Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: DASH
Message-ID: <1991May29.010707.5683@amd.com>
Date: 27 May 91 02:32:10 GMT
References: <1991May22.035130.28296@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28
Approved: military@amd.com


From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)


According to some Navy helo pilots at GTMO some years ago, the DASH
had a multitude of technical problems:

- They tended to fly off and never come back when the control link
  failed.
- The pilot had to maintain visual contact with the drone
- You still had to have an air crew to maintain the mechanical and
  electronic systems
- Lots of down time
- Landing was a thrill for all concerned.
- The "pilots" weren't always the best, and generally hated the
  assignments.
- they were hard to fly and there were many crashes.

The above adds up to only marginal cost effectiveness.

Plus the political problem: Navy aviation types didn't like the system
because it brought into question, if only indirectly, the need for
carriers, pilots, and more aircraft.

One (apocryphal?) story is of a destroyer CO who wanted to go for a
ride on the DASH.  The crew rigged a sling where the torpedo normally
went, and went up, under remote control.  During the flight, there 
was a mishap ... total loss.  (The paperwork must have been fun.)