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-lChris
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