Re: Attack vs. MultiRole

"With my last breath, I spit at thee. From the depths of Hell, I stab at
thee." wrote:

> Interesting piece Los.
>
> What I found neat was your attack pilot pointed out that your
multi-role
> choppers exist, though they don't get tasked with two things at once.

Note that they are multi-Combat role though not transport/combat. In
Scumpys definition
an UH60 blackhawk is multirole, (Transport troops, slingload equipment,
perform SAR etc)
Also he pointed out the AC130 which is a gunship, but this craft (which
I have some
experience working with them and have also been on for a few
familiarization rides),
carries no cargo or troops. It's strictly a gunship based of a transport
airframe. (BTW
interesting side tidbit. Half the guys in an AC130 crew just stand their
with snow
shovels and take care of brass!)

>
> But that doesn't preclude a multi-role airframe (we have some now).
Just
> at any given operation, it would be configured for one or the other
> task.
>

Ye this has been something I'm an advocate for. Same airframe but you
attach differnt
modules to it. That cuts down on construction cost and pilot
familiarization.

> different and we've each mastered them. If they had a common interface
> (ie we both just pushed a button), then we could be equally good at
> either. I would imagine this kind of convergence of interface is
> possible in attack and transport craft such that any pilot of one can
> fly the other with facility. Further, I assume expert systems and
> computer aided systems will make this task easy, freeing the pilot to
> worry about things like what he should be doing and where. He might
even
> have chipped implants to let him select what mission type he is on and
> just chip-in the right skillset.
>

AN esoteric first sentence but essentially correct, assuming I am not
tasked to write
code at the same time I'm supposed to be fighting which is the point.
(And yours too?)
Anyway as far as downloading knowledge, sounds like the Matrix. Of
course when on the
slippery slope of estimating things in a sci fi universe you can always
come up with a
solution for something. (Screw it lets just go to transporter beams and
get rid of
landers all together!<grin>) More important than downloading knowledge
is downloading
and uploading pertinent experience which is nine tenths of the
operation. And this is an
important point. It's not the physical operation of the aircraft. Even
Scrumpy as a
Cobra pilot, could probably get in and fly Magic's Daphene (sp?) with
some quick
transition. It is the Mission parameters and doctrine that requires for
that given
operation or set of operations" experience.

Let my diverge for a quick second. In SF (or in the SAS) we as operators
are supposedly
capable of doing all the Special operations missions. But in reality
what we do is teams
(or sometimes company sand squadrons) specialize in one area. I our
company e have one
team that specializes in CQB. The other in CSAR(Combat Search and
rescue) another in SR
(Strategic Recon) another in Mountain ops. We also have teams that
specialize in how
they go to work Scuba, Halo, Desert Hummers. I can take any individual
guy off the
mountain team and put him on the CQB team and he would do reasonably
well with a
trainup. BUT I would never send the mountain team to go kick down a door
somewhere. (I
could but it would not be a wise use or resources i anything but extreme
circumstances)
Nor would I want the CQB team to go scale a cliff and fight in the
mountains even if
individual guys have don that in the past. These are perishable skill
that have to be
specialized in and maintained. In our case a unit will spend two years
specializing in
one mission then they'll rotate so they can come proficient in something
else. But on
any given operation, the door kickers kick doors and the SR guys sneak
and peak. NOte
that except for a few esoteric items all team used mostly the same
equipment and have
the same background but have differnt collective unit requirements to
get that
particular mission done. Also note that this is the same in most all teh
worlds sepecial
operations forces (as it's the same in most of the worlds rotary wing
forces) since it
has been shown time and again through hard earned experience to be the
best way.

>
> Again, that doesn't mean you want troopships engaging ground targets -
I
> agree thats for gunships. But it needn't be because the airframe
> couldn't be kitted out that way, or because the pilot couldn't have
the
> skillset. It should be for the one good reason - the job of getting
> troops down is different from the job of shooting up stuff.

OK I agree (said this many times) with same airframe. Different load
outs. I disagree
with every ship being kitted out and armed the same for every mission.
(I'm not sure you
are sayingthat either)	 That's not very cost effective just for
starters. Assume that
an attack loadout is more expensive than a transport load out. WHy risk
more expensive
assetts when you don't have to. Especially since the crew concentrating
on the delivery
of troops they can't make efficient us eof eth extar tech anyway.

AND of course my standard discalimer in these conversations: There will
always be a
niche role for a multi-purpose craft in specific specialist operations!

Los