Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2017, 01:58:12 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aerospace Education  |  Topic: Lookin' like CAP should begin a rapid transition aircraft to Drones
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print
Author Topic: Lookin' like CAP should begin a rapid transition aircraft to Drones  (Read 4129 times)
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 394

« on: September 29, 2016, 11:15:54 AM »

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/09/us-army-racing-catch-russia-battle-drones/131936/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

Little drones, big drones... tethered and fully autonomous (AI).  It looks like that's the future of air power (and a lot of other aviation activities) is being written in the sky over war zones and in international military competitions.  Isn't that what happened in the last big bump in aerospace capability and hardware?  Piloting aircraft appears to be headed to for same fate as wagon wrights and wheel wrights...  historically important, but of little use in contemporary (or future) technology.

Maybe that's a direction CAP should embrace.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,684

« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2016, 11:23:13 AM »

Piloting aircraft appears to be headed to for same fate as wagon wrights and wheel wrights...  historically important, but of little use in contemporary (or future) technology.

Agree 100%

Maybe that's a direction CAP should embrace.

It will - figure 5-10 years and CAP will be right in the THICK OF IT!

In all seriousness, my guess is that within 5 years, but no more then 10, autonomous UAVs will be approved, if not for general use,
then for government and law enforcement, at which point CAP's broad AP, DF, and similar aviation programs come to an abrupt and
unfortunate ending absent much fanfare.

The tech exists today within the reach of the average consumer, on a 5-10 year timeline the only impediment will be social.

There will be no justification for a $350k aircraft plus the risk to the aircrew when a $10 FPV system gives you better then
the Mark I eyeball and no human factors.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 11:28:31 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,788

« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2016, 11:28:41 AM »

Yep, yep, yep. This is perhaps the biggest thing to happen to aviation since the jet engine. Getting a part 107 cert is not that difficult.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
grunt82abn
Forum Regular

Posts: 187

« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2016, 03:34:52 PM »

Sign me up!!!
Logged
Sean Riley, TSGT
US Army 1987 to 1994, WIARNG 1994 to 2008
DoD Firefighter Paramedic 2000 to Present
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,761

« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2016, 08:55:34 PM »

Kinda hard to give Cadet O-Flights in a Drone....    And O-Flights are a required part of the Cadet Program.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,455

« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2016, 09:49:12 PM »

Maybe he was thinking of using big drones with hooks, asking cadets to don some sort of web harness, and hooking cadets to drones...?

 :-\
 
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,761

« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2016, 12:00:33 AM »

Maybe he was thinking of using big drones with hooks, asking cadets to don some sort of web harness, and hooking cadets to drones...?

 :-\

You can be the first Luis. Somebody has to see if it's safe. I nominate you! >:D
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,930
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2016, 02:56:12 AM »

Maybe they will update this.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,455

« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2016, 05:08:41 AM »

He should be the first one, not me! He is the one proposing the drones, not me.

 >:D


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 737

« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2016, 07:35:34 AM »

If the O flight requirement remained, they could be accomplished at encampments, such as glider encampment.  The number of fixed wing aircraft could be radically reduced and Wings would support each other at the encampments or they could be National encampments..
Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,122

« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2016, 08:15:10 AM »

I definitely could see the use of sUAVs to augment ground searches, as part 107 only allows for the "crew" to be in actual visual contact with the device.  "Remote Pilot/crew member" could be a new ground team specialty...
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,788

« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2016, 08:58:52 AM »

Kinda hard to give Cadet O-Flights in a Drone....    And O-Flights are a required part of the Cadet Program.

Well, since no one is suggesting that CAP do away with manned aircraft, your argument has no basis. You seem to be of the battleship mindset when it comes to this topic, so let me try and help you out a bit. Aerospace education is also part of the Cadet Program. Can you think of any way that sUAS can be used to meet that requirement? How about Cadets who, for one reason or another, are unable to meet the medical requirements to become an aviator under part 61? I know 2 off the top of my head who had issues that precluded them from being pilots. both are now flying under part 107. This new field opens up aviation to people that were previously barred from the experience. It allows for exploration and innovation and inclusion on a scale unseen since the Commerce Department started regulating civil aviation. As an aviator, as an aviation regulator and as someone who is passionate about the whole aerospace world, I'm glad that the technology exists and it should be a part of the CAP experience. Not to the exclusion of everything else, but on equal footing with manned aircraft, model rocketry, etc. Or you could just keep thinking inside that little box....
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Vegas1972
Recruit

Posts: 14
Unit: PCR-NV

« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2016, 09:14:12 AM »

I definitely could see the use of sUAVs to augment ground searches, as part 107 only allows for the "crew" to be in actual visual contact with the device.  "Remote Pilot/crew member" could be a new ground team specialty...

There might even be a UAV or two in the fleet already...
Logged
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.", Sgt. John M. Stryker.
stillamarine
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 759
Unit: SER-AL-134

« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2016, 09:59:20 AM »

Maybe he was thinking of using big drones with hooks, asking cadets to don some sort of web harness, and hooking cadets to drones...?

 :-\

Sounds like the Fulton recovery...........it sucks.
Logged
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,684

« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2016, 10:37:09 AM »

So if CAP still had a VCR repair NCSA, typewriter maintenance badge, or the CP required an apprenticeship as a telephone operator
would there be discussions about "How CAP would maintain it's capabilities in the face of the changes?".

If the vector continues, there will be physically less aircraft in the fleet, less pilots, and whether or not there >is< a CP
in its present form would have to be on the table (this is a 10 year timeline). Many, many of the leadership and real-wrench turning
staff are involved in aviation, if that dissolves or shrinks, they won't be around, and when you consider that in most wings the
lion's share of the actual work is done by about 1/3rd of the membership, many of them tolerating the administrative
time wasting for the access to the aircraft, things can spiral quickly.

The "strategic plan" is to evolve the CP into a similar situation as the RCAC - focusing on career exploration in STEM with flight training as a
core.  The RCAC accomplishes this with about 100 aircraft, a significant number of which are gliders.  Powered flight training is done at private
schools.  That is a completely different paradigm then CAP.

Workable?  Clearly.  Sustainable with the existing senior membership?  Doubtful.
I know a lot of members not involved in CAP aviation that would leave if GSAR or other non-aircrew based
roles went away, and those people are many of the staff holding the doors open for the pilots and aircrews.

Can CAP evolve?  Maybe 10 years ago, but the question would need to be "should they?"  If less pilots are needed,
why would the US fund a program to increase the number of pilots?

Look at the disruption of the retail environment, that took about a decade to collapse once people started getting
the idea they didn't need to hassle with a guy at CompUSA when Jeff Bezos would drop off what they needed
and it actually cost less.  The collapse is still happening, some businesses are denying the obvious or have the
capital to be the "last buggy whip manufacturer" (*cough* Best Buy *cough*), that doesn't change the vector.

We currently have two companies killing the taxi market who are testing autonomous cars, two major technology
companies racing to win the self-drive market, and one major manufacturer already selling a car to the general public
that self-drives.  How much longer do you think there will be commercial driving schools?

« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 04:30:13 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,455

« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2016, 04:13:58 PM »

Thrawn, I quote from Live2Learn:

Quote

Piloting aircraft appears to be headed to for same fate as wagon wrights and wheel wrights...


Tell me how does this does not mean that "no one is suggesting CAP get away..."

Live2 did! Otherwise, do you see "wagon wrights" around? I do not...

And Eclipse said "in 5-10 years..."

 ???
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,788

« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2016, 04:41:31 PM »

Thrawn, I quote from Live2Learn:

Quote

Piloting aircraft appears to be headed to for same fate as wagon wrights and wheel wrights...


Tell me how does this does not mean that "no one is suggesting CAP get away..."

Live2 did! Otherwise, do you see "wagon wrights" around? I do not...

And Eclipse said "in 5-10 years..."

 ???

And it may happen...right around the time I get my Jetson's car.

It would have been more correct to say "no one is suggesting that CAP do away with manned aircraft ANY TIME SOON"....
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 872
Unit: GA-001/CV

« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2016, 07:14:05 PM »

I will offer a counterpoint to the breathless enthusiasm here, from the perspective of a guy who has spent decades working in fifth gen fighters and UAS development (my MS thesis was on UAS GCIs for example, and I'm currently working on projects for DoD involving imagery and EW threat  interpolation).


Folks, first some framing of the organizational background:  don't forget that the cited references are from the service that brought you (aka DIDN'T bring you) such weapons systems as the cancelled Sergeant York ADA (which couldn't shoot down a hovering helo), the cancelled Crusader SP arty,  the flawed Bradley vehicle family, the questionable Stryker vehicle/system, and the RAH-66 Comanche (which I worked on for a time, and which, after 20 years, had produced exactly 2 prototypes, then was cancelled). The RIF experiments cited are just that: experiments. From their own announcements (which we read, from FBO, in my organization) they are looking at decades before fielding, not months or years. The "iron man" suit referenced (the TALOS program) is an effort which my SOCOM customers are deeply involved in (and which we've supported) and, like similar Air Warrior and PEO Soldier efforts for 21st century smart soldier efforts, is at this date more of an S&T program than an achievable program of record type effort. So: keep the hype in perspective. The quoted sources are looking at technologies which sound great, but require significant integration and test, from a service which (to be charitable) has a track record of needing decades, not months, to bring revolutionary tech to the battlefield. My SOCOM customers frankly laugh at the marketing hype presented here (and these are guys who are front line shooters who get the stuff that works). If you're expecting DoD to field cutting edge UAS products within the next couple of years, and then CAP to transition to UAV-based SAR within anything shorter than a 20 year baseline, I'm afraid you'll be sadly trounced by history.


Next, what CAN we do (legitimately, within modest cost and operational constraints)?  Well, some positive glass-half-full:  we've seen the advent of crowd-sourced intel to volunteer SAR (cf. the Steve Fossett search, with mixed results), and the days when airborne imagery was an expensive DoD product only are starting to be well behind us. Even if the magical SAR UAV isn't present, could CAP work towards an imagery dissemination and interpretation paradigm in which we are manned/unmanned platform agnostic, and where image tracks are downloaded and remotely interpreted?  If so, then the question becomes, is it equally (or more) effective to have human observers scanning the visual track records, OR, to have an automated visual SAR model scan the imagery, looking for patterns?  We have automation models (e.g. the GT Vision model) which equal or exceed human visual scanning performance, and do not tire or need 8 hour flight days, etc. I view it as entirely possible that we could use CAP aircrews flying EO/IR imaging packages ("just fly the pattern"), down linking to either banks of volunteer human scanners, OR an automated visual scanning tool, to return real time alerts on potential finds for further investigation.


Check out:

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-search-for-steve-fossett-24479611/?no-ist

http://internetsar.org/about.html

V/r
Spam

Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 685

« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2016, 11:32:02 PM »

Sure drones will be a great tool to use for SAR and other uses. But when you need to search 100 square miles ... there just will not be enough drones and/or batteries.

Now if you are talking about CAP getting some Reapers ... that might be another story.  But little toy DJI Phantoms will not totally replace manned craft anytime soon.  Maybe for a child lost in a park, small area. That would work.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,684

« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2016, 09:40:20 AM »

So you missed the "5-10 year timeline" part of this, right?

"Soon" is relative.

The tech already exists, is all just refinement and enhancement, and overcoming social barriers.

55 years ago no one had orbited the earth, these days orbiting space is so routine that the general public doesn't even notice,
and it's that mundanity that probably robbed us of exploring other planets sooner.

20 years ago the average person used a land line in their home, fax machines were "technology", and "email"
were letters filed between "d" and "f".  The only person with a phone on their watch was Dick Tracey.

Etc., etc., with the exception that computer testing and design is geometrically shrinking time to market for new tech.

In  CAP context the conversation might be about "SAR", but it's part of the larger conversation in which CAP's very existence
is dependent on a vibrant GA community (which in turn is dependent on the need for pilots in both GA and commercially).

GA continues to shrink, including the number of places you can land a plane every year, and commercial is struggling at best,
for both pilot stock and basic business viability.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aerospace Education  |  Topic: Lookin' like CAP should begin a rapid transition aircraft to Drones
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.426 seconds with 20 queries.