Comments on: Hands off tanking?

By: badbob

badbob — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:00:56 +0000

Coming in here late I reckon.

Nose- you have been superseded. Airlines are next! MikeM is 100% right about the intensive sw… but redundancy and backup autonomous decision (near artificial intelligence) making by the UAV “computer” SW will respond faster and better than an LSO or pilot ever could (supposedly). All that “What if” brainstorming we spent at sea, when we weren’t thinking about what we were going to do in Perth or Palma, becomes code..Get it? Oh yeah- that code ain’t cheap.

Sid- Lex should be able to answer that question on OEF- he was there. One helluva bucket brigade I’ve heard-especially the first few “innovative” weeks…Without S-3 tankers at 8 per squadron-5 on the roof available then, we might not never be able to accomplish a task like that again- as well….er….efficiently……

O’course I am always so “persistent” on this topic, ain’t I? LOL.

A couple weeks back we had a Hornet midair and after some “stuff” at the ship (interesting stuff Nose) one of the Hornets had to do a 600+nm, gear down divert to Guam..No mention on how he refueled enroute (not routine I’ll tell ya), but I think CVW-9 dodged a bullet possibly, by luckily still having S-3′s aboard for the last time..O’course I could be wrong (LOL)…. perhaps a SuperHornet tanker accompanied..but that doesn’t seem, well….

Feasible.

Just a question o’time before someone takes a dip! And, of course, this topic will never be on the agenda at Reno next month….

Snake- I can’t wait for lawyers to be superseded by UAV-like machines..but it’s gonna be hard to write code to recreate evil, mean and greedy! Just kidding Pops! Don’t shoot.

By: Parrothead Jeff

Parrothead Jeff — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:48:39 +0000

Autonomous Refueling is Here – NOW…

DARPA COMPLETES AUTONOMOUS AIRBORNE REFUELING DEMONSTRATION
System Performs “Better Than a Skilled Pilot”

May 3, 2007 – NASA Test Pilot Dick Ewers and Flight Test Engineer Leslie Molzahn enjoy the ride during the final flight of the Autonomous Air…

By: Nose

Nose — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:02:05 +0000

Sid,

Good question/good point. Answer, I don’t know. I think they MIGHT have been in PAK as the non-refuelable air wing assets landed there on the way in and out to take a sip.

By: sid

sid — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:01:04 +0000

The Navy parked a few acres of steel south of Pakistan and started a bucket brigade of bombs going north.

Devil’s Advocate posit here…How far and how long did the big wing tankers have to fly (and how vulnerable were they to being shut down by being beholden to politically sensitive ramp, runway, and airspace) to make this possible?

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:33:25 +0000

Nope. You don’t want to know just how hard it is to produce the software to control an autonomous UAV…or how expensive.

By: Jeopardy

Jeopardy — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:10:08 +0000

I don’t think that argument is that UAVs (or UCAVs or UASs, or whatever they’re calling them these days) are cheap, but rather than they’re cheapER than manned combat aircraft.

You can remove everything from the airframe that is only there to keep the pilot alive and functioning. This includes the support systems on the ground and associated personnel. Removing the human pilot also negates the need for limiting the max stress on the airframe, thus increasing the maneuverability and survivability of the UAV.
Lastly, if one gets shot down, you only have to build a new machine, not machine and pilot. I’d wager that it’s a heckuva lot quicker to build a new UAV than to train a new pilot.
I agree with Nose on the human control element, but it doesn’t mean that the pink thing has to be onboard. As someone who works with computers day in and day out, too many of the errors we see approach the realm of metaphysics, with no logical explanation, and you’ve got to have a human in the loop.