There are different classes of UAS: Nano, micro, small, Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE), High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE), etc.
Well, I suppose you are the expert, so I will defer to you.@dimsum @SeaKingTacco @markppcli I'll do this as a brief omnibus reply.
RPAS pilots is not my hobby horse but getting rid of the need for unnecessary training and education and rank structures is.
I'm cognisant of the fact that in the US the USAF and the US Army have split the flying profession so that each operates in the realm appropriate for it. I also know that the US Army's WO aviation pilot training program isn't simple - it takes some 12-18 months. It is not second rate training at all. What I'm saying is that flying an RPAS does certainly require extensive training, even for a WO, but not of the same nature or intensity as training a fighter pilot, a multi-engine pilot or even a helicopter pilot. The absence of people in the aircraft makes a difference albeit I agree that it may, in some circumstances, require handling it in non segregated airspace. For those pilots, regardless of rank, whatever qualification is required by international regulations should apply. That, however, doesn't mean every UAV pilot needs to be trained to that standard because we will need many pilots who will be operating in situations where it doesn't. The RCAF successfully advocated very hard to augmenting/replacing the NCM aircrew for Sperwer and later Heron in Afghanistan. What happens once we start ramping up UAV usage. How would we handle Bayraktars or their many equivalents? There are numerous classes of UCAVs out there now, some heavy, some light, they all need "piloting." At this point the crossover to army NCM pilots comes at the Blackjack which is rated a SUAV.
Let me be clear here. I know what RPAS is basically being considered for. I see a future far beyond RPAS with large numbers of lighter systems yet still in the TUAV and up range. Hopefully the CAF is seeing that too. We need to develop a multi-tiered approach on how to deal with those varying situations including how to use RPAS in sustained combat operations. If that includes having separate control teams for flying in non segregated airspace doing routine peacetime surveillance and other teams for flying in restricted combat zones then so be it. If these latter teams are not able to operate in non segregated airspace the way the US ones are now than so be it. My point simply is that I don't want to save commissioned officer pilots jobs. I want to see an easily maintained overarching UAV system that is capable of meeting combat requirements not merely peace time ones. Our current aircrew training system appears to have troubles meeting our peacetime needs. As we transition to less expensive UAV aircraft we ought to be obtaining more of them. If we continue to rely on the same pilot production system as now, we will simply not have enough aircrew to handle the load.
@markppcli - take a look at any flight tracker program and look at the airspace over Ukraine. It's empty of commercial traffic. As should be the airspace over any country having a conflict. We add military airspace coordination to all of those and can restrict space as needed. Hitler has nothing to do with this. It's a simple observation of fact. Ukraine lessons matter.
There’s a pretty well established classification system for UAVs. @dimsum provides an example of it. Suffice to say that an RQ-11 is obviously being handled differently that an MQ-9B.
Ukraine lessons matter but I’ll point out that there are a ton of MQ9s flying in the airspace all around Ukraine. Mixed use. Not all conflict zones are cut off from commercial air: Afghanistan wasn’t, Iraq isn’t, and we flew missions over Libya from Italy. Our experiences also matter.Let me be clear here. I know what RPAS is basically being considered for. I see a future far beyond RPAS with large numbers of lighter systems yet still in the TUAV and up range. Hopefully the CAF is seeing that too. We need to develop a multi-tiered approach on how to deal with those varying situations including how to use RPAS in sustained combat operations. If that includes having separate control teams for flying in non segregated airspace doing routine peacetime surveillance and other teams for flying in restricted combat zones then so be it. If these latter teams are not able to operate in non segregated airspace the way the US ones are now than so be it. My point simply is that I don't want to save commissioned officer pilots jobs. I want to see an easily maintained overarching UAV system that is capable of meeting combat requirements not merely peace time ones. Our current aircrew training system appears to have troubles meeting our peacetime needs. As we transition to less expensive UAV aircraft we ought to be obtaining more of them. If we continue to rely on the same pilot production system as now, we will simply not have enough aircrew to handle the load.
@markppcli - take a look at any flight tracker program and look at the airspace over Ukraine. It's empty of commercial traffic. As should be the airspace over any country having a conflict. We add military airspace coordination to all of those and can restrict space as needed. Hitler has nothing to do with this. It's a simple observation of fact. Ukraine lessons matter.
No. I'm no saying that at all.
I think this is where the problem lies. You're envisioning a future where there are hundreds of UAVs of the sub-HALE size that will need to be deployed in a conflict zone while others are looking at who will be flying the 8-10(?) MQ-9s that will be procured under the RPAS program.No. I'm no saying that at all.
Just a quick point on the classifications. @dimsum kind of touched on the point - and he's correct. My recollection of Canadian UAV classification was in order Micro, Mini, Small, Tactical, MALE and HALE based generally on altitude capability. For Canada mini included Skylark, small included Blackjack and tactical included Sperwer and the leased Heron crossed into MALE. We had no MALE of our own but were working on it. There are different ways of describing those classes (I think the USAF uses 5 groups)
Pre-Afghanistan the RCAF relegated tactical to the army and MALE and HALE as theirs but when the artillery acquired Sperwer as an army-level TUAV operated by NCMs the RCAF suddenly claimed the need to insert flight crew in the control centres. That stayed for Heron but Skylark and later Blackjack were left to the army.
The interesting thing is that MQ-1 Predators and Grey Eagles which are (to the best of my knowledge classified as MALE) are operated by the US Army by WOs/NCMs.
The MQ-9 Reaper/Sky Guardian is a heavier, larger and more capable aircraft which (again to the best of my knowledge) crosses into the HALE category and operated by the USAF.
What I'm saying and all that I'm saying is that there is a major gap between higher capability MQ-9 HALEs and low end SUAVs that need to be sorted out because IMHO it is an area ripe for massive expansion. A Blackjack can't scale up to do a TUAVs job. An MQ-9 can scale down and do an MQ-1s job if no MQ-1 is available.
There is a need for many more low end MALEs and TUAVs which will require operators and I do not believe that the RCAF, as presently oriented, has the ability to train and supply those operators in the quantities needed. Just as importantly I do not see any particular appetite for the RCAF to move beyond RPAS in filling those heavier UAV needs that the army has. You know better than I as to how interested the RCAF is these days at filling the CAS niche. Throughout Afghanistan that role was filled by other people's aircraft. The number of aircraft in the F-35 purchase means that they will barely be able to fulfil the NORAD missions.
But then I have no expertise in these matters. Just a curiosity of where we are plodding to.
I think you're missing the larger point... Empires need to be maintained.No. I'm no saying that at all.
Just a quick point on the classifications. @dimsum kind of touched on the point - and he's correct. My recollection of Canadian UAV classification was in order Micro, Mini, Small, Tactical, MALE and HALE based generally on altitude capability. For Canada mini included Skylark, small included Blackjack and tactical included Sperwer and the leased Heron crossed into MALE. We had no MALE of our own but were working on it. There are different ways of describing those classes (I think the USAF uses 5 groups)
Pre-Afghanistan the RCAF relegated tactical to the army and MALE and HALE as theirs but when the artillery acquired Sperwer as an army-level TUAV operated by NCMs the RCAF suddenly claimed the need to insert flight crew in the control centres. That stayed for Heron but Skylark and later Blackjack were left to the army.
The interesting thing is that MQ-1 Predators and Grey Eagles which are (to the best of my knowledge classified as MALE) are operated by the US Army by WOs/NCMs.
The MQ-9 Reaper/Sky Guardian is a heavier, larger and more capable aircraft which (again to the best of my knowledge) crosses into the HALE category and operated by the USAF.
What I'm saying and all that I'm saying is that there is a major gap between higher capability MQ-9 HALEs and low end SUAVs that need to be sorted out because IMHO it is an area ripe for massive expansion. A Blackjack can't scale up to do a TUAVs job. An MQ-9 can scale down and do an MQ-1s job if no MQ-1 is available.
There is a need for many more low end MALEs and TUAVs which will require operators and I do not believe that the RCAF, as presently oriented, has the ability to train and supply those operators in the quantities needed. Just as importantly I do not see any particular appetite for the RCAF to move beyond RPAS in filling those heavier UAV needs that the army has. You know better than I as to how interested the RCAF is these days at filling the CAS niche. Throughout Afghanistan that role was filled by other people's aircraft. The number of aircraft in the F-35 purchase means that they will barely be able to fulfil the NORAD missions.
But then I have no expertise in these matters. Just a curiosity of where we are plodding to.
www.horizonhobby.com
Unpossible!Can someone start their career on a micro uav and move up the scale to larger units? Is there, or could there be a common controller for all vehicles, up to a particular size. Like an RC or PS control pad?
It would seem to me then that the micro systems would then act like a sub-calibre training round. Potentially ally the controller to a PC for a simple simulator?
View attachment 80377RC Radios Aircraft Transmitters | Horizon Hobby
Shop RC airplane, RC jet, and RC helicopter transmitters at Horizon Hobby. We are radio control.
View attachment 80378
View attachment 80379
View attachment 80380
Somewhere between these and the HERO LAMs and the Brimstones there has to be an Arty friendly solution.
But with birds like the Scan Eagle weighing 40 lbs (Group 2 Medium) but being able to park itself in the 15-20,000 foot band (Group 3) for 24 hours aren't things still a bit fuzzy?
View attachment 80381
ScanEagle
Expeditionary, versatile and proven to deliver persistent imagery on land or at sea at a fraction of the cost of other remote sensing tools.www.boeing.com
Where does the V-Bat fit into the scheme of things? 125 lbs is just barely into Group 3 turf but can loiter for 8 hours at 15,000 ft so clearly Group 3.
Reaper seems to hit 10,000 lbs and 50,000 ft so that is well into the Group 5 range.
Canadian Coast Guard Conducts Sea Trials of V-BAT UAS - Seapower
The gap between 55 lbs and >1320 lbs seems to leave an awful lot of midrange solutions on the table.
Equally 18,000' MSL seems pretty far up there. I'm pretty sure that most of my running around Alaska in Floats and Geese was below those levels.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have fancied running into a swarm of Scan Eagles in Nick's Goose.
That’s not the case. If it is, then the UAS currently used by the Army, Navy, and SOF would be operated by RCAF folks. They’re not, and ironically, at this time, the RCAF is the only element without some sort of UAS.
It was a complex situation. But in brief, all the gunners initially involved with Sperwer went through a civilian run flight school in Pembroke for roughly three months which taught them everything right up to and just short of them being certified as civilian pilots. They then went to France for several months and were taught how to operate the Sperwer by its manufacturer. It was in between these two stages that the RCAF woke up to the fact that the artillery was acquiring an "aircraft" through the UOR process and raised an issue about air worthiness certification and added two pilots and two navigators to the troop. (Some maint pers were also added and there was a further issue about a G3 UAV being dropped into the bde HQ)The bigger reason, and probably the real reason alluded by @FJAG why the RCAF started putting pilots in place of the Arty’s NCMs in Sperwer and Heron, was that the higher that those things flew, they were starting to mix with stuff like fast air, etc even in a segregated environment. The Pilots needed an understanding of airspace limitations and procedures - I’m sure that could have been taught to the Arty NCMs too but maybe it was due to lack of time or the fact that Pilots already were taught those things, I don’t know. It may have also been a requirement from higher in the Coalition. I also don’t know if it was due to Flight Safety incidents, but could (relatively) easily look it up. But, by my understanding, the Sperwer was a Flight Safety Incident at the best of times
Look at the range of current civilian UAVs, commercial aircraft, automobiles and military items like ATGMs and I think that answers your question about a common controller. Various models within a type of product all have similar basic functions which is why you see all cars and trucks with a similar layout of steering wheel, pedals, indicators, etc. but you might fumble around looking for the hazard lights, heated seats (if that particular model has them) and the climate controls
Further to what @dimsum said, even within a size class of UAV you will have different roles for the aircraft (artillery spotting vs loitering munition for example) which may require different functions/features on the UAV which will necessitate differences in the controllers for each and each might have a very different flight profile (high level ISR vs NOE FPV) which will require different pilot skills.
| Model | Span | Weight | Ceiling | Endurance | Payload |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zephyr 4 | 12 m (39 ft) | 17 kg (37 lb) | 9 140 m (30 000 ft) | 6 h | |
| Zephyr 5 | 16 m (52 ft) | 31 kg (68 lb) | 11 000 m (36 000 ft) | 18 h | |
| Zephyr 6 | 18 m (59 ft) | 30 kg (66 lb) | 18 300 m (60 000 ft) | 87 h | 2 kg (4.4 lb) |
| Zephyr 7 | 22,5 m (74 ft) | 53 kg (117 lb) | 21 000 m (69 000 ft) | 336 h | 5 kg (11 lb) |
| Zephyr 8/S | 25 m (82 ft) | 62-65 kg (137-143 lb) | 23,200 m (76,100 ft)[16] | 624 h | 5 kg (11 lb) |
| Zephyr T | 32 m (105 ft) | 145 kg (320 lb) | 20 kg (44 lb) |
| Type | Accuracy |
| Short-range tactical ballistic missile | Around 10 meters or less |
| Country users | Launch Weight |
| United States | 1,600 to 2,300 kg depending on the specific variant of the missile. |
| Designer Country | Speed |
| United States | Approximately Mach 3, or around 3,700 km/h |
| Guidance Systems | Range |
| GPS/INS | 160 to 300 km |
| Launcher Vehicles | Dimensions |
| M270 and M142 HIMARS MLRS | Length: 5,75 m; Width: 2,49 m; Height: 2.4 m |
www.armyrecognition.com
The Zephyr is a HALE bc it flies at high altitude, for long endurance. It is not SUAS bc they don’t fly high or long enough.View attachment 80383
@dimsum
How do these categories relate to micro, mini, small, medium, tactical, Medium Altitude Long Endurance, High Altitude Long Endurance?
We were getting bigger and heavier and higher as we go up the scale but where do the High Altitude Pseudosatellites like the Zephyr fit in?
Airbus-QinetiQ Zephyr[28]
Model Span Weight Ceiling Endurance Payload Zephyr 4 12 m (39 ft) 17 kg (37 lb) 9 140 m (30 000 ft) 6 h Zephyr 5 16 m (52 ft) 31 kg (68 lb) 11 000 m (36 000 ft) 18 h Zephyr 6 18 m (59 ft) 30 kg (66 lb) 18 300 m (60 000 ft) 87 h 2 kg (4.4 lb) Zephyr 7 22,5 m (74 ft) 53 kg (117 lb) 21 000 m (69 000 ft) 336 h 5 kg (11 lb) Zephyr 8/S 25 m (82 ft) 62-65 kg (137-143 lb) 23,200 m (76,100 ft)[16] 624 h 5 kg (11 lb) Zephyr T 32 m (105 ft) 145 kg (320 lb) 20 kg (44 lb)
View attachment 80384
I believe it qualifies as a SUAS?
My point is that there seems to any extraordinarily large variety of bodies likely to be sharing the skies. Some piloted, some remotely piloted, some unpiloted. And I completely understand the necessity of a properly qualified pilot to manage the flight of the vehicle, or vehicles (a swarm of autonomous SUASs operating at 70,000 ft?).
But don't things change when bullets and rockets start flying?
I believe 155 mm apogees are on the order of 30,000 ft which means they are flying in Group 5 UAS altitudes.
And
Type Accuracy Short-range tactical ballistic missile Around 10 meters or less Country users Launch Weight United States 1,600 to 2,300 kg depending on the specific variant of the missile. Designer Country Speed United States Approximately Mach 3, or around 3,700 km/h Guidance Systems Range GPS/INS 160 to 300 km Launcher Vehicles Dimensions M270 and M142 HIMARS MLRS Length: 5,75 m; Width: 2,49 m; Height: 2.4 m
ATACMS MGM-140
The Army Tactical Missile System (MGM-140 ATACMS) is a short-range tactical ballistic missile system developed by the United States Army. Its primary purpo
That would clearly seem to be a Group 5 UAV.
It seems reasonable to me that there could be rules for outside the battlespace and rules for inside the battlespace. It also seems reasonable to me to suggest that outside the battlespace the RCAF takes the lead while the RCA leads inside.
The size of the battlespace is largely going to be set by the weapons deployed on the ground, their altitudes and their ranges. But I can understand that becoming problematic if Ground Forces start deploying 500 km PrSMs, 1500 km Tomahawks and SM6s and 3000 km Medium (Intermediate) Range Ballistic Missiles.
At some point all civilian flights are grounded and the entire airspace becomes a free fire zone.
....
Is it unreasonable to train troops to fly vehicles under the same flight regimes under which gunners fire their guns and launch their rockets?
....
On the subject of common controllers
I get that some vehicles are going to require different commands. On the other hand HMIs (Human Machine Interfaces) like this one supplied by Rockwell's Allen Bradley have been proving themselves to be pretty versatile for a decade or two now.
View attachment 80385
One controller controls thousands/millions of custom designed factories with dozens/thousands of moving parts and sensors.
The pigtail can plug into a panel, a PC or a transmitter.
If an operator started off with micros and minis and graduated to smalls she could run simulations on her desktop.
I think that it’s too early to tell about how RPAS (in general) will end up doing in the CAF. This is one project now, but I would be willing to bet that there will be others as the capability matures further.
Pedantic note:
breakingdefense.com
breakingdefense.com
