Slashdot Mirror


Demand For Unmanned Aircraft Outstripping Their Capabilities

coondoggie writes "Has the highly successful but disparate unmanned aircraft strategy deployed by the military outstripped the Department of Defense's ability to handle its growth? The Air Force, Army, and Navy have requested approximately $6.1 billion in fiscal year 2010 for new systems and expanded capabilities. The Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget request wants to increase the Air Force's Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft programs to 50 combat air patrols by fiscal year 2011 — an increase of nearly 300% since fiscal year 2007. In 2000, the DoD had fewer than 50 unmanned aircraft in its inventory; as of October 2009, this number had grown to more than 6,800. The program's success, however, is causing some big cracks in the system. According to a report issued this week by congressional watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office. The military is facing a number of challenges — including training, accessing national air space, and improving aircraft communications systems — that must be overcome if unmanned aircraft are to take their place as a central piece of the military's future, the GAO stated."

59 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Boom and bust... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now. Some programs win, some programs lose. Typical Washington debate about to come up...

    1. Re:Boom and bust... by skids · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can we start a talking points bingo pool on which pols first utter the phrase "technology transfer" in relation to this report?

      (Personally, though, I'm sick of subsisting off the technological table scraps of war.)

    2. Re:Boom and bust... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      DAVE: "I'd like another bag of airline peanuts, please."

      FLIGHTBOT 9000: "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."

  2. Bad news by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These thing remove the human element to much, from dropping missiles onto weddings and random cars they target from "intel" received.
    I think you should have to send in meat soldiers if you want a war, get verification of who your killing, this is making it to easy to unclear to dangerous morally

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Bad news by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you should have to send in meat soldiers if you want a war, get verification of who your killing, this is making it to easy to unclear to dangerous morally

      Please explain the morality of war to me.

       

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kill him or he'll kill you.

    3. Re:Bad news by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference between dropping a bomb from a UAV while you are driving it from in a trailer, and dropping a bomb while you are sitting at 25,000 feet and 15 miles away is not that much different. You still have no real 'connection' and you are still relying on intel from elsewhere.
      Specifically, a laser guided bomb (LGB) may be relying on a laser designator from someone else, not in your aircraft. This works for a regular A/C or a UAV. Drop within the basket, and someone else guides it in.

      And that intel/targeting may be from a competing warlord, wishing to take out his competition.

    4. Re:Bad news by snowraver1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's like covering your sensors when you play lasertag. It's not a game if only one team can get hit. Unfortunately, this is not lasertag, and life isn't fair

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    5. Re:Bad news by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please explain the morality of war to me.

      Sometimes going to war is the best of several bad options. It can never be any better than that, but it can indeed be a moral decision.

      Note that I'm not saying this applies to our current wars, just that it does happen from time to time. And when it does, it is also a moral decision to try to reduce the attendant horror as much as possible.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Bad news by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These thing remove the human element to much

      People have been saying that since roughly the invention of the thrown rock. Do you honestly think that the bombardier looking out a glass window miles over the battlefield has any human connection with the targets below or "verification" of who he kills?

      If anything, being physically separated from the battlefield makes it harder to indiscriminately kill, as you have all the self-doubt and remorse but none of the adrenaline and self-preservation instincts. Killing becomes a lot easier—and you become a lot less discriminate—when you know somebody is actively trying to kill you.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    7. Re:Bad news by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The morality of war is that the winners write the history books. And all wars are moral from the victor's viewpoint.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    8. Re:Bad news by Quarters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They said that when spears beat rocks. They said that when guns won against swords, spears, and bows. They said it when machine guns decimated rifle ranks. They said it when airplanes and tanks rolled or flew over the trenches. They said it when V1s and V2s were raining on London. They said it when the US nuked Hiroshima. They said it when the US adopted stealth, night vision and GPS, and on and on. Face it, technology wins wars and ensures safety for the side that has the better tech. War is as much a technological battle as it is a physical one.

    9. Re:Bad news by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can you point one out? A moral war that is.

      Obviously, WWII comes to mind. From the viewpoint of the Allies, there was no real choice. We did not choose it..it was thrust upon us. and we couldn't negotiate our way out of it. Not fighting that war, i.e. succumbing to the wishes of Germany and Japan, would have resulted in a far different world that what we have now.

      Should the Allies not have fought back?

    10. Re:Bad news by sweatyboatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Grok this and you will understand all human life.

      now, I have read a lot of Heinlen, and he's written some good stuff, but he was a jerk. while his work can provide a nice entry point to thinking about the human condition, please don't use his writing as the source of knowledge about humanity.

      --
      It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    11. Re:Bad news by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The alternative to Heinlein might be that English guy - Kipling. Reading him gives a lot of insight into military life, and incidentally a little insight into politics. Of course, it helps to actually LIVE what he writes about, to fully appreciate it.

      Yes, human life is tragic. We have all the resources available to make life on earth a near paradise, but we prefer to shit on each other, and ruin everything.

      Ahh well. On subject. The morality of these unmanned killing machine? They don't appeal to me very much. Somehow, it seems a bit cowardly. Osama bin Laden told his troops that digging into the earth in the Tora Bora mountains would save them, because the Americans have no stomach to come into the trenches, and fight hand to hand. We seem to have proved him right in those mountains, and we continue to prove him right with our little toys.

      Yeah, it may be considerably less cowardly to target a high value individual with a missile, than to target 3000 civilians with human missiles. Still - it's not the sort of thing the military has done traditionally. No more 'Charge of the Light Brigade' for us.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:Bad news by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      GP:

      The morality of war is that the winners write the history books. And all wars are moral from the victor's viewpoint.

      Parent:

      I don't think many people in the west think of Vietnam as a moral war.

      That's only a fallacy on GP's part if you think the west won the war in Vietnam.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    13. Re:Bad news by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd argue that there is far less likely for mishap in the UAV situation. You can afford to take your time a bit more before dropping the bomb, for one thing. With a manned bombing mission in a dangerous theater they will tend to fly in, reach their drop point, drop the bombs, and head out of there. Every second you linger in the target area is a chance to be killed - if the target is worth hitting chances are that it is worth defending, so the area right around the target is often the most dangerous area in the whole mission.

      On the other hand, with a UAV you can have one guy flying the thing (or it can be on autopilot), and you can have as many people as you like staring at the video feed making sure that everything looks ok before dropping the bomb. If in doubt you can just wait a little - ok, so maybe they get a missile or two off but you will probably still hit the target even if you don't make it out of there, and the loss of a UAV isn't a horrible thing.

      Plus you don't have nearly as much adrenaline pumping, which makes for more level-headed decisions.

      I think UAVs have a great deal of potential to cut down on battlefield errors.

    14. Re:Bad news by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We did not choose it? You might want to do a little studying about the "peace" conditions imposed on Germany after World War 1.

      No, I'm not EVEN going to try to justify Hitler, and the Nazi party, but raping Germany of her coal and other mining capabilities certainly didn't endear the French to the Germans. There was a lot of stuff the allies imposed on Germany that only tended to feed German nationalism. Remember, the entire world was experiencing the Great Depression, and German workers endured more than a lot of other workers because of those oppressive peace conditions.

      No, maybe we didn't "choose" to have World War 2 - but we certainly contributed to German greviances against us.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:Bad news by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can you point one out? A moral war that is.

      Aha! This is a trick question. You ask an objective question, pretending it might be subjective, and when someone gives a subjective answer (even if the answer would be agreed upon by 99% of the world) you will get to play devil's advocate and claim the answer is subjective. The end result: a damaged definition of "moral" and a smug slashdot poster.

      If that's NOT your aim, and your question is a serious one, then I submit that it's harder to name a war that ISN'T fought for a moral cause. Whether you're providing freedom for the oppressed, resources for your starving people, or a more peaceful planet for our grandchildren -- there are few wars fought for war's sake. The morals may be egocentric, delusional, misguided, or just contrary to your own, but they are the fuel for the engine that keeps a war running.

      As an exercise for your philosophical side, generalize the motives to the point that all wars are fought for a more perfect peace, and you quickly realize the unfortunate flipside: For most humans, Peace can only truly defined as a combination of "everyone who is not like me is dead" and "everyone gives me what I need before taking what they need"

      Yes, wars are fought for Peace, and therefore wars are moral. It's just not the Peace that everyone else wants. That's what makes it a war, and that's what makes it immoral.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    16. Re:Bad news by feepness · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So then logically the German part of world war II was moral.

    17. Re:Bad news by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Charge of the Light Brigade is actually an example of why our technology is a good thing morally speaking. The charge was a disaster because of poor information and communication. If our technology can give us better information and help us communicate, we'll attack the wrong target less often and fewer people near the target will die.

    18. Re:Bad news by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      omg, stfu. the vast energy resources of Afghanistan?

      this is the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim I've heard on the topic. if you are going to suggest that some natural gas pipeline is the reason then you are doubly retarded.

      Even Iraq was never about oil, but at least that would make sense.

      Iraq was about spreading western influence, creating a semi-moderate, western-aligned country on Irans border with access to the Arabian Gulf. It was part of the balance-of-power-2.0 game. Was it a bad idea? Yeah, I'll go for that. In principle though, if we were playing Risk, it would be fine.

      While we are on the topic, what exactly is wrong with a war for oil? I know your going to cry-ass in your usual leftist fashion about big corporations and stuff....but is energy not A NECESSITY for a modern nation? If the US had NO resources, and the Soviets had them all, what would become of the US, for example? Resources like this are as important as oxygen to a nation. Would you find a "war for oxygen" to be so distasteful?

    19. Re:Bad news by jp102235 · · Score: 2, Informative

      clausevitz, jomini, study them. To even ask the question of explaining morality in war suggests you might have thought there should be morality in war. I am sorry you got that impression. A short essay on my thoughts and others:
      War is an extension of politics - clausevitz. In the quest to get some power/people/entity to stop doing something (invading, destabilizing, living in some land you want) you must find a way (a policy) that convinces them (harasses them) such that continued pursuit of the policy you abhor (invading, destabilizing, living in some land you want) is NOT in their best interests. Since kings/presidents/governments tend to listen to their people _before_ they listen to some other king/president/government - your task as a war strategist: convince the king/president/government to stop the behavior you abhor (invading, destabilizing, living in some land you want) by causing chaos and fear amongst his population (the people who pay for the invading, destabilizing, living in some land you want activities). This could be peaceful (voice of america), cruel (trade emabargoes, sanctions), or violent (killing them / breaking their stuff until they see your way)

      Jomeni advocated bombing the city centers (al queda have you been studying jomeni?) to cause chaos.
      This method of warfare dominated US strategy during WW2 (nagasaki, hiroshima, fire bombings: germany, japan) and briefly during linebacker 2 of the vietnam war.
      This is also the method of warfare of "terrorists" since beirut. Using largely ineffective, but spectactular effects to scare people. (cars/heart attacks/cancer kill way many more people than terrorists)

      Recent glamorization of war (going back as far as the chivalry movement of the knights to cut down on the sheer barbarism of war) since WW2 has led to this thought of "civilians" - people who have nothing to do with war - and thus don't deserve to be targeted: it is merely a myth to calm the palettes of doves to convince them that war isn't really all that bad. Which of course is not true.

      Once we stop the idea of "civilian" - I think people will realize that we all are responsible for the people we put in office, and it is our responsibility to stop them from expressing anything other than our intent when it comes to war. we are all in this fight, whether it be school teachers educating the next marines, or even the grocery store, our taxes fund the war machine and are a collective message to the rest of the world on our approval of the current war we are in.

      in short: war was never meant to be moral - it is simply getting a country to do something they do not want to do, by means of strategic maneuvering (bombs, trade, money, isolation, invasion, eradication)

      --
      jp
    20. Re:Bad news by RsG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ahh well. On subject. The morality of these unmanned killing machine? They don't appeal to me very much. Somehow, it seems a bit cowardly.

      Comments like this (and yours is better thought out than many others in this thread) make me wonder if anyone gets how your average UAV actually works.

      You've got a spotter (human) on the ground. He lights up a target to destroy. You've got a Reaper overhead, armed with Hellfire missiles. The pilot of the Reaper (also human) is on the ground somewhere, controlling it remotely. The pilot sees the target illuminated by the spotter, locks on, and fires a missile. Boom.

      Take the UAV and replace it with a manned aircraft and what changes? Nothing. Same spotter, same pilot, same missile. You might argue that the pilot isn't at risk in this instance, but hell, most US pilots are only put at risk when someone on their side screws up. Nobody the US is currently at war with has a hope in hell of threatening their aircraft.

      Just so we're clear, with or without the UAV, you've still got the same human decision makers. We're not at the stage yet where we can trust an armed and autonomous war machine not to screw up. This isn't Skynet, and the spotter on the ground is the one at the greatest risk, and the one deciding what gets cratered.

      If you wanted to argue that using any air support is cowardly, then I'd remind you that war has far less to do with bravery than it does with practicality.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    21. Re:Bad news by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You got it exactly right. War isn't a game. The less fair we can make it, the better.

    22. Re:Bad news by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Funny

      When even a guy called Gandhi is telling you to STFU, you know you're right the fuck out of 'er.

    23. Re:Bad news by Biff+Stu · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the CIA World Factbook, Afghanistan's top three exports are opium, fruits and nuts, and handwoven carpets. They produce absolutely no oil. Natural gas production is 30 million m^3 per year and is all used domestically. None of the gas is exported. Furthermore, it's not like they're sitting on a natural gas gold mine. Known reserves place them at number 65 in the world.

    24. Re:Bad news by mirix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say getting your asses kicked out of Vietnam, and the south being overrun is a loss.
      It didn't destroy the US, but there's no way you could construe it as a victory.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    25. Re:Bad news by astar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the roman catholic church way back when did some good work on what is a just war. the considerations they used still pop up in debate. but i once asked a gung-ho solider if he had heard of the concept and he had not, but i am sure he was also a gung-ho Christian

      here is a trivial link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

      A reasonable person however would distinguish between justice and morality, IMO.

      some reasonable moralities do however categorically disapprove of atrocities.

    26. Re:Bad news by larkost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this argument is that Germany was not a child, and was not really any more "at fault" for World War 1 than anyone else. It started just like any of the other land-grab wars before it, but because of the interwoven politics (and a lot of personal ambitions by a lot of people), kept spiraling upward untill we got so much bigger than anything that had come before it.

      And Germany was/is not some child, and the US was not some adult. They are, and were, full countries. Full of adults capable of feeling wounded pride. The only reason you can cast them in the role of a naughty child is because they lost the armed conflict. If they had won then the US/France/England led aliance would assume the role of the child. Neither idea holds any water, nor are they useful in preventing the same sort fo problem in the future (one of the most practical reasons to study history).

      The de-industrialization of Germany was an atrocious idea, and was the biggest cause of World War 2. Without the horrendus finantial oppresion caused by it Hitler and the Brown-Shirts would never have had the fertile grounds to grow their movement in, and would never have been elected to power in Germany. Eventually there probably would have been a war, but that is only because human nature seems to push us to that eventually.

    27. Re:Bad news by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Afghanistan has vast mineral resources. But you’re partially right. The real reason is, that Afghanistan lies in one of the strategically most important areas of the world.

      It is the only country in the world with borders to the ex Soviet Union, China, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. The meaning of this should be obvious. It shouldn’t even be called a country at all, with its diverse tribes and influences. Imagine all those countries had borders to each other, and you would put a blender right in the 5-country border in the middle. The result would be Afghanistan.

      In practice, this meant, that during the cold war, the Soviet Union of course wanted that area. But the US didn’t want it. So the cold war got very hot. But the USA were wise back then. They knew that you can’t win a war in that area. Ever. That’s why the tribes still battled themselves to this day. So they sent ammunition and weapons to the Afghans. Who of course happily accepted. It was a “win-win”. Except that the only ones dying were the Afghans. (Two of my uncles died in it, and probably 3 were tortured, so I know very well what I’m talking about.)

      Of course the Soviets failed to conquer the country. And Kharzai was pro-US, while the Soviet Union broke apart. All was good for the USA.
      Except that now, the Afghans hat shitloads of weapons and a population of which all the young had not ever seen anything else, except war. You can guess what that resulted in. The mental psychological fallout turned some to religious extremism. An easy thing to exploit. Some used it, and gained political power over Afghanistan, by opposing the cruel dictatory pro-US Kharzai. Back then, the Taliban were seen as the less bad choice in the face of his crimes.

      Now something had to be done, to gain back power. So the USA used their own man, Bin Laden, and the attack of 9/11 as an excuse (no idea how much of it was planned, so I don’t judge here), as a reason to go to Afghanistan. Completely forgetting, that you can not ever win there. (As they said themselves, some decades earlier.)

      And now they struggle in the same way as the Soviet Union did. I would’n be surprised at all, if the SU would fuel the Taliban, just so they could see the US fail in the same way, for shits and giggles. ;)
      Fact is that the US will also walk out of Afghanistan without winning. That’s no shame. That’s just how it always was, is, and always will be, I guess.

      We should just declare it a uninhabited wasteland, and let the people move away. That would be better for everyone.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    28. Re:Bad news by Triv · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with that example is that by some accounts, if Japan hadn't bombed pearl harbor, it's just as likely the US would have stayed out of the war entirely.

      Do said accounts mention Lend-Lease at all? The US took sides in March, 1941. Or from the perspective of the Pacific conflict, the US took sides when they instigated embargoes against war supplies Japan desperately needed to (literally) fuel its war effort - Japan needed oil, rubber, and metals to feed the industrial machine, and the US wasn't cooperating.

      Pearl Harbor was the tipping point, a rallying cry, and a tremendously effective excuse, but realistically the US would have entered the war eventually anyway.

    29. Re:Bad news by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't that just lead to tyranny and despotism? War is not always The Good Guys vs. the Bad Guys, right? In other words, people come to blows ( or explosions ) because they have a serious disagreement. If one party could always shut the other down, no matter how serious the issue, what does that mean for human freedom?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    30. Re:Bad news by toQDuj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok... Let's choose some wars not fought for morals:
      - War for oil: Iraq
      - War for revenge: Afghanistan
      - War for money/resources: Pick your local conflict in Africa

      I even am under the impression that WWII was not fought for noble goals either by the "allies"..

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    31. Re:Bad news by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know that pilots, on the whole, don't bother landing their planes at ground zero and examining the carnage first hand, right? They scoot on back to their aircraft carrier or their air force base in the next country and have a cold beer. They rarely even set foot in the land they're fighting. War has been impersonal for a lot longer than UAVs have been around.

      And it hasn't been a bad thing. In the days of swords and spears, massacres were the rule and not the exception. Warriors filled with the rage of battle would avenge comrades they'd seen cut down around them by razing entire towns and slaughtering every inhabitant they could find. Besiegers would happily watch entire cities perish from starvation and disease, and would often speed up the matter by flinging flaming objects and infected corpses over the walls. Fighters simply became numb to any notions of decency or morality; it was the only way to survive, both physically and mentally. If you truly think that wars were somehow more compassionate in days gone by, consider the Gesta Francorum, which chronicles another time the west decided to involve themselves in the affairs of the middle east. Indeed, read any direct account of war from any past era. Don't let yourself be fooled by later romanticizations.

      The advance of military technology has slowly moved armies further and further from each other, and in the process, given them more and more opportunities to plan and consider their actions. Advances in communication have allowed everyone to witness wars being fought, and even to catch glimpses of life behind enemy lines. We've begun to notice that our enemies are people who live like us, think like us, and dream like us, and not just foes rushing at us with swords unsheathed. Not long ago, murdering or driving out an entire nation would have been hailed as a glorious victory and proof of divine providence. If the nation was not Catholic even the Pope would have praised it. Now, killing every tenth man in a country would guarantee denouncement and ostracism from the world stage, and would very likely end in a war crimes tribunal. "Civilized" countries are expected to hold back the majority of their raw strength and refrain from using the most effective elements of their arsenals. While war is still a bloody business, it is handled with a delicacy today that our ancestors never imagined.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    32. Re:Bad news by profplump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahh well. On subject. The morality of these unmanned killing machine? They don't appeal to me very much. Somehow, it seems a bit cowardly.

      That sounds a lot like the objections people had to aerial bombing. Or automatic guns. Or guns in general. And probably originally to catapults, swords and sharp sticks when they were first put into use in warfare. But as it turns out the goal of warfare is to control the actions of your opponent through force, and to that end new technology (including tactics) is always likely to improve your ability to project force or your ability to resist force, or both.

      The technology in use does not affect the morality of the underlying attack any more than the color of a car affects the morality of drunk driving. And of course you're ignoring the moral benefit of having clear-minded attackers and reducing the total number of lives at risk not only by protecting our own forces but also by making the battle so one-sided that our opponents are unwilling to fight. I'm pretty sure our noble and courageous spear-bearing soldiers of times past would be reluctant to engage a force armed with automatic guns; if they were sufficiently committed to their cause they might still fight, but they'd at least think twice about it, and it would raise the bar from "worth fighting about" to "would rather be dead than lose this argument".

      Finally, while improvements in military technology may reduce the courage required to undertake a particular act it does not reduce the courage available from a given attacker, thus allowing for a more efficient use of the limited amount of courage available. This also has moral benefits, because that additional courage not required for basic attacks is available for things like restraint — an attacker who feels safer is much more likely to take risks like allowing remaining opponents to retreat or capturing prisoners instead of killing everyone, or taking the time to more carefully select a target or for innocents to clear the area.

    33. Re:Bad news by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the war in Iraq was a war for oil, the term 'war for oil' is an abbreviation of 'war for low oil prices'. See, the supply of oil to the states was never endangered, however the price of the oil is constantly under upward pressure making the American lifestyle, which is obviously very energy intensive, too expensive for a large portion of the citizens with all the civic unrest etc. as a result.

      There was never any binary outcome; win the war, get oil, lose the war, do not get oil. Basically, it's all about Americans being used to an abundant lifestyle at the expense of other nations. Same goes for Europe and Australia, it's just that these continents do not have the military power or will to force issues so for them the apparant answer is to change the fuel sources providing in their energy needs _and_ in the case of Europe, a more moderate level of consumption as Europeans, on a average, consume about half of the energy of your average American or Australian.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    34. Re:Bad news by Krommenaas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someone who thinks Afghanistan borders Iraq, who thinks Karzai was already in power before the Taliban, who insinuates the USA organised 9/11 and who thinks the Soviet Union still exists gets moderated to 4?

    35. Re:Bad news by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's only fair if they engage by the rules. Offer no possibility of defense / retaliation through regular means, and expect those you fight to switch to some truely despicable tactics.

      Purely for survival.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    36. Re:Bad news by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I have heard this before, and it makes sense, you have to remember Italy switched to the Allies side near the end of WWI and they still got Mussolini.

  3. Conventional wisdom by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet they still try to convince you that playing video games all day doesn't teach you any marketable skills!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They could develop a computer system which combines sensor input and calculates optimal control output. For resilience it should be distributed and connected through a network. A network for the sky controlling machines which terminate enemy combatants.

  5. Knock knock by vandelais · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who's there?

    I kill you.

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  6. I know how they feel by tpstigers · · Score: 5, Funny

    My capabilities are far outstripped by my wife's demands.

    1. Re:I know how they feel by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is that why she turned to the unmanned model?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  7. Easy training solution by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny

    Put videogames that simulate the planes in trailer parks and recruit the kid with the highest score.

  8. Coverage will be different by copponex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The most important part of this for the Pentagon is that there's no human cost to losing a UAV on the American side. There are no airfields with reporters to deal with - you're not going to allow a journalist on to an airforce base inside the control room for "security" purposes. The pussies who call themselves reporters don't go out of the green zone anymore, and it's hard to get anyone to care about a grainy video or far away sounding reports from foreign news sources. You can bomb the hell out of whomever you like. Even the most dovish democrats will have jobs tied to it in their home districts. Americans have proved we have an endless capacity for funding war. And with UAVs, no caskets with American flags, no problems.

    Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.” -General Westmoreland

    1. Re:Coverage will be different by BZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? Citation, please? This idea gets thrown around a lot, but I have yet to see evidence.

      One can argue that unless the articles of incorporation suggest otherwise the fiduciary duty of the management is to maximize shareholder value (NOT to be confused with instantaneous profit) and that shareholders could sue the management in civil court over perceived failures to do so. It'd be a pretty hard suit to win, I bet.

      But in general, the purpose of a corporation will be outlined in its articles of incorporation. It might have nothing whatsoever to do with shareholder value, much less profit; plenty of non-profit incorporated entities out there.

  9. Pay Through The Frontal Lobe by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The military is facing a number of challenges, including training, accessing national air space and improving aircraft communications systems..."

    And rehabilitation. For reasons not yet understood UAV remote pilots are suffering more burnout than most others, as well as PTSD to an extent that mystifies.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Pay Through The Frontal Lobe by fructose · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can tell you the answer to that. They are facing stresses that a normal soldier isn't facing. A Predator pilot in Las Vegas has to fight a war for 10 hours a day and deal with all the stress that comes with that, AND THEN go home and deal with all the stress of family life. When deployed you 'turn off' after you fly and recover. Flying from home means you have to constantly deal with much more stress than normal. And you have to separate your military life from your family life even more. You can't talk about the problems you deal with at work with your wife because missions are classified. And you can't talk about your kid failing a math test because you are busy tracking a high priority target. No down time means no recovery. And add all to that this problems mentioned in the article above. Then to top it all off, good luck getting out of an unmanned plane. Without enough training, assignments are lasting much longer than normal. Pilots are getting called back from manned planes to fly drones. It's a no win situation for those who need a break.I did it for a while, and life is rough,

      I was a Predator pilot in the AF for 5 years, and I can tell you it's not a pretty picture.

    2. Re:Pay Through The Frontal Lobe by Nethead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod this +1e100 insightful. I'm away from home right now (in Tampa, no less. building a data center) so when I'm stressed because some piece of gear is borked I can just go back to the hotel and zone in the hot tub, quick call home, all is good, cool.

      But, if I was at home I'd have all the honey-do's and familial interactions (step-daughter in treatment, African Grey parrot, four cats, oh, and the wife, need to stack that firewood, the toilet downstairs is making a funny sound...) needing to be taken care of, and I couldn't get in the space I need to solve the problem, nor could I talk to my wife about the intricacies of the setup (like talking about classified.)

      It may be better to just put these pilots on some other base away from their families, a nice TDY, to let them deal with their job and give them the excuse to slack off on the family front for a while. Kind of a toss up. Give them the option, just don't let the spouse know whow asked for the TDY.

      What these remote pilots have to deal is so much more REAL and INTENSE than what you or I deal with, unless you are in combat, it is NOTHING, FUCKING NOTHING compared what these Airmen have to deal with.

      Sirs. My most humble thanks for your service! (this from an ex-USAF desk jockey, circa '79)

      -Joe

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  10. More than the usual debate... by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like this works so well they want more of it... but in order for it to do all that they want it to do they'll have to divert resources from the manned flights that exist now. Some programs win, some programs lose. Typical Washington debate about to come up...

    No, more than that, UAV's are such a contentious issue because of the tremendous culture clash it's causing in the Air Force. In the Army, Navy, and Marines, UAV's are just another military tech tool to use in battle. But in the Air Force, which bases its entire identity on the old Knights of the Air thing, UAV's aren't seen as a valuable tool so much as they're seen as a threat to the very existence of the Air Force itself.

    Think about it. If the day is coming when you can train young, non pilot computer geeks to do what current pilots do.... at less cost and less training time, too.... then why have an independent Air Force at all? Because sooner or later, we'll be able to make UAV fighters that can maneuver better, fly farther, and hit harder than any manned craft of today. It's just a matter of time

    I think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force, and I think the current crop of pilots know it too. And it begs the question, did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense? It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines. Airpower really isn't a doctrine so much as it's just one more weapon in your arsenal.

    I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone, and looked at the same way jousting knights in armor are looked at... a glamorous, romantic period that was relatively brief, and brought to an end by technology that made it obsolete.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:More than the usual debate... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 2, Informative

      The future of the Air Force probably lies in space-based operations, while UAV handles Earth operations and is handed back to the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.

    2. Re:More than the usual debate... by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the dawn of the UAV era may well herald the end of the independent Air Force, and I think the current crop of pilots know it too. And it begs the question, did a seperate Air Force ever really make that much sense? It was a branch based on a particular technology.... akin to the Army splitting Tanks off into their own separate service, or the Navy doing the same with submarines. Airpower really isn't a doctrine so much as it's just one more weapon in your arsenal.

      One word "Jamming".

      Remote controlled drones work against low-technology enemies that cannot blanket the radio spectrum with high-power white noise or shoot down your high-altitude relays (if you use line-of-sight comms technologies such as lasers). The drones can only go autonomous for simple tasks and are (not yet) capable of wining a dogfight with a human-controlled fighter.

      Going fully dependent on remote controlled drones is a form of "Preparing for the last war".

    3. Re:More than the usual debate... by IICV · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you blanket the radio spectrum with high-power white noise, you've just made an incredibly attractive target of yourself - jamming involves transmitting a signal that basically says "HEY EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO ME NOT TO ANYONE ELSE". That'll last about as long as it takes for a dumb cruise missile to drop on your antenna.

      And if you're the sort of douchebag who sets jammers up in a civilian hospital or something, I'm sure the drone guys are working on that too - you've just told all the drones in the area exactly where your antennas are, so even if they can't talk to their handlers they might be able to surgically remove the interference.

  11. Bad Analogy by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We did not choose it? You might want to do a little studying about the "peace" conditions imposed on Germany after World War 1.

    By the same logic, women deserve to get raped because they wear skimpy clothing.

    I think that's a bad analogy in this case. I'm pretty patriotic, and pro-military. I'm a vet as well. And as I've read more about WWI over the years, I've become more and more convinced that WWII didn't have to happen, and that we in the west... including the United States... bear some responsibility for WWII. How? First off, it's becoming harder and harder to convince me that the US had to fight in Europe, that we had any real interest there. The Germans didn't start it, and looking back, was an ascendent Germany really a threat to the US? No, I don't think so. When you get right down to it, I thinking more and more that WWI was just another European Great-Power pissing match.

    Further, the absolute draconian position that we put Germany in after the war created an atmosphere perfect for the rise of Adolf Hitler. Had we not tipped the balance in favor of the UK and France... had Germany fared better after the war.... I think there's a good chance Hitler never rises to power. He wasn't inevitable. He took advantage of the utter desperation Germans were feeling.

    Woodrow Wilson should have never agreed to the draconian demands of our fellow allies. Despite his best intentions, all he helped accomplish was the implosion of one empire in favor of two others in Europe.

    So I think the analogy is more along the lines of a combatant being raped by the victors... and then becoming so twisted by the experience that they embrace total evil to have the satisfaction of their revenge.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  12. Re:Comparison numbers by tsotha · · Score: 3, Informative

    It depends on what you're considering a UAV. By far the most common UAV is a glorified toy RC airplane. The RQ-11B Raven, for example, of which 13,000 have been built, costs about $35,000 including camera and data link. The ground station is a laptop.

    Of the big, expensive UAVs you see on the news, Global Hawk and Predator/Reaper, less than 250 have been produced. I doubt even half of the original MQ-1 Predators remain - according to wikipedia we'd lost 70 of them by March 2009. UAVs aren't as reliable as human-piloted aircraft, especially while landing. Also, engine wear is a function of flight hours, and these things can stay in the air for up to 48 hours, depending on the loadout.

  13. Re:Money better spent by BZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    I assume GP's point was that the money could be better spent employing people in Afghanistan, so that they have something better to do than join the Taliban and whatnot. It's not clear to me that GP is right, mind you. ;)

  14. Military industrial complex by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I think by our children or grandchildren's lifetimes, the Air Force may be long gone"

    Ah, ye of little faith in this country's military-industrial complex. It is the engine that drives our economy. We spend more on military junk than the rest of the world combined. We have, almost constantly, for the past 50 years, been invading some country or another for no particular reason. The day we see our military shrink one red cent will be the day we see Duke Nuke'Em Forever released.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.