Suck On This: Predator Drone Bags Eleven RIFWs

[Zenister 0]

remember this post.. in under 10 years you will be greatly surprised..

drones of many types are currently being used for tasks you'd have never imagined 5 years ago....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[matthewcline 0]

Zen,

I think your right, to a point.

You will never completly replace "boots on the ground", but we will reduce the amounts of boots that have to be placed in danger and hopefully have those boots work in stability and humanity efforts.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

he US has taken this very approach

You cannot compare our invasion of Iraq to an eccentric government wildly using robotic forces to destroy the world (which is a possibility with drone militaries). The point is, if the US was 100% robotic military, then conceivably we could be fighting 15 wars at the same time. It'd be pretty easing considering we just have millions of UAVs/robots to throw into a mess...no big deal. You can't do that stuff with the human military we have, so you can't compare Iraq to what could possibly happen with a 100% robotic military.

Quote

The international community tried to stop our invasion of Iraq; we saw few drawbacks so we just did it

Yeah, a few guys like Chirac and Schroeder really make me want to listen. If you think Bush is bad and corrupt for his "business ties," then you should really hate those guys. To be honest, I don't want our foreign policy run by the French, German, Itallians, etc. So just b/c poor old France and the Krauts (my wife's German, so I can say that) don't like us fucking up their deal, doesn't mean we should just lay down and roll over.

Quote

The UN will say "you can't use RPV's" and you imagine the US and China will say "Oh, OK, we'll destroy them all immediately?" Surely you have noticed how much heed the US pays the international community.

You're assuming that the US is a party in the 100% UAV/robotic military. I don't think we would every be players in that arena due to the levels of morality it breaks. So if a country tried to do this, then as you mentioned, the US would probably be the ones speerheading the international outcry against it.

Quote

It will make it easier and cheaper to wage war, and will make war more palatable to politicians. To our leaders, RPV's will be the best thing since sliced bread. How long do you think they would hesitate to attack North Korea if the only costs were a few billion in robots?

And that's the reason people won't allow it. Easier war will lead to immoral battle. Although Congress is all about cutting costs, they're not going to develop a 100% UAV military based on immorality (yes I know it's weird for Congress to know anything about that) and in some sense, impractical to a degree...b/c remember, it's always easier to have a person there then to have a person sort of there through a camera lens.

Plus, talk to me in several decades when something like this is even feasible.

[billvon 3,130]

>The point is, if the US was 100% robotic military, then conceivably we
>could be fighting 15 wars at the same time. It'd be pretty easing
> considering we just have millions of UAVs/robots to throw into a
> mess...no big deal.

Exactly. That is a good thing to military planners.

>You can't do that stuff with the human military we have, so you can't
> compare Iraq to what could possibly happen with a 100% robotic military.

We have some of those capabilities already. It is one of the things allowing us to fight two concurrent wars right now without a draft or even much in the way of public inconvenience. More automation would allow more wars. Politicians like wars; historically war presidents are among the most popular, and "I was a war hero" is a very good feather in any politician's cap. Since we don't lose wars any more, there's not much reason to avoid them.

>Yeah, a few guys like Chirac and Schroeder really make me want to
>listen.

It was the entire UN actually.

>If you think Bush is bad and corrupt for his "business ties," then you
> should really hate those guys.

?? I'm not saying Bush is evil or corrupt. Are you confusing me with someone else in this thread?

>To be honest, I don't want our foreign policy run by the French,
> German, Itallians, etc. So just b/c poor old France and the Krauts
>(my wife's German, so I can say thatTongue) don't like us fucking up
>their deal, doesn't mean we should just lay down and roll over.

You're pretty much proving my point. We won't care if there is international resistance to an automated army. A pro-war advocate will use language similar to what you used above to claim that the US shouldn't listen to the whiny UN who wants to emasculate the US by taking away its modern weapons.

>So if a country tried to do this, then as you mentioned, the US would
> probably be the ones speerheading the international outcry against it.

You have got to be kidding. People here have argued that using nukes against civilians was a good, wise and humane thing to do. Surely using an automated army to win wars faster with fewer deaths is an easier sell than nuking civilians, no?

Remember, the victors write the handbooks on morality. And if China has UAV's, we will decide we need even more of them - because we want those handbooks to be written in english and not chinese.

>And that's the reason people won't allow it. Easier war will lead to
>immoral battle.

Immoral in whose eyes? The UN's? We've already said in no uncertain terms we don't care. The USA's? Again, if nuking civilians can be explained as moral, then automated weapons are a walk in the park.

>Plus, talk to me in several decades when something like this is
>even feasible.

I used to work in that area. For every UAV you see out there, there is a device ten times as capable (for the same cost) being tested at a lab somewhere. And a good number of them will make it out of the lab. The mostly-automated armed forces are completely feasible today; the only think lacking right now is time and money to get the details right (maintenance, configuration, C&C)

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Yeah, a few guys like Chirac and Schroeder really make me want to listen. If you think Bush is bad and corrupt for his "business ties," then you should really hate those guys. To be honest, I don't want our foreign policy run by the French, German, Itallians, etc. So just b/c poor old France and the Krauts (my wife's German, so I can say that) don't like us fucking up their deal, doesn't mean we should just lay down and roll over.

Ah, finally a thread with the potential to veer towards a good old "Cheese eating surrender Monkey" and "Kraut" bashing. Now we are talking about real, in depth, analysis of world affairs. I thought such threads had gone the way of the dodo, but am truly glad to see that some of us still have principles and will not let such good habits go into extinction.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Exactly. That is a good thing to military planners.

We're not all war-hungry heathens...as much as movies and such might depict us.

Quote

Since we don't lose wars any more, there's not much reason to avoid them.

That line of thinking will go beyond moral boundary that I feel the American people would not let happen. And as popular as a war president is, he's not going to be popular with starting 10 wars...the people won't let it happen, at least IMO.

Quote

It was the entire UN actually.

Yes, the same UN who gave Saddam 14 resolutions and kept saying, "no guys, he'll change, seriously."

Yeah, listening to them works out well, doesn't it?

Quote

I'm not saying Bush is evil or corrupt. Are you confusing me with someone else in this thread?

Possibly, sorry to accuse you of such.

Quote

We won't care if there is international resistance to an automated army. A pro-war advocate will use language similar to what you used above to claim that the US shouldn't listen to the whiny UN who wants to emasculate the US by taking away its modern weapons.

Again, that's probably going too far in the sense that, while we hate the UN, Americans won't allow something of this immoral magnitude to occur. It would be political suicide to attempt a multi-war, fully automated military.

Quote

People here have argued that using nukes against civilians was a good, wise and humane thing to do. Surely using an automated army to win wars faster with fewer deaths is an easier sell than nuking civilians, no?

The point I was making is, as mentioned above, that the US would not cross that moral boundary because of the American public's disdain for an automated military. It would be political suicide. Thus, the US would not get to this point and would stop any other state who tried to do so. Plus, for the past couple decades we've been drastically reducing nukes. The US is not a crazy country who wants to nuke states or use automated militaries against states to have a "quicker" outcome.

Quote

Immoral in whose eyes? The UN's? We've already said in no uncertain terms we don't care. The USA's? Again, if nuking civilians can be explained as moral, then automated weapons are a walk in the park.

Immoral in the majority of the world's populations' eyes. As said above, we do not want to nuke people, we are reducing are nuclear capacity to nil compared to what it was during the cold war, and we will do absolutely anything to not have to use nukes. Bush is not standing here saying nukes are moral and we have no problem using them. Sure he'll use them if all hell broke loose (but if it got that point, we're all fucked anyways), but he'll do whatever he can to NOT use them. Same will apply to sending 100% robotic forces into combat.

Quote

the only think lacking right now is time and money to get the details right (maintenance, configuration, C&C)

Yeah, I know all about the tech advances. The AF asked for a JSF back in 1985. The Raptor is probably a piece compared to what some geek in a lab devised yesterday. But, w/ the points you mentioned above, and you have to add the actual willingness of the people to allow such a military to exist...we're looking at a long time from now.

[billvon 3,130]

>We're not all war-hungry heathens...as much as movies and such might depict us.

I didn't say anyone was a war-hungry heathen. Military planners plan for war, and the sane ones plan to win. There's not a planner in the world that wants an inferior military.

>Yeah, listening to them works out well, doesn't it?

It got rid of his WMD's. They accomplished their goal. Had we had the sense to wait for the inspection team to finish we would have realized that. Since we wanted an invasion at all costs, we didn't wait.

>Again, that's probably going too far in the sense that, while we hate
>the UN, Americans won't allow something of this immoral magnitude
>to occur. It would be political suicide to attempt a multi-war, fully
>automated military.

It makes no sense to claim we are OK with mutual assured destruction (i.e. ensuring destruction of both countries as a deterrent) but then claim that we would never accept a defensive technology (i.e. automated weapons that destroy military targets.) One is more morally repugnant than the other to most people.

>The point I was making is, as mentioned above, that the US would not
> cross that moral boundary because of the American public's disdain
>for an automated military. It would be political suicide.

The politician who campaigns for a weak military will be the one committing political suicide. "My opponent wants to disarm America! He wants to make us weak! He wants to neuter us! My fellow Americans, I hope I never see the day where we lay down our advanced weapons just because we are afraid of the future! Vote for me, and I will ensure that America and democracy will always triumph!"

>Thus, the US would not get to this point and would stop any other state
>who tried to do so. Plus, for the past couple decades we've been
> drastically reducing nukes. The US is not a crazy country who wants
> to nuke states . . .

Dude, we HAVE nuked civilian cities. Not because we were going to lose, but because we wanted to win faster. And all the facile justifications that came spilling out of us then will work just fine to justify automated weapons. They are a much easier sell than nukes.

And it's great that we're reducing our nuclear stockpiles. But when we are willing to go to zero while China, Pakistan and North Korea still have them - then I'll believe we take morality more seriously than defense.

>Sure he'll use them if all hell broke loose (but if it got that point,
>we're all fucked anyways), but he'll do whatever he can to NOT use
>them. Same will apply to sending 100% robotic forces into combat.

Now that may well be possible. But we will have them for the same reason we have nuclear weapons - because we want the option.

> But, w/ the points you mentioned above, and you have to add the
> actual willingness of the people to allow such a military to exist...we're
> looking at a long time from now.

Look at the title of this thread. We're able to do this stuff now, and "let machines die instead of men" is not a sales pitch you are going to be able to defeat with "but it's wrong, somehow."

[Zenister 0]

Quote

And that's the reason people won't allow it. Easier war will lead to immoral battle. Although Congress is all about cutting costs, they're not going to develop a 100% UAV military based on immorality (yes I know it's weird for Congress to know anything about that) and in some sense, impractical to a degree...b/c remember, it's always easier to have a person there then to have a person sort of there through a camera lens.

Plus, talk to me in several decades when something like this is even feasible.

you sound very much like the spearman complaining that firearms are "immoral", "have no soul", "will never take the place of a soldier and his spear"...

you are equally wrong, both about the morality (gun powder is just as 'immoral' to a foot soldier with a melee weapon) and about the level of technology we have available NOW...

a real automated infantry will have the same effect on flesh and blood infantry as the introduction of tanks did.. except they will be 'driven' by human minds miles (if not hundreds of miles away) with access to intel, communications, sensors and realtime situational awareness unmatched by any current foot soldier. They will be able to engage, hunt down, and kill the enemy with no loss of life to the soldier controlling the weapon system. Sure, you may be able to harm it, and eventually incapacitate it, but while it can be repaired/rebuilt. You cannot be, and there will be thousands of them on the modern battlefield.


Get used to it.. it's not just Science Fiction anymore....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[BikerBabe 0]

I was working in the office that developed and acquired the Predator for the AF when they modded it to take the hellfires.

This was a DoDo acquisition program that took 1 month from inception to completion.

Yeah, you read that right. 1 month. in a community where a fast development cycle is usually 2 years, 1 month is unprecedented.

It was a very cool time.

Oh, and the Predator and Global Hawk have entirely different missions and flight profiles. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Now comparing the Global Hawk to the U-2 would be more apt. And the U-2 still owns all...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kallend 2,174]

There's a Dr. Who story where a war is waged entirely by computer simulation, and those deemed to have been killed are then painlessly euthanized.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There's a Dr. Who story where a war is waged entirely by computer simulation, and those deemed to have been killed are then painlessly euthanized.

I think that was a Star Trek. Not sure though, it might have been Airwolf or Simon and Simon.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,130]

>There's a Dr. Who story where a war is waged entirely by computer
> simulation, and those deemed to have been killed are then painlessly
> euthanized.

I thought that was Star Trek . . .

[Zenister 0]

Quote

There's a Dr. Who story where a war is waged entirely by computer simulation, and those deemed to have been killed are then painlessly euthanized.

twas a Star Trek, but we could easily do the same sort of Simulation Warfare now.. in fact we do daily when we arent really killing people...

'Video Game warfare' is a reality.. and its only going to get 'worse'

after all the point isnt to die for your country, its to make the other guy die for his... UAVs fit that ideal to a T.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

There's a Dr. Who story where a war is waged entirely by computer simulation, and those deemed to have been killed are then painlessly euthanized.

I think that was a Star Trek. Not sure though, it might have been Airwolf or Simon and Simon.

Yes, I do recall a Star Trek too. Apparently it's a common theme 'cos there was a 1979 Dr Who story with this premise (in fact, one side in the war had no people left, just the computer continuing to fight). Douglas (Hitchhiker's Guide) Adams was one of the scriptwriters.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[HydroGuy 0]

There was a paper written just before the 2000 elections that basically outlines the Bush presidency. It's called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses". It was written by Cheney, Rumsfield, Jeb Bush and a bunch of other Hawks.

One of its focal points is on the future of warfare and how it shall take place. It estimates by 2015 technology will allow for a unmanned vehicles to dominate the battlefields. Because of this, several weapons programs were reccomended cut by this report - the crusader howitzer, several new aircraft carriers and one of the Advanced Fighter programs. The reports thinking is that a weapons system in the US arsenal has about a 30 year life span...but in even 20 years a manned fighter plane or a massive aircraft carrier will be obselete.

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

There's not a planner in the world that wants an inferior military.

Of course...but we don't have an inferior military.

Quote

It got rid of his WMD's. They accomplished their goal. Had we had the sense to wait for the inspection team to finish we would have realized that. Since we wanted an invasion at all costs, we didn't wait.

Uhhh, I don't think 14 resolutions that Saddam waved the middle finger to and over 10 years of such can really count as an accomplishment for the UN. The guy finally moved his weapons out/hid them when he realized that it might be getting close to the time where the US stops putting up with his shit and goes in. Us standing w/ the UN is one of the best things to happen to Saddam.

Quote

It makes no sense to claim we are OK with mutual assured destruction (i.e. ensuring destruction of both countries as a deterrent) but then claim that we would never accept a defensive technology (i.e. automated weapons that destroy military targets.) One is more morally repugnant than the other to most people.

We're not OK with it...we're trying to dismantle as many nuclear arms as possible. It's a terrible reality that exists b/c of a terrible invention. If the human race can learn that lesson, then they'll realize that 100% robotic militaries will be just as a terrible invention as the atomic bomb. I think people will realize this, at lesat for long enough that an 100% robotic army will be far into the future (at least out of my career).

Quote

They are a much easier sell than nukes.

They're just as terrible of an idea/invention as nuclear weapons. Hopefully people see that...if not, then your theory may be correct in a time to come...but not anytime soon.

Quote

"let machines die instead of men"

Still comes down to the fact that humans can do a better job, and most of us would rather die then be replaced by some bullshit machine. That's human nature, and that's how all of us in the business will continue to think...including the brass who'll stop this shit from getting out of control. I know that'll happen b/c it's happening today.

[billvon 3,130]

>Of course...but we don't have an inferior military.

I agree! And one reason we don't is that we've continually improved it. If China had a mostly-automated army and we didn't, then we'd have an inferior military (at least in terms of technology.)

>We're not OK with it...

Dude, we used them on civilians! And you can bet your bottom dollar that if we were in the same situation we'd do it again. Not because it's moral, or because it's right, but because we can and it helps us win wars faster with less loss of life.

>If the human race can learn that lesson, then they'll realize that 100%
> robotic militaries will be just as a terrible invention as the atomic
>bomb.

They may well realize that. If they do, perhaps the US will follow the route of nuclear weapons development, which was one of the most heavily funded efforts of all time and which continues to this day.

>Still comes down to the fact that humans can do a better job . . .

Not in many things. A human cannot stand as many G's as a machine can, and thus cannot manuever as hard in a warplane. Radiation levels that would kill a human are not much of a big deal to a machine. Humans still have the monopoly on complex decisionmaking, but there is no reason a human 10 miles from the battle cannot make the same sort of decisions as one 200 yards from the battle can.

>and most of us would rather die then be replaced by some bullshit
>machine.

Yet you drive a car through a world of traffic lights, automated tollbooths and parking meters. Robotic garbage trucks pick up our garbage. News is delivered by a wire rather than a paperboy in most places now. Your phone call is switched by a computer, not an operator. Photoelectric switches, not lamplighters, turn streetlamps on and off. And none of these things bother us. Neither will automated armies (once they are ubiqitous as traffic lights, that is.)

>including the brass who'll stop this shit from getting out of control.
>I know that'll happen b/c it's happening today.

They'll do that until they realize that their commands are losing men and the other commands are just losing drones. Then they will be replaced by brass "who care about the troops." Wanting men instead of machines to die just plain doesn't fly.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Yet you drive a car through a world of traffic lights, automated tollbooths and parking meters. Robotic garbage trucks pick up our garbage. News is delivered by a wire rather than a paperboy in most places now. Your phone call is switched by a computer, not an operator. Photoelectric switches, not lamplighters, turn streetlamps on and off. And none of these things bother us. Neither will automated armies (once they are ubiqitous as traffic lights, that is.)

Traffic light are the work of Satan. I hate traffic lights.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

If China had a mostly-automated army and we didn't, then we'd have an inferior military (at least in terms of technology.)

We wouldn't be considered inferior if we still beat them...which we would. I can guarantee Chinese UAVs aren't going to defeat the AF.

Quote

but there is no reason a human 10 miles from the battle cannot make the same sort of decisions as one 200 yards from the battle can.

Plenty of reason...fighting a war w/ some cameras on a UAV is much different than looking through a canopy in the center of the battle. It will never be as effective...sure they can get close, but close isn't perfect.

Quote

>and most of us would rather die then be replaced by some bullshit
>machine.

That statement was directed at more millitary personnel, since the thread is, or at least was, directed more about the Predator and UAVs. So yes, I don't know a single military member, especially a pilot, who would rather sit in a trailer than fly.

Quote

They'll do that until they realize that their commands are losing men and the other commands are just losing drones. Then they will be replaced by brass "who care about the troops." Wanting men instead of machines to die just plain doesn't fly.

Losing men in battle has always happened and will happen till the day the world ends. Nothing is going to change that. Sure machines may do some jobs that were once done by humans, thus saving lives...but in the overall scheme, there will always be men on the battlefield, and there will always be human death in war.

[billvon 3,130]

>Plenty of reason...fighting a war w/ some cameras on a UAV is much
> different than looking through a canopy in the center of the battle. It will
> never be as effective...

In some ways it will be better.

During world war 1, it was common knowledge that a pilot couldn't fly without the wind in his face. Enclosed cockpits just didn't give you the same sort of feel. No pilot would ever be able to fly effectively without feeling the wind! Indeed, even early transports had an open cockpit for the pilot and an enclosed cargo/passenger area.

But as it turns out, you can fly effectively with an airspeed indicator even if you don't feel the wind.

Before world war II, it was common knowledge that you had to see to be able to fly a plane. No one could fly without sight! It was impossible. You lost your most important sense. You would have no sense of up or down. You had no idea where you were.

But WWII saw the rapid development of instrument flight systems, including the earliest radar landing systems (which is a fascinating story in and of itself.) Turns out you can fly on instruments. And it turns out that being able to fly in any weather is a critical ability for any air force.

Now people are saying "remote operation can never be as effective." In 50 years we will laugh at that too.

>So yes, I don't know a single military member, especially a pilot,
> who would rather sit in a trailer than fly.

And 90 years ago I am sure there wasn't a single cavalry soldier who would rather sit in a tank seat than on a horse's back. That's a bad reason to rely on cavalry when your enemy has tanks. The military of the future will be determined by what's most effective, not what the cavalry/footsoldiers/pilots want.

>Losing men in battle has always happened and will happen till the
>day the world ends. Nothing is going to change that.

Rapid medical care, body armor, UAV's, aircraft and satellite reconnaisance, and new sensing technologies has already reduced losses. Iraq is a prime example; we would have lost 5000 men by now if not for extremely good medical care and (finally) decent body armor.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Sure machines may do some jobs that were once done by humans, thus saving lives...but in the overall scheme, there will always be men on the battlefield, and there will always be human death in war.

True. But look at the evolution of warfare. From rocks, to swords and axes, to canons, rifles, armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles, etc... Close combat is being removed more and more. Striking from as far a distance as possible seems to be the driving force.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

We wouldn't be considered inferior if we still beat them...which we would. I can guarantee Chinese UAVs aren't going to defeat the AF.

I recall that Hermann Goering said something very similar about the RAF and the Luftwaffe in 1940.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

I know you're probably exagerating for effect, but just in case, 1 Predator costs approx $50 million. Last I checked, it costs roughly $6 million to fully train a pilot. So, where's the logic in this one?

So all in all, UAVs are good for some small things, but overall I still hate them and still maintain that they will never fully replace the manned aircraft. Screw the predator.

The MQ-1 Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. A fully operational system consists of four aircraft (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator Primary Satellite Link, and approximately 55 personnel for deployed 24-hour operations. A SYSTEM cost $40M in 1997 dollars.

Just found out that just the aircraft itself is $4M.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

We wouldn't be considered inferior if we still beat them...which we would. I can guarantee Chinese UAVs aren't going to defeat the AF.

I recall that Hermann Goering said something very similar about the RAF and the Luftwaffe in 1940.

The British strategy in the BoB wasn't to defeat the Luftwaffe (which wasn't possible), but just to make it too difficult and costly for them to win.

Defense always has the home-court advantage.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We wouldn't be considered inferior if we still beat them...which we would. I can guarantee Chinese UAVs aren't going to defeat the AF.

I recall that Hermann Goering said something very similar about the RAF and the Luftwaffe in 1940.

The British strategy in the BoB wasn't to defeat the Luftwaffe (which wasn't possible), but just to make it too difficult and costly for them to win.

Defense always has the home-court advantage.

mh

.

Failing to meet objectives is defeat.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.