UAV warfare

[billvon 3,132]

In the latest technological development in suicide bombing, it looks like Hezbollah has started using drones to carry explosives to Israeli ships. I thought this was inevitable a few years back; now that you can buy drones off-the-shelf that can carry a decent payload, it was only a matter of time before people started using them as weapons carriers.

I predict the first UAV-UAV battle takes place within the next two years . . .

[DJL 235]

Hopefully they'll find someone other that Carmen Elektra to host it. I really think that was the death of BattleBots.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[quade 4]

Issue with the current UAVs are that as cool as they are, they'd make horrible dog-fighters for several reasons; some of which are the very reason they exist in the first place.

A UAV as a long-term loiter weapons platform makes complete and total sense. You're not worried about speed and you have all the time in the world to look around with narrow field of view cameras to find your targets.

A UAV as an interceptor / dog-fighter . . . not so much. Visibility and tele-presence sucks so target acquisition of another stealthy UAV would be difficult if not impossible. If you can detect the UAV in the first place, you'd just send up a surface to air missle and be done with it. Sending up another UAV isn't as cost effective.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DJL 235]

Dog fighting? Definitlely not. But they're still a great platform for air to air and air to ground munitions. They could play a great long-range interceptor roll leaving fighter jocks to focus on short range combat and dogfighting.

The ground is a different story for the exact reasons you note. There's nothing like the human eye and brain to identify and react.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 2,182]

Let's not forget that a GPS equipped model airplane with R/C for take off and landing has already crossed the Atlantic to a designated landing point, and it weighed less than 5kg with fuel on take off to meet FAI record requirements. If amateur model airplane builders can do this with a tiny weight limit, imagine what pros can do without having to stick to a weight limit. Worrying about N. Korea's rockets may be worrying about the wrong thing altogether.

...

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

[champu 1]

Quote

In the latest technological development in suicide bombing, it looks like Hezbollah has started using drones to carry explosives to Israeli ships. I thought this was inevitable a few years back; now that you can buy drones off-the-shelf that can carry a decent payload, it was only a matter of time before people started using them as weapons carriers.

I predict the first UAV-UAV battle takes place within the next two years.

I will welcome the day heartily.

If man can push the evolution of war to the point where it amounts to little more than a contest of mechanical creations, he may finally get some reins on his apparently insatiable desire to have battles in the first place.

A "fight to the death" my sound more satisfying, but it's just so terribly uncivilized.

[billvon 3,132]

>Let's not forget that a GPS equipped model airplane . . .

I'm not worried about a model airplane. I'm worried about a unmanned King Air making a precision GPS approach to a carrier anchored off the coast somewhere in a fog bank. Think we'd shoot down a civilian aircraft squauking mayday today? (We'd shoot it down the second time, I'm sure.)

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

>Let's not forget that a GPS equipped model airplane . . .

I'm not worried about a model airplane. I'm worried about a unmanned King Air making a precision GPS approach to a carrier anchored off the coast somewhere in a fog bank. Think we'd shoot down a civilian aircraft squauking mayday today? (We'd shoot it down the second time, I'm sure.)

King Air too easy too detect (Mathias Rust notwithstanding) and shoot down. And as I said, if amateur model airplane builders can manage to cross the Atlantic with a precision of better than a half mile with a creation made in the garage and a self imposed weight limit of 5kg and 10cc engine displacement limit, imagine what a pro could do with a lot of financial backing and no such limits.

...

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

[DJL 235]

Quote

If man can push the evolution of war to the point where it amounts to little more than a contest of mechanical creations, he may finally get some reins on his apparently insatiable desire to have battles in the first place.

Yeah, and how many times has someone said, "The weapon to end wars." The first RECORDED statement was from the inventor of the gatling gun, another famous repeat from the inventor of the radio controlled torpedo...

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[falxori 0]

Quote

it looks like Hezbollah has started using drones to carry explosives to Israeli ships

its just been released that it wasn't a UAV but an Iranian C-802 anti ship missile.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[misaltas 0]

Quote

Let's not forget that a GPS equipped model airplane with R/C for take off and landing has already crossed the Atlantic to a designated landing point,

Cool article, thanks.

And just think, that little plane had greater range and accuracy than Kim Jong-il's recent missle tests...

Can you say "Hehhrrooe..." ?

.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In the latest technological development in suicide bombing, it looks like Hezbollah has started using drones to carry explosives to Israeli ships. I thought this was inevitable a few years back; now that you can buy drones off-the-shelf that can carry a decent payload, it was only a matter of time before people started using them as weapons carriers.

I predict the first UAV-UAV battle takes place within the next two years . . .

We have Iran to thank for supplying this technology. In a few years, they'll be providing nuclear technology on an open middle-east market. Suicide bombers will be providing new sources of green-ish, glow-in-the-dark, glass...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

In the latest technological development in suicide bombing, it looks like Hezbollah has started using drones to carry explosives to Israeli ships. I thought this was inevitable a few years back; now that you can buy drones off-the-shelf that can carry a decent payload, it was only a matter of time before people started using them as weapons carriers.

I predict the first UAV-UAV battle takes place within the next two years . . .

We have Iran to thank for supplying this technology. In a few years, they'll be providing nuclear technology on an open middle-east market. Suicide bombers will be providing new sources of green-ish, glow-in-the-dark, glass...

Hate to say it BUT> We have it, why can't they? As I've said before. IF WE'D QUIT TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE FUCKIN WORLD AND ALL IT'S RESOURCES MAYBE THEY'D LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE Micky D's on every corner baby. Flame away

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Hate to say it BUT> We have it, why can't they? As I've said before. IF WE'D QUIT TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE FUCKIN WORLD AND ALL IT'S RESOURCES MAYBE THEY'D LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE Micky D's on every corner baby. Flame away

So, you'd be okay with Iran having a nuke? Detente right?

They'll just sell them to whomever, and it'll be okay. I mean, Iran is a beacon on the hill for all to look to for freedom and liberty.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[akarunway 1]

No. As I keep saying over and over and over. Maybe they don't want our lifestyle. Who are we to judge them. I say MADD (damn I meant MAD. I'm a member of DAMM myself) worked quite well. And I assure you if everbody had a nuke it would even out the playing field. Ask John Rich. Everybody should have a gun, right? Wild Wild West Baby

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

...if everbody had a nuke it would even out the playing field. Ask John Rich. Everybody should have a gun, right?

Good point!

Maybe the Iranian Government should hire the NRA as consultants & lobbyists for their Atomic Weapons Program?

"A (Nuclear) armed world is a polite world"!!?

OK... There may be the occasional person who goes rogue with an A-Bomb, but they're hardly representative of the vast majority of responsible bomb owners who confine their activities to the range deserts & handy Pacific islands. They NEED this stuff for home & personal defence and shouldn't be denied such a basic right because of the whinging liberal gun conservative bomb control freaks.

Yeah... Thinking about it, every NRA argument scales up perfectly into a Nuclear Deterrent argument.

After all, these are legitimate governments we're talking about, not 5-year-olds.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[nanook 1]

Quote

I will welcome the day heartily.

If man can push the evolution of war to the point where it amounts to little more than a contest of mechanical creations, he may finally get some reins on his apparently insatiable desire to have battles in the first place.

A "fight to the death" my sound more satisfying, but it's just so terribly uncivilized.

The problem with that is despite what the Hippies and some Anti War group says, War is not, or(hopefully) never was a "contest" or game. The whole purpose of War is to bring the other country to its knees and obliterate it and/or assimilate it or; most commonly, before that country gets to that near obliteration, gives up and surrenders to the winning country's demands. It's meant to force one's country's will on another for whatever reason(good or bad, history dependent) Sooner or later, the mechanical creations will be spent and real troops will have to come in. No country wants to use its mechanical products to meet an enemy's mechanical products on a predetermined battlefield; the country wants to kill the controllers of the mechanical products so their creations can wreak havok on the other's country. The whole purpose of these creations are to kill people more efficiently.

Personally a "fight to the death" scares me. Civilization exists only inside the safe borders of a well-protected country. Believe me, there is a lot of nastiness in the voids that are not surrounded by Soverign borders.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

...if everbody had a nuke it would even out the playing field. Ask John Rich. Everybody should have a gun, right?

Good point!

Maybe the Iranian Government should hire the NRA as consultants & lobbyists for their Atomic Weapons Program?

"A (Nuclear) armed world is a polite world"!!?

OK... There may be the occasional person who goes rogue with an A-Bomb, but they're hardly representative of the vast majority of responsible bomb owners who confine their activities to the range deserts & handy Pacific islands. They NEED this stuff for home & personal defence and shouldn't be denied such a basic right because of the whinging liberal gun conservative bomb control freaks.

Yeah... Thinking about it, every NRA argument scales up perfectly into a Nuclear Deterrent argument.

After all, these are legitimate governments we're talking about, not 5-year-olds.

Mike.

That's it in a nutshell

...

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

[billvon 3,132]

>So, you'd be okay with Iran having a nuke? Detente right?

Right. I mean, unless you want "VICTIM DISARMAMENT ZONES" in the Middle East!

The ideal world is a world without nukes. The next in line of 'ideal worlds' is a world with only one country having nukes. Next in line is one where everyone has a nuke as a universal deterrent. The worst of all possible worlds is one in which only some people (some bad, some good) have nukes.

I'd rather no one have any nuclear weapons, or just the US. Barring that, I'd rather that everyone in the entire world be afraid of invading another country.

[champu 1]

Quote

The problem with that is despite what the Hippies and some Anti War group says, War is not, or(hopefully) never was a "contest" or game ... ... No country wants to use its mechanical products to meet an enemy's mechanical products on a predetermined battlefield; the country wants to kill the controllers of the mechanical products so their creations can wreak havok on the other's country. The whole purpose of these creations are to kill people more efficiently.

The tone of my last post was meant to be more cynical. I didn't really think what I suggested was feasible.

What man does at the moment is offer to settle his disputes with a gentleman's game of chess. He takes a seat at the board and plays until he doesn't like how it's going. He then smacks the board up into the air sending the pieces flying every which way, pulls out a knife, and stabs his opponent in the side of the neck from across the table.

We've got a ways to go.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

The ideal world is a world without nukes....

We had that - pre 1945. A MAJOR war every 20 or 30 years because despite various countries best efforts, there just wasn't a sufficiently effective deterrent against war.

At least nukes, particularly when both countries in a potential conflict have them IS a sufficient deterrent. Call it MAD or call it Clauswitz's realisation of "Total-War". It works. Nukes give a country security. Security allows a country to moderate its own demands.

This may be a singularly insane way to enforce "peace", but it's simply a reflection of the collective sanity of humanity.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[nanook 1]

Quote

The tone of my last post was meant to be more cynical. I didn't really think what I suggested was feasible.

Sorry, I'm not good with the "reading between the lines" thingie.

Quote

What man does at the moment is offer to settle his disputes with a gentleman's game of chess. He takes a seat at the board and plays until he doesn't like how it's going. He then smacks the board up into the air sending the pieces flying every which way, pulls out a knife, and stabs his opponent in the side of the neck from across the table.

We've got a ways to go.

This I agree with. It usually starts with negotiations then leads to war. I think the real reason for this is values, ethnocentrism, cultural bias, ect. . . ect. Also, as long as a sociopath with charisma who knows how to talk to people or give them something to blame their misfurtunes on, there will never be a completed game of chess.

We do have a way to go. Unfortunately, it requires similar thinking.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[stoneycase 0]

Quote

In the latest technological development in suicide bombing, it looks like Hezbollah has started using drones to carry explosives to Israeli ships. I thought this was inevitable a few years back; now that you can buy drones off-the-shelf that can carry a decent payload, it was only a matter of time before people started using them as weapons carriers.

I predict the first UAV-UAV battle takes place within the next two years . . .

Sorry I don't have more time, but here's a quicky link to GlobalSecurity.org

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah-rockets.htm

Lebanon has been flying UAV's into Israel for quite some time, and initially it was thought a drone attacked the Israeli ship:

Hizballah seriously damaged a Saar 5-class missile ship named the "Spear" that was helping to enforce Israel's blockade of Lebanon on 14 July 2006. One Israeli sailor was killed and three were initially missing after the attack. Israel initially believed that an aerial drone armed with explosives hit the warship, but it became clear that Hizballah had used an Iranian-made C-802 cruise missile to strike the vessel. Another Hizballah radar-guided anti-ship missile hit and sank a nearby Cambodian merchant ship around the time the Spear was struck. Twelve Egyptian sailors were pulled from the water by passing ships.

And everything you ever wanted to know about our UAV'shttp://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/uav.htm

Personally, I wouldn't give their UAV a fighting chance in the air against our latest and greatest. The UAV is a real popular system in the Army, and there is the plenty of fun stuff in the development pipe.

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[billvon 3,132]

>Personally, I wouldn't give their UAV a fighting chance in the air against our latest and greatest.

There are several UAV's on the drawing boards that are not even detectable by most modern weapons systems. Heck, you can get a sub 1 pound aircraft with a wireless video camera on board.

And again, my biggest fear would be a King Air (or choose a popular local GA aircraft) loaded with ANFO and using the stock autopilot to take the aircraft into a building, flying at 200 feet the whole way. That's going to work the first time they try it; even if defenders spot it they'll hesitate to take down an unarmed civilian aircraft.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Issue with the current UAVs are that as cool as they are, they'd make horrible dog-fighters for several reasons; some of which are the very reason they exist in the first place.

A UAV as a long-term loiter weapons platform makes complete and total sense. You're not worried about speed and you have all the time in the world to look around with narrow field of view cameras to find your targets.

A UAV as an interceptor / dog-fighter . . . not so much. Visibility and tele-presence sucks so target acquisition of another stealthy UAV would be difficult if not impossible. If you can detect the UAV in the first place, you'd just send up a surface to air missle and be done with it. Sending up another UAV isn't as cost effective.

this statement is only true with the LAST generation of UAVs....there are far more methods of target aquistion than visual onboard sensors...

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