yutyut
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
> Everyone seems to be an expert today.
Pot meet kettle?
Speaking as a former helicopter gunship weapons and tactics instructor (WTI), this is a VERY broad generalization. Sure, a gunship can shoot down a drone with 20mm or 30mm but you have to get pretty close. And first you have to find it.
Other factors 1. target altitude 2. air superiority (MANPADS is a real threat over land) 3. marksmanship
It might be more effective to throw AIM-9s on helos and target drones that way...but depending on the generation of missile those run ~$300k each and the inventory is limited.
I have heard the Ukrainians are using APKWS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon...) against drone to good effect from ground and air platforms.
I agree. Developing my own technical proficiency and teaching the next generations has been the only thing keeping me going in an organization otherwise wrought with inefficiency and stupidity. In my experience aviation is fairly unique in this aspect (in the context of the military writ large).
The answer appears to be 2013/14 by Syrian Rebels fighting against the Syrian Army.
https://www.quora.com/Warfare-When-was-the-last-time-a-catap...
1. "Stay ahead of the aircraft."
i.e. anticipate and manage administrative (or tactical) minutiae to put yourself in the best possible position when the tempo increases.
2. "Aviate, aviate, aviate...then navigate and communicate" (already mentioned).
This is commonly used during a crew brief prior to a flight, particularly when discussing emergency procedures. Focus on the most critical thing (EP immediate action items, keeping the bird aloft, not hitting lead or the ground) and when that's done, use your remaining bandwidth to complete the 'nice-to-have' items (e.g. keeping the flight on course, a MAYDAY call, or an advisory call to the flight/controller). I like to really emphasize the aviate portion during my briefs. Junior pilots have a tendency to try and do all three things simultaneously which can compound an already bad situation.
"Waveoff's are free."
If you see a landing going bad, don't hesitate to use a mulligan.
*Free as in you won't be judged for choosing to 'go-around' but will be held accountable if you push a bad situation that you could have prevented through better judgement.
Get-there-itis: Wanting to accomplish something (e.g. get to a cool destination or hit a time on target) so badly that you will accept unnecessary risk in order to achieve whatever you're trying to do. Many aviation (and life) mishaps are the indirect result of get-there-itis; most notably, accepting poor weather or an aircraft with maintenance issues.
This is kind of fun and I could go on...
Turns out he was the top student in the program and I would guess this was due in part to his willingness to ask questions and lack of fear in asking them in front of a room. He helped me get through an Operating Systems course the next semester.
More importantly, he showed a young me that asking questions is actually a sign of maturity and intellectual honesty and that what the peanut gallery thinks is of little consequence. That lesson has served me well in the last decade. He's now a PhD at a major research university and a close friend.
Taking off with 1 of 2 engines is a lot different than taking off with inoperative avionics. The FAA and airlines dictate what minimum equipment is required for any given aircraft to be airworthy and it’s a fairly robust document that takes into account myriad situations and flight conditions.
Thanks for sharing.
And yes, find and fix with a strategic radar platform. It's tough to set up DCA (defensive counter-air) lanes with helicopters; they're slow and most need to refuel on the ground (an argument could be made for using H-60's. Some variants can refuel in the air).
Depending on the threat picture, it could be feasible to set helos up to defend naval assets or use them like Israel has been to defend land-based high-value assets.