Marines slated to get new unmanned planes

[Otis Willie]

Marines slated to get new unmanned planes

(EXCERPT) Four small drones being sent to Iraq, by Otto Kreisher
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

April 29, 2004

WASHINGTON – Marines in Iraq soon will get a new, high-tech flying
drone to help them spot potential threats in the volatile city of
Fallujah, thanks to some quick work by the Navy's top innovators.

The Navy has bought four small unmanned spy planes and is sending them
to the Marines, a senior Navy official said.

The aircraft should be ready for use in Iraq by mid-May, the official
said.

"This is going to change the way the Marines do things," the official
said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The new aerial vehicle, called the Silver Fox, is about 6 feet lo...

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 01 May 2004, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040429-9999-1n29drone.html

---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Otis Willie" > wrote in message
...
> Marines slated to get new unmanned planes
>
> (EXCERPT) Four small drones being sent to Iraq, by Otto Kreisher
> COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
>
> April 29, 2004
>
> WASHINGTON - Marines in Iraq soon will get a new, high-tech flying
> drone to help them spot potential threats in the volatile city of
> Fallujah, thanks to some quick work by the Navy's top innovators.

Gee, the Army has already deployed the similar Raven small UAV into the
theater of operations...why do we keep tripping over each other to develop
what is basically the same capability twice or thrice over for individual
services?

Brooks

<snip>

[Mike Williamson]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>
> Gee, the Army has already deployed the similar Raven small UAV into the
> theater of operations...why do we keep tripping over each other to develop
> what is basically the same capability twice or thrice over for individual
> services?

If I had to guess, I'd say the likely reason is that the relatively
small costs and numbers involved make it less expensive and time
consuming to just stand up the individual systems as opposed to opening
a joint office to determine everyone's separate needs- even if they
are very close off the bat.

Mike

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mike Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> >
> > Gee, the Army has already deployed the similar Raven small UAV into the
> > theater of operations...why do we keep tripping over each other to
develop
> > what is basically the same capability twice or thrice over for
individual
> > services?
>
> If I had to guess, I'd say the likely reason is that the relatively
> small costs and numbers involved make it less expensive and time
> consuming to just stand up the individual systems as opposed to opening
> a joint office to determine everyone's separate needs- even if they
> are very close off the bat.

But correct me if I am wrong, don't we *already* have a standing joint
office to handle UAV development (witness the adoption of Firescout as a
prototype rotary UAV by the Army from the Navy program)? I doubt the needs
of the USMC and US Army in terms of such a small UAV are that drastically
different--something that can be easily transported, requires minimal ground
support and operator training, offers both day and night observation
capability, etc. Heck, it sounds like the two vehicles (Raven vs. Silver
Fox) are pretty darned similar, from what I have read thus far. My usual
bent, having watched the US Army (from up-close) completely balls-up the
counter-obstacle vehicle (Grizzly) program, while the USMC was happily
fabricating and testing a much more simple (and affordable) M1-based
breaching vehicle, is that the Army has historically been much the worse in
the "nope, it's gotta have its home here, not in another service"
department, but here it appears the USMC/USN may have bought into the same
pig-headed approach with this program.

Brooks

>
> Mike
>