Wednesday, June 18, 2008

MUAV use a throwback

The Canadian and American approaches to the use of micro-UAV's (MUAV) are contrasted in a very brief piece at Strategy Page:

So the Canadian system takes advantage of existing experience and procedure, to introduce a new technology (which replaces the artillery spotting aircraft that have been around since World War II). But the MUAV "belongs" to the artillery observer team, that team is in turn attacked to an infantry company or battalion. Thus these infantry units now have their own air force, and it's being run by someone familiar with how aircraft overhead operate, and what they can do.


With thanks to JMH for the pointer.

One additional point I'd make is that the army is so deeply involved in the use of UAV's by the CF partly because the air force dragged its feet for so long in embracing the concept of unoccupied aircraft. At least, that's what I've heard from a number of people in both sky-blue and green uniforms.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a good news story . . common sense prevailing.

Glad the folks who could solve the problem took the initiative to make it happen. The idea that the Air Force must own it if it has wings is about as crazy as thinking if it has wheels it has to be Green.

2:51 p.m., June 18, 2008  
Blogger Brett said...

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Things that have wings tend to come along with a lot more complications than things with wheels. Usually things that the wheely type people haven't even considered.

That being said I don't think the Air Force has put forth their best effort when it comes to UAVs.

1:30 a.m., June 19, 2008  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

I think I linked to a WIRED mag story here before, so I won't again, but the basic breakdown seems to be that the airforce wants big, fast, complicated "fighter like" things where as the army wants thing that they can carry in a pack and basically chuck into the air and be flown by anyone who has ever played a video game.

I imagine that it would be more task dependent... stuff that can blow things up by definition has to be more complicated than something that's sole task is to see what's over the next hill..

12:39 p.m., June 20, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home