• 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

It was really weird being on the bridge and not seeing a helm (and learning that there are no screws). The whole ship was all computer controlled which makes me wonder what happens when the screens go dark? I know there are many redundancies but given that 3 of four power-plants went dead when they were cruising around Lake Michigan, it makes you think.
I know the new generations of airplanes are the same but at least those have the Martin-Baker get out of jail free card
 
bbf7b2 said:
It was really weird being on the bridge and not seeing a helm (and learning that there are no screws). The whole ship was all computer controlled which makes me wonder what happens when the screens go dark?
Click to expand...

Can't they switch everything over to CCS or aft-steering (or their equivalent)?

bbf7b2 said:
I know the new generations of airplanes are the same but at least those have the Martin-Baker get out of jail free card
Click to expand...

That would be awesome...a ship with ejection seats :D
 
bbf7b2 said:
It was really weird being on the bridge and not seeing a helm (and learning that there are no screws). The whole ship was all computer controlled which makes me wonder what happens when the screens go dark? I know there are many redundancies but given that 3 of four power-plants went dead when they were cruising around Lake Michigan, it makes you think.
I know the new generations of airplanes are the same but at least those have the Martin-Baker get out of jail free card
Click to expand...

If you lose propulsion or generators, doesn't matter if it's computer controlled or not...you're not doing anything period.
 
midn09 said:
Can't they switch everything over to CCS or aft-steering (or their equivalent)?
Click to expand...

CCS??? Aft steering??? Are you F*%$ING SHITTING ME? We FINALLY built a combatant that is more like an airliner (or bomber...), nav and steering wise...where you can actually program your track into the GPS and "steam" hands off...or take over "tactically" with the joystick/trickwheel... Ain't no aft Steering...welcome to the '90's...and don't call me Roger, Roger... (but...uh...could I get a vector, Victor?)

Seriously...Think with new parts of your brain...it does NOT take 15 Sailors calling out ranges and bearings to local church steeples and power pylons for you to safely navigate to your pier. Let Iron Mike do it. I'm willing to make a $100 dollar bet with anyone who can ever prove me wrong...no ship ever ran aground while navigating on GPS. Any takers? First winner only...no multiple jackpots.

Now, if we could just get rid of flashing lights and signal flags...and all that they represent. It/they may be colorful, and a link to our glorious past, but it's all BS...and there won't be enough folks with those skill sets on an LCS...just like there weren't any on PT-109.

"Brick to all boats...scatter plan BRAVO...execute!"
 
From what I understand, the difference between pilot vs non-pilot is that in the Air Force, the pilots are actually flying i.e. stick and rudder. The Fire Scout on the other had is more of point and click i.e. go there then there then land. Even a rate piot would have trouble landing a helo on a small boy at night via remote control.
 
HokiePilot said:
From what I understand, the difference between pilot vs non-pilot is that in the Air Force, the pilots are actually flying i.e. stick and rudder.
Click to expand...

Depends on the UAV; Predator, Reaper or Global Hawk? Point made earlier is Air Force wants their GCS for Predator/Reaper T/M/S to be even more "stick and rudder". Global Hawk is a different scheme, but Air Force believes they can deal with FAA better if they have instrument rated pilots/navs making decisions and talking on the radios to avoid midairs and confusion.

Meanwhile the Army picked a General Atomics Predator variant, the MQ-1C Warrior to satisfy its Extended Range/ Multi-Purpose (ER/MP) requirement. Even though it could use the proven Predator GCS, Army wants to develop a more game-like Graphical User Interface (GUI). Navy and Marine Corps are interested bystanders to this face-off between Air Force and Army that have polarized views on who flies their UAVs (not necessarily tied to control scheme)and how the controls are fashioned.

Gamers wanted! US Army MQ-1C Warrior
AIR_UAV_MQ-1C_Sky_Warrior_lg.jpg


HokiePilot said:
The Fire Scout on the other had is more of point and click i.e. go there then there then land. Even a rate piot would have trouble landing a helo on a small boy at night via remote control.
Click to expand...

RQ-8 Fire Scout
fire-scout-uav-picture.jpg


At one point in its somewhat checkered past, Fire Scout was cancelled, but development continued to produce the hopefully common TCS (Raytheon product) that would also be used for other UAVS rather than have multiple industry proprietary TCS/GCS proliferating. Then LCS grew out of VADM Cebrowski's (a transformational-thinking Aviator) "Street Fighter" vision and Fire Scout seemed like its perfect mate and its premature sentence to oblivion was cancelled. Now, the Army is also procuring a version as well.

Army Fire Scout variant

Apache%20%26%20Army%20Fire%20Scout.jpg
 
Renegade One said:
CCS??? Aft steering??? Are you F*%$ING SHITTING ME? We FINALLY built a combatant that is more like an airliner (or bomber...), nav and steering wise...where you can actually program your track into the GPS and "steam" hands off...or take over "tactically" with the joystick/trickwheel... Ain't no aft Steering...welcome to the '90's...and don't call me Roger, Roger... (but...uh...could I get a vector, Victor?)

Seriously...Think with new parts of your brain...it does NOT take 15 Sailors calling out ranges and bearings to local church steeples and power pylons for you to safely navigate to your pier. Let Iron Mike do it. I'm willing to make a $100 dollar bet with anyone who can ever prove me wrong...no ship ever ran aground while navigating on GPS. Any takers? First winner only...no multiple jackpots.

Now, if we could just get rid of flashing lights and signal flags...and all that they represent. It/they may be colorful, and a link to our glorious past, but it's all BS...and there won't be enough folks with those skill sets on an LCS...just like there weren't any on PT-109.

"Brick to all boats...scatter plan BRAVO...execute!"
Click to expand...

Actually pretty recent, USS Arleigh Burke, ran aground in 2007 b/c they were solely navigating using GPS. If they had been paying attention to non GPS nav aids, even as simple as counting buoys, they could've saved themselves.

That said, the other extreme isn't much better...having too many people up on the bridge just standing around reduces awareness and responsibility and distracts from the tasking at hand.

I'll take a check btw. :D
 
BigRed389 said:
Actually pretty recent, USS Arleigh Burke, ran aground in 2007 b/c they were solely navigating using GPS. If they had been paying attention to non GPS nav aids, even as simple as counting buoys, they could've saved themselves.
Click to expand...

I thought she ran aground because the CO was showing off for the Commodore. Even manual nav can't fix stupid.
 
Flash said:
I thought she ran aground because the CO was showing off for the Commodore. Even manual nav can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

The official report has a laundry list of problems, but the situation they were in, ANYBODY on the bridge noticing that the buoys colors were not lining up the way they should could have fixed it. Literally as simple as basic rules of the road being observed.

Considering this was still fairly recent, discussion/speculation probably doesn't need to go any further in public...
 
HokiePilot said:
From what I understand, the difference between pilot vs non-pilot is that in the Air Force, the pilots are actually flying i.e. stick and rudder. The Fire Scout on the other had is more of point and click i.e. go there then there then land. Even a rate piot would have trouble landing a helo on a small boy at night via remote control.
Click to expand...

At one point I thought it was going to be the pilots from the HSM DET that would be flying the Fire Scout off of LCS.
 
S.O.B. said:
At one point I thought it was going to be the pilots from the HSM DET that would be flying the Fire Scout off of LCS.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what Squorch said earlier in thread

squorch2 said:
LCS will indeed deploy with Sierras... except that it will be with one Sierra and maybe one Fire Scout with three pilots and I forget how many AWs. LCS and their mission module concept are a big part of the OAMCM, um, idea, with Fire Scout acting as an augment to the manned helo. Speaking of Fire Scout, current plans are to "fly" it using PFPS and preprogrammed routes with an AW acting as "pilot" and a winged guy retaining weapons release authority.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top