# Gotta Love the Drone!!



## rvdklok (1 Apr 2006)

Wed's attack on the Red Devil Inn seems to have proven futile for the Taliban. Just spoke with a soldier over there via Satellite Phone, and by the sounds of it, the Taliban were introduced to a US stealth Drone equipped with Hellfire missiles.....within seconds they were scrambling to run like cowards, loading the bodies of thier own onto trucks, and running to the hills.....however, the Canadians, after losing one of thier own had a problem with the Taliban running like cowards, and proceded to hunt down as many as possible. I don't really want to say much more, as I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say, or not allowed to say....but as usual, our boys are Givin' Em Hell!
For those of you who may no know what the Drone is, you can find a pic here..... The Drone is an unmanned Stealth type of aircraft.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/189-516H.jpg


----------



## Franko (1 Apr 2006)

I call BS on the picture. UCAV isn't being used yet, still in development stages.

The drone in question is the Predator. They are armed with 2 Hellfires...and I have seen them with my own Mk II eyeballs in theater.












Try Janes as well for more info.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Apr 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> I call BS on the picture.


+1  
Not only is the UAV non-operational, but the picture's not legit; it's a mediocre graphics' shop job. Compare the lighting differences between the UCAV and the FA-18s behind it (one of the joys of having career attention deficit disorder, is you get to try lots of different things....like imagery analysis     )


----------



## Sheerin (1 Apr 2006)

As for the drone, that one looked like the one featured in that GODAWFUL Stealth that I was forced to watch one night back in December....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2006)

Haywire what's your source.


----------



## genesis98 (1 Apr 2006)

IB lame attempt at April fools joke.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2006)

"however, the Canadians, after losing one of their own had a problem with the Taliban running like cowards, and proceded to hunt down as many as possible"

I was referring to the above quote.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Apr 2006)

It's disinformation ... now a "deer in the headlights".


----------



## Patrolman (1 Apr 2006)

I was under the impression that the Red Devil Inn was a Pl house operated by the PPCLI. The outpost that was attacked was an Afghan/American operated house. When attacked the Canadian QRF Pl was called in to help reinforce the Americans and the Afghans. I may be wrong, but that is what the media led me to believe.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Apr 2006)

Patrolman,

That is my impression as well. The bare bones account posted above does not seem to jibe with either the press reports or the briefing given by Colonel Vernon, the Chief of Staff. That, of course, could be because of a laudable attempt of brevity, a misunderstanding or any other number of reasons.

Can anyone who is in country provide any better information?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2006)

"Can anyone who is in country provide any better information?"
I can't see that happening.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 Apr 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> +1
> Not only is the UAV non-operational, but the picture's not legit; it's a mediocre graphics' shop job. Compare the lighting differences between the UCAV and the FA-18s behind it (one of the joys of having career attention deficit disorder, is you get to try lots of different things....like imagery analysis     )



Even without the whole lightning thing (I'm much too lazy to try to figure out how close it is to being "right") the UCAV thingie looks fake. I think a Klingon Bird of Prey would probably look more realistic in that picture. But that's just me, you're the big almighty CADD sufferer.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2006)

I'm bad with those photoshop stuff and even I thought that looked like crap.


----------



## Thompson_JM (1 Apr 2006)

i was  wondering what flight sim he pulled the image of the drone out of...


----------



## JSR OP (1 Apr 2006)

Here are pictures of the real UCAV, the X-45

http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/index.htm


----------



## JSR OP (1 Apr 2006)

Oh,  and I find it highly unlikely that a soldier called their buddy on a Sat Phone to tell him about a battle that just happened.  I'm no photoshop guy, so the Sat Phone thing was my first clue to BS.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> Wed's attack on the Red Devil Inn seems to have proven futile for the Taliban. Just spoke with a soldier over there via Satellite Phone, and by the sounds of it, the Taliban were introduced to a US stealth Drone equipped with Hellfire missiles.....within seconds they were scrambling to run like cowards, loading the bodies of thier own onto trucks, and running to the hills.....however, the Canadians, after losing one of thier own had a problem with the Taliban running like cowards, and proceded to hunt down as many as possible. I don't really want to say much more, as I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say, or not allowed to say....but as usual, our boys are Givin' Em Hell!
> For those of you who may no know what the Drone is, you can find a pic here..... The Drone is an unmanned Stealth type of aircraft.
> http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/189-516H.jpg



Better back up your fact....er,..rumours quick. Not a good start. And after you explain all your...stuff, you can go read the guidelines, especially the ones about posting rumour, innuendo, and just utter bullshit (ok, it's not called that there). This is the only warning your going to get, and it may not even be that if you don't answer all the questions you've created.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2006)

could be an Apr fool thing rg


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2006)

Better not be. This goes beyond the realm of being funny.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Better not be. This goes beyond the realm of being funny.


Oh.....like me getting my face in a knot thinking the site was going to be run by DND/PAffOs!


----------



## kerfuffled (2 Apr 2006)

That pic is so photoshopped. :


----------



## Trinity (2 Apr 2006)

kerfuffled said:
			
		

> That pic is so photoshopped. :



Thanks Capt. Obvious...

i think we figured that out after post #3


----------



## rvdklok (2 Apr 2006)

> Haywire what's your source.


My source is good, and very reliable. The attack happened on Wed. and he called me on Fri. His description of the aircraft was "...you know the stealth? It's just like one of those.....They sent the drone up with the hellfire missles, and the Taliban were dragging bodies of thier own and loading them into trucks and running away. The drone killed (I believe he said 22 of them, but I can't remember for sure, the numbers were in the 20's for sure.)."

As far as the drone pic goes, do you all know when the FIRST flying/operations-capable Stealth Bomber was airborne??? 1969!!! When did we FIRST see the Stealth used in combat? Operation Desert Storm in the 80's! Just because some of you may not have seen the "Drone" before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Canada created the first "remote control" bomber back in the early 80's. the Aircraft was NEVER used in combat, and was retired just last year (there were stories of it all over the news and in the papers), though I can't remember what the plane was called. Also, this aircraft was never made known to the public until it was retired last year.


----------



## rvdklok (2 Apr 2006)

Here is another stealth styled UCAV article with a photo (different aircraft than the original photo I posted).
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002084.html

"The jet-powered Corax had performed several successful flights as early as 2004 – taking off and landing under computer control," New Scientist notes. "The aircraft is curved in a manner than resembles existing 'stealth" aircraft. The special shape of such craft is designed to defeat radar detection by reflecting radar away from a radar sensor instead of back at it. Corax also lacks a conventional tail, which should make it more aerodynamic but also more difficult to control."

Another article on the UK's Corax:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4617588.stm


> The prototype Corax was first flown in 2004 after a 10-month development programme.



You can't tell me that the US would let ANY other country get ahead of them in the military technology field.....so.....it is still that hard to believe???? Take your heads out of the sand.....this is 2006, not 1906!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> Canada created the first "remote control" bomber back in the early 80's. the Aircraft was NEVER used in combat, and was retired just last year (there were stories of it all over the news and in the papers), though I can't remember what the plane was called. Also, this aircraft was never made known to the public until it was retired last year.



I call bullshit on this one too. If your so sure, and it was all over the news and papers, I suggest you get on Google and post a couple of links.

Time is ticking and running out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> You can't tell me that the US would let ANY other country get ahead of them in the military technology field.....so.....it is still that hard to believe???? Take your heads out of the sand.....this is 2006, not 1906!



I suppose that's why they want our Coyote surveillance package so bad?


----------



## Sheerin (2 Apr 2006)

> Operation Desert Storm in the 80's!



Are you old enough to remember Desert Storm?  

FYI and on the off chance it was a typo, Desert Storm was in January of 1991, with Desert Sheild starting in August of 1990, not the 80s as you claimed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Apr 2006)

> As far as the drone pic goes, do you all know when the FIRST flying/operations-capable Stealth Bomber was airborne??? 1969!!! When did we FIRST see the Stealth used in combat? Operation Desert Storm in the 80's! Just because some of you may not have seen the "Drone" before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Canada created the first "remote control" bomber back in the early 80's. the Aircraft was NEVER used in combat, and was retired just last year (there were stories of it all over the news and in the papers), though I can't remember what the plane was called. Also, this aircraft was never made known to the public until it was retired last year.



Haywire-  You are seconds away from being called "full of crap".  On the off chance that I slept away the last 21 years of my military service, I suppose that you can provide a link or two for the rest of us to learn about how Canada managed to operate a secret fleet of UAV bombers for the past 20 years- without me or anyone else here knowing about it.

Link up, or shut up.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2006)

I guess we must have an "Area 51 25 1/2" somewhere in remote Nunavut where we have constructed a large underground Air Base and disguised the Airfield as a glacier.  Anyone posted to this Top Secret site has had all reference to their existence erased from all data bases, and never been allowed to leave.  On Retirement they are set out on an Ice Flow to perish in the North Atlantic wastes.  The story of the existence of this secret Base only came to light when a sixty year old Airman washed ashore in Come By Chance, Newfoundland, last summer, and in his delirium before he passed away made references to it to his rescuers.


----------



## McG (2 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> My source is good, and very reliable. ...
> 
> ...  Just because some of you may not have seen the "Drone" before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ...


So, are you suggesting that this aircraft does exist & that its existence is secret?

I think you pumping out bad information but, if by some incredible accident you are correct, do you think posting this was a good idea?


----------



## William Webb Ellis (2 Apr 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess we must have an "Area 51 25 1/2" somewhere in remote Nunavut where we have constructed a large underground Air Base and disguised the Airfield as a glacier.  Anyone posted to this Top Secret site has had all reference to their existence erased from all data bases, and never been allowed to leave.  On Retirement they are set out on an Ice Flow to perish in the North Atlantic wastes.  The story of the existence of this secret Base only came to light when a sixty year old Airman washed ashore in Come By Chance, Newfoundland, last summer, and in his delirium before he passed away made references to it to his rescuers.



I can see it now, as you clear out of Area 24 1/2.  "Please look into the little light"  _flash_ ....Wake up outside a Tim Horton's in Lower Sackville.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> As far as the drone pic goes, do you all know when the FIRST flying/operations-capable Stealth Bomber was airborne??? *1969*!!! When did we FIRST see the Stealth used in combat? *Operation Desert Storm in the 80's*! Just because some of you may not have seen the "Drone" before, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Canada created the first "remote control" bomber back in the early 80's. the Aircraft was NEVER used in combat, and was retired just last year (there were stories of it all over the news and in the papers), though I can't remember what the plane was called. Also, this aircraft was never made known to the public until it was retired last year.



The F-117 first flew in *1981*.  It began life at Lockheed Skunkworks in 1977 under the "Have blue" project. In 1978 the "Senior Trend" program was launched  and resulted in 5 pre-production aircraft, the first of which made its first flight on 18 July 1981.  First time a photograph of the F-117 was unveilled by the pentagon was 10 November 1988 by assistant secretary of defence for public affairs Daniel Howard.

First Combat action for the F-117 was in Panama on 19 December 1989 during Operation JUST CAUSE.  The strike was on PDF barracks in Rio Hato.  Aircraft flew non-stop from their base at the Tonopha airfield and dropped 2000 lbs LGBs.

Desert storm was in 1991


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2006)

I call bullshyte....plain and simple.

If your friend did call you from theater and told you that stuff as you say he did, that's an OPSEC violation and he will be charged for it. Well done rat.

You are going down a path....stop while you can.

Regards


----------



## JSR OP (2 Apr 2006)

I supose his friend brought his own Sat Phone......What does this so called friend of yours do?


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Apr 2006)

Well with all the knowledge this so called friend has I'm betting this friend is...

A Para/Recce/Sniper/Pathfinder/JTF2/Ninja of the super secret and elite unit know in some circles as RO of E

or RIGHT OUT of ER!

your done haywire move along!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Apr 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Haywire-  You are seconds away from being called "full of crap".  On the off chance that I slept away the last 21 years of my military service, I suppose that you can provide a link or two for the rest of us to learn about how Canada managed to operate a secret fleet of UAV bombers for the past 20 years- without me or anyone else here knowing about it.
> 
> Link up, or shut up.



Seaking--remember on another thread we were talking about the AH-130 Spooky and the video from it?  One of you flier types mentioned a new drone that may be replacing the Predator, and that it may be being carried on a Spooky.  Smaller, and no Hellfires, if I am remembering right (and it is entirely possible that I'm not).  If I'm not totally out to lunch, which drone was it you guys were talking about?  
On the off-chance Haywire isn't 100% off target...


----------



## aesop081 (2 Apr 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Seaking--remember on another thread we were talking about the *AH-130 * Spooky and the video from it?  One of you flier types mentioned a new drone that may be replacing the Predator, and that it may be being carried on a Spooky.  Smaller, and no Hellfires, if I am remembering right (and it is entirely possible that I'm not).  If I'm not totally out to lunch, which drone was it you guys were talking about?
> On the off-chance Haywire isn't 100% off target...



AC-130


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Apr 2006)

Okay, we established that I'm at least *partially* out to lunch.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Apr 2006)

Zipperhead,

I have no opinion on what may or may not be in service as a UAV in Afghanistan in conjunction with AC-130s- I just don't know enough, so I consider it to be outside my lane.

I was calling Haywire out on his claim that Canada invented a secret fleet of UAV bombers that have been operated for over 20 years.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...

Cheers, bud!


----------



## Armymedic (2 Apr 2006)

His brother is in 'ghan:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41666/post-359998.html#msg359998

I think, regardless of whether what you post is true or not, anything your brother tells you about what is going on there, should not be getting put on here by you.

Now remove you hotmail address from your profile so anyone who wants to can't find you.


----------



## Trinity (2 Apr 2006)

> Unfortunately, he's not allowed to tell me anything. He called this morning, and said he couldn't say when he'll be home on his mid-tour leave, but it would be soon. Hopefully, when he comes home this month, he'll be able to say more.



Apparently.. his brother isn't allowed to tell him anything! :


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Apr 2006)

I retract my statement on the ninja sniper thing if indeed his brother is in Afghanistan.

however the rest of the post's by Haywire in this thread are still Right out of er IMO


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Apr 2006)

I've seen an MQ-1L Predator with one of two AGM-114's remaining on its rails at KAF while loading up on a RAF Herc.  It is the only contender for what has been described that has been officially acknowledged as being in that theatre.  I also do not personally believe any variant of the Boeing YX-45 UCAV is operationally employed, nor would it be referred to by the antiquated term "drone"...that's very 60's-ish!  ;D

Info on US UAVs and missile systems

Pic of an X-45 prototype in flight: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/DVD-691-10.html

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2006)

Here's where some of the bigger booms appear to have come from (according to a Centcom news release, 30 Mar 06, http://tinyurl.com/m62vn ):

"ANA and Coalition ground forces engaged an estimated 20 enemy with small-arms fire. In addition, close-air support aircraft delivered 11 Joint Direct Attack Munitions on enemy positions."

UAVs, though, not in my lane...

Anyone who's interested in a summary of the media coverage, PM me.....


----------



## Journeyman (2 Apr 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> I've seen an MQ-1L Predator with one of two AGM-114's remaining on its rails at KAF while loading up on a RAF Herc.



Loading a Predator while "bombed up"? How twitchy were the Loadies?


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2006)

It happens all the time. They're used to it.   

AM....too late for him to remove his email address. 

If there is anyone on the site in theater reading his post about this....I'm sure his brother has already been sorted out.

*I still call BS though.....prove me wrong that there are UCAV being used in theater, specifcally during the defence of the FOB.

We're ALL waiting. *   :

Regards


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Apr 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Loading a Predator while "bombed up"? How twitchy were the Loadies?



 ;D

Yeah, JM...I know -- crappy grammar.  :-[   Should have said, "Whilst loading onto a RAF Herc, I had the opportunity to catch a gander of an MQ-1L Predator landing and taxiing with but a single Hellfire upon one of its two armament rails."  

I'm with Franko, must call BS on the "drone" (that being something other than a hot Predator) doing its business in the theatre.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

Since armed Predators are CIA assets (unless something has changed [damned Company cutting me out of the loop again]), they wouldn't have been deployed to the firefight unless there was some indication a high value target was somehow involved. ("Say, isn't that Osama calling in the mortars?" "Sure looks that way, call Bagram and scramble a drone".)

Given the known numbers and types of aircraft being used in theater, and the type of munitions described in the press (JDAMs), the reality was probably coalition F-15 or F-16s delivering the goods. 

Besides, wouldn't super secret stealth UAVs use phaser beams or mind control weapons?  ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Apr 2006)

I wonder if it was one of these.  I hear they are lethal, and are relentless hunters.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Apr 2006)

I believe that the US Airforce also employs them.


----------



## Franko (3 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Given the known numbers and types of aircraft being used in theater, and the type of munitions described in the press (JDAMs), the reality was probably coalition F-15 or F-16s delivering the goods.



They were probably Harriers based out of KAF as per the news reports.

The young troop obviously isn't very strong in his AFV....namely aircraft.

Regards


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Apr 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> I believe that the US Airforce also employs them.



I heard that too.  They are deployed out of Hoth Airbase.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Apr 2006)

"To fight the bug, we must understand the bug. We can ill afford another Klendathu."


----------



## Franko (3 Apr 2006)

All joking aside I still call........


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2006)

Still waiting for a link...


----------



## parkie (3 Apr 2006)

haywire.you are making me very uneasy,have you ever heard of a secrecy contract,well,trust me what you are doing is bordering on criminal.many people have worked tireless hours in the development of the uav's,to protect the people on the ground.If by a slim chance you should somehow stumble on or guess,what you think is going on,you should keep it to yourself.loose lips,sink ships,so to speak.

unclassified info on this project;Photo of 45B uav, can not land on flat deck.

    Nick -program specialist.Boeing.Northrop-Grumann.Lochheed.35 years


----------



## parkie (3 Apr 2006)

parkie said:
			
		

> haywire.you are making me very uneasy,have you ever heard of a secrecy contract,well,trust me what you are doing is bordering on criminal.many people have worked tireless hours in the development of the uav's,to protect the people on the ground.If by a slim chance you should somehow stumble on or guess,what you think is going on,you should keep it to yourself.loose lips,sink ships,so to speak.
> 
> unclassified info on this project;Photo of 45B uav, can not land on flat deck.
> 
> Nick -program specialist.Boeing.Northrop-Grumann.Lochheed.35 years


I can't believe I let you get to me so much I misspelled grumman and lockheed


----------



## Korus (3 Apr 2006)

Maybe he saw a Sperwer and assumed "delta wing" = "stealth" despite the... ahem.. prop and Bombardier Rotax engine? 
(Then with real air support dropping the JDAMs)


----------



## Blue Max (3 Apr 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Seaking--remember on another thread we were talking about the AH-130 Spooky and the video from it?  One of you flier types mentioned a new drone that may be replacing the Predator, and that it may be being carried on a Spooky.  Smaller, and no Hellfires, if I am remembering right (and it is entirely possible that I'm not).  If I'm not totally out to lunch, which drone was it you guys were talking about?
> On the off-chance Haywire isn't 100% off target...



Zipperhead, that was a Viper Strike glider bomb, that can be fitted to many different types of AC, including AC-130 or Predator. The Predator can carry two Viper Strikes for every one Hellfire.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40544.15.html

This thread sounds like such BS, for all the reasons already mentioned, IMHO.


----------



## JBP (3 Apr 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The F-117 first flew in *1981*.  It began life at Lockheed Skunkworks in 1977 under the "Have blue" project. In 1978 the "Senior Trend" program was launched  and resulted in 5 pre-production aircraft, the first of which made its first flight on 18 July 1981.  First time a photograph of the F-117 was unveilled by the pentagon was 10 November 1988 by assistant secretary of defence for public affairs Daniel Howard.
> 
> First Combat action for the F-117 was in Panama on 19 December 1989 during Operation JUST CAUSE.  The strike was on PDF barracks in Rio Hato.  Aircraft flew non-stop from their base at the Tonopha airfield and dropped 2000 lbs LGBs.
> 
> Desert storm was in 1991



Thank god you cleared that up for him, I was just about to launch into the same schpeel but it seems you had it at the ready! Watch and shoot as they say... I remembered the Stealth's first flight year because it's the year and MONTH I was born.

Some people really have no idea...

I'm pretty sure if his brother did tell him he saw a "stealth thing drone" he probably just assumed like any other person who doesn't know aircraft that well that it was a stealth because it's an odd looking aircraft. It was 99% most likely a predator that flew by, but seeing as Predator UAV's only carry 2 Hellfire missles as previously mentioned dozens of times, it was probably many coalition aircraft that dropped the JDAM's... Especially since Predators don't carry JDAM's..... 

 :

Out to lunch!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Apr 2006)

Has anyone seen a Phoenix gunship?  Found a thing on the net, wasn't sure if it was a proposal or an actual in service craft.  Looks like a serious piece of kit.  

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/HokieWorksPresV2.pdf

My limited knowledge of air craft suggested to me that it probably wouldn't be a low level attack craft.


----------



## parkie (4 Apr 2006)

Hi
This comes out of the military's request for a low-cost,support-gunship,with long loitering capabilities,meaning it can remain over target area for 3-4 hours,expend,return.I doubt the design will allow for operation under about 10,000 feet for any length of time.
It is only on paper.
One of my bud's across the border,who frequents the forum pointed out that I made a typo on my post for the picture of the uav on the flight deck and I see that he's correct.should read a pic of a 47B.sory for that

                                                                                                                   Nick


----------



## rvdklok (6 Apr 2006)

> In response to the heavy air-crew casualties suffered during the Vietnam conflict, a variety of small experimental aircraft were tested in the 1960s and 1970s to determine the feasibility of "stealthy" aircraft- vehicles incorporating design and materials technologies to reduce radar cross-section and obscure the signature of the aircraft.


http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/history.htm
I claimed it was a "stealth" didin't give the model of the plane.



> The Boeing X-45A demonstrator first flew in May 2002.



http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/
And here's a NASA website with plenty of photos of the x-45 if you don't think the previous site is a reliable source!!!!!!!!
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/photo/X-45A/index.html
Hmmm......looks like the x-45 has stealthing characteristics to me......

Okay......there's your proof that stealth type aircraft were being tested (airborne) in the 60's, AND that extensive testing has been done on a ucav that has similarities to a stealth. Now....if you'd take the noose off my neck....I'd appreciate it!
Nothing I've said was "top secret", NOR have I suggested that CANADA has any type of top secret Arial program! We all know that the US has tested, and scrapped MANY MANY different types of aircraft. And like I said earlier (even if my dates were messed up), the first time WE seen the stealth was in.....well.....I guess it was Panama now?
Anyway, the proof is on the NASA website....testing with chase craft.....complete.....weapons testing......complete......standard flight testing......complete.......MAYBE....just maybe....the plane is ready for combat...
I'll be checking back frequently to read all of the apologies.......

Oh....and as far as it being used in Afghanistan goes......
(From a Feb. 13th Article)


> Next month, Boeing will deliver the first of its new X45 pilotless bombers, with a 50-foot wingspan and the ability to refuel in midair. Northrop Grumman is working on an X47 model that's designed for use on an aircraft carrier.



http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13862793.htm


----------



## parkie (6 Apr 2006)

In your quest to appear to be in the know. You certainly take the guesswork out of anyone,having trouble finding info on the Uav's.It saves many the time,That don't have High speed and hours to surf.Thanks so much for all your info.

                                                                                                                            Nick


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire,

From your post of 02 Apr 06 on this topic:



> Canada created the first "remote control" bomber back in the early 80's. the Aircraft was NEVER used in combat, and was retired just last year (there were stories of it all over the news and in the papers), though I can't remember what the plane was called. Also, this aircraft was never made known to the public until it was retired last year.



Today you said:



> Nothing I've said was "top secret", NOR have I suggested that CANADA has any type of top secret Arial program! We all know that the US has tested, and scrapped MANY MANY different types of aircraft. And like I said earlier (even if my dates were messed up), the first time WE seen the stealth was in.....well.....I guess it was Panama now?



So, which is it?  

Friendly advice before a Mod puts a round into your "virtual" head- quit posting on this subject, while you are still ahead.


----------



## rvdklok (6 Apr 2006)

Well.....like I said....Canada retiring the UAV was all over the news, therefore it was obviously not "top secret". I've done enough Googling for the ignorant. My point has been made, I have proven the existance of a "stealth like" UCAV. What more do you want? Pay attention to what's going on in the world.


----------



## rvdklok (6 Apr 2006)

Oh.....Parkie....I believe in one of the articles I've just referenced to, the x-47 is supposedly being constructed for Aircraft Carrier Purposes. (speaking about your earlier post stating a 47b cannot land on a flight deck). You are correct however, that an x-45 is not capable of landing on an Aircraft Carrier....from what I've read anyways.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire-
I'm..going...to...speak...very...slowly...

What...Canadian...UAV? 

I've been in the Cdn military 21 years.  I follow the news very carefully.  Unless I was in a coma last year, no UAV was retired from Canadian Service.  To my knowledge, the only UAV to ever get into Canadian service has been the Sperwer (unless you count the BOMARC missile, which gets us into an interesting semantic argument between what a missile is and what a UAV is).

I'm done here...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2006)

OK troll, you have claimed a Canadian aircraft was "retired" last year and was "all over the news", but provide no link. Proof please, or stop making wild a**s statements.

Secondly, you have "proven" that the US has had drone aircraft in the military since the 1960s (there have been radio controlled target drones since the 1930s, and some consideration to using thems as weapons in the 1940s), which is hardly in question. You have also "proven" there are UACV experimental programs going on in the United States (hence the "X" designation), also hardly controversial. When the XB-45 is delivered, it will be delivered to Edwards AFB or some place similar for further testing and developing doctrine and TTPs.

You have provided *no proof * whatsoever that any sort of drone, UAV or UACV was involved in the battle, or anything beyond the CIA's armed Predators are even deployed in Afghanistan. I think the person who should be paying attention is YOU.


----------



## Jantor (6 Apr 2006)

I'm kinda reluctant to post this... considering....but there was the "Firebee" drone back in the old R.C.A.F. days.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

http://belcherbits.mondenet.com/72sets.html   [at bottom]

Doesn't look look "stealthy" stuff though.....


----------



## Jantor (6 Apr 2006)

Very true


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> ....from what I've read anyways.



Ah-Ha!

Another case of "from what I read" arguing with someone who "has done", "worked with/on", and/or "developed".  

Very interesting concept.  When will the two clues come together?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

> I'm kinda reluctant to post this... considering....but there was the "Firebee" drone back in the old R.C.A.F. days.



Firebee's, eh?  Haywire, watch how this is done-

Jantor- thanks very much for the information. I did not know that before. You learn something new each day...


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Apr 2006)

In the mid-1960s we purchased the AN/USD 501 drone from Canadair to equip a troop in 1 Locating Battery RCA which was based in Winnipeg. Unfortunately the battery was disbanded before the drone came into service so, as an interim measure circa 1968-1969 1 Drone Troop was formed in Shilo. The troop was soon axed as well, and the equipment was returned to stores.

The drone used a zero-length launcher mounted on a 2 1/2 ton truck and was programmed to fly a course with, I recall, four or five turns. It could turn its camera on and off twice during the flight. By today's standards it was pretty primitive, but it was on the leading edge then.

The drone was used by the British and German armies as well, so the formation of the drone troop may have been no more than a demonstration of support to Canadair.


----------



## Jantor (6 Apr 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Firebee's, eh?  Haywire, watch how this is done-
> 
> Jantor- thanks very much for the information. I did not know that before. You learn something new each day...



You're welcome

I seem to recall that the U.S.A.F used the Firebee in Vietnam for photo-reconnisance and I saw a picture of a Lanc with one slung under the wing in a magazine some time ago. 

I admit I missed the stealth part though. ;D


----------



## Korus (6 Apr 2006)

This sounds like what Old Sweat was refering to.
The CL-89 Midge and CL-289 –  Canadair’s Early Lead in Reconnaissance Drone Technology


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

Old Sweat- Thank you also.

I hang my head in shame.  Especially being a former Artillery Officer!


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Apr 2006)

SKT,

No reason to hang your head in shame. All this happened nearly 40 years ago when we wore fuzzy battledress.


----------



## rvdklok (6 Apr 2006)

Ok......so there have been drones in the past, and there are drones now..... What drones do what, and what they look like, are beyond me. However, in my original post, as I stated, I was told by a soldier who was involved in that firefight, that a drone carrying hellfire missiles, went airborne and lit up the ground. He described the drone as being.....and I quote...."like a stealth" in appearance. He used the stealth as a visual reference because he knew I know what a stealth is/looks like. I did some googling, and posted the original pic, not as being the exact aircraft, but as a similar concept..... A drone plane with stealth like characteristics.
That drone COULD have been any of the drones we've been debating about, or, it COULD have been a new drone, which is seeing it's first combat testing. Who knows.....all I know is what I've been told by someone who has NEVER lied to me about anything before in his life (that I know of anyway). 
Now......when do I get my "verbal warning" removed???


----------



## aesop081 (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> Ok......so there have been drones in the past, and there are drones now..... What drones do what, and what they look like, are beyond me. However, in my original post, as I stated, I was told by a soldier who was involved in that firefight, that a drone carrying hellfire missiles, went airborne and lit up the ground. He described the drone as being.....and I quote...."like a stealth" in appearance. He used the stealth as a visual reference because he knew I know what a stealth is/looks like. I did some googling, and posted the original pic, not as being the exact aircraft, but as a similar concept..... A drone plane with stealth like characteristics.
> That drone COULD have been any of the drones we've been debating about, or, it COULD have been a new drone, which is seeing it's first combat testing. Who knows.....all I know is what I've been told by someone who has NEVER lied to me about anything before in his life (that I know of anyway).
> Now......*when do I get my "verbal warning" removed???*



In about 2 seconds i'm going to get a verbal too as i am just about to "google" you a new atitude.  Your original source may never have lied to you but that doesnt mean he has any more of a clue about things that fly than you do.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> ............................................................................................................................
> Now......when do I get my "verbal warning" removed???



Might I suggest that you take the time now to read the Rules of Conduct for this site and find the answer to that question yourself.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

Quote from Haywire,
_Now......when do I get my "verbal warning" removed???_

Its in the PM I sent you,.......however you are partially correct, it might not last one week. :-X


----------



## rvdklok (6 Apr 2006)

The adress of this forum should be changed to www.army.cuba instead of army.ca, because this forum is communist at the very least. I make a statement, I back up my facts. I debate about a probable reality..... And now I'm being crucified! This country and our military is supposed to be based around honor, and integrity, and this forum is anything but.....
I have proven the existance of these things, and someone else has proven that Canada used different types of drones as well. I have also proven my fact that stealth aircraft were airborne in the 60's. Thankfully, I was not in Afghanistan with a digital camera during the first mentioned firefight, so I cannot prove EXACTLY what kind of aircraft we're talking about here. All I can do is relay an eyewitness report. 
I do think I deserve an explanation as to why everyone is so against me, and what I've said.....What have I said that's bad enough to have so many take it so personally?
I may not be a soldier, but I was a civillian contracted unarmed combat instructor for 2 years, where I trained unarmed combat instructors in NOTL (Back then it was a reserve base, UCA were sent there for my training. I believe the base is now either closed, or a military museum). I've worked with many soldiers of ALL ranks, and I'm telling you.....THIS is NOT the army way!
Now get mad and ban me if you wish, but you'll be banning me knowing that I've done nothing wrong, and though I MAY not have been right.....at the same time.....I was not wrong either.


----------



## monika (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> The address of this forum should be changed to www.army.cuba instead of army.ca, because this forum is communist at the very least.



If it was army.cuba you wouldn't be posting freely here and neither would the troops.



			
				Haywire said:
			
		

> I make a statement, I back up my facts. I debate about a probable reality.....



The difference is that you "debate" this with a group of people to whom it is not probable reality; these are the people who know the reality because they work with it day in, day out.



			
				Haywire said:
			
		

> All I can do is relay an eyewitness report.



That equates to "a friend of a friend of a friend." 



			
				Haywire said:
			
		

> I do think I deserve an explanation as to why everyone is so against me, and what I've said.....



It isn't usually what is said, but *HOW* it is said.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> The adress of this forum should be changed to www.army.cuba instead of army.ca, because this forum is communist at the very least. I make a statement, I back up my facts. I debate about a probable reality..... And now I'm being crucified! This country and our *military is supposed to be based around honor, and integrity*, and this forum is anything but.....
> I have proven the existance of these things, and someone else has proven that Canada used different types of drones as well. I have also proven my fact that stealth aircraft were airborne in the 60's. Thankfully, I was not in Afghanistan with a digital camera during the first mentioned firefight, so I cannot prove EXACTLY what kind of aircraft we're talking about here. All I can do is relay an eyewitness report.
> I do think I deserve an explanation as to why everyone is so against me, and what I've said.....What have I said that's bad enough to have so many take it so personally?
> I may not be a soldier, but I was a civillian contracted unarmed combat instructor for 2 years, where I trained unarmed combat instructors in NOTL (Back then it was a reserve base, UCA were sent there for my training. I believe the base is now either closed, or a military museum). I've worked with many soldiers of ALL ranks, and I'm telling you.....THIS is NOT the army way!
> Now get mad and ban me if you wish, but you'll be banning me knowing that I've done nothing wrong, and though I MAY not have been right.....at the same time.....I was not wrong either.



There is not a single serving or former member of the CF who needs a lesson from you on what military service means.  Since YOU have never served a single day in uniform.......STAY IN YOUR LANE


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

> The adress of this forum should be changed to www.army.cuba instead of army.ca, because this forum is communist at the very least. I make a statement, I back up my facts.



Oh, this is NOT going to be pretty...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2006)

OK

I'm lost (but making good time)!

Where is NOTL?  The Base you claim to be a Reserve Base.

Who are the ACU?  What does teaching them unarmed combat have to do with this topic?

Now on the question of facts; we still haven't got a reply to the source of this mysterious 'Drone Bomber' that was recently retired.  I am sure anyone with some time in the CF, would have heard about it.  Surely one of those people is on this site.  So far no confirmation or source has been provided.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

> Now on the question of facts; we still haven't got a reply to the source of this mysterious 'Drone Bomber' that was recently retired.  I am sure anyone with some time in the CF, would have heard about it.  Surely one of those people is on this site.  So far no confirmation or source has been provided.



Well, George- it was a "secret" bomber, after all!


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2006)

The "Army" way is to speak about the things you have direct knowledge of, ask questions on things you don't know and qualify any speculation etc.

WRT the firefight, you have not "proven" anything at all, simply repeated heresay evidence by someone who claims to have been there. (This being the internet, I can also claim to have been there, or anywhere else for that matter.) Since you are insisting we take an unsubstantiated report which is at almost complete varience with what people who actually work with this stuff or are in theater KNOW, then you should not be surprised the reaction is a bit........cold.

You jump around throwing out red herrings (UACV program, URL's of all kinds of related topics), but I notice *you have not backed any of your substantive claims * (Canadian UAV bomber retired last year, drone (of any sort) being used in support of the firefight). It may well be possible a drone was dispatched to observe, but as I have noted, only the CIA control the armed Predators, and they would be unleashed against an identified High Value Target (HVT) such as an AQ leadership figure.

Summary: you have "proven" nothing, and are debating about an alternative reality, not a probable, possible or (best of all) *real* reality.


----------



## rvdklok (6 Apr 2006)

> Since YOU have never served a single day in uniform.......STAY IN YOUR LANE


Like I said......I've trained men in uniform.....AND I pay thier wages.....which in tern support thier famillies! I am in my lane! Take a step back soldier! Soldiers bleed the same color blood as civillians! They are no different than the rest of us! Just because I run into burning buildings for a living instead of into a swealtering hot smelly desert, doesn't mean they're any better than I am, or visa versa. And my uniform's yellow......yours is green.....what's the difference??? We're all in the business of saving lives and trying to better humanity. While you may be overseas fighting the "dark skinned villian", it may be me running into a building to save one of your familly members! Don't you dare talk down to me like I'm just a "civie", because us "civies" are the ones taking care of YOUR loved ones while you're overseas! We're supposed to be one nation......not a country divided up of "Civies" and "Soldiers". People like you make me sick, and are also the reason why good soldiers are turned into legends! 

And a_majoor...... 


> WRT the firefight, you have not "proven" anything at all, simply repeated heresay evidence by someone who claims to have been there.


He watched one of his close friends die.....so have some respect and STFU!



> (Canadian UAV bomber retired last year, drone (of any sort) being used in support of the firefight).


Who the hell said that the UCAV was Canadian???? I seem to recall saying it was a U.S. Aircraft Dumbass!



> It may well be possible a drone was dispatched to observe, but as I have noted, only the CIA control the armed Predators


We're not talking about Predators.....they're old and slow, and can only carry 2 Hellfire missiles.....read the previous posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

Well turns out you were right Haywire, your "verbal warning" didn't last a week......


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2006)

Haywire said:
			
		

> Like I said......I've trained men in uniform.....AND I pay thier wages.....which in tern support thier famillies! I am in my lane! Take a step back soldier! Soldiers bleed the same color blood as civillians! They are no different than the rest of us! Just because I run into burning buildings for a living instead of into a swealtering hot smelly desert, doesn't mean they're any better than I am, or visa versa. And my uniform's yellow......yours is green.....what's the difference??? We're all in the business of saving lives and trying to better humanity. While you may be overseas fighting the "dark skinned villian", it may be me running into a building to save one of your familly members! Don't you dare talk down to me like I'm just a "civie", because us "civies" are the ones taking care of YOUR loved ones while you're overseas! We're supposed to be one nation......not a country divided up of "Civies" and "Soldiers". People like you make me sick, and are also the reason why good soldiers are turned into legends!



Don't ever come across with this attitude again.  "......AND I pay thier wages.....which in tern support thier famillies!"  We can say the same about you.  At the same time it gives you no right, even as a Tax Paying A-Hat to demand that things be open to you just because you Pay Friggin Taxes.

I'll use your own words...."People like you make me sick,......Don't you dare talk down to me......" and as for "...because us "civies" are the ones taking care of YOUR loved ones while you're overseas!"; well you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

Time for you to take a Siesta, before you rile up the rest of the CF.......................don't even bother coming up with a smart arse reply......it'll only inflame me and others more.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2006)

Darn..................Not fast enough...............


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

I locked this one in haste as it has produced some good info that many of us had no idea about.......but please keep it on topic. [Drones, if I can remember back that far]


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2006)

Man, that was cool.  I got to watch Bruce ban him in realtime...


----------



## parkie (6 Apr 2006)

Jantor said:
			
		

> You're welcome
> 
> I seem to recall that the U.S.A.F used the Firebee in Vietnam for photo-reconnisance and I saw a picture of a Lanc with one slung under the wing in a magazine some time ago.


yes back to drone's.
also in use back then was a russian made jet engine drone,can't remember the name exactly,The chinese ended up using them for their,projects,using reverse engineering,Now it comes to me, a Lavochin,I beleive I spelled that right,could fly about 600 mph .

                                                                                                                         Nick


----------



## Tricycle (7 Apr 2006)

Hello gentlemen/ladies

I've been a lurker on the site for a while and have posted on occasion; however through my own negligence forgot both my original handle and password form over a year ago.

I have had the opportunity to work as the Troop Commander for the Surveillance and Target Acquisition Troop at the FAS (Field Arty School) and have had some exposure to UAV's now... 

One possible drone that haywire was talking about (and -with a generous stretch- may have been one of the only credible things he spouted) was the CL-227 Sentinel "Flying Peanut" http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cl-327.htm (hopefully link works, I'm new to this)  the Peanut started with the Locating Troop at the Arty School in 1988, and there is one sitting in the main hall there now...

More recent UAV applications besides the Sperwer have included the Silver Fox (mini UAV) http://www.acrtucson.com/UAV/silverfox/index.htm a joint project between Army and Navy, and was a test bed for different technologies and Applications, not operational.  Another is the Vindicator target Drone that was a AD target that has now been modified by Meggitt Defence Systems Canada, to carry a payload and is currently in use by my troop as a surrogate Small UAV Trainer.  The most recent acquisition is the Isreali Elbit Systems Sky Lark UAV, that will become operational likely before year end. http://www.elbitsystems.com/lobmainpage.asp?id=764

Cheers.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Apr 2006)

Tricycle,

Thank you very much for the update. As a mud gunner from the bad old days, and an ex-CIG, it is gratifying to see real progress after many years of wheel spinning and frustration. I was on RV 89 when the then ad hoc drone troop learned that it was for the chop. The TSM, who had been my driver in Germany many years before, asked me to talk to the NCMs as their collective morale was lower that whale poop. (That may have really been a dumb idea, but I think I was able to convince them what goes around, comes around.)


----------



## parkie (7 Apr 2006)

that is a great link ,thank you,I have never been able to see a picture of  the sentinel,

                                                                                                                        Nick


----------



## BernDawg (8 Apr 2006)

Is there not one sitting in the hallway at the school in Gtown? (sentinel that is)


----------



## aesop081 (8 Apr 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Is there not one sitting in the hallway at the school in Gtown? (sentinel that is)



Look a couple of posts above yours......


----------



## A O G 101 (8 Apr 2006)

parkie said:
			
		

> also in use back then was a russian made jet engine drone,can't remember the name exactly,The chinese ended up using them for their,projects,using reverse engineering,Now it comes to me, a Lavochin,I beleive I spelled that right,could fly about 600 mph .
> 
> Nick


I beleive this is what you were speaking about parkie, The lavochkin La-17c,after the vietnam war. The chinese converted it from ramjet to turbo,they used reverse engineering to produce it and simple changed the style of the engine. A very fast uav .       


http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/uav/ck1.asp


----------



## Crazy8s (11 Apr 2006)

Ok.....I'm new here, and not very knowledgeable in the military field.....however, I am well educated, and know that the US Military ALWAYS has something up it's sleeve. Is it not POSSIBLE that a new drone is seeing it's first real combat testing??? "IF" this is the case, and it's the first real combat testing, is it protocol for ALL Canadian soldiers to be notified of new weaponry by an allied country? Or would they only notify the soldiers that would be directly involved with the testing....ie: soldiers in the field where the weapon will be tested??? Knowing what the US is like, I would assume that they would want to keep it as quiet as possible, so that if it doesn't work, the entire world isn't watching it fail on live TV or something... I did a quick search on Google on the x-45 and found some really interesting information on this craft, and though there are no new articles on Boeing's website, it appears as though as of 2005, these new UCAV's passed all of thier testing (performed at Edward's Airforce Base) with flying colors. Here's the site I did most of my reading on.....
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/index.html

Basically, I'd like to know what reasons those of you who are in the Forces, have for not believing this "report"? (Other than "Haven't seen it with my own two eyes.") What is military protocol for informing current non combatantants (those of you who aren't stationed in the warzone where the testing will take place) about new technology? For example, how were the Canadian Forces notified about the Stealth? Before, or after it's first successfull mission in Panama? And, if you were notified before the mission, do you have factual evidence that it was NEVER used in combat prior to Panama? (just looking for a yes or no answer on that last question....not fishing for classified information.)
Thanks in advance for enlightening me.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2006)

Well Haywire

As we have explained to you before, with colaboration from an engineer who actually worked in the field, we find the evidence a little hard to believe.  





On another note; would you like to come clean with your ID?


----------



## scoutfinch (11 Apr 2006)

I guess haywire and his other personalities are unfamiliar with the notion of IPs being logged.


----------



## Trinity (11 Apr 2006)

It's not very pastoral to make light of this situation. I think it's quite sad
that an individual would have to MAKE UP information, let alone a second 
account to argue such a minuscule point to begin with.

However, I left the collar at work today, so I'm laughing quite hard at this one.


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Apr 2006)

BAD Padre BAD!!!!!  ;D


Haywire, perhaps you should re think your Recce on this, you seem to be compromised, I suggest you Pop smoke and run.

(hopefully far far away so as to never be seen again)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2006)

No need for this. Please knock it off, and keep the thread on track.


----------



## parkie (11 Apr 2006)

Haywire?
How’s it goin bud?let’s not get into a match of one upping the other guy.over nothing. whatever is out there let’s you and me keep it our little secret? Okay? Friends?    

If I knew giving out the number for the local pizza hut might even the smallest little chance put somebody  in danger or lessen their chances of success,you won’t get squat out of me.
 In times like this,while we have fellow Canadians and Americans in harms way,no use trying to make things worse for them over nothing.I think we all noted how closely prying eyes keep track of our politics,one can bet they are watching other things as well,Why  take the chance of putting friends any further in danger over idle gossip.While it is nice to converse with people of the same plane of thought,and be able to hold an open an for the most part civil debate,Remember how powerful of a tool the Internet is,and it’s there for everyone with access to outside communications.you take care there bud! remember there's self gratification in knowing.
.
                                                                                            Nick

                                                                             drone's anyone?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2006)

I just finished reading "Not a Good Day to Die : The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda " by Sean Naylor http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425196097/102-8738411-6776954?v=glance&n=283155, which had some interesting information about the use of the Predator in the Sha-i-kot valley in 2002.

This is a quick and dirty summary;

1. Predators were used for the initial recce of the valley, and during the battle. As well, they were used by SF units in particular to scout ahead of convoys driving down the road.

2. The Taliban and AQ fighters in the region may well have been tipped that something was up, since the Predators have a distinctive audio signature ("a loud buzzing like a lawm mower engine").

3. Using them during the battle was a mixed blessing. The chain of command was fragmented, so information the Predators could see wasn't being passed or passed in a timely manner to those who could use it. It also created dangerous miscommunications, since people attached to a Predator feed seemed to feel they had full situational awareness (SA), when this was not the case.

4. During the battle, airspace management was an issue, especially with helicopters, "Fast Movers" and high altitude bombers moving through the same airspace. Flying into a friendly A/C, bomb or missile can spoil an otherwise good day.

5. In the entire period under report, there is only ONE instance of an armed predator making an appearance and striking a target. In this case, it is unclear why the CIA had an armed Predator in play (although there were rumors that high value targets might be in the Sha-i-kot, confirmation was never forthcoming). In any event , they released it to help out the SOF troops trapped on the peak of the Takur Ghar. One Hellfire was expended to give the troops on the ground a sense of how well it could shoot, and the second Hellfire destroyed a bunker.

Food for though about the real life use of drones.


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2006)

What's the drone that can loiter for hours. There was talk and sound bits of it at the start of the Iraq war, but have not seen much since. Is that the predator?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2006)

The Predator can loiter for a few hours, see: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122.

Perhaps you are thinking of the "Global Hawk", which is an airliner sized drone for strategic recce:http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175


----------



## parkie (12 Apr 2006)

most likely northrop's tierII global hawk
                             nick


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2006)

thanks, appreciated


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Apr 2006)

Nick...if you are going to continue to post here please get your own account and seperate it from parkies. Thanks!


----------



## A O G 101 (13 Apr 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nick...if you are going to continue to post here please get your own account and seperate it from parkies. Thanks!


Sorry about that!


----------

