Canadian spy plane declared success, but, all of them crashed!

[brihard]

LOL, the UAV debacle is a running joke in the Logistics section at NAt'kl Defence Headquarters up in Ottawa. My dad's jsut retired form there as a colonel, he always loved sharing the various UAV stories that made their way around the department.

Did you know that we bought only 4 or 5, but managed to crash seven? Yup. We put a few more together out of spare/salvaged parts, and crashed them too.

On top of that, we managed to pull off what was probably the stupidest possible way to crash a  UAV in afghanistan- one of them rammed into a frickin' TREE! That's right; the poor guy operating it from the ground chose the landing track that crossed the single tree in a ten square mile area.

I recognize that the UAV is a devloping capability in the CF, and one we need, but dammit, we've gotta get it together on this one before we start making any of our operational successes contingent on their operation. If we muff this one, and send soldiers in expecting good intel and not getting it, we'll be losing a lot more than machines...

 

[Bert]

The UAV project and similar initiatives are not only about the flight dynamics.  The way the remote provides information,
the types of sensing (video, audio, thermal, IR, EM, RF, EHF, UV, laser desingation), the ability of various groups
to quickly share information around the planet, and the commmand and control of the unit are also being tested.
Some initiates may test semi-independant control and assist in proto-type designs allowing the remotes (air, land, water)
to evade or acquire lost signal yet still function.  The UAVs are still proto-types but the potential is well recognized.
There are good articles in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines but I don't know the dates or volume
numbers.

 

[Gunnerlove]

Good UAVs are a valuable piece of kit. Bad UAVs are a logistical burden. We seem to have the latter.

We have to look at why we use UAV's.

It should be because we plan on using and losing them in high risk environments and don't want to lose a pilot as well. Hell if we didn't care about pilots we could just stick them in little Cessna 172s and litter the country side with tin. But we do care , so we need a system we can afford to lose to enemy ground fire. Now the fact that we have lost all of ours without the help of the enemy is unimpressive.

I would almost say that we need two separate UAVs. A small cheap unit for close in work like arty spotting and a larger long range long endurance unit to stay out of small arms range and keep an eye on the big picture. This would allow us to layer coverage. If our guns are good to almost 20 km and few others are good past 40 why not get a system with a 50-60km range for keeping an eye on the immediate area and then use a larger airfield based unit to watch everything else.  

So we need a cheap UAV that works. So we can keep our troops safe. Fancy can be good but if it does not work it is not a tool it is a burden.

If you want to look at a beautifully simple design of a small plane take a look at Burt Rutans Quickie, 18hp and it cruises at 121kts. Remember though that cruise speed is not maximum SL speed, it is fuel efficient speed.
If you were comparing two aircraft why did you choose a large pressurized executive twin to compare to a small plane available as a kit? 10160lbs vs 3400lbs where could the power go?


 
I am a dick but I am usually right.

 

[Korus]

Well, we do have cheap, small UAVs.. Or rather we're in the process of getting them..


These ones, to be specific:
http://www.acrtucson.com/UAV/silverfox/

It was announced a couple months ago, so don't ask me for the exact link.

 

[Inch]

If you want to look at a beautifully simple design of a small plane take a look at Burt Rutans Quickie, 18hp and it cruises at 121kts. Remember though that cruise speed is not maximum SL speed, it is fuel efficient speed.
If you were comparing two aircraft why did you choose a large pressurized executive twin to compare to a small plane available as a kit? 10160lbs vs 3400lbs where could the power go?

I am a dick but I am usually right.

First, Max SL speed you mean Straight and Level? In that case it's a useless number, no one ever flys it, it's not a critical number for flight, it's dependant on alt since the air is thinner the higher you go and your engine won't produce as much power, and most aircraft manufacturers   don't even publish it. In which case cruise speed is a much better comparison.

Poor thought was put into that comparison, so how about this one.   Extra 300L and the Lancair, both light a/c, 300hp (Extra 300) vs 310hp for the lancair.   60 Kt dirty stall speed for the Lancair and 60 Kts stall speed for the Extra. Vne is is 220Kts for the Extra and 235 Kts (indicated) for the Lancair. Similar #s right? Well the Lancair does it all 1500lbs heavier.   Keeping in mind of course that the Lancair was designed for speed and the Extra was designed for Aerobatics.  

My point from the beginning is simply this, the army should sit down and make up a list of requirements and things they want the UAVs to be able to do. Then get the right aircraft for the right job.   Buying the ones off the shelf and then wrecking all of them was counter productive.

One last point, I agree with what most of you have said, UAVs are a valuable tool and will save lives, but only if the right tool is used for the right job.

Cheers


*edit* I forgot to mention the cruise speeds, 185KIAS for the Extra and 181KIAS for the Lancair.