On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:06:41 -0700, mike Williamson
williamsonONETHIRTY@earthlinkdotnet wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:58:22 GMT, Jack wrote in
::


The Cessna can't match the capabilities of the
UAV, nor is there a reasonable chance that it can be modified to do so.

The vast capabilities of a UAV (including Hellfire missiles) are
unnecessary for the domestic border patrol mission.

At the very least, I've never heard of a C-172 with 12 hours edurance,

Why is 12 hours endurance necessary?

Here's the pertinent Cessna C-182 performance specification:

http://skyhawk.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml
Cruise * 60% power at 10,000 ft
time: 6.6 hr
range: 687nm

Of course, long range fuel tanks could increase that, but I doubt that
would be necessary to accomplish the mission.

nor capable of employing the sensors and equipment callled for in
this instance.

In your opinion, what equipment capability IS "called for" in this
instance?

You appear to have a political axe to grind,

Yes. I am not happy with Bush's unconstitutional/illegal repeal of
personal liberty and privacy, upon which this UAV patrolled border
policy seems to further encroach.


So surveilling the border to enforce existing border control laws
are a violation of PRIVACY now?


Employing UAVs, when conventional aircraft would suffice, betrays the
Bush administration's agenda for further domestic spying. Domestic
UAV operation sets a dangerous precedent. Surely, you are not naive
enough to believe, that if the Bush administration is successful in
deploying UAVs domestically, border patrol will be their sole mission.
Domestically deploying UAVs will open the skies for hoards of unmanned
aircraft operated by people located SAFELY ON THE GROUND. These UAVs
will likely be operated by military personnel. The military has time
and again demonstrated its complete lack of accountability in
military/civil mishaps.*

You aren't going to like it if people die at the hands of UAV
operators. What incentive do the ground-based personnel operating
UAVs have to act as prudent and responsibly as a pilot actually aboard
his aircraft? Where are the UAV operators' accountability? How can
the estates of those who fall victim to domestic UAV operations know
who is responsible for the deaths caused by unmanned aircraft?


since you can't demonstrate any mission advantage to the Cessna.


I find cost to be an advantage. Don't you?


Cost is only an advantage if the lower priced alternative can
actually meet the requirement. If not, then it isn't a viable
alternative and the cost isn't a factor at all.

Of course.

What do you guess/know the requirements you mention to be?

Because video camera equipped model aircraft have successfully
demonstrated, that high-tech solutions are unnecessary in border
patrol missions, I find UAVs inappropriate for this mission. They are
much too costly and dangerous to be deployed domestically.


*
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en