GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Unmanned aerial vehicles get funding boost

• 40015
  

  I was an Internal Operator for a UAV system in the Marines. It doesn't take as many people that you may think. Among the majority of the manned aviation squarons, the average number of people that maintain, operate, and provide aircrew to a squadron of aircrafts comes to be over 100 people. For a fleet, not squadron, of UAVs, it would take approx 90 people to complete the task of the same degree as the manned aircraft. Yes, the UAVs may cost around $900,000, and may take a bit more money to maintain them, but last time I checked, a fighter jet runs close to 100 billion, maybe more. Check the latest on the new F-35 and the maintenance costs run a lot more than a UAV... guaranteed. You are absolutely right about the probability of mishap. The same goes for manned aviation. But, I guarantee that there has never been a death due to a UAV, unless the bird crashed into personnel. So, I believe that we as a nation should continue to come up with monies to fund the building, testing, operation, and maintenance of these vehicles.

  William Boudrow Posted December 18, 2007 6:44 PM
• 26114
  

  I have a background in Aviation in both the military and civilian arenas and have to concur with the first comment. UAV's where intended to replace manned aircraft when the Area of Operations was too high risk for crewed aircraft. I hardly see where it is beneficial or cost effective to send a UAV (with it's necessary logistical support, ground stations, etc) where a teenaged pilot in a Civil Air Patrol Cessna 152 or a larger, manned aircraft could do the job just as well.

  Allan Posted June 20, 2007 8:57 AM
• 19202
  

  After reading this article, and the first two comment postings, I am reminded of the millions of dollars that were directed at the military, lobbyists, and the private sector to "fight" the "drug war." We are no further ahead of that "controlled conflict" today than we were in the mid 1980s.

  Of course, we find the headlines of the day focusing on illegal immigration. To that end, millions of taxpayer dollars will be directed to corporations in an effort to build a better mousetrap and develop "smart technology."

  Does anyone really believe that any of these systems are stand-alone systems without benefit of human logistical support and decisions? No one has really asked the hard questions here. Just how many people does it take to put a UAV airborne? Once answered (and it is more than manned flight), those individuals certainly get paid for holiday pay, night differential, Sunday pay, and all of the pay and compensation benefits afforded to full time employees.

  At the end of the day, multipurpose aircraft crewed by pilots makes the most sense. They can be configured for an interdiction posture, a support posture, or an intelligence queuing posture.

  When UAVs can place handcuffs on perpetrators, fly surveillances in class "B" airspace in Los Angeles, and stop crashing at the tune of millions of dollars, maybe I will reconsider my position. Until then, they are the latest "feel good" arsenals to the headlines of the day.

  Joe Customs - 1789 Posted October 16, 2006 2:13 PM
• 19143
  

  UAVs hold the potential to greatly leverage the ability of responsible agencies to secure the nation's borders. While they should be used where they can add value, the government should also consider use of blimps and other types of airships. These aircraft fly slow, and offer long range views and substantial loiter time over a problem area. If equipped with appropriate communications and vision/imaging equipment they could direct ground units to intercept illegal immigrants and make arrests of contraband smugglers, etc. If equipped with infrared equipment, for night use, or for seeing through heavy brush, they may prove very useful. Such aircraft may also be able to add value at lower costs than some other options, including UAVs. The fielding of a mix of aircraft types would probably prove most useful. UAVs can range "far and fast" but blimps could survey an area in greater detail and for longer periods of time. I would think that blimps could remain "on station" longer than UAVs.

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 10, 2006 12:47 PM
• 19108
  

  UAVs don't get holiday pay, retirement points or tired from too little crew rest.

  In the long term they make sense.

  Mick-

  P.S. Former P-3C Aircrew

  Mick Davis Posted October 6, 2006 1:32 AM