- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
In the not too distant future, they will be able to do anything you can do... and more.
At that point human pilots will have to start getting their hair cut like everyone else.
Drones change 'Top Gun' culture of Air Force
- Thread starter Polaris
- Start date
In the not too distant future, they will be able to do anything you can do... and more.
At that point human pilots will have to start getting their hair cut like everyone else.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
Yeah...except you did. You bought in fully to the idea that the predictors of what army aviation will be in 25 years are right. Look back 15 years at what we thought Army Aviation would be today. It doesn't look anything like what we envisioned it would. Yet we're supposed to believe that a vision of the future of Army Aviation in 25 years is right? Come on, man.
It's great that USAFA cadets get RPA badges. The AF does all kinds of hokey stuff. Maybe UAVs account for more flight hours than AF aircraft, but that's a function of the environment and the AF, not of what's relevant in other services.
Even the senior leadership sees the benefits of UAVs.
The potential for other mission for our unmanned systems is limitless…homeland defense, disaster relief, combined arms operations, stability and support operations, and contingency operations to name a few,” said Brig. Gen. E. J. Sinclair, commanding general of the U.S. Army Aviation Warfighting Center. “Our Soldiers will continue to adapt our unmanned systems to accomplish their assigned missions safer and more efficiently than ever before.”
"Today, the evolution of the machine is beginning to outpace the capability of the people we put in them," Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said late last year in a speech to the Air Force Association. "We now must reconsider the relationship."
The potential for other mission for our unmanned systems is limitless…homeland defense, disaster relief, combined arms operations, stability and support operations, and contingency operations to name a few,” said Brig. Gen. E. J. Sinclair, commanding general of the U.S. Army Aviation Warfighting Center. “Our Soldiers will continue to adapt our unmanned systems to accomplish their assigned missions safer and more efficiently than ever before.”
"Today, the evolution of the machine is beginning to outpace the capability of the people we put in them," Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said late last year in a speech to the Air Force Association. "We now must reconsider the relationship."
I posted a document by army aviation and what their goal is for the future of army aviation. I am not predicting the future. Again if you look at army aviation 15 years ago it is nothing like it is today, example UAVs. The Army aviation is moving forward with UAVs that's not my predication that's the Army's prediction.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
And 15 years ago the Army predicted the fleet would be centered around the Comanche. Oops.
Betting on the Army's predictions is not a good idea.
Again the army is pumping money into UAVs with the idea of going pilotless by 2030 and having an ever increasing roll by 2020. Current army plans, doctrine and training all point to UAVs, you should learn to accept it. Your argument isn't based upon current army plans and doctrine. I suggest you take yourself out of the equation and realize that the army is moving forward with UAVs and pilotless helicopters.
I suggest you read MG Anthony G. Crutchfield vision for army aviation.
His quote "To that end, no later than 2030, the Army must achieve the operational capability of an Aviation Force that is able to meet future reconnaissance, attack, and vertical maneuver mission demands; is organized into rapidly deployable and adaptable formations; and is equipped with a new generation of multi-mission manned and unmanned aircraft with a greatly
reduced sustainment footprint in order to provide the operational force
commander with an unmatched decisive action capability in support of
unified land operations. This is a major Aviation Branch initiative which will impact every member of our Aviation Enterprise"
His quote "To that end, no later than 2030, the Army must achieve the operational capability of an Aviation Force that is able to meet future reconnaissance, attack, and vertical maneuver mission demands; is organized into rapidly deployable and adaptable formations; and is equipped with a new generation of multi-mission manned and unmanned aircraft with a greatly
reduced sustainment footprint in order to provide the operational force
commander with an unmatched decisive action capability in support of
unified land operations. This is a major Aviation Branch initiative which will impact every member of our Aviation Enterprise"
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
I'll send you a memo when I need suggestions from the cheap seats.
Rest assured you have very little knowledge of what's going on in Army aviation. You read Crutchfield. I speak with him when he drops by. Now, you were telling me what's going on in my world again?
BTW, BG E.J. Sinclair hasn't been the AV chief in about 7 years.
The general had a vision that army aviation is following. By the way there was no cheap shot. You have yet to make an argument against army aviation moving more towards UAVs and pilotless helicopters. You have also yet show any army doctrine, policies or statements that contradict this movement.
You do realize that I'm quoting articles from MG Anthony G. Crutchfield who has published a lot of articles on the future of Army Aviation.
http://www.quad-a.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=332&Itemid=97
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
It's too much fun watching you frantically google. Of course, you manage to skip over the word "manned" in Tony Crutchfield's statement.
You do realize that "pouring money" into something and then abandoning it in light of reality is DoD SOP?
In a 140-page "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap" released earlier this month, the Armed Forces reveal that the UH-60, AH-64, CH-47 and OH-58D whirlybirds will all be part of a new aircraft category called Optionally Piloted Vehicles (OPV) -- meaning in future, the flick of a switch will turn them into giant UAVs
What's funny is you trying to say I'm wrong when you have nothing to show that I'm wrong. MG Crutchfield has said a variety of manned and unmanned aircraft, I quoted him directly. Please read my posts.
I suggest you take the time to read the army aviation blue print.
http://www.rucker.army.mil/usaace/uas/US Army UAS RoadMap 2010 2035.pdf
Pouring money into something that won't work? Your belief that this technology won't work is misguided as it is currently being tested and working.
Your post is just like naval leadership in the 20s thinking that the US Navy will always be centered around the battleship and that there was no need for naval aviation, and low and behold technology! Now the US Navy is centered around the aircraft carrier.
Army aviation is going change, no getting around it.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
Look, kid, I don't know what your beef is or why you're so gung-ho on the UAV kick. Good for you, though. It seems to keep you occupied in a manner that doesn't involve lighting things on fire and such, so we'll call it a net positive.
If I thought you actually knew anything about Army aviation or where the force is headed, I'd go blue in the face arguing with you. But all you've done is frantically cut and paste articles you've Googled and attempted to offer "suggestions" and "insights" from the grandstand about the world I live in every day. It's quite clear that you don't know the first thing about UAVs or real aircraft, or the realities of the current OE.
Army Aviation has always changed...just never in the way we thought it would.
First you know nothing about me, I don't appreciate the attack on me. It's childish, and unprofessional. I posted the articles about UAVs because again they are interesting and relevant to this site. Young men and women looking to go into the military with the idea of becoming a pilot or aviator should know what the future holds. However, your attempts at attacking me are unjustified. You have yet to counter anything I have posted. Instead you name call and attack, yet I post relevant articles by players in army aviation.
Finally going so called blue on me, is uncalled for and unnecessary. If you wanted to post about the future of army aviation you would. It is obvious that this subject is very close to you. I don't understand why you have gotten so worked up over the subject. This forum is designed to be an open discussion of the military. Please note that I am not criticizing military aviation.
If you want to have a real discussion please do so, also please feel free to post your current view and future of army aviation.
Finally as your post would be an opinion I would as please relate any educational background with regards to military aviation beyond Ft. Rucker, such as do you have a Bachelor's, Master's or Ph.D in aeronautical engineering or Unmanned aerial aircraft as that background would offer great insight into army aviation.
Last edited:
All this Google Searching, Copying, and Pasting must be exhausting.
So Scout, just what if any experience in Army Aviation do you have beyond your time at Ft. Rucker. That one made me chuckle. Hey, can you even get a Ph.D in Unmanned Aerial Aircraft, better look into that.
So Scout, just what if any experience in Army Aviation do you have beyond your time at Ft. Rucker. That one made me chuckle. Hey, can you even get a Ph.D in Unmanned Aerial Aircraft, better look into that.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
Other than 9 years of operational experience? Just call me an "amateur dabbler." I mean, don't have your credentials of...posting a lot of articles. I was an Aero tracker, though. Maybe you have some real experience you'd like to share with us? Some qualifications?
Your articles are nice. Interesting reads. But as I keep trying to point out to you, almost none of our projections of what our future force would look like have held true. You want kids to read these as gospel. I'm saying "not so fast." You can't hold that this is a site for discussion and then cry foul when someone tells you you're wrong.
The main issues with an RPA force are...
1. Money. If you haven't heard, we're almost fresh out. While it's fun to believe we will have gangs of cash to create a new fleet, pretty much everyone who knows budgetary math will tell you that won't be the case. We're in the midst of a huge reinvestment in current airframes, all with planned lifespans beyond 2030, from the CH-47F to UH-60M, to updated CAAS and new-build AAS airframes.
2. If you're putting humans on them, then humans will be at the controls. That's >50% of our mission set.
3. Flexibility. A human on scene can manage what a human miles away cannot, no matter how many cameras you give him.
4. Vulnerability. RPAs rely on GPS and solid link. Our GPS is incredibly susceptible to jamming. That's a structural flaw we can't avoid. RPAs are great in a permissive environment. Beyond that, EW can crush an RPA fleet.
Those are just the headline concerns that are well-known within the community.
What's the real future? Manned-Unmanned teaming.
Of course, the idea of an RPA force is predicated on one view of future conflicts. But I digress.
If you want to be treated "professionally" then act like one. When you tell people, especially those with experience, "I suggest you..." and "you need to..." when they disagree with you about a subject they know inside and out, you come off like a mouthy child and thus get treated as such.
Your articles are nice. Interesting reads. But as I keep trying to point out to you, almost none of our projections of what our future force would look like have held true. You want kids to read these as gospel. I'm saying "not so fast." You can't hold that this is a site for discussion and then cry foul when someone tells you you're wrong.
The main issues with an RPA force are...
1. Money. If you haven't heard, we're almost fresh out. While it's fun to believe we will have gangs of cash to create a new fleet, pretty much everyone who knows budgetary math will tell you that won't be the case. We're in the midst of a huge reinvestment in current airframes, all with planned lifespans beyond 2030, from the CH-47F to UH-60M, to updated CAAS and new-build AAS airframes.
2. If you're putting humans on them, then humans will be at the controls. That's >50% of our mission set.
3. Flexibility. A human on scene can manage what a human miles away cannot, no matter how many cameras you give him.
4. Vulnerability. RPAs rely on GPS and solid link. Our GPS is incredibly susceptible to jamming. That's a structural flaw we can't avoid. RPAs are great in a permissive environment. Beyond that, EW can crush an RPA fleet.
Those are just the headline concerns that are well-known within the community.
What's the real future? Manned-Unmanned teaming.
Of course, the idea of an RPA force is predicated on one view of future conflicts. But I digress.
If you want to be treated "professionally" then act like one. When you tell people, especially those with experience, "I suggest you..." and "you need to..." when they disagree with you about a subject they know inside and out, you come off like a mouthy child and thus get treated as such.
Guys just a warning I see this one spiraling out... Let's self-moderate and calm this one down before the mods start to swing the ban-hammer.
Just my 2-cents.
EDIT: Sorry cross posted with Scouts post 37... this was meant previous posts not in relation to that specific post.
Just my 2-cents.
EDIT: Sorry cross posted with Scouts post 37... this was meant previous posts not in relation to that specific post.
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
You make a valid point!
Just shut it down, it's gotten out of control.