It replaces the RAST trap. Same idea to secure to the deck before chock and chains.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
UAVs, not just an Air Force gig anymore
- Thread starter kanakAttack
- Start date
It replaces the RAST trap. Same idea to secure to the deck before chock and chains.
So FireScout doesn't have RAST? Interesting. I'm curious how they worked out landing in rough, disorganized seas.
I don't think it really needs it. Really, the only need for RAST is the second half: Secure Traverse. Fire Scout is so small and light that getting it in and out is the easy part. It does look like it's got a grappler similar to the Dauphin, at least, looking at the picture.
My big question is how useful that thing will be down there doing the mission. My guess...not very, at least if it follows the usual ROE. Yeah, yeah, I know it's really down there to get tested, not to be a dedicated interdiction platform, but it still amuses me.
Some of us manage to land helos without a RAST. The horror!
Unmanned Little Bird
090616-M-9917S-144 BRIDGEPORT, Calif. (June 16, 2009) The Unmanned Little Bird (ULB) helicopter, a smaller variant of the larger, manned A/MH-6M can be controlled by a pilot or piloted remotely. The ULB may be used for multiple missions that may include re-supply and casualty evacuation and is capable of carrying a 300-pound payload. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Chief Warrant Officer 2 Keith A. Stevenson/Released)
090616-M-9917S-144 BRIDGEPORT, Calif. (June 16, 2009) The Unmanned Little Bird (ULB) helicopter, a smaller variant of the larger, manned A/MH-6M can be controlled by a pilot or piloted remotely. The ULB may be used for multiple missions that may include re-supply and casualty evacuation and is capable of carrying a 300-pound payload. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Chief Warrant Officer 2 Keith A. Stevenson/Released)
I was talking about the fucking robot landing in rough seas, smartass. :icon_tong
Shape of Things to Come?
The percentage of Air Force pilots being trained to fly Unmanned Aerial Vehicles now exceeds fighters and bombers combined according to the Air Force Times.
The percentage of Air Force pilots being trained to fly Unmanned Aerial Vehicles now exceeds fighters and bombers combined according to the Air Force Times.
They can't get mad when we legitimately call them the chair force, now can they?
UAVs and the future of tactical aviation
I read a story last night in the WSJ headlined: "U.S. Drone Kills Chief of Taliban in Pakistan" (see below). This story, combined with a lot of press recently about the use and effectiveness of UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan, got me thinking about the future of manned combat aviation, at least in the U.S., since we seem to be on the forefront of this.
Just wondering what some of the folks' thoughts on here regarding this "revolution" are: how fast will UAVs be the standard for CAS missions; how soon until the last American fighter pilot flies; is the F-35 the last manned American aircraft, as Sec. Robert Gates says.
I know the Navy's X-47B is next up to bat. Personally, I find this all to be a bit of buzzkill; makes me think I'm just romanticizing an old-fashioned, soon to-be outdated job, the military equivalent of floor-based, open-outcry trading. Then I think about mission vs. platform, and what is best at helping the soldiers on the ground and on the frontlines. If UAVs are better able to assist them, then I think that's the only question that really matters. Air-to-air is another story, but something even I doubt we will ever be faced with again. Anyway, just wanted to see what some of the SNAs, wanna-bes, and current flyers think about all this, or if they think about it all??
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/23/wus.warfare.remote.uav/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124961991813313685.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100780§ionid=3510203
I read a story last night in the WSJ headlined: "U.S. Drone Kills Chief of Taliban in Pakistan" (see below). This story, combined with a lot of press recently about the use and effectiveness of UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan, got me thinking about the future of manned combat aviation, at least in the U.S., since we seem to be on the forefront of this.
Just wondering what some of the folks' thoughts on here regarding this "revolution" are: how fast will UAVs be the standard for CAS missions; how soon until the last American fighter pilot flies; is the F-35 the last manned American aircraft, as Sec. Robert Gates says.
I know the Navy's X-47B is next up to bat. Personally, I find this all to be a bit of buzzkill; makes me think I'm just romanticizing an old-fashioned, soon to-be outdated job, the military equivalent of floor-based, open-outcry trading. Then I think about mission vs. platform, and what is best at helping the soldiers on the ground and on the frontlines. If UAVs are better able to assist them, then I think that's the only question that really matters. Air-to-air is another story, but something even I doubt we will ever be faced with again. Anyway, just wanted to see what some of the SNAs, wanna-bes, and current flyers think about all this, or if they think about it all??
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/23/wus.warfare.remote.uav/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124961991813313685.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100780§ionid=3510203
You'd probably get a more animated response over at f16.net, as many of the unwinged bomber/fighter selectees run a very high risk of piloting UAVs before they get to fly in the jets, if they ever get the opportunity.
Obviously anyone here can acknowledge this is happening, and there's no stopping these advances in technology, unless John Connor shows up and tells us it's a bad idea. Personally, I would entertain the idea of piloting a UAV helo at some point, just not yet.
Obviously anyone here can acknowledge this is happening, and there's no stopping these advances in technology, unless John Connor shows up and tells us it's a bad idea. Personally, I would entertain the idea of piloting a UAV helo at some point, just not yet.
See above...OLD RO beat you to it
The demand for UAVs with a finish capability is driven by elusive nature of a particular target set that favors a persistent overhead presence that a Pred or Reaper can fulfill. The advantages are still not all in favor of the UAS especially in CAS role. A surgical Time Critical Strike against an HVT like you referenced is not CAS, period. So just because it garners headlines doesn't mean the manned cockpit isn't better solution overhead troops in contact in need of CAS.
It's a demo, not a platform replacing the F/A-18 so keep your buzz so why not wait until it actually flies and completes its demo. Like I said above, UAVs aren't always the platfrom of choice by troops in contact. BTW, frontlines? This isn't WWII.
So your crystal ball is better than the legions of Air Force generals who laid it on the line for the F-22? Maybe you're right, but who thought we'd be in a land "war" in the other end of Asia even a year prior to Desert Storm and there was plenty of aerial combat. Many who thought like you did wish they'd hadn't as not all aircraft were optimized for it like the USAF F-15 Eagles were.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/23/wus.warfare.remote.uav/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124961991813313685.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100780§ionid=3510203[/QUOTE]