Slashdot Mirror
X-45 Makes Debut Flight
jonerik writes "The Associated Press (by way of MSNBC) reports the debut flight on Wednesday of Boeing's X-45A, the first unmanned aircraft designed from the start to carry weapons. According to the article, the X-45 - one of two being tested - flew for 14 minutes and will be able to carry 3,000 pounds of guided bombs. If eventually purchased by the Pentagon, expect to see it in service sometime between 2007 and 2010. The plane's relatively cheap cost ($10-15 million per aircraft), ease of maintenance, and lack of an onboard pilot will likely make it a staple of future U.S. war plans."
If it has any stealth features? Or if "partially autonomous" means automatic fire avoidance or flying map of the earth? Hopefully that's all it is. If, on the other hand, that means that it can pick it's own targets if it needs to, it had better not run on windows... that would be a blue screen to remember.
Hey with these things they will be able to continue to nuke the planet after everyone is dead.
Unlike the crewed planes it may replace, the X-45 would be partially autonomous. Its pilot ? who may fly several planes at once ? would remain on the ground, out of harm?s way.
I wonder what is to stop someone from cracking the communications protocol and effectivly hijacking the plane. It seems like similar less advanced spy planes are already being used in Afghanistan but if these become standard I could very well see an enemy putting a significant amount of resources into cracking the encryption. Does anyone know enough about the system to know whether there is a significant risk of a 3rd party taking over one of these planes during a flight?
I stole this Sig
Not really funny if you think that 50 cents of your last tax payment may have gone to an actual, honest-to-goodness kill "in the field".
Extremely not funny if you think of any "accidents" that might happen.
What's that line about swords into ploughshares again?
Basically these are cruise missles that return the returnable parts instead of destroying them. Think of these things as the space shuttle vs just big rockets.
(only of course for the analogy to hold, you'd need to make the space shuttle carry 10x what it currently can)
Yeah, civilian lives matter a whole lot to our military. (For those that don't want to click, it's more than died in the "9/11" attack.)
Fool: when was warfare supposed to be fun? It's all about imposing your will on somebody else, probably at the expense of pain and suffering to them, or even both of you.
The days of the intrepid dog fighting pilot have been over for some time anyway... I suppose this is just a natural extension of that.
Kindly name a country that can field a force capable of taking on either the Air Force or the Navy. heck, we can limit it to just one Navy carrier group.
(If that country's on the UN Security Council, put it down and try again.)
When we started using cruise missles, we were called cowards. When we started using tanks, we were called cowards. When we started using machine guns, regular guns, pike squares, and siege warfare, we were called cowards. When we started using arrows for war or just plain throwing sticks, we were called cowards.
"Coward" is a word that should be limited to people who refuse to take risk and fail--not those that refuse to take a risk they can find a way around, and win.
The only reason our enemies call us cowards is because, if we were to fight them on their own terf, they'd have slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell against us.
Technology has come a long way; we have not. We build better weapons to kill people with more efficiency. We focus on winning the conflict, but not preventing it.
No doubt, it is a very cool piece of technology. I can't imaging the engineering that went into it. I wish this energy went into exploring other planets, instead of "fighting for peace".
Once upon a time, you had to look into someone's eyes to kill them. Then you could do the job from 20 yards away, 100 yards away, from 2 miles in the air, from another nation, another continent.
Doesn't something change when you take human conscience out of the equation? The dot on the screen is a village with many homes, families, adults and children. We can unleash hell without ever seeing our victims. To them, we are a faceless empire, worse than Rome's wildest dreams.
We use space-age technology to accomplish cave-man goals. We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.
=brian
If you're implying that the US and her allies intedded to kill civilians, than you're an idiot. There would be millions dead if that were the case.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
We already have plenty of technology in the battle field, such as electronic beacons etc. The only Allied casualties in the Gulf War were when the Americans blew up and killed British troops. So called "friendly fire". The only Allied casualties so far in the Afghan war was when the Americans bombed and killed Canadian troops. More so called "friendly fire". And now you want to put American firepower under the finger of someone even *further* removed from the responsibility of his actions? Sorry but the American military has a lot of trust to regain before we let the US military bring new toys to the party.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
The really worrying thing about the way that technology has advanced at an ever-increasing pace is the fact that it now places some similar powerful offensive capabilities well within the grasp of terrorists and smaller countries.
UAVs, RPVs and cruise missiles are a perfect example of a technology that is well within the reach of such foes of the USA.
The ready availability of low-cost GPS units with computer interfaces, small and efficient low cost high powered computers, advanced composites such as kevlar and carbon-fiber, solid-state gyros, high-power servos and cheap but powerful jet engines (such as this or maybe this) has lowered the barrier to entry significantly.
Up until now the might and technical superiority of the US defense arsenal has proved a mighty deterrent and (when used) a mighty effective tool in battle.
The only response that terrorists and small factions have had to the US's superiority has been to offer suicide bombings and attacks such as those of September 11.
However, now that just about anyone (or group) with access to some readily available knowledge and equipment can produce their own cruise missile , RPV or AUV, things could begin to change -- for the worse.
Imagine the effect that such a craft would have if it were programmed to fly over NYC and dispense a payload of anthrax or other bio-agent over a wide area as it went?
Such a remotely piloted or autonomous vehicle could be built for as little as US$10,000 and could be launched from the roof of a van or SUV at a location which might be several hundred miles from the intended target.
The use of a fairly small airframe built from composites would mean a low radar profile and the onboard computer operating in concert with an onboard GPS receiver and small radar distancing system would allow a low-altitude pre-programmed flight path to be followed with relative ease.
That good numbers of these machines could be built using "off the shelf" materials and components that would not ring any bells in the way that the training of Al Qaeda pilots did, is worrying.
Imagine the effect of 20 or 30 of these missiles being launched simultaneously at NYC or LA on a warm summer's day when plenty of people are outdoors enjoying the sun.
Just as the X-45, Tomahawk and other remotely piloted or automomous weapons can impersonalize a war for the USA, we should be aware that the same may now be true for the USA's foes. Suicide bombing may become redundant real soon now.
No, he doesn't, because he's motivated by ideology instead of reason.
Not only that, but none of the dipshit kneejerkers reading this article has realized that this technology will actually reduce civilian casualties in the event of a war. Most of the misses by bombs and missiles from the US Air Force are due to the crews flying high enough to avoid antiaircraft fire. With unmanned drones, that's no longer a concern, identification is easier, and the uninted casualties are lower.
But this is Slashdot, what do you expect?
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
You think it takes a lot of competence to push the launch button on a ICBM? If the US really just wanted to kill civilians, it could do it pretty quickly and easily.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
call things 'prudent' and 'effective' that amateurs and romantics call 'cowardly' If you come at a professional with a knife, he wants to shoot you with a gun, at a distance; if you have a gun, he wants a morter. If you have a morter, he wants artillery; if you have artillery, he wants air support. It's about making some other dumb son of a bitch die for his country. A misaimed UAV isn't much worse than a short round from a 155mm gun. Stop hand wringing-- once you decide to be in a shooting war, it's ugly. The stick and rudder guys in the pointy planes may not like UAVs, but they understand the motivations. They probably don't want to be flying a lot of the missions that they are (or will be) assigned to perform. When I was in school, a teacher once said to the class, "if we're at war, I want killers on my side." That's the job, if it comes to that. The military people I know don't want to fight, but they'll do it for us when required. It's nearly memorial day. Go hug a serviceman, servicewoman, or vetern you know. -dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
...through conventional means, then the rest of the world must play dirty.
Increasing automation of weaponry, and now, total remote control has led and will lead to fewer and fewer deaths of American servicemen and women. This, in turn, removes the single biggest reason for the American political establishment to hold back from launching into war; if there are no body bags flying home, who is going to bother voting these politicians out of office? If a victory can be gained quickly and the opposing side forced to follow the American Way, generating a tidy profit in the process for those American companies that will help them see the light, it is entirely good political karma. Where once a diplomatic solution would have been applied, politicans will be all too keen to apply military solutions instead. No risk, all gain.
America cannot expect those in the world who do not share her views to sit idly by whilst this happens. When people are fighting for what they believe to be their country or their way of life, they will continue to fight back no matter what the military imbalance may be against them. This can be seen, for instance, in the current Israel/Palestine conflict, where despite being massively outgunned and confined to very limited areas, the Palestinians continue to get back up off the floor and keep fighting.
Notice how the Palestinians fight back. They do not have a conventional army, so they must choose other means. Currently, their method of choice seems to be the suicide bomb, and they are called terrorists by the Israelis. The Palestinians, of course, who believe that they are fighting to regain their homeland, call them martyrs.
This is what lies in store for America should she choose to go down this path. Without fear of being voted out of office thanks to the technology, American politicians will throw the country into many wars, and no doubt she will win them in spectacular fashion. However, the opposition will fight back, not through conventional means but through 'terrorism'. It is easy to infiltrate a country as proud of its freedoms as America. What lies in store then? Suicide bombs? Information warfare? Or worse?
We have already seen this scenario once, with September 11th. I am firmly of the belief that the key driving force behind Bin Laden is that he feels his homeland, Saudi Arabia, is being 'occupied' by American forces stationed there since the Gulf War. Of course there is much more to it than that, but it is all too convenient that his anti-American rage became prominent only in the years following the Gulf War.
When this starts to happen, how do you stop it? The obvious way is to restrict those very freedoms that allow the enemy to infiltrate and perpetrate this 'terrorism'. Then what happened to the 'American Way', the very thing that the war was meant to be protecting in the first place?
It's time we started thinking about some of the consequences of the great superiority in American military technology, before those consequences come back to haunt us.
In my opinion winning a conflict _is_ preventing conflict, In the longer term sense at least. War is an unfortunate part of life, why not because as some would say it is our instinct to fight, but progress is a battle. Back to my original point, the United States has developed a good position to prevent war, its quite simple, if you wage war then you die. This in no way prevents all wars, of course not, if the US wants to wage war against someone then, nobodys going to stop them.
The real issue you made, is not the battles we fight now, its the battles we _are_ slowly winning. Your comment "we somehow need better people." is correct but, I would state that we are working on it. Of course despite the fact that we are all so impaitent and short lived, these changes take time. Lots of time. Over the past 100 years we have evolved as people to a very very different world, with a much more significant proportion of maybe lets call them; "Good willed, free loving" people. In my opinion we need at minimum another hundred years, maybe more, but it is not a question of how can we, or when will we, but a question of simply how much more pain we will have to endure in the mean time.
Conflict or war is a part of evolution, my reference being evolution of society. Largly gone are the days when wars were simply fought over land, not that it still doesnt happen, but i dont see Australia invading New Zealand, or simiar. That maybe an extremem over-simplification, yes India is seriously thinking about invading Pakistan right now, Isreal still occupies Palistine, etc, etc. But it comes back to my previous point, politically western nations (in general) have put in the past such disputes, the few remaining ones are purley idological.
Slowly these idological battles will be resolved, and with time eventually all peoples and nations, will realise there is a better way. One day..
Frankly, if we were willing to lose some ground-hugging robots with stun guns, we could probably win a war without actually killing any of the enemy, just imprisoning them for a little while ;)
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
No, unmanned fighters won't stop terrorists. Thats obvious. But unmanned surveillance drones that will collect massive amounts of data and never need to come back for a pee break, just might.
Peace is won through strength. Somehow that simple fact escaped you in history class, but your bashful pleas for peace love and happiness are completely out of line with what we know about human nature and human history. If you value your culture, you defend it.
Get the guys from Junkyard Wars (aka Scrapheap Challenge for those in the UK) to "bodge" together a motorcycle engine, a propellor, 100kg of C4, a GPS receiver and some control circuitry. Brand new and in quantity these could probably go for about $10,000.
Let's see... for the price of one of these drones (assume $20 million for the drone), we could launch 2000 of our expendable smart bombs.
Now, now, I know theirs will probably be supersonic, but let's face it: most of the enemies can't hit the broad side of a barn, and if we send 5 or 6 of these things on target at least one will get through.
That's the big problem with the US military: too much money spent on big showpiece weapons. They've forgotten what won WWII. It was massive industrial output. We no longer have the ability to flood the battlefield with thousands of cheap weapons. God forbid somebody gets lucky and shoots down a B-2. That's what... a billion dollars? Yikes!
Yeah, I know, we're doing great now, but when it comes to military stuff "now" is yesterday. The future won't look all that bright if we keep buying our weapons from Gucci.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?
Ok, Rah Rah U-S-A and all that... go America.
However, it bothers me that you seem to think that the civilians on the ground in Afghanistan are supporters of the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden. They did not vote the Taliban into power, and they did not invite Al Qaida (sp?) to their country. As a matter of fact, I believe that the people of Afghanistan (and their army, the Northern Alliance) were already fighting against Taliban rule LONG before the US or its allies ever got involved.
Therefore, when you say that the US is doing its "utmost to avoid civilian casualties", I fail to see why America should be canonized for this. The 9/11 attackers targeted civilians because they are terrorists, and they see American civilians as their enemies. The Afghan people are not your enemies, they are your allies! It makes sense to avoid shooting your own allies, but I guess Americans don't get that.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
However, it bothers me that you seem to think that the civilians on the ground in Afghanistan are supporters of the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden.
I re-read the post you are responding to and it said nothing remotely like that. What are you talking about?
Therefore, when you say that the US is doing its "utmost to avoid civilian casualties", I fail to see why America should be canonized [dictionary.com] for this.
He didn't say they should be canonized. He said that they should not be equated with terrorists. Are you replying to text in the post that is marked with an invisible tag?
It makes sense to avoid shooting your own allies, but I guess Americans don't get that [cbc.ca].
I'm a Canadian too. Way to use the deaths of honorable men to score cheap shots against an American that you seem not even to have a legitimate disagreement with. Its a new low for Slashdot. (but only for today)
If you can stop ranting on and on about Americans causing friendly casualties long enough to pull your head out of your ass, then you'll realize that without American planes in the air, there would have been 10 time (very conservatively speaking) as many casualties, 90% of which would be from enemy fire.