UH, no....it doesn't eliminate the human error as UAS are flown by humans. They're programmed by humans and in the case of the MQ-1 (Predator) and MQ-9 (Reaper) they're flown by a pilot/sensor operator team.Well, a UAS is cost-effective, and it does eliminate the human error element, but I would rather have a pilot in the sky because if a man is actually up there in the combat airspace, then he knows what is going on at all times.
The Air Force is buying/developing a bunch of UAVs, 1700+ F-35s, new Tankers, looking at new bombers, new helicopters, etc.Hello, can anyone please clarify what the situation is with the Air Force starting to depend more and more on UAVs rather than-manned aircraft? I am really confused about this.
Well, a UAS is cost-effective, and it does eliminate the human error element, but I would rather have a pilot in the sky because if a man is actually up there in the combat airspace, then he knows what is going on at all times.
UH, no....it doesn't eliminate the human error as UAS are flown by humans. They're programmed by humans and in the case of the MQ-1 (Predator) and MQ-9 (Reaper) they're flown by a pilot/sensor operator team.
Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
Simulators are good, but do not accurately perform certain functions like an aircraft. UH-1 hovers and autorotations are quite different in the sim.about a year ago, I was told by a Navy Admiral in charge if personnel, that right now they are only using actual pilots with real flight time to fly the unmanned stuff. The theory being that you cannot understand the winds and forces if you have not actually flown an aircraft.
My only question to that is how long they can afford to do it that way?
My Husband was instrumental in setting up Training Simulators for the Army Helicopters, so it is hard for me to imagine that simulators win't win out due to cost constraints of real flight time.
Simulators are good, but do not accurately perform certain functions like an aircraft. UH-1 hovers and autorotations are quite different in the sim.
I don't think anyone that is not in the Rotor world realizes how incredibly old many of these Helicopters are. Help me out here, some of them are what 3X's (Maybe more?) as old as the pilots flying them?
How do fixed wing compare, I don't really know.
I know I am straying from the original thread, but in the end it all comes back to the $
That is generally no longer the case.
The oldest Apches in the Army date to the mid-80s but have been heavily modified and rebuilt into newer versions.
The oldest UH-60s are the same. With the arrival of the UH-60M the oldest Hawks have been divested and Ls from the early 90s are being slowly phased out. The 60Ms are new airframes.
The same goes for the F model Chinooks which are all-new milled aluminum airframes.
Even the old TH-67s are going and being replaced by the new Airbus UH-72.
Very good, I can see that once again I need to be mindful of my facts. The times they are a changing.
Still How of us are driving cars made in the 80's and 90's (well we have a few, but they are not our main transportation)
about a year ago, I was told by a Navy Admiral in charge if personnel, that right now they are only using actual pilots with real flight time to fly the unmanned stuff. .
That might be the case for the Navy but the Army uses enlisted, E-3 and above, to operate UAVs.