew up roads and bridges, and hunted for Scuds.
Even the Air Force brass had to admit the planes had done a good job, and they kept them in the fleet. (They had planned on replacing all of them with modified F-16s.) Though the statistics aren't yet in, the A-10s seemed to do well in Gulf War II, especially now that the Army, Air Force, and Marines are more inclined to coordinate their battle plans.
The A-10 is an unsightly, lumbering beast of a plane. (It's commonly called the Warthog.) It flies low and slow, but its cockpit is made of titanium; it can be shot up very badly, all over, and still not crash. It was the only plane that the Desert Storm air commanders dared fly at under 15,000 feet. Its GAU-8 gun can fire 3,900 rounds of 30 mm armor-piercing ammo per minute. It can also fire Maverick air-to-ground missiles.
So here's a suggestion for Donald Rumsfeld: Deep-six the Apache, and restart the A-10.

When i say this guy is a clueless jerk-off, believe me, i am being MOST generous.

Rumsfeld DID commit to battle with too few troops, that is just a fact. To me, what credibility he did have before is gone now.

Tell me, what would have happened if the US Army was using Strykers instead of M-1's?

We would have over 1,000 dead GI's, that's what.

Rummy is a moron.

"Be polite, be professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

I wrote this as a response to a similar article posted on a different forum.


I’ll preface this by saying that I was a counter intelligence agent in the Army. After my active Army service, I spent 2 years as an intelligence analyst in an attack helicopter battalion in the National Guard.

I think Platinum786 hits the nail on the head. “These sort of machines are supposed to be used as hunters.” The Apache was designed for battlefield Europe, where there are numerous terrain features and trees to use as cover. An attack helicopter IS a hunter. Like the big cats, they hunt in packs. Also like the big cats it uses the terrain and vegetation to mask its approach and then kills quickly.The ideal attack against an advancing armor unit, for say a company size helicopter unit, is for the Apaches to approach in stealth from various compass points in two ship elements. They use their mast mounted sensors to “peek” over their cover to avoid exposing themselves and pop up only long enough to fire. After, for example, element 1 has fired from the 2 o’clock position, as the AAA and Sams are directing their attention to the element that is already ducking back to cover and moving, element 2 attacks from the 7 o’clock and so on. By hitting the lead elements they avoid the thickest of the sam and AAA. Ask any chopper pilot and he’ll tell you his biggest fear is the ZSU 23/4. Consequently, if there are any moving with the lead elements, they are the first things to die. The 23/4 are fairly easy to find and to kill. The ZSU 23/2’s can be just a stone cold bitch though. They are smaller, they don’t have a radar dish to give them away, visually or by radiating and they can just plain be hard to see. Manpads against choppers in the open are very useful. Against choppers masking themselves effectively they are little more then a nuisance.

All this works wonderfully when your on battlefield Europe. But, battlefield Iraq shares very little in common with battlefield Europe. “Flat, barren and treeless” are far from the ideal conditions for any attack helicopter. The idea of sending an entire attack helicopter regiment, unsupported, in that environment just gives me the willies. Part of the problem may have been that Army aviation may have started to believe its own press. They got away with going nose to nose with unsupported armor units in 91, by doing just what the article, that I originally wrote this in response to, says they envisioned: “They would hover and dance at 50 feet while unleashing furious volleys of Hellfire missiles, cannons and rockets.” It’s a new ballgame when the guys you’re there to “decimate” have the means to effectively give back and you find that your best defense, cover and concealment is in short supply. In the end, the important thing is not that some Apaches were rendered combat ineffective in this action. As the story title suggests, "Apache operation a lesson in defeat". The lesson, or reminder, learned was that war in various environments against various enemies requires varying tactics. But the most important lesson, or reminder, was that yes, we can and do still learn from our mistakes rather then just blindly following a set doctrine. Is the Apache a Failure? No. A tactic was used, and found to be lacking. Adjustments have and will continue to be made.

To sum up. Failures in tactics do not make for a failure as a weapon system. Please understand, I have nothing but respect for you blue suiters. Some of the nicest aircraft I ever jumped of said US Air Force on the side and the A-10 is a great CAS asset. I’m sure many of you have seen weapons systems built and deployed with specific tactics in mind, only to see those tactics change due to local conditions and the need to adjust to your enemies tactics and equipment. In the end, as with many failures, this experience will only make Army aviation stronger, wiser and ultimately, more flexible.




All the way...

Edited by - joedog on Apr 23 2003 11:49 PM

Edited by - joedog on Apr 23 2003 11:50 PM

well I'll let the experts blow my brains out if they want, but I'm gonna wade on into this one anyway. The middle part of Kaplans article, is horse hocky. Regardless of the "Key West agreement" the helo started out as a flying ambulance for the worst of the wounded, and did a darn good job of it. The Army soon figured out that if it could take guys out of battle areas it could probly take them into a war zone too. Larger helos could put grunts FAR inland in a battle, do it quickly and without wearing out the grunts in the process with a long march. They did this several times in Korea with good success and the die was cast. Sikorsky made larger and larger helos, and then the Bell Iroquois (Huey cause it was the Helicopter Utility -1 HU-1, later renamed to Utility Helo-1, UH-1) came along with a perfect mix of size speed and maneuverability to insert squads of troops into hostile territory. Well eventually that hostile territory got more hostile than the Army was willing to put up with, and the Hueys began to grow teeth in the form of "gunship" versions mounting almost every possible weapon that would fit, machine guns, rockets, grenade launchers etc. This worked so well that somebody (probly over at Bell) proposed a purpose built helo to escort the troop carrying helos, and the legendary Cobra Gunship was born. Nothing more than a Huey, stripped of everthing that wasnt needed for the mission, and given armor and a tandem 2 man cockpit with a turretted cannon in the nose, and stub wings for weapons to be mounted on, it was faster, more maneuverable, tougher, and just plain scary looking. This little death gem worked SO well, the "hunter killer" team was born with small (cheap and disposable) helos drawing ground fire just to reveal the enemy positions to the mighty Cobra or "Slick" as it was sometimes known. The rest is recent history as the dedicated "attack helo" got more and more lethel untill it's present incarnation the ultimate "Dragonfly from Hell" the Apache Longbow. Having belched all this out, off the top of my head at 2:30 in the AM, I still have to say that I think the Attack Helo is reaching the end of it's usefullness, battlefield systems are getting too long ranged and too lethal for them to be fully successfull, and I think the Commanche (as muche as I LOVE that thing) is a waste of money and wont be able to do anything that unmanned systems could do just as well or better with zero lives at risk ( I think if your in the military it's your job to put your life at risk, but if there is a way that's just as good but safer , then I say use it and save the guys and gals for the things that HAVE to be done by humans). Now about those SSBNs , I think that ............zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
To sum up. Failures in tactics do not make for a failure as a weapon system. Please understand, I have nothing but respect for you blue suiters. Some of the nicest aircraft I ever jumped of said US Air Force on the side and the A-10 is a great CAS asset. I’m sure many of you have seen weapons systems built and deployed with specific tactics in mind, only to see those tactics change due to local conditions and the need to adjust to your enemies tactics and equipment. In the end, as with many failures, this experience will only make Army aviation stronger, wiser and ultimately, more flexible.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thank you, Joedog, you are thinking exactly what I was thinking!

There will be a major coup in the Army attack helicopter tactics world as a result of this war. I only hope it brings about better coordination and training between us in the A-10 community and Army (and Marine) helicopter pilots. There is a whole section in our tactics manual about JAAT (Joint Air Attack Teams), and the pages are crisp and new...which tells you a lot about how often we train with the Army helos.

For a better description of JAAT, here's a link:

http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/nov85/att.htm

It goes without saying there are things we can do in the A-10 that helo guys can't do, and just as many things they can do that we can't do. Give us a data link so we can feed off each other's 'picture' of the world, and you have a very deadly combination.

'Jointness' is the way of the world now, we all need to get on board and help each other out.



ATTACK!

but the problem is even if we wanted to produce an A-10 2003 model could we or has all the machining equipment necessary to accomplish this been destroyed.

AirtoMUD if you could build a 2003 three model what would be you improvements on this basic airframe concept.

This guy acts like equipement in combat (generally considered a place where other people are trying to kill you usings machineguns and rockets) should never be able to be shot up.

1. Don't look conspicuous; it draws fire.
2. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

To me, the fact that 27 of 34 helos were hit, but that the only one 'lost' was lost due to mechanical failure is very compelling proof of the survivability of the Apache.
We commited 68 men to battle with a BAD plan, and 66 of them made it home safely that night...not too bad if you ask me.
The 11th's failure was a failure of planning, not a failure of the equipment.
These birds went in to attack a mech division totally unsupported, with no prepratory airstrikes or arty barrages....the planners of that raid were asking for trouble, and trouble they got.

This is no more than a reminder that regardless of how technologicly advanced or dominant a weapons system is, that poor planning can render it inneffective.

Subsequent Apache raids were supported by US Army ATACMS missiles and USAF Hogs, and were EXTREMELY effective.

Amazing the difference that planning makes, eh?

I agree with Joe Dog and Air2 completely...joint real time data transfer similar to the USAF/USN JTIDS, US Army IVIS, and USN FCEC is exactly what the Apache AND the Hog needs.

I disagree in the strongest possible way with boomer's assesment that UAV's will replace the manned attack helo anytime in the next 25 years.
So far, silicone valley has yet to invent anything that can remotely compete with the Mk1 eyeball and grey matter of a human operator in a realtime fashion.

I am also deeply troubled by the moral issues of 'smart', autonomous, unmanned combat systems.

Guess i just saw Terminator one time too many...

"Be polite, be professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
AirtoMUD if you could build a 2003 three model what would be you improvements on this basic airframe concept.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Like my old man used to say, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fucking fix it!"

That being said, there are certain things I would want built into the jet that I hope are retrofitted to it in the future. I'll put my wish list forth and anyone who wants to add on, go for it:

1. New motors. CF34-8C1s (14,000# thrust) would be nice. For those who aren't familiar, the CF34 is the civilian version (mounted on Canadair Regional Jets) of the TF34, and is as close to a drop in replacement as you can get. Who knows, maybe with a big enough military order, GE could get even more power out of the CF34-8C1 in an improved TF34-??? version. Our current TF-34s put out (so to speak) 8,900# of thrust when they were new, at sea level, and at 59 degrees F. It's fair enough to say that you don't get that kind of thrust in the desert, though on a cold winter day with high pressure dominating, it goes like a raped ape. With FADEC, new motors could be flat rated to give more continious thrust to higher altitudes (or increased density altitude), instead of dropping off with an increase in altitude like the current motors do. No doubt about it, motors are huge.

2. Avionics upgrade (also, make the cockpit a bit more ergonomic -- I have lighting rheostats that I'm just discovering after 200 hours in the jet), Situational Awareness Data Link, color MFDs, digital armament control panel that talks to LASTE (or the new version of LASTE, whatever it might be), 'clean' electrical power for digital busses to all hardpoints, and don't forget Litening pods! Some type of FLIR would be cool, too.

3. Beefed up wing structure, working off the known weaknesses inherent in the current ones.

4. WFOV HUD with only one piece of glass (think F-15E HUD), without annoying metal erector set framing; G-meter and whiskey compass relocated so I don't have to do the 'Stevie Wonder' scanning technique anymore. Also, it would be nice to think that we could have a forward windscreen with better ballistic properties than the current one. It should also be one piece, to avoid the annoyingly-huge framing. I wonder if that's possible with today's technology?

5. Some more lightweight armor (kevlar-type) in a few select areas.

That's all I got. As far as the airframe, systems, layout, etc., it's good as-is!



ATTACK!

[quote]
Well the Apache is out and the Warthog is in so says Fred Kaplan.


During the Vietnam War, the Air Force's reluctance—at times refusal—to provide close air support became a grave problem. Congressional hearings were held on the lack of any airplane dedicated to that mission. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara briefly brought a wing of the Navy's late-'40s A-1 fighter bombers out of mothballs to take up some of the slack.
--------------

This author's history really sucks. Navy flew Spads until 68 or 69 and then gave them to the Force to use. I knew more than a few Spad drivers that had tours in Nam with Spads and came back with A-7s. A slight increase in speed.

Apache tried to take the best of the Snake, add armor in soft areas, go digital and haul more ordnance. As the Army intell dude pointed out it was built and tactics designed for the great European battle.

IMO, they wanted to prove their tactics and were ambushed.

Regarding their use in Afghan, they couldn't hover with them because of the altitude. Our choppers are really sucking hind tit at 10,000' or above. Hey having the crews survive is good.

Post War it will be nice to compare Apaches and Snakes. New Z model Snake in test now is a vast improvement over the A model. Longbow Apaches are pricey at 25 million bucks per copy. Apaches have problems with certain missile stations and losing parts of the aircraft when they fire missiles. Hopefully the gun worked well.

A new Hog would be sweet. Marines should get in on this buy too.

Key West agreement basically kept Army aviation from flying anything bigger than 12,500lbs in fixwing. They had to sneak in the Mohawk for Nam.

So far the Iraq War has proved, heavy Army Divisions can't be stopped and you need combined/joint arms to waste them on the battlefield.

Jack

Air2Mudd, what would be your view on a JHMCS(The helmet sight) for the A-10, used in conjunction with the Longbow and standard Hellfire missile?

How many Hellfires could an A-10 <i>realisticly</i> carry?

"Be polite, be professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Air2Mudd, what would be your view on a JHMCS(The helmet sight) for the A-10, used in conjunction with the Longbow and standard Hellfire missile?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Now you're talking. I was thinking of putting that on my list, but I'm not familiar enough with it to talk about it. I understand that once we go to the AIM-9X, we'll have to use some sort of helmet mounted sight just to use the improved Sidewinder's high off-boresight seeker.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
How many Hellfires could an A-10 <i>realisticly</i> carry?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As far as working with Longbows equipped with radar and laser Hellfires, cool beans!

Loading them on a 'Hog is another story. I'm thinking bigtime drag, but then again, who knows how the standard four-rail launcher would compare with a LAU-88 three rail Maverick launcher. The Hellfires would be lighter, that's for sure. The primary issue is stand off. D, G, and the new H and K model Mavericks are good to almost twice the distance of the newer Hellfires. That means a lot when I'm motoring in on a threat I want to schwack before he can schwack me!

What would be cool is having a helmet-mounted sight tied in so that you could slew your targeting pod wherever you looked with a cue that is displayed on the visor. Then, all you have to do is look at an area of interest, space stabilize the pod in that area (a button on the stick would activate the stabilization), take a look inside the cockpit at your MFD, and refine your laser designation on a particular DMPI (again, we have the switch already in the cockpit for use with the Maverick). Once you let go of the space stabilize button, the pod will remain locked on that target. Then transfer that target information into a computer, such as the EGI/INS currently in the A-10. Go through this same process 5 or 6 times, then tell the Apaches you want 5 or 6 Hellfires in 5 second intervals. Push a button on the computer, laser swings back to the original target. Once you see the explosion, push the button to cycle to the next target, and so on.

ATTACK!

Edited by - air2mud on Apr 24 2003 5:22 PM

Hehehe, i guess you liked that one!

But how many Hellfires could the A-10 mount, and still mainain a useful radius/loiter?



"Be polite, be professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> So far, silicone valley has yet to invent anything that can remotely compete with the Mk1 eyeball and grey matter of a human operator in a realtime fashion.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I wasnt talking about autonomous combat, that wont happen for a while. The "gray matter" would be sitting in a La-Z-Boy back at base where it could live to fight another day.
As far as the Mk1 eyeball is concerned , most of the targeting today doesnt rely on it now, let alone in the future. Other than iron bombs and fixed wing gun systems, most targeting comes from machinery. Even the M1 has an IR imager and it spends it's whole life in viz range of what it's shooting at! Everything except the Hog (oops it just got the Litening pod) has FLIR , SAR and variouse systems to do the targeting with. Apache has FLIR ,DVO (Commanche wont though), L3TV. Strike Eagle has both FLIR and SAR. ALL BVR weapons (thus the name)rely on something else too. Even the sniper ( <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> ) uses an enhanced view in the form of tele-scopic sights, both for ID and accuracy. Even AIR2MUDs post does only the primary targeting with his eyes , then refines it in the MFDs. If we can use these systems from INSIDE the cockpit, there's no reason we cant use them OUTSIDE the cockpit in the form of remote piloting. WSOs/CPgs really do all that already, they just get to go along for the ride LOL.

As far as the A-10 Hellfire thing is concerned, I dont see a big drag diff between a 4 rail of Hellfires and a TER of CBUs, maybee even slicks. It would only weigh around 500lbs so I guess it would just be a wiring issue. It seems to me 4 racks of them would be doable, that would be (hopefully) 16 dead targets vs 6 with triple MAVs. The AH-1Z already has a podded Longbow like radar that mounts on the top of the tip of the warwing, mount that on the center pylon of the Hog and give it the MMR version of Hellfire!!

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

"I wasnt talking about autonomous combat, that wont happen for a while."

I hope it never happens.

"The "gray matter" would be sitting in a La-Z-Boy back at base where it could live to fight another day."

Kinda restrictive to all around visibility isn't it?

"As far as the Mk1 eyeball is concerned , most of the targeting today doesnt rely on it now, let alone in the future."

It does in ACM, except for a narrow forward arc covered by radar and IRST.

"Other than iron bombs and fixed wing gun systems, most targeting comes from machinery. Even the M1 has an IR imager and it spends it's whole life in viz range of what it's shooting at!"

Not the TC. Even with the new CITV he will spend a lot of time hanging out of the hatch, looking around.

"Even the sniper uses an enhanced view in the form of tele-scopic sights, both for ID and accuracy."

Actually, 90% of the time we scanned for targets with the ole Mk1. Spotting scopes and riflescopes have a very narrow field of view. In order to shift that field of view one has to move. Movement is VERY BAD in that line of work.

"Even AIR2MUDs post does only the primary targeting with his eyes , then refines it in the MFDs. If we can use these systems from INSIDE the cockpit, there's no reason we cant use them OUTSIDE the cockpit in the form of remote piloting."

Unlike a UAV, Air2Mudd enjoys a 360 by about 200 degree view when he pans his head.







"Be polite, be professional...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

LOL dude, slewing the view around with ZERO mag would be a piece of cake in a UCAV simulating human vision quite nicely( we do it in simms all the time after all, LOL) but without the re-look caused by our lack of a fully swiveling head(ok some of our heads swivel more than others <img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle> ) . The targeting still comes down to employing an artificial (or at leaste enhanced) vision of one sort or another. The Mk1 becomes only a little more than useless after dark except on moonlit nights, and even then, greatly reduced in effectiveness. All the rebuttals you mention could (and in many cases already has ) be done with an optronic system. TC with his head out of the hatch? why? when a color video system turret could give him all round vis that could be instantly switched to IR or other modes? with 2 turrets he could watch 2 monitors in the hull looking in 2 different directions at once, left right forward and back etc. He could even have 1 in TV mode and the other in IR mode to see who's hiding in the shrubbery!! This isn't a tech issue these days, just a money and doctrine issue.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> So far, silicone valley has yet to invent anything that can remotely compete with the Mk1 eyeball and grey matter of a human operator in a realtime fashion.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I wasnt talking about autonomous combat, that wont happen for a while. The "gray matter" would be sitting in a La-Z-Boy back at base where it could live to fight another day.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My God. I never thought such blasphemous words would ever be uttered. Fighter and Attack pilots DO NOT sit in La-Z-Boys to go into battle...unless you count the Viper driver's reclined ACES II.

I like the idea of my gray matter hurling through the air encased in my cranium which is attached to my warm, pink body, which is being thrown towards the ground at over 350 knots. Why? There are so many intangible reasons that it's hard to describe unless you've done it.

Here are some of the more tangible reasons. First, as I hurl myself towards the ground, I have the opportunity to be shot at by the bad guys. If my body is in the jet, I stand to lose as much as the grunt on the ground does. If I'm piloting a UAV, the same is not true. While being shot at, I realize that if I don't kill the f#&kers who are shooting at me, I lose, and many times the boys on the ground lose. So there's a connection to the ground forces that you would never have if you weren't risking your life to help them.

In addition to the first point, I doubt you can get the same gut feelings from looking at the video screen flying a UAV as you do flying above the battlefield. Even in peacetime training, which is all I've had the opportunity to do, this sense manifests itself because you are right there, in the middle of it all. It is that little voice that tells you something is not quite right. My lead has saved me, and vice versa, more times than I can count because of that feeling. Call it ESP, call it whatever you want, but again, you have to experience it first hand to know what it's like.

Then you have the actual feeling of flying the jet when your ass is firmly planted in the ACES II, the harnesses are all snug, hands on the controls and it becomes a part of you. If something big goes wrong with the jet, you will know it before any of the caution lights start flashing, and in nanoseconds your training takes over and you do what you were trained to do in an emergency...and that is, fly the airplane first, analyze what happened, and fix it if you can. Hard to do that as quickly without the seat-of-the-pants feeling. Instead of bringing a damaged UAV back, without having a 'feel' for how it is flying, you will probably lose it.

There are so many other reasons why you need a warm pink body in the jet, but we'll get to those as I dissect the remainder of the diatribe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As far as the Mk1 eyeball is concerned , most of the targeting today doesnt rely on it now, let alone in the future. Other than iron bombs and fixed wing gun systems, most targeting comes from machinery.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Hmmm....funny, I think that in the war that is finishing up in Iraq right now, most A-10 drivers dropped iron bombs and shot the gun. Additionally, in order to put a Maverick on target, you first have to have an idea of where to look with your eyeballs. Yes, we can do Maverick search, but now with NVGs, most of the time I will look at an area of interest, roll my jet, pull the nose to that area, place my Maverick targeting symbology over that area, space stabilize it, THEN look inside to lock up a specific target.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Everything except the Hog (oops it just got the Litening pod) has FLIR , SAR and variouse systems to do the targeting with.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's nice. With a targeting pod, I'm looking through a friggin' soda straw. I have to have a better overall picture to build my SA. Even with datalink, radar, FLIR, etc., having eyeballs that I can 'slew' around quickly, precisely, with peripheral vision...there just is no substitute for that. Technology is wonderful, until it goes tits up...then my eyeballs still work for me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Even AIR2MUDs post does only the primary targeting with his eyes , then refines it in the MFDs. If we can use these systems from INSIDE the cockpit, there's no reason we cant use them OUTSIDE the cockpit in the form of remote piloting. WSOs/CPgs really do all that already, they just get to go along for the ride LOL.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, and without my eyes, the concept I talked about doesn't work. Here is an excerpt from a declassified source from OIF that shows why we need human beings in the cockpit. Two A-10s working on a typical mission. It shows why a UAV just won't cut the mustard, especially in CAS:

"After filling 1 uneventful vul and refueling, #2 and I were tasked by **** to work with the MEF in the vicinity of Nasahria. We contacted the GFAC and were directed to perform recce on a
road to the north. Our tasking started at dusk and we soon began taking AAA from several locations in and around the town. The FAC asked for Mk82s on dug in troops north of the town and #2 successfully employed 4 Mk82s on that position while under aimed AAA fire. While I continued road recce, #2 was working with the FAC, passing possible enemy firing positions that he had spotted. <b>The FAC and friendlies were taking heavy fire and in such close contact that he could not direct a strike, but requested an immediate low pass ("I need you in here fucking low, now!") to shut down the enemy fire. #2 had contact with the FAC and requested to make the low pass even though we had been continually taking AAA in the area. I approved the request and remained in a high cover. #2 made a pass at 600 feet AGL, stopping the fires on the friendlies.</b> During his low pass, the AAA intensified and was getting closer to both our aircraft (you can see airbursts in his HUD as he is maneuvering off target), and I called for him to jink. <b>The AAA continued and I padlocked on a Battery to the north of the T intersection, confirmed with the FAC that all friendlies were south of the T intersection, and strafed the north battery with 200 rounds of 30MM, noting several sparkles. At that point the AAA stopped and #2 safely egressed to altitude.</b> The FAC then directed me to drop Mk82 on troops dug in near a tree line west of the T intersection, and also on troops north of the T intersection. After successfully employing my MK82s we departed the area and requested more support for the friendlies."

There is no way that a UAV (or even two, three, or four UAVs) could do all that. First, doing a low pass like that requires you have situational awareness only eyeballs can give you. The reason #2 put his ass on the line was he knew that if he didn't do something, the good guys were going to be in some serious pain. I doubt he would have had the same empathy with the guys in the mud if he was commanding his UAV from a La-Z-Boy.

The part where the lead says he is 'padlocked' means if he took his eyes off that spot, he would lose it. I'd like to see that same trick performed with 'synthetic' vision from a UAV. Quite possibly the only reason he even detected the battery was a flash in his peripheral vision.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As far as the A-10 Hellfire thing is concerned, I dont see a big drag diff between a 4 rail of Hellfires and a TER of CBUs, maybee even slicks.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You won't see a TER of CBUs. The four rail Hellfire launcher is designed for helos flying under 200 knots. We fly above 200 knots, and anyone who knows anything about parasite drag can see that it would be a huge penalty.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It would only weigh around 500lbs so I guess it would just be a wiring issue.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It would involve a LOT more than that, trust me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It seems to me 4 racks of them would be doable, that would be (hopefully) 16 dead targets vs 6 with triple MAVs. The AH-1Z already has a podded Longbow like radar that mounts on the top of the tip of the warwing, mount that on the center pylon of the Hog and give it the MMR version of Hellfire!!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'd rather take the Mavericks and the standoff they provide. Leave the Hellfires for helicopters. Once I take out threats with the Maverick, I can then do high angle strafe passes on the tanks.

Boomer, I hate to roll in on you so hard, but in this case I think it was necessary.



ATTACK!

LOL A2M, dont worry about "rolling in" on me, as long as it dont get personal I dont mind at all. I respect what you do and why you do it.

I really dont think my post rose to the level of "bitter and violent" which is the def of "diatribe".

First off the La-Z-Boy comment refered to the UCAV drivers not the aircraft pilots, so no point in getting worked up about that one buddy, you just missread my post even when you quoted it LOL no prob.

Do you REALLY think you would be LESS likely to risk the airframe you were piloting in order to help the troops if your life WERNT on the line? I dont think so, you would GLADLY "auger in" some droid UCAV if it would help the troops even if it were just as a disstraction to the enemy.

About "First, doing a low pass like that requires you have situational awareness only eyeballs can give you." Really? We do it repeatedly and flawlessly in sims( I rarely fly above 200ft AGL)at night and sometimes in fog, in hilly terrein or over desert, wouldent be any different in a UCAV, it just all depends on the data your sensors can flow into the virtual cockpit. Yeah yeah I know "it's different in the real world" but it doesnt have to be is my point.

As far as the technology going "tits up" and your tech fails, your pretty well screwed if your flying anything other than an A-10 dropping dumb bombs or slinging lead, that's why we love it <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

"You wont see TERS of CBUs" if we're just talking A-10 then yeah I agree, if they wont let it carry triple Mavs anymore then you wont see TERs of CBUs, Hoggy needs a thrust up and always has, the lawn darts carry TERs and MERs of all sorts of stuff (even a slant load of LGBs) because of thier excess thrust. Here's one pic of an A-10 with a pair of Rockeyes (and little else) just for fun.

<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10-00000014.jpg" border=0>

sorry to get your "warm, pink body" stirred up buddy , but hey it feels good right!! Still no hard feelings on my end at all, hope you feel the same.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
LOL A2M, dont worry about "rolling in" on me, as long as it dont get personal I dont mind at all.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Nothing personal at all, just trying to get you to see the attack pilot side of the equation.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I really dont think my post rose to the level of "bitter and violent" which is the def of "diatribe".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sorry, forgot to specifically say my first two paragraphs were sarcasm. Matter of fact, there is more sarcasm interlaced in there somewhere...I just can't help myself sometimes.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
First off the La-Z-Boy comment refered to the UCAV drivers not the aircraft pilots, so no point in getting worked up about that one buddy, you just missread my post even when you quoted it LOL no prob.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I totally understand what you were saying. You didn't read into what I was saying, which is fighter and attack pilots don't like the idea of sitting in a La-Z-Boy flying a UAV or a UCAV or a Star Wars recon droid or whatever the hell else remotely-piloted thinger they come up with.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Do you REALLY think you would be LESS likely to risk the airframe you were piloting in order to help the troops if your life WERNT on the line? I dont think so, you would GLADLY "auger in" some droid UCAV if it would help the troops even if it were just as a disstraction to the enemy.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I never said anything about 'less likely' to risk the UAV, I was talking about a 'connection' to the grunt. I'm sure Snipe, and any others who have spent time crawling in the mud, can realte to this, so let me put it this way: the only person a grunt can trust is another grunt. Everything else is just icing on the cake. A grunt wants simple, reliable weapons systems that work. When it comes to air support, a grunt wants another human being flying IN the jet or chopper, because he already doesn't 100% trust the whole system. He's not 100% in control. Some zoomie is. Now, imagine the grunt's perspective if that zoomie is sitting in an air-conditioned trailer somewhere. The grunt knows that the zoomie's ass isn't on the line, so is he going to have more or less trust in the system? Go talk to a Sergeant in the 3rd ID or any 0311 Marine Gunny and ask them what they think about CAS. Then, ask them about CAS from a UCAV. Be sure you are ready to run!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
About "First, doing a low pass like that requires you have situational awareness only eyeballs can give you." Really? We do it repeatedly and flawlessly in sims( I rarely fly above 200ft AGL)at night and sometimes in fog, in hilly terrein or over desert, wouldent be any different in a UCAV, it just all depends on the data your sensors can flow into the virtual cockpit.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sims. And therein lies the crux of the entire conversation. Go back to my post and read the thrid, fourth and fifth paragraphs. There are certain things you just can't simulate, and that really is the heart of the matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Yeah yeah I know "it's different in the real world" but it doesnt have to be is my point.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You're almost there. Now, if you drop the "Yeah yeah I know" and the "but it doesn't have to be is my point..." from that sentence then you're on to something. An A-10 pilot I highly respect E-mailed me recently and commented that too many people (not just on this website, but who walk up at airshows, etc.) fly simulators on their computers, read a couple of books, and become self-proclaimed experts. This is not a jab at you, but if those individuals would repeat the "it's different in the real world" to themselves about 100 times a day and finally believed it, they would be going a long way to understanding what it's like -- and what it's NOT like -- to fly any fighter. I fly simulators now and then, and the most restrictive thing I find is looking around. Technology isn't to the point where synthetic vision is as good as the eyeball...especially if you have 20/10 or 20/15 vision.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As far as the technology going "tits up" and your tech fails, your pretty well screwed if your flying anything other than an A-10 dropping dumb bombs or slinging lead, that's why we love it <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I am not familiar enough with the systems of the other fighters out there to really comment. However, in the Hog it's nice to know I can crank MILs on a manual backup sight if the HUD takes a dump.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
sorry to get your "warm, pink body" stirred up buddy , but hey it feels good right!! Still no hard feelings on my end at all, hope you feel the same.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Oh, I wasn't stirred up, believe me! I am very passionate about the A-10 and CAS, and just wanted to try and get you to see that there are many reasons to still have guys and gals in the jet. The eyeballs are key. Using all your senses, which you can't do in a simulation, can't be understated. Don't even get me started on 'B-52 CAS'...then you WILL see me get stirred up!

No hard feelings at all, just trying to keep you on the light side of the force.



ATTACK!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Don't even get me started on 'B-52 CAS'...then you WILL see me get stirred up! <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I just read AIR2MUD’s last posting as I finished this one so I maybe in big trouble here!

Something I would like to see but I do not know whether it is a good or bad idea so let me know how y’all feel. Lets call it a Spectre Gun Pod after the AC-130H Spectre gunship's this pod would fix say on the wing of a B-52, C-130, C-17, 747, or on the under side of a B-1. The pod would have say 2 or 4 M-61 20mm say two in the nose like the old B-17 chin turret for forward and downward shooting plus a turret on the under side firing forward, backward, to the side, and down. Then an internal vertical launching system racks akin to the Standard Missile launching system but facing down. This pod would have from two to four rows with say ten missiles in each row the missiles could be either or Mavericks, Hellfires, or TOW type missiles. It may need to come in more then one size for large plane or small plane while I will not try to get in to any tactics but suffice it to say this would be a close air support system like the Sperter that would just be added a need.

Next I wish not to get on any ones bad side but I feel like boomer on the UAVs however I feel only autonomous UAVs will work because I just can not see a two way data link working. This is because we would never know if it could be trusted in combat because if it were jammed or worse commandeered by the enemy, which is a surprise, I think we would not like to have.

Now back to the Apache, Warthog thing I feel both are great and maybe the Apache was used in some what the wrong tactics but when only one is lost we still won that fight. Beside the picture boomer and I saw on FOX of the Apache on that Iraqi truck if we fine the Apache it looked like it could still fly with a little fixing and we did get the crew back a live. It would be nice if we could get the Abram to fly the bad guys would have to have brown trousers as standard issue. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

"TC with his head out of the hatch? why? when a color video system turret could give him all round vis that could be instantly switched to IR or other modes?"

There is a VERY simple reason.

Becuase buttoned up an M-1A2SEP TC cannot access his Ma Duece.
Further, it gets really hot in the tank when it is buttoned up, so anyone with a hatch will generally use it whenever possible.

Third, niether the CITV or the GPS gives anything remotely resembling peripheral vision.

I agree with everything Air2 said, and would like to add that if your kiester aint in the aircraft you will do things with it you would never do if you were aboard.

Like try a loop at 500 feet, lol. How many times you done a manuever in a sim that you would NEVER do because, hey...you won't really die when you screw it up?
I do it ALL THE TIME in sims, lolol.

"I hate Illinois Nazi's"

problem with ucav concept basic computing and physics here. Ok you have a ucav moving at 700 mph sending a data link back via satellite with lets say 1/10 second delay bandwidth permitting for before the control imput decision can be made. The signal is traveling bothway at the same time the UCAV is in a different spacial orientation to the target.

If in the 1/10 the UCAV is thrown off course by turbulance or battle damage. Your target sighting will be off.

If there is a pilot in the copit he will always be where that aircraft is in both space and time references. Making for more accurate tartgeting of non smart weapons (guns) and in a better position to call off a strike should thing change in the blink of an eye--can we say friendly fire.

I work with telemedicine concept there is not doubt in my mind that robotic surgery will happen over the web in the future. But the heart will be imobilized atleast at the point of suturing to negate the spacial orientation problem. And a qualified back up surgeon will always be in the room. May be not as qualified as the surgeon around the web, but he can do it in the old fashioned crack the chest method.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> quote:
---------------------------

LOL A2M, dont worry about "rolling in" on me, as long as it dont get personal I dont mind at all.

--------------------------

Nothing personal at all, just trying to get you to see the attack pilot side of the equation.

quote:
--------------------------

I really dont think my post rose to the level of "bitter and violent" which is the def of "diatribe".

--------------------------

Sorry, forgot to specifically say my first two paragraphs were sarcasm. Matter of fact, there is more sarcasm interlaced in there somewhere...I just can't help myself sometimes.


quote:
--------------------------

First off the La-Z-Boy comment refered to the UCAV drivers not the aircraft pilots, so no point in getting worked up about that one buddy, you just missread my post even when you quoted it LOL no prob.

--------------------------

I totally understand what you were saying. You didn't read into what I was saying, which is fighter and attack pilots don't like the idea of sitting in a La-Z-Boy flying a UAV or a UCAV or a Star Wars recon droid or whatever the hell else remotely-piloted thinger they come up with.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

rgrt, as to the dark side , I'm a techie, the dark side is within me LOL all hope is lost save "the flying Harly tool"

mattlot,and I guess AIR2MUD, the UCAVs arnt likely to be doing CAS, more likely DEAD work at first, then high value and command structure targets. They certaily wont have guns, and I'm not even sure about them using dumb bombs, so the time delay isnt likely to enter into it.

BTW lets not forget who started(or at least greatly adavanced ) the "tele-surgery" experiments quite some time ago, that's right your freindly neighborhood US Army!! <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>

Snipe "stupid things like a loop at 500ft" yeah that was my point LOL, a UCAV driver would be free to do "stupid things" like plow his plane into a platoon of badies or crash to start a fire to provide cover for the grunts escape or repositioning. This is all GOING to happen, it's just a question of when. The politicle types woud like nothing better than to be able to have a war without US casualties.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

UCAV will be autonomous Booms.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

boomer I give the army it due for starting the surgery discussion. but like everything else in medicine unless it is commmercialized the cost will never come down, and innovation will suffer. DO NOT equate military surgery to civillian surgery it is whole different liability, patient base, and technological requirement.

I will take the liability first, basically if your in the military you limited if not totally prohibited from sueing based on a poor out come. Today we get sued for saving lives, and not raising the obviously dead in civillian life.

Patient base while the military sees a lot of GSW in combat, the real place to see GSW year around is in our inner cities. Where the patients often are not fit 20 year olds, and bring a whole host of complex medical problems to the table further increasing the difficulty of treatment. This is specially true of the non trauma patient in need of cardiac treatment, while I respect our breathern in the service very few military medics see heart attacks in 60 or 70 olds on a steady basis.

The geriatric patient is the largest patient base in civillian medicine mostly consuming in excess 45% of services rendered within a community on a reoccuring basis.

Requirements are straight foreward for us dont get sued, have 99.999 reliable data link--oh and by the way that datalink must be cheap.