UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder

On 15 Jan 2006 04:57:18 -0500, Chris Colohan
wrote in ::

Larry -- instead of arguing vague costs and such, can you put numbers on any of this?

You claim that a fleet of Cessnas is cheaper than the UAVs, by an
order of magnitude.

Actually, several orders of magnitude.

What are you basing this on? I am curious how
you arrived at your conclusion.

It's a matter of common sense. It takes only one or two people to
operate a Cessna C-182, not SEVEN like it does to operate a UAV.

(I am acutally interested in how much
these UAVs really cost -- your "several million dollars" figure sounds
quite high to me.

Then, perhaps you should do some research:

http://www.uavforum.com/library/librarian.htm
Q: What does a UAV cost to buy? to operate?

A: UAVs flying today range in price from $1000 to $14 million. [For
comparison, manned aircraft range in price from $20,000 to $500
million.] Examples: The developmental version of the Air
Force/Teledyne Ryan RQ-4/Global Hawk costs nearly $14 million with
payload, the Air Force/General Atomics RQ-1/Predator $3.3 million with
payload, the Navy/PUI RQ-2/Pioneer just over $900,000 with payload.
Tactical size UAVs are commercially available in the $250,000 range
with payload, the Aerosonde Robotic Aircraft's Atlantic-crossing
Aerosonde runs $35,000, and MLB offers mini (not micro) UAVs for
around $1000 per aircraft. It is a common mistake to focus on the
price of the individual aircraft and confuse it for the price of the
UAV system, which includes its ground control station and shelter,
launching mechanism, and typically three or more additional aircraft.
These can make the price of an UAV system two to ten times the price
of its individual aircraft. Once bought and deployed, operating costs
are reportedly (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 22 Jun 98, p.23) in
the hundreds of dollars an hour for Predator and tactical size UAVs.
[For comparison, commercial helicopters cost $600-800 an hour and a
Boeing 747 airliner some $7400 an hour.]


$10 million unit flyaway price:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r...1474.chap3.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y...y/0305204N.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r...1473.chap2.pdf
....


Larry Dighera writes:
Regardless, the expensive high-tech equipment installed on the UAV is
not necessary to locate people illegally entering the US as is born
out by the current successful use of video camera equipped model
aircraft.

Why use model aircraft, when we have seen the successful use of
cowboys on horses?

First, I'm not suggesting actually using model aircraft for border
surveillance. Rather, I am pointing out that cheap, low-tech
solutions are currently working, and contrasting that with the
obviously dangerous and costly overkill of employing UAVs domestically
for this mission.

This argument holds no weight unless you can state:

That is not the argument I am making.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations?

do you equate UAV operations with only military use?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:19:34 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote in et::

So you feel that operating a UAV on this border patrol mission at a
cost that exceeds that of operating a C-182 by several orders of
magnitude is not worth griping about? Why is a UAV the platform of
choice in this mission? It's technology is unnecessary and ill suited to
the mission; the money is better spent on ground agents and
deportation funding. There is no rational justification for using
UAVs, in my opinion. It's just a way for the Bush administration to
get headlines and pander to General Atomics's business interest
without materially affecting the influx of illegals which might dry up
the cheap labor pool.


I agree, BUT, show we ONE company that has put in a contract bid to do this
mission?

I can't even find the text of the Request For Proposal, let alone a
list of bidders and their proposals. Have you tried to research that?

Anyone out there willing to do this job (covering the same loiter times as
the UAV) needs to come forward and put in a bid for it.

It is my understanding that the RFP was written is such a way that
sensible and cost effective solutions would not meet the request.

We can bitch all we want but if no one out there wants to do it, what is the
government supposed to do?

What makes you think no one want's to do it?

If the Bush administration were truly interested in stemming the tide
of illegal border crossings, it would request proposals that would
accomplish that task, not set up restrictive proposal criteria for
which the only solution is domestic UAV operations.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:57:08 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations?

do you equate UAV operations with only military use?

In my opinion, the only justification for removing the pilot from the
aircraft is if the mission is too dangerous to risk human life.

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


Larry Dighera wrote:


It's clear that it doesn't take 7 people to fly a C-172 as it does a
UAV.

And it's also clear you can't give the Cessna the UAV's capabilities.


Which is it, the Cessna or the UAV's capabilities? (I always love it
when I've got 'em sputterin'.)


I didn't detect any sputtering, nor is there any lack of clarity
in Jack's post. The Cessna can't match the capabilities of the
UAV, nor is there a reasonable chance that it can be modified to do so.
At the very least, I've never heard of a C-172 with 12 hours edurance,
nor capable of employing the sensors and equipment callled 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?


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.

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

Larry Dighera wrote:

All you really have to do is make a rule that if you're going to fly
in the areas where UAV's are operating, you have to have a working
mode C or S transponder that's been checked in the last year, no
exceptions. My personal, non-business, non proprietary guess is that
will be included when the rules finally get through the system. Once
you have that data, collision avoidance is much simpler.

So you're suggesting that the FAA should reconfigure the NAS to
accommodate domestic UAV operations below 18,000' and pass the cost
and consequences of doing that on to aircraft owners? How about if
the UAV industry _FUNDS_ the changes they desire; wouldn't that be
more equitable?

You need a transponder operating above 10,000' MSL anyway and there
are already accuracy checks required (Biannually). No additional
costs to me as a pilot.

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations? Why should the
American public be so eager to change an already overburdened NAS to
accommodate domestic UAV operations? How do domestic UAV operations
provide a benefit to the American public? Of is it about increasing
economic prosperity for the UAV industry?

What is burdened about the areas we are talking about? What real
impact does it have to any pilot?

I see UAVs as combat/spy aircraft with NO ACCOUNTABILITY to those over
whom they fly nor those with whom they share airspace. Is a sky full
of UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles and surveillance technology the
future we want for our children? What am I missing?

As with most liberals, you are missing reality. There are peple who
want to kill those precious children you speak of. Anf you. And me.
Our borders need to be defended and if UAVs provide a vital place in
that process then so be it. I have yet to see where there is a real
and significant impact to pilots as we see with the DC area ADIZ.

Ron Lee

Larry Dighera wrote:

It's a matter of common sense. It takes only one or two people to
operate a Cessna C-182, not SEVEN like it does to operate a UAV.

No Larry, you have to consider the sensor operators plus things like
needing multiple crews and associated support personnel for the same
loiter time if using a manned aircraft.

Ron Lee

Actually, "room & board" means "a room and meals".

Thus, a "boarder" is actually someone who gets food along with their flat --
a relative rarity nowadays. A person who rents a flat, therefore, is
either a "roomer" or a "tenant"...

Yup, you're right. And "board" in this sense actually comes from the
word meaning "table" (a board on which food is served or eaten), so it's
quite literal.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I see UAVs as combat/spy aircraft with NO ACCOUNTABILITY to those over
whom they fly nor those with whom they share airspace. Is a sky full
of UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles and surveillance technology the
future we want for our children? What am I missing?

Maybe it's a training ground for DC intercepts.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.