Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNot to
mention the Iraqis who surrendered to the drone spotter aircraft from
the US battleship.



  _____  

From: gzg-l-bounces@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU] On Behalf Of Phillip
Atcliffe
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 7:20 AM
To: gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?



Chris Ronnfeldt wrote: 

Even without this, training of human remote pilots is going to be easier
than real pilots, since (as I believe you said, but I've snipped it now)
they can learn from their mistakes. No more problems like the RAF faced
in
the Battle of Britain.


In addition to pilots being able to learn from their mistakes, there is
one
far more important factor easing pilot training:
 
Real fighter pilots need to be physically fit enough to handle multi-G
turns. A guy siting back at HQ operating a remote doesn't need to be in
very
good
shape. That provides a substantially larger pool of potential pilots.


Dale Brown made use of this idea in his Dreamland novels. One of the
heroes
of the series is injured during an operation and becomes a paraplegic,
but
he can still be a combat pilot by sitting in the back of a modified B-52
and
operating the two drone UAVs that the "Megafortress" carries. There's a
slight(?) touch of Tom Clancy about the series, but they do foreshadow
what
might come, and also make the point that, with remotes available, a
wounded
serviceman does not become ineffective or incapable in combat, even if
s/he
is immobile. If remotes can't do it all and only have the capability to
back
up the PBI (why do I suddenly remember the battalions of Iraqis trying
to
surrender to a couple of Apache helicopters? :-) ), who better to
control
them than squad- or platoon-mates of the soldiers on the ground?

Phil