Archer -- Ever really used?

[airdale]

I may have the opportunity to take the Archer training at Maxwell, but I am wondering if that is simply a ticket to dog & pony shows and SAREXs.  Is there any significant history of these systems getting used and being effective?  Not potential.  Actual.

[Hoser]

Yes ARCHER is used beyond the dog and pony shows and exercises. The biggie of course was the Fosset search and I haven't heard what was learned from that operation. I used it on one down aircraft search and found wreckage critical to the NTSB investigation, i.e. the powerplant. I have also done extent of contamination missions. One was for a chemical plant fire and the other was the refinery spill secondary to the flooding in June in Coffeyville KS and am in the process of planning a mission to refly areas of interest in Coffeyville along with other environmentally sensitive area in OK and MO. There are numerous threads here cussing and discussing ARCHER and the prevailing  thought in this forum is that it isn't worth the investment. I say it is because it has capabilities that are not readily apparent but may not be totally useful in the context of the glamour mission of CAP, SAR. However in the areas of environmental assessment, EER, or seismic analysis, ARCHER is an invaluable tool. Also there are big operational changes coming down the pike regarding ARCHER that aren't overly publicised and I cannot delineate them here. I will say they involve CD and HLS . Since I have been an operator I have maintained that sitting in some dark basement office is some techno-spook who knows that if we can find "A" with ARCHER then we can find "B" with it and they aren't saying what "B" is. Almost every government agency, Federal and State has a high degree of interest in this technology whether it is the Air Force, the EPA, Coast Guard, State Dept of Natural Resources etc etc. That tells me this, it is a highly useful and powerful technology that has myriad applications and this is being driven by people who have forgotten more about this technology than CAP has ever learned. As I have stated in here numerous times I question its efficacy in the SAR application when a life threat is involved, not because it is "flawed technology" but simply due to the logistical problems associted with it. Sixteen units scattered about the country and in accordance with Murphy's Law, not in the best place when it is needed. That does not preclude its use in that scenario, rather it reinforces the principle of "even a blind sow finds an acorn now and then." Simply a matter of right place at right time.
I would say if you get chosen to take the training, jump on it. ARCHERology is going to become very exciting in the very near future and my guess is all the nay sayers will be kicking themselves in the posterior. Just beacuse ARCHER isn't out looking for every lost airplane and person doesn't mean its capabilities are wasted, it just means that CAP members need to expand their paradigm and definition of what Missions for America means. While flying an ARCHER mission for say, the US Geological Survey may not sounds glamorous, macho and heroic,  that does not make it any less a mission for America! I don't think so. BTW the oil spill mssion I flew in Coffeyville KS WAS for USGS, and we took a Coast Guard officer on one flight. I'd say that's interagency cooperation on a mission that benefited the surrounding community in two states. Yes jump on ARCHER school if you can go.
That is my opinion, I could be wrong

Hoser

[Walkman]

Both my Chaplain and Group CC did Archer missions this last summer working with the DEA.

[bosshawk]

Advice: if you can afford five days and the costs of going to Maxwell, it may be worth your time and money.  CAP is seriously short of good ARCHER operators: note that I said good.  We have some folks who were trained and have never set foot in the aircraft since.

There are shortcomings in the system and they are being evaluated: what CAP and the AF decide to do about them will be coming down the pike.

Being in CA, I have not heard a single positive thing said about using the system during the Fossett search.  One of the major shortcomings is an absolute lack of knowledge about the system among the ICs: thus, they really don't know how to employ the system,

I ran a series of tests on the CD problem last summer here in CA and I can tell you that the results were less than overwhelming.  More I can't tell you right now: sorry.

There seems to be more hype about the system than hard facts, but that is often true about newly introduced technology(of course, ARCHER isn't exactly new, having been deployed three or four years).

I would hope that more people will opt to go to the training.

[RiverAux]

Whatever the value of the system, I wouldn't bother getting trained on it unless you have one of the aircraft based in your wing.  Otherwise the chances of you getting regular work on it are probably slim.  I'd save my vacation time for something else in that case. 

[Hoser]

I incurred no cost whatsoever when I went to Maxwell. CAP paid airfare, put us up on base and reimbursed meals after I got home and sent in paperwork. Unless things have changed there is NO cost to the student

Hoser

[cnitas]

CAP is seriously short of good ARCHER operators: note that I said good.  We have some folks who were trained and have never set foot in the aircraft since.

I scored 100% on the exam, I am an observer, Major, 30 yrs old and have been in CAP for over 15 years.  We have an Archer system at about 1/2 our SAREXs.
I have expressed my willingness to go to wing multiple times.

If there is such a shortage, why don't they send me?

[177B]

I was on an aircrew that found a downed plane in SE Oklahoma.  We would not have found it without ARCHER providing coordinates.   The area was densly wooded and the only way you could see was by looking straight down.  It took 2 days After the ARCHER covered the area to get the coords to us.  We had a first location and we look until we were low on fuel.  After we refueled and made contact with the ground team they relayed a second "Archer" location.  We did a tight expanding square and found the target.  We worked the ground team in to the target. The pilot was deceased, still strapped in the cockpit.  Not a happy ending but the family got to bury there loved one.  Slant range visability through the trees was nil.  The ARCHER deserves the find.

[SJFedor]

Plus it's capabilities just doing downward looking hi-res imaging holds a lot of good possible applications, i.e. tornado path damage and tracking after a storm, providing imaging of an area affected by a natural disaster, etc.

Even without the HSI stuff, it's still a great tool when you need images of an area. Definitely better for large scale then SDIS is.

[MSgt Van]

CAP is seriously short of good ARCHER operators: note that I said good.  We have some folks who were trained and have never set foot in the aircraft since.

I scored 100% on the exam, I am an observer, Major, 30 yrs old and have been in CAP for over 15 years.  We have an Archer system at about 1/2 our SAREXs.
I have expressed my willingness to go to wing multiple times.

If there is such a shortage, why don't they send me?

There's a push to get a fairly large number of additional operators trained before Summer's end. Maybe they'll finally call you.  If you aced the test you should float to the top of the pool for consideration.  In the past about 8 operators per system was considered to be sufficient.

[wingnut]

I have flown at least 15 sorties in Archer, since I have had some flight experience using a sensor display in flight I stopped shooting chunks when I was 20. However, this has not been the case for many of the operators who were chosen to be the "Original Operators" (thus making them a liability not an asset). Second, many operators will not look at the data when they land (not sexy enough?) this is a crime ( data must be reviewed). There are many issues that are related to Leadership, or lack of! all the way down to the squadron level.

I think the ongoing research as to capabilities will enhance it's uses. I firmly believe that CAP could use an A2 section that is organized around several platforms to provide the customer with a professional product. Archer can be modified and enhanced, with the landsat 7 dying, much can be done with Archer for global warming research. Archer can certainly find a person in a life vest floating in the sea (try finding that with your mark 1 eye ball after a  6 hour search).

since Uncle Sam paid for it we need to use it, improvise! adapt!

[jpnelson82]

Anyone know what the pre-requisites are for ARCHER training? There's some ARCHER aptitude test or something on e-services, is that it? just a passing score?

[AlphaSigOU]

Anyone know what the pre-requisites are for ARCHER training? There's some ARCHER aptitude test or something on e-services, is that it? just a passing score?

You have to score an 80 or above on the online screening exam. STUDY THE MATERIAL THOROUGHLY! The test will trip you up if you're not prepared.

Once you have passed the eaxm, you also need to be a qualified and current mission scanner or observer. It definitely helps if you live within 50-100 miles to where an ARCHER asset is based (for SWR, it's KADS (Addison, Texas - my squadron) and KABQ (Albuquerque, NM). The wing DO selects class participants for ARCHER training when there are vacancies available. Then you'll spend about 4 days on CAP's dime either at Maxwell AFB or Mojave, CA getting hands-on training on ARCHER. It is a very intense course; expect 10-12 hour course days and an inflight checkout before getting qualified. Not everyone passes.

[Flying Pig]

I do enjoy the residency requirement of within 50-100 miles.  Considering CA is about 500 miles long and skinny, take a wild guess at where CA put ours.  Yup....at the bottom of the state.  Of course, to be fair, there is an abundance of pilots in the L.A. Area.

[PHall]

I do enjoy the residency requirement of within 50-100 miles.  Considering CA is about 500 miles long and skinny, take a wild guess at where CA put ours.  Yup....at the bottom of the state.  Of course, to be fair, there is an abundance of pilots in the L.A. Area.

The fact that the Wing Headquarters is at the same airport may have had something to do with where to put it too!

[SJFedor]

I do enjoy the residency requirement of within 50-100 miles.  Considering CA is about 500 miles long and skinny, take a wild guess at where CA put ours.  Yup....at the bottom of the state.  Of course, to be fair, there is an abundance of pilots in the L.A. Area.

The fact that the Wing Headquarters is at the same airport may have had something to do with where to put it too!

In SER, the Airvans are controlled by region, not wings.

[KyCAP]

Does anyone know if ARCHER has been used for Tornado damage assesment?  If so, can we get images or letters of reference from the customer (NOAA/State EM Office)?   We in the field need to see this to be able to educate customers (and ourselves) if this is the case for the scenarios where ARCHER can be used.   Maybe this already exists?

[DNall]

I've heard some reviews from some very good folks that I trust. The case is that the system just isn't effective for SaR & it's designed to do damage assessment. That includes the Fossett search.


It's excellent for DEA missions, & I have no doubt effective for environmental research. Those are not however our missions. We do counter-drug because we already have the asset/sensor/equipment on hand for something else (SaR/DR) and it serves as effective training cause you're doing the same thing. Not just because it's hours to put on planes.

We should not be doing stuff like enviro mapping. If that's what the platforms are good for, then transfer control to NOAA/CG/EPA & use the money to acquire sensors that are effective for our mission set. I still argue that's low-cost off-the-shelf intuitive FLIR. You can run that on ALL of our 182s for less than we have in ARCHER, it's easy to operate, and it dramatically increases our capability across a wider spectrum of missions.

If you want to get the training then go for it, but I personally see ARCHER as a case of a pie in the sky idea that resulted in the wrong technology for far too much money & very limited usefulness.

[wingnut]

I repsectfully disagree

The Archer is infact ahead of its time for CAP, our organization has not Always been just SAR, we have been an intregal part of the Civil Defense network from the get go. Archer was purchased with money earmarked for Archer, not flir or  anything else, money was obtained as a supplemental to CAP/USAF funding.

Now the truth, it will need some modification and upgrades, but it has some real potential for many Homeland security missions and Yes environmental missions. You see, the USAF, US Navy have always flown environmental Mapping missions, however the customers ( other federal & State agencies) cannot afford the cost ($4,000+), I know because I have paid for U2 , C130 , and P3 Imaging data.

but lets be real, the biggest problem and that is a BIG problem is CAP aircrews will not respond to mission, let me repeat, the same guys are the same crews that show up over and over again, Lack of response is a big issue. Finally, try reading the latest information on Hyperspectral imaging, besides ARCHER on line information. This technology has revolutionized mapping and surveillance. The system has been paid for, Northcom, and 1st Air Force have asked for us to make the system operational even if it takes extra money from the USAF.

The biggest problem is ignorance and (I can see better with the Mark 5 eyeball) attitude. I agree FLIR has uses, but  Archer was not designed or intended for that use. As for understanding the technology and computer program, go on line to ESRI in riverside Ca., take a few classes in Geographical Information Science. it is very interesting and useful.

[RiverAux]

but lets be real, the biggest problem and that is a BIG problem is CAP aircrews will not respond to mission, let me repeat, the same guys are the same crews that show up over and over again, Lack of response is a big issue.

What else can we expect when there are so few planes that have it?  You can only rotate around a resource so much so as to allow crews in other areas time to train and be ready to use it.  Its not like we have several dozen people in the town where each plane is assigned that can operate it so of course we're going to be dependent on a small number of skilled operators. 

See that was always going to be the problem with this type of resource and is why we probably shouldn't have gone with it in the first place.  DNALL is right on target about what we should be doing.  FLIR simpler and more applicable to the majority of our missions and could be mounted on enough aircraft that every wing would have a few, so would have more than enough trained operators. 

[LittleIronPilot]

I took the test and I made in the 80's I believe (I know it was at least above 80 because I passed! )

I have a Bachelors in IT, military and law enforcement experience, Secret clearance and until recently my squadron had an Archer plane.

I took the test last year and STILL have not heard a yeah, or even a nay, in terms of training.

Oh well.......

[cnitas]

I took the test and I made in the 80's I believe (I know it was at least above 80 because I passed! )

I have a Bachelors in IT, military and law enforcement experience, Secret clearance and until recently my squadron had an Archer plane.

I took the test last year and STILL have not heard a yeah, or even a nay, in terms of training.

Oh well.......

Welcome to the club.

[california IC]

qoute "The biggie of course was the Fosset search and I haven't heard what was learned from that operation."

The ARCHER did locate old and previously known but forgotten aircraft but more interestingly it located an elevator that fell off a crashed GA aircraft that was being flown out after crashing miles away.  It was blue in color and rather small,  not more than one foot by three and located in the brush.  It was not seen by any previous search aircraft that had flown the grid.  But it was not ARCHER that found it, it was the skilled and motivated operator going through hours of flight data on the ground.  When the mission was suspended, there were still hours of flight data that had not been reviewed.  I am not sure if all of it has been done to date.  But I could see where some operators were much more motivated and skilled than others.  Seems like everyone wants to fly the mission but few want to review the data...especially on a long mission.

[RiverAux]

I'm still seeing contradictory statements about how many old wrecks were found during the Fossett search coming out of CAP.  Wish that would get cleared up someday. 

[california IC]

Unless somebody else has newer information, in California, only old, known crashes were "relocated".  I think the same is true in Nevada.

[DNall]

I repsectfully disagree

The Archer is infact ahead of its time for CAP, our organization has not Always been just SAR, we have been an intregal part of the Civil Defense network from the get go. Archer was purchased with money earmarked for Archer, not flir or  anything else, money was obtained as a supplemental to CAP/USAF funding.

And should not have been. It's the wrong tool for the job. Now we're talking about other jobs it does work for so we can justify.

Now the truth, it will need some modification and upgrades, but it has some real potential for many Homeland security missions and Yes environmental missions. You see, the USAF, US Navy have always flown environmental Mapping missions, however the customers ( other federal & State agencies) cannot afford the cost ($4,000+), I know because I have paid for U2 , C130 , and P3 Imaging data.

Absolutely. They have on board systems designed for their primary purposes & work great for those missions. It happens those systems can be used in a secondary less effective way, which is also effective for training as it's using the same gear in the same way on a dif target.

That's backwards with ARCHER. It's not highly effective for SaR/DR, and secondarily useful for these side pickup missions. It's geared toward those outside missions. The whole point of taking those missions in the first place was to work out SaR/DR assets, not just to do something. Now we're taking those hours off those assets.

but lets be real, the biggest problem and that is a BIG problem is CAP aircrews will not respond to mission, let me repeat, the same guys are the same crews that show up over and over again, Lack of response is a big issue. Finally, try reading the latest information on Hyperspectral imaging, besides ARCHER on line information. This technology has revolutionized mapping and surveillance. The system has been paid for, Northcom, and 1st Air Force have asked for us to make the system operational even if it takes extra money from the USAF.

Mapping & surveillance aren't CAP missions. I might have trouble finding it again, but I saw an article a couple months ago from 1AF/CC saying they've determined hyperspectral has zero usefulness to their HLD mission. I would have to agree with that. The kind of targets you need to ID in HLS missions are undetermined. You can't program a specific color or shape into a system when you don't know what you're looking for. As far as just taking airborne photography... that's a whole lot of system to take some pictures, and again it's not highly effective for the kinds of pictures we need to take. I don't need high precision down looking photo map BS. I need real time feedback on damage so customers can deploy resources. Then I need a more systematic survey but we're still talking wide-lens, not an Archer track.

I will agree with you on the flight crew aspect though. That's been a consistent problem in all aspects of CAP ES, as well as unit ops. It's an institutional challenge our org faces & needs to deal with on a larger scale.

The biggest problem is ignorance and (I can see better with the Mark 5 eyeball) attitude. I agree FLIR has uses, but  Archer was not designed or intended for that use. As for understanding the technology and computer program, go on line to ESRI in riverside Ca., take a few classes in Geographical Information Science. it is very interesting and useful.

Well I absolutely think mark V eyeball is just slightly better than a waste of time. I also agree ARCHER has different intended uses than FLIR, however, I feel the uses of FLIR are within our spectrum of primary mission set, where ARCHER is outside that. The system is fine, just not necessarily the best thing for us. I'm not a GIS specialist, though I know several of them quite well. I don't claim to be a SME on hyperspectral, I do know a bit about FLIR, but I'm not overly biased to it. What I'm saying is eyeballs are no longer an acceptable primary search sensor. Looking out the window is fine for a backup, but we really need something more. I think FLIR fits that bill pretty well. The other aspect of it is I can put FLIR on 3/4ths of our total fleet for less than we spent on a handful of ARCHER systems. That wide deployment makes it infinitely more useful, regardless of how good or bad the two systems are head to head.

I'm not actually saying we should get rid of ARCHER. I think it's been WAY over hyped, and not really worth all the trouble. I would not have chosen to acquire it, but we got it now. I'm not really saying we need to just give it away. We need to go ahead an use it as you've described for the most part. However, I would limit further investment & make future acquisition decisions based on techs best suited to our primary purposes & that can be fielded in a large percentage of our force over time.

[Hoser]

Yes ARCHER has been hyped, no it is not that useful for SAR, it is useful for environmental work and it is useful for CD. My find with it was crucial to the NTSB investigation so one can't dismiss it. Doesn't the tag line say "Missions for America?" It doesn't say "Missions for America only if we think they are cool and glamorous." I think helping determine if say, toxic waste from lead mine tailings might be getting into the groundwater, is an important thing to do. One of the big concerns on the Coffeyville KS mission (featured in the Volunteer) was the potential for Tulsa OK's main water source being contaminated with oil. I'd say that is an important job, and has a critical HLS application. Suppose instead of oil it was methylisocyanate? I'd say that is important. CAP folks need to think outside the box concerning ARCHER and CAP in general. That blasted box has held CAP and many other organizations back. I Could be wrong

Hoser

[Hoser]

The other thing about ARCHER, the detection parameters are a function of software more so that hardware, so what we (CAP) can see with it is a totally differnt critter than what people with the proper software can see from the same dataset. You can't tell me that some remote sensing geek working for some spook agency hasn't said "if they can find this with ARCHER, then we can find what we really want to find with it."

[cnitas]

Anyone missing their tinfoil hat?

[jimmydeanno]

Does anyone know if it's been utilized in the CD arena yet?  I'm not too familiar with how it actually works, but it seems to me that one could "program" the hyperspectral frequency of certain plants...

[cnitas]

Does anyone know if it's been utilized in the CD arena yet?  I'm not too familiar with how it actually works, but it seems to me that one could "program" the hyperspectral frequency of certain plants...

Without having actually been through the training, that is what jumped out at me from the online test as its 'real' use.

[DNall]

Yes ARCHER has been hyped, no it is not that useful for SAR, it is useful for environmental work and it is useful for CD. My find with it was crucial to the NTSB investigation so one can't dismiss it. Doesn't the tag line say "Missions for America?" It doesn't say "Missions for America only if we think they are cool and glamorous." I think helping determine if say, toxic waste from lead mine tailings might be getting into the groundwater, is an important thing to do. One of the big concerns on the Coffeyville KS mission (featured in the Volunteer) was the potential for Tulsa OK's main water source being contaminated with oil. I'd say that is an important job, and has a critical HLS application. Suppose instead of oil it was methylisocyanate? I'd say that is important. CAP folks need to think outside the box concerning ARCHER and CAP in general. That blasted box has held CAP and many other organizations back. I Could be wrong

Delivering the mail is a Mission for America too. Missions for America is a slogan, not a lane. Army of one, army strong, cross into the blue, aim high, whatever... none of that means they'll do anything for anyone as long as it doesn't conflict with their marketing. In the military you learn about staying in your lane. You have a segment of a mission & you don't cross the lines into other people's segments, cause they screws everything up, costs tons of money, and in war gets people killed.

I don't dispute that ARCHER has some uses that can be beneficial to community, state, and nation, but that doesn't mean they are a CAP mission, at least not a primary mission for which we should be focusing budget & technological development.

It has nothing to do with sexy mission versus not. It has to do with sticking to your own mission, and using your resources to do that more effectively. IF those tools happen by chance to also be effective for other things then it's okay within some strict limits to help out, but not at the cost of the primary mission set. I really think CAP lost sight of that trying to chase more hours/missions.

[KyCAP]

If it had been used in CD we could not discuss it here in this unsecured area.

[DNall]

It's been used, and is relatively effective for that purpose. How effective, how used, and current ops profile is what we won't be talking about.

The point though is CD isn't our job. It's something we do on the side because the resources & techniques we already have for our primary missions are also decently suited to that secondary mission. That's fine. Specializing resources into those secondary fields to the extent that they are not very effective for the primary purpose, or that acquisition takes away from what we need to be doing for the primary missions is a bad thing.

We need to be working on how to locate downed aircraft is the very shortest time possible, how to quickly survey damage over wide areas so the federal govt can determine how to direct resources, how to further aide the AF is completion of it's primary domestic missions (mostly HLS).

[RiverAux]

Well, I think we can say that CD is one of our missions.  After all we do have a regulation specifically focused on carrying out CD missions, have special training and qualifications to perform it, etc.   Its not like its some off the wall request that only comes in every once in a while. 

[KyCAP]

I was being more tongue in cheek.   You all must have the secret decoder ring.

[wingnut]

So let me understand

CAP is an organization that picks and chooses their assignments, SLOW scan, SDIS, Photo Recon, Homeland Security, Radiation surveillance, fire watch, boats in distress, Border Patrol, flying important cargo, WADS, Towing Targets, Submarine Bombing, convoy patrol, UAV Chase planes, Space Shuttle Landing Support etc.

Northcom (1st AF)  requested (Archer), U.S. Forrest Service, National Park Service, and those of which we may not speak (Skully and Mulder) have all requested Archer be made fully operational.

Archer is here, it will be used, it will be modified, improved, utilized, fielded, and I will be one of the guys who does it.


I mean if the decline of General Aviation continues (FAA sees a 12% drop per year), some wings will have to make up reasons why the Air Force should keep a glass cockpit 182 funded.

[Short Field]

IMHO, based on what I saw on the Fossett search, our biggest problem with Archer was a shortage of operators to do EXTENSIVE processing once the data is on the ground. 

HSI can do magic but it is time intensive and requires well-trained operators.  The mission is just starting when the aircraft lands.

[DNall]

Again, I'm not advocating we dump ARCHER & move on, just that it wasn't the most effective thing we could have done primarily because: 1) it doesn't best suit our primary mission set; and, 2) there are far too few units to effectively deploy it - that relates to trans time to the mission & qualified personnel based on distribution.

Now that we have ARCHER, of course we should continue to use it. It's not like we can return the thing & get our money back. However, it should be a lesson for future investment decisions. I think you can see how a 25k FLIR package in 350 planes is a better use of out time & money.

[SarWeenie]

Archer is a complete joke....unless you have the excact "spectral signature" of your target you will never find anything...plus it takes 4+ hours to fly a QUARTER grid....

So if its in 'anomaly' mode you will get a hit from every piece on metal, trash, and crap in the area...now leagally you have to send a ground team to chek it out.

The AF used HSI in the 70's....theres a reason there not using it any more... its garbage...unless we are evaluating crops and agriculture surveys its crap..

Drew alexa used it to get his 15 min of fame on CNN and made a lot of money off it...and thats all it was good for..  CAP is wasting money and time keeping it operational.  The AF released a report  a while back and found ARCHER to be useless

[Gunner C]

The AF released a report  a while back and found ARCHER to be useless

Citation please?

GC

[Short Field]

The AF used HSI in the 70's....theres a reason there not using it any more... its garbage...unless we are evaluating crops and agriculture surveys its crap..

Well, I was using it a LOT later than the 70's and as far as I know, it is still being used. 

[wingnut]

I am not going to reply to anymore crap on this subject, we have a bunch of LUDITES here, anyone want any more inteligent conversation email me.

real scientific a few guys just making stuff up, ( Air Force saying it's CRAP, please the blog is not a rag sheet on the check out line wall)

[wingnut]

Watch what your saying about CAP staff, you can be sued for liable for saying things on a BLOG, and if you cannot back it up be prepared to answer to someone

[RiverAux]

Personally, I would like to see a detailed report on the ARCHER and how it has been used by CAP for varioius missions.  I'm talking about something more detailed than a Volunteer story. 

[DNall]

1AF/CC made statements a few months ago that ARCHER is not currently useful for the HLS missions that command is doing. I can't provide you published ref to that. I don't know that it is published, but it is factual.

If that's a fair assessment of the technology, or if it's a change in position meant to justify the ongoing acquisition & deployment of UAVs within the ANG, is a matter well above my pay grade.

All I'm saying is... 1) it has some things it's very well suited for. 2) those are not primary missions of CAP. 3) CAP should not push money at systems for secondary or ancillary missions when it detracts from deployment of technology for our primary mission set, and in numbers that make the platform more useful. 4) This experience should be taken as a lesson & not allowed to repeat in future budget positions.

I don't care how you feel about the technology itself. That ^ position is hard to argue with.

[DNall]

be nice. The guy has a lot of time & hard work invested in a system he's got some expertise in. Of course he's going to be a supporter, for better or worse. You're entitled to your opinion also, but we can be professionals here & have a discussion on the usefulness of the technology or alternatives & why CAP is doing whichever one, and if the original questioner should pursue involvement or preserve his energy for other things.