Lindsey Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Okei, I understand. Thank you! No problemo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity173 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Thanks! Academics makes me miss the simplicity of the R22 ;-)Won't be long before you will be extinct anyway. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/30/black-hawk-drone-unmanned-chopper-passes-critical-/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsey Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Won't be long before you will be extinct anyway. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/30/black-hawk-drone-unmanned-chopper-passes-critical-/Well aren't you the party pooper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity173 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Well aren't you the party pooper!Lol! Well, if they can find a computer to do your job better than you, they will. Just look at Armyaircrews. Plenty of accidents contributed to human error. Remove pilot error out of the equation and you reduce accidents. Two pilots salaries to boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHart Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Maybe we're not talking about the same thing but I definitely have my WOCS baseball cap and I went through in 2009. We graduated as WO1s though as soon as we were done.Talking about the colored baseball hats during flight school depending on what flight you were in. I went through in '01. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity173 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Talking about the colored baseball hats during flight school depending on what flight you were in. I went through in '01.With the solo patch once solo was complete.😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_P148 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 What are they going to do with an unmanned UH-60? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsey Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Well when I fly it's already unmanned. (Ba dum tss) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity173 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 What are they going to do with an unmanned UH-60?I suppose missions that are too dangerous to have a crew aboard. I think for the majority of missions you'll always have a crew at least to monitor the aircraft and take over when things fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Pig Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Well when I fly it's already unmanned. (Ba dum tss)Good thing its a 2 pilot aircraft... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_P148 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 I suppose missions that are too dangerous to have a crew aboard. I think for the majority of missions you'll always have a crew at least to monitor the aircraft and take over when things fail. Right, thinking the same thing however, what mission would be too dangerous for human beings to fly? I was thinking Resupply in NBC, but the thought of that would mean, resupplying soldiers. Too dangerous to fly but safe enough to have people on the ground? Doesn't seem to be very logical. I am not trying to discredit the program but, I feel like due to the nature of the 60 and the 47 mission it seems highly unlikely. Continuing my rant, I as a 60 pilot don't want gun support that isn't manned. I want a human being to escort my flight. If a gunship needs to suppress my LZ I want a human directing those rounds, not through a video screen. Going unmanned creates another issue, signal exploitation and hacking, we don't know what will happen with that. There are a lot of other arguments for not going unmanned but I feel like these programs are just a ploy for making money and have little to do with fighting wars and making Aviation more effective. Also, bring back the 58D! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsey Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Right, thinking the same thing however, what mission would be too dangerous for human beings to fly? I was thinking Resupply in NBC, but the thought of that would mean, resupplying soldiers. Too dangerous to fly but safe enough to have people on the ground? Doesn't seem to be very logical. I am not trying to discredit the program but, I feel like due to the nature of the 60 and the 47 mission it seems highly unlikely. Continuing my rant, I as a 60 pilot don't want gun support that isn't manned. I want a human being to escort my flight. If a gunship needs to suppress my LZ I want a human directing those rounds, not through a video screen. Going unmanned creates another issue, signal exploitation and hacking, we don't know what will happen with that. There are a lot of other arguments for not going unmanned but I feel like these programs are just a ploy for making money and have little to do with fighting wars and making Aviation more effective. Also, bring back the 58D!Are you inside my head??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_P148 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Are you inside my head??? Yes, Yes I am.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Pig Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Are you inside my head???So... the truth. Your helicopter is "manned" after all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindsey Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 So... the truth. Your helicopter is "manned" after all?Who says Joe is a man? It's a new Army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdogs Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Right, thinking the same thing however, what mission would be too dangerous for human beings to fly? I was thinking Resupply in NBC, but the thought of that would mean, resupplying soldiers. Too dangerous to fly but safe enough to have people on the ground? Doesn't seem to be very logical. I am not trying to discredit the program but, I feel like due to the nature of the 60 and the 47 mission it seems highly unlikely. Continuing my rant, I as a 60 pilot don't want gun support that isn't manned. I want a human being to escort my flight. If a gunship needs to suppress my LZ I want a human directing those rounds, not through a video screen. Going unmanned creates another issue, signal exploitation and hacking, we don't know what will happen with that. There are a lot of other arguments for not going unmanned but I feel like these programs are just a ploy for making money and have little to do with fighting wars and making Aviation more effective. Also, bring back the 58D! I can think of a few, like conducting deep missions aimed at enemy EW radars and C2 systems that'll require flying underneath radar coverage or through terrain. We did some pretty decent work with unmanned K-max doing routine resupply in OEF. I also think that a small fast resupply vehicle would be a good fit for delivering speedballs to troops in contact where a helicopter is either too vulnerable or too far away - imagine a platoon commander organically being able to punch a ten digit grid into small rotorcraft at a COP and pressing the go button with out having to go through a C2 network to request, prioritize, approve, and allocate assets to get things done. Theoretically an unmanned helicopter should be able to do everything a manned helicopter would be able to do, but the current limitations of sensors, data-link connectivity, and comms are a tough nut to crack especially in full spectrum conflicts. Not to mention that all the bad guys will eventually seek to exploit EW on any systems using a completely unmanned capability. That being said there are ways around that one too, because there is a difference between unmanned and automated...and they're not mutually exclusive either. There's a future in it, but I'm not sure what it will logically replace at this point because it's pretty new to rotary wing. (Except for Kiowas...lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I don't see them being used in a "too dangerous for men" role because if I'm not survivable in that environment a UAV isn't either. I think the selling point for not manning an aircraft is the payload you gain by taking crewmembers out of the mix. Fuel, munitions, more supplies, etc. Also you take crew endurance out of the picture and can keep your UAV on station or in the fight for as long as its systems will support. So the reason to replace manned aircraft in my eyes is the increased capability in certain roles as opposed to exposing pilots to less risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Pig Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Who says Joe is a man? It's a new Army.Hmmmmmm. Touché. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apacheguy Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I don't see them being used in a "too dangerous for men" role because if I'm not survivable in that environment a UAV isn't either. I think the selling point for not manning an aircraft is the payload you gain by taking crewmembers out of the mix. Fuel, munitions, more supplies, etc. Also you take crew endurance out of the picture and can keep your UAV on station or in the fight for as long as its systems will support. So the reason to replace manned aircraft in my eyes is the increased capability in certain roles as opposed to exposing pilots to less risk. Army UAV doctrine uses the mantra of 'dirty, dull and dangerous' for UAS missions. Throw in those extra capabilities you get when you remove the human from the aircraft and you've got a huge list of reasons why the army would be better off without human pilots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akscott60 Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 If the aircraft is unmanned, who does the 5484 and logbook? Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_P148 Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 I'll just stay home and fly my XBox then... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth G. Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 I got out of UAV to be a pilot. I refuse to believe this is a reality. The funding to eventually integrate all or a good portion of helicopters to unmanned has to be very distant. I have so many questions on how this will work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akscott60 Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 It will be a LONG, LONG time before people get onto an aircraft flown without any pilots onboard. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KING Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 Is the Army still awarding the accession bonus to officers/warrants upon completion of orcs/wocs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creep0321 Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 Is the Army still awarding the accession bonus to officers/warrants upon completion of orcs/wocs?I finished WOCS Oct 22, have never heard of an accession bonus, so I'm guessing no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.