Lockheed Martin Plans Unmanned Aircraft

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Lockheed Martin's secretive Skunk Works unit--which previously developed U-2 spy plane, the SR-71 supersonic spy plane and the radar-evading F-117 stealth fighter--has big plans for its latest project: drones. Among the concepts under development, according to the Wall Street Journal: 'One drone would be launched from, and retrieved by, submarines; another would fly at nine times the speed of sound. A third, which is off the drawing board but not quite airborne, has wings designed to fold in flight so that it could rapidly turn from slow-speed spy plane to quick-strike bomber.' The WSJ's reporter also is allowed a rare visit to the Skunk Works complex: 'A factory hall was filled with the prototype of a massive helium-filled airship that one day might ferry troops and heavy equipment to distant battlefields faster and more efficiently than ships--no port or airbase needed. The blimp would float just above the ground on four hover pads, meaning that "you could literally pick a farmer's field" to set down in, says program manager Robert Boyd.'"

Comments

big balloon at war

[omeomi]

The blimp would float just above the ground on four hover pads, meaning that "you could literally pick a farmer's field" to set down in, says program manager Robert Boyd.'"

At least until somebody shot at your gigantic air-filled target...

Re:big balloon at war

[welshwaterloo]

Aha! That's why we're going to use hydrogen! Literally *nothing* can go wrong.

Re:big balloon at war

[Billosaur]

At least until somebody shot at your gigantic air-filled target...

Given that it would be helium-filled, not air-filled, even so you'd be hard-pressed to destroy an airship outright. Shooting through the fabric walls accomplishes nothing but putting holes in them, and given that your typical airship encompasses a tremendous volume with low pressure at near sea-level, the result would be a very slow deflation (unlike letting go of a party balloon and watching it zip around the room). Also, if it is semi-rigid, it would have an internal structure capable of maintaining integrity even if it lost lift. If they can pull it off, it might be a boon to the military. There's a tiny bit of extra information about it in Wikipedia.

Re:big balloon at war

[hey!]

I suppose to early twentieth century naval planners, aircraft carriers would seem ridiculously vulnerable. Where are the guns? Where is the armor plating? The answer is nobody is allowed to get near enough the carrier for those things to make a difference.

Also, you have to look at things relatively speaking. A lighter than air ship may be large and slow, but to technology that exists today, large heavier than air transports are probably large and slow enough. A lighter than air ship may have a more friendly failure mode too.

Of course, 99% of these ideas never amount to anything.

Re:big balloon at war

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

"Oh, the inhu-unmanned-ity!"

Re:big balloon at war

[FTL]

"Shooting through the fabric walls accomplishes nothing but putting holes in them, ..."

This was conclusively demonstrated a couple of years ago when a helium-filled weather balloon floated out of control into the air traffic lanes over the Atlantic. The Royal Canadian Air Force sent up a couple of CF-18 fighters to shoot it down. They emptied more than 1,000 rounds of cannon shells into it and there was absolutely no effect. The Canadian "Air Farce" were the laughing stock of the world for a while. Eventually the balloon drifted across the Atlantic, where the British air force went up and showed how it was supposed to be done. They had no effect on the balloon either.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/161148.s tm

Re:big balloon at war

[shis-ka-bob]

In 1958, two engineers at Cambridge designed large rubberized boats, called dracones, to carry fluids in water. By making these multisectioned, they can actually be quite tough. This design has been used in many parts of the globe for decades. If the fabric cover is damged, only the contents of one section can be lost. Inflatable life rafts use the same principle. I would assume that a helium filled airship would use this principle as well. It will not be designed like a ballon so that failure will 'pop' the shell and it will not be designed so that a single failure will destroy the airship. Of course, it can still be shot down, but that is the main reason to make it unmanned.

Re:big balloon at war

[SchwarzeReiter]

A big enough explosive charge to rip it apart from inside? The integrity of the hull can work against you, if you can develop enough pressure inside.

Re:big balloon at war

[darkmeridian]

Well, if they took potshots at you with a bazooka (well, RPG-7) and not a peashooter, you'd be unhappier than you describe.

Re:big balloon at war

[fitten]

That depends on if the contact with the light skin of the blimp is enough to detonate a contact-triggered RPG. Otherwise, it's just a bigger diameter peashooter. Something that can be triggered "at the right time" to explode would be more effective.

Plus, the internal structure is probably cellular (adds weight but a leak in one cell won't leak out the helium in the other cells) which could also make it more difficult to take down.

Re:big balloon at war

[SpiritusGladius1517]

This is just begging to be tried on MythBusters.

Re:big balloon at war

[blair1q]

Semantic problem. The two comments about 1,000 rounds don't scan.

The commander's comment tells the story. "Very hard to hit."

They probably didn't hit it with more than a couple of those rounds.

If they'd strafed it with 50-mm cannon fire, they'd have shredded a stripe across it, and it would have outgassed and plummeted.

Re:big balloon at war

[databyss]

What a TITANIC idea!

I'm going to design a ship that works on that principle!

This way a tear in the hull would only fill one section and not sink the entire ship!

BRILLIANT!

Re:big balloon at war

[Jesapoo]

Shooting at it? psh..

"he blimp would float just above the ground on four hover pads"

Stick a set of 12ft spikes in the ground and watch it get stuck :D

Re:big balloon at war

[vertinox]

At least until somebody shot at your gigantic air-filled target...

That is what the indescriminate return fire from the UAV predators nearby are for.

Re:big balloon at war

[budgenator]

An Icelandic official said the Canadian attack had caused extensive punctures but failed to release the helium gas from the balloon.

"With something like this, which is stationary in the air when the CF-18s are flying very, very fast, it is difficult to shoot it," Lieutenant Colonel Steve Wills of the Canadian Air Force .

This is an instance of where Hi-tech weapons are ineffective against a lo-tech target; If the pilots could have pointed a sawed-off 12 gage shotgun out the window of a light plane, the ballon would have been toast. I've seen some embarassed fighrer jock pilots after somebody in a P51 played tag with them.

Re:big balloon at war

[steveo777]

Well... Think about it. Use hydrogen... Hell, put some Oxygen in it while you're at it, but only on the outer cells. Make sure you're using a good, tight kevlar weave. The outer cells are now slightly heavier than the inner cells. Not to mention there is no weight directly on the out cell (save for a bridging/exit system for troops/supplies).

The trick is that this one doesn't carry any troops. It carries bombs and floats about until some insurgents try to lay waste to it. They think they've got a victory when it blows a few holes in the skirt, shakes, and starts to fall. Then, when they get close enough, boom...

Or not...

Re:big balloon at war

[VAXcat]

Bunch of monkeys on the ceiling, sir! Grab your egg-and-fours and let's get the bacon delivered!

Re:big balloon at war

[Julian Morrison]

The problem is, modern warplanes are too slow. This baloon sits more or less dead still, and the plane whips past it at 500mph. Given that, it's simply hard to shoot at.

Were this tried in war, the obvious countermeasure would be to revive the open cockpit biplane. The pilot can lean out and poke it with a sharp stick.

Re:big balloon at war

[CodeBuster]

I remember reading that weather balloons are made from special tear resistant and self sealing polymer membranes. Is it possible then that the bullets went straight through the balloon and that the membrane simply closed in around the holes with minimal loss of internal pressure?

Re:big balloon at war

[iamlucky13]

The article linked to claims that hits were observed...or at least that's the way I read it. Strafing a relatively stationary aerial target should not be too much different from strafing a ground target, and since the CF-18 is a multi-role aircraft, I would think the pilots would be trained to do so.

I believe the standard 20 mm load for aircraft is the M56 or a similar round, which is a combined effects high-explosive/incendiary round. The balloon may well have been too lightweight to trigger the fuses. Regardless, the balloon was several hundred feet tall, and designed to maintain buoyancy at very high altitudes where the density of the atmosphere is very low. Even if the gas in the balloon did pass out of any holes at a significant rate (doubtful at the low pressures invovled), there may still have been plenty of gas remaining above the highest hole in the balloon to keep it aloft at a lower altitude.

Re:big balloon at war

[XenoRyet]

obvious countermeasure would be to revive the open cockpit biplane.

Or, you know, an attack helicopter...

Airplanes and balloons are not the only things that fly.

Re:big balloon at war

[davidsyes]

If I had a lot of Vaseline and gasoline (or, the real components), I'd build an RPN-1 (Rocket-Propelled Napalm) and just play tag with those balloons if those were MY fields I had to protect from invaders or unauthorized landings.

Don't need to shoot'em down. Just light their asses up, like Roman candles in the sky. Watch how fast becomes the requirement for escape parachutes and emergency fast-roping at 500 to 50 feet. Increased flame-retardant requirements, better air frame; greater separation between balloon and cargo/stowage/personnel modules; anti-zip-away thrusters...

Alternatively, the less-rich locals in the target site need only set up their fields to go aflame. Smoke will obscure SOME of the landings, and other fields will just be "too hot to handle".

Even more interesting is that DESTROYING the balloons need not be a priority; just riddle, smear, or structurally weaken them to increase the repair and inspection times... make them "untrustworthy for repeat use" and watch the inventory requirements 'go through the fucking roof"; the reserves/spares costs should climb enough to make the balloon project untenable as a stealth strategy component.

Just as a US Marine I used to answer to for a few months used to say, "Where there's a WAY, there's a WILL." as motivation.

It would be impressive to watch a $500, ad-hoc anti-balloon implementation wipe out BILLIONS of dollars of boondoggle dreaming and tax-grabbing. Maybe that money would be diverted to feeding people instead of fragging them. But, nobody's portfolios grow as well from feeding as they do from blasting. This country's foreign policy needs to change from power projection to cooperation. But, as some pundits would say, "NO US presidential candidate runs on the promise to make "America 'Number Two'"...

Re:big balloon at war

[LordoftheLemmings]

Hydrogen blimps were used in WWI, they had to use incienderary bullets to set them on fire. Normal bullets won't set hydrogen on fire its not hot enough. So all shooting it would do was give it an hydrogen leak.

Re:big balloon at war

[steveo777]

I forgot to mention steel woven in with the kevlar weave. That would help (provided the bullets fired were metalic).

UAV

[jimbolauski]

For quite some time UAV have been considered the future of the air force. They are smaller and therefore harder to detect on radar, cheaper to maintain per hour of flight baring crashes, the only thing they can't do right now is carry large payloads and transport vehicles (soon to change). I see very little need for pilots in the future except to fight the UAV that decides to attack us but missiles should get that job done.

Re:UAV

[pillageplunder]

There are several companies working on UAV's. Some of the more interesting are the "ultra-light UAV's, ones that can fit in the palm of ones hand. The Marines were very interested in a concept of one that weighed about a pound, could carry a color camera, range of about 200-300 yards, and entire system was man-portable. When your in the middle of Urban combat, having something able to look around the corner, or over the roof into the next block is WAY more useful than something flying 9 times the speed of sound. Its the sniper in the building across the street that will whack you unless you supress/whack him first. Tactical Intel that is real-time is the most precious intel there is for the folks in the line of fire. Something the Air Force still can't grasp. Right behind tactical intel is fire support. When the air Force made noises about "retiring" the A-10, the Marines were all over wanting to take them over.
Interesting that most of the news seems to be about the technology. There's a little company that has been thumbing its nose at the "procurement" process of the pentagon, and building what troops can actually use now. General Atomics. http://www.uav.com/home/index.html

Re:UAV

[FlopEJoe]

"UAV have been considered the future of the air force"

Noooo!!!! Didn't you see "Stealth" where the plane goes rogue and starts killing everyone??? No? Me either.

Re:UAV

[AKAImBatman]

I see very little need for pilots in the future except to fight the UAV that decides to attack us but missiles should get that job done.

I do. A UAV is really nothing more than a smart delivery system. A bit like a missile, except that it doesn't blow itself up when it gets there. (Though that is always an option.) While the idea of hypersonic delivery systems is nice, you can't drop a bomb at hypersonic velocities. You've got to go subsonic and let loose the payload if you want any chance of hitting your target. Which means that someone is going to have to protect these suckers when they're not hypersonic. (Even supersonic leaves the possibility of missile attack.) Who's going to protect them? The guys who have brains enough to engage in a dogfight, that's who.

Even assuming that the UAVs are a perfect delivery system, no protection needed, you still need someone to protect the carriers and bases that the UAVs launch from. Which means human beings getting up there and showing off U.S. air superiority. Until they can invent a UAV that can actually survive a dogfight (not that easy), there will still be a place for pilots.

Now they're always the possibility that you could fly UAVs directly from the ground (you still need pilots), but the problem with this is that you're sending a signal. If you're broadcasting, the signal can be jammed or intercepted. If you're on a tight beam transmission (e.g. laser linkage), you could lose signal lock. Not to mention the transmission lag. All of which makes remote controlled UAVs less potent than a real fighter jet with a pilot strapped into the controls.

Re:UAV

[Kadin2048]

Erm, I'm as much a fan of General Atomics as the next guy (cool name, IMO), but I'm not sure that they're either "little," nor are they "thumbing [their] nose" at anyone.

There are three Air Force squadrons of their products (the Predators), and I'm pretty sure the USAF didn't just buy them over the phone with an Amex card. I of course can't say for sure, but it seems like they probably went through the same acquisition channels as everyone else.

Care to clarify your point? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. I think the Predator and the Mariner are cool as hell, but they're not something you just order up and send to your buddy who's over in the Gulf along with a spare Ka-Bar and a few titty mags.

Re:UAV

[WindBourne]

More likely it will be used a platform for lasers to slice and dice.

Re:UAV

[pitdingo]

The age of the "dogfight" has been gone for some time. Air to air missles, with their ever increasing range and accuracy, have done away with that. Nowadays, you will be targeted and shot at from way over the horizon. It is extremely rare to actually see your adversary. I mean, that is the whole idea, shoot before the enemy sees you. That is how the USA maintains air superiority.

The only reason for aircraft is to project power over the horizon and out of the range of missles. A "loitering" drone armed with air to air missles could easily protect navy ships. Helicopters are better served for close ground support than the A-10.

Re:UAV

[rossdee]

"you can't drop a bomb at hypersonic velocities"

Von Baun proved that you could, more than 60 years ago.

Re:UAV

[jimbolauski]

You must be a pilot, dogfights happen in air shows and bad 80's movies, not in real combat anymore. With missles shooting down enemy planes before they are visible to the naked eye dogfighting is a term of the past. UAVs have a much lower probability of being discovered using the same radar foiling technology but being much smaller means a smaller RCS so the UAV will not be detected and could imobolize the enemy's air fields and not have to wory about air to air combat. The bigest threats to the american airforce is mechanical problems and SAMs.

Re:UAV

[AKAImBatman]

Von Baun proved that you could, more than 60 years ago.

What in the world are you talking about?

Re:UAV

[SchwarzeReiter]

Are you sure you want to keep two F-16's airborne, pay the gasoline bill, and the two guys from Texas, who will get bored, and will start fireing 100,000$ AMRAAM's to protect 400,000$ UAVs?

Re:UAV

[AKAImBatman]

I imagine he's talking about the V-2. Not quite the same as dropping a bomb from an aircraft, though.

No kidding. I considered that he might have been referring to the V-2, but I couldn't believe that anyone with a +2 modifier would be lame enough to confuse a missile with a bomb. Go figure.

Re:UAV

[GWTPict]

Then why do fighter jets still carry cannon? As I remember it the first all missile armed fighter was the Vietnam era F4 Phantom. Feedback from the pilots led firstly to a pod mounted cannon followed by a cannon armed Phantom variant. RN Harriers made kills with cannon in the Falklands. Missiles might have a BVR capability but you can't guarantee a hit, the opposition may be unsporting enough to use countermeasures. Dogfighting might be a rarity these days but I don't think you can consign it to the history books yet.

Re:UAV

[Kadin2048]

You've got to go subsonic and let loose the payload if you want any chance of hitting your target.

I'm not sure that I buy this claim.

If the bomb was guided, as many of them tend to be, and had a system for decreasing its own velocity (i.e., is a somewhat unfortunately-named 'retarded bomb'), then it could be released from the aircraft at a very high speed, change its flight characteristics so as to shed airspeed, and then guide itself to its target.

I know I'm minimizing what would have to be a very complicated process, but it doesn't seem that difficult. A bomb follows the same type of ballistic trajectory after being released from an aircraft that a missile warhead (an inbound ballistic missile, anyway) does, and they go supersonic and have a circular error probability that's measured in feet.

I don't see any reason why it would be impossible.

Re:UAV

[fitten]

While a pilot's brain is one of the most valuable things in a combat aircraft, the pilot's body is one of the weakest links in the system. Fighters have long been designed (and limited in some cases) to perform within tolerances of what a human can withstand (9G limits and such). Also, various systems such as ejection seats and armor have to be included to protect the pilot. With a UAV, those issues go away. We can design UAVs which have performance envelopes that no human would survive. I agree with the problems about transmission of control signals and the like, but if you can guarantee communications, a UAV should be able to take out an aircraft with a pilot inside it in a dogfight relatively easy just because of maneuverability, not that dogfights would happen that often.

I agree with others in that the most versitile combat UAVs will just be a loitering platform for firing missiles and dropping LGBs. You can have some armed with a bunch of AAMs to protect the ones with the air-to-ground ordnance, as well as have some with both types of ordnance.

Re:UAV

[mi]

I see very little need for pilots in the future except

Pilots will be flying these things -- from far away, of course. Not neccessarily from bases on the mainland US -- the speed of light is not infinite, and latency will impact the effectivness of control. But from an airbase, a carrier, or even a submarine close to the action, but not in it? Yes...

Not only will it improve the pilots' safety a lot, and make the aircraft cheaper. Not having to worry about the limitations of the human body will also allow to make them faster and more maneurable. 20g? No problem. 30? Ok. Steel will hold where flesh will not.

Re:UAV

[UnknowingFool]

For quite some time UAV have been considered the future of the air force. They are smaller and therefore harder to detect on radar, cheaper to maintain per hour of flight baring crashes

That isn't the main reasons that air force would want a UAV. Stealth is not a function of size. The B2 bomber is huge but is harder to detect than a WWI biplane. One of the main reasons for a UAV is the human pilot is becoming a limiting factor in missions. Current UAVs like the Predator can hover over a target for 20 hours. A human may not be able to last that long. Without a human pilot, UAVs and UCAVs could pull more Gs and perform more aerobatic maneuvers. Also there is the argument that an unmanned vehicle presents less risk in terms of loss of the pilot.

It used to be that UAVs were cheaper than regular aircraft but that is slowly not becoming the case. The Global Hawk costs $46 million a piece which is more expensive than a F-16 or F-15 or even the proposed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It is cheaper than a F22 Raptor though.

Re:UAV

[Martin Blank]

They do still happen, but not with the frequency that they once did. Both skirmishes with Libya in the 1980s that resulted in kills for US fighters were the culmination of dogfights, and in the early hours of the Gulf War, there were several dogfights where coalition planes had to engage in close battle.

AWACS has so thoroughly changed the airborne battle arena that whoever can maintain their AWACS aircraft the longest will eventually control the skies. The primary reason that we're able to pick off enemy planes at range is this ultimate eye in the sky, which can watch enemy aircraft from their takeoff roll to their intercept run to their demise at the hands of US missiles, and which only the richest countries can generally afford to operate.

Re:UAV

[jank1887]

The Dept of Defense uses Visa, not American Express.

And there's a $2500 per purchase limit over which aquisitions go through the "normal (read 3-6 month long, competitive process).

Them birds ain't bein' bought for under $2500.

Re:UAV

[henryhbk]

I actually question this, missles fired from a supersonic jet, which are often super/hypersonic (such as a 3+ mach pheonix missle, or 2+ mach sidewinder, etc...) is itself a precision guided weapon (forget that it is designed to hit an air target, that's just software). Or the HARM missle can be launched at supersonic speed, which hits ground targets. I assume there is a limit to how fast you can hang objects out in the slipstream, before you tear the mounts off or cause too much drag for the jet, but the weapons themselves probably don't have a problem being started at supersonic speeds.

You are probably right that unguided weapons may have trouble launching at those speeds, but guided propelled weapons shouldn't. Any munitions engineers have an opinion?

Re:UAV

[peragrin]

I have to agree with the AC. A-10's have their place. An Apache can't lose 10% of it's skin and still fly. During the orginial Gulf war A-10's were coming home with holes in their wings 4-5 feet across for Surface to Air misssles. Google for images some of them make you question how the plane was staying up in the air.

Attack choppers have their place, but A-10's are faster and carry far more weapons than a helicopter can. Both have their place in closer air support and i wouldn't want to be a ground troop without either backing me up.

Re:UAV

[AKAImBatman]

I actually question this, missles fired from a supersonic jet, which are often super/hypersonic is itself a precision guided weapon

Things do get a little different when we're talking about missiles vs. bombs. However, I don't know if missiles are ever fired at super-sonic velocities. (Regardless of how fast the missile travels once lit.) The velocity might cause ignition problems, and the sudden change in mass and aerodynamic shape might unbalance the aircraft. (I sure as hell know that you don't want to be firing missiles at hypersonic velocities. Aerodynamic control is iffy as is, you don't want to turn your plane into so much twisted metal by inviting unexcepted shearing forces to the party.)

I assume there is a limit to how fast you can hang objects out in the slipstream, before you tear the mounts off or cause too much drag for the jet,

For anything going near hypersonic velocities, I'd imagine that you *can't* hang anything out. Everything needs to be as smooth as possible to direct airflow in the most efficient manner. Thus the hypersonic UAVs would most likely have internal bays like the F-22. Opening those bays could prove to be dangerous at super-high velocities.

but the weapons themselves probably don't have a problem being started at supersonic speeds.

That really depends on the engine. There are just so many ways you can get a flameout that it's not even funny. The engines *must* start reliably, so I wouldn't take this granted. A HARM missile is designed for start at high velocities and up to Mach 4 operation, so you may find that this doesn't hold true across all missiles.

Though I take your point. It is possible that a high velocity air to surface missile could be developed to take the place of a bomb.

Any munitions engineers have an opinion?

I'd also love to hear such an opinion. Sadly, I have a feeling that anyone who actually knows would be divulging classified information if they were to tell us. Precise weapons capabilities tend to be kept secret by the U.S. Government.

Re:UAV

[blincoln]

What in the world are you talking about?

The Amerika Bomber, maybe? The Nazis were working on an orbital bomber that would launch from Germany, skip across the upper atmosphere, bomb New York, and keep skipping all the way back to the Fatherland.

Re:UAV

[AKAImBatman]

Perhaps. There are only a couple of problems, though:

1. The Silbervogel bomber concept was designed by Eugen Sänger, not Von Braun.
2. It wouldn't have been very precise, given the Ballistic Trajectories. Useful for a nuclear bomber, perhaps, but not really a conventional bomber.
3. Sänger escaped to the United States and used his work to father the X-20 Dynasoar project. (The pre-cursor of the Space Shuttle.) The X-20 would have been a reconnaissance platform first, and a long range bomber second. In fact, ICBMs made it rather redundant, dangerous, and inaccurate to operate as a nuclear bomber.

*shrug* Go figure.

Re:UAV

[mfrank]

If you think the US is selling the Pakistanis, or the Saudis, or *anybody* F-16s with the same avionics, etc. that the US has in their own planes, you are seriously mistaken.

They might be on an equal footing with the Texas Air Guard, however.

Re:UAV

[MachDelta]

A-10's are still coming home like that. Out of curiosity I hit google after reading your post, and stumbled across some pictures of an A-10 that had its tail swiss-cheesed in Iraq. Yet despite having bullet holes in the rear wing, body, and engine nozzle, a giant freaking hole in one wing, AND the pilot losing all hydraulic controls... it still flew home and landed. By a rather petite looking woman yanking on the manual controls, to boot! The survivability of an A-10 is simply amazing. Compared to the delicate nature of most aircraft, A-10's have certainly earned their reputation as flying tanks. A most impressive machine, IMO.

Re:UAV

[Wyatt Earp]

There were dog fights in the first couple nights of Desert Storm over Iraq, during the opening phase of Allied Force over Serbia in 1999, the Bekka Valley in 1982 as well.

Often the rules of engagement will call for visual identification and at that range BVR systems are worthless, thats why the United States, EU, Russia and Israel all work on advanced visual range missiles and why everyone still trains for dog fighting.

Nothing new

[TheRealBlueEAGLE]

This is the stuff that various sci-fi movies has used for years, isn't it? From the top of my head I can remember various Star trek episodes featuring unmanned drones that flew around on their own. They didn't really have much of wings either. Also they had those nifty teleports that could move troops much more easily than blimps that you can set down in hay fields. Just build a lab where you want the troops to be. Couldn't be that hard now, could it?

Dirigible Usage

[Zygamorph]

Depends on how and where. If I remember correctly, during WW2, the US suffered more military casualties from vehicule accidents behind the lines than they did in the battlefield. Anything that allows you to move your logistics more efficiently and flexibily is a good thing. It doesn't have to be at the pointy end.

Re:Dirigible Usage

[Kadin2048]

This has historically almost always been true. In the past -- up until the advent of penicillin, anyway -- the big killer was always disease. I think the biggest threat now is accidental, non-combat injuries.

It's ironic, but one of the statistics that shows how well a military is doing its job, is how high a percentage of casualties are actually the result of combat. If that number is high (and the overall number of casualties are low, obviously) than things are generally assumed to be working well, you have good force-protection, etc. If it's low, then obviously you have to start figuring out what the hell is hurting your people, aside from the enemy.

Unrelated, but I've heard it said several times that it's statistically safer for an 18-year-old black man to be in a military unit in the Persian Gulf than it is to be that same man in some neighborhoods in a few major cities. I remember hearing that after Gulf War I, I wonder if it still holds true.

Re:Dirigible Usage

[ScentCone]

This should be especially important when the military is fighting an immoral, unnecessary and imperialistic war.

Right! Especially when most of the casualties, day-in and day-out, are the result of other medeival-minded religious zealots people from neighboring countries blowing up civilians with car bombs paid for by Syrians and Iranians. Maybe we'll finally get that imperialism right though. We keep letting whole countries like France, Japan, Germany, Kuwait and more slip through our clumsy imperialist fingers.

Re:Dirigible Usage

[ScentCone]

There wouldn't be any "medeival-minded religious zealots" running around killing people if the US hadn't invaded

Well, that's true. At least, they wouldn't be running around in Iraq. They'd be running around in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Gaza, the West Bank, Iran, etc. And of course Afghanistan, where they (the Taliban) had the whole country to themselves, and decided to let Al Queda use it for a playground. You remember the fine things they did there, like shooting women at lunchtime in the town square for offenses such as teaching their daughters to read. Sure, Saddam had no problem with daughters being taught to read, but he also had no problem gassing whole villages full of daughters, invading neighboring countries, lobbing missiles into Israel, starting a war that killed over a million people, regularly (and publicly) sending cash to friendly outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah expressly in support of suicide bombers' families, and so on. Yes, that was just rosy, that picture. To say nothing of having his ground forces use anti-aircraft weapons against the aircraft enforcing the terms of his surrender when he was forced to give up his attempt to annex Kuwait. Secular? Who cares? A monomaniacal mass murdering aggressor that refuses to abide by his surrender terms and corruptly (well, with UN help, of course) corruptly skims billions of dollars of palace-building and weapons-buying cash off of the money intended to feed and care for his population is your idea of a just-fine situation?

Most Iraqis today -- even those here in N. America -- prefer Sadam over the US for running of the country.

Nice baseless, context-less, no-reference assertion, there! Who cares how many people do or don't want the US running Iraq? The US doesn't want the US running Iraq, either. That's the whole point of supporting the elections (in which a greater portion of the Iraqi population continually votes than even do in the US). That's the whole point of rapidly building up the Iraqi law enforcement and armed forces. Guess you're not paying attention to those areas where anti-insurgent patrols are now solely being conducted by Iraqi units? It's changing, whether it bothers your world view or not to know it. And of course, you might even check with what the people there, and in Afghanistan think. They are among the most optimistic people in the world about their economies and their futures.

Re:Dirigible Usage

[icebattle]

And of course, you might even check with what the people there, and in Afghanistan think. They are among the most optimistic people in the world about their economies and their futures.

Hmmm. When your hopes and your country have hit rock bottom, the only possible way to look is up. Even surviving to tomorrow becomes an optimistic action.

Also, while you're mangling history, keep in mind that the war was started supposedly to eliminate WMD's (which your government knew did not exist) and not to improve the lives of women and "daughters". Just be honest... the thousands of innocent Iraqi dead will thank you for it.

Re:Dirigible Usage

[ScentCone]

keep in mind that the war was started supposedly to eliminate WMD's

No, the war started when the same guy who got at least a million people killed in another (zero-gain) war with a neighboring country then decided to invade Kuwait and line up tanks for a move in Saudi Arabia. He was pushed out of Kuwait (but not without lobbing a few missles over Jordan's head into Israel just out of spite), and then signed surrender terms which he then steadfastly refused to honor up until years later (and a more serious military operation) when he was pulled out of a hole in the ground. You know: little things like refusing to disclose to where he shipped the observed tons and tons of chemical weapons (looks like Syria has them), or like taking weekly (and often daily) missle/AAA shots at the aircraft patroling the no-fly zones (you know, the no-fly zones in place to keep him from using is own aircraft to bomb and gas - with those amazingly lethal, for being non-existent, chemical weapons - any more entire villages in the majority-populated areas of his country that so hated him and his cronies). Or, you know, continuing to build the long-range missles he agreed not to build, right up until he was thrown out.

not to improve the lives of women and "daughters"

Pay attention. I was responding to another post's implication that just because he (Sadddam) was "secular," as opposed to the theocratic Taliban/Al Queda team, that he was therefor not so bad. Read the actual comment more carefully.

Just be honest... the thousands of innocent Iraqi dead will thank you for it

Presumably you're not too worried about the hundreds of thousands (at least) that he continued to kill strictly because of their political/tribal affiliation or willingness to engage in actual criticism. Ask yourself under what circumstances, and by whom, innocent Iraqis are deliberately killed (hint: by religious zealots like Zarqawi that loudly proclaim democracy to be "un-Islamic" and really don't like the idea of it spreading to places like Syria, which just got bitch-slapped by the Lebanese on the same topic).

Re:Dirigible Usage

[icebattle]

Once again, you're mangling history. The war Iraq got into with Iran was encouraged by the US. And the US profitted by covertly supporting both sides. Read some history books instead of watching FOX.

Presumably you were clamouring to have him removed when he gassing Kurds and slaughtering Iranian youth? Probably not...

The issues is not whether freedom/democaracy or whatever is established in Iraq. Like most people opposed to the war in Iraq, I'm opposed to any sort of political killing. But it is amazing to see how Saddam's evilness only became an issue when GWB needed a reason to invade. Prior to that it was business as usual. Before you invade a country or try to influence the future, you should understand the present. Islam is in a dangerous phase right now, and understanding it and how to influence its context makes a whole lot more sense than just marching into a country without a strategy and expecting to win.

If you really know what's going on in Iraq, answer this question: how many civilians have died since March 2003?

Re:Dirigible Usage

[ScentCone]

Presumably you were clamouring to have him removed when he gassing Kurds and slaughtering Iranian youth? Probably not...

That's quite an ability you have, there, to read my mind and all. Presumably, since you're worried about Iraqi civilians, you were worried at the time, and knew, even better than the world's intel agencies all about about the depths of his civilian-killing practices?

The issues is not whether freedom/democaracy or whatever is established in Iraq

That's pretty telling, I must say. That you equate freedom, democracy, and "whatever" is fascinating. Freedom and democracy are critical to the Iraqi people, and to everyone else in that region. It's the only way they can shake off the absurd, festering cultural baggage that is the militant, theocratic Islamic extremist movement. Fear of democracy and personal liberty is exactly why the jihadii wingnuts from the surrounding countries are doing what they can to make such liberty and actual representative governments seem expensive (in innocent civilian lives taken by suicide bombers) unattractive in Iraq... because it's contagious. Just like in Eastern Europe.

But it is amazing to see how Saddam's evilness only became an issue when GWB needed a reason to invade

Became an issue? For whom was he not already an issue? I guess he wasn't yet an issue for people that didn't care if he invaded Kuwait, and didn't care if he threw out UN inspectors, and didn't care if he (with help) scammed the UN's oil for food program, and didn't care if he was shooting at patroling aircraft for years, and never really changed his posture, really, at all, despite the agreements he signed. His military ran camps that trained a likely 2000+ foreign fighters and terror recruits, including the jihaddis that everyone was so sure would want nothing to do with his regime. In the wake of 9/11, with it plain that groups like Al Queda would be looking for another place to set up shop (having been rousted from Afghanistan's Taliban-run vacation spot), it became that much more urgent to dispense with the lingering, increasingly corrupt and unstable arms market that was Saddam's regime. Do you really think that people even slightly aware of what goes on in the middle east weren't reading about his ongoing and overt, advertised funding of terrorist groups? I wasn't waiting for some reason for the US to finish removing that guy from the oil-funded international scene... I was wondering what took so long.

Islam is in a dangerous phase right now, and understanding it and how to influence its context makes a whole lot more sense than just marching into a country without a strategy and expecting to win.

What an empty, pointless platitude that is. Saying that "Islam" is anything is like saying that "the West" is something, or that "Buddhists" are something. Islam isn't in a "dangerous phase," militant theocratic Islamists are just showing what they really believe and actually trying to act on it. They have been for years and are looking for weak spots in the world to exploit. Like the Sudan, or Indonesia, or Afghanistan (woops! they blew that one) or Iraq (they're going to blow that one, too... swearing to behead voters, and blowing up crowds of kids just isn't winning over the local hearts and minds the way they seem to be thinking it magically would). This isn't a new, or just-now phase... it's a specific subset of a culture trying to create and exploit chaos so that they don't have to reconcile the fact that their wretchedly retrograde flavor of fundamentalist social structure can't coexist with the open communication, education, and personal liberties that people in that part of the world are beginning to taste and demand.

If you really know what's going on in Iraq, answer this question: how many civilians have died since March 2003?

Nice trick question. Tell you what: I'll take a stab at the answer after you assign percent

hope it's better than their last drone

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it's more successful than their last drone, the D-21 Tagboard

Re:hope it's better than their last drone

[khallow]

Technology has advanced a little in the past *40 years*. And the RQ-3 is their last drone.

Re:hope it's better than their last drone

[goofballs]

1- the d-21 was VERY cool
2- it's 40 years old, so it's a little unfair to compare to modern day uavs
3- it did a lot of things that other operations uavs still can't do today
4- it was hardly lockheed's last uav. if you'd read the article, you'd see they have some currently operational in iraq

Re:hope it's better than their last drone

[Forbman]

Actually, the launching of the D21 off of an SR71 was canceled, yes. But they were dropped off of B52's a lot during the Vietnam War.

Parsing

[Chyeburashka]

Subject: Lockeed Martin's Plans
Verb: Unmanned
Object: Aircraft

This is just a simple SVO sentence. So, which plans of Lockeed Martin unmanned which aircraft, and how? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Parsing

[Rahga]

Since when did "Unmanned" become a verb? I thought it was an adjective...

This must be some of that New English they them thar be teachin to muh mamma babies.

Re:Parsing

[great om]

to unman: to castrate

Re:Parsing

[peterpi]

Heheh, that's brilliant :)

Need to compete - a good idea

[us7892]

So, they do not want to compete with the expensive Global Hawk http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=17 5/ made by Northrop Grumman. Instead, their interested in the cheap Notebook controlled Desert Hawk http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/deserthaw k.htm/ models deployed in Iraq. They are pretty cool. Designed and delivered in 4 months.

Seems like a good idea. However, if these were deployed in other arenas, where the enemy had the ability Jam the "cheap" communication, those drones would be...well...long gone. How do military communication systems handle jamming?

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, those links are both dead. Both are giving 'file not found' errors.

I did some quick Googling:

Desert Hawk:
http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/deserthaw k.htm

Global Hawk:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=17 5

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[darkmeridian]

How do military communication systems handle jamming?
This.

Most of the suckers (such as the Predator) are satellite-controlled which means the remote control is from above, which makes it hard to jam from the ground. The communications are also frequency-agile and skip the jammed channels, so it's hard to jam all the bands they use for a long period of time.

Incidentally, the UCAVs fly pretty high and have optical sensors. I wonder if they can pick up radiation sources, especially since they may want to detect Osama Bin Laden using his two-way radio. Does anyone know? Google shows nothing. Anyway, you'd rather have a lot of them than one super-duper UCAV because you can task them in support to many different missions.

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[evilviper]

How do military communication systems handle jamming?

First, by frequency hoping and other spread-spectrum radio methods.

Second, with bombs. With lots of bombs. With lots of large bombs. With lots of large and fast bombs.

Get the picture? Jamming in a war-zone gives you a very short life expectancy.

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[blair1q]

Aha! I have defeated your information cloaking to see the secrets within:

Global Hawk http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=17 5

Desert Hawk http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/deserthaw k.htm

Verrry tricky, appending an extra '/' to the end of the URL to make us think it was a broken link. I have added this to my bag of tradecraft for future use, at a time when you least expect it.

Good day.
</neurosis>

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[Chrononium]

It ain't that hard to jam satellite signals. They're just EM waves, after all. It's a function of money, since a pretty nice method to block lots of different different communication (especially over the horizon stuff) is to fire a friggin huge laser into the sky. And yes, it really does ionize the atmosphere, providing lovely amounts of noise to screw up signals. For a somewhat better idea of some real anti-jamming technology, look to "smart" antennas (null-scanning antennas). They're expensive at the moment, but there are some nicer ways to implement them (which should be orders of magnitude cheaper).

Frequency hopping is lovely except that spread-spectrum technology still relies upon sensitive receivers to pick up the signal just above the noise floor. Not an easy task and definitely much harder if the enemy employs somewhat broadband noise weapons.

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Being an ex-predator techie, I can say that it didn't have that capability, but it has been a few years. It does use radio waves for maging if needed due to weather, darkness, or cases where optics are ineffective. This would require a fairly sensitive radio antenna and could conceivably have it's frequency shifted to pick up that sort of thing, but, I was an AF equivalent of an A&P mechanic, so I don't know much about the avionics side of the house. But, since this is slashdot....
The imaging systems run on UNIX. SunOS if I remember correctly.

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[bigpat]

Get the picture? Jamming in a war-zone gives you a very short life expectancy.

Yes, if you focus on the fact that it is easy to jam radio communications you forget to think about the fact that it is even easier to triangulate a jammer and kill it. The only practicle military jamming comes from airborne or very mobile jamming equipment. But even then, once you start jamming radio signals you move up the top of the list of targets. Jamming is really only effective when you already have military superiority. Or as a way to briefly confuse an attacker.

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[tmasssey]

With HARM Missles.

Highspeed Anti Radiation Missles lock onto sources of radio emissions and track right into them. They're extremely effective at taking out such sources. In fact, HARM's are why the radios for a division are often separated by a large amount of distance from the division itself: it's too easy to hit.

Jamming is not easy to do, and realistically must be done from behind a big wall of protection. Most jamming would be done from some sort of location that is highly protected, such as an AWACS platform like the E-3 Sentry. Trying to jam something like a Predator UAV from the ground is a real good way to let the UAV know exactly where you are, and draw its attention (and possibly its fire) right to you!

It's the same idea behind the fact that a carrier group would normally operate *without* using its radar systems. While the radar might help the carrier group find to a certain distance, the radar does a much better job of announcing its presence to people at many times that distance. And that's why you have AWACS!

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[waferhead]

In the days of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the USAF developed dedicated anti-radar aircraft nicknamed "Wild Weasels", originally F-4s IIRC, might have been an earlier version... Can't recall.

In any case, the acronym for their mission plan (originally for defense vs the invading Soviet Horde in Europe) was "SEAD"--Supression of Enemy Air Defenses": Knocking out a radar system ANTENNA was sufficient to take it offline long enough to get your forces safely by to do your primary mission. Made sense under the inteneded scenarios.

In the first Gulf War, they modified the mission ----
The Weasels would go in first and "Supress" defenses by fragging the radar dish etc, then to prevent anyone from fixing the site, a herd of whatever else could blow up things (Apaches, A-10s, F16s) would arrive and blow the absolute hell out of everything else that moved or not. The location essentially became a smoking hole in the ground.

Radio jamming site antenna/Radar dish:
$20-250K, replace in 24 hours (or less)

Unit of highly skilled Radar technicians that took years to train, in wartime:
(Almost) priceless

The new methodology is called "Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses", or "DEAD".

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[Forbman]

Wild Weasels came to be during the Viet Nam war. Originally they were F105 Thunderchiefs fitted with the electronics necesary to sniff out and identify various air defence radars being used by the NVA (other F105s in the package carried bombs or Shrike missiles), and flew in before the rest of the attack package.

The F4G versions were developed in the latter stages of US involvement in Viet Nam, and were operational through until the early 1990's.

Nevada Air Guard had one of the few remaining units at the Reno airport. So that was 93-94 or so that I saw them there.

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[mesocyclone]

The jammers could have been taken out immediately, but there was no need. JDAMs have very good inertial guidance systems in them. The GPS just keeps updating it. With the GPS antenna pointing upwards (and hence with very high gain vs the direction to the jammer), the bomb gets pretty close to the target before losing the GPS signal to the jammer.

Hence, no need.

I believe in the Iraq war the jammers weren't taken out until combat units came in range, and needed GPS to work on the ground.

Jammers in general are easy targets... you just use an anti-radiation missile such as the HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile). Other missiles including anti-aircraft missiles have "home on JAM" modes.

My guess is that the jammers (Russian, I believe) were probably placed where attacking them would cause maximum damage to civilians. Furthermore, they are quite easy to make and don't cost much. Iraq could have had hundreds of them... blow one up, and another is turned on.

Re:Need to compete - a good idea

[ross.w]

Funniest and cheapest defence against Wild Weasels I've ever heard of using a modded microwave oven.

Like the skunk works is open to the WSJ?

[ianscot]

Nice popular memoir set in the Skunk Works:

Skunk Works.

This is a group that developed the first operational jet fighters, and that kept the U-2 and SR-71 and stealth planes out of the public eye forever. We think the Wall Street Journal is getting the real story from them? If it's true, you have to wonder why the massive cultural shift at Lockheed is happening just now...

Re:Like the skunk works is open to the WSJ?

[kahei]

This is a group that developed the first operational jet fighters

Lockheed made planes for Hitler???

Re:Like the skunk works is open to the WSJ?

[darkmeridian]

The entire secrecy campaign with the F-117A was a political game. Democratic President Carter discloses stealth aircraft and everyone gets into a tizzy about compromised national security. Republican President Reagan then secretizes everything. No one knows what the aircraft looks like. Predictions were that it would look really slick and smooth like the F-22 eventually looked like, not at all close to the boxy, jagged airframe the F-117A actually had. Test aircraft and crew were lost because they had to test-fly a new aircraft completely at night. (One crashed into a mountain and the other flew right into the ground.) However, there were flight manuals that disappeared, presumably into Soviet hands. The manuals were complex documents that gave performance details. So on the whole, secrecy was kind of useless.

Re:Like the skunk works is open to the WSJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is a group that developed the first operational jet fighters

Hehe. Not so.
It was a German plane that was the first flying jet. See Heinkel 178. And it was a German plane that was the first operational jet fighter. See Messerschmitt 262. And the first operational jet bomber was German as well. Arado Ar 234. So here we got already three different companies having operational combat jet aircraft before Skunk had even its first.

Re:Like the skunk works is open to the WSJ?

[drew]

If it's true, you have to wonder why the massive cultural shift at Lockheed is happening just now...

During the "Cold War", secrecy was all part of the game (whether, as somebody else pointed out, it actually mattered or not). They didn't have to tell anyone what they were working on because their funding was all but guaranteed.

Now it's a little bit tougher on the pocketbooks. The "War on Terrorism" has probably helped some, but overall, I think defense spending is down quite a bit from what it was back when they were working on the SR-71 and the U-2 (in relative terms at least). So they have to do a dog and pony show every now and then about whatever cool new technology is going to make our soldiers lives better and keep the funding from drying up.

That said, I'm sure there are still plenty of other things going on there that are under just as tight of wraps as ever.

Re:Like the skunk works is open to the WSJ?

[cat6509]

in context I belive they are talking about the first U.S. jet powered aircraft, something like http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/lock heed_xp80.htm

Dones? Already been done

[RootsLINUX]

I've already seen these things in action in Command and Conquer Generals. Can't they come up with some original designs for tools of war anymore instead of just copying them from video games? Sheesh.

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic)

Re:Dones? Already been done

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Drones are not new. Where do you think that Microsoft got the idea from???

The Walrus?

[WormholeFiend]

We all know the military have been interested in blimps for a while now

not at all new for Lockheed

[justins]

Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" details a supersonic, stealth recon drone which was operational in the seventies before the F117 was created. The article, unfortunately, doesn't mention this and makes it sound as though unmanned craft are a new thing for these guys.

Re:not at all new for Lockheed

[Richard_at_work]

And the Pentagon has just issued plans to retire the F-117 in FY2008, in favour of more F-22s. The drone mentioned in that book is probably the D-21 drone, launched from the back of the SR-71 aircraft at altitude. It pretty much failed.

Re:not at all new for Lockheed

[Animats]

supersonic, stealth recon drone which was operational in the seventies

Yes, the Tagboard drone. There's one on display at the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field. Fully automated celestial navigation - no GPS.

Re:not at all new for Lockheed

[justins]

And the Pentagon has just issued plans to retire the F-117 in FY2008, in favour of more F-22s.

Wow, that's... a complete non sequitur. It's interesting though. Traditionally the Air Force would wait for the F-22 to prove itself, I would think. Perhaps the operational costs of both these planes are high enough that they can't do that.

The drone mentioned in that book is probably the D-21 drone, launched from the back of the SR-71 aircraft at altitude. It pretty much failed.

If it's the same drone I'm thinking of, which rates a few pages in the book, it was an operational test program and it was successful enough for what it was intended to do. Ben Rich blamed its losses on the Air Force insisting on handling maintenance operations, rather than Lockheed personnel. He attributed the Blackbird's long-term operational success in part to the quality of Lockheed's personnel, but I guess he was rather biased.

I'm pretty sure launching from an SR-71 wasn't the only way they launched this drone. I don't have the book in front of me, but according to Rich, Kelly Johnson was strongly opposed to launching drones from the Blackbird after a test pilot was killed doing it. That might be what ended the program, actually, but it was a long book and there's the risk of conflating incidents on different programs when going from memory like this.

I don't have a ready reference for you, I don't trust the aerospace-related wikipedia entries one bit.

Re:not at all new for Lockheed

[justins]

Fully automated celestial navigation - no GPS.

Yeah, between really good inertial navigation and celestial navigation, GPS is pretty much redundant. Which is a good thing, since we can't necessarily rely on those satellites being there in a major conflict.

Re:not at all new for Lockheed

[Animats]

Look at the dates. The Tagboard drone flew in 1964. It barely had onboard computing. GPS was more than a decade in the future.

Re:not at all new for Lockheed

[justins]

Trying really hard to figure out why you think you're telling me something I don't know...

Re:Oh noes!

[meringuoid]

But really... A good pilot in an F-22 is probably better than any of the drones that will be developed in 10 years.

The best pilot in the world still blacks out at about 9G. Even if the drone isn't as tactically capable as the human, it can survive far greater physical hardship. What use is your intelligence, your skill, your human flair for battle, against an adversary that can turn at speeds that would leave you a gooey mess in the cockpit?

A serious fighter drone would just slaughter human pilots, just on the superior performance of an aircraft that doesn't have to worry about keeping the pilot alive. It would be like Spitfires going up against a Harrier.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomarrow

[tbcpp]

Having just watched "Sky Captain and the World of Tomarrow" yesterday, hearing these announcements is a big freaky.

I, for one, Welcome our Floating Blimp Overlords

[digitaldc]

faster and more efficiently than ships--no port or airbase needed. The blimp would float just above the ground on four hover pads

Now our plan for world domination shall be COMPLETE!

Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

The Germans got there first

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, you Americans - you make me smile. Stuff happens outside the US too. From Wikipedia:

The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe or "swallow" was the first operational jet powered fighter. It was mass-produced in World War II and saw action from late 1944 in bomber/reconnaissance and fighter/interceptor roles....etc...

Re:The Germans got there first

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> Stuff happens outside the US too.

Of course! We learned all about it in school. There's World War II, stinky cheeses, Godzilla, and The French.

We didn't miss anything, did we?

Re:The Germans got there first

[somersault]

only that humour stuff :D

Re:The Germans got there first

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, you Americans - you make me smile. Stuff happens outside the US too.

Oh, sure. Next, you'll be telling us that the Americans didn't crack the German Enigma code (as per the film "U-571"), and that instead the code was cracked by a rag-tag collection of scientists, linguists and crossword-puzzle addicts at Bletchley Park in England. http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/

The Americans do everything first. Everyone knows that (particularly the Americans).

Re:The Germans got there first

[esampson]

Well, I suppose we can live with the ignomy that it was the British who first broke Enigma. England and America has had a special relationship for a long time.

At least it isn't as if someone like the Poles broke it first.(http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/virtualbp /poles/poles.htm)

Re:The Germans got there first

[Syncdata]

What's your point? The story is about the lockheed skunkworks, and the parent to which you replied posted a link to an Excellent book, which I cannot reccomend highly enough, which has to do with the Lockheed martin Skunkworks. Should he have posted a link to every book ever written about Aviation, regadless of it's connection to the topic at hand?

Ease up pal.

Re:The Germans got there first

[drinkypoo]

Maybe by "operational" they mean that less pilots were killed by landing the plane than by enemy pilots...

Re:The Germans got there first

[SimonInOz]

Actually the Brits do suffer from the problem too - the Enigma code was first cracked by the Poles, as I recall. Turing and co industrialised it.

(I spent my first 22 years in the UK, then five years in various places (even the US for a bit), then the next 23 years in Australia, where I still am. I hold dual nationality UK/AUS - so I am totally unbiased .. or maybe just have a chip on *each* shoulder. And in case anybody wants to know who I support in the cricket - I don't watch cricket).

Re:The Germans got there first

[davidbofinger]

Maybe by "operational" they mean that less pilots were killed by landing the plane than by enemy pilots...

By that definition the F-16 isn't operational.

Re:The Germans got there first

[Rumata]

Next, you'll be telling us that the Americans didn't crack the German Enigma code (as per the film "U-571"), and that instead the code was cracked by a rag-tag collection of scientists, linguists and crossword-puzzle addicts at Bletchley Park in England.

Actually it was the Poles who cracked enigma ;-)

Re:Subject line

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Bleh. Who wants a gelded aircraft?

Here's their Small-Business Competition

[macklin01]

I recently read in the LA Times about a small company that's competing with LM on the blimps.

Apparently, Worldwide Aeros, a smallish company founded by a Russian immigrant, was one of two U.S. companies that was awarded $3 million (USD) by the Pentagon to research the concept. (The other was LM.)

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian had been working on a project to develop mammoth airships to deliver supplies to Siberian oilfields.

You can find the article here. -- Paul

Kirov Airships

[SilentOneNCW]

I, for one, cannot wait for the Kirov Airship to be developed. I wonder if that's the 'massive helium-filled airship' the article mentions... Of course, Lockheed Martin isn't bound by international treaty *not* to build bombers, so I guess they could build something like an Apocalypse Tank while they're waiting for demand to rise... after all, who *doesn't* want a tank with auto-reconstruction, missiles, dual cannons, and thick armor?

Re:Kirov Airships

[m50d]

Capture their barracks and build a load of flak troopers. Cheap, and able to kill the kirov quite easily as long as you keep retreating out of its range.

Furthermore...

[meringuoid]

Sorry to reply twice, but you know how it is...

Even assuming that the AI pilots are markedly inferior to humans, there's still a great advantage to using them. They're cheap. Training a pilot is an expensive thing to do and it takes a lot of time. Losing a pilot is bad news. Losing significant numbers of pilots also has the effect of undermining political support at home - every letter sent to the mother of someone who isn't coming home chips away a little at the mindless jingoism that you need to have to conduct a war.

So, let's suppose that the AI drones are so crap that the kill ratio is ten to one - a human pilot will on average bring down ten AIs before being killed himself. This need not be a problem. A computer program costs nothing to copy, and the hardware's relatively cheap, and robots don't have families. Throw a hundred AIs into the air and let them all be slaughtered if necessary. Who cares? Make 'em kamikaze if you like. It still costs less than training humans to do it.

For a Western army, recruiting humans is expensive, because citizens of very rich countries expect to be paid well to risk their lives. Probably the economics work out differently for the likes of China, but for the USA... let's fill the sky with droids.

Re:Furthermore...

[operagost]

Losing significant numbers of pilots also has the effect of undermining political support at home - every letter sent to the mother of someone who isn't coming home chips away a little at the mindless jingoism that you need to have to conduct a war.

Asserting that you must possess "mindless jingoism" to conduct a war renders the word "jingo" meaningless. Some wars are fought for good reasons, at least on one side. Most of us in the USA are hesitant to label presidents like Lincoln and F.D.R. "jingoes" merely because they presided over a nation at war (although I admit Madison and L.B.J. are arguable)!

Re:Furthermore...

[guy-in-corner]

Throw a hundred AIs into the air and let them all be slaughtered if necessary. Who cares? Make 'em kamikaze if you like.

We have those already. They're called Surface to Air Missiles.

Re:Furthermore...

[evilviper]

computer program costs nothing to copy, and the hardware's relatively cheap, and robots don't have families.

Not losing men would be a good thing. However, losing 40 multi-million dollar aircraft would probably even more demoralizing than losing one or two planes, and one pilot.

Re:Furthermore...

[$1uck]

I'd like to add who says the UAV's don't have pilots? I'm fairly certain its possible to pilot the predator drones we have now from halfway across the world. Given a simple enough interface training would be minimal err I mean to say we've already been training our little boys (aw heck girls too its not real combat! if it is happening thousands of miles away) to pilot these things since they were old enough to hold an arcade controller. Heck you could have one person pilot, another navigate and several others operate the weapons/targetting all assisted by auto-pilot/targeting etc.

Re:Furthermore...

[dyslexicbunny]

UAVs are fly by wire but also have limited AI control. AI isn't intelligent enough for missions that such things would fly.

There is a design-build-fly competition, http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/aiaadbf/, that American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics puts on every year that has fluid objectives. As team meet objectives, the next year has more difficult objectives but until it happens, the objectives stand. It's pretty interesting but I don't have the time for it. I think DARPA is even involved but I really don't know enough on it. Perhaps someone else on /. does.

Re:Furthermore...

[mchappee]

In other words, what you're saying is: wait for it... wait for it...

"We can always make more killbots" -Bender

Matthew

Re:Furthermore...

[huge colin]

...the mindless jingoism that you need to have to conduct a war.

"Mindless jingoism"... or worthy cause. Feel free to just leave that second reason out of your discussion, though. I'm sure it was mindless jingoism that drove the Allies in WWI and WWII.

The trouble with unmanned vehicles...

[drsmithy]

...Is that they make it easier to go to war. None of those politically inconvenient body bags to bring home.

Re:The trouble with unmanned vehicles...

[rhadamanthus]

Well - except for those made at home due to "inaccurate" drone warfare.

Re:The trouble with unmanned vehicles...

[c6gunner]

eh? Exactly how many pilots has the US lost in recent years? 5? 6 maybe? More pilots have been killed testing the Osprey than have been shot down in combat!

Put some thought into your comments.

Re:The trouble with unmanned vehicles...

[drsmithy]

Way to advocate the pointless loss of human life in order to avoid the "evils" of war....

Not going to war in the first place is a vastly better way of avoiding "pointless loss of human life" than being able to minimise the casualties on your own side by turning war into a video game.

I think this dumb pacifism thing has gotten way out of hand......

"Hating war" != "Pacifism". I've yet to meet a single veteran who doesn't hate war, nor who is a pacifist.

Re:The trouble with unmanned vehicles...

[drsmithy]

Put some thought into your comments.

I did, which is why I said "unmanned vehicles" and not "unmanned aircraft".

The easier it is for the people who decide to go to war to distance themselves from the real consequences of those decisions, the more likely - and more frequently - they are to do it. Unmanned vehicles turn war into little more than an expensive video game, from the perspective of the decision makers, removing any possibility of them taking into account the human consequences (because on their side, effectively, there aren't any).

Re:The trouble with unmanned vehicles...

[c6gunner]

I understand what you're saying, but you're still wrong. Even if we change "unmanned aircraft" to "unmanned vehicles", it doesn't make a difference. The vast majority of soldiers killed on the battlefield are always going to be infantry. Logistics personnel supply a good percentage of the body-count too due to the ability of guerrila forces to ambush convoys, however, supply convoys could never be fully autmated due to the fact that, realisticaly, you would end up supplying the enemy. All they'd have to do is set up road blocks and they could seize convoys and all their supplys without a shot being fired. So even assuming we automate resupply vehicles, they'd need a mechanized infantry escort, meaning you're still placing soldiers in danger.

You can also try automating tanks and fire-support vehicles, however, it's been shown over and over that a live crew is neccesary in order to have proper situational awareness. Automating all ground-combat vehicles will only result in more vehicles lost, which leads to less fire support available to the troops, and probably more blue-on-blue incidents to boot.

Anyone who knows anything about warfare can tell you that you ALWAYS need boots on the ground if you expect to win. Clintons air-raid style of warfare is only good for blowing billions of dollars and seriously pissing off the locals. Without infantry on the ground, you cannot win a war. So the majority of combat deaths will ALWAYS be infantry. The only thing that automated vehicles will do is tilt the ratio even more, because it'll remove non-combat-arms personnel from the front line. Which is a good thing in general because it means we're only placing troops who are trained for combat in harms way. Causes a few less deaths, and ensures that those who have to fight are the ones best trained for it.

End result? Asuming we automate every vehicle capable of being automated you're looking at maybe a 10% decrease in deaths. Automation isn't meant to remove people from danger - rather, it's meant to increase the capabilities of the vehicles, and provide better support for the soldiers who ARE on the ground. For instance, an unanned aircraft can pull G's that would turn a human pilot to jelly, meaning better chances of evading enemy missiles, and a better chance of actually accomplishing the mission. An unmanned tank could have double the armour and double the ammunition capacity, while having a lower profile, once again providing better survivability and more support for the infantry. Etc. But, untill we develop the T-1000, combat is always going to be geared around supporting the soldiers on the ground, which will always mean bodybags soldiers coming home in bodybags.

And as far as the politics behind your argument, you're totaly ignoring the fact that PR as regaurding civilian deaths is more important these days than how many bodybags get flown back to us. In modern warfare image is just as important as any other mission objective, which is why we've dedicated so much time and effort to training soldiers in the geneva conventions and why we develop such complex rules of engagement. You forget that one of the main reasons that the first Gulf War ended when it did is because of the massacre on the highway of death, which got televized across the globe. So even if all soldiers could somehow magicaly be replaced by machines, avoiding civilian deaths and atrocities would be just as important as it is today, if not more so.

Re:The trouble with unmanned vehicles...

[bill_mcgonigle]

...Is that they make it easier to go to war. None of those politically inconvenient body bags to bring home.

For that you have the asshats in the MSM who drill that body count should be a primary factor in a nation's involvement in a war. It's important but not how wars are waged. We've lost far more people in single battles in other wars than the current total in Iraq. We're just now coming up on the Spanish American War in terms of body count.

Re:Oh noes!

[meringuoid]

because modern air combat consists of standing off at a 20+mile range and firing some AMRAAMS

In which case humans are completely superfluous. The real fighting's already being done by a kamikaze robot pilot, aboard the missile. Why do we need to put a human in harm's way aboard the missile launch platform?

One step closer to the Terminator..

[Tominva1045]

At this time technology isn't the problem. Question is, what will happen first?

- Errant political leaders misuse technology?

- Politically disgruntled scientist develops AI to run Terminators?

Re:One step closer to the Terminator..

[Chris Burke]

Question is, what will happen first?

Why are you using the future tense, as if the question isn't answered already?

I'm Scared.

[ikejam]

I am.

Ahhhh!

[mwace]

For an young guy passionate about flight and aspiring to become a fighter pilot, this is a nightmare come true!

Re:Ahhhh!

[meringuoid]

For an young guy passionate about flight and aspiring to become a fighter pilot, this is a nightmare come true!

It's tough, isn't it? I'd suggest you find a different career path, to be honest; perhaps you might try steel driving?

Pics

[Lord_Slepnir]

Prototype pics here

The best part is, when one is destroyed, it's consciousness is downloaded into another unit, saving on re-training time. Though it might get bitter about being destroyed over and over...

That Airship has Flown...

[anzha]

Aviation Week has already covered the fact that the airship has already flown. It looks like Lockheed is in exploration mode for aircraft right now because the traditional market of milking the government teet for manned fighter and bomber contracts has a decidedly less than glorious future.

Signs you watch Chappelle's Show too much...

[sammy baby]

Signs you've been watching to much Chappelle's Show, #125

In a Slashdot discussion, you read the phrase

Lockheed Martin's secretive Skunk Works unit... has big plans for its latest project:

...and you subconsciously complete the sentence:

Mars, bitches.

War without consequence - for us at least

[99luftballon]

Such technologies will have a big effect on the future look of the army but let's not forget the record of drones isn't great. Sure they can be modified to carry missiles and destroy targets but they still rely on human intelligence. Is it any more acceptable if a drone kills the wrong person or if a human does it?

Longer term though this is a worrying trend. If we build future armies on this technology while not retaining key skills a single EMP blast from an orbital bomb could cripple an entire army. I understand F18's and beyond can't fly safely without fly-by-wire, this system would be even worse.

Like the blimp idea though. That has real possibilities for developing world aid etc...

Re:War without consequence - for us at least

[Kadin2048]

I understand F18's and beyond can't fly safely without fly-by-wire, this system would be even worse.

How would this system be worse? In an F-18, you've strapped a human being into a vunerable system, which could potentially be disabled and result in their death.

With a UAV, if the system is disabled, the UAV craters, and some guy in a bunker at Nellis AFB has to do a lot of paperwork.

I prefer the latter situation. Planes are not going to become less complex -- fly by wire is here to stay; UAVs just make the "wire" a lot longer.

Re:War without consequence - for us at least

[Merlyn_3k]

EMP isn't all its cracked up to be.

All military hardware is at least partially EM shielded (or hardened)
Actual combat vehicles have greater protection and also alot of redundant systems.

The big deal with an EMP is that it creates a massive voltage surge in any conductive material. Voltage limiting gear can help greatly, as well as the ability to work around blown components with backup systems. Encasing the entire electrical system in a Faraday Cage also helps by setting up counter EM fields to reduce the Voltage surge.

Re:War without consequence - for us at least

[good soldier svejk]

The F-16 was the first front line military aircraft to be inherently unstable and unable to fly without its avionics. From the FAS web site:

NEGATIVE STABILITY. All previous aircraft designs had been aerodynamically stable. That is, the center of gravity was well in front of the center of lift and the center of pressure (drag).

To illustrate the difference between stable and unstable designs, take a shirt cardboard and, holding it by the leading edge, pull it rapidly through the air. It will stretch out behind your hand in a stable manner. This is a stable design Now take it by the trailing edge push forward from there. It will immediately flip up or down uncontrollably. That is an unstable design.

The downside of aerodynamic stability is that the aircraft is nose-heavy and always trying to nose down. The elevator must therefore push the tail down to level the airplane. But in addition to rotating the airplane from nose-down to level, the elevator is exerting negative lift; that is, it is pushing the airplane down. In order to counteract this negative lift, the wing needs to be made larger to create more positive lift. This increases both weight and drag, decreasing aircraft performance. In pitch-up situations including hard turns which are the bread and butter of aerial combat, this negative effect is greatly magnified.

The YF-16 became the world's first aircraft to be aerodynamically unstable by design. With its rearward center of gravity, its natural tendency is to nose up rather than down. So level flight is created by the elevator pushing the tail up rather than down, and therefore pushing the entire aircraft up. With the elevator working with the wing rather than against it, wing area, weight, and drag are reduced. The airplane was constantly on the verge of flipping up or down totally out of control,. and this tendency was being constantly caught and corrected by the fly-by-wire control system so quickly that neither the pilot nor an outside observer could know anything was happening. If the control system were to fail, the aircraft would instantly disintegrate; however, this has never happened.

The F-16's most popular competitor which does not employ this design principle is the Mig-29. Despite its inherent stability, the Mig-29 is a remarkably agile aircraft, capable of outmaneuvering most conventional fighters, including the F-16, at low speed. Recent years have seen the advent of hyper-maneuverability features such as vectored thrust, which have pushed even large aircraft passed the limits of the Mig-29. But these features are expensive. The Mig-29 still represents a remarkable compromise between flat out performance, agility, cost, and strength. It also happens to be packaged with the most effective visual range gunsight/missile package on the market.

Re:War without consequence - for us at least

[vertinox]

Is it any more acceptable if a drone kills the wrong person or if a human does it?

The US Military stance is to only allow a robot to use a weapon when there a human giving the kill command. But killing is killing whether done by a human or a robot and we've been doing it for thousands of years.

As of now, all war crimes have been commited by humans on humans so it wouldn't be so far fetched in the future for some 3rd world nation to use its drones to bomb people.

BUT! If you haven't noticed, in war crimes trials we don't bring the death camp guards or soldiers to court, but those who ordered them to do so at a higher level. So if a general or government official orders a robot to indescrimently kill everyone in a town then we don't blame the robots, but we go after the general and put him on trial at Hauge or where ever.

One might say... "Well humans could receive such an order and refuse to do so!", but as history has shown in the Sudan, Bosnia, World War II Germany, Cambodia, and thousands of other wars too many to mention, it doesn't take much to get a human to murder his fellow man and many of them do it willingly and with glee.

Heck, a robot might have better saftey checks than a human when aquiring a target and won't be prone to stress related events in case they want to off a few civilians because their buddy just got blown away.

And if you are dropping EMP bombs from orbit, you are at a level of technology that doesn't need to use them to destroy the opposing sides army. I mean if someone could do that to the US army we'd be screwed even without robots.

Re:War without consequence - for us at least

[Bob3141592]

Like the blimp idea though. That has real possibilities for developing world aid etc...

Yeah, like we'll ever see that happen. :-(

Re:War without consequence - for us at least

[susano_otter]

Actually, during the recent Tsunami, the U.S. Navy was first on the scene by several days. Within the first 24-48 hours, the American military-industrial complex was operating mobile desalinization plants, airlifts of humanitarian aid supplies to areas unreachable by ground, and hospital services. All of this was accomplished almost immediately, far in advance of any other aid agencies.

More recently, the U.S. military has been active in Pakistan providing aid to earthquake survivors there. In the refugee camps, "Chinook" has become a byword for the American supply helicopters--the same ones used to put boots on the ground--that bring them supplies on a daily basis.

These are only two examples. The fact is, we see humanitarian aid developed from military resources all the time.

In the U.S., anyway. How many mobile desalinization plants has the French Navy contributed to humanitarian work lately? How many mobile desalinization plants does the French Navy even own?

UAV before auto-drive cars

[HangingChad]

I think it's interesting that it would likely be possible to develop an auto-pilot aircraft before we have self-driving cars. That would be a neat X-Prize like contest. Develop an aircraft that a human passenger could program with a destination and the plane delivers them without human assistance. It would need ground monitoring and some way for the human to take over in an emergency, but I bet that could come together faster than autodrive cars.

One of the first UAV experiments was the Snark. So many crashed into the waters off the test facility that they were called Snark Infested Waters. We've come a long way since then.

Re:UAV before auto-drive cars

[meringuoid]

One of the first UAV experiments was the Snark. So many crashed into the waters off the test facility that they were called Snark Infested Waters. We've come a long way since then.

Yeah. This one's a Boojum.

Re:UAV before auto-drive cars

[SchwarzeReiter]

It easier to avoid collision in the less crowded airspace in 3D, as in downtown Los Angeles in 2D. And easier to avoid civilian airspace completely.

Re:UAV before auto-drive cars

[Forbman]

Develop an aircraft that a human passenger could program with a destination and the plane delivers them without human assistance.

It's called GlobalStar. Oh, it doesn't have a passenger compartment. OK, so strip the electronics out and put them in a Gulfstream V.

Death Stats - Iraq and Detroit

[MilSF1]

A quick Google search -

Total Deaths Due to Unnatural Causes 2000 in Detroit (page 55)
955 - 719 Male, 236 Female (Black Non-Hispanic: 540 Male, 178 Female)

Iraq War - March 2003 - Feb. 6
2,452

Don't know if the Detroit numbers have gone up or down, but that was an average of about 80 people a month in Detroit and 70 a month in Iraq. Not making any judgement about anything - just giving numbers. I'm not planning on moving either place any time soon.

Refs:

Detroit Health Department

CNN Casualty Counter

Re:Death Stats - Iraq and Detroit

[tmasssey]

I have to know: what made you pick Detroit?

Chicago, murder capitol of the US, 2003,2004

Washington DC, murder capitol of the US, 2002

Why does everyone automatically gravitate to Detroit for such statistics?

Better weapons -- less death and destruction

[mi]

A welcome progress...

If they're admitting it exists now, it's old news

[RubberDogBone]

Lockheed never publically acknowledges current Skunk projects. They only talk about stuff that is 10-15 years OLD, only AFTER it has been replaced by something far better or more advanced.

That means whatever was revealed is ancient history and absolutely NOT the state of the art.

It may also be a pile of red herrings designed to delude competitors or enemies, such as a series of expensive dead-end projects they WANT the bad guys to worry about, while the real toys continue to remain hidden.

Have a crapload of dead-end secret projects you can't fund? Can't exactly scrap them in public, so hey, pile them up, call them really really secret and show them off. Turn a pile of garbage into a hot new machine, and bonus points for getting the WSJ to write it up. Brilliant! Very typical defense contrator stuff.

In any case, that giant airship or one like it has been in tons of UFO reports for at least two decades. That we had one wasn't much of a secret. Why the hell we would need such a thing was more of a question. I don't buy the story given. Hauling troops anywhere quickly is what they said the V-22 was for, and that sure has turned out _real_ well. Our military would never settle for a slow blimp, unless it's got anti-grav or some exotic weapon.

Hmmm

[squoozer]

"you could literally pick a farmer's field"

I'm fairly sure that the farmer would have something to say about that and knowing farmers it is likely he would innitially try saying it by shooting their fancy pants balloon full of holes. Still it would be fun to watch million of pounds worth of balloon shrivel up because of some old farmer with a shot gun.

Re:Hmmm

[SchrodingersRoot]

you don't think that maybe it would/does employ materials such as aramids? you know, like kevlar? high tensile strength, lightweight fibers that tend to make bullets work rather less well? i don't expect that farmer bob (or farmer abdul) will have much that LM wouldn't have thought of, and at least tried to account for.

Re:Hmmm

[squoozer]

There you go ruining a perfectly good piece of "stuff wot I just made up" with facts.

Strategery

[BecomingLumberg]

As much as I love technology, I think i would like a little more biting approach to our war on the radical boogyman. We know these guys are insanely religious . I am a big proponent of going to Smithfield and using the old pig carcasses to pack the bombs in. That way the fuckers die covered in pig fat, so they can explain that to their 40 virgins.

Or maybe I am just vindictive.

Skynet anyone?

[kilodelta]

I mean really, how long before these babies go autonomous.

All it'll take is a lightning strike and goodbye humanity. I mean, Stanford's little Touareg managed to navigate all by its little lonesome self. And we all now that technology shrinks in size within a very short time span.

I shudder to think about it this way, but it is where we're going.

Re:Skynet anyone?

[AlterTick]

I mean really, how long before these babies go autonomous. All it'll take is a lightning strike and goodbye humanity.

Surely you're not serious. Do you really get your science education from bad movies? Lightning would do one of two things, even to a mythical sentient machine: A) nothing, or B) break it. Believing that lightning can turn an simple autonomous robot into some crazed, scheming killing machine is as asinine as believing you can repair an aneurysm with a sledgehammer.

Re:Skynet anyone?

[kilodelta]

Ok, so I was trying to invoke the Terminator aura.

All it would take is for someone to capture one of these autonomous babies. Then all bets are off.

Re:So sad..

[MrTester]

Yeah, because when I read a news piece I love to have to wade through tons of personal opinion from the author of the story just to get the facts of the story . Thats why I love 20/20 and all of the other news magazines, and John Stassle is the journalists Anti-Christ .

Women are already flying aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you haven't noticed, we've had un-MAN-ned aircraft for ohhhhh eighty years now...

Re:So sad..

[MrTester]

ergh. The one time I dont preview. Who knew slash dot wouldnt take brackts? My intended post:
Yeah, because when I read (reading is very important and should be made a priority to teach your children) a news piece (the news has too many negative articles, where are the positive stories?) I love to have to wade through tons of personal opinion (Where in the constitution does it give us the right to an opinion?) from the author of the story just to get the facts of the story (Dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up).

Thats why I love 20/20 and all of the other news magazines(Thats a bald faced lie), and John Stassle is the journalists Anti-Christ (ooh, that ones true).

Military automation

[MrSteveSD]

Military automation is a worrying trend. Eventually it could reach the stage where there are very few soldiers actually involved in combat. That would make it much easier for governments to prosecute wars. Consider Iraq. All the concern has been over how many US troops have died and how politically damaging it is. There is little concern for all the Iraqis killed in air strikes. If you can automate the military, you remove most of the political repercussions of war. No US Soldiers dead, just lots of automated robots killing people in another country, who no-one cares about. It would also make it much easier for governments to turn the military against their own people.

Re:Military automation

[Brian Stretch]

Or, from another perspective, maybe these medieval asshats will be less likely to think that they'll get away with attacking America if they know that even a Democratic Party president will see to it that the military pays them a proper visit, such as after the WTC was first bombed in 1993.

I do think kickstarting democracy in Iraq and hoping that Iraq's example is enough to put the Iranian political dissidents over the top and bring down their dictatorship, followed by the rest of the region, is our best chance of permanent peace in the Middle East. The rule that democracies don't attack other democracies should hold. It's just a damn shame some people would rather see Iraq and Afghanistan go up in flames than for President Bush to receive any credit for their success.

Re:Military automation

[c6gunner]

There is little concern for all the Iraqis killed in air strikes. If you can automate the military, you remove most of the political repercussions of war. No US Soldiers dead, just lots of automated robots killing people in another country, who no-one cares about.

It's people like you that give the left wing a bad name. If the US were only interested in "killing people in another country", they would have nuked the middle east and called it a day. What you fail to note is that with every generation of technology we are focusing more and more on targeted strike capabilities.

Even our infantry doctrine has evolved to include selective targeting in most circumstances rather than area-neutralization. Prior to the current wars in the ME, our doctrine (and by our I mean all western nations) was to clear a room by tossing in a granade, and then having two guys rush in and spray about 60 rounds into anything and everything there. That was status-quo during WW2, and as late as the cold war; nobody ever questioned it. NOW we' training every infantry soldier to think and act like a member of a SWAT team, employing distraction devices and selectively neutralizing targets while being able to protect civilians. It takes a hell of a lot of ignorance to claim that the US doesn't care about civilian dead, and is only worried about their own soldiers, and there is absolutely NO evidence to support such a premise. All evidence, in fact, points to the contrary, as western soldiers are constantly placed at more risk than is neccesary in order to avoid causing civilian deaths.

Re:Military automation

[Chris Burke]

Or, from another perspective, maybe these medieval asshats will be less likely to think that they'll get away with attacking America if they know that even a Democratic Party president will see to it that the military pays them a proper visit, such as after the WTC was first bombed in 1993.

The threat of attack will not be a deterrent, since provoking attack was entirely the point.

I do think kickstarting democracy in Iraq and hoping that Iraq's example is enough to put the Iranian political dissidents over the top and bring down their dictatorship, followed by the rest of the region, is our best chance of permanent peace in the Middle East.

If you think Iraq is causing Iranians want to follow that example, you're nuts. As nuts as Saddam who thought the Arab Iranians would support him when he invaded Iran. If anything, Iraq is becoming more like Iran as Iranian-backed clerics gain more power there. Please, please, please tell me that your domino theory doesn't involve invading Iran to give them a nudge if they don't follow along with the program.

It's just a damn shame some people would rather see Iraq and Afghanistan go up in flames than for President Bush to receive any credit for their success.

Funny, I thought the ones wanting to see Iraq and Afghanistan in flames and the ones crediting Bush with "success" were the same people. I mean, it is starting wars and the results thereof that we're crediting him with, right?

Re:Military automation

[smoker2]

Or, from another perspective, maybe these medieval asshats will be less likely to think that they'll get away with attacking America if they know that even a Democratic Party president will see to it that the military pays them a proper visit, such as after the WTC was first bombed in 1993.

"medieval asshats" ? Well there's a fine example of critical reasoning. Do you think it's ok to punish a whole country for the actions of a few extremists ? Do you think that by bombing civilians in a sovereign country, you actually gain the respect you think you deserve ? Do you think that the "asshats" concerned actually give a fuck what you do to a country while they escape after inflicting major damage and loss of life for minimal loss on their side ? You just make their point for them.

I do think kickstarting democracy in Iraq and hoping that Iraq's example is enough to put the Iranian political dissidents over the top and bring down their dictatorship, followed by the rest of the region, is our best chance of permanent peace in the Middle East. The rule that democracies don't attack other democracies should hold.

Again, what the fuck has it got to do with you ? If you weren't so dependant on oil your country wouldn't be anywhere near the Middle East. If some of your citizens would actually stop lobbying on Israels behalf and stop sending vast amounts of money to them, maybe the Israelis would have to start behaving like good neigbours instead of claiming they own the damn area. It was after all, the US who first recognised Israel after they declared their state unilaterally. Then maybe, some of the extremists would be left without a cause. But no, you seem intent on imposing your values on a foreign country/culture and being surprised when they don't like it, or want it and start fighting back. These civilisations have been trundling along quite happily for countless generations, but because they don't follow the almighty dollar (or buy enough US goods) they have to be "educated".

Godwin_alert
So the "rule" that democracies don't attack democracies is something that happened after Hitler and Mussolini took power via public elections then attacked the rest of democratic Europe ?

I don't see you mentioning Saudi Arabia anywhere - does that count as a dictatorship too ? Oh, you can't attack them because they let you use their territory as a military base and because Bush is in bed with their leaders/money men.

Your last sentence should read "it's a shame" period.

I'm not a Christian, but I was brought up with vaguely Christian values, and I'm sure the relevant quote is something like -

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

So carry on treating others like shit - then wonder why they give it back.

</rant>

PS. I agree with the posters that say this is a bad idea (military automation). If you want a war, go to war, but you better be prepared to bleed and die like the rest of us, or we are all fucked. No sci-fi involved here, it would be far too easy to issue an "executive" command and destroy thousands of people without so much as a twinge of guilt or compassion, because you never have to see the results, and your public will most likely never even know about it, so your job's safe.

Who put you in charge of the planet?

Re:Military automation

[Brian Stretch]

The threat of attack will not be a deterrent, since provoking attack was entirely the point.

It's more likely that they thought that if they hit us hard enough, we'd decide that maintaining any presence in their part of the world wasn't worth it and we'd pack up and leave. It's the same logic Imperial Japan used when they bombed Pearl Harbor. In all fairness to bin Laden it's easy to see where he'd think that would work, after eight years of "it's just the cost of doing business" from President Clinton, but if he'd have done proper due diligence he'd have known there's a helluva difference between Democrat and Republican Commanders-in-Chief.

If you think Iraq is causing Iranians want to follow that example, you're nuts. As nuts as Saddam who thought the Arab Iranians would support him when he invaded Iran. If anything, Iraq is becoming more like Iran as Iranian-backed clerics gain more power there. Please, please, please tell me that your domino theory doesn't involve invading Iran to give them a nudge if they don't follow along with the program.

Iraq was supposed to, and it may yet. They have proven that it's possible to hold nationwide elections. The big problem now is that the Iranian dictatorship is pouring resources into destabilizing Iraq. This won't necessarily dissuade the Iranian people from overthrowing their government. My understanding is that Iran is about where the Soviet Union was during their final years. They just need a push. No, we're not going to invade, the Iranian dissidents have told us not to and I don't think it's appropriate anyhow (Syria, perhaps), but we really ought to give those dissidents all the help they want that's remotely reasonable. Unfortunately the State Department and CIA, who'd normally handle that, are so overrun with former Soviet useful idiots that they're useless for that task and President Bush is too averse to firing people (and dealing with the predictable MSM screaming about "McCarthyism!") to straighten out the mess, assuming it's humanly possible. Sooooo... we're left with waiting and hoping that the Iranian people can pull it off on their own, with the Iraqis too bogged down with their own problems to offer direct help. Waiting is frustrating but I think it will ultimately work... but if Iran gets ahold of nuclear bombs before it does, watch out.

Interesting times.

Re:Military automation

[MrSteveSD]

It takes a hell of a lot of ignorance to claim that the US doesn't care about civilian dead, and is only worried about their own soldiers, and there is absolutely NO evidence to support such a premise. Your right of course. Take air power for example. Air power is far safer to the civilian population than sending in soldiers. Only last week I read in the New York Times that some suspected terrorists were hiding in a house in Poughkepsi, NY. Air-strikes were called in and 20 people were killed, including the two suspects. God knows what the civilian death toll would have been if soldiers had burst into the house. But of course that story in untrue. The US would never call in air-power for fear of killing US citizens. Yet it is called in all the time in Iraq. Does anyone know how many civilians were killed in the air and artillery bombardment on Tal Afar (Iraq)? Dropping 500lb bombs on a town is not something you do to reduce civilian casualties. So the US cares about civilian dead does it? Remember Gen. Tommy Franks infamous line "We don't do body counts." He didn't mean soldiers by the way. Anyway, I don't want to solely concentrate on the US. Most governments care little for civilian dead. What they care about is if it gets reported in the news.

Floating Blimp Overlords... from Soviet Russia

[Quiet_Desperation]

Normally I frown on the "obligatory" type jokes, but "Floating Blimp Overlords" does have kind of a nice ring to it. :)

Re:Floating Blimp Overlords... from Soviet Russia

[wisdom_brewing]

For a second there I read that as "Floating Pimp Overlords"... Now THAT would be interesting...

hmm.. space elevators..

[way2trivial]

materials for the space elevator (AS YET UNMADE) are designed to withstand incredible stress..

what if you made your blimp out of the same material, in rigid form, and had an empty blimp.

pop quiz, what lifts better, helium, hydrogen, or vaccuum?

Re:So sad..

[Anonymous Coward]

"So sad that one can talk about "ferry troops and heavy equipment to distant battlefields" without even mentioning the moral implications. We have got so used to the (probablly necessary) evil of armies that we dont notice it anymore"

It's interesting for us /. crowd because of the technological aspects. Lets face it some of
the most cool applications of technology are military. Those of us who've worked on 'defence'
related projects probably find them the most challenging and interesting cutting edge research
work aboout. But that is itself an awful reflection of our society. The reason these projects
attract attention is that is where the money all goes.

Once you grow up (past 25 according to an earlier Slashdot article) most of this fades
away. Maturity brings a proper perspective on the value of life, and the political lies
behind war can no longer be ignored.

The 'moral' implications are thrown into sharp relief when you read this as a non American.
In the context of the USA being involved in an illegal war of agression it's actually quite
sickening to read. If we were reading this on a (imaginary) German site in the 1930s talking
about "amazing V2 flying bombs" and "final solution ovens" I wonder if it would be so savoury.

Likewise I wonder if we would be so enthusiastic if Al Quaida had a technology website exponding the virtues of the latest nailbombs and chemical warefare agents. Knowing this technology is going to
end up used on your own family might make it little less exciting heh?

Given the additional context that the USA is 3 trillion in debt and facing inevitable economic meltdown because of its foolish military adventurism just adds a further insult to the article.

It's even harder than that.

[eigerface]

Modern helium-filled airships employ multiple gas chambers. You would need to shoot holes in a large number of them to make a dent in it's air-worthiness.

Also, each shot the enemy fires lights them up on the (likely) acompanying Apache strike team's computer-guided weapon systems. An enemy shooter would only manage to get off a couple of good shots before they were disintegrated.

Blimp Requirements

[AtomicSnarl]

Ok... some quick and dirty math here -- sea level conditions assumed on a normal (15C) day:

Air weighs about 1 Kg per cubic yard (no whining about mixed units, please)
O2/N2/H20 21/78/1% mix works out to 12.29 atomic weight vs He weight of 2, so...
He weighs only about 20% of air, so it can lift 80% of the air it displaces.

Given the above:
An equipped company of 100 soldiers is about 100kg/220lbs each -- total: 10 tonnes
This would require a minimum of 125000 cubic yards of He to lift by itself, and much more for the vehicle empty weight, fuel, etc.

For comparison, an LTA 138S Airship is 160 feet/50 meters long, volume of 138,000 ft3 (3,908 m3) (5100 yd3), and lifts only 1.5 tonnes.

Scaling up from the LTA 138S, you'd need 25 times the volume - 3.5 million ft3 minimum. Not impossible, but consider the design for the CargoLifter which would be 850ft/260m long with payload of 160 tonnes for 17.6 million ft3/ 500,000 m3 of Helium.

What ever it would be, navigating a floating object the size of an WW II Jeep Carrier or Cruiser into and out of cornfields would not be simple in any sort of wind.

Re:Blimp Requirements

[agingell]

You are correct in your main assumptions apart from the fact that this particular design is not designed for VTOL.

It gains approx 20% of its lift from its aerodynamic form, which obviously requires it to have forward velocity to "fly". This results in quite a large saving in volume of lifting gas.

The lifting gas issue is actually one of the biggest problems with theses airships as it is all fine when you have the load on, but what do you do when you have unloaded. You suddenly have an enormous mass requirement. Options such as compressing and condensing the He have been considered, but not practical, loading with water / earth are options but AFAIK there is no simple solution to this problem. Added to the fact that this issue gets much harder to solve as the lifting capabilities are increased. Especially since the whole idea is to be able to land in remote locations!

Re:Blimp Requirements

[CubicleView]

Could they just consider the He used to lift the craft under load an acceptable loss for transporting the troops? Once the blimp drops off the troops it could just bleed off the He replacing it with air (or some safer gas that's about as heavy as air). The He could then be replaced next time it picks up troops. Or is this more or less the same as the method you mentioned where they condense the He?

Re:Blimp Requirements

[agingell]

Yes they could, but He is very expensive stuff, hence why recondensing is an option, but the equipment is heavy!. This would also limit the number of trips.

Re:Blimp Requirements

[Rudisaurus]

I don't mean to be picky, but the last time I checked, air had an atomic weight of around 28.97 kg/kgmol; water is a little bit lighter at around 18.02 kg/kgmol but it's only 1% of your mixture, so let's say 28.86 kg/kgmol for the mixture. Helium has atomic weight 2.00, so the ratio is 14.43:1 -- i.e. He weighs 7% of what air does.

Re:Blimp Requirements

[AtomicSnarl]

My bad -- My working number was 14.29 for air... gram atomic weight of O2 = 16 x .21 plus N2 = 14 x .78 plus H20 = 10 x .01 = 14.29

Then I subtracted 2 for the He and found displacement buoyancy: 12.29/14.29 = 86%

So... He will lift about 80% of the air it displaces. Calculations proceded from there. I plugged in the 12.29 into the text instead of the 14.29. That's what I get from quick editing to make the reply before having to do something else!

Oh -- thank you that I didn't have to rehash Avogadro's Law!

Re:So sad..

[jcnnghm]

War is historically good for the economy. Think of it as a massive public works project. Debt that kick starts the economy is healthy.

That even a cent is spent

[no-body]

on this crap shows clearly the sickness of this society. No perspective whatsoever.

Ouh Ouh - I got the bigger club

Eheheheh - I get you anyway

Both loose!

Who is working on this shit anyway? Must be humans - right? Hmh...

Re:That even a cent is spent

[susano_otter]

Who is working on this shit anyway? Must be humans - right? Hmh...

Right, like the other animals wouldn't be working on the exact same shit, if they had opposable thumbs instead of built-in weapons.

What? You think Gazelle wouldn't trade their antlers and speed for a chance to frag a lion, if they only had the wit to figure out how?

Please. The flu virus mutates every season. Tell me that's not as sick a weapons development program as any arms race humans have ever put on.

Uh, nope.

[LibertineR]

That is the kind of thinking that produced the F-4 Phantom back in 1959, when weapons designers were sure that the era of dogfighting was over. They built a big missile platform, which during the initial phases of the Vietnam war, could barely hold its own against the smaller, more agile Russian MiG-17s which carried only guns. While the Phantom pilots were searching the skies with radar, the little MiGs were sneaking up behind them and blowing them away. Missiles are never 100% effective, which is why the Navy introduced TopGun to teach their pilots how to dogfight more effectively, and the AirForce was forced to later produce their own Fighter Weapons School after the Navy kill ratio went from 1-to-1 to 14-to-1 after TopGun started producing pilots. The Navy ace (and later Congressional crook) Randy "Duke" Cunningham was a graduate of the first TopGun class.

Even today, the F-22 is a better dogfighter than any aircraft in the world, despite that it carries missiles in an internal bay for stealth. The military learned that there will always be a need for dogfighting, and their aircraft are designed accordingly.

Re:Uh, nope.

[timeOday]

That is the kind of thinking that produced the F-4 Phantom back in 1959, when weapons designers were sure that the era of dogfighting was over.

So? An idea premature for 1959 may now be correct. Saying there will "always" be a need for dogfighting is like saying there will always be a need for trebuchets.

The main reason we're still developing expensive new air superiority fighters like the F22 is simple: inertia.

Re:Uh, nope.

[LibertineR]

The main reason we are developing fighters like the F-22 is because if we are wrong again like we were when the F-4 was chosen to be the Navy's primary fighter over the F-8 Crusader (a much better dogfighter), it will mean that some pilots will die before the problem is fixed. If we can build an aircraft that today can take on and whip 6 of our current standard (F-15 Eagle), I say build it. If we have the technology to leap frog over the capabilities of our opponents, it would be stupid not to use it.

Re:Uh, nope.

[timeOday]

If it can really beat F-15s, it could only be using standoff weapons (missiles). Surely you're not saying it can dogfight 6 F-15s at once?

Re:Uh, nope.

[LibertineR]

The point is that while killing 6 F-15s at BVR, nothing is going to be able to sneak up on it at close range either. Once out of missiles, anything up close is still going to get slaughtered with it's cannon. Then, if its out of ammo, it can still turn tail and out run just about anything, without even using afterburners.

For the future...

[r00tyroot]

When we start landing people on Mars, the company can re-name itself "Lockheed Martian".

Re:So sad..

[bmajik]

"ferry troops and heavy equipment to distant battlefields" without even mentioning the moral implications.

I am primarily concerned with the "not getting my house blown up and my wife killed" implications, and from that angle, i want our armed forces blowing up someone else's backyard instead of waiting for someone else to blow up mine.

There is no morality, only law, and law is a malleable thing. The West has tried really hard at making sure that "morality" has become subjective to the point of irrelevance, and now that they've succeeded, don't whine about the result.

I would bet that in 50 years we have wars with no human casualties, but staggering industrial/economic damage done by intelligent or remote controlled artificial agents, if not pure software.

Re:So sad..

[DigitalCrackPipe]

You confuse the advance of technology with the use of technology. War will not stop occurring if technological advances don't occur. Often, newer technology can help reduce side casualties (carpet bombing vs smart bombs, etc).

If you feel strongly about war, create political pressure to stop it. Don't troll slashdot and whine about how some new technology can be misused.

End of World

[SuperGhost]

It's the end of the world as we know it... and I feel fine.

Hand-launched drones?

[sboyko]

A separate long-term Pentagon blueprint calls for a quantum leap in drones, from hand-launched planes for battlefield surveillance

My son and I were involved in the construction of some of those recently. They were manufactured from sheets of cellulose fiber, carefully bent into the best aerodynamic shapes and flown in our indoor testing ground.

We're still working on the surveillance part but the hand-launching went well. Many made it all the way across the house.

Re:Hand-launched drones?

[drinkypoo]

You laugh - probably because it's funny - but there are actually hand-launched R/C planes available to the private individual for very little money. You can get a little hand-launch glider sturdy enough for dynamic soaring (but tricky to do it with, because it's little) for like two hundred bucks.

Problem...

[letdinosaursdie]

Wouldn't that kill the farmer's crops?

red herring

[c6gunner]

the Titanic idea would have worked just fine except that it managed to have just the right combination of factors to sink it. If the collision had made a smaller hole (as usualy happens), the ship would have survived. If the bulkheads between sections had been complete, it could have survived. Unfortiunately it didn't. That wasn't due to poor design though, so much as bad luck. There's no such thing as an unsinkable ship anyway - if the Titanic had been hit by a strategic nuclear strike it would have sank just fine too, and then you wouldn't be poking fun at it the way you are now.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the airship. A cellular internal structure would protect it from anything short of a sustained assault, or several proximity-fuse missiles. Obviously, nothing's going to protect it 100%, but that's not a realistic expectation of ANY aircraft. Keep in mind these blimps are designed for transport and logistics, meaning 99% of the time they'll be flying over friendly territory, and the rest of the time they'll have air superiority and either an escort, or fighters on standby.

Re:red herring

[databyss]

The point of the titanic story isn't that you can't build an unsinkable ship.

The point is that excellent design ideas often have hidden, unexpected flaws that are easily exploitable.

It just happens that the titanics' flaw was just the thing it was designed against.

Re:I, for one, Welcome our Floating Blimp Overlord

[amliebsch]

This battleblimp is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.

Re:hmm.. space elevators..

[evilviper]

pop quiz, what lifts better, helium, hydrogen, or vaccuum?

Anti-gravity.

Obviously a vacuum would give more lift, but the stresses it exerts on the frame are incredible, requiring a much more massive structure, increasing the weight above any benefit it would provide, so it's not practical.

Hydrogen lifts better than helium, and doesn't have the problem a vacuum poses, but it's flamable, and difficult to contain, and so also impractical.

Re:If they're admitting it exists now, it's old ne

[AlterTick]

Hauling troops anywhere quickly is what they said the V-22 was for

No they didn't. That's what the C-17 is for. The V-22 was intended to move troops short hops around the battlefield with the speed of an airplane, but the agility of a helicopter.

Our military would never settle for a slow blimp, unless it's got anti-grav or some exotic weapon.

The purpose of a military airship is for heavy lift long distance transport. Currently, if they want to move a large number of M-1A1 tanks, they roll them onto cargo ships and wait two weeks. An airship would be slightly faster, plus it wouldn't have to sail around land masses. It's intended as a compromise between transporting armored vehicles very quickly by ones and twos via the limited fleet of cargo planes, or very slowly by the dozens via ship.

Re:hmm.. space elevators..

[Idarubicin]

materials for the space elevator (AS YET UNMADE) are designed to withstand incredible stress..

what if you made your blimp out of the same material, in rigid form, and had an empty blimp.

Space elevator materials are made to support tremendous load in tension. (Think about the behaviour of a steel cable, for example.) The load on a vacuum vessel would be compressive. You'd be trying to push a rope.

The density of air is about 1.29 kilograms per cubic meter at sea level; the density of helium is about 0.18 kg/m^3. Going to hard vacuum (zero kg/m^3) only gets you about fifteen percent more lift per unit of envelope volume; the engineering hassles just aren't worth the trouble.

Re:hmm.. space elevators..

[drew]

Probably helium. Since you can maintain the same air pressure inside and outside an airship, you could use a far less rigid (and therefore lighter) shell to contain it, no matter what material it's made out of. No matter how fantastic this material they are using for the space elevator is, if you need X amount of it to make a rigid enough shell to contain a vaccuum of sufficient size, you could probably hold a sufficient volume of helium gas at atmospheric pressure using X/2 amount of the same material.

Plus, as the parent mentioned, if a helium airship is punctured, very little happens. If your vaccuum gets punctured the results are likely to be quite spectacular.

It's a bright day

[kitzilla]

**rant mode ON*** It's a bright day to be a defense contractor, with a permanent war in progress and as much cash on tap as the imagination might conjure.

Step right up, boys. Bring us your most horrific, terrifying visions of future war. No idea is too outlandish. A willing government awaits, checkbook in hand.

A folding-wing drone? Cool! We'll slash $150 million from Public Broadcasting. Machine guns that fire a million rounds a minute? We'll take away $30 million from diabetes research.

The Navy commissioned the USS Forrest Sherman, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, here in Pensacola, calling it the latest anti-terrorism tool. Hurrah for the war on terror! Who could be against that? No word on how the Forrest Sherman's advanced antisubmarine capabilities might bring a car bomber to justice.

Hey, at least the Navy is using Linux on Power architecture. They can't be all bad. ***rant mode OFF***

Re:It's a bright day

[c6gunner]

Well, technicaly speaking, the US system of govenrment was never intended to support public broadcasting or diabetese research. The federal government is only supposed to be responsbile for a few things, and external defence is their one major responsibility. If you want a more socialist society, move somewhere else.

And what the hell is so "horrific" and "terrifying" about unmanned drones and transport blimps?

Re:So sad..

[The Queen]

War HAS been good for the economy, because it created new jobs and new tech that we were able to use and sustain afterwards. On our current path, outsourcing and oil prices will continue to negate any growth that war might bring.

long-term occupation...

[mikeee]

I see that the British has just recently reduced their occupying troop strength below 20,000 troops...

In Germany.

It's a quagmire, I tell you! I blame Churchill for not having an exit strategy.

Re:long-term occupation...

[fnj]

I see that the British has just recently reduced their occupying troop strength below 20,000 troops...

In Germany.

It's a quagmire, I tell you! I blame Churchill for not having an exit strategy.


Thos are not occupation troops. They are there as part of a cooperative agreement between both sides. This change occurred a long time ago. One other leeeeeeetle thing. No one is shooting at NATO troops in Germany, or trying to blow them up.

A quagmire is when the years roll by and you're not accomplishing anything whatsoever in terms of eliminating, demoralizing, or dissuading the opposing forces.

Re:long-term occupation...

[ScentCone]

A quagmire is when the years roll by and you're not accomplishing anything whatsoever in terms of eliminating, demoralizing, or dissuading the opposing forces.

Well then, Iraq is not a quagmire. Communications intercepted to/from Evil Clowns like Zarqawi indicate that the insurgency is actually pretty desperate about the lack of wider Islamic support for their car bombing campaign, and are having a harder time raising cash and willing suiciders. Many of their mid-level managers are getting wacked, too, which takes a lot of the fun out of it.

They're especially upset (the insurgents) because damn if, despite promises to behead anyone that votes, the Iraqi people just keep on going, in the many millions, to the polls and doing things like ratifying a constitution, naming their own parliment, and so on.

Re:long-term occupation...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in study of religion, which is why I know several important facts you (and most people) do not appear to appreciate. Allow me to broaden your picture.
 
  Communications intercepted to/from Evil Clowns like Zarqawi indicate that the insurgency is actually pretty desperate about the lack of wider Islamic support for their car bombing campaign
 
Your "Evil Clowns" are radical Sunni muslims, and Sunni comprise around 30% of Iraq's population. Shia muslims comprise 60%, and have been keeping (almost) quiet all the time.

Fun fact 1: the Shia have a central clergy, unlike the Sunni. This is where the order to keep quiet came from, and they're in Iran.

Fun fact 2: the very central myth of Shia Islam is about self-sacrifice in battle. Unlike the Sunni, they consider each of their Imams a martyr, and believe each Imam was a perfect example to follow. Consequently, they have a particularly extensive history of suicide killings, most prominently including the original Assassins.

Fun fact 3: although Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sanei has (only this January, long after various Sunni authorities) issued a Fatwa that forbids Shia from doing suicide attacks, Shia Islam holds Fatwas to be fallible (i.e. reversible) and in fact the Shia clergy has been consciously using "temporary Fatwas" before. Sunni Fatwas are much more a matter of public opinion, and rarely (in theory, shouldn't) contradict.

Fun fact 4: unlike Sunni, the Shia are allowed to conceal their religion when that avoids them arm (such as in seething Iraq), i.e. they certainly occupy a couple of positions we don't know they do.

Conclusion: Zarqawi need not worry long. When the Israelis bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, Zarqawi has his number of allies roughly tripled, gets a startling (to a Sunni) number of would-be-suicide-attackers, and receives a massive supply of "missing" weapons from Saddam's army that finally get pulled out and used. All it takes is a Fatwa by the Grand Ayatollah broadcast on al-Djazeera, and you can bet your bottom dollar the text has been ready for months.
 
Zarqawi is also going to get his ass kicked by the Shia as soon as the common enemy is out of the country, but that`s another story again...
 
  Many of their mid-level managers are getting wacked, too, which takes a lot of the fun out of it.
 
I've always wondered how the US know they've killed someone more imporant than just the average soldier. They don't exactly wear shoulder bands, do they? The news reports always say things like "convoy was thought to have contained al-Qaeda's top officials" - thought by who?

Re:Death Stats - not counting Iraqis

[Robber Baron]

Iraq War - March 2003 - Feb. 6
2,452

In the Old West, they used to say "not counting Indians and Chinamen". Today when counting Iraq war casualties, it's "not counting Iraqis".

no

[c6gunner]

The titanic wasn't meant to take an impact of that type. The ironic part is that if they had hit head-on, it may even have survived. Nobody ever invisioned a ship getting torn open over that large of an area though.

So MY point is that while the Titanic COULD have been designed to survive the type of impact it took, it WASN'T. The problem wasn't behind the design, it was with the simple fact that nobody suspected a collision of that type was even possible. It was one of those one-in-a-million occurences that never seems like a problem untill it actually happens.

Re:no

[databyss]

"The problem wasn't behind the design, it was with the simple fact that nobody suspected a collision of that type was even possible."

You reiterate well.

UFO!

[Garg]

One drone would be launched from, and retrieved by, submarines..

At last! Skydiver!

Now all we need is purple-haired women on Moonbase...

Re:Death Stats - not counting Iraqis

[MilSF1]

Yeah sorry - I should have put "Coalition Forces Only". The parent was talking about a US resident being in more danger in the Army, or in a city. An even better stat would have been a per thousand number. Probably would have skewed to being a bit more dangerous to be in the Army.

Again?

[retro128]

Lockheed tried this about 10 years ago, with a drone called DarkStar. My friend was working at Lockheed as a contractor at the time. After it crashed on takeoff, he said the project was doomed - Everyone at the airbase started calling it Project DarkSpot.

I, for one,

[Jester6641]

welcome our new blimp-driving overlords.

Re:So sad..

[jcnnghm]

It takes massive ammounts of oil to run a war. The military is undoubtedly investigating alternative fuel sources with great interest. Remember that during WWII access to rubber was cut off so the military had to encourage the development of synthetics to replace the natural supply. The military is phenominal at contingency planning (they don't do nothing when there isn't an active war to fight), an oil shortage (or cutoff) has almost certainly been planned for.

Much of the Navy is nuclear powered. If the technology could be scaled (dollars and size) to Humvees and Fighter Jets, or another technology could replace the fuel they use now, it would be yet another massive American military advantage. Having to stop to gas up, the associated supply lines, and midair refueling are all costly, slow, and expensive. If you could just keep going your forces would be at a huge tactical advantage. A tank that never had to slow down or stop for gas, or a F22 that would never need to practically be refueled and could constantly run the afterburner would be massively powerful.

And outsourcing is not hurting the economy. Unemployment is at a new low while more people have entered the workforce. Forrester Research estimates that only 0.71% of all jobs lost (as in no longer exist, not as in you are fired) are due to outsourcing. Further, jobs entering the United States from other countries exceeds the rate at which jobs leave the United States.

In the not so distant past, a huge percentage of the population were farmers. Their jobs were replaced by machinery. Goods that used to be hand built were replaced by goods produced by machine. Yet, the population has grown and all of these lost jobs have been replaced by new jobs.

Oursourcing of a small number of jobs outside of America isn't a bad thing. I have been working with outsourcers regularly as of late. The quality is not anywhere near what we would expect from an American firm, so a large part of what our programmers now do is write specifications, send them overseas, then perform code reviews. This works fairly well, it greatly increases productivity. A single professional American programmer can be paired with a team of Indian programmers (who cost less than another American) and combined they can produce the same quality as three good programmers. The company makes more money, the product is of higher quality, the programmer works less hours and gets better bonuses. Further, because the cost of development is reduced, they are able to take on more projects than they would be able to otherwise (thus employing the other two american programmers, and two more overseas dev teams). Basically, as far as outsourcing goes, America is becoming the upper managment of the world, and the pay will probably reflect that.

Re:So sad..

[NekSnappa]

Exactly, everytime some one believes that they've created something so powerful that it will end all conflict, some one else develops something worse (think Nobel, and Oppenheimer here). Or amass large quantities of said terrible weapon.

Shiites Might Not Prefer Saddam

[dakirw]

Most Iraqis today -- even those here in N. America -- prefer Sadam over the US for running of the country.

I suspect that a lot of the Shiite majority would disagree - this is their first real chance to get actual power in the country. And Saddam hadn't treated them very well. I'd agree that a lot of the Sunnis, particular those from Saddam's tribe, are finding their potential future rather unpalatable.

Re:Oh noes!

[jafac]

hmmm. I sense an eerie resonance between the content of your post, and your .sig. (ignoring the geek trivial fact that Daleks aren't really machines, but little slimy blobs who live inside machines).

On the other hand, droid fighters are no match for a Jedi-piloted starfighter.

More like 20mm cannon fire

[dakirw]

If they'd strafed it with 50-mm cannon fire, they'd have shredded a stripe across it, and it would have outgassed and plummeted.

The CF-18 fighters use the M61 20mm Gatling. However, you're right in that a lot of hits should've shredded it, given that the reputed firing rate is about 6000 rounds/min. The fighers were probably flying too fast to get more than a few shots in, or they were running low on fuel and could only make one or two passes.

Re:hmm.. space elevators..

[mazarin5]

Although vacuum sounds convincing, it has the worst failure mode. If you pop a hole in an unpressurized helium tank, then there is no compelling reason for the helium to rush out. If you pop a hole in a vacuum chamber, then air rushes in and it suddenly becomes a liability.

Re:If they're admitting it exists now, it's old ne

[susano_otter]

Our military would never settle for a slow blimp, unless it's got anti-grav or some exotic weapon.

Kinda like how our military would never settle for a slow truck, unless it's got anti-grav or some exotic weapon?

How's this for an exotic weapon: Mastery of logistics.

Causes of war is not technology

[jgardn]

You seem to misunderstand what the real cause of war is. If you've ever been to a school, you'll note that fights occur for a number of reasons:

(1) People get edgy with all those hormones and fight for no reason at all.
(2) Someone is genuinely trying to hurt someone else or exert their will with physical force. The other party isn't going to take any more of it and decides to fight to protect themselves.

In international politics, (1) is only a problem if you have a single person or very small group of people that decides when to go to war. Democracies, by and large, don't have this kind of structure. Besides, it's always in everybodies' interests if the two people got along and got rich trading with one another.

(2) is far more common. This is the case when you have a corrupt government that seeks to either exploit its people or neighbors with physical force. War doesn't start when they decide to threaten force or use force to exert their will. War starts when somebody stands up to them.

It's often confusing to determine who "started" a war. Did Hitler start WWII, or did England when it decided to fight Germany's expansion policy?

It's nice to imagine some kind of conspiracy where the "military complex" determines when and how to go to war. I'll grant you one thing: Technology creates uncertainty, and uncertainty allows bad people to be more bold in their actions.

Here's a current modern day example. Iran has at its head a group of people whose purpose is to start a world war. They want a new piece of technology --- nuclear weapons --- because they think it will give them power enough to stand up to the US. It's really not certain if nuclear weapons are powerful enough to convince the American democracy to cower in fear. (They may well be!) So Iran is more bold in moving towards aggression and making threats.

When the US and its allies begin the invasion of Iran, likely, the blame for "starting" a war will go on the heads of President Bush and his friends. (Note: Already, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia have pledged to help with the invasion of Iran. There are several other smaller countries, including some Middle Eastern ones, who have pledged to help as well.) However, the true cause of this war should be Iran's aggression and threats to the annihilation of Israel and a nuclear attack on Europe and the US.

The Vietnam war, likewise, wasn't caused by a bunch of military industrialists. It was caused by communist aggression. They tried to turn a sovereign, democratic country into a wing of the Communist empire by force. The war really didn't start until the US decided to stop the aggression with force. Did the US start that war? No, but it was there to try and finish it.

Re:Causes of war is not technology

[Hortensia Patel]

(1) People get edgy with all those hormones and fight for no reason at all. [...] Democracies, by and large, don't have this kind of structure.

I'm not sure I agree. As caricatures go, "hormonal" isn't a bad description of the First World War's origins. Germany was a stroppy adolescent and wanted the respect it saw as its due; France wanted payback for the humiliation of 1870; Britain was afraid of losing its naval preeminence. The general populations of these powers, democracies all, were ardently militaristic and absolutely thrilled at the prospect of a good war.

And that was probably just the most egregious example. Modern history is littered with democratically elected leaders taking their countries into wars which were neither just nor generally beneficial to that country's citizens, often to bolster their own support at home.

Here's a current modern day example. Iran has at its head a group of people whose purpose is to start a world war. They want a new piece of technology --- nuclear weapons --- because they think it will give them power enough to stand up to the US. It's really not certain if nuclear weapons are powerful enough to convince the American democracy to cower in fear. (They may well be!) So Iran is more bold in moving towards aggression and making threats.

There's a significant difference between "stand up to the US" and "start a world war". Iran aspires to regional dominance; it is not liked by the US; it has an awful lot of oil and a limited window of opportunity while the US is tied down in Iraq. It looks at North Korea and sees that possession of WMD, however rudimentary, does indeed confer a significant level of security and can be played effectively even with an otherwise weak diplomatic hand. It looks at Iraq and notes that non-possession of WMD (especially when combined with possession of oil) does not confer any kind of security. It draws the obvious conclusions and acts accordingly. Regrettable, but in no way indicative of the slavering insanity you portray.

Already, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia have pledged to help with the invasion of Iran.

Source? Speaking as a UK citizen this comes as news to me, and I suspect it comes as news to France, Germany and Russia as well.

The Vietnam war, likewise, wasn't caused by a bunch of military industrialists. It was caused by communist aggression. They tried to turn a sovereign, democratic country into a wing of the Communist empire by force.

South Vietnam wasn't really sovereign; the '54 Geneva partition was explicitly only a temporary one. Calling it democratic is highly contentious as well, but I don't really have the energy to get into that one. And "wing of the Communist empire"? Really, where do you get this stuff? "Communism" was never, ever a monolithic bloc, any more than "the West" or "the Third World" was.

Ho hum. I suspect IH probably BT, but never mind.

Re:Causes of war is not technology

[DigitalCrackPipe]

Hmm, I'm guessing you meant to reply to the grandparent, but in case you just misunderstood, I basically said 1) technology doesn't start wars, and 2) not everyone on slashdot likes to see political troll posts. We're nerds here.

Re:Causes of war is not technology

[jgardn]

Re: WWI

It's hard to argue that the nations involved in that war were real democracies. Most of them were closer to dictatorships. Plus, there were a lot of different nations conspiring to take over all of Europe. Hence, it was a war of aggression, not just of bad nerves. I don't think people had developed a sense at that time of the power of international trade either, to the degree we use it to pacify each other today.

Re: Iran's intentions.

Have you been reading the same speeches given by President Ahmedinajed? I am pretty certain he wants to usher in the Islam equivalent of the Second Coming, which means total destruction of all the other religions. He wants to go through the hell that precedes that, with the expectation that his religion will carry him and the other countries through it. All signs point to this guy wanting to lob nuclear warheads everywhere and us lobbing them back in his face. He is major crazy.

And the jury's still out on whether DPRK has nukes. Some people think they do, others say we should think they do because they say they do (and kick the crap out of them because Kim Jong Il is major crazy) and others think they are following their SOP of lying, lying, and lying. Regardless, having nukes did not increase our opinion or fear of them at all.

The case for Pakistani and India is that if you are a reasonably stable country, and if you are sly enough, you can develop nukes. However, neither Pakistan or India have any intentions on using nukes against anyone but India and Pakistan. They are not a threat to the US, and the Pakistanis have allowed us to inspect their facilities and help ensure no one steals their nukes. Should the political climate in India or Pakistan change (India-unlikely, Pakistan-likely), we'll move to disarm them just as we did Saddam. And remember under whose administration Pakistan got nukes! And also remember that the nukes in Pakistan are a bargaining chip that we use to make sure the Pakistani government cooperate.

This administration has been clear: If you want nukes to blow us up, we will kill you. If you want nukes
to power your cities, that's fine, as long as we trust you won't try to blow us up.

RE: France, Germany, UK, Russian alliance

I can't find the article, so this is hearsay. France has been public about declaring their intention to use nukes against anyone that uses nukes against them. They have even said they will pre-empt if necessary. Germany has elected a pro-Bush government. I think we can assume they will follow Bush just like Australia has. And Russia doesn't want Iran to get nukes if there is a chance they will use them against the Russians. In this case, there is. Regardless, it's an issue in the security council, and the Bush administration wanted it there because they think they have a chance of getting something passed.

RE: Vietnam

The fact that the Vietcong were supplied with weapons, training, and leadership by neighboring communists and the Soviets meant they were connected. I know that people have tried to play down the "global communism war is fought in Vietnam" concept, but it doesn't mean that Pres. Kennedy thought it was, nor the fact that the Soviets thought it was as well.

Re:Causes of war is not technology

[Hortensia Patel]

It's hard to argue that the nations involved in [WWI] were real democracies. Most of them were closer to dictatorships. Plus, there were a lot of different nations conspiring to take over all of Europe.

Hard to argue? Because of all those oppressive free elections, no doubt. The Kaiser played a larger-than-usual role in forming policy, but the equivalent wasn't true of Britain, and France didn't have any kind of monarch.

And precisely no nations were conspiring to take over "all of Europe". France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back; Britain just wanted to enforce Belgian neutrality; Germany was a somewhat expansionist but not to a Pinky-and-the-Brain degree.

And the jury's still out on whether DPRK has nukes. [...] Regardless, having nukes did not increase our opinion or fear of them at all.

No argument that the DPRK are bullshitters extraordinaire, but why do you think the US has been paying Danegeld to them for all these years? Spontaneous generosity?

we'll move to disarm them just as we did Saddam

Except that you didn't move to disarm Saddam, since Saddam was not in fact (WMD-)armed...

And remember under whose administration Pakistan got nukes!

This has what to do with what, exactly?

And also remember that the nukes in Pakistan are a bargaining chip that we use to make sure the Pakistani government cooperate.

OK, I give up. Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

I can't find the article, so this is hearsay.

That would be a charitable description...

France has been public about declaring their intention to use nukes against anyone that uses nukes against them.

Yes, that's called nuclear deterrence. Not really much point having the things otherwise. Has absolutely nothing to do with invading Iran, which was your original claim.

The fact that the Vietcong were supplied with weapons, training, and leadership by neighboring communists and the Soviets meant they were connected.

Connected? Sure. But that's no more than the US did for Al-Qaeda, and you presumably wouldn't claim that the US was trying to make Afghanistan a "wing of the American empire".

Of course what if they aren't using bullets?

[esampson]

I'm going to put my reply here rather that lower simply because there are so many 'shooting it with a gun won't work' threads down below and I don't feel like cutting and pasting the reply to each of them.

Lots of people are trying to argue how guns will poke small holes in the structure and with low pressure and cellular designs those small holes are manageable. There's even examples given with the Canadian and British trying to shoot down a weather balloon. All of these seem to forget a basic premise of military technology, that if current weapons are inadequate you design new ones.

I would imagine that it probably wouldn't be too terribly difficult to design a new shoulder mounted missile that was designed to penetrate the side of the blimp and then detonate. Payload could be in the form of some incendiary (with its own oxidizer since the helium would smother it otherwise), cluster munitions, or perhaps just thousands of objects designed to rip big jagged holes in the cells as they are converted to shrapnel.

That doesn't mean that the idea is completely unworkable. Modern troop carrying airplanes are fairly vulnerable to shoulder mounted missile fire as well. They deal with the vulnerability by either landing at friendly airfields and off loading troops there or by having the troops jump out at high altitudes. I would imagine the deployment of these blimps would be very similar with 'airfield' being more subjective since you can use a field, but it would still need to be under control.

Re:Oh noes!

[jafac]

I don't think that any UAVs are flown entirely by computer. (at least no reusable ones - if you consider Cruise Missiles and the like to be UAVs. . . ). Most are more accurately called "remotely piloted vehicles" with a lot of computer assist.

A UAV operator is probably a lot cheaper to train, also probably has a much higher survival rate, probably needs much less education, and they could probably recruit droves of them at any Computer Gaming convention.

Hohum

[BigBadBus]

My God. Such UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) have been around for years - BAE Systems (the company for whom I work) have been involved with them for ages.

Would Slashdot be interested in another recent newsworthy story - Sputnik launched? Or perhaps the first corracle crossing of a pond perhaps?

A professional!

[way2trivial]

thanks for a solid science reply..
I have to ask though, what does the pressure of the balloon equate to in 'sea level' pressure--
  it must up the density of the helium when you inflate it into the rubber..

Re:A professional!

[Idarubicin]

I have to ask though, what does the pressure of the balloon equate to in 'sea level' pressure-- it must up the density of the helium when you inflate it into the rubber..

I'm not a professional blimp mechanic, and the information seems to be a bit tough to find with Google, but the internal overpressure of a blimp is actually quite small; the gas envelope is very lightweight and takes very little pressure to support. The one reference I found was for a class of small airships that specified the internal pressure at 40mm of water (PDF link), which works out to a shade less than 0.004 atmospheres. In other words, the pressure increases the density by about half of one percent--no biggie.

Countermeasures Conractors?

[davidsyes]

Just sounds like a RIPE opportunity for anti-LM contractors in many countries to counter farm-hopping balloons with fleschettes and pellet systems, but in the reverse of "Black Sunday". Probably some short wave, tree-top search mode radars in passive mode could watch for these balloons, look for thermals, and then just before landing, flay the balloons. Anything not armor-protected (I assume TOO much armor delays flight, increases gas load to remain aloft...) gets turned to hamburger or warped, fried electronics.

Anyone with worries, just look to pot field managers for inspiration: booby trap your fields. The suppression attacks then presage/forewarn that ballooners are coming... At least you'll get a warning, and maybe destroy the element of surprise.

When are these f*ing humans going to distance themselves from the business of making money on planning FOR war?

Re:UAV A REAL "Stinger" mission and pain

[davidsyes]

would be a UAV taking out a live-piloted plane. Any countries with enough advanced manufacturing, electronics and RC hobbyists could probably (but not very stealthily) train and equip its distant citizenry with "Homeland UAV" kits and flare/decoy launchers that are meant to temporarily disrupt or confuse (but not necessarily prevent) air attacks.

Imagine some farmer in Italy or Vietnam or the Philippines with a home-brew (nationally tested) UAV that only needs to get lucky ONCE. It goes UP, it shoots, and if the missile misses, then it has about 300 rounds with with to dogfight. Or, it could be a variant UAV which is a quasi-proximity-fused bomb that can be brought back home if the missile does its part in taking out a plane.

Yep, the days of piloted strike planes are steadily declining for missions where on-scene visual identification is not of paramount import.

Re:Nothing new... the opposite of PROgress is...

[davidsyes]

CONgress.... hehhehe

Re:human pilots for "drones"

[meringuoid]

These things can be controlled remotely. Just think for a few seconds about how much you learn every time you get shot down in a game (any kind of game). While if it had been your body you'd be dead, instead your skills improve. Humans with one life versus humans with a at least a few... the latter will win, eventually.

This would immediately lead to the military recruiting gamers. Amusing. Suddenly the USAF is full of fighter nerds. God help us if they ever make a sequel to Top Gun then.

More seriously, yes, humans would likely improve - although I imagine pilots today put in a good deal of simulator time. I wonder, however, about whether they'd always come to surpass the computers. Moore's Law aside, I'd guess that the AIs used for air-to-air combat wouldn't be programmed so much as bred. Genetic algorithms, that's the key. Set up a really sophisticated combat flight sim on a massive computer network. Throw in a bunch of AIs. Let them fight to the death. Pick out the last, say, survivor, produce a bunch of copies with small mutations, and fight out the next generation...

That could well get you a really awesome fighter AI. However, it could also get you an AI that won by running and hiding while everyone else killed each other, or a lineage of AIs that know exactly how to handle each other's entire repertoire but have no way to respond to something new that's thrown at them by a human. You'd probably have to do some selective breeding. I would bet one of the biggest issues is finding ways to cut the latency.

Yeah. Down goes your stealth bomber, and you're screaming at the enemy u l4m3r, i w45 in l4g! n0 f41r! Bad thing. There'll never be a way to cut the latency beyond the speed of light limit. Besides that, though, if the enemy hears that you're using remote controlled drones, he'll jam the frequencies you're using - or, worse yet, decipher the code your transmissions use and turn the drones right back against you...

this is what I mean when I speak of ignorance

[c6gunner]

in WW2, an airstrike would have taken 20 times the ammo, and would have resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties. these days we do a targeted strike and get shit on for killing 5 "civilians" who were having afternoon tea with the terrorists.

Are you being intentionaly obtuse? Take a look at historical figures of civilians vs military losses in past conflicts.

Re:this is what I mean when I speak of ignorance

[MrSteveSD]

get shit on for killing 5 "civilians" Yes, people get so funny about that don't they. I wonder why? Dropping a 500lb bomb on a house is not as bad as what Hitler did, so it must be ok, right?

Re:this is what I mean when I speak of ignorance

[c6gunner]

it's war. get over it.

The D-21 "Tagboard" is very old technology.

[MtViewGuy]

I think you forget that the D-21 "Tagboard" drone was flown using quite primitive on-board navigation systems. If Lockheed were to build one today it would have modern Internal Navigation System (INS) computers and also GPS navigation for dramatically increased flight accuracy. After all, the Global Hawk high-altitude reconnaissance UAV uses GPS for navigation, and that's how it can fly non-stop from California all the to Australia autonomously as demonstrated some some years ago.

Besides, autonomous flying isn't out of reach college researchers on a low budget; didn't a model airplane successfully cross the Atlantic a few years ago using nothing but GPS navigation?

Re:Oh noes!

[Vexar]

I refuse to believe they have AI behind these things, except in failsafe. The military isn't that stupid. The US Government has never recovered from all the boondoggles of the 70's and 80's that spit-stuck the words "artificial intelligence" on the spines of anything in need of funding. Hate to say it, but much of medical research has this same "buzz-word" pox. Stupid people approve the funding if it *sounds* appropriate. Smart people actually read the 500-page RFP's and say "hey, this isn't weapons research, the guy's building himself a summer home in Hawaii!"

Re:Oh noes!

[f97tosc]

The best pilot in the world still blacks out at about 9G.

But modern air combat isn't about who can pull the most G's, it is about who has the longest range missiles.

So while I disagree with your argument I agree with your conclusion - that drones could do well against humans. You can put long range sensors and missiles on a drone, and it will do almost as well as a human. Also the drones are less expensive so you can afford several of them for the price for one F22. Not to mention no political crisis if the pilot gets shot down and captured.

Tor

Re:So sad..

[The Queen]

The inherent flaw in your theory is the problem of the poor and homeless. When the only jobs available are either in upper management, or flipping burgers, how will the country deal with such a wage gap? Not everyone will be born into circumstances that allow for the sort of education the good-paying jobs require. The middle class is disappearing and I don't think that's good for the economy, any more than war is.

Re:So sad..

[jcnnghm]

The poor and homeless will do the same thing they do now. Their jobs aren't lucrative enough to be outsourced. As far as people not being born into circumstance to receive an education, everyone in America has access to the public school system, not saying it's good, but it is there. Further, if you do have negative circumstances to overcome to go to college, the aid is there, all it takes is an once of motivation. Middle class white males have the fewest number of available scholarship opportunities.

The middle class will be promoted to managing teams of outsourcers from countries like India and China, while upper managment will be able to leverage the extra manpower to grow into large multinational corporations. The middle class isn't disappearing, it is shifting to accommodate a larger world. And fortunately, it seems that America is the natural base of operations for many such companies, allowing our middle class to shift upward.

As far as income disparity, it shouldn't be that massive of a problem. There are people born in the upper class that aren't successful and lose everything, and there are poor people that put forth the effort to get an education, go to college, and get a good job. It isn't impossible. The solution certainly isn't regulation or wealth redistribution.

War is actually good for this kind of problem. It creates room for lots of professional soldiers and support staff. These jobs ultimately end in the upper middle class, providing lots of discipline and training. The skills learned in the military, coupled with early retirement and a pension, can parlay into very well paying jobs in later life. Further, defense spending stays in the United States and goes to the American middle class, employed by defense contractors. War isn't hurting the economy, unemployment hasn't been this low since July of 2001, the average hourly wage is at an all time high of $16.41, and the CPI has also been falling. The economy is strengthening, and will likely continue to well into the next presidency.

Re:Oh noes!

[pipingguy]

But modern air combat isn't about who can pull the most G's, it is about who has the longest range missiles.

On the other hand, using drones to attract long-range missiles and have the enemy waste their limited firepower on 3 million-dollar, disposable planes is better than having one 30 million-dollar plane+pilot shot down.

The drones are extremely useful in this regard.