Slashdot Mirror

I would like to see 100% of the American border guarded by:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/shm.htm
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-air-force-is-retiring-the-predator-drone-for-the-mo-1792832541
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=jil

The fewer human beings that are involved in the defense of no-man's-land style borders, the better.

But then again, I'm an anti-globalist who wants to stop smuggling and trade. Stopping immigration is just a byproduct of ending the first two.

Not sure why you think staying aloft overnight is trivial, it wasn't done until 2010 and with a lot of military funding.
link to zephyr project
It has to be efficient enough to be able to charge the batteries in the daytime, and then be able to stay aloft overnight with just the charge on the batteries. The solar panels, batteries, and airframe must be extremely light to accomplish this.

TFS says drones start at several thousand, but all the above features can be had in a single pre-packaged unit that can be had for $600.

Can that $600 model dead-reckon back to home and autoland if it loses both GPS and its control link?

As to the use of the word "drone", I think we can thank the media for using it to describe anything from a micro-UAV that looks like a hummingbird, to a huge stratospheric flier. Also, has anyone else noticed that an article about a hobby quadcopter is likely to be accompanied by a picture of a Reaper launching a Hellfire missile? That really helps with the public's perception of small UAVs.

Imagine, for example, a fire department sending drones into a burning building in order to assess damage and locate victims before sending personnel to locations where they can do the most good, or an ambulance drone ferrying medication and supplies to accident victims within minutes.

This story is not about radio controlled (RC) toy surveillance drones that might fit in a building. Its about fixed wing Reaper/Predator/Global Hawk sized craft that fly high over cities used for spying. Good luck flying that into a burning building. Firefigters will laugh you out of the skys.

Further, if you are going to deliver medication via drone, you better be able to land the drone anywhere, and have someone there ready to receive the payload. Its a lot cheaper to to send the Paramedics on the chopper with the supplies they need, and the evac capability in one package.

Roman history in science fiction?

Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov

And yeah, pigs fly.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/ ;)

Some remote controlled aircraft can carry JDAMs, Hellfires, Mavericks, and other pretty lethal ordnance.

A home-built kit would obviously carry less than a B52 or a B2 could carry, but a reasonably small home-built RC aircraft could easily carry a couple pounds of explosives and fly, provided you didn't intend to do all kinds of acrobatics with it. If you don't think a pound or two can be dangerous, perhaps you'd reconsider after looking at the damage a claymore mine, grenade, or molotov cocktail can do. None of these weigh that much, but can cause extensive damage kill people with ease..

Was the kid going to destroy the Pentagon? Of course not. Could he have still killed people? You betcha.

not as badass as Wendy the Warthog http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

I think Hellfire missiles are a bit heaver than 10 kg...

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/predator5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_missile

at about 300 to 400 USD per 28 g, it may be feasible.

Any sort of energy that is released in the term of a second or so is useless against anything but stationary targets where you can assume you will hit the same point for that entire second

Northrop Grumman's Mobile/Tactical High Energy Laser system disagrees with your assessment... just ask the mortar shells it shot down. They've been able to shoot down large and small caliber artillery rockets, artillery shells and mortars.

Last I heard someone decided it was too expensive given the current technology and cut funding. NG was working on a less expensive version dubbed Skyguard, which may be able to protect traffic at commerical airfields from shoulder-launched anti-air missiles. (Haven't seen any videos of that system yet).

There's also the YAL-1A, same concept but mounted on a turrent in the nose of a 747.

All these systems use chemical lasers, and while we can fit them into "a few semi-trucks" (or a 747) right now, they're far from being hand-held. In any event, we're past the "Can we shoot down X with a laser" argument and are currently figuring out how to make it smaller and more cost effective. It takes intermediate research programs such as these if we ever want our ships, tanks, or soldiers making pewpewpew noises when they pull the trigger.

Have you seen those "Robot Wars" competitions? They have remote controlled robots fighting each other with weapons such as spikes, hammers, and saws.

If you accept that those are robots, then you must also accept that a Predator UAV armed with a Hellfire missile is a robot. It's the same thing, a remote controlled fighting machine. The difference is that the TV robots only fight other robots. The Predator drones fight people. Therefore, we already have robots that break the laws of robotics. Here, welcome your new robotic overlords.

there is no contradiction there, if that's what you are implying.

Consider that the Space Shuffle is actually a glider over most of the re-entry (called glide-approach).

A cruise missile is a jet-propelled glider... as opposed to a Russian Satan ss-18, which is a jet-propelled ballista, though such things may use fins and such for stabilization.

In other words, anything that uses wings for flying (and not solely for manuvering e.g. a fighter during afterburn) is a glider.

If you joke about it, please do so with knowledge (or lookup correct naming!).

The UAV used by the US Air Force is called Predator .

And if the technology is Russian, you don't shave, the technology shaves you: A4 Vision :-)

If you consider the predator UAV a robot, this law was broken a long time ago.

Well, they opposed Bush in his "omg teh terroristz lets bomb iraq!" madness.

Did you forget that France also sold lots of military hardware to Iraq. Why attack you customer, unless you are Sony of course?

On that note I remember a joke that went around for the short period of time when they supported the war. It was something about being able to tell if a "Mirage" was a friend or a foe.

I know France wasn't the only country selling arms to Iraq in spite of the embargo placed by the UN, but Russia & China have been less of an ally in the past then France was, so they didn't piss me off as much, I still think they deserved a more harsh punishment, such as death for all involved, for selling weapons to people they were not supposed to sell them to. I personally think that for doing that we should have also attacked them (France, Russia, & China) killing the people who sold weapons to people like Sadam.

If I remember corectly France, Russia, & China were all against that war because it would force them to fight against a customer which would then cost them money. I really wish Sony & all those other DRM zealots would learn this lesson. The customer needs to not be your enemy.

There are a few in use currently in Iraq. There is the Talon which can fire many different weapons (M249, .50 cal, M4A1, M24, etc). They are very accurate, more accurate than any soldier. Every EOD team seems to have one of these which they use to detonate IEDs.

UAVs are everywhere and are common place in almost all operations. There is the Predator, which when armed with the hellfire missile system can be very leathal and the little Raven which can be utilized at the squad level. The new Viper Strike bombs, which are starting to be depoyed on UAVs, are very usefull in urban situations where you need to take out the enemy without harming innocents in say, the next room. This is a big development because the "insurgents" like to take shelter in mosques, schools, and hospitals, etc. The new Hardstop bombs help in this situation as well (but I do not think they are carried by UAVs). Anyways, here is an exellent video/story which mixes captured enemy video with the video from the UAV which nails them. I love UAVs.

This story reminds me of the ABL...

Latest article I could dig up:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industrie s/aviation/12380334.htm

Website about the ABL:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

If, and I Stress IF, you are right about space weapons having no real advantage you are correct that building them first because someone else might is BS. If you are wrong that makes us second to the party once we realize it was a misjudgement and gives a window of advantage to whoever was right.

In regards to judging the ultimate strategic importance of space? I question many things regarding our armed forces. I do not question their intelligence in identifying that which is of strategic importance. We did not get to be the single most powerfull military force by accident you know. So if the airforce eggheads think the next great form of force application is from space based weapons I say they might just deserve a little benifit of the doubt.

As for a fricken laser??? Well last I checked they were making some serious strides towards creating an airborn laser deffense system mounted in a 747.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/1 999/n19990811_991496.htm
http://avstop.com/news/747.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldie rtech_ABL,,00.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

Oddly enough, alot of the problems facing that system would be easier to deploy on a space platform. For example, being able to utilize a nuclear power source could remove the reliance on large amounts of chemicals to react for the power needed.

Lasers aside, they are also asking to deploy systems to drop rocks (essentially). And the efficacy of that isn't excactly in doubt. Nuclear Level explosions without the ascociated fall out. Rods from God indeed.

True enough the US developed the Pegasus. Launched from an F-15 doing an Icarus impersenation. Its only test was successfull but was against a dumb sattelite with no manouvering capacity. The warhead was a pure kenetic load with limited ability to alter its course once set. The idea was that if we ever needed to deploy them we would expend enough to cause active sattelites to expend their fuel in efforts to avoid the launches highly limiting their usefulness, actual impacts were a bonus. The window of intercept was extremely narrow and it would have been highly impractical if a sattleite had a less limited means of manouevering... or refuleing capacity. Both highly likely attributes of any militarized space platform.

The russians developed sattelites that essentially did the same thing. They would launch them as innocuous commecial loads or something but their true purpose was to intercept targets in orbit to disable them.

Like anything else of that nature its a move and counter move situation. Generally speaking deffense is easier than attack and I doubt that will fail to hold true for space.

It's win-win-win: the Bush White House gets to point to Clinton excesses and how they're fixing them, the liberals get to point to a reduction in military spending, and the scientists get to keep one of the most cost effective experiments (per capita) ever running smoothly.

How about the B-1B and the TU-160?

When I was a little kid, I wanted to be Chuck Yeager. Now I'm sitting at home reading Slashdot. Sigh.

[quote] This is the first real laser weapon.[/quote]

A new transportable hangar system has been developed which will allow the B-2 to be deployed to forward locations overseas. The hangars are 126ft long, 250ft wide and 55ft high. The first of these hangars has been erected on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Prior to this development, B-2s have had to return to Whiteman AFB after missions, for maintenance of the aircrafts' stealth features.

Actually, both your (US) and my (.se) military is already using model aircraft and other small unmanned devices in active duty. They are called UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and perform a variety of missions.

They were used in the Balkan, controlled from Carriers and could circle for over a week at relatively low altitide sending back high quality images and live feeds.

Some of them also carry a Hellfire missile (guess why ;-).

In Gulf War II, small underwater devices equipped with a kilogram of explosives made their way through mine fields... kamikaze!

In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left co

In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.

The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)

Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:

"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.

One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left command-pilot and right navigator-armament operator's stations. It is a fully pressurized

Wrong, the Eurofighter is the first plane to go into service that can utilise supercruise in level flight. The EE Lightening could do so in a dive (and it could also go balistic straight from the end of the runway, and did so to get to the height nessacery to intercept Russian Bombers who routinly strayed into Northsea airspace).

This website shows several flight data recorders that have been used in military aircraft and the Space Shuttle.

Why don't they rent the largest cargo plane in the world, the Antolev An-124? Instead of putting a car in the hold, there is room for a couple of buses.

You do realize, theres alot more solar energy in space than there is on earth? You do realize there are particles in space, waves carrying these particles allow solar sails to travel as such great speeds.

In space, you should in theory be able to create a laser thousands of times more powerful than it would be if its on earth, due to the fact that if done right, the suns energy could be harnessed.

Also theres other ways, you could simply use more than one laser aimed at the same target to increase how effective the laser is.

Airforce

current plans to deflect astriods

you can see two sites there with lasers currently in the works which are said to be powerful enough to do it.

See picture

What do you expect? It's the Army.

For real laser action check out the Air Force's Airborne laser!

It's called the Amaga.
Raytheon (the missile producer) is working on this ruggedized version of the iPaq. I saw a prototye being dropped from 2 meters on a floor. No problems ;-).

http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/s of tware/raytheon/

See
here for details.

A friend of mine worked on the spec for this.. quite a nice little gadget, now just gotta get the thought controls working and we'll have firefox sorted!

hehe