|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
05-21-2011, 06:54 PM | #16291 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Not strictly, AFAIK. The A-7 Corsair II, for example, didn't have any more armor protection than its F-series counterpart (the F-8 Crusader).
|
05-21-2011, 07:01 PM | #16292 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,238
|
Quote:
I don't think the state of warfare (on Earth, at least) will develop to a point where a standing Navy or human pilot-equipped Air Force will ever be obsolete. It's just that roles will change and equipment requirements will change with them. To address your point about the Navy, while, advances in missile technology have reduced the need for maritime missile platforms and naval artillery, there's still a need to safely get, say, boarding parties to rescue a pirate-seized ship (the most accurate and "smart" missile in the world would have been useless in resolving something like the Maersk Alabama hijacking). And while satellite imaging has advanced so much in the last three decades, I don't think it will completely supplant the need for "eyes on the ground" (or on the water, as it were), since so many other factors can affect distant imaging technology.
The bigger problem, I think, isn't so much obsolescence as it is a wasteful reduplication of capabilities and acquisition programs among the services, which results in the impression that obsolescence is on order. Last edited by Tanksmasher; 05-21-2011 at 07:03 PM.. |
05-21-2011, 07:07 PM | #16293 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,238
|
I suppose that because modern fighters are fighter/bombers and have multiple roles and because the F-117 wouldn't serve well in the CAS or Air-Interdiction role, they would hesitate to call it an Attack aircraft or a Bomber since it's a very light strategic bomber in that sense of the word, and no more a bomber than the F-16 or F-15 is. I just know fighter pilots have never spoken highly of the Stealth Fighter and I'm surprised to hear that some higher-ups wanted the F designation for reasons mentioned earlier. Not doubting it but surprised.
Last edited by Tanksmasher; 05-21-2011 at 07:10 PM.. |
05-21-2011, 07:09 PM | #16294 |
I.O. SpecOps
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In a secret underground bunker.
Posts: 4,404
|
Looks like the Coast Guard is getting out of the SEAL business pending further study.
Coast Guard Pulls Plug on SEAL Exchange
__________________
Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery? http://www.hisstank.com/forum/g-i-jo...r1s-b-s-t.html |
05-21-2011, 07:09 PM | #16295 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
This discussion about UAVs and human pilots and enlisted UAV operators ,etc. had me thinking though... how comfortable would you be say, going on a flight on an airliner remotely piloted by someone who didn't go to flight school, but instead spent six months to a year training on a simulator compared to riding on a plane piloted by a "real pilot"?
I mean, on paper, there shouldn't be much of a difference when it comes to the actual piloting part (it's not as if the "real pilot" can do much with the aircraft in the air outside of interacting with the plane's instruments and controls). If anything, it might slightly be safer to fly on the remotely piloted plane, since the "pilot" wouldn't be subject to certain adverse conditions in the event of some catastrophic systems failure while in the air (numerous crashes have been due to things like the cockpit's air supply being compromised, for example) and the remote pilot will have technical support immediately on hand in whatever facility he's doing the remote flying in. That's on paper though. My "gut feeling" is that I'd feel safer with a real, live pilot in the plane. Last edited by zuludelta; 05-21-2011 at 07:14 PM.. |
05-21-2011, 07:13 PM | #16296 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Looks like the Coast Guard is getting out of the SEAL business pending further study.
Coast Guard Pulls Plug on SEAL Exchange |
05-21-2011, 07:25 PM | #16297 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 1,230
|
Quote:
This discussion about UAVs and human pilots and enlisted UAV operators ,etc. had me thinking though... how comfortable would you be say, going on a flight on an airliner remotely piloted by someone who didn't go to flight school, but instead spent six months to a year training on a simulator compared to riding on a plane piloted by a "real pilot"?
I mean, on paper, there shouldn't be much of a difference when it comes to the actual piloting part (it's not as if the "real pilot" can do much with the aircraft in the air outside of interacting with the plane's instruments and controls). If anything, it might slightly be safer to fly on the remotely piloted plane, since the "pilot" wouldn't be subject to certain adverse conditions in the event of some catastrophic systems failure while in the air (numerous crashes have been due to things like the cockpit's air supply being compromised, for example) and the remote pilot will have technical support immediately on hand in whatever facility he's doing the remote flying in. That's on paper though. My "gut feeling" is that I'd feel safer with a real, live pilot in the plane. |
05-21-2011, 08:21 PM | #16298 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,238
|
Quote:
This discussion about UAVs and human pilots and enlisted UAV operators ,etc. had me thinking though... how comfortable would you be say, going on a flight on an airliner remotely piloted by someone who didn't go to flight school, but instead spent six months to a year training on a simulator compared to riding on a plane piloted by a "real pilot"?
I mean, on paper, there shouldn't be much of a difference when it comes to the actual piloting part (it's not as if the "real pilot" can do much with the aircraft in the air outside of interacting with the plane's instruments and controls). If anything, it might slightly be safer to fly on the remotely piloted plane, since the "pilot" wouldn't be subject to certain adverse conditions in the event of some catastrophic systems failure while in the air (numerous crashes have been due to things like the cockpit's air supply being compromised, for example) and the remote pilot will have technical support immediately on hand in whatever facility he's doing the remote flying in. That's on paper though. My "gut feeling" is that I'd feel safer with a real, live pilot in the plane. Not only is it better to have two pilots on the flight deck for safety and redundancy--which is what aviation safety is all about--but it serves as a training environment for the FO who is essentially a Captain-in-training. Sure, he could learn to land and takeoff later down the road, but those aspects of flying (contrary to popular belief) aren't difficult to learn. Being a good pilot is about task management and error avoidance more than anything, not stick and rudder skills, which anyone can learn as a private pilot. In fact I could probably put you in a sim and teach you to land it, and nothing else, in just a few lessons. I've saved many a Captain from making a mistake (and I make them too) because of all my training and the experience I had to obtain to get to the airlines. As for remote flying, a guy in the flight deck obviously has more to lose when something goes wrong. Plus, it's easier to get a full view of what's going on when your inside the actual aircraft. And as lardman pointed out, a human pilot in the plane would give the passengers more peace of mind. Plus, airline pilots are always in contact with dispatchers, ATC and maintenance control for technical assistance so remote pilots don't have an advantage there. And although automation makes flying easier and reduces workload, I don't forsee a future of computer-flown aircraft either, because a human can always think outside the box and adapt to situations that he has not been trained for, whereas a computer can only respond to pre-programmed scenarios. PS. my argument against remote-piloted planes is based in a commercial context, not a military one, where remote planes provide obvious safety for the pilots. Last edited by Tanksmasher; 05-21-2011 at 08:35 PM.. |
05-21-2011, 08:46 PM | #16299 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
That's sort of what some airlines want to do now to cut costs and it's scary. They just want a "cruise" pilot who can learn to flip switches and answer the radios and work an autopilot to sit in the right seat. But who in his right mind wants to make less money to have an airline pilot's lifestye (ie, living out a suitcase 4 days a week) to be a gear monkey.
I'm skeptical of the idea of unmanned transport air travel ever catching on myself, but still, the commercial applications and implications are there and more plain to the casual observer than some of the formerly military-only technologies that eventually become commonplace in the civilian/commercial arena (i.e., ARPANET --> internet, GPS, etc.), so I'd be more surprised if none of the major carriers even tried some sort of unmanned aircraft transport service within the next couple of decades. |
05-21-2011, 09:04 PM | #16300 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,238
|
Oh I can see people wanting unmanned aircraft in the commercial industry as well, but one overlooked issue is passenger comfort. For instance, the guy on the ground is going to need an additional sensor to tell him when there's turbulence or perhaps a call from the flight attendant on the plane itself, telling him to put the seatbelt sign on or to change altitudes due to turbulence that he can't feel.
Also, any pilot will tell you that flying a real plane is easier than flying a simulator because of forces that a sim just can't accurately simulate. That "fly by the seat of your pants" feeling that pilots get in the aircraft adds a great deal of comfort when taking off smoothly or landing gently or banking. |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Please Help! Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 2 | 10-26-2008 06:14 PM |
Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 18 | 10-24-2008 09:17 PM |
Filecards Wanted!!!! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-17-2008 10:25 PM |
Filecards Wanted! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-05-2008 04:15 PM |
Quaid Spills Secrets on "G.I. Joe" | HissCommander | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 108 | 10-01-2008 11:23 AM |
|
|
Recent Off Topic Threads |
Hisstank Late Night thread... |
DarkLordMordred... |
Last Movie You Watched? |
What song are you listening to? |
G.I. Joe March Madness 2024 Championship Battle Armor... |