F-22 will see no more orders, VH-71 cancelled

[Sirotnikov]

And why do you suppose it is impossible for these liaisons to not be present in the drone control rooms in the USA if they are present in the drone control rooms near hostile territory?

There are holes in your logic bigger than the US deficit.

You're welcome to continue arguing against points I didn't make.
When you cool down, read what I did write.

Given that the drones are flown out of local territory, stations there, serviced there, and that the combat management happens in the local territory, I see no reason to move a part of the command circle away from local command, to the US.

That is written specifically regarding tactical and operational combat, and does not include strategic drones, that do not require real-time handling.

[KrazyHorse]

KH, what is mystical? "fusion centers"? The US has learnt and started to set up those too.

[Asher]

You're welcome to continue arguing against points I didn't make.
When you cool down, read what I did write.

Given that the drones are flown out of local territory, stations there, serviced there, and that the combat management happens in the local territory, I see no reason to move a part of the command circle away from local command, to the US.

I provided many. Several times.

Do they not teach you to read in the Israeli military, or is it all focused on killing Arabs?



For the third time, with a bonus one that just occurred to me to clarify since it's common sense to me but obviously not to you:

- The talent pool is far larger and more skilled
- The cost is much lower
- The infrastructure is far more stable
- It is safer

[KrazyHorse]

But they might let soldiers ge killed because they don't care about them!

[Asher]

They lack the cohesion. The dynamic synergy.

[KrazyHorse]

They aren't leveraging their paradigms sufficiently

[Sirotnikov]

No, you made a mockery of yourself when you attempted to introduce a COMPLETELY NEW argument by way of an analogy which(as I've demonstrated) is retarded. The reason that doctors need to be in the same room as their patients has everything to do with feedback, control and physical presence when things go wrong and NOTHING to do with some mystical connection to their patient which makes them better doctors.

Weapons operators have a similar need to be close to the combat management:

a) to get instant feedback from the combat operations
b) to be aware of more things happening around them, than who ever is not muted via link
c) to be generally present for 'networking' during off peak hours, to create better working relations and understanding that does not happen during the mission itself.

Yeah, because usually these guys just check the screens every few minutes because they don't care that much (because they don't have lunch with some of the guys on the ground every once in a while).

I never said that, and you're conflating my argument again.

And now we're back to TCO's argument. Congrats. That only took a page of me making fun of you. This is THE ONLY thing which MIGHT make some sense.

I'm glad you've amused yourself for the last page.
At least not all my energy was lost.

But I've explained why it's unlikely that putting operators and grunts together will lead to something new and unexpected. It's like putting together the techs who build the artificial hearts with the docs who install it.

It is not putting operators and grunts in the same room.

It is putting operators, and tacticians, and operators of other intelligence assets and sensors, in the same environment.

What you want is engineers/designers/tacticians to talk to the operators and to the grunts, who can design better UAVs and better ways to use them.

The value does not sum up at designing better UAVs.
Better operational concepts and tactics is what I'm talking about. And engineers / designers are mostly irrelevant to that feedback loop, until at some point someone devises a strategy that needs unsupported abilities or improvement.

For christ's sake, it isn't like I wanted the aeronautics technicians sitting in the command room.

[SlowwHand]

All this means is that they've had a break through that makes production impractical. Your curiosity should be stimulated.

[Sirotnikov]

- The talent pool is far larger and more skilled

admittedly an advantage

- The cost is much lower
- The infrastructure is far more stable

Dozens of real-time sat-links between the US and Iraq, both for running the planes and for the communications with the Iraqi command center, and it is more stable and lower cost than a local communications network?

- It is safer

for the operators.
questionably for the soldiers

[Asher]

Weapons operators have a similar need to be close to the combat management:

a) to get instant feedback from the combat operations
b) to be aware of more things happening around them, than who ever is not muted via link

Both of these can and are accomplished with remote control centres.

c) to be generally present for 'networking' during off peak hours, to create better working relations and understanding that does not happen during the mission itself.

Are you telling me that drone operators in Iraq regularly hang out with the infantry out in the field? I really doubt that. Further still, I don't see why this would impact the ability for a guy in a drone to unload his payload on the designated target.

You want them to network? Give them all Xboxes with Xbox Live.

I never said that, and you're conflating my argument again.

For christ's sake, it isn't like I wanted the aeronautics technicians sitting in the command room.

It's a shame, because that's probably a better usecase. If they can understand and see how they're used in the field they can best find ways to improve it.

But as luck would have it, the people who design these systems tend to be based in the USA.

[Asher]

admittedly an advantage
Dozens of real-time sat-links between the US and Iraq, both for running the planes and for the communications with the Iraqi command center, and it is more stable and lower cost than a local communications network?

Newsflash: Those satellites are already there and the communication networks already exist. It doesn't cost anything extra to use them.

I have a feeling that the communication going on in the drone control centres -- even the ones in Iraq -- is not 100% LAN.

for the operators.
questionably for the soldiers

It's safer for the operators, it doesn't impact the safety of the soldiers.

This is the same reasoning behind storing the B-2s (or is it the B-1Bs?) deep in the continental US.

[Sirotnikov]

As for Siro's assertion that being a gamer is no qualification

I assume he underwent zero training for it, and was immediately given a drone to fly, right?

[KrazyHorse]

a) to get instant feedback from the combat operations

WTF do you mean by this? The ground mission commander saying "do this, do that"?



Remember that wonderful "telephone" I told you about earlier?

b) to be aware of more things happening around them, than who ever is not muted via link

???

Like what? What do you expect the setup to be? There are large economies of scale to setting a bunch of the operators up in the same location. This means that they're GOING TO BE THEIR OWN UNIT ANYWAY. It's not like every ****ing 1st looie is going to have his individual ****ing operator and predator. There will be a group of 20 of these operators sitting together staring at their screens ANYWAY. They are not on the ground. Their info comes verbally from mission commanders (possibly through subordinates). TELEPHONE.

c) to be generally present for 'networking' during off peak hours, to create better working relations and understanding that does not happen during the mission itself.

i.e. leveraging synergistic paradigms

[KrazyHorse]

I never said that, and you're conflating my argument again.

I don't think you understand what "conflating" means.

It is not putting operators and grunts in the same room.

It is putting operators, and tacticians, and operators of other intelligence assets and sensors, in the same environment.

If there's a screen with critical data I'm presuming the tech exists to make that available. If it's a guy saying something then either:

1) That guy is in operating on stuff immediately and foreseeably related to what the operator is doing, in which case he should be linked in to voice with the UAV operator anyway

2) He's working on something only tangentially related. Which means that in the "same room" situation he's sitting over on the other side of an enormous room with hundreds of people in it and can't simply lean over and tap the guy on the shoulder anyway.

And the whole point is THAT THE ENVIRONMENT DOESN'T MATTER.

The MISSION ENVIRONMENT matters because that's where **** is actually happening. The control environment is a big room with a bunch of people in it. It doesn't matter whether it's real-life or over the telephone: you can't interact on a peer basis constantly with more than a few people ANYWAY. In fact, I'd think that radio link would allow you to switch "groups" faster and more efficiently than having to walk a couple of hundred feet...

For christ's sake, it isn't like I wanted the aeronautics technicians sitting in the command room.

Funny, because that would actually be useful.

[The Mad Monk]

Thanks for the structural analysis.

Care to show your work?

Well, about 18 months ago, an F-15 disintegrated because of an undetected crack near the caniopy; they later found similar cracks in other F-15s. As I understand it, the cracks weren't found earlier because they were in hard to get to areas, and in parts that were supposed to have long service lives; because of that, they were not subject to routine inspections.

These planes have thousands of parts like that.