Predator C Avenger Makes First Flights

stoolpigeon writes "General Atomics' new unmanned combat aerial vehicle, the Predator C Avenger, has been making test flights. This new Predator has a stealthy design, 20-hour endurance, is jet powered and has an internal weapons bay. A number of photos have just become available. 'The aircraft was designed so the wings can be folded for storage in hangars or aircraft carrier operations if a naval customer is found. Cassidy, a retired admiral, has talked about a possible Navy role for Predator C since 2002. The Navy was interested in the Predator B's capabilities, but didn't want to introduce any new propeller-driven aircraft onto carrier decks. The UAV also comes with a tailhook, suggesting that carrier-related trials are planned. The inner section of the cranked wing is deep, providing structural strength for carrier landings and generous fuel volume while maintaining a dry, folding outer wing. Right now, the US Air Force and Royal Air Force are considered the most likely users.'"

Comments

A new

[geekoid]

C compiler?

what?

Re:A new

[Darkness404]

Yes, rather than simply returning errors, this one shoots you whenever you make them.

Re:A new

[ShieldW0lf]

Why is it that you always read about someone shooting up a school, or a MacDonalds restaurant, but people just go to work at General Atomics day after day without getting their heads blown off like they deserve?

Re:A new

[spydabyte]

Would this be part of the movement to return to natural selection? If so I know a bunch of classmates I'd like to have test that feature first...

Re:A new

[Anonymous Coward]

C compiler?

what?

Nope. Disassembler.

Re:A new

[ichthus]

So, you would actually advocate that act of murder?

Re:A new

[mpthompson]

Unfortunately ShieldW0lf is part of a growing of subculture here at SlashDot who advocate murder as a perfectly legitimate method of advancing their social grievances. I ran into a few the other day advocating the murder of all cops.

I guess it's all part of the new "hope and change" we are experiencing here in America.

Re:A new

[ShieldW0lf]

Right. I'm a brutal asshole who advocates the act of murder. And the people who make and sell killer robot drones are a social grievance.

I think you need to re-examine things.

Re:A new

[ShieldW0lf]

So, you would actually advocate that act of murder?

I think the propagandists, the money-changers and the war machine makers are guilty of crimes against humanity. I think they should be held accountable for those crimes, and punished appropriately.

Re:A new

[Nutria]

growing of subculture here at SlashDot who advocate murder as a perfectly legitimate method of advancing their social grievances.

I wonder if that DHS report mentions them along with disaffected Army veterans...

Re:A new

[Nutria]

the propagandists, the money-changers and the war machine makers are guilty of crimes against humanity.

Then let me introduce you to Smedley Butler, a tragi-heroic dupe.

Re:A new

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? His view is perfectly valid.

While you may not agree due to the large amount of propaganda and FUD that you (the American public) gets fed, there is no moral difference between the predator drone shooting an Iraqi insurgent and that insurgent using an IED to kill an American soldier.

There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in war. There is only perspective. A civilized and educated people would understand this. America is neither.

Re:A new

[unitron]

As opposed to the Predator Visual Basic Avenger which mostly just crashed a lot.

Re:A new

[David Gerard]

"Remember, 'undefined behaviour' includes shooting you through the fucking head. So check for errors."

Re:A new

[dm89]

There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in war. There is only perspective. A civilized and educated people would understand this. America is neither.

Well, that seems to be exactly how Americans see things. Some time ago I was watching TV, and there's was this reporter that was asking Americans what they thought about guns and their second amendment rights. I was truely shocked by those people's "good guy, bad guy" mentality. It's curious how they always see themselves as the "good guys" that are fighting the "bad guys", and ironically a big part of the rest of the world sees THEM as the "bad guys".

Re:A new

[Bobb9000]

Ok...I'm an American, I agree that, objectively, there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in war, I even disagree with the Iraq war, but I still think ShieldWolf's comment deserved to get modded into oblivion.

I don't know where you live, but does your country have a military? Would you expect them to fight to defend your country? If so, would you prefer the soldiers from your country to die, or the opposing soldiers? No third option.

That's why I support the US military using drones. That's why the engineers working on them don't deserve to be killed because ShieldWolf finds killing our enemies with robots to be distasteful.

Of course, we should be out of Iraq, we should never have been there in the first place, and we've killed a lot of innocent people there. But does that mean we should stop having a military? Or that we should stop trying to avoid US soldiers getting killed in combat? I don't think so. Maybe you do, but if your relativism goes so far as to deny your own self-preservation as a valid interest, then I think you should seriously rethink your philosophy.

Re:A new

[Phoghat]

History is written by the winner We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

F-22

[p51d007]

Possibly part of the reason they want to cancel the F-22. Yes, I think UAV's will eventually be the planes of the future, but you still need manned aircraft for a while. With a UAV, you have no environmental system for a pilot, plane can out turn (G's) one with a pilot, and most importantly, you don't put the pilots life at risk.

Re:F-22

[geekoid]

Yep, tactical and safety are far superiour with UAVs.

10 years, you won't need fighter pilots anymore.
To which I say, good.

Re:F-22

[meringuoid]

Yes, I think UAV's will eventually be the planes of the future, but you still need manned aircraft for a while. With a UAV, you have no environmental system for a pilot, plane can out turn (G's) one with a pilot, and most importantly, you don't put the pilots life at risk.

I can't imagine why anybody would build another fighter jet after the F-22. I mean, yes, in terms of performance and stealth and all that it's every flyboy's wet dream. But the Battle of Britain was seventy years ago, and the days of heroic pilots taking each other on in exciting single combat are long gone. Planes now are just missile launch platforms, and the contest between them mostly a matter of getting the first radar lock and then letting rip; is it not therefore better to use cheap mass-produced drones for that task, rather than risking some technological masterwork and the colossal ego behind the stick over hostile territory?

Re:F-22

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The reason we want to cancel the F-22 is that we can't get anyone in the world to fly against our F-15's. We just don't need the F-22, and can probably skip it entirely in favor of cheaper solutions like these UAV's. We need manned aircraft right now, and the F-15 is not only good enough, it's far far more than good enough.

Re:F-22

[winwar]

"Planes now are just missile launch platforms, and the contest between them mostly a matter of getting the first radar lock and then letting rip..."

Except that you generally want to see who you are shooting at. And when you have visual, cannons suddenly are very useful. One of the first retrofits to the F4 involved cannons for that very reason (and because the missiles sucked-I assume they are better now).

Now if you can get an UAV to do that....

Re:F-22

[meringuoid]

We need manned aircraft right now, and the F-15 is not only good enough, it's far far more than good enough.

Not necessarily. The US isn't going to sell anybody any F-22s. But the European nations are selling Typhoons to every friendly nation that has the money. And history shows us that a friendly nation today can be distinctly hostile tomorrow: that's how come there are F-14s in the Iranian air force. Skip the F-22, and some day the US might find itself going up with F-15s against Typhoons, and that's a bloody dangerous thing to be doing. F-22 represents a clear advantage over any rival aircraft of any nation for the foreseeable future, and that's what the Pentagon pays the big money for.

I expect that the F-22 will be the last of the breed - the high water mark of the fighter jet family, rarely used, and sidelined in its own lifetime by cheaper robot drones. This century's Mallard train. But in the meantime it might just turn out to be worth having.

Re:F-22

[peragrin]

UAV's are awesome right up until your enemy decides that it is easier to just jam all available frequencies while launching their attacks. Frequency hopping will help but if you start losing even momentarily control your weapons start falling off target and aircraft can be dangerously uncontrollable.

personally I am betting china already has or is currently working on a method of disrupting GPS signals. Even forcing an error rate of a single percentage point is enough to render it weak for smart bombs.

pilots won't go anywhere as smart countries will target UAV weak points. remote control, and GPS. Modify a tv station ghz satellite transmitter for the right frequency and broadcast the wrong signal at the warzone. Better yet. Turn one of your space based satellite TV stations to broadcast higher power GPS signals. Flood the area with fake signals and let the receivers sort it out. In the mean time you start losing UAV's, fast.

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

autonomous craft will take care of that problem. There are already autonomous robot guns deployed around the dmz in Korea. Eventually humans wont be able to keep up with the speed of the machines and they'll need to be able to act independently in order to survive.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

So... if they're remote controlled, what if a "Bad Guy" with a F-22 (or similar) can jam the UAVs? ... you say AI, I say people are still better...

Just because no one can compete at the moment with our technology, it doesn't mean we should abandon something superior for something 'good enough' ... it will bite us in the rear eventually.

Re:F-22

[geekoid]

What do you think happens now if your enemy could 'start jamming all frequencys'?
The plane become useless.
Fortunatly, that's not a practical scenario.

These plane can fly themselves.

You are really thinking about UAV's 15-20 years ago.

All the problems you talk about have pretty much been solved.

Re:F-22

[geekoid]

Except that you generally want to see who you are shooting at

If you wait until you can confirm using your eyeballs, you are dead.

Any situation where you are not dead could have easily been handled by an UAV.

The F4? are you seriously truting out the F4? I don't know about you, but the rest of us are talking about modern warfare. the F4 hasn't even been produced for over 25 years.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but technology has change.

Maybe you should stop thinking of the day when you tied an onion to your belt and nickles had bees on them.

Re:F-22

[Bakkster]

The reason we want to cancel the F-22 is that we can't get anyone in the world to fly against our F-15's. We just don't need the F-22, and can probably skip it entirely in favor of cheaper solutions like these UAV's. We need manned aircraft right now, and the F-15 is not only good enough, it's far far more than good enough.

The issue with the F22 is that it's trying to be everything at once. It's incredibly fast, incredible maneuverable, and it's stealth. A fighter really only needs 2/3 to be superior, the third has diminished returns for a HUGE investment. Honestly, the 160 we've bought already are plenty.

Of course, we have the F35 Joint Strike Fighter coming down the pipeline. This is a plane that's designed to be the new workhorse. Configurable, with versions meant for airfields, aircraft carriers, and V/STOL. The biggest benefit is that it uses many parts with similar capabilities to the F22, but more cost effective and building off the lessons learned from the F22. UAVs are a huge part of air superiority and surveillance, especially due to their extended flight times, but they won't be replacing manned fighters yet. Maybe eventually, but limitations in sensor technology will prevent them from being equal to a manned jet for at least a few more decades.

Re:F-22

[hazem]

UAV's are awesome right up until your enemy decides that it is easier to just jam all available frequencies while launching their attacks. Frequency hopping will help but if you start losing even momentarily control your weapons start falling off target and aircraft can be dangerously uncontrollable.

The problem with jamming is it's really hard to hide a jammer (basically a broad-spectrum transmitter) from systems designed to locate transmitters. We already have aircraft designed to locate and take out radar systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-111A_Raven. This shouldn't be too hard to adapt for jammers as well. Maybe those could still be flown by human pilots.

And as the AUVs become even more autonomous, the need for high bandwidth communication will diminish, making jamming even less of a problem.

But even if you do start losing AUVs fast, they're much easier to replace than planes with pilots.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but technology has change.

Yo, my technology, can you spare a dime?

Re:F-22

[c6gunner]

Except that you generally want to see who you are shooting at.

Not so much in modern combat. By the time you got close enough to make a visual ID, you'd be dead already. IFF takes care of identifying friendlies and most non-hostiles, and if you're in a hostile area everything else is fair game.

Now if you can get an UAV to do that....

As I said, I don't think cannon are terribly important in UAV's meant for air-to-air combat, but I think it's only a matter of time before they start fitting UAV's with cannons for ground-attack roles. Aircraft like the A-10 or the Apache are awesome for what they do, but flying them is inherently much more dangerous because they're vulnerable to attack from the ground. There's no reason why UAV's couldn't fill those roles some day.

Re:F-22

[LurkerXXX]

And when we are up against bad guys capable of jamming the UAV's communication back home to the guy controlling the joystick?

Re:F-22

[konigstein]

Another critical aspect is the distance/lag between the operater and the drone. THAT, in my unprofession and entirely biased opinion (IANARAWAO "I Am Not Anything Remotely Associated With Aerospace Operations") is that major key. When ms count, operators can be seconds away.

And then there's the whole "what happens when the enemy deploys jammers that interrupt all frequencies" thing..

Re:F-22

[at_slashdot]

rather than risking some technological masterwork and the colossal ego behind the stick over hostile territory?

There's still a jerk behind the stick.

Re:F-22

[couchslug]

"most importantly, you don't put the pilots life at risk."

Pilots are willing to accept risk, but their losses are visible and politically damaging.

UAV losses don't matter much, and unlike pilots, UAVs don't get tired. A fighter pilot would be dangerously exhausted flying loitering missions that are routine for UAVs.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the F-14's are in Iran's airforce because they used to be a US client state before the Islamic Revolution.

The reason they were a US client state before the revolution is because the US and Great Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosadeq in 1953 because he was getting too friendly with the Soviets. In his place, the Pahlevi Shah was installed, and he ruled with with a somewhat undemocratic fist (see SAVAK) till 1979, when the people of Iran had had enough and decided to toss the fucker out. Sadly, they got more than they bargained for, and one shitty regime replaced another.

American interventionist blowback fucking up everything for another nation and ourselves; just add them to the list with Afghanistan, Iraq, and a gigantic chunk of South and Central America.

Re:F-22

[Xabraxas]

Like SkyNet?

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect that the F-22 will be the last of the breed - the high water mark of the fighter jet family, rarely used, and sidelined in its own lifetime by cheaper robot drones. This century's Mallard train. But in the meantime it might just turn out to be worth having.

*cough* *cough*

Re:F-22

[Animats]

But the Battle of Britain was seventy years ago, and the days of heroic pilots taking each other on in exciting single combat are long gone. Planes now are just missile launch platforms, and the contest between them mostly a matter of getting the first radar lock and then letting rip;

Actually, no. Aerial combat was important in Korea, in Israel's wars, in the first Gulf War, and in the recent Georgian debacle. If the other side has air, you had better have fighters. "American troops have not had to fight under a hostile sky since WWII. This did not happen by accident." as USAF types like to say.

It's worth bearing in mind that the two big US wins against a serious opponent in recent decades were both against Saddam Hussein, who was totally incompetent at running a major war. (He had three, two against the US and one against Iran. The one against Iran was a long inept bloodbath.) Someday the US may have to take on someone who 1) has a substantial military force, and 2) a clue about how to use it.

Re:F-22

[Martin Blank]

The Ravens were retired a decade ago, and were not capable of taking out radars, but instead just blinding them. The Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler now provides most of those duties for the entire military. Unlike the Raven, the Prowler is capable of carrying anti-radiation missiles and actually striking radar sources. The Prowler is to be replaced by the EA-18 Growler (an off-shoot of the F/A-18F Super Hornet) beginning this year.

Re:F-22

[grantdh]

"Not so much in modern combat. By the time you got close enough to make a visual ID, you'd be dead already. IFF takes care of identifying friendlies and most non-hostiles, and if you're in a hostile area everything else is fair game."

Except when the powers that be dictate that you must get a visual confirmation that it's an enemy combatant (to avoid accidentally shooting down the wrong aircraft, etc). Politics and "delicate situations" can dictate 100% confirmation before weapons release, so BVR engagements are not always possible.

Remember how the F14 had that TV camera unit installed under the nose looking forward - extreme visual magnification and image processing to allow positive visual ID on targets while still at missile range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/88635/

Of course, great stealth tech (like the F22) stomps on everything else as combatants don't even know it's there until it's too late (http://www.ausairpower.net/air-superiority-2.html)
 

Re:F-22

[DustyShadow]

Possibly part of the reason they want to cancel the F-22. Yes, I think UAV's will eventually be the planes of the future, but you still need manned aircraft for a while. With a UAV, you have no environmental system for a pilot, plane can out turn (G's) one with a pilot, and most importantly, you don't put the pilots life at risk.

That makes sense but if that was the real reason for the proposed cancellation of the F-22, you'd think the J-UCAS program would not have been canceled (for the most part). I honestly doubt those in Congress have any clue about what these systems do. I used to work in defense and it is true that there is a ton of waste but the main reason for that is that the military customer never gives a good set of requirements and they constantly change what they want over and over. Then the contractor gets the blame when surprise surprise it costs twice at the end. There needs to be more planning up front.

Re:F-22

[dirtyhippie]

That's what the F-35 is for (still needing manned aircraft for awhile). The F-22s the US has will keep giving it an edge against the countries who are sold F-35s (not to mention the export version will be somewhat stripped down, of course). There's really no need for more F-22s, UAVs or no.

Re:F-22

[bgray54]

You might be right about the dogfighting days being over. But just remember that the same argument was made 4 decades ago when they decided that F-4s didn't need guns.

Re:F-22

[bitt3n]

that may be true, but what kind of movie will Top Gun 2 be if Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer are engaged in a brutal dogfight to the death while eating out of the same bag of Cheetos?

Re:F-22

[rts008]

The F4? are you seriously truting out the F4? I don't know about you, but the rest of us are talking about modern warfare. the F4 hasn't even been produced for over 25 years.

No, that was not his point. I also immediately thought of the F-4...strictly a missile platform, no guns. And every air to air combat pilot that flew them bitched about no guns until they got them.

Or maybe this will get his point across:
Those that ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.

Ask any fighter pilot that has combat experience(air to air) how they would feel about removing the guns from their fighters, leaving only missiles for air to air.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but technology has change.

Well thank you Captain Obvious.

I've had the good fortune to have rode in both an F-4, and an F-15. Changes in tech? Yeah, so? Happens all of the time.

For the point he was making, the F-4 was the perfect example to use.

Re:F-22

[s0lar3clipse]

They thought the days of dogfights were over in Nam, so we had fighters with no guns and got out buts kicked for it most of the war...

Re:F-22

[br4nd0nh3at]

Plus you can switch out pilots rather easily.

Re:F-22

[Bender0x7D1]

When ms count, operators can be seconds away.

As long as the operator is in the same hemisphere, the furthest distance the signal has to travel is to a geostationary satellite and back, about 72,000 km. The speed of light is 300,000 km/second. Even with the inefficiencies in the satellite and equipment, it is going to be less than a 1 second delay for the stimulus to be transmitted to the station, and the operator's response to be returned. Of course, this doesn't include the reaction time of the human, which is around 190 ms for a visual stimulus.

As long as energy weapons aren't in general battlefield use, there will be plenty of time for an operator to react. The latest Sidewinder missile travels at Mach 2.5. If a launch is detected 2 miles away, (which is pretty close - a Sidewinder's range is from 0.6-11.3 miles), this gives almost 4 seconds for action to be taken. Even with the extra time for the signal to be transmitted, the higher G forces that can be tolerated by an unmanned drone will probably give it a higher chance of survival than a manned aricraft.

Of course, IANARAWAO, either.

Re:F-22

[Quarters]

Except for the terms "F-22" and "drones" your paragraph almost directly mimics what the Navy and Air Force brass thought in the years before the Vietnam war. That's why the F-4 Phantom II was designed without an onboard gun. Unfortunately we lost a lot of pilots early on in Vietnam because missile only airplanes weren't what was needed. Eventually the brass capitulated and an F-4 variant with a gun was introduced. Once our pilots could again engage in the art of the dogfight their kills went up and their losses went down.

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

This is only true to a point. A perfect example - horses. The Army was very resistant to moving from horses to motorized vehicles for quite a while. But I doubt you'll find a modern military in the world that uses horses now.
 
The resistance to firearms was even more fierce.
 
There will come a time when manned aircraft will be a distant memory. (There will be exceptions but they will be in the minority - sort of like the mules in use by special forces in Afghanistan.) The fact that fighter pilots are not excited about this prospect is only natural.
 
As the rate of change accelerates, these moves will happen more quickly. So when we talk about UAVs replacing manned aircraft we are not talking about some far off point in the future.

Re:F-22

[thrillseeker]

rather than risking some technological masterwork and the colossal ego behind the stick over hostile territory

what sort of ego would you recommend for flying a fighter over hostile territory?

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

UAVs don't take away the ability to gain visual id. In fact they make target identification safer. The sensors on aircraft will give operators an even better view than a pilot could get with his eyes. That view can be shared with multiple people who can be in the loop, and none of them will be in immediate danger. They can take time to assess the situation. A human pilot does not have those luxuries. With multiple UAVs in the air, a force cannot only afford to let the other side shoot first, they can afford to lose a drone to make sure the enemy is hostile before they take them out.
 
But I think the lethality and speed of automated systems will lead to wars where there are free fire zones - and anyone who does not want to be a target will just need to stay out. Waiting around to be sure of the situation will mean losing the fight.

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

The jammers will have HARMS or the equivalent eating them alive. That is not a sustainable counter measure.

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

Pilots might be willing to take the risk, but the loss is not only visible and politically damaging, but expensive. Pilots are the cream of the crop and it takes a long time to train them.
 
Training UAV pilots takes much less time and is much less expensive. I've read about high school drop-outs that picked up their ged and are now top notch uav pilots for the army.
 
I think robots are going to change the world in many, many ways. I think UAVs will also start to be used more and more by police forces. Think of the cost for police helicopters and airplanes that are used for surveillance and the people who fly them. UAVs will provide more coverage at a much lower cost. And this is all just airborne stuff. We aren't even talking about the stuff on the ground and in the water.

Re:F-22

[BrandonBlizard]

Skip the F-22, and some day the US might find itself going up with F-15s against Typhoons, and that's a bloody dangerous thing to be doing.

That is the very reason the F-35 is set to become the most produced jet fighter. Better than everything but the F-22 but not quite as expensive.

Re:F-22

[sumdumass]

They can fly themselves but they cannot pick out targets, select the appropriate ammunition or missiles to use, and then take the judgment call to fire on their own.

Currently, it takes a human to make those decisions. Sure, the plane or UAV would still be in the air, it might even still be doing laps around it's original patrol route. But that's all you have if the communications to it is jammed. You won't even be able to direct the various cameras positioned on them or get the live video back for your real time intelligence.

Granted, with pilots, your real time updates are still screwed if communications is borked. But he can still move the cameras, pick targets, identify the targets to some extent (*friend or foe) and make the call to destroy them.

UAVs will end up complimenting pilots, not replacing them. Even if one pilot controls a squadron of UAVs in combat with stronger/closer radios that over ride the jamming equipment or use something that's more optical for communications with the UAV. Hell, for that matter, the fighter pilot could be simply using anti jamming equipment and relaying the signal from another source to the drones while participating in the fights.

Re:F-22

[sumdumass]

Here is an interesting concept. Use one jammer with several different antenna connected through shielded cables and an amplifier on each end.

You could effectivly switch the jamming from one geographical area to another almost a mile away with just a couple of amplifiers and hide most of the real shit completely out of harms way. And with signal seeking missiles, your could have them so far off target that they would be useless.

Re:F-22

[timeOday]

The total number of air-to-air engagements since vietnam is tiny, the number with cannons even smaller (if at all?) The entire fleet of F14s, built exclusively to be the awesome dogfighter that it was, had a grand total of 4 air kills in 2 incidents. (OK, plus a helicopter). It was successful in those engagements, but we are talking $29 billion dollars here. Granted, it was built during the Cold War, partially to dissuade an attack that never came (mission accomplished, sort of). But things are different now. We have already spent $65 billion on 135 F22's. That is plenty for me to sleep soundly at night unless things change dramatically, which would take a while.

Re:F-22

[Planesdragon]

The F-35 is the "mainstay" aircraft of the new generation. The F-22 is the "Air superiority" fighter.

The equivalent comparison is between an economy car and a sports car.

Re:F-22

[Q-Hack!]

They can fly themselves but they cannot pick out targets, select the appropriate ammunition or missiles to use, and then take the judgment call to fire on their own.

Says who? The US military has had that very capability for a while now. Computers analyze the threat, pick the targets figure out which aircraft or surface launched missiles best suited to deal with said threat. The only thing we don't let the computer do is actually fire the weapon. There is nothing stopping that from happening, except the current mindset that we want humans to have the final control.

Re:F-22

[Q-Hack!]

Here is an interesting concept. Use one jammer with several different antenna connected through shielded cables and an amplifier on each end.

You could effectivly switch the jamming from one geographical area to another almost a mile away with just a couple of amplifiers and hide most of the real shit completely out of harms way. And with signal seeking missiles, your could have them so far off target that they would be useless.

One antenna, one missile... six antennas, six missiles. Problem solved.

With our technology today, you only need to transmit for a short period of time for us to accurately locate you. Even if you shut it down we can locate and destroy it.

During the height of Iraqi Freedom we were destroying GPS jammers with GPS guided bombs. While it is easy to jam the civilian side of GPS it is not as easy to jam the military side. Believe it or not, we actually do have engineers that can design around known jamming techniques.

 

Re:F-22

[Dahamma]

You're right about the "hard to hide a jammer" and that a UAV is a great anti-AA vehicle and could be a good anti-jammer, but...

We already have aircraft designed to locate and take out radar systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-111A_Raven.

The EF-111A has been retired for a decade. These days they use the EA-6B Prowler. Though even that is about to be replaced with the EA-18 Growler.

Though that's kind of irrelevant to your post - those are ECM/jamming aircraft, not anti-radar. The EF-111A didn't even carry weapons (that's why it's "EF" and not "EA"). The US uses a bunch of different fighters in SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) missions - for the most part all you need is a decent radiation-seeking missile, or any decent system to detect active radar combined with a big-ass bomb.

Re:F-22

[Q-Hack!]

But things are different now. We have already spent $65 billion on 135 F22's. That is plenty for me to sleep soundly at night unless things change dramatically, which would take a while.

I think a lot of people are not looking at this the correct way. I could care less if we spend money on maned or unmanned aircraft. I could care less if we bought 135 of something or 300 of another... what allows me to sleep well at night is just knowing that we are technologically superior to everybody else. We as American's demand that our military be ready for any contingency. They are the best to decide what they need to do there job (as opposed to the slashdot armchair generals). I expect them to continue to look for further advancements in technology. Will it be expensive... yes, but that is the price to maintain our superiority.

And yes, I also expect congress to keep the military's spending in check. You know, that whole checks and balances thing.

   

Re:F-22

[Q-Hack!]

I see a lot of people who tout the lack of guns on the F4 as a defense for keeping them around. The main problem with this idea is the missiles of the Vietnam era were not real good at beyond line of site lock. Today's missiles are a different story. We can easily engage a target well outside of human visual ability. Notice I said 'human visual ability', I know that there may be times when we need visual confirmation before the release of a weapon. Cameras are capable of seeing well beyond what the average human can see. Heck, the ball camera on the Predator is capable of picking targets many miles away.

Also, while the lack of guns on the F4 got the most attention, one of the real reasons for the high death rate of pilots during Vietnam was that they didn't trust there missile jamming technology and would simply shut it off. But fighter jocks never make mistakes, so you don't hear about that in the mainstream media.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

These plane can fly themselves.

Not in a mission-capable manner. Without a link, 95% of UAS either go home, or loiter, till they regain contact. The exceptions continue along pre-set flight paths, and aren't armed.

Re:F-22

[PachmanP]

Training UAV pilots takes much less time and is much less expensive. I've read about high school drop-outs that picked up their ged and are now top notch uav pilots for the army.

There's a whole generation that has been raised training to fly UAV's! I mean I'm kinda surprised that the USAF hasn't released an America's Army type game that's a thinly disguised UAV sim.

Re:F-22

[Q-Hack!]

The reason we want to cancel the F-22 is that we can't get anyone in the world to fly against our F-15's. We just don't need the F-22, and can probably skip it entirely in favor of cheaper solutions like these UAV's. We need manned aircraft right now, and the F-15 is not only good enough, it's far far more than good enough.

Wow, you really are naive. You do know that the US just sold the entire fleet of F-16E/F variant (aka Block 60) to the United Arab Emirates. While they are not exactly our enemies, they are not really allies either. Who is to say that they won't use them against us in the future. No, my friend, we need to stay ahead of the technology that the rest of the world owns. That means we need the F-22's. At least until the UAV's are proven against all aerial threats.

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

Yes. From what I've read- the younger uav pilots that grew up playing video games are better at managing multiple craft simultaneously than their older counterparts.

Re:F-22

[Q-Hack!]

The F-22 and the F35 have fundamentally different roles. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter, but has multiple capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. While the F-35 is meant for close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions. We need both.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

The pilots life is still at risk.

The "U" is for unmanned, not un-piloted.

These pilots who wake up at home with their families in the USA, commute to a facility where they fly these birds from a cubicle and kill people, then drive home for dinner with the wife and kids. It turns out they suffer serious stress related disorders at a much higher rate then real pilots.
I don't have stats on suicides but I think it would be incorrect to say their lives are not at risk.

Re:F-22

[hazem]

You and Martin are certainly correct. It's been 15 years since I was in the service and I hastily picked that aircraft from the fog of my memory.

I knew we had many different systems for finding and taking out sources of radio transmissions. Sometimes it's a guy in a humvee finding them and artillery somewhere else taking it out (that's more in my line of experience). I imagine the systems today are even more capable and interesting!

Re:F-22

[bozojoe]

Can anyone remember the first f-4 delivered w/ no gun?
That got fixed fast. gosh I wonder why?

Re:F-22

[sumdumass]

So your saying that a computer on board a UAV has the ability to choose a flight path, watch the ground, chose an indiscriminate target, determine that it is unfriendly with enough certainty to avoid the international backlash of killing innocent civilians or your own troops, determine the proper ammunition or armerments to use (*missiles or machine guns) and take action all without any contact from a human or a base or a command center or anything external to the UAV. And this has been around for a while now?

Am I reading this right? Because as far as I know, outside a limited scope of autonomous guns guarding a demilitarized zone in which anyone entering from could be considered a threat, all the parameters get programed in as the UAV is in action. Even on the ground or with our automatic systems, we rely on freind or foe transponders to signify friendly troops or aircraft and distinguish them between incoming missiles or other threats. I seem to remember several allied fighter being fired apon in the last active engagements because the the Friendly acquisition systems were malfunctioning and we ended up taking it off an automatic response so that we could hail the radar contact just in case.

Please tell me the name of this system that a UAV has that can set a patrol pattern, discover a truck load of people, determine that they are armed and not a humanitarian mission taking medical supplies to civilians somewhere, then target it with the appropriate weapons to ensure it's destruction without any contact from any other system or human (remember, we are talking about jamming communications). I'm really interested in this AI function that surpasses everything I know about.

Re:F-22

[Dahamma]

Hey, I'm just a punk (ok, a bored but well educated punk currently drinking good bourbon and very good at research ;) who like to call people on making up facts to support their arguments (which in your case was not really important since I agree with your main point, plus apparently you were not making things up just to sound knowledgeable... just a bit out of date ;)

But anyway, point agreed: jamming is a dangerous exercise if your opponent has equivalent technology, as they can probably locate the source and blow it to hell in minutes (which I assume is largely why the US military jamming technology uses small fighter jets and not big slow AWACS or sitting-duck ground vehicles...)

In fact, I'd put money in < 15 years they will be able to put up cheap autonomous drones that can fly for 24 hours, jam enemy signals if activated, or fire an anti-radar/jammer missile as needed... seems more of an "obviously" than "science fiction" in my mind...

Re:F-22

[sumdumass]

One antenna, one missile... six antennas, six missiles. Problem solved.

I don't think you understand the concept I'm speaking of. If the missile is targeting the radio waves, shifting the signal from one antenna to another in bursts would spread the targeting out beyond the missiles capabilities. Even if the missile locks onto the target and remains on course regardless of the position of the signal, you can alternate antennas quick enough or bounce them off of natural formations and basically either evade the missile lock or direct it to a non-volatile location.

With our technology today, you only need to transmit for a short period of time for us to accurately locate you. Even if you shut it down we can locate and destroy it.

This is true to a limit. The limit may be the length of time it takes to determine where the signal is and if something like harmonic wave distortion is paralleled among the antennas. In that situation, your basically using a spread spectum disruption technique that causes the signals to interact with each others and create an entirely different frequency and tone. This would give the impression of a noise coming from the center of a room that was A: not actually made and B: created by speakers in the corners or even outside the room. Think of it as similar to how they make 3d spacial references in 2 speaker headphones digitally.

During the height of Iraqi Freedom we were destroying GPS jammers with GPS guided bombs. While it is easy to jam the civilian side of GPS it is not as easy to jam the military side. Believe it or not, we actually do have engineers that can design around known jamming techniques.

Sure we were. But we were going against outdated and underfunded technology sold to Iraq from by a country that stopped racing against our armaments a decade before. There is a big difference between going up against something we know about and something that's just being introduced.

Sound waves and radio wave behave similar in how they move through the air. Radio waves have some advantages to sound but think about some of the stuff being done with sound. In a 5.1 sound environment, you can make a crash that sounds like it happened in front of you, behind you, two feet from you, two inches from your or two miles from you and it can all happen when the speakers of fifteen feet from you. This happens from dividing the sound waves between the speakers, relying on the distortion caused from the sound waves hitting each other and the perception of the instruments picking up the noise. Now in the case of sound, it would be your ears. In the case of radio waves, it would be the missiles or spy plane flying around miles away.

Anyways, I'm not sure that there is anything stopping the appearance of the radio wave from emitting in another location then they actually are. It may be more difficult when you start looking at the power requirements needed to jam all communications but the concept is clearly the same. In Iraqi freedom, we also benefited from the guidance systems that can operate independent of the GPS. They program maps into the missiles, take readings of the position as close as they can, then operate on visual data and traditional navigation systems like digital gyroscopes, radar, speed detectors and so on to get that last mile.

Most missiles, GPS, laser, radio, or however guided, don't use those systems in the final event. Take cruise missiles for instance. It used GPS to get withing visual range of the target then uses optics to take a picture, then compares snapshots for course corrections until it strikes. Sometimes, it fires a small laser sighting system to determine distance and speed and the computer calculates things like angle of approach and so on.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our smart bombs aren't smart, I'm saying that there are ways to defend against them. A guided missile or bomb

Re:F-22

[SlashWombat]

Like SkyNet?

The companies name is General Atomics? And the Autonomous craft is called Predator C Avenger ... Sounds like the plot for a crappy B grade SciFi

Re:F-22

[janrinok]

But I doubt you'll find a modern military in the world that uses horses now.

Er.... how about the US Special Forces? - http://www.conunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/specialforces-on-horse-300x230.jpg. Or do you not consider your own SF to be part of a modern military? A sensible force will use whatever is best for the task at hand - not ignore some option simply because it isn't high tech enough. Otherwise, knives and bayonets would have disappeared many years ago, but they haven't.

Re:F-22

[skeletonliar]

The problem is that the F-15s are at the end of their service life and are starting to fall out of the sky.

Re:F-22

[sien]

We as Chinese will feel unsafe until our technology is superior to yours. We cannot yet sleep safely at night.

As your economy, due to shocking mis-management and two unwise wars is already effectively depends on our savings we don't think that overtaking your military technology will be too tough in the next 50 years.

We believe that we must be ready for any contingency. With 4 times as many people and sustained 7 percent plus growth rates we will approach, catch and overtake you.

You may not be able to sleep safely in future.

Or we could work out ways to get along.

Re:F-22

[QuantumRiff]

I have always thought its pretty amazing how much time and money go into the cockpit of a plane, and technology to protect and recover a pilot, but then we have to have this huge debate in this country about spending a few thousand dollars to hang some armoured doors on a hummer, to protect the poor army guys that get shot at all the time..

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

Is my comment so long that you couldn't actually read it before replying?

Re:F-22

[benjfowler]

There's a marvellous story doing the rounds, about how Iraq bought a bunch of advanced GPS receivers from Russia in case of a Coalition invasion.

There's numerous reasons given for why they didn't work, but it wasn't a problem for the Americans: the jammers were wiped out in a blink of an eye -- ironically, with satellite guided bombs.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

if they are delivering supplies during a conflict, then they should be bombed

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

Nice. I don't usually worry about stuff like this but just so that we are all clear on what a dumb ass reply that was - the one currently modded insightful - let's review:
 
Right in the middle of my comment is this little nugget, "There will be exceptions but they will be in the minority - sort of like the mules in use by special forces in Afghanistan." (I've added emphasis here because obviously we are dealing with some people that struggle with reading comprehension.)
 
And his reply, "Er.... how about the US Special Forces?"
 
Thus my reply was not flamebait, it is an honest and valid question, that allows the poster an opportunity to actually take 5 seconds and pull their head out.

Re:F-22

[megaditto]

You present an unlikely scenario under which the unmanned aircraft fails, namely that 1) we use UAVs against a country that can jam GPS, AND 2) we still care about not killing the civilians.

Of course the truth is that condition (1) pretty much means NOT (2).

If we are at war with China and/or Russia, we very much want to kill everyone, civilian or not, and really don't care about the public opinion. Consider the thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on their population centers.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

This century's Mallard train

If you mean the UK Mallard, the A4 was a very successful class, which not only had a maximum recorded speed slightly faster than the replacement (126MPH for an A4, 120MPH for a Deltic or 110MPH for a 47, under test conditions), but was capable of greater haulage as well (during the War, A4s were used on 20-coach troop trains, and typically they hauled 10-13 carriages) They were made obsolete by political and social factors (people didn't want to do the hard unpleasant work as a cleaner or fireman on the old rates of pay)

Re:F-22

[timeOday]

OK, I am assuming you are an American assuming the guise of China here, but it doesn't really matter either way.

The question with China is whether a big American military buildup - ultimately at the expense of our own economic strength - is the right way to counter an economic rivalry. I contend that China has no ambitions for expansionism, since they already maxxed out their resources and decided to cope by population control instead of stealing resources from other nations. Besides, if we keep our present course, China won't need to invade America, they'll simply foreclose on it.

What is important is maintaining our technological edge and a healthy balance sheet so we could rapidly (over a few years) build up our forces should the need arise. But that's different than keeping a big standing army with hundreds of bases and buying 700 copies of expensive fighter planes.

Getting along with China doesn't seem particularly hard to me. I don't care for their government, but it's certainly not N. Korea or the Taliban, and isn't invading anybody.

Re:F-22

[couchslug]

The Ravens were much faster than the Prowlers (and unlike them could keep up with fast strike packages), but something had to give in the budget crunch and they were complex, high-maintenance airframes.

They were in very high demand, hence "Deploy, Detox, Divorce" on their tent entrance door.

The post-Cold War drawdown cost a great amount of airframe diversity. Some of the replacements are not better at all things.

Re:F-22

[benjfowler]

Sorry to reply to my own post, the Iraqi bought advanced _jammers_.. but you get the idea.

AIUI, the operators didn't use them properly and left them switched on when they were told by the Russian makers specifically not to. In my limited understanding, this defeated the purpose of the jammers completely.

Re:F-22

[voxner]

The sixth generation aircraft is already in the drawing boards. Check this link.
The fighters are not going anywhere and the only thing going to the sidelines is manned fighters and that is not about to happen anytime soon (given the present state of technology).

Re:F-22

[rbanffy]

"autonomous craft will take care of that problem"

Yes, but only if they know where they are. With GPS jamming, they would have to rely on inertial navigation and image recognition to pinpoint their positions. That would render them just very expensive smart bombs and probably easy to kill targets.

Re:F-22

[rbanffy]

"One of the first retrofits to the F4 involved cannons"

Cannons seem to be the only practical way to engage a stealth fighter (or drone). Fighters also cannot pull pilot-killing high-G maneuvers, but drones can, and could pose difficult challenge to missiles and pilots alike. However, as pointed out earlier, with GPS and communications jammed, they would have to rely on terrain imaging (if low enough), inertial navigation and their own brains to fight-off the wetware-powered craft.

In those conditions, I can't imagine drones being that hard to kill.

Of course, the real reason for fighter planes is that nobody gets a medal for sending in an autonomous robot to do the dirty work.

Re:F-22

[metallic]

You also forget that the F-15 airframe is 30 years old. Most airframes in service are 25-30 years old, and it wasn't that long ago that we had one simply disintegrate in mid-air. This necessitated grounding our entire F-15 fleet, with the embarrassing result of the United States having to rely on our Canadian friends to assist in our air defense.

You are right that the F-15 is a very capable aircraft with the best combat record of any American fighter. But right now, we have two options: we can either revive production of the F-15 to replace our aging airframes, or we can field a new aircraft that will be technologically ahead of the curve for another 30 years.

Re:F-22

[peragrin]

And if that jammer is space based how do you shoot it down? The trick isn't to jam GPS, but to introduce your own false signals. Now GPS is randomly working.

Next up using your own counters to the USA growlers, to jam UAV controls(which all respond to ground control even if the primary flight is automated, the landings take-offs, and targeting is all done by remote.

The F-22 radar can be used to electronically overload other radars, and systems. Call it targeted jamming. China most likely is copying this ability like they copy many other things from the USA. Once each side begins to target UAV's and missiles in such fashions manned pilots will be needed to target said locations.

The F-22 radar has been truck mounted too. 20-30 of them a mile or so behind your primary ground troops, flanked by mobile anti-aircraft missile platforms. And your suddenly fighting a whole new war. or one a lot like an old war.

remember Iraq really wasn't an effective fighting army. we walked over them twice('91, and '03) in roughly 6 weeks time frame. The rest of the time was cleanup.

Re:F-22

[cyn1c77]

Don't be a turd. The military is testing craft with these capabilities, but they are not deployed.

Autonomous military craft currently have the ability to loiter in a specific area and scan for targets.

US manned military craft such as the Apache Longbow currently have software that analyzes radar and imaging data to identify and target possible threats. Vehicle shapes are compared to a database for identification. This data is then relayed to the gunner. He can toggle through all of the targets to make the final decision.

You can be sure that the military has put two and two together and is developing autonomous UAV's with the ability to make a limited set of decisions using transponder data as well and imaging data. Look at their recent funding opportunities if you are interested in more detailed information. And yes, there will be problems with misidentification with any system. But humans also make poor decisions in battle that lead to friendly fire.

Re:F-22

[Phoghat]

Unfortunately the people who make the decisions as to weapons procurement are those self same fly boys who had the wet dreams. Maverick is redundant meat. That's how the F22 was born. It was, is and will be an expensive piece of kit similar to a gold chain wearing divorced man in a Lamborghini.

Re:F-22

[good soldier svejk]

Zimbabwe has a relatively modern and (at least until very recently) well regarded military and they still field mounted infantry. They are considered special forces and descend from the Rhodesian Grey's Scouts, who fought very effectively during the Second Chimurenga.

Re:F-22

[sumdumass]

You are probably right in that one most likely wouldn't continue to exist with the other.

However, I'm also considering the idea that we may be invaded and those civilians might be our own trapped in occupied territory. It would be pretty, how do I want to say, "rambunctious" of us to use nukes on the state of California just to repel the Russians or China in a "Red Dawn" style attack.

There is also the possible scenario of Afghanistan meets Iraq with a little or Korea and Vietnam mixed in where we end up being a liberating or protecting force that meets resistance secretly funded by China or Russia in which it isn't in our interest to have collateral deaths.

Re:F-22

[sumdumass]

Vehicle shapes are compared to a database for identification. This data is then relayed to the gunner. He can toggle through all of the targets to make the final decision.

This is sort of my point. In the longbow, the computer picks potential targets and a gunner makes the call. This is because I'm not aware of a computer system in existence that can look at the radar signature of a truck and determine the current use of the truck, military- humanitarian- a farmer going to market- or a soccer mom taking the kids to the park. One of the low tech gadgets we encountered when going into Iraq was small Toyota sized pickup trucks with machine guns mounted in the beds. Visual inspection was almost needed to distinguish between these and civilian vehicles and at times, that wasn't really enough.

If we look at some of the UAV footage of the rocket attacks in the last Israeli- Palestinian fighting, we saw common civilian vehicles mounted with launch tubes for the rockets hidden under neath truck caps and tarps. In some cases, you couldn't tell the different between rocket attack vehicles and what you would expect to see entering or leaving a farm or comming back from the lumber store to fix the hole in the wal create by the last close quarters fighting.

We may have systems that do a good job of detecting and determining the threats. I'm just not sure the error rates are low enough to take humans out of the picture. At least with a human at the helm, there is somewhat of a moral incentive to be right and protect "innocent" life which is very difficult to program into a computer. And when the failure rate on that is unacceptable, you can often change the human out to fix the programing where reworking the entire system would be needed without the humans. Maybe your right and know more about it then I do.

Re:F-22

[Foobar of Borg]

what sort of ego would you recommend for flying a fighter over hostile territory?

Probably one that writes checks its body can't cash.

Re:F-22

[stoolpigeon]

How is this different from a manned aircraft that has lost all nav and comm?

Re:F-22

[rbanffy]

A human pilot still has more flexibility than a preprogrammed drone. Without communications, the drone will have to function autonomously, by switching to a simplified mission profile with limited capability for engaging manned targets or going home to protect itself.

Either way, their capabilities are greatly diminished.

Re:F-22

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Who said I forgot that? Did I forget that? I don't think I forgot that. Are you claiming that we can't build another F-15? Of course not.

It would be STUPID of me to assume things unstated. But that explains why you assume unstated things, like that I forgot the F-15 is a bit more than 34 years old: you're pig stupid.

Try again, without the stupid, please.

Re:F-22

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Who is naive? Did you forget about the F-35?

You're positively ignorant if you think my argument about the F-22, where I said, and I quote - "F-22" - would apply to any other aircraft. I bet you can't make a guess about my position on the F-35.

Learn to read, infant.

Re:F-22

[Profane MuthaFucka]

And the problem with cars is that they all rusted away in the 1950's.

What? Are you telling me that they made MORE cars to replace the worn out cars? HOW CAN THIS BE????

Just fucking build more F-15's to do the air superiority role. Bolster them with other fighters like the F-35. Done.

Re:F-22

[janrinok]

OK, but to me mules are not horses. Entirely separate beasts, but I'm not going to get hung up in which particular genus you were referring to.

Re:F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

F-35 could also getting an Unmanned variant.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1924.html

No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we'll be having parades of unmanned planes on trailers going down streets on Veterans Day? Salute our brave button pushers.

Re:No more parades?

[meringuoid]

So we'll be having parades of unmanned planes on trailers going down streets on Veterans Day? Salute our brave button pushers.

Works for me. You may like wars to be about heroism and patriotism and motherhood and apple pie and dulce et decorum est pro patria mori and all that bullshit, but I prefer them to be won, as quickly as possible, and with as few people getting hurt as possible. If that can be achieved by using robots instead of humans, that's just fine.

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

its ok, the predators can still party like its 2009 in second life or something

Re:No more parades?

[radtea]

If that can be achieved by using robots instead of humans, that's just fine.

Oh, it's still achieved by using humans... as targets.

These machines, and the engineers who work on them, are evil. Yes, they will save American and British and probably even Canadian lives. But they will make it easier and easier for us to kill and kill and kill, and open the doors to even more horrible forms of warfare than those we practise now. And if you think the effect on our enemies is going to be bad, wait until you see the effect on us.

We are about to perform the Standford Prison Experiment with our entire society, with the West in the role of arbitrarily powerful jailers and everyone else as a prisoner.

It won't end well, y'know. "Kill them harder" has almost never been a viable basis for policy, foreign or domestic. Punitive action feels good, but objectively it has lousy effectiveness and efficiency. We do it because we like it, not because it works. Even I, with a deep-seated loathing of killing, can feel the draw of these machines. So powerful, so seductive, and so wrong, both morally and practically.

Gandhi threw the British out of India using active, aggressive, non-violent resistance. That's the model people should be looking to if they want to find new and effective ways to impose their will on the world, not building machines that will make a desert and call it peace.

Re:No more parades?

[Vinegar Joe]

Gandhi threw the British out of India using active, aggressive, non-violent resistance.

I wonder how long Gandhi would have lasted using "active, aggressive, non-violent resistance" against Stalin or Mao.

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the issue here the cavalier attitude that being able to fight wars with out cost will engender. The idea of the citizen soldier was born specifically because when a society had no personal investment in a conflict they became endemic.

See Also: The mercenary wars fought in late medieval Europe.

Re:No more parades?

[aaandre]

Thank you.

Re:No more parades?

[j. andrew rogers]

Gandhi threw the British out of India using active, aggressive, non-violent resistance.

That strategy worked because the opponent was the British and Gandhi understood how to exploit the culture he was fighting. It would have been a foolish strategy if it had been, say, the Soviets.

Re:No more parades?

[Cyberax]

Great! I can't wait a day when Iran and North Korea develop their own Predator drones. Just imagine, Iran army won't have to lose a single life while bombing Israel and American cities!

The main problem with the Predator drones is that it makes wars easier and cheaper to fight. But only if your opponent is completely powerless (i.e. if you are slaughtering him without any fear of a retaliation).

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kill them harder" has almost never been a viable basis for policy, foreign or domestic.

Since when? Citation please? Ghandi's success is notable because it was an aberration, rather than because it was a useful alternative to violence.

Re:No more parades?

[spire3661]

This has been answered MANY times, Ghandi's approach only works when the oppressor in question is capable of shame.

Re:No more parades?

[meringuoid]

Isn't the issue here the cavalier attitude that being able to fight wars with out cost will engender. The idea of the citizen soldier was born specifically because when a society had no personal investment in a conflict they became endemic.

Depends what you want to do. You couldn't fight a war like the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan with drones alone - those are wars of occupation, with large numbers of infantry on the ground. The advantage comes with conflicts like those we saw from time to time in the 1990s: faction A (we like) are fighting faction B (we don't like), but we lack the will for a proper war, so we just bomb faction B's facilities and units and let faction A take advantage. That's the kind of situation where drones would be wonderful. Mind you, I don't think the risk to pilots is a major deterrent to our leaders in that case: it's more a matter of how the scenes of devastation on the ground will play with the voters, and those are the same whether it's a human or a drone that did it.

See Also: The mercenary wars fought in late medieval Europe.

According to Machiavelli, the problem with those wasn't so much that the availability of mercenaries let leaders go to war with less risk to their own people: it was that the mercenaries themselves were unreliable and disloyal. For a start they'd fight only for their pay, and so their stomach for a losing battle was considerably less; and if the mercenaries won their battle, then whatever lands had been conquered were held by the triumphant prince only so long as he kept the loyalty of the mercenaries. Whose price, of course, just went steeply upward. Better, he said, to triumph by your own arms. This, at least, is not a problem with machines, which will happily sacrifice themselves for you, more willingly than even the most jingoistic soldier.

Re:No more parades?

[aaandre]

Thank you for the insightful comment.

I've been involved in nonviolent parenting for a while. Violence is taught, in subtle and not so-subtle ways, from the cradle. Until we change how we raise humans, our belief that violence could resolve differences will remain.

See Parenting for a Peaceful World by Robin Grille for a glimpse of the hellish parenting practices of the Western civilization, and the incredible potential that nonviolent parenting holds.

Also, check out the works of Alice Miller who addresses child abuse as a formative force in our society.

Re:No more parades?

[onkelonkel]

Harry Turtledove wrote one of his alternate history short stories about Ghandi fighting Nazi German invaders through peace and non-violence. The German commander is intrigued by Ghandi's ideas and briefly interviews Ghandi before having him shot.

Re:No more parades?

[geekoid]

Gandhi was hypocritical bastard that history continues to white wash.

Re:No more parades?

[Liquidrage]

The US has the ability to pretty much kill everyone right now. The US isn't perfect, but if it was as evil as many try to paint it, most of the world would be a pile of rubble and the US military wouldn't have any deaths in doing so.

Re:No more parades?

[AvitarX]

I am willing to bet a large enough non-violent and enduring protest would work in at least some of those examples. Mostly by increasing external pressures though.

For example, if Tiananmen Square was followed up by more of the same the impact would have been immense. It already had an impact as it was.

Re:No more parades?

[c6gunner]

But they will make it easier and easier for us to kill and kill and kill

How strange it is, then, that as we get better and better at killing, we seem to be more and more reluctant to do it.

and open the doors to even more horrible forms of warfare than those we practise now.

You want to talk about horrible forms of warfare, go look at what cultures of times past used to do. Genghis Khan would be a good starting point.

We are about to perform the Standford Prison Experiment with our entire society, with the West in the role of arbitrarily powerful jailers and everyone else as a prisoner.

The stanford prison experiment tested the reaction of a single individual being ordered around by an authority figure, in a controlled setting. It has no baring on large populations, especially within democratic societies.

We do it because we like it, not because it works

Killing a guy who plans to kill you tends to work quite well. If there are other, more efficient ways of dealing with the problem, then great - you'll find that even most soldiers prefer a peaceful solution. We don't actually LIKE being shot at. But it has to be a real solution, not just a delaying tactic which puts off the problem for future generations to deal with.

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish, the British were no more capable of shame than the Nazi's. What ultimately caused the British flight from India was their inability to maintain their expensive (and no longer profitable) colonies in the face of 2 world wars and a burgeoning Soviet Union.

Re:No more parades?

[shadowofwind]

These machines, and the engineers who work on them, are evil.

Punitive action feels good, but objectively it has lousy effectiveness and efficiency. We do it because we like it, not because it works. Even I, with a deep-seated loathing of killing, can feel the draw of these machines.

I think you can't admit that lethal force is often effective and necessary, because you can't stand the tension between that and your moral sense. Some of the other people whom you call evil can't stand the tension either, so they blunt their awareness of the moral issues. They're not entirely wrong though, even though there's an important truth in your point also.

I don't think you are likely to make much headway with your argument unless you can speak to that better.

Re:No more parades?

[Liquidrage]

If they could bomb American cities losing several lives they'd probably do it now. Problem is, that Iran and N Korea know if they did it would be a death sentence to their country and most likely cost 100's of 1000's of lives because of the retaliation.

Drone or not, they aren't coming because they can't win. At least right now. What worries me is if somehow one of these nations figures out what comes "next" after the A-bomb (queue B-Bomb jokes).

Re:No more parades?

[Cyberax]

That's another point: drones are useless or they are weapons of slaughter.

Re:No more parades?

[Deadstick]

So we'll be having parades of unmanned planes on trailers going down streets on Veterans Day? Salute our brave button pushers.

Lots of unmanned body bags, too.

rj

Re:No more parades?

[Liquidrage]

They aren't useless. And they aren't exactly weapons of slaughter. They are there to try and save military personnel from having to do the same job, and in rare cases do jobs manned vehicles can't do. The US military does constantly put it's troops in harms way. Often times in order to protect enemy lives (I know, there's tons of examples where they haven't, but it's more the exception then the norm these days).

Anyways, the US does value the lives of their own troops and having a "disposable" soldier is a great advantage as you're more then willing to send the "drone" behind enemy lines to gather intelligence and occasional shoot a missile at someone.

Re:No more parades?

[colinrichardday]

Ho Chi Minh claimed that Gandhi's methods would not have worked against the French.

Re:No more parades?

[seifried]

You're thinking of Stanley Milgrams experiment. The Stanford prison experiment was something entirely different (group setting, ran several days, etc.).

Milgram experiment

Stanford prison experiment

Re:No more parades?

[Cyberax]

If enemy can't even in principle destroy you - then it's a slaughter, not warfare. It might be a slaughter for noble aims, but it'll still be a slaughter.

And this apparent invulnerability will _inevitably_ lead to more warfare. I can easily imagine that in 2050 several industrialized countries can be fighting a constant warfare with semi-autonomous robots against hordes of AK-74 armed insurgents.

PS: personally, I don't have any problems with pure surveillance drones.

Re:No more parades?

[Liquidrage]

Most nations on Earth can't destroy a military like America's right now. But there are still conflicts involving America. They aren't all slaughter's because a military like American doesn't "Dresden" every conflict even though they could. The drones just go to further reduce losses of their own troops.

Re:No more parades?

[Cyberax]

Yes, notice the word 'conflicts'. These are not wars, since USA is invulnerable.

Also, USA does not 'Dresden' populations, but instead just 'precisely' bombs villages. Probably with even less military-to-civilian casualty ratio than during the Dresden bombing.

Re:No more parades?

[Dravik]

You fail to realize why Tiananmen Square tactics work. When enough protesters are killed, nobody shows up for the next protest. It's hard to convince people to volunteer to be run over by a tank.

Re:No more parades?

[NeutronCowboy]

When few people get hurt during wars, wars will become ubiquitous. Remember what happened when tasers were supposed to fix all the problems that came with gun-equipped cops?

Wars are going to become a quick fix solution to a trigger-happy authority with an army of drones.

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

The stanford prison experiment tested the reaction of a single individual being ordered around by an authority figure, in a controlled setting. It has no baring on large populations, especially within democratic societies.

There were several individuals working together in an increasingly uncontrolled setting. Also, the prison population is "large" and growing larger. It does not qualify as a democratic society, suggesting the validity of the results. Seeing as you can be a part of this population for an indefinite time without conviction (before, during trial(s)), you might want to give the issue a little more thought.

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gandhi threw the British out of India using active, aggressive, non-violent resistance. That's the model people should be looking to if they want to find new and effective ways to impose their will on the world, not building machines that will make a desert and call it peace.

Ghandi was able to exert his non-violenct resistance because British India has a strong rule of law, and its rulers had a deep moral sense that respected liberty, fairness, and more or less recognized the Indians as equals. (More "less", obviously, but still far from "animal.)

The only way that nonviolent means work is if you have an opponent who is in a morally tenuous position and a moral sense enough that you can outrage. Nonviolent means will not stop a serial killer. Nonviolent means will not enslave a population.

If you want an example of "kill 'em harder" working, look at the native population of the United States. Or the indellible mark of the Roman Empire. Or the history of China. If you have a the moral stomach for it, either due to a deficiency in moral fibre or a greater wrong you are correcting, "kill 'em harder" actually works quite well.

Oh, and we've had the door open for "even more horrible forms of warfare" since Hiroshima.

Re:No more parades?

[Planesdragon]

Until we change how we raise humans, our belief that violence could resolve differences will remain.

Please, change your damn verb.

Violence DOES resolve differences. It does so unjustly, unfairly, and often immorally. But the difference of who rules Oklahoma, or if Germany would rule all of Europe, was solved quite definitely by violence.

Violence SHOULD not be used to resolve differences, because we're better than that. If you think you need to lie to children to get them to be nonviolent, then you're a fool.

Re:No more parades?

[Planesdragon]

If enemy can't even in principle destroy you - then it's a slaughter, not warfare. It might be a slaughter for noble aims, but it'll still be a slaughter.

Defeat. DEFEAT. If the enemy has no means to DEFEAT you, it's a slaughter.

But, really, any soldier who'd rather wage war than engage in slaughter is an idiot.

Re:No more parades?

[Planesdragon]

Remember what happened when tasers were supposed to fix all the problems that came with gun-equipped cops?

Hundreds of American Citizens were tazered instead of being shot to death?

Re:No more parades?

[Q-Hack!]

So we'll be having parades of unmanned planes on trailers going down streets on Veterans Day? Salute our brave button pushers.

As a 20 year veteran of the USAF, let me be the first to say that to win a war you have to have grunts on the ground. The Air Force is good a softening an enemy, but you still have to bust down a few doors to win. Now having said that, I will salute the UAV button pusher just as much as the grunt. They both understand the importance of protecting the country that they love.

Re:No more parades?

[ChinaLumberjack]

Also, the opponent had just come out from being pummeled by the Nazis and fighting the bloodiest war in history.

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

The man's name is Gandhi. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. You are right though. He used tactics that were effective against his opponent. Who knows, perhaps his methods would have been different against a different enemy.

Re:No more parades?

[argiedot]

Or Batista.

Re:No more parades?

[dajak]

It's not that certain oppressors are incapable of being shamed, but rather that some oppressors are less hypocritical about their behaviour than others.

Re:No more parades?

[rbanffy]

"Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building."

Your tagline seems oddly on-topic...

Re:No more parades?

[rbanffy]

The trouble with this idea is when the friends of faction B send in their drones and obliterate faction A. Of course, the friends of faction A would respond by obliterating faction B completely, since it's relatively cheap to do so and it would prevent faction B to claim victory.

This has a huge potential of becoming very, very ugly.

Re:No more parades?

[moreati]

According to Machiavelli, the problem [...] was that the mercenaries themselves were unreliable and disloyal.

This is totally of topic, but do you read When IT meets politics, It just quoted Machiavelli too. Or is it just a big coincidence?

Re:No more parades?

[Anonymous Coward]

This, at least, is not a problem with machines, which will happily sacrifice themselves for you, more willingly than even the most jingoistic soldier.

...until they rebel.

General Atomics

[crumbz]

I just love that name for a defense contractor. Would fit right in the Fallout universe.

Re:General Atomics

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a Heinlein novel, for that matter.

Re:General Atomics

[rrohbeck]

I just love that name for a defense contractor. Would fit right in the Fallout universe.

It's actually very appropriate since they were behind the Orion project. They've been around for a while, since back when "atomic" was cool.

Friendly Fire. Callatoral Damage.

[DirtyCanuck]

Computer error not human. Perfect now NOBODY is to blame.

Re:Friendly Fire. Callatoral Damage.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Oh really?

Tripoli 1986 - France denies overflight and attack has to take the long way around Spain - bomb "accidentally" lands on the French embassy, attributed to tired-ass pilots

Belgrade 1999 - Congressmen describe Chinese spying situation as "grave" - bomb "accidentally" lands on Chinese embassy, attributed to an old map

Seattle 2016 - Windows 9 runs as fast as the old Vista did, on hardware 500 times faster - bomb "accidentally" lands on Microsoft headquarters, attributed to software error

We always know who did it.

Re:Friendly Fire. Callatoral Damage.

[izomiac]

I'd think that drones would reduce collateral damage. Humans aren't perfect, stupid mistakes happen. Using a drone would basically remove one human from the loop (I'm assuming they aren't autonomous... given the state of AI in military type games that seems foolish). Also, a human pilot is risking his life flying in hostile territory. If he's unsure whether his target is an enemy or not then he'll likely err on the side of preserving his life. A drone operator, OTOH, would be more inclined to risk a drone being destroyed.

Re:Friendly Fire. Callatoral Damage.

[maxume]

2016 seems pretty optimistic for a ship date for Windows 9.

Re:Friendly Fire. Callatoral Damage.

[darkmeridian]

A man in the loop makes the kill shot decision. Did you watch the ending of Syriana? Yeah. Like that. These drones are not flying around doing their own thing.

Re:Friendly Fire. Callatoral Damage.

[DirtyCanuck]

Yet....

Do you work on weapons systems?

[cryfreedomlove]

There must be a lot of software written for systems like the Predator C Avenger. Are there any readers here who work on weapons systems like this? How did you decide to devote the best years of your life to creating weapons with this degree of lethality? Do you trust your customers to use them in morally just ways?

I'm curious because when I was initially ready for high tech employment, I made a conscious decision to not directly contribute to weapons related work. In the 80's, this took away a significant number of prospective employers. Now it is more than 20 years later and I am glad I made that choice.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[jstults]

A "grossly obvious fact" for your consideration: "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." http://www.george-orwell.org/Notes_on_Nationalism/0.html

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[meringuoid]

You strike me as the type of person who would become a doctor and then refuse to perform abortions because it was against your "morals".

Nonsense. He's the type of person who had the ability to become a doctor, but would refuse to do so if it would come with the expectation that he would perform abortions, and so instead found a different line of work. That's a perfectly morally acceptable way to behave.

And he asks a worthwhile question too. It's similar to the question often asked of defence lawyers as to how they can defend people they know to be guilty. If you're a programmer of weapons systems, how does that sit with your conscience? Especially unmanned warplanes: while the current generation are remotely controlled by some guy with a joystick, future models are expected to be fully autonomous - which means that somebody, somewhere, right now, is working on the AI code to control them. AI code to make decisions as to whether to fire weapons. AI code to decide whether to kill somebody.

How can that person sleep at night? Since there's a realistic possibility that such a person is reading /., the question's well worth asking, and the answers could well be very interesting and illuminating.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[winwar]

"Especially unmanned warplanes: while the current generation are remotely controlled by some guy with a joystick, future models are expected to be fully autonomous - which means that somebody, somewhere, right now, is working on the AI code to control them."

As the current generation of planes require software to fly, I assume the answer would be the same.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[sexconker]

"cryfreedomlove (929828)" LOL!

Nothing wrong with making weapons.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[cryfreedomlove]

I did not say this was an easy thing to ponder. I am quite aware that my current and enjoyable way of life is made possible by the wars of the past. However, I just could not make myself use my best abilities to create weapons and then hand those weapons over the people I do not trust. I probably sound sanctimonious. I would still like to hear from a weapons maker here.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[cryfreedomlove]

How about selling weapons to corrupt leaders for immoral use? Would you sell guns to Pol Pot and sleep well at night?

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[trout007]

I design stuff that peoples lives depend on (not weapons). I'll tell you it's hard to sleep sometimes when you are finishing up a design. I often have nightmares of the product failing becuase of something I forgot. Others in the same field often have those dreams as well.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[spire3661]

Decision to fire a weapon, or to be more precise the ORDER to go 'weapons hot' will remain the same as it is today, from the chain of command. It will not be making 'decisions' to fire, but rather acting on orders, just like we have today with human pilots. While yes it may run variables to determine best target, time to fire etc, the 'decision' to allow weapon fire will always come from above. I understand what you are getting at but I felt the impression you were giving was too skynet-esque for my taste.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[geekoid]

Easy. the better a weapon like this is, the fewer people get killed.

Better to hit and kill the target quickly and with as little collateral damage as possible?

Are you really good at at software? Maybe more people died then needed to becasue you decided not to help?

Weaponeers save lives.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[jstults]

I just could not make myself use my best abilities to create weapons and then hand those weapons over the people I do not trust.

Well you certainly shouldn't make guns if you don't trust the trigger pullers, but in most of the developed world elected civilians are in charge of the military. Exports to the third world don't keep me up at night, it's amazing what idiots can do to their neighbours with big knives.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Reality Master 201]

Easy. the better a weapon like this is, the fewer people get killed.

Isn't that somewhat naive? All a better weapon like this does is kill people more efficiently.
That says nothing about the quantity of those that die.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Manfre]

There is a big difference between making weapons and selling them to some one who committed genocide. A weapon is a tool with no moral objectives. For example, a gun is a weapon that can either be used to murder innocent people or save a woman from being raped.

The software developers on these systems are probably losing more sleep worrying that an error will prevent it from doing its job.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[c6gunner]

Depends on the situation. Would you give weapons to Stalin? Before WW2? During? After?

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[mpthompson]

Not sure if you are being facetious, but I'll bite.

What's wrong with a doctor who refuses to perform abortions because of personal ethics? The Hippocratic oath is to "do no harm". I can easily see a doctor extending this oath to do no harm to an unborn child -- particularly for an abortion of convenience rather than for actual health concerns of the mother.

If you believe in "choice", then doctors should have to choice to decide for themselves when their actions fit within their personal ethical and moral framework. It's not like there is a lack of doctors willing to provide abortions.

BTW, the supreme court does not rule on decisions involving "right and wrong". They make ruling involving the legality and constitutionality of lower court decisions. Something little to do with "right and wrong" in the moral sense.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Peter La Casse]

How can that person sleep at night?

I'm not one of those people, but if I was, I would sleep better knowing that the software was written by someone competent.

Having a robot pull the trigger is not morally worse than having a human pull the trigger. Militarization of robots won't result in more humans being killed (aside from the robot apocalypse). Using robots against our enemies has many advantages over using people against our enemies.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[LordLimecat]

You strike me as the type of person who would become a doctor and then refuse to perform abortions because it was against your "morals". Try leaving decisions about right and wrong up to the supreme court and do your damn job.

And you strike me as the type of person whos decided that your beliefs (or that of your country) are so valid that no others are worthy of consideration. Has it occurred to you that not everyone believes the supreme court is the final judge on issues of morality?

More to the point, are you saying that if a doctor honestly believed abortion was murder, he should just shrug his shoulders, remember that the supreme court says its ok, and quell his sense of right and wrong? Its pretty scary where you could go with a thought process like that--didnt the supreme court once endorse seperate but equal? Would you have made the same remark to any who disagreed with it?

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[sexconker]

Immoral according to whom?
(And before you trot out the word "ethics", they're the same fucking thing, and I don't have to agree with anyone else's "morals" OR "ethics".)

Who's Pol Pot? A paying customer? Sure no problem.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[darkmeridian]

Does your company count major defense contractors such as GE as a client? Do you work for a cell phone company that makes radiation-spewing devices that give people brain cancer? Do you work for a car manufacturer that makes cars that pollute and run people over? Do you work for a company that makes computers, which get people addicted and detract from human interaction?

You can play this moral-outrage game with anyone.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I enjoyed working (used to) in defense because I knew that I was helping make better tools/tech for our service men. I was helping them get their job done in a safer way (to everyone) and more efficiently so they can get back home as quick as possible. I also enjoyed working on some really cool shit. Did I ever think about trusting those in control of the weapons? No.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Xest]

Personally I'd love to work on a project like that, I think it would be extremely interesting and I do not believe it'd bother me.

Why? Because that job is going to get done anyway by someone else if not by me and at the end of the day you'd learn so much that you may be able to use for peaceful beneficial means elsehwere a few years down the line. I'd rather focus my moral efforts on things I can help with. I'd have a lot more respect for someone who works on weapons systems but didn't vote Bush in 2004 knowing how much of a warmonger he was after his first term than I would someone who works in a peaceful profession but did vote Bush and support the war in Iraq for example. I would argue that those who voted Bush and/or supported the war in Iraq have far more blood on their hands than the guys who developed the weapons. Why? Because I'd say that those that made the weapons didn't make any moral judgement on how the weapons should be used or that people should die, but those who supported the war did make a moral judgement that people should die.

I guess different people view it differently, but personally I'm not convinced that if I were to work on a project like that or not I'd have no effect on whether anyone died or not, I would however likely enjoy the job more and possibly get paid more if I did work on such a project and again, working on such a project wouldn't mean I was excluded from still doing good work by not supporting wars, or perhaps simply doing good in other areas, like helping to save the environment perhaps.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[DustyShadow]

Are you kidding me? A big reason why we don't need nukes anymore is because current conventional weapons are extremely accurate. Did you not watch TV during the beginning of the current Iraq war?

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Reality Master 201]

A big reason why we don't need nukes anymore is because current conventional weapons are extremely accurate.

Some of us actually lived through the cold war. If you fucking teenagers are going go on about nuclear weapons, could you at least learn that the fuck you're talking about?
Asshole.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[DustyShadow]

My teen years were long ago. Nice try though.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[bitt3n]

How did you decide to devote the best years of your life to creating weapons with this degree of lethality?

You could ask the same question of people who design cars, which can also cause needless deaths when used irresponsibly. We survived without cars, so clearly cars are not indispensable to Western society, but merely make life more efficient and enjoyable. Weapons of war on the other hand have in the past been necessary to the survival of nation states and whole peoples. Who then should be wringing his hands in self doubt, and who then should be waxing self righteous about his moral probity?

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're implicated as well. How many children were killed in the last bombing ordered by the last president you voted for? How many Americans are ordered dead every day by the government you pay taxes to because increasing auto safety is too onerous to corporate profits? Maybe you haven't devoted your life to killing, but you certainly haven't devoted it to not killing. It's like asking how someone can spend their life destroying cows as you eat a burger with them in McDonald's.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[DustyShadow]

Are you drunk? You're making no sense.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Pantero Blanco]

You strike me as the type of person who would become a doctor and then refuse to perform abortions because it was against your "morals".

You think that medical doctors should be obligated to perform them...? I think most doctors would refuse, even if you were able to get your view written into law.

Try leaving decisions about right and wrong up to the supreme court and do your damn job.

The Supreme Court's job isn't to make decisions about what's right and what's wrong. This is also irrelevant, as the poster that you're replying to didn't take a job that involved making weapons and then refuse to do it. He avoided that job in the first place.

I don't share his views (making weapons sounds like a great job to me), but your ranting doesn't make much sense.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can that person sleep at night?

Maybe you should ask Nguyet Anh Duong how she sleeps at night. She uses her technical expertise to design some pretty intense weapons. I watched a show some time ago about thermobaric bombs where they interviewed her. She was committed to making sure that the US has a clear advantage on the batttlefield.

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

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b82c31eb1a725262fb0af787a6ceaaf

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Tomfrh]

I imagine you tell yourself that the weapons save American lives, protect our troops, defend our freedoms, etc, etc.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Tomfrh]

No, the reason we don't need nukes to the same degree any more is because the Soviet machine broke down.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[thrillseeker]

you're as fucking immature and dumb as when you turned 13, you stupid goddamn asshole.

Dad?

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[rts008]

I lose no sleep over it.
However I could not work for the auto industry, which is responsible for 102 deaths per day in the USA.(2008)

On average, automobiles have been responsible for 44,000 deaths per year for the past 34 years for a total of 1,491,922 deaths since 1974 in the USA.

One and a half million.

That's more than twice the number of USA citizens killed than all of the wars/conflicts we have been in since joining into World War 1.

In one third the time[34 years], automobiles have killed twice as many USA citizens as 92** years of war.

If you think I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass, I did check. You can do your own research if you care, but here is the bulk of numbers(they are all US deaths for that conflict, not just soldiers, but includes civilians):

WW1= 117,465
WW2= 418,500
Korea= 35,516
Vietnam= 58,159
Gulf War= 279(half-134 were accidents)
Afghanistan= 636
Iraq War= 4,522(includes 249 contractors?)
Total= 635,437
(I did not bother with our little field trips to Panama and Grenada)

Skip the argument that cars were not deliberately designed as weapons platforms like the Predator C is. It does not change the facts that cars easily kill more Americans than wars do. The numbers don't lie: 34 years of cars= 1,491,922 dead Americans, versus 635,437 from 92 years of war.

**Today is the anniversary of US Congress' voting in Declaration of War- April 17, 1917

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Henry Pate]

The difference between writing software for a UAV that can kill people and writing software for an automobile is that the code for the automobile isn't usually responsible for the deaths, whereas without the code running a UAV is essential to the ability to kill.

I do think it is a necessary job and does accomplish a lot of good, it all depends on how you look at it.

UAVs keep our men and women out of harms way, increase our technological capabilities, lower cost of operations, allows us to be in more places at once, and as the technology matures and flows to the private sector there are tons of uses as well.

We could use them in forest fires to collect better data and fight the fire better. In natural disasters they could be deployed to scout large areas. They could cover large areas in search and rescue missions. They could fly around and help guard our borders. They could monitor the environment, power lines, gas pipelines, etc. They could be used for urban planning, and I'm sure others can think of a bunch more.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lbrandy.com/blog/2008/10/how-we-made-our-face-recognizer-25-times-faster/

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

You strike me as the type of person who would become a doctor and then refuse to perform abortions because it was against your "morals". Try leaving decisions about right and wrong up to the supreme court and do your damn job.

What's wrong with following your conscience?

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that many of you reject the consequences of loosing this war. That is your choice, born out of ignorance. I understand that all of you realize that war is a horrible thing. You do not have the vivid memories to reinforce that understanding. Many of you have been taught to believe that this war is somehow "our fault". That is irrelevant.

I employ UAV's. Killing people isn't something that I think is a "good thing" or enjoy. However, I understand that I have a choice. I can choose to win this war, now, on our terms. To not choose, or to choose to not win the war, is to choose that my daughters will be property. That makes it very, very personal to me.

When I was born, there were less then 10 Muslim states. That number has more than quadrupled, and in none of them do women truly have any rights. In none of them do people have freedom of speech. Most of them have been converted to Muslim states by killing those who refused to convert. I will not accept that for my daughters. I will not accept that for my nation. You choose your destiny.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Planesdragon]

More to the point, are you saying that if a doctor honestly believed abortion was murder, he should just shrug his shoulders, remember that the supreme court says its ok, and quell his sense of right and wrong?

No. He should hang a sign on his wall, put his medical practice on the line, and forgo the patients he will lose.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Planesdragon]

(And before you trot out the word "ethics", they're the same fucking thing, and I don't have to agree with anyone else's "morals" OR "ethics".)

You're right. You have the absolute right to be amoral.

Invert it. If YOUR "morals" or "ethics" aren't recognized by another, the mean nothing.

Whatever your religious beliefs may be, mankind has a natural moral sense right along with our preference for bright lights, sex, and protection of our young. Any permeable society includes within it moral laws that are surprisingly similar--the biggest variable is "who is us", not "how do we act".

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Atlantis-Rising]

I am not the GP. But my response to you would be my response to any solicitor who might be called upon to represent a client whose case he does not support.

As a physician, your purpose was to take care of your client as best you can. Your client is not the fetus, it's the mother. You are obligated to do everything within your power to best take care of the client.

If you are unwilling, morally, to agree to that, then you should not be a doctor.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I respect this opinion a lot as someone who has worked on and used these systems in the last 5 years. I commend you for it. No, I do not always trust those making the decision to use these weapons but I do trust that as Americans, we have MUCH more restraint than many other nations with similar capabilities. Also, I want to keep moving technology forward to ensure that if the time comes we need it, it is there. When I needed a predator to put a hellfire through a window (and I did, and havnt lost a nights sleep over it) I was glad it was there). Police kill people that are a danger to society, so do the military. Its not pleasant and only a sociopath enjoys it but it s has been a fact for thousands of years. Im no willing to give up the U.S. edge on technology just yet after seeing the way that many other countries treat their citizens. It is definitely a gray area and one that I think we have to live with for now.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[DougF]

Do you trust your customers to use them in morally just ways?

Do you bother to ask that question of other industries, or just pick on the military? How about auto makers, whose products kill over 40,000 people on the roads every year, just in the United States. Do you ask that question of the automotive engineers when they design those death-dealing machines for John or Jane Q. Public who might use that vehicle in some morally unjust manner? I'm guessing you don't drink alcohol because the alcohol industry's products account for over 1.3% of all deaths around the world every year, not to mention all the morally unjust things that people do while intoxicated, right? Do you know that yearly deaths from war, total, around the world, are less than a quarter of those due to cirrhosis of the liver? Tell you what, go fix all the other causes of death and morally suspect actions and if/when war ever reaches the top ten on the list, let me know.

There are far worse things than having a military around, and the very worst I can think of, is NOT having one around. You have no concept of how much protection you get every day and every night from the brave men and women of the armed forces who guard your nation's frontiers. The militaries around the world understand that stability is a good thing and brings prosperity to all, so the vast majority of people around the world, at any time, enjoy peace, and have been for decades now. You enjoy the right of free speech and yet you spit on the people who keep giving it to you. I double-dog dare you to spend some time researching those whom you seem to abhor and you will find that most of the time the military work very hard providing all kinds of benefits and services that you now take for granted. I only wish people like you would demonstrate the strength of your convictions and paint your roof in international orange. That way, when the balloon ever does go up, we would not have to protect your life and property, and could concentrate on those who do appreciate us.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Q-Hack!]

No, the reason we don't need nukes to the same degree any more is because the Soviet machine broke down.

If you think that the threat of nuclear war went away when the soviet empire collapsed, then you are naive. Not only do the Russians still have all the the nukes, but we also have to deal with China, Pakistan, N. Korea, and possibly Iran. We still have to maintain our nuclear arsenal to deter a nuclear war. Lets just hope the insane nut-jobs in the latter two countries respect that concept.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Tomfrh]

I didn't say the the threat of nuclear war has gone away, I said we no longer need nukes to the same degree any more.

I'm sure you would agree the threat of a major nuclear exhange is lower now than it was during the height of the cold war...

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[mi]

the code for the automobile isn't usually responsible for the deaths, whereas without the code running a UAV is essential to the ability to kill.

You are cherry-picking one aspect of car-making, that seems less lethal to you. Most of the code-writing for car-industry is not about car's electronics, but has to do with the car's manufacture — the awesome CAD packages (such as PRO/ENGINEER) are the "death-enablers".

Now, before you go back to the perceived differences in the intentions of code-writers working for auto- and military industries, let me remind you, that no one in the military intentionally targets the innocent. And that deaths of the innocents are the only lamentable (and, perhaps, reprehensible) part of using weapons.

Just as nobody in the car industry wants any deaths and crashes, nobody in the military wants "collateral damage". The GP's point was, such damage occurs in both fields anyway — and the car industry has a far worse record...

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[m50d]

Nice how only US citizens count. Yes, the US gave very few lives to major war efforts; all us in other countries know that. Try counting how many others were killed in those conflicts, or even just the civilian casualties.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Kirth Gersen]

Decision to fire a weapon, or to be more precise the ORDER to go 'weapons hot' will remain the same as it is today, from the chain of command.

If a human receives that order, he has the option of disobeying it. Indeed, I believe that US forces are still taught that it is their *duty* to do so under some circumstances.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[moonbender]

Ah, so that's how you make yourself sleep at night.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one would feel very uncomfortable if I were attempting to build AI that might be expected to discriminate between "an enemy" and "an enemy who was trying to surrender or who had been incapacitated", or even some "non combatant who just happened to be in the killzone because thats their town where they live" unless I had been given a policy of always err on the side of caution if in doubt... in which case I'd ensure that the AI always blue screened at the critical moment.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Henry Pate]

I see your point, I hadn't thought of it like that but it makes a lot of sense.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[rbanffy]

"Are there any readers here who work on weapons systems like this?"

Yes. And those who do will not talk about it.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it is simple. Other people in other countries are designing such systems.
Human history has been filled with war and misery. I don't think that fact has changed, it has mostly been put on hold in the West.

Personally, I would rather work on these systems than to see my country sacked, raped and pillaged. You know... your mom, wife, and daughter raped - literally after your nation's defeat.

That's human history, that is war, and fuck your moralizing. Someone has to prepare and if you don't want to do your part I really wish there was a way to selectively defend our nation's citizens.

So many smart people at MIT, Stanford, etc that refuse to "get their hands dirty" but reap the benefits of our defense structure. There's a term for such people - free loaders.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[gad_zuki!]

There is a difference between dying in an accident and dying because your leader thinks fighting a way over oil or colonialism is a good idea. One can be avoided the other cant. One is a limit of transportation systems and the other is a power the state has over me, namely the draft. I think youre kidding yourself if you cant see this simple difference.

Not to metion that the trasporation industry works are limiting accidents and deaths while the military industry works hard at maximizing deaths.

Every country needs a military but youre naive if you think that most conflicts arent optional.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[master811]

Except in the case of WWI and WWII, the US didn't enter until 3 years after it started (1 year before it ended) and 2 years after it started (4 years before it ended) respectively, so those numbers, especially of WWI would have been much higher had they been in the war from the start.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I support my country and my troops. I know my government doesn't make perfect decisions all the time, but I want my troops to win, and I'm happy to help them do so. I like living in a fairly free secular democracy, with women's rights, low birth rates, low population density, capitalism, lattes, and all the other self-indulgent crap we have in the USA. I like it here.

A society like ours can't win against fanatical, superpopulous potential adversaries without a technological edge. If everyone had the same weapons, we'd be done. Or we'd have to compete on birth rates, which would be an ecological and standard-of-living disaster, if we could do it at all. The two big inherent advantages a secular, free society has are its prosperity, and its tendency to generate advanced technology which can be applied to its defense. I'm happy to help out with the second one.

Re:Do you work on weapons systems?

[rts008]

There is a difference between dying in an accident and dying because your leader thinks fighting a way over oil or colonialism is a good idea.

If you are the one dying, it makes no difference. Dead is dead. Period.

Both are easily avoided if you only have factor in your own actions. Get more than one person in the same area, and both people have to want to avoid a conflict or a wreck.

Every country needs a military but youre naive if you think that most conflicts arent optional.

Of course it's optional...but only for the aggressor!

I think youre kidding yourself if you cant see this simple difference.

And you accuse me of being naive? How ironic. Hehhehe.

BTW, you can't cant a see, but you can cant a log...with a cant hook.
There is a reason we use apostrophes in contractions.

Predator C++

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear the Predator C++ has a whole new class structures that have all new functions.

Re:Predator C++

[Anonymous Coward]

Predator C++ is like making a UAV by adding wings and a computer to a tank.

Re:Predator C++

[rbanffy]

The Predator C++ will be more popular, but the Objective-Predator C will be far easier to understand and will be praised by those familiar with it.

Re:Predator C++

[HavocXphere]

I hear its vulnerable to pointers.

Whats up?

[Anachragnome]

Why does the Predator get all the attention?

Pretty nifty drone Helo in the last image of the series, the MQ-8B Fire Scout.

Re:Whats up?

[DustyShadow]

The Fire Scout has been for a long time but from what I understand, it has had a funding problem. Hopefully this new predator doesn't like to crash as much as it's old versions.

I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[anglico]

these to the coast of Somalia? I know they wouldn't be perfect but they may help stop some of the pirates. At the very least spot them ahead of time giving ships a little more time to get to safety.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[stoolpigeon]

I think something similar is already being done or in the works to help give ships more warning of incoming vessels that might be hostile.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[Anonymous Coward]

these to the coast of Somalia? I know they wouldn't be perfect but they may help stop some of the pirates. At the very least spot them ahead of time giving ships a little more time to get to safety.

I'd guess that a better UAV application for this would be a weaponized solar powered prop-job that could fly longer missions using flight crews in shifts... it's a large patrol area.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[religious freak]

How about the "not my f'ing job" reason.

I'm not being trollish to you personally, but as a US citizen I'd like to see if someone, *anyone* will take up this role of protecting a shipping route on the exact opposite side of the Earth we're on, where we have very few shipping interests.

Europe, a lot of your goods go through the gulf of Aden... you're on deck. Let's have you dedicate some of that wonderful health care money to defending shipping interests so maybe our citizens can go to the doctor every once in a while.

Seriously... give it a go

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[Octorian]

The problem off the coast of Somalia is political squabbling over responsibility and jurisdiction. Any major Navy/Marine force has the capability to end the problem. They just need to be given the marching orders and rules of engagement that allow them to do it.

Heck, the US Navy and USMC actually has done this before. Of course it was about 200 years ago, and Pres. Jefferson was making policy.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[maxume]

Because the U.S. isn't committed to significant ground operations in Somalia and the Predators would not be useful in freeing the hundreds of hostages being held on the ground.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[demonbug]

Getting increasingly off-topic here, but why should the US Navy deploy, except to protect US interests (as they did when a US-flagged ship was taken)?
Personally, I think it is the responsibility of the nation of registration to protect shipping operating under their flag. I'd just love to see the Panamanian and Liberian navies take care of this problem. Not likely. Maybe shipping companies should reconsider those flags of convenience they operate under. Shipping companies want to avoid the higher safety standards and taxes that go with registering with the US or European nations? Fine - but don't expect us to come to the rescue when pirates ignore the implied protection of the flag you are flying.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are being trollish, either that or just plain ignorant.

The US does have plenty of goods go through that channel, the fact two US ships have been hit by piracy in as many weeks including one pretty high profile should be a good demonstration of that, but I'll excuse your ignorance and explain why. The fact is, it's just as quick to get to East Africa, the Indian Ocean (including your base on Diego Garcia that the Brits let you have), the Middle East from East Coast USA through that route. Perhaps in your ignorance you're not aware of the Suez canal that lets you slip from the Med. straight into the Red Sea and of course the gulf of Aden. How the fuck else do you think you get the oil you've manipulated from Iraq by invading it to your massive refineries in your East/South East coast states? Do you really think you go all across the Indian Ocean, across the Pacific, then drive it all the way across your own country? It's no wonder people joke about Americans and Geography, it seems quite true that most of you have never looked at a fucking map.

It's rather odd that you'd take a pop at European health care whilst whining about the state of US health care. It's not our fault if you'd rather have a massive navy, but whine about using it at the expense of health care for your citizens. Perhaps if America didn't stick it's nose in everywhere, and waste billions needlessly in Iraq, much like vast amount of the international community, including Europe told it not to, then you too could afford such things.

Don't blame the rest of the world for the fact the government your electorate voted in, twice, sent your economy down the shitter, destroyed your country's image on the international stage, and burnt billions, possibly trillions on military action - much of which (i.e. Iraq) was completely unnecessary.

Oh and by the way, maybe European navies like Britain could send more ships there if it weren't for the fact America was busy doing fuck all in the Atlantic meaning the Royal Navy is having to keep ships permanently deployed in the Mid and North Atlantic to stop all the drug running ships that run right past your home territory to Europe. But then, that's no suprise because you can't even stop large scale drug running on your own land borders.

Besides all that, maybe if America hadn't fucked about and failed so badly in Somalia in the 90s this problem wouldn't exist anyway.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[Xest]

I'd argue it's the price you pay for being the world's number one naval power. I'm British and you have to realise that back when Britain was the world's number one naval power for 400 odd years it was up to us too to patrol the seas dealing with both piracy and and even slave ships at the back end of our period of naval domination.

Part of it is self interest - do you want to stay the world's number one naval power? Part of it is the responsibility that comes with that power. You do it because you can help.

I do agree with you to some extent, something does smell rather rotten when you're having to defend say, Venezuelan ships when Venezuela is busy trying to shit on your country continuously but you have to bear in mind, day to day political muscle flexing is sometimes put aside to deal with international problems. After Hurricane Katrina hit are you aware that Cuba and Venezuela were the first to offer assistance, Cuba particularly because it was so experienced with dealing with such hurricane related tragedies? Are you aware that Iran, Russia, China, Belarus all offered to help? Have a look here it's quite interesting:

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

I think you'd be surprised sometimes at how cooperative nations that seem so horribly hostile can be when it comes to international problems or national tragedies. I think most realise that sometimes, just sometimes, there are things we can all agree on and can all offer what we can to try and help deal with the problem - and yes, even the US needs help in return sometimes. The worst that can happen is that you'll build bridges with countries you've otherwise had problems with, and gain respect from other nations.

Be proud that your guys are out there doing some good for the world - I know I am. It doesn't always have to be about hostility to each other and it doesn't always have to be about keeping your navies at home unless it's about self interest. Sometimes cooperation with even your worst enemies is the best thing for everyone.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[religious freak]

I said I wasn't being trollish against OP personally, but yeah, I suppose I am being a bit trollish against the European policies.

Yes, I admit our country royally screwed up by electing George Bush and invading Iraq. I didn't support or vote for Bush, ever. Yes, we are responsible as a nation for who we elect, but this discussion has little to nothing to do with Iraq or George W. Bush.

I am, of course, aware of the piracy incident involving the US chartered boat off the coast of Somalia. And yes, we certainly have shipping interests in that region of the world, but they are not substantial, relative to those of Europe.

My point (which I still stand by) was the United States is developing, paying for, and investing in this hardware, while many Europeans (at least from what I've seen) like to play a holier than thou attitude with the US, calling us warlike and inhumane to our people (i.e. lack of healthcare to pay for wars).

I acknowledge that this money must be spent, I acknowledge that this situation must be dealt with. However, I reject the notion that the United States pay for the development, deployment and execution of military hardware while Europeans seem content to let us pay for this by ourselves. This is my objection, and despite your vitriol, you have failed to respond to my point...

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[Quarters]

All other reasons aside, the Navy doesn't want prop-job Predator B's on their carriers and the Predator C is at least a year away from deployment to land based forces. Whether or not the Navy adopts the C is still an open question.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[TheLink]

> back when Britain was the world's number one naval power

Funny. Back then many British ships were pirate ships.

For the countries at that time, if the pirates were on your side, you called them privateers.

They got Letters of Marque, and some even got knighted for their efforts.

Yeah I know there are some legal differences, but I doubt it mattered much to those on the merchant ships that were attacked.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[catdriver]

Not these, but something close: Scan Eagle

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[danaranda]

The navy is already using the UAV Scan Eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanEagle and has had a history of UAV for many years. For even longer legs they are working on the BAMS UAV http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/bams.htm a modified Global Hawk. As an aviator (well technically NFO, not a pilot) on the P-3 which is the primary martime patrol aircraft for the US (and other) Navies I can tell you that a UAV can be on station longer, much cheaper to run - using an operator or two versus 11 crew members. The future, P-8A Posidon (follow on to the P-3) will be build to work with UAVs to right off.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[Xest]

Well, it's not quite as straightforward as you make out. Privateering was used only in war time as a tactic to cut off enemy supply routes so differs to piracy in that it was for a specific military purpose against a nation who we were at war with. Cutting off supply routes by attacking and destroying, or by hijacking merchant ships is something that has happened in pretty much every war since, of course, most prominently, in the second World War where there were massive naval battles. The US of course performed this practice using it's own military in the Pacific campaign but of course would more commonly destroy the ships than capture them. You could argue there's a difference there but I don't really see how, both navies had the goal of cutting off enemy supplies, one just effectively used mercenairies and let them keep what they captured rather than just outright destroying it and killing everyone on board.

Of course, you could reasonably argue that what America has done in Iraq with it's pillaging of resources by Halliburton and co., although not privateering in the traditional seaborne sense is equally similar. But again there's the key, under the guise of war these things will be justified by all nations with the power to do so. The key difference between this sort of thing and piracy is that piracy is performed against multiple nations without favour, and without the excuse of war.

Britain's military past isn't exactly pleasant, there's a hell of a lot of nasty stuff you can dig up. But that doesn't detract from my point that as the major seaborne power at the time, our nation did a hell of a lot of good work against the slave trade and piracy. Similarly, one can hardly say the US has been a purely good, pleasant nation in the last few decades, but also similarly, that doesn't change the fact they do a lot of good work with their patrols off Somalia and so forth.

Re:I'm wondering why we don't deploy

[stoolpigeon]

I saw a great poster once - it was a play on Top Gun (this was in the late 80's maybe early 90s) but featuring a P-3 and titled "Top Rack". And of course one of my favorite jokes is about an S-3 that meets up with a P-3, but you've probably heard that a hundred times.
 
I think ultimately the Navy may have the most diverse set of robotic tools since they operate in so many environments. I've been reading some very interesting stuff about sea gliders that look like super smart, somewhat mobile, sonobuoys.
 
I think smaller and less expensive UAVs may get used by civilian ships. I know a lot of ships are traveling more slowly now to save on fuel costs. But maybe knowing someone is close may encourage them to pick up the pace for a bit and try to avoid any encounter.

Meh

[sexconker]

With a name like "General Atomic Predator C Avenger", I was expecting more.

Unamnned? Meh.
Looks lame? Meh.

Meh.

Re:Meh

[catdriver]

No pilot. Less payload than a Viper. Lame.

Nice

[ShooterNeo]

One very interesting thing is that General Atomics (the manufacturer of the predator) doesn't ask the Pentagon what they want. It instead makes an aircraft that is a good price/performance ratio and doesn't suck, and then offers it "as is" to the Pentagon.

This has worked incredibly well. Design decisions aren't subject to group-think or politics, and GA doesn't have to load the aircraft down with overpriced or unreliable technology in order to add some useless feature.

I think the Predator C is the culmination of this. It took them 3 years to make a working stealth aircraft, and the article states that they could have it fighting in just 1 more. That's a massive accomplishment.

I think that real world performance will eventually put drones so far into the lead that the air force cancels the buy on the F-35. Stealth technology doesn't work at all if several phased array radars in different locations are coordinating their search patterns.

Furthermore, a drone doesn't have to win 1 on 1. Dollar for dollar, even this predator C is probably be about 3 to 5 times cheaper than a high end fighter aircraft. I wouldn't bet on a manned aircraft facing down 5 drones armed with good missiles.

Re:Nice

[stoolpigeon]

Watch this video about the F-35 EO DAS and you may find yourself wondering as I did, why do they need a pilot? I especially like this line, "With DAS, maneuverability is irrelevant."

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an amazing link. Thank you.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

I just popped a killing-boner. Omniscience in a cockpit.

If I was Russia I'd start lobbying very hard with some useful idiots to get that canned or cut.

And to the idiots saying it would be cheaper to build schools and crap. Good luck getting past the warlords and strongmen that will take their cut(read: most of it) then whatever is left is used to corrupt builders, which then the warlord controls and takes credit for. Congratulations! Well educated, American-hating muslims. Wait, weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers those? Oh shit...

Re:Nice

[evilviper]

I think that real world performance will eventually put drones so far into the lead that the air force cancels the buy on the F-35.

Good idea... Then the next time we go to war with a country that has an actual airforce, we can just lose quickly and go home.

Stealth technology doesn't work at all if several phased array radars in different locations are coordinating their search patterns.

Let me know when they mount that in the tip of a shoulder-fired rocket...

Stealth fighters are, at this point, just as fast and maneuverable as their conventional counterparts, so it's merely one MORE advantage new aircraft have. The cost is in materials, and even that isn't overwhelming.

I wouldn't bet on a manned aircraft facing down 5 drones armed with good missiles.

I would go exactly the opposite direction. The manned aircraft will fly circles around the drones, and can trivially chose where and when to pick each one off... one by one.

Drones are just like B-52s... They make good workhorses when you've already got total air supremacy, and substantial control over ground forces, but are USELESS in a real, active battle zone.

Following the money...

[copponex]

The previous Predators cost 9 million for the aircraft itself, and another 20 to 30 million for the controlling systems, from what I could read. It can carry 14 hellfire missiles, which are $25,000 a piece. I think we're spending 3 billion per year just on the aircraft acquisition.

So, every day, we send out these 10 million dollar drones, which cost a few thousand per hour to operate, with $350,000 of ammunition. 25% of these aircraft have been lost in operations. Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.

So when you're trying to prevent a young muslim from becoming a radical, what's the better option - allowing him the chance to have an education, or blowing up his brother's wedding party and then air dropping him some pudding cups with little American flags on them?

The fact that people keep choosing the second option astonishes me.

Re:Following the money...

[Sybert42]

This type of research could help lead to the Singularity, though. It's not the most direct path, though.

Re:Following the money...

[maxume]

Is it either/or?

Re:Following the money...

[c6gunner]

Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.

And $200 in the hands of the Taliban would demolish it.

So when you're trying to prevent a young muslim from becoming a radical, what's the better option - allowing him the chance to have an education, or blowing up his brother's wedding party and then air dropping him some pudding cups with little American flags on them?

False dichotomy - the third option is blowing up the people who are trying to radicalize him.

Re:Following the money...

[Anonymous Coward]

What good does building a school do if the Taliban just blow it up?

It takes a smart strategy of using BOTH military and non military techniques, and anyone who doesn't see that is just mentally underdeveloped.

Re:Following the money...

[copponex]

No, but that's a great album.

Re:Following the money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You are astonished that the Educational-Hunmanitarian Complex gets its ass kicked by the Milatary-Industrial Complex? I am appalled by that, but not astonished.

Re:Following the money...

[CodeBuster]

Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.

Which nobody would be able to attend without armed protection because the Taliban shut down any non-religuous schools that they come across (only Madrassas that teach koran + jihad are allowed to continue operating) and kill people who send their daughters to any school. Nobody will attend school if they believe that they will be shot and killed for doing so.

So when you're trying to prevent a young muslim from becoming a radical, what's the better option - allowing him the chance to have an education, or blowing up his brother's wedding party and then air dropping him some pudding cups with little American flags on them?

Your'e being naive, its not that simple. As long as the Taliban and the tribesmen are running around the countryside blowing up schools, shooting people who cooperate with us, and then escaping back across the border into Pakistan (the border is a line drawn by long dead white men really, it has little or no meaning to the Pashtun tribesmen who inhabit the region) nothing much is going to change and progress will be extremely slow if it comes at all. The Taliban are not reasonable people; they will never negotiate in good faith with the United States or anyone else from the west (they even stab their fellow Pakistani muslims in the back when they think the tables have turned and peace no longer suits them) not now and not ever and it is a waste of time to try and negotiate with them.

Re:Following the money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.

Which the fucking muslim murderous scum would burn down the next day, and execute all participants; then turn their faeces-licking killing hands on my family and country.
 
I'm so sick and fucking tired of pussy-footing tree-hugging do-gooders tip-toeing arround muslim sensitivities. Fuck 'em and kill 'em first, that's the only language these ground-kissing retards understand.

The catholic church has finally been curbed in their murdering spree, so the barbaric muslim horde has gleefully stepped forward (cocks quivering while they "marry" young girls to rape). They murder in the name of god and disdainfully eschew western ways, yet propound peace and respect for all. ...and please don't claim that the bad ones are in minority, they are not. Wherever there are muslims, there is backstabbing murdering happening.

Parasites.

Re:Following the money...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would LOVE to see where you get the figures you're stating.

25% of the Predators between all makes and models HAVE NOT been lost in operations.

Actually their success rate is very astounding considering the amount of piloted planes we lose every year.

I think you need to drop your liberal propaganda and start reading into some REAL facts.

Re:Following the money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what UAV your looking up but MQ-1 Pred's cost around 4 Mil and MQ-9 Reaper's cost around 6 Mil. Your info about them carrying 14 Hellfire missiles is way off as well. MQ-1's only carry 2 and MQ-9's carry 4 and 2 GBU's.

Memo From Base Contracting Office

[Anonymous Coward]

To: R. Frobisher, Acquisitions
From: B. Beavey, Office of Inspector General
Re: Predator C Avenger

I am in receipt of Invoice # B-998729-3B in the amount of $100,000,000.00 for one (1) Predator C Avenger. I have the following questions:
1. Where are the POs for Predator C Linker and Predator C Resource Compiler?
2. Predator C Avenger is not on the approved software list per Office of Certification and Accreditation. Please provide a waiver.

All we need now is for some UFOs to show up.

[sehlat]

Aliens vs. Predator anyone?

Direct links to gallery pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

The site hosting TFA seems to be very aggressive when it comes to adverts and tracking their patrons, and like most intelligent people I object to this. It was a pain to find the right combination of allowed and untrusted domains in NoScript, whilst making sure any remaining crud was blocked by Adblock and actually getting the content. So here are the direct links to the pictures from their crappy gallery:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/1/06e0624b-9398-40e1-91d1-7888e231a908.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/7/fa4dc8b7-1aa5-477e-a704-f382762640d5.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/14/fdd0ed47-fef0-4b46-8efb-b34ca575e10e.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/7/8e19f57b-2014-4d26-b750-4b4dd75658f3.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/10/662e6b77-27fd-47f4-8a46-52966d559815.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/2/f6e9c29d-bcec-4e91-a294-cc6aeaa95774.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/8/bc1c25b1-56c6-4a7a-98a2-81f852033db5.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/5/039b7c83-f88f-4bf2-a5e1-31be92d9e69c.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/10/4f1a1b4b-c92f-4aff-aaef-a797d63e0e6d.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/7/8bef05bc-b09a-458c-9741-e0d0803e8a41.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/6/f1b8a1ef-febc-4c85-b6fe-7c70f6055898.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/9/b09c4b87-cd0d-4171-89b0-55c2bd0e1690.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/11/499ec512-084a-425f-ab9a-2112fb724ce8.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/7/69f21636-ee3e-4524-a72c-e3833cc84f4f.Large.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/5/039b7c83-f88f-4bf2-a5e1-31be92d9e69c.Large.jpg

Re:Direct links to gallery pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks

Re:Independence

[religious freak]

Um, you do realize that the American military doesn't "produce" anything either, right? We (United States) are just very large *consumers* of military hardware - and yes, the UK is a smaller consumer of hardware.

F-15 is *OLD* tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any real inkling of just how old the technology in the F-15 is?

Try this: make a timeline. Start at 1945. End at today - 2009. Now, put the year of the first flight of the F-15 - 1970 - on that timeline. In scale. Realize that the technology of the F-15 predates it by a few years.

Yes. The F-15 reaches fully two-thirds of the way back to the days when propeller-driven P-51 Mustangs were the front-line fighter of the US Army Air Force.

And get this: F-15 technology dates to 45 years ago. Aircaft have been flying for only 106 years.

Yeah. You could say the McDonnel Douglas designers of the F-15 did one helluva good job. But don't forget those guys probably cut their teeth working on DC-3 designs. Literally.

That means most F-15 airframes are getting old, too. And need to be replaced because they're worn out.

Hell, it's even worse of the US Navy. It's "new" front-line fighter is the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet". That's nothing more than an overgrown YF-17, which lost the Air Force competition for a "light weight fighter". In about 1973 or so. And that's the US Navy's "new" fighter.

Re:F-15 is *OLD* tech

[Nutria]

Do you have any real inkling of just how old the technology in the F-15 is?

Do you think that the USAF has never upgraded it's original F-15As? Even the C models have been significantly upgraded.

That means most F-15 airframes are getting old, too. And need to be replaced because they're worn out.

Older F-15s are being phased out. Only the F-15E Strike Eagles (manufactured 1985 to 2001) will remain in service.

Re:F-15 is *OLD* tech

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I am not ignorant in military matters. The F-15 is old, granted. So why can we find nobody to fly against our old old jets? Because they are still sufficient, that's why.

troll?

[Reality Master 201]

You could call that post a number of things: naive, stupid, insightful,.

Troll, however is not one of them. S/he's honest about it, however much or little you might agree.

Re:troll?

[bencoder]

Thank you, I think this is the first time I've thought a moderation of one of my posts was completely unwarranted, so thank you for the support.

Quit ignoring reality

[Shivetya]

Sorry, but the tact your taking is tired, old, and dishonest.

Yes, in a PERFECT world that school would be a better choice. However we are building schools there, trouble is the terrorists and even some non terrorist locals don't give a rats ass about our morals or our beliefs and as such in some case it only is allowed to be used to educate boys... if at all. Should some teacher accidentally say the wrong the thing the school can be closed and the teacher killed .

The real fact is, schools will not change the people who are causing the problems. Even if it helped some kids there there are dozens of other countries who have no grievance with us who have ample "students" for the terrorist to recruit.

We live in a world where we need systems like this because while we still feel the need to put down evil we are less inclined to put skin into the game. To fix the problem means over turning some seriously wrecked governments...

Trouble is, we don't want to. In other words, we know countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia (not to discount some Asian ones) are sources of a lot of grief but our current policy is to talk to them in hopes of being friends. How many years should we continue doing this? Carter made great strides by buying off Egypt but it certainly never improved our relations over there.

We are up against an enemy who can create new offenses faster than we can rectify past offense, real or imagined. You do not fight an unreasonable enemy with schools. You can't, it doesn't work. Until the western world wakes up an realizes just what the threat is nothing will change. It will take a nuclear bomb detonated in a western country unfortunately... and worse many will still just want to talk... even if a second goes off

Re:Quit ignoring reality

[copponex]

In my opinion, the only thing that brings about a lasting democracy is prosperity. Otherwise, people are too busy staying alive to do anything about their rights.

If you can name a single country that we've democratized with military bombing and invasion, I'd love to hear about it.

By the way, Saudi Arabia is one of the most backwards countries in the world, and one of our top allies. They have no voting rights, as they are a monarchy. Non-Muslims aren't allowed to testify in court, and women who are raped are charged with crimes instead of the men who raped them. It's funny, with all of our morals, we don't seem to bomb their "wrecked governments."

Why do you think that is?

Re:Quit ignoring reality

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Yes, in a PERFECT world that school would be a better choice. However we are building schools there, trouble is the terrorists and even some non terrorist locals don't give a rats ass about our morals or our beliefs and as such in some case it only is allowed to be used to educate boys... if at all. Should some teacher accidentally say the wrong the thing the school can be closed and the teacher killed .

The problem with your logic and the parent poster's logic is that both of you are assuming that we only have those two choices and we absolutely have to make one of them. We don't. If the Western World would finally remove it's dick from the other side's ass, then the "terrorist" and "non-terrorist" locals wouldn't care about us.

In other words, we shouldn't have to be the world's policeman, and we shouldn't have to be engaged in stopping people from becoming extremely religious. A big part of the problem is that we're trying too damn hard to convert people into a lifestyle that's acceptable to us, and they don't want it. For how long have the British, French, and Dutch been colonizing other countries in the middle and far east? They don't want it, so let them live the way they want to.

For the same reason why Americans don't want Muslims to come to the U.S. and to impose their culture on us, they don't want Westerners to impose their cultures on them.

Trouble is, we don't want to. In other words, we know countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia (not to discount some Asian ones) are sources of a lot of grief but our current policy is to talk to them in hopes of being friends. How many years should we continue doing this? Carter made great strides by buying off Egypt but it certainly never improved our relations over there.

So what do you propose that we do? The status quo? The status quo, which has been armed conflict since man learned how to use sharpened sticks to kill one another obviously hasn't worked out all that well. You come so close to saying it, but you stop. Do you suggest that we send out bombers and bomb every country in the Middle East ? I have yet to see a real, decent solution put forward. Embargoes aren't working, warfare only creates more disillusioned insurgents, and verbal threats only cause middle fingers to be thrown in the air. What's the proposal? Iraq created a lot more terrorists than it killed, apparently, so we may want to rethink the whole "turning over bad governments" solution.

We are up against an enemy who can create new offenses faster than we can rectify past offense, real or imagined. You do not fight an unreasonable enemy with schools. You can't, it doesn't work. Until the western world wakes up an realizes just what the threat is nothing will change. It will take a nuclear bomb detonated in a western country unfortunately... and worse many will still just want to talk... even if a second goes off

Oh please, this is the exact same BS that Condoleezza Rice used to scare everyone -- the whole "Mushroom Cloud" scenario that was used to drum up support for the Iraq war. We saw what good that did for us.

So what do you suggest? You started a good train of thought, but left out what you think would be a good solution.

Re:Quit ignoring reality

[colinrichardday]

Because Riyadh is out of bomber range? Or is it their massive oil production?

Good, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're launching an air strike remotely with the help of UAV, not preprogrammed to hit the target but guided by an operator on a ship or some other command post. The enemy locates the frequencies used and jams them. What do you do?

So Long Tailhookers...

[grantdh]

There's going to be a whole lot of pissed off Navy pilots if they make a UAV that can land on a carrier deck at night in crap weather. Their main reason for superiority over all other pilots will be shot to hell.

When Navy pilots say "Flaring to land is like squatting to pee" then land based pilots will be able to come back with "Oh come on, landing on a carrier is so simple, even a computer can do it!" :)

Re:So Long Tailhookers...

[catdriver]

There's going to be a whole lot of pissed off Navy pilots if they make a UAV that can land on a carrier deck at night in crap weather. Their main reason for superiority over all other pilots will be shot to hell.

I'm the senior Landing Signal Officer for the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet, and we've actually had fully automated landing systems on carrier aircraft for a long while. The first test of any Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) was in August 1957, and after extensive development the system was regularly used in Vietnam. The current AN/SPN-46 is the latest iteration, but essentially it's just a glorified missile tracking radar that feeds into the airplane's autopilot via a simple UHF datalink. It's all old tech.

While not all aircraft since Vietnam have done it well (my old F-14B Tomcat was actually worse at "Mode I" (fully coupled) ACLS approaches than the F-4 Phantom it replaced) today's Hornets and Super Hornets are very smooth when coupled up -- much smoother than the typical manual landing.

The problem comes when the system fails (something that can happen in any large automated system - in the air or on the ground). Pilots regularly practice landing by hand, because they never know when the ACLS might not be there for them. They could perform coupled approaches every pass, but they wouldn't have the skills to confidently get aboard if the system ever went away. Those skills require lots of practice to stay sharp, and landing at sea is really hard. I've been doing it for ten years, and it's still just as challenging as ever.

Sometime in the next decade the N-UCAS is supposed to demonstrate truly autonomous UAV operations in a carrier environment. It will rely on a draft version of our next-generation GPS-based replacement for the SPN-46: JPALS. It's stated goal is to fully integrate with our normal manned carrier air traffic procedures. Having seen highly trained aviators struggle with the challenges of operating around the boat, I'll be impressed if it lives up to its goals.

Re:So Long Tailhookers...

[stinkytoe]

The article is misleading. With UAV's, tailhooks are often used as a means to land the AV on land. The RQ-7B Shadow, for example, uses a tailhook for 2 main reasons:
1: To shorten the runway length needed to land (it uses a launcher so runway length during takeoff isn't a consideration).
2: It kinda doesn't have any brakes.
All the UAV systems i have seen so far that land on ships tend to do a controlled crash into a net. So while it may be possible that GA is intending to land on carriers, I think it more likely that the author was pulling stuff out his ass.

Re:So Long Tailhookers...

[grantdh]

Thanks for the great info - I should have remembered the ACLS. As you point out, though, there's still a human on board to bring it in if things go wrong, and the pilots have to keep current.

I totally agree re: carrier landings are the hardest of all - like the saying goes, the best things in life are a good orgasm, a good shit and a good landing, but only night traps give you all three at once :)

My father got to visit a USN carrier in the 60's when he was at Moffat with the Kiwis picking up their first Orion. Said landing and take off were the most amazing things he'd ever done and that was in the COD, let alone sitting up front and watching. I'd totally love to get on and visit, let alone have a chance to experience the landing/launch :)

Thanks for the links - I too will be amazed if N-UCAS can walk the walk.

False Dichotomy

[copponex]

Yes, I presented a false dichotomy. There are many choices in between.

Unfortunately, you are more likely to radicalize him with the accidental death of his relatives than you are to kill someone he believes to be a terrorist.

To him, anyone fighting an invader is a patriot

I often wonder if the same people who decry guerilla tactics and $200 IEDs would just roll over if China started flying jets over our airspace, and rolling tanks through our streets. It's a question that doesn't get asked because I don't think anyone wants to hear themselves answer it.

Re:False Dichotomy

[c6gunner]

Unfortunately, you are more likely to radicalize him with the accidental death of his relatives than you are to kill someone he believes to be a terrorist.

The problem is that your hypothetical potential-terrorist is likely to get radicalized without any intervention on your part. Given that fact, you loose nothing by attempting to intervene. At worst you make no difference, at best you create an environment where future indoctrination is less likely.

I often wonder if the same people who decry guerilla tactics and $200 IEDs would just roll over if China started flying jets over our airspace, and rolling tanks through our streets. It's a question that doesn't get asked because I don't think anyone wants to hear themselves answer it.

I'm more than happy to answer it: if my nation were to become a theocratic dictatorship which insisted on controlling every aspect of my life, I'd be more than happy to stand aside and let the Chinese have free reign. More likely, though, I'd be joining the rebuilt police force or army, in order to assist the Chinese in wiping out the remaining zealots and provide peace and security in which to build a future for my children.

The "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq isn't the Taliban or AQI. It's the brave men who put on an IP, ING, or ANA uniform, and place their lives on the line every day so that their nation may prosper. They're the ones fighting for freedom.

Re:False Dichotomy

[justinlee37]

At worst you make no difference

I don't really buy that one.

If you're right...

[copponex]

If you're right, you should be able to name the country we've democratized with military airstrikes and invasion. The only exception in history is when we have repelled other invaders out of a country that has asked for our help.

I'm listening.

Re:If you're right...

[colinrichardday]

Germany and Japan. OK we didn't invade Japan, but we did use air strikes.

Re:If you're right...

[Q-Hack!]

Germany and Japan. OK we didn't invade Japan, but we did use air strikes.

Actually, we did invade Japan

Re:If you're right...

[colinrichardday]

Oops, I was restricting myself to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Kitakyushu.

"Doing his job"

[DesScorp]

You strike me as the type of person who would become a doctor and then refuse to perform abortions because it was against your "morals". Try leaving decisions about right and wrong up to the supreme court and do your damn job.

I've always thought that obstetricians that perform abortions were doing exactly the opposite of their job... safely bringing babies into the world.

Man still in the "nuclear loop" just not flying it

[TheHawke]

Had a chilling thought looking at the specifications of the vehicle. It could easily carry several B61 nuclear bombs without much strain, perhaps up to 3 or 4. Being unmanned means that it won't be risking crews to fly nuclear missions. This might be taken wrong by hostile countries and it might be put on center stage.

Re:Man still in the "nuclear loop" just not flying

[catdriver]

It wouldn't fit in the bay:

B61 - 11.8 feet (141.6 inches) long

Predator C's weapons bay - 10 ft long

The reason autonomous UAVs won't replace pilots...

[ViciousJello]

...is because the brass will get very nervous when they realize they have no one else to blame if an autonomous UAV makes a mistake. It's partly the same reason we don't have robot-driven cars yet. All it takes is one highly-publicized accident and the entire project, billions of dollars, and several careers go down the tubes.

wars destroy economies and produce mass hunger

[Anonymous Coward]

and desperation

wars are bad. you just have to look at all the numbers not just the direct deaths.

clearly, you need to see more numbers.

GP is right.
you should not give your best skills to make machines of death when you can make machines of life - genetics, for example, cures for diseases, alternative energy, and many other interesting fields.
Oh and heavy machines that are transport vehicles to carry life and life-supporting goods to people all over the world and make profits out of those.

If you choose to make a grand plan of world domination, do it like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs - they put a PC on each desk and a music player in each pocket, respectively.

That is orders of magnitude a better thing to do than make machines of destruction.

Can be argued to infinity and you *will* lose the argument. Sorry for sounding so authoritative, but people (not you, others reading this) dont get it till it is told so emphatically.

See the worlds of difference between economics in a war-torn land and in one without wars for many decades - Iraq, Africa, Viet Nam.
Germany and Japan were suffering for 30-40 years.
It is only after they enjoyed a peaceful period of that length that they progressed.

That is the real cost of war - not the official figures.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm not getting fooled by a barrage of numbers.
And I'm quite sure the numbers are "official numbers" which takes it to another level of dereferencing.

The ethics of military research

[wall0159]

You make a good point, but it's hardly the whole picture.

How many people have been killed as a result of military action abroad -- a debatable figure I'm sure, because armies don't generally count foreign military, let alone civilian casualties.
Secondly, military superiority has not always been used prudently, and has been used to shore up dictators and opress people. If you include in your tally some of this number of people, you would have a very large number indeed.

By the way, this is in no way specific to the US military, it is just that the US currently has by far the largest military. Similar things could be said about the British Empire, European 'colonialism', or China in Tibet.

Back to the subject of this article, the thing that really concerns me about robotic drones is that it puts even more power in whatever centralised control authority is running them. Given the number of power abuses by government and military officials, is this really something we want? Having a robotic army would be every dictator's wet dream.

Er, no.

[dtmos]

Sound waves and radio wave behave similar in how they move through the air.

Anyways, I'm not sure that there is anything stopping the appearance of the radio wave from emitting in another location then they actually are.

Sorry, no -- you're mixing up about three things here.

Conventional Stereo Sound
Conventional stereo sound works because the sources (the two speakers) have a controllable relative phase and amplitude relationship, and because the directivity of the receiving system (that'd be the head and ears of the listener) is poor: Regardless of the orientation of your head, you hear sound from both speakers at all times. Stereo sound systems use these facts to produce sound that can seem to be located at any position between the two speakers -- you can't make sound seem to come from "outside the room." Adding additional speakers enables one to produce sound that can seem to originate from any point within the perimeter of the speakers -- so-called "surround sound" or, if you're old enough, "quadraphonic." Recent systems also add psychoacoustic clues to add realism.

Radio systems can and do use the concept of controlled amplitude and phase; see phased arrays, just to start. However, there are a couple of problems in using them in the manner you suggest.

First, it's practically very difficult to control the relative phase and amplitude of microwave sources over the large areas required to survive multiple ARM strikes, because the wavelength is so small -- centimeters or less -- and the required separation of the sources so large -- hundreds of meters or more. Maintaining a phase accuracy of a few degrees, say even ten degrees (1/36 wavelength), means that the maybe 100-meter-long transmission lines (or whatever is used to establish the phase reference) must be constant to millimeter precision, over temperature variations and mechanical stress, not to mention other wartime hazards.

Second, and more importantly, the enemy you're trying to fool has a phased-array antenna on his own receiver, with excellent directivity (i.e., a narrow beam), and is using it to scan for your transmitter(s). Remember that this trick depends upon the receiver being able to hear all sources simultaneously. In this case, however, it is very unlikely that he will be able to hear all of your transmitters simultaneously, unless he is so far away that they all appear as single point source and your subterfuge is meaningless. Instead, he'll scan across one of your transmitters, hear it, launch ARM 1, restart scanning, scan across another, hear it, launch ARM 2, etc., until all are gone.

"HyperSonic Sound(tm)"
Sound is a pressure wave in a supporting medium -- in this case, air. The audio technique to which you refer (I think) depends on the (slightly) nonlinear properties of air; two very strong ultrasonic sound beams, generated by conventional transducers, cross in the air, and an intermodulation product -- the frequency difference between the two beams -- is produced. (There's also the frequency sum of the two beams produced, but it's not used in this application.) If the frequency difference is in the audible range, it will be heard by an observer. If that observer moves out of one or more of the beams, so that the difference product is not made where he is, he will hear nothing. Note that, since the ultrasonic sound can be of very short wavelength, the beams can be quite narrow and the volume of air in both beams quite small. Also note that, since the intersection of two beams is the critical feature, it is possible to achieve this effect "outside the room."

However, this effect is entirely determined by the pressure nonlinearity of the air. Electromagnetic radiation is unaffected by this property (at least up to the point of molecular breakdown), so it is absolutely impossible to generate false radio locations by this means. The o

Re:Er, no.

[sumdumass]

Thank you.

I though the relationship between the two would be such that they could be made to resemble each other in theory of operation. It seems like I didn't consider quite a few limitations (many of which I knew nothing about). It was more of a thought experiential for me and I appreciate your expertise in the subject.

jammers

[More Trouble]

How about a massively parallel, cheap, distributed jamming platform?

Epic Fail....Again!

[rts008]

No, the numbers would be the same. If you want to 'game the statistics' and change history, you may be able to pull that off, but I don't see how.

All of the numbers I listed were for total US citizen deaths, with no respect towards combat/soldier deaths. Just total USA citizens with no bias towards 'military personnel deaths'. Strictly deaths of USA citizens. If you want to 'game the system' in your favor, you could add somewhere around 10,000-30,000 US to the list, but those are/would be either MIA, or 'unaccounted for'

What it 'would have been' is beside the point. That has no change/bearing on the actual facts and statistics. That is all speculation and fantasy/fiction.

What If my Aunt had balls, she would be my Uncle...What If a frog had wings, it would not have to bruise it's ass getting around.....Are you picking up the pattern yet, or do I need to take you by the hand and lead you on to understanding?

*What is your point?

Really, WTF?
Are you attempting the 'Chewbacca Defense' for some unseen purpose?

"What if" arguments are great for philosophy in an academic environment, but lack interest everywhere else....except online forums!-)

Did you miss the part where I acknowledged that the US did not enter WW1 until 1917? I even made a note of the post being on the 92nd Anniversary date.

How obtuse are you trying to be?
"What if", indeed!

Naivete

[copponex]

The point of my post is that we have invested trillions of dollars in military superiority, and while we can blow up anything we like, we seem to be suffering from the same fate as other imperial powers. A hard, dedicated, local resistance cannot be surmounted unless you kill a good portion of the population to scare them, and even then some will never tolerate outsiders controlling their land or telling them what to do.

When Afghanistan was ruled totally by the Taliban, and they were doing the raping and murdering and burning of schools, we didn't give a shit, and Afghanistan did not attack any American interests. They happened to be the place where Saudi Arabians chose to train terrorists, but we didn't really care about that either, until 9/11. As long as their own local warlords were keeping things quiet, and doing what we told them to, we had no need for expensive military operations in that region. We didn't care how many people they beheaded or women they raped. Colin Powell announced a 43 million dollar grant in May of 2001 in order to reward them with stopping the opium growing in their country (which didn't happen).

If the American government did care about democratic processes, why do we support the monarchy of Saudi Arabia? Why did we overthrow the democratic government of Iran? Afghanistan and Iraq are important if America is interested in maintaining empire, by having control over energy resources. Otherwise, they are like Africa to us. I follow the money, because money matters to everyone. And how much does America spend building democracies versus blowing nations up that don't toe the line? To me, that is the equation that represents our real interest in freedom. And if you believe otherwise, I don't think I'm the one being naive.

More in line with this conversation, I have no illusions about the Taliban, but I also have no illusions about the Northern Alliance, or the fact that we created radical Afghanistan, along with Russia.

On April 14, 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields.

-Wikipedia

Now, why was the Afghan government requesting Soviet military assistance? To help thwart a fundamentalist Muslim uprising. Or, as we knew them in 1980, the "freedom fighters." Or as we knew them in the late 90s, the Taliban. Or as we know them now, the "terrorists."

We have tried using the military for decades, and we have never introduced a lasting democracy into a previously undemocratic country by force. So instead of dropping enough ammunition on Afghanistan to eclipse the value of their GDP, why don't build something there instead? Even if they burn it down ten times over, we'd still save money.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion