# 13 kg UAV to Fly at 132,000 ft for weeks?



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2005)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,1-1502838,00.html



> The ultra-light Zephyr 3 is expected to climb to 132,000ft â â€ more than 36,000ft higher than any other unmanned aircraft. The plane weighs only 26 ½lb â â€ the same as a one-year-old child â â€ despite its 40ft wingspan.





> Zephyr 3 has five tiny 1kW electric motors to power its propellers, fuelled by solar panels on long carbon composite wing frames.
> 
> An industry source said planes such as the Zephyr were able to store solar power for use at night, allowing them to stay aloft for weeks.
> 
> If the project succeeds, military officials believe they could eventually have squadrons of Zephyr 3 unmanned drones providing continuous radio, telephone or photo coverage over crisis areas ranging from battlefields to natural disasters.


----------



## Buzz (27 Feb 2005)

I'm curious as to what I would need in order to fly one of these UAVs.  I play a lot of flight sim games IE) MS flight simulator and Janes Anthology (not supported anymore) but still an excellent flight sim.  Would these be taken into account??  Or would I have to be a pilot?

Just a question...for future reference.

Cheers
-Buzz


----------



## Zoomie (27 Feb 2005)

I don't think anyone "flies" these UAVs...  Programmed routes and profiles usually are the norm for these types of equipment.

In a CF context, I believe all UAV's are falling under the auspices of 1 Wing - therefore most likely the operators would be Pilots.


----------



## Air4ce (27 Feb 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone "flies" these UAVs...   Programmed routes and profiles usually are the norm for these types of equipment.
> 
> In a CF context, I believe all UAV's are falling under the auspices of 1 Wing - therefore most likely the operators would be Pilots.



Hey Zoomie, isn't that a bit of overkill, having a trained pilot fly a box?  Why spend millions of dollars training pilots to wings standards if all they are going to do is "fly" a UAV on programmed routes and profiles?  Shouldn't we be saving the real pilots for the real planes?  There's not enough of you to go around now as it is.


----------



## Buzz (27 Feb 2005)

Air4ce said:
			
		

> Hey Zoomie, isn't that a bit of overkill, having a trained pilot fly a box?   Why spend millions of dollars training pilots to wings standards if all they are going to do is "fly" a UAV on programmed routes and profiles?   Shouldn't we be saving the real pilots for the real planes?   There's not enough of you to go around now as it is.



That's kinda what I thought.  Apparently if i'm not mistaken i thought i read somewhere that te UAV's they have in Iraq are piloted remotely (obviously) out of Nevada.  Damn and i wish i had that link to back this up...oh well.  

But who says that you have to have your wings in order to fly a big remote controlled plane with cool gadgets. 

-Buzz


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

Most UAV "Pilots" I have seen and met don't have wings.  They tend to be young and lacking in rank, but very effective.


----------



## Buzz (27 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Most UAV "Pilots" I have seen and met don't have wings.   They tend to be young and lacking in rank, but very effective.



Very interesting.....very interesting indeed.   ;D ;D

How does one become involved in something like this??

-Buzz


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

Most of the ones I saw were Yanks, so there's an obvious answer there.  The Army types I met in the UK had it as part of their trade.  Canada, I have no idea.  Anyone?

I also found it interesting that Canada was one of the early leaders in UAV's.


----------



## Buzz (27 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Most of the ones I saw were Yanks, so there's an obvious answer there.   The Army types I met in the UK had it as part of their trade.   Canada, I have no idea.   Anyone?
> 
> I also found it interesting that Canada was one of the early leaders in UAV's.



No kidding?  I'm actually beside myself because it was something that slipped my mind that I've been meaning to ask.  I've been playing flight sims sinse '97 and yes logged a lot of hours.   Jane's I understand was the only gaming company out of the pentagon and even came with a basic flight manual.    I'm going to let the cat out of the bag.  I'm 28 ...not so young in a sense but was entrigued by the fact that using these for recce or apart of a recce crew could be possible.   

I'm very interested in finding out how I could become involved in this.....I should've brought it up in my interview at CFRC, but, thought it would hinder my interview telling the interviewer "yeah i play flight sims in my spare time too" I'm already accepted to BMQ for April 5th for 011 and looking at options that I can offer when appropriate. 

-Buzz


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

You have asked here, let's hope that someone here has the answer.


----------



## Armageddon (28 Feb 2005)

I don't know if anyone will be able to find any proof anywhere for me (please) but the latest that I had ever heard was that they wanted to get nav's doing the job


----------



## Inch (28 Feb 2005)

The Arty was flying the UAVs in Afghanistan, and the trials done during Ex Narwhal were flown by pilots from Shearwater and a few other places. As far as I know, 1 RCHA is still tasked with flying the the Sperwers out of Shilo, or at least they will be when they get new ones.


----------



## big bad john (3 Mar 2005)

CIA DRONES FLYING OVER IRAN
Usually, hunting for missiles and reactors from the sky would be a job for the Air Force. But those spy drones that are flying over Iran, looking for nukes -- they belong to the CIA, according to Aviation Week.


"They are using the I-Gnat and Predator [drones that the CIA] used early in the Afghanistan war... They focus on small areas, and that's what they need to find those dispersed [nuclear weapons development] sites," a senior Air Force official says. "The data are sent back to Beale [Air Force Base in California, via satellite]... The information is then separated by its code word [prefix] and sent to the proper agency."

Beale is the major intelligence exploitation center; processed information is then distributed, often by secure landline, to other bases such as Indian Springs auxiliary airfield near Las Vegas, where Predator missions are controlled. 

The CIA [was the] first [American agency to use] armed Predators, although flown remotely by [Air Force] pilots, that were launched on combat missions from bases in Uzbekistan. Since both the Army and Air Force now operate similar [drones], the CIA's small fleet could be flown from the same bases in the theater or from small bases in remote areas of Afghanistan or Iraq. 

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001413.html


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Mar 2005)

Well, from a pilot's point of view (and in 1 Wing to boot), I can honestly say (personal opinion) that I don't think it takes a pilot to fly these things....or a nav, for that matter.   

I think there are a couple of things happening here: 

1) historical legacy stuff from when there wasn't very good on-board flight control software to make the things fly stably...the operator actually had the "fly" the UAV, not just guide it along a path from point to point, or program in a pre-determined flight path; and

2) The requirement for the operation in general to be conducted in accordance with (in the CF's case) the Canadian Aeronautics Act.   There's a lot of stuff that goes along with operating an aircraft, manned or not.

That's not to say that the CF can't (as many other militaries have already done, as noted above) develop a capability and have an appropriate.   It's just that it seems that the quick answer the CF is looking act now leverages off every CF pilot's clear understanding or Air Regs, not only military but civilian airspace.   I firmly believe, however, that that does not in anyway mean that with the proper development of structure and training to instill existing aeronautical responsibilities and accountabilities to UAV operators / controllers / commanders, that we can't have something along the lines of a UAV-operator MOC.   Honestly, with how UAV's are developing, including fully stabilized flight along pre-programmed routings and even how immediate changes to flight routes are effected, etc..., I see no reason why anybody properly trained (officer/NCM, pilot/UAV Op) can't run these things.   Some of the most critical points in operating a UAV are actually in pre-planning, understanding where the UAV will be operating and how to integrate it into air operations (helos and fixed wing) as well as indirect fires (hey, look, a pilot thinking about the "little bullet in the big sky" thing! ;D )

This also focuses on the larger UAVs.  How will UAV's (micro, supermicro) be operated....to be honest, I see no problems with having soldiers on the ground operate these things, in particular at the Company-level and below.  We have some really sharp young kids in the Army these days, and for people to think that they wouldn't be capable of operating small UAVs in support of their Company, Platoon or det/section is just small-minded.  Let them use these smaller UAV's to keep an eye on there fellow soldiers as they patrol through the Urban Canyons, keep an eye on their buds to support low-level C2 when they conduct their search and cordons, etc...  Never undersetimate the keen-ness and competency of the soldier!

It should be interesting to see how the UAV thing develops in the CF.   Hopefully minds will be open to innovative thinking on the issue (and maybe there can be consideration of NCM aviators as well, like in the US Army....OOPS - BIG POT'O'WORMS alert!   Was that my "inside voice"?   ;D ;D ;D )

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## The Brit (18 Mar 2005)

Who is in control of UAVs is under major review in the UK.   We have ended up in the situation where JNCO gunners fly them for the Army and the RAF uses full-up pilots (mainly Multi-engine but some are fast jet and rotary).   Someone, or both of us, have it wrong.

The truth is that modern military airspace has changed a great deal from the SupPlan Mike days (if anyone old enough to remember that!).   We used to presume that military ops would be conducted in airspace free of normal traffic.   For all of you that have served in AFG will have seen the somewhat strange experience of flying bombing missions whilst mixing it with civie traffic.   With the proliferation of UAVs we are now having more and more AirProx with UAVs vs Manned Hardware.   Although this new age of Network Warfare sounds good, the truth remains that the Mk1 eyeball is still used as a sensor.   See and Avoid rules fall down if only some of you have eyes.

The only truth we have found so far is that Recce Navs make the best sensor operators for UAVs, a rather rare asset.   But we have fantastic (and poor) ground Intel blokes doing the same.   As for the best 'pilots' well who knows.   As we start putting UAV stations in the back of transport aircraft we will soon be in the strange position of a military pilot being in one aircraft, flying another by remote control and not being able to log either time in his flying log book.

Spent yesterday at a conference where, amongst other things, we were trying to get our heads around AAR from manned tankers to UAVs.   Going to be an interesting decade...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2005)

A few years ago an Israeli told us that they were trying to figure out if there was any one group which _should_ 'fly' UAVs â â€œ which they were, already using as weapons.   He told us about some of the moral/psychological difficulties which some IDF personnel experienced when told to kill _remotely_; he then noted that young women, late 'teens/early twenties, seemed to have a good mix of attention to detail, patience and _sangfroid_ which made them, regardless of military speciality, useful UAV 'pilots.'

I did not bother tracking the issue; not in my (retired, even then) part of the ship, but this discussion, especially the _network warfare_ comment, brought it to mind.


----------



## Buzz (22 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> A few years ago an Israeli told us that they were trying to figure out if there was any one group which _should_ 'fly' UAVs â â€œ which they were, already using as weapons.  He told us about some of the moral/psychological difficulties which some IDF personnel experienced when told to kill _remotely_; he then noted that young women, late 'teens/early twenties, seemed to have a good mix of attention to detail, patience and _sangfroid_ which made them, regardless of military speciality, useful UAV 'pilots.'
> 
> I did not bother tracking the issue; not in my (retired, even then) part of the ship, but this discussion, especially the _network warfare_ comment, brought it to mind.



In a way, this is my case in point, for I'm thoroughly interested in becoming part of a UAV team or in the operation of one.

One point I would like to make, which make elaborate a debate, is in another thread about video games and the army.    
We have first person shooter games and a comparison to what a soldier would do possibly in a real life situation.  I'm not saying one way or another if it does compare to a real life situation.  Personally, I enjoy first person shooter games but wouldn't make that comparision because I've never been a soldier (yet). I'm more in the strategy games like Age of Empires, Empire Earth and Command and Conquer. Besides the point.  With this in mind, we have flight simulation games that hone the skills of a pilot in different situations. Practice.  Pilots have the the same simulation technology that an average person can get for their home PC, except for the fancy hydralics for effect.  These teens and people, that are in their 20's, operating UAV's had to have the fundamental knowledge built somewhere,  no?  

Also, this leads to my next question:
1) How would I become involved in something like this as myself going into 011? 
2) Are there courses that i would have to take?
3) Do I have to talk to someone?  If so, who?

Basically, any guidance and incite would be much appreciated!  I do however understand that the operation of one of these is not a video game.  But a real life situation just to eliminate any doubt.

Thank you in advance!

Cheers!!
-Buzz


----------



## ArmyAviator (23 Mar 2005)

Zoomie - 1 Wing is only getting the TUAV.  A long drawnout political argument led to this.  To make a long story short the decision was that if the Air Force was going to run the UAV's then the Army insisted that the ones they bought for their use be given to 1 Wing.

The Strategic or operational level UAV support such as global hawk is still being worked on.  It won't be run by 1 Wing.  Who will run it?  Good question ???

Like Duey said.  For expediency it is necessary to have a pilot as part of the UAV team.  This brings all the knowledge of flying regs, airspace coord, etc, etc to the table quickly.  It doesn't mean that it has to stay that way.  Nor does it mean that everyone involved has to be a pilot.  From my understanding of Canadian Air Regs a pilot may have to remain a part of the team if we intend to fly any UAV in civilian airspace.  Note that the rule is a "pilot".  It doesn't say what type.  Can we send UAV techs to a civy flight school and get them a basic private pilots licence and some IFR trg?  Perhaps, more questions will have to be answered.


----------



## Buzz (20 Jun 2005)

Hello I would like to rekindle this fire on some questions of how to become involved in a UAV program.  Any Info or guidance would be welcomed graciously.

Cheers 
-Buzz


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Jun 2005)

An article from WIRED.com 

Seems well balanced http://wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/drones.html

Think what this could do to law enforcement - flying up and down mainstreet or patrolling certain neighborhoods - or - sending in a drone ahead of the cops....... 

I don't like that license plate and radio ahead to the next Tim Hortons for backup  Roger.........


----------



## JBP (20 Jun 2005)

ArmyAviator said:
			
		

> Zoomie - 1 Wing is only getting the TUAV.  A long drawnout political argument led to this.  To make a long story short the decision was that if the Air Force was going to run the UAV's then the Army insisted that the ones they bought for their use be given to 1 Wing.
> 
> The Strategic or operational level UAV support such as global hawk is still being worked on.  It won't be run by 1 Wing.  Who will run it?  Good question ???
> 
> Like Duey said.  For expediency it is necessary to have a pilot as part of the UAV team.  This brings all the knowledge of flying regs, airspace coord, etc, etc to the table quickly.  It doesn't mean that it has to stay that way.  Nor does it mean that everyone involved has to be a pilot.  From my understanding of Canadian Air Regs a pilot may have to remain a part of the team if we intend to fly any UAV in civilian airspace.  Note that the rule is a "pilot".  It doesn't say what type.  Can we send UAV techs to a civy flight school and get them a basic private pilots licence and some IFR trg?  Perhaps, more questions will have to be answered.



I think you've got a good idea about sending UAV techs to civy flight school or I suppose hiring people that already possess those and similar abilities. That would be expensive though, as is any aviation training, even ground school. I suppose we can keep dreaming the military will get that nice 12Billion in 4 years!  :-\


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jun 2005)

I think things will eventually move to tactical operators running UAVs, especially mini, micro and even smaller UAVs.  Frankly, a pilot doesn't actually fly the UAV to "keep wings level" and the like, he/she runs the UAV in a number of modes from AUTO: follow a pre-planned, pre-loaded route, to SEMI-AUTO: changing some way points real-time or initiation pre-programmed loiter manoeuvres, etc..., to "oh-crap-we-just-lost-link-and-now-we-have-to-see-where-the-darned-thing-is-heading!"  Last mode is a bit of humour, but different systems have different responses to things like major systems malfunctions or lost-link, etc...  I can't recall what Sperwer does specifically, so I can't even guess.

Overall, the pilot has an appreciation afor airspace ctrl and all the other nause, but as ArmyAviator said, and I agree fully, there's no reason when switched on folks in many organizations can't get the required training (moderate understanding of platform, good understanding of airspace co-ord and interaction at particular flight-levels.  I see no reason at all why this couldn't be a capable NCM.  I suppose we'll see how this TUAV thing shakes out in 1 Wing first and where it goes from there.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Buzz (7 Sep 2005)

Been a while sinse I've been in here and doing some follow ups .  This has been some great info for a bit of insight on what could be planned to become part of a team.  But then there are always the almighty question of who to talk to to fulfill this.  Ie) great ideas for going to a civy school for basic flight,  but who makes that decision and how can I send a "memo" to this person? 

Cheers!!
-Buzz


----------

