if it was consistent then I wouldn't be replying... :)

1) we don't have a stock of suitable pilots to raid - period.  the RAAF is already a profile subset of an international force at a genetic level.
2) we don't need to use pilots as they aren't the profile that best suits the job - in fact they can be a burden rather than a benefit due to embedded training and spatial disconnects

and it's not what I say, apart from the issue of local resourcing, the issue of relevancy for the discipline is what all the recent traffic indicates across numerous disparate militaries....

finding people who are suitable for UAV teams is just a different taxation issue - it's still hard to do (esp for complex persistent missions).

your ORBAT is not even remotely close.

you need to start wishing in practical terms - the blue sky stuff 'aint going to happen - esp in the current govt.

Have I complemented you recently our ability to post impressive sounding bueraucratic double-speak, whilst simultaneously completely missing the point of the post that you are responding too?

if you want to appear impressive, then at least have the decency to improve your grammar and spelling. 
after a deliberate absence I note your arrogance and self importance still shine for all to see.

How about ignoring my posts as I'm sure to ignore yours from this point on....  I'm sure the others are bored with your need to joust for no purpose... 

 

Actually I do ignore certain posters here when they insist on continuing stupid arguements. The reason that I am more inclined to respond to you is that I have higher regard for you than them. Your habit of retreating into jargon filled posts and ignoring the actual point of the conversation during a disagreement does frustrate the hell out of me. However, there are worse crimes and I shouldn't have aired my frustrations in such a sh1tty manner. For that I apologise.

no need to apologise.

I do not come here to engage in pi$$ing contests.  If we're both not meeting eye to eye then we're both better served by ignoring each other. 

Suit yourself, though for the record I don't see the purpose of robust debate as being a "pissing contest", rather it is a good way of bringing out the issues in a way that won't happen if everybody here just backslaps.

Suit yourself, though for the record I don't see the purpose of robust debate as being a "pissing contest", rather it is a good way of bringing out the issues in a way that won't happen if everybody here just backslaps.

.......we haven't  figured out what makes a good  UAS  operator  yet . So  how do you know who is qualified to be part of the talent pool?

We haven't medically defined the characteristics of a good UAS operator. We've just begun to Human factor engineer him and design for him the appropriate control systems.

We suspect that he'll be a geek, but what kind of a geek? There is more than one variety of geek out there you know. Will he  be a stolid number cruncher geek, or an intuitive  reacting to visual stimulus geek?

Will he be a left brain or right brain dominant geek?  Will he intuit or calculate? Remember since he time lags through telemetry and he lacks 360 degree sense awareness of everything around him in his telepresence, he has to take the very limited data he has and make sense of it to avoid crashing his aircraft into things. He has to pre-plan EVERYTHING  he attempts.even more-so than a pilot because, at least the pilot can look around with his own eyes to see what's going in outside the canopy as he runs into the side of a cliff.

If the geek is lucky he'll have a set of cameras that will show him into what the UAS, he supervises, is about to crash about a half second ago. He might even be able to prevent it, if he can override the mission instruction software in time.

Herald