Slashdot Mirror
Robots Go To War
JKT writes: "According to The Times (of London): Predators, which can operate for 40 hours at a time ... can hover at up to 25,000ft, taking photographs in all types of weather, and at night with the use of infrared cameras ... For the first time in any operation, the Predators, developed by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, are also armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles ... if a Predator spots a potential target, the ground operator can launch a Hellfire missile attack immediately." The article covers all the various pre-attack surveillance mechanisms, including special forces units of various countries. Interesting stuff, especially because it appears that one of those recon drones has already been shot down.
Doesn't it seem that people will be replaced by many robots commanded by a few people in a hidden bunker somewhere. That is where it's going.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010911/ts/iraq_u sa_plane_dc_4.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A457 0-2001Aug27.html
FAS has some more info on the bird here.
:wq
Sounds almost scarry. What if the operator is a terrorist who joined the army to sabatouge the mission? and he fires on american troops? wouldnt that be scary, but of course it would never happen.
Gaming Shizzle
I'm not an expert, but I don't think so. I think they require to be launched pretty nearby to what you want to look at. That's probably why we want to go through Pakistan - to put the facilities for maintaining and launching these things there. Or maybe my knowledge is outdated, and they can fly farther, perhaps from the United States directly, or can fit on a carrier. I had never heard they could fire missiles before, either.
________
"And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
I suppose this is where the technology is going - completely automated wars. However, this is against a poor nation - Afghanistan. We wouldn't need people on our side, but we'd be killing people on theirs. Is that right? Do we, as a developed nation, have the right to use that against those without much technology? And, if no one is killed (on our side) will we be more likely to head into wars, without consideration for the rest of the world? These questions need to be answered as the technology progresses.
________
"And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
After first claiming it was an American plane like the Iraqis shot down, they also claimed that it was an opposition plane. Was there anything shot down at all?
The Russians do have some UAVs, and there's a chance it was one of theirs.
Actually the range of the predator is limited more by the 1998 INF treaty than by their actual range.
The treaty limits them to 5000 Km. I have not seen any info on their actually range which is no dount classified information.
There is a nice write up (and picture) on this rather funky looking bird in this article.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kajistan. What does the "[i]stan" mean?
A hellfire missile on what is basically an expensive radio controlled toy. Anyone seeing a problem with giving something that is controlled by radio/infrared/laser/string something as lethal as a anti-tank missile? Sure, it probably has encryption and secure communications, but these things are never perfect.
Say one of these things are launched from a ship, and shortly afterwards its taken over by the enemy, and wham, the ship has a big gaping hole in it.
I'm sure the likelihood of this happening are slim, but why give these things the power to do that in the first place? Assuming they are launched from a ship, they could simply launch a missile to that target, no?
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
In Iraq, for instance,, as well as the Balkans.
Apparently, the RQ-1 Predator is made by General Atomics. They claim that it can remain airborne for 40 hours at a stretch, and it can carry a payload of 204 kg. The weight of a Hellfire seems to be on the order of 47 kg, give or take a few depending on model.
According to a 1998 article by the FAS, it also includes a satellite link, meaning that it's providing recon up to the point where it is shot down (if and when that happens). Operating range is listed as 926 kilometers, and at 10-25 thousand feet; FWIW, the General Atomics site mentioned work on a newer version that would have a significantly greater endurance.
For those that own Hellfire missiles, the FAS site also includes a handy-dandy user's guide [PDF] of sorts.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The terrorists, on the other hand, no matter how well equipped they are, have a finite supply of anti-aircraft capability. Keep launching these things over their territory, float at a good height, and let them launch anti-aircraft missiles at them to their heart's content. (They have to try to shoot them down, the intel the unmanned aircraft gather are too valuable to their enemy to just ignore them.) Equip those things with a chaff dispenser in place of a missle or two, and you've got a great robotic attrition tool.
One of the worst things about guerilla warfare is your inability to wear down the enemy without taking vastly larger losses yourself. This stuff puts an interesting spin on that... bin Laden may have picked the wrong time to become a guerilla.
The terrifying thing is that robots can replace many of the tasks of ground troops, more and more. This means that there will be troops, but those troops may not be in the contexts where they can observe for themselves what they are doing and form their own conclusions about it.
More and more, troops fall into technical roles, controlling machines on great aircraft carriers and evaluating machine gathered data.
This contrasts with the role of the "grunt" in Vietnam. The infantrymen returning from that battlefield came back and relayed their stories to civilians, who used this information to form their (generally negative) opinion on the war.
Robots are under the control of commanders, who are indoctrinated differently than are ground troops and may be less inclined to feel sympathy or mercy when they push the button of destruction.
An enemy soldier, or a civilian, cannot plead mercy or beg for life to a robot; the commander controlling the 'bot may not even know a person is surrendering or begging for mercy.
I oppose anything that would distance us from the blood on our hands, including roboticization of war. You can read many science fiction novels that address these issues.
Goat sex free since 2001
Has anyone ever thought of cloning dinosaurs??? They could eat and digest victims, taking away the need for burial. There will sure as hell be little or no caualties, as dinosaurs would probably "kill" rather than "hurt". Whatever country grows the biggest and baddest dinosaurs wins!!! Plus you could make that a nice TV show... place Survivor contestents on the same island that you keep the dinosaurs on.
;-)
I'll shutup now
Firstly, since the Predator has only a rear propellor, it certainly can't "hover" the way the Apache does for accuracy, concealment and timing purposes.
Secondly, if the plane's major role is in surveillance then it will necessarily maintain a high altitude - meaning 10 or 20 thousand feet. This poses problems if, as this link suggests, the Hellfire is unreliable or unusable over about 2,000 ft.
Since the first tests were only done in February, what is the chance that these problems have been satisfactorily solved?
Futhermore, a remotely piloted plane has reduced situational awareness. I don't think the manufacturers (General Atomics Aeronautical Systems) would be particularly pleased if friendly-fire casualties in Afghanistan were put down to the inaccuracy of their "robot" planes.
Does this mean nerds adept at playing video games and computer flight simulators will be operating the fighter jets from remote controls in the future, instead of the kinds of brave, tough men who fought conventional wars in the past?
I find this concept very troubling. If we train robots to be killing machines, how can we expect them to become responsible members of society?
e _f uture.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3522/robots_are_th
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
My uncle worked on the development and testing of the Predators at the Point Mugu NAS in California, and I was able to do a video report on some of the more public aspects of the technology used. That was in 1995, when they were first deployed in August of that year over Albania and other nations in the Adriatic to survey military targets. It can see a license plate from 10k feet. As of the time I made my report (I was in 8th grade at the time), the Predator flew over 50 missions over Bosnia and all 3 craft that were used were lost. Its not like the military really has anything to worry about, since the technology has already been compromised.
I can see your point in that using high-tech weapons and sensors goes against the uniquely (and quaint) Western notion of fair play on the field of battle. I suggest to you that this notion has always been a myth, an ideal to which some wish to strive but ultimately set aside when the lead begins to fly. It's noble, it's naive, and it's wrong.
If a nation asks its young men and women to put their lives at risk for a just cause (and wiping out Al Queda falls into that category), that nation owes it to their soliders to put every technological advantage at their disposal.
Would you feel better if we stabbed them all to death using pikes, or clubbed them to a pulp from an arms' length?
http://ai.about.com/library/weekly/aa072099.htmt s/
w 2/
1 112000/1112411.stm
m l
a cy/robot.html
m l
m l
m
http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/13/0213robot.html
http://www1.cnn.com/TECH/9612/11/interactive.robo
http://www.daily.umn.edu/daily/1999/12/07/news/ne
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~haddrill/robots.ht
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97leg
http://www.it.umn.edu/inventing/98fall/cover/
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/21/1934206.sht
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.03/robots.ht
http://ai.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072099.ht
"Protection" by Robert Shekley, anyone?
"Arrrgh, ye mateys! It be a Hellfire missile off the port quarter! Let us board it and turn it on our enemies, the better to smite them, says I to you! Arrrgh!"
Please.
http://www.gat.com/asi/aero.html
The UAVs could well prove the difference between success and failure. The Soviets had little info before they went into the country, where as we (if we go in) will have much info due to these UAVs. Go ahead, shoot them down, their cost is trivial compared to a spy plane. We can loft 100 of them into the air, and track all military movements, even at night. We don't need a massive ground troop invasion, just track their movements and drop in deltas, seals, hell even rangers into the area around their bunkers.
Game over.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
If you check the CNN article, it seems that Reuters is confirming that it was a helicopter belonging to the local opposition...
9 /2 2/ret.afghan.plane/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/0
I don't think these things are going to become super commonplace soon, and I don't especially don't see us waging war / keeping peace (whatever...) using things that hold one missile. I'm guessing the one hellfire is for a command apc somewhere, not to be taking out _____.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I can't seem to get the article. Has the site been slashdotted or did one of these drones get a bit off-target?
People have already surrendered to a robot. It worked just fine.
There's alot of interest in these RPVs in the US and NATO.
t m
h tm
a wk .htm
s c/ globalhawk010427_1_n.shtml
r /i dr010817_2_n.shtml
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav.htm
Israel started to use them in the late 70s and 80s for Counter Battery imaging of Syrian and Hezbollah artillery. Then the US started a really horrible project called Aquila in the 80s that failed. By the Gulf War the Navy was using Israeli drones for real time imaging of targets for the 8 and 16 inch guns.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/hunter.h
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/pioneer.
Global Hawk is really neat
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/global_h
It can launch from Nevada, fly to Australia and then loiter for a spell before refueling. And it can transmit images to other aircraft or sats at 50-275 megabits per second. Australia is looking at the Global Hawk for recon on the north.
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/mi
Recently the USAF and Army are testing RPVs for firing Sidewinder, Stinger and Hellfire missiles at a range of airborne and ground targets.
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/id
"IAI recently teamed with Raytheon Missile Systems to promote Cutlass (Combat UAV Target Locate and Strike System), which mates the Harpy air vehicle with a guidance system based on the US company's seekers for the AIM-9X and ASRAAM air-to-air missiles coupled with an automatic target-recognition and classification system. Other similar defense-suppression drones include the ARW-10 Lark developed by Kentron in South Africa."
Interesting stuff no doubt.
They had two or three confirmed "kills," where they were able to force a MiG into a mountain.
The most interesting implementation was using the drones to drop propaganda leaflets. I understand they were called "bullsh*t bombers" for this mission. A book I saw has the caption, "Can bombs be far behind." Thirty years later, they're getting there.
Of course, when you're 25000 feet (about 5 miles) away/up, 54 knots is pretty close to standing still.
Do the drones carry any onboard defence capabilities? AI in the code to take over when there is an oncomming missile? Defensive manouvers or flares?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
"... if a Predator spots a potential target, the ground operator can launch a Hellfire missile attack immediately."
Wasn't this method of combat disproved by Wile E. Coyote?
Drones have been used since at least the Korean War (er, Police Action). My Father served with the Army Security Agency in Okinawa during Korea. Every now and then, they'd send a drone over mainland China. Their job was to track it until it was shot down. This allowed the U.S. to test the Chinese air defense system.
it stopped being fair once they started crashing OUR planes into OUR buildings killing lots of innocent people. Paybacks a bitch bin laden!
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
So the Teliband telegraphs their locations, and ordiance and tactics by bringing down a replaceable and expendible little air-bot. Guess they showed us.
Considering that a Predator doesn't cost that much more then the Hellfire missiles they will soon be carrying, this isn't a big loss when the Afganis or Iraqis shoot one down.
Predators themselves are highly disposable intelligence and weapons-delivery systems: the Israeli air force loves to use them as forward-observers for attack-helicopters. And while they are easy to kill, its a lot better to lose a Predator then an Apache or a Falcon, both from an economic standpoint and a loss of life standpoint.
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/RQ_1_Predator_ Un manned_Aerial.html
Biological warfare is using an organism that can be distantiated from yourself to do the killing for you. Does this then constitute some form of artificial biological warfare?
!
not like they could conquer anything
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess insiiiiide...
Give them a sense of peace to make it easier,
let the robot's laughter remind us how we used to be
According to General Atomics Aeronautics (General Atomics), the manufacturers of the predator aircraft, they can operate for 24 hours on target at 400 NM. If the London times are to be believed, the maximum flight time is 40 hours. Through the miracle of story problems, that gives us a cruising speed of about 50 mph and a range of 1000 NM there and back or 2000 NM straight through if you just want one picture as you fly by. Of course, that assumes that the fuel consumption is the same for distance travel or loitering over the target.
Additionally they have a variety of cool little aircraft on their page, and they also appear to make really ugly European light rail trains. Dropped on Afghanistan from a great height, these are just as likely to eradicate evil-doers as our current national plan.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
we should just settle our disagreements with a rousing game of starcraft and call it quits. Who ever loses dies...the end.
________________________________________________
:)
:), you shoot? Blam! wrong move.
;) and besides, it's their own evil conceptual creation.
They don't understand Missiles, they don't care they're still gonna try to shoot it down... if you wanna fight terrorists with such a sweet device, you have to THINK like one and then translate this into a weapon to which they'll fear.
Let me explain: How do terrorists commit their acts? They have bombs, they strap their body with bombs and go kamikaze, same with hijaacks. So what do they understand? "if we have something that can destroy them all, they won't touch us", put that into practice and put a nuclear detonator on the device
Hmm this started as a joke, but the more I think of it, heh, the more I'd almost laugh seeing their face taken in pictures by a spy plane of all their camps and them looking at it without daring shooting it down in case it might release something nasty over them. That way you gather all the intelligence needed without killing to many soldiers, of course some are totally stupid and will shoot it down and get blown up to bits (so less troubles for the millitary to close down the camps).
This might almost work
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
why would you mod that down? He made a good point, and the moron on top of him made a bad one. in the words of Apu, "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!"
against us. we supplied afghanistan with a number of these when they were fighting russia.
-- john
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay under on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
In Iran they speak persian, and in the other *istan country they speak either a language named after the first letter of the country like tadjik in tadjikistan or they speak various dialects with persian roots.
Arabic is spoken in the arabic peninsula, northern africa and near-east (palestine,syria,lebabanon,etc...).
Wouldn't this violate the Robot's Code?
Username taken, please choose another one.
I find it amazing that posters to Slashdot will argue the ethics of employing armed remotely piloted vehicles during a WAR with terrorists. We should have put these highbrow braniacs on the radio to talk to the hijackers when they were flying commuter jets full of civilian passengers into the downtown financial district of one of the largest cities in the United States. I am sure they would have seen the errors of their ways and given up immediately in the light of such reasoned ethical argument.
Get with the program. It is war. Anything that saves American lives good. Things that end terrorist lives good. If you can put the two together, even better. Ethics be damned.
especially because it appears that one of those recon drones has already been shot down.
As far as anything the Taliban claims, I'll believe it when I see it with my own eyes..
It's a tool. And the concept is pretty brilliant.
You have one of these puppies orbiting around an area that is a potential battle site. If they soak it with stealth graphite/carcinogenic/wonderpaste and deploy it at night or in bad weather it can go on unnoticed just watching. When it picks up something interesting, wham, a nice wing of F-15Es swoops down and ruins everyone's day and then splits at mach 3. Talk about terror...
We have had "robots" like this for a while we call them satellites though unless we have one in geosynch over Afghanistan, they can only be tasked for a part of any given day. And even if one or two were, you could launch dozens of Predators to monitor dozens of battlefield situations.
As for the idea hanging Hellfires off of them? Weird, that presumes there is no air assets available to follow up on surveillance. Unless these birds are considered disposable, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to break cover and open themselves up like that. Perhaps they are...
Anyways, I am pretty sure these particular tools are not going to facilitate "skynet" planning the overthrow of humankind anytime soon.
Just so long as the victims get to be robots too.
Not bloody likely to happen anytime soon though.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Can anybody else see this starting? RPV tanks, for recon, then arm them, and automate via AI many of the self-defense tasks... Pretty soon, no need for even a seat inside them (Predator has no way to fly in it), and we're on the road to the Bolo Mk. XXXVIII units, wheee!
:) Say, has any modelmaker yet made a model of the Predator? :)
Might make being a geek fun again
Lemon curry?
It would probably be cheaper to buy them on ebay. After all, it tore up Biohazard. Imagine what it could do on the Taliban troups!
1 25 0&mode=nested
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/04/223
In a world that is Free and Open, who needs Windows and Gates?
Check out a picture and another one a friend and I took of a Predator UAV in front of the University of Alberta's Polar Bear robot. It gives you a sense of scale. The Polar Bear is five feet long.
The pictures were taken at a robotics symposium in Orlando, Florida in July, 2000. Other pictures from the symposium with other UAVs as well as ground robot vehicles can be found here, here (includes rear and side views of Predator), and here.
Geosynchronous orbits are only possible directly over the equator, and the 24-hour orbital period makes them too far away to be useful by imaging satellites (more than 20,000 miles too far away). Just FYI.
I Did Not Know That. thanks for the heads up. the fact of the matter is: i recalled most of that from Clancey's last novel, read it last year sometime though. was just shooting from the hip.
During the 80s there was a Black Helicopter Theory claiming that the US Gov't were specifically supporting aspects of the arcade industry. The intent was to raise a generation able (training hand/eye coordination, etc) and willing to fight tommrows battles. This was particularly needed due to previous generation's docile, pacifist nature.
The US Army being involved with a special edition of the ground-breaking arcade game Battlezone probably just added to the story.
I think its a rediculous idea. Sure, having generations comfortable and able to instinctively absorb technology would provide the raw material to train soldiers adept with new weapons systems. But being able to defeat the Boss on Level 32 of Super Mario Bros, or even surviving some period of time in Battlezone, doesn't make a soldier.
http://www.aerojet.com/program/display.pl?program_ ID=36
8 C1 CCDB00669C85256A0000700F42?OpenDocument
After deploying, it glides around on the aerofoil in a widening circle, and executes attacks on anything that it classifies as armor.
There's an airborne glider version they're working on too.
go here:
http://www.ausa.org/www/greenbook.nsf/(all)/6CA
'Smart' minefields.
Both these systems, once activated, make the final 'shoot/no shoot' decisions themselves.
I didn't see Cyberdyne listed in the development specs anywhere, but you never know.
and read about the Hornet
Must... get... Whitney Houston's... voice... out of... my... head... arrrggghhh!!!!
well .. what should i say to this ! .. does anybody expect a " WOW !! GREAT TOOL "
... Humas should not kill Humas ! ... or do you think thats cool ? -s-
... this is f**king weapon
"The innocent will pay for our inability to reason."
Exactly.
The innocent are already paying:
According to a September 21, 2001 BBC story, Aid agencies prepare for Afghan tragedy, Workers in the WFP, World Food Program, have pulled out of Afghanistan because of fear for their safety. If you look at the story, be sure to see the face of the woman in the photo at the top. Her face tells everything. She is one of the innocent people.
The story says, 'According to latest estimates, as many as six million Afghans are now affected by drought, war or displacement. Aid agencies are issuing urgent pleas that the U.S.-led "war against terrorism" does not become a war against innocent civilians. Correspondents say the WFP withdrawal alone has left two and a half million Afghans without any visible means of support.'
The U.S. is killing people without firing a shot.And the craziness does not stop there. The U.S. taxpayer pays enormous amounts for all this. The Washington Post article, Unmanned U.S. Plane Is Lost Over Iraq, calls the downed drone aircraft a "relatively inexpensive, $3.2 million plane".
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden: What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
If anything, this proves that GWB and his military-industrial sponsors need this "War" only to test their expensive toys on humans. I hope, this will be as big a failure as the deployment of B117s in Yugoslavia.
I hope, one of those will be turned back on those who launched them. They are as bad as those who hijacked the planes, just richer. They can afford not to risk their fat asses.
tell the taliban to hand over bin laden (and/or help find who did this) and the food can start flowing again. doesn't seem unreasonable.
When the Taliban was fighting for the US against the USSR, they had access to Stinger man portable antiair rockets -> the Russians were losing lots of aircraft. There's about 200 'unaccounted for' floating around out there. I'd prefer 199 more drones get shot down.
"doesn't seem unreasonable.
If you can get the 2,500,000 million people who are threatened with starvation to agree that this is reasonable, it's fine with me.
Also, your solution seems to assume that the Taliban are a bunch of intelligent guys sitting around talking. In reality they are poorly educated, highly stressed people who are sometimes half crazy, and maybe even hungry themselves. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi and an Arab. (Afghans are not Arabs.) Perhaps you presume more order than there really is.
"Reasonable" left Afghanistan several decades ago.
The secret U.S. government agencies control U.S. violence: What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
The military avionics industry have seen the replacement of pilots by computers as a foregone conclusion, because of the relative frailty of human pilots under the effects of vast gravitational/centrifugal forces. (in tight turns all the blood may go to the feet making a pilot black out). This has been a limiting factor to manuverability in the design of military aircraft since the 1970's. The primary impediment to this was identified then, that arming unmanned weapons platforms would be a very hard sell for any government seeking popular consensus - seems that the USA don't care a rats arse anymore - They just don't want their troops paying the cost of war (ie. death) - (Keep racking up the debts kids) [isn't the use of this type of weaponry against third world targets 'cowardly' especially when the enemy is the creation of the US and Britain? - easier than explaining what the stste has done to an uninformed populace.] bad karma ; (
Someone has told me this morning that the U.S. will send unmanned aircrafts carrying "nuclear something" flying low over Afghanistan airspace.
If Talibans shot down the unmanned aircrafts, the U.S. is not responsible...!
We have thousands of 20- to 30-year-old bottle-blondes driving (well, sort of driving) bigass SUVs like Suburbans and Navigators here on the north side of Atlanta. I say, load these honeys onto some cargo planes over at Dobbins ARB and let 'em loose in downtown Kabul!! HAH! That'll show the Taliban what terror really is!!
According to MSNBC, the United States has denied the Taliban's claim of shooting down our spy drone.
See story here.
Do you like German cars?
On october 12, 1997, it's gunna feel pretty real to you to. In fact, anybody, not wearing factor 2000 sunblock is going to have a pretty bad day. OKAY?!
The Predator UAV is a very light self powered sailplane that saw it's first extensive use over Bosnia/Herzegovina. The aircraft, without any major modifications, usually stayed aloft for around 8 hours at a time.
The camera package installed with the package is top of the line, capable of multiple different uses. It is also very heavy though.
Two things really point against this being viable. 1 is the weight of a weapons rack, and missiles versus the aircrafts dimensions/capabilities. Given the Predator was built for a heavier load than it already has, it may be possible to add more items (AKA a heavier camera.) But, to add a complete new system, wiring, pylons, weapons... Call it a hunch, but it's going to severely hamper the planes abilities, duration, and Durability. (Have you seen the 6 foot landing gear on the plane? Imagine landing something like that with even MORE weight attatched.
The second thing is the planes construction. It was designed to be replaceable, but not as a suicide bomber. It's small size is great for security... you can't shoot at what you can't see... And it's construction minimalized the use of metal so as to provide a very small radar cross section. Adding large hunks of metal on an airplane will force it to fly slower, and lower, making it 1. Audible. 2. Visible. and 3. Picked out on Radar.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Let's call this the Iron Eagle theory. Its the theory that given enough training on a simulator, an individual is ready for the real thing.
First off, we're giving these simulation games a lot more credit that I believe they deserve. Computer simulations are amazing - and pack quite a bit of detail. But having worked on some of the systems portrayed in these games (and scammed quite a bit of time in real training simulators) - they tend to lack distinct details from the real thing. That's not to say these games aren't very cool. But they're not a perfect simulation either.
But even if they were exact simulations, they'd still only provide one aspect of the training required. First off, there's nothing like the real thing. The US Military understands this, which explains why soldiers still train in the field with MILES gear and airmen fly training sorties instead of spending time in a simulator cockpit. And even then, the systems pale in comparison to real combat experience.
And even once one is intimately familiar with the weapons system assigned, there is another level to being a member of the Armed Services. We've just touched on it with field training and combat experience - knowing how situations feel and being familiar enough with them to act. Being able to interact with other service members effectively (even if you've barely met). The ability to handle pressure. Knowing what makes up a lawful order and when one is bound to disobey an unlawful order. Knowing the common heritage, traditions, and symbols that bind all this (and more) togeather.
Technology changes the face of the battlefield and the weapons deployed on it. It might require shifts in tactics, training, and specific skills. But there is still a requirement for the kind of grit that made up WWII heros. Don't expect to see that replaced by twitch-gamers anytime soon.
They should keep working on these suckers. Make them smaller, cheaper, smarter, high altitude, and stealthy. One of America's strengths is industrial capacity. For the price of a single B1 bomber we could crank out thousands of these things, maybe a few tens of thousands.
Picture a network of thousands of automated UAV's over the war zone, each with a camera and 2 to 4 small laser tracking bombs. A typical soldier in the field or at base watching the cameras can spot a target, aim a laser at it, and the closest UAV moves in and drops a bomb. Whenever a UAV gets low on fuel or ordinance it automaticly heads back to base for resupply. The network automatically repositions units to cover gaps from units lost to fire or out of supply.
System security would be a high priority. Each UAV should be supplied with a one time pad for communication encryption. It would probably be best to route field soldier attack requests through the home base.
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Also, your solution seems to assume that the Taliban are a bunch of intelligent guys sitting around talking. In reality they are poorly educated, highly stressed people who are sometimes half crazy, and maybe even hungry themselves.
Or maybe You just aren't clever enough to tell him your opinion in the way he understands without brute force ? Or just you don't care ?
Brute force sux, I know, every programmer know...
The device you are attempting to access is either read only or just another user.
Common self-labled geeks. I thought you where smarter than that!
HAN: Afraid there's not much left.
LEIA: What was it?
HAN: Droid of some kind. I didn't hit it that hard. Itmust have had a self-destruct.
LEIA: An Imperial probe droid.
HAN: It's a good bet the Empire knows we're here.
RIEEKAN: We'd better start the evacuation.
Better endurance figures are contained in the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Annual Report to Congress. The numbers quoted will also likely be reduced significantly because of the additional drag of the missile and associated wing modifications.
I'd like to see someone take out a Ford Taurus with a high-powered rifle, even at point blank range. Driver shots don't count, since the drone is unmanned, and I'll bet you (and any other interested party) don't know where the important components are located
Rykard
Breaking the Internet one standard at a time, since 1999
There aren't many of these things. As of 1998, there were five units, each with four aircraft. A unit (ground equipment, 4 UAVs, and 55-person crew) costs $40 million, the USAF says. And it supposedly needs a 5000' paved runway, which seems excessive for something smaller than most light aircraft. It's not a robot; there's a pilot on the ground directly controlling the craft.
Here's the press release for the "Hellfire on a Predator" test. Probably hasn't been deployed yet.
Israel Aircraft Industries makes the most useful military UAVs. Theirs are smaller, with less range (which makes sense; their enemies are nearby), and are typically launched off a rail on a truck-mounted launcher, like a missile, then landed by parachute. The Israeli UAVs tend to be more autonomous; they assume they'll have serious jamming opposition and won't be able to maintain communications continuously. USAF UAVs are flown by a pilot with a joystick; Israeli UAVs tend to be controlled with a keyboard, carrying out a preplanned mission if they can't communicate
1.) Moderators: moderate the parent to this comment down.
The U.S. is killing people without firing a shot.
2.) Umm, no. Terrorists and the Talliban residing in Afghanistan are responsible for killing innocent Afghans. That is your source of craziness. I love your quote, it is such bullshit. Think about what your saying. Your logic is mind numbing. If a family member of x kills a family member of y and all of family x flees in fear your logic would be to blame family y!
Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. --Red Hot Chili Peppers, Californication
Predators do NOT carry Hellfire missiles in actual operation.
First of all, the "trials" weren't meant to develop the Predator into a weapons system. Only Phase I of the testing is completed. Before Phase II, they have to re-engineer the Hellfire, since it was designed to be fired by low-flying helicopters. After Phase II, "This will complete the demonstration of the objectives we set down at the beginning of this process, to demo the technology, and prove its operational feasibility." The tests they did this year were in ideal conditions, fired at a stationary target.
I spent 2 weeks at Nellis AFB, NV this summer, where the 11th & 15th Reconnaissance Squadrons are the only units that fly the Predator. I saw them flying, up-close, the trailer they control them from, and footage from previous flights. I even talked to one of the pilots that flew one of the Hellfire test flights.
It doesn't take much to verify facts online nowadays. Like the fact that the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment is in the Army, not the Air Force. The US Air Force has NO regiments, they do have a variety of special operations assets though.
Besides the obvious grammatical/editorial error in the first sentence, the SAS & American special ops troops work closely quite often. They're constantly deploying all over the world for training or operations.
I don't know how this kind of stuff gets printed by (supposedly) respected newspapers. The author (who's not just a reporter, but their defence editor) & source for this article are clueless.
Here is the official Air Force factsheet on the RQ-1 Predator
Here is the AF News article about the Hellfire tests
I tend to wonder why major robitic systems haven't been deployed, but I am certain there are good reasons.
I know of one system that was developed a while back (for the DOD, I believe) that involved a targetable mortar mounted on a remote controlled (it may have even been autonomous to a point) 4 wheel ATV. I saw some test videos of this on various shows, and even found some small articles about it in Popular Mechanics.
Odetics, Inc, in Anaheim, CA produced at one time (at least some finished prototypes) a six-legged robotics system called the Odex-1 - the picture of the Odex-1 getting into/out of a pickup isn't staged - there was video taken of it broadcast on national TV through shows like "That's Incredible" and "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" - which I have also seen. It was set to be a defence robotics platform, with weapons mounted on it. Whatever happened to this machine is a mystery - I haven't been able to find any information on it...
Anyhow, a friend of mine described a software system he developed, which I have no doubts about him doing, as I have other code he worked on for an earlier, more benign system.
Basically, it was a GA/AE system, in which he created a "tank" simulation. Each tank in the simulation had sensors and outputs. The sensors could sense such things as the location of the other units in the simulation, as well as turret position of the other units. The outputs controlled the firing of the cannon, and moving the tank.
Each tank was "driven" by a custom bit of code. Each tank was given a bit of semi-random code to execute, and the simulation was ran. After so many rounds of simultation, those tanks that had done the best were replicated and "bred" - exchanging bits of code (ala DNA/genes) - to fight in the next run of simulation.
Note that this sim wasn't run real-time with graphics - he said he ran it "in-memory" to attain the fastest speed, and had a logging playback system to slow it down for human consumption and study.
None of this is new or unique (well, other than the fact that he was playing around with this back in 1992 or so, as a senior in high school), but the results he related to me were suprising:
The tanks, after so many runs, started displaying curious behavior. First, a communications of sorts was "discovered", that involved "turret-waggling" and "bee-dancing" behavior. Soon after that, flock and group strategies for eliminating opponents (essentially, learning to operate as teams) came about. He said late in the runs, the tanks learned to exploit a bug in his VM for the scripts each tank used, a buffer overrun that allowed the tanks to "teleport" behind their enemies to close in for the "kill".
He told me he stopped the sim at that point - uncertain about continuing it.
He since lost the code, but I doubt it would take much to replicate it. Like I said, I have other code he worked on which was more benign, and involved the same sort of system, except this time with "bugs" competing against each other, and an environment (that both grows good "grass", and bad "poison grass"), as well as breeding and dying - a very fascinating simulation in and of itself. I have no reason to doubt that he went the next step.
What I wonder is whether such stuff has been developed for use on a real battlefield - matching the ATV mortars with such software, bred inside the "dismounted soldier" training system the DOD uses for training, etc - could such a system be used for real warfare? Anyone care to comment on effectiveness, problems, ways the enemy could use it against the aggressor?
Finally - I tend to wonder if such a system could be applied to a Battlebot/Robot War competition...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
In addition, maybe we should bug the food to listen in on millions of conversations about "Where's bin Laden?". Billions of robot bugs that crawl into corners or hide under rocks might be a good way to conduct surveillance of terrorist activities in hostile territories.
Daniel LaLiberte https://www.facebook.com/daniel.laliberte