Boeing, BAE Systems Show Off New Unmanned Planes

gilgsn writes The hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system, a demonstrator that will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days, was unveiled by Boeing today. 'Phantom Eye is powered by two 2.3-liter, four-cylinder engines that provide 150 horsepower each. It has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots and can carry up to a 450-pound payload.' Across the pond, BAE Systems showed off Taranis, a UAV that will test the possibility of developing the first ever autonomous, stealth Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle that would ultimately be capable of precisely striking targets at long range — even in another continent."

Comments

Cost?

[Lunix Nutcase]

And the cost will be what? $5 billion a piece?

Re:Cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me, $5 billion is cheap.

Re:Cost?

[somaTh]

According to Dailymail, it should be around £143 million ($214 million for those too lazy to google it yourself).

Re:Cost?

[demonbug]

According to Dailymail, it should be around £143 million ($214 million for those too lazy to google it yourself).

If you read the article (and others), you will also see that this was a technology demonstrator, and £143 million was the cost to build it. If it went into production it would likely cost significantly less, certainly less than a $191 million JSF. Getting the pilot out of there cuts down a hell of a lot on the cost, as all of a sudden you can replace all sorts of expensive weight, volume, and logistics with relatively cheap computers (theoretically, anyway).

Re:Cost?

[tibit]

That's a fairly ridiculous price, but given that there are no other products that can stay aloft that long, it'd probably be acceptable. I wonder if there are any jets out there that could take enough fuel in extra internal tanks to stay aloft for 4 days... Wikipedia doesn't have enough details to tell, say, how far a 787-8 would fly if all wet weight were to be fuel.

Re:Cost?

[rwa2]

Cheaper than launching a bunch of satellites, and hopefully competitive with a fleet of airships.

Re:Cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.robots-everywhere.com/

You can buy one from us for $1000 if you like, as long as you don't put any weapons on it. These have been driven in California from Italy, so I think range-wise we're doing good.

Re:Cost?

[sznupi]

Such long flights wouldn't work very well for manned aircraft anyway - and we do have an idea, there's air refueling after all.

One of the things which killed nuclear-powered aircraft.

Re:Cost?

[siuengr]

You are confusing the two articles, the £143 million price is for the BAE plane, which can not stay aloft for 4 days, it is a strike platform. The Boeing plane is supposed to be able to stay up for 4 days, but they do not mention cost.

Re:Cost?

[hitmark]

and unless you launch a geo-sat pr nation, can be hovered over a specific trouble spot as needed.

Re:Cost?

[Dolphinzilla]

on the surface this would seem to cut cost - in fact its probably a wash or slightly more expensive to build a UAV than a manned aircraft - while you can get rid of a lot of systems (pressurization, ejections seats, etc..) you now need at least 2 and most of the time 3 or 4 computers to fly the thing plus redundant air data sensors, really good data links, etc... it really adds up - in fact the computers and data links can be a large majority of the cost of the basic green aircraft

Re:Cost?

[Calinous]

Italians flew some World War 2 bombing missions (with civilian crafts) that spent about 25 hours in the air. There was an around the world flight without refueling, so the technology is certainly there.

Re:Cost?

[Bakkster]

you now need at least 2 and most of the time 3 or 4 computers to fly the thing plus redundant air data sensors, really good data links, etc... it really adds up

Modern aircraft (particularly combat aircraft) already have redundant computers to move the control surfaces (and the computer is required to make the plane even remotely flyable), multiple sensors are already used because it's equally bad for a pilot to lose sensors, and high quality data links are standard in this age of electronic warfare. The only difference is one additional redundant computer to fly the plane in place of a pilot. Development cost will be higher due to the extra hardware and software work, but operational costs will be way down. Less weight, less fuel, less pilot training.

Re:Cost?

[egomaniac]

And you're ignoring all of the work it takes to keep a pilot alive and at least reasonably comfortable. A UAV doesn't need a pressurized cockpit, comfortable air temperatures, a complicated and expensive ejection system (comprising not only explosives, rocket motors, and parachutes, but also survival and rescue gear such as flares, food and water, dye packs, and smoke grenades), or for that matter even seats. Nor does it need any of the input / output devices that a human pilot needs in order to actually fly the plane -- no display screens, gauges, joysticks, or anything of the sort.

I can't imagine that all of that doesn't VASTLY reduce the cost of such an aircraft. Not only do you save the incremental cost of stuffing all of that stuff into each plane, you eliminate the R&D cost of developing it in the first place and running tons of tests to make sure it works reliably.

Re:Cost?

[Bakkster]

I am assuming that R&D costs for automated flight control computers will be more expensive than that of pilot controls and comforts, as the latter are more common.

Regardless of R&D costs, operational costs will certainly be less.

SAMs?

[girlintraining]

it has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots...

...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and the natives don't have radar.

Re:SAMs?

[brainboyz]

The B2 has a 170ish foot wingspan and the radar cross section of a ball bearing, so size is not necessarily a stealth disqualifier.

Re:SAMs?

[demonbug]

it has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots...

...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and the natives don't have radar.

So, pretty much all of the conflicts the U.S. and allies are currently embroiled in.

Re:SAMs?

[LWATCDR]

And in doing so reviels where the SAM is. Mr. Sam meet the stealth UCAV with a HARM tasked with SEAD.

Re:SAMs?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and [B]the natives have poor eyesight or legally blind[/B].

Fixed it for ya ;)

Re:SAMs?

[Wyatt Earp]

"The Boeing Company [NYSE: (BA)] today unveiled the hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system, a demonstrator that will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days."

Not alot of SAMs reach that high, it'll have a low radar cross section, small IR signature, so even the SAMs that go up there will have a hard time acquiring it.

So even if it's used in a place like Iran or I don't know, the Sudan or Venezuela in a future conflict, the good SAMs will have been taken out in the first few days of the war by F-16s, F-18G, F-22s, or cruise missiles, MANPADS can't get to 65,000, so this thing will be good for intelligence gathering even in an environment where the enemy has small SAMs still

Re:SAMs?

[Wyatt Earp]

You can eyeball a plane going 150 mph at 60,000 feet without sensors?

Re:SAMs?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and the natives have poor eyesight or legally blind.

Fixed that for you. ;)

Re:SAMs?

[jgtg32a]

So all US combat zones?

Re:SAMs?

[girlintraining]

You can eyeball a plane going 150 mph at 60,000 feet without sensors?

You can see satellites orbiting the Earth with the naked eye if you know what you're looking for...

Re:SAMs?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of these ball bearings can you fit in a library of congress? Is the diameter longer or shorter than a piece of string?

Re:SAMs?

[sznupi]

So, certainly not "all the good SAMs will have been used in the first few days of the war on F-16s, F-18G"?...

Re:SAMs?

[thaig]

It takes an unusual amount of hand-eye-co-ordination to throw Surface-to-Air missiles at things that far away though. Most natives would need years of training to do it even when they are not legally blind.

Re:SAMs?

[quanticle]

Not necessarily. As a sibling points out, the B-2 is larger, yet manages to maintain a very small radar cross-section. Actually, being unmanned allows this aircraft to have a much smaller radar signature than a manned plane of similar size, as things like engine air intakes and control surfaces can be placed in a more optimal fashion when the front portion of the aircraft doesn't need to be reserved for the cockpit.

I wouldn't be surprised if this plane managed to pack more ordinance than a B-2, despite being of smaller size.

Re:SAMs?

[profplump]

Only when it's dark and they reflect the sun. You can't see them at all during the day or when they're in the Earth's shadow.

And even if you could, and I gave you a magic missile that could reach them, could you aim it accurately with nothing more than a mechanical scope?

Re:SAMs?

[Wyatt Earp]

Satellites are generally reflective, military aircraft are generally painted with materials and colors to minimize visibility.

Re:SAMs?

[Wyatt Earp]

No, because the US/NATO is all about standing off and killing the sites, sure some of the missiles will have been fired off, but the fighters and bombers will use stand-off systems like SDB, JDAM, AGM-132, HARM, Tomahawk, Storm Shadow to kill the launchers and radars.

Re:SAMs?

[hitmark]

heh, didnt the israeli use early UAVs with radar decoys that made them look like high priority bombers to trick SAM sites into revealing themselves?

Re:SAMs?

[sznupi]

NATO? They aren't so readily convinced into Iraq-style interventions.

And yeah, sure, the launchers and radars will be simply killed off...

Re:SAMs?

[Wyatt Earp]

NATO isn't so readily convinced into Iraq-style interventions?

Not really up on your Allied Force/Noble Anvil are you?

And by "US/NATO", the United States and NATO buy weapon systems that are the same or similar and use the same tactics and planning schemes, they also wargame for the same sorts of threats. Just like a Warsaw Pact army meant any military that used Warsaw Pact weapon systems, tactics and doctrine.

Re:SAMs?

[sznupi]

Heh. Balkans certainly wasn't an Iraq-style intervention - NATO actually stood behind the former!

Ans by saying constantly "US/NATO" you just illustrate part of the reasons why it probably won't be NATA in Iraq-style interventions anywhere (it is more about geopolitical reality also regarding practical stuff you mention; heck, some places not belonging to its structures are far closer to what you would consider as a "model" implementation than many NATO members)

Re:SAMs?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and the natives don't have good eye sight or they are legally blind.

Fixed! ;)

Re:SAMs?

[deapbluesea]

heh, didnt the israeli use early UAVs with radar decoys that made them look like high priority bombers to trick SAM sites into revealing themselves?

Battle of the Bekaa Valley, 1982. Israelis used UAVs to get the Syrians to light up their radars. To be followed shortly after by HARMs from the F-16s loitering just out of range.

Re:SAMs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your pattern of posts makes you appear to be a nutcase who is obsessed with weapons,
and with the notion of exerting power over others, regardless of whether it is
appropriate to exert that power.

I doubt you realize how utterly pathetic this makes you look.

Do you also drive a large 4WD vehicle and have a small cock ? I'm betting both of those
guesses are correct.

UAV ? ICBM

[B5_geek]

UAV capable of reaching inter-continental target - check
UAV payload nuclear - check
UAV 'hard to hit' and/or find - check

Ladies and Gentleman; let me present to you your new ICBM replacement (and don't worry about treaties with the Russians, these qualify as airplanes not missles, so we are clear to rebuild our stockpiles!)

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Except nukes dropped from planes typically weigh several tons on the small end. Much more than the 450lb capacity of these drones.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Jeng]

The military has been moving to precision instead of magnitude, I'm sure there are plenty of warheads that could be loaded on this.

After all, the suitcase nuke is a real weapon. A nuke does not have to weigh tons to do tons of damage.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[moogied]

Uh. No. Not even a little tiny wee bit. The issue with nuclear warfare between America and Russia is not ones capability to produce X amount of Weapon Y with a nuke on it. Its about the capability to have X fire Weapon Y and for Weapon Y to have 10 nukes. Before we started using the MIRV's it was possible to defend against a nuclear strike. Now though we know we are eff'd if the nukes start flying. Sure, we can shoot down 80 missiles if we get lucky.. can we shoot down 800? No.
So how exactly do these replace THAT capability? Also, the big threat of nuclear weapons is speed and stealth. Not having some frigen UAV flying around that any MIG built in the last 40 years could shoot down with ease.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[LWATCDR]

No they don't. 450 lbs is more than enough payload for a 100kt+ nuke.
Nukes weighing several tons went out in the 1950s/1960s

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[brainboyz]

Except a large suitcase nuke would more than suffice.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[rwa2]

As noted in other articles, the project was previously named HALE (high altitude long endurance) and is a rapid prototype for a larger craft.

The new dorky name is probably a nod to "Phantom Works", Boeing's "Skunkworks", and hopefully not as much due to stealthy / nefarious connotations.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[ArcherB]

No they don't. 450 lbs is more than enough payload for a 100kt+ nuke.
Nukes weighing several tons went out in the 1950s/1960s

And we wouldn't even need to drop it. There's no pilot in these things so if you can afford to lose the plane, just set off the nuke while it's still in the bomb bay.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Wyatt Earp]

"The B61 is a variable yield bomb designed for carriage by high-speed aircraft. It has a streamlined casing capable of withstanding supersonic flight speeds. The weapon is 11 ft 8 in (3.58 m) long, with a diameter of about 13 in (33 cm). Basic weight is about 700 lb (320 kg), although the weights of individual weapons may vary depending on version and fuze/retardation configuration."

So there is your airdropped nuclear weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

"The W80 is physically quite small, the "physics package" itself is about the size of a conventional Mk.81 250 lb (113 kg) bomb, 11.8 inches (30 cm) in diameter and 31.4 inches (80 cm) long, and only slightly heavier at about 290 lb (132 kg)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_(nuclear_warhead)

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Chris Burke]

A nuke does not have to weigh tons to do tons of damage.

Yeah, but only because the "tons" in "tons of damage" refers to equivalent tons of TNT. Which is unfair to TNT in my opinion; it has to weight tons to do tons of damage by definition! TNT wouldn't have to weigh tons to do tons of damage if we measure damage in terms of, say, tons of coke + mentos.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[TooMuchToDo]

Don't forget, unlike an ICMB, it can loiter and get realtime surveillance before it strikes the target, unlike an ICBM where you may be relying on satellite data that's already X minutes/hours old.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Red Flayer]

TNT wouldn't have to weigh tons to do tons of damage if we measure damage in terms of, say, tons of coke + mentos.

The C+M standard unit for explosive power is incomplete. One cannot express explosive power of coke and mentos without knowing the volume and pressure limits of the bomb container.

Let me instead suggest two alternatives (I prefer the first option, as the second one is just crass, I wouldn't normally make a comment like that to someone I respect -- but I include it in the pure interest of completeness):

1. Quantity of [one ton of (optimal coke + Mentos mixture) in a 2000L container that ruptures exactly at the point when the coke-Mentos reaction is complete, thus at maximum pressure]. We could call this tons of CM2KL.

2. My dicks in your momma's ass. As in, that nuclear warhead has the explosive power of 4.0 x 10^29 MDIYMA.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[DerekLyons]

Ladies and Gentleman; let me present to you your new ICBM replacement (and don't worry about treaties with the Russians, these qualify as airplanes not missles, so we are clear to rebuild our stockpiles!)

Protip: Learn what you're talking about before posting - airplanes are limited by treaty as well, as are warhead counts.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[LWATCDR]

And we could call it a cruise missile.
It is true that if you are using them to drop nukes that last thing you will really worry about is getting it back.
Of course you could drop the weapon and then use the UAV as a decoy. Or you could fit multiable weapons in the UAV but at that point it is all just terrible.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[couchslug]

That would be a cute, decorative nuke of the 4th of July sort.

If you want to crack enemy missile silos and hard targets, bigger warhead + ground burst = way to go.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[couchslug]

"Protip: Learn what you're talking about before posting - airplanes are limited by treaty as well, as are warhead counts."

Protip: Doing that interferes with delectable nuke fear where everything that could possibly contain a warhead, Snoopy's dog house included, is seen as a first-strike weapon.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear UAVs are not happening. There is no way to maintain complete positive control of a nuclear warhead when you have it flying around on a remotely controlled airplane that could conceivably be hijacked; US Strategic Command would never sign off on it.

By the way, the most recent START treaty limits the number of ALL "launchers" that can deploy nuclear weapons; that includes subs, ICBMs, and aircraft.

(I am a USAF officer who works with ICBMs)

(disclaimer: the above is all unclassified and available from public sources)

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[random string of num]

not at £140m a pop

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[quanticle]

(and don't worry about treaties with the Russians, these qualify as airplanes, not missiles...

If I understand correctly, the arms control treaties we have apply to deployed warheads, not delivery systems. By that accounting, a warhead deployed on a UAV is the same as a warhead deployed on a missile, so I don't see how either the US or Russia could squirrel out of an arms control treaty by using UAVs rather than ICBMs.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[quanticle]

Also, the big threat of nuclear weapons is speed and stealth.

UAVs have that. Sure, a MiG can shoot down a UAV with ease. However, in order to shoot down the UAV, it first has to find the UAV. Given that UAVs don't need pilots, control surfaces and intakes (the two most radar reflective portions of any aircraft) can be positioned in a way to minimize radar cross section in a way that even ultra-stealth aircraft like the B-2 cannot do. Combined with the ability of a UAV to fly a computer controlled course at very low altitude (just like cruise missiles), the ultra-low RCS means that these modern UAVs are the cruise missile equivalent of MIRVs. You can load a UAV with multiple cruise missiles and have it launch those missiles after it gets inside enemy airspace.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the RQ-4 has not gotten munitions is because it would be, by SALT II, a cruise missile if armed with deployable kinetics.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[ArcherB]

And we could call it a cruise missile.
It is true that if you are using them to drop nukes that last thing you will really worry about is getting it back.
Of course you could drop the weapon and then use the UAV as a decoy. Or you could fit multiable weapons in the UAV but at that point it is all just terrible.

Kind of. It's more like a stealth cruise missile without the hot rocket flash on launch. The first the enemy knows about it is the bright flash and bang over the target. With cruise missiles and ICBM's, there is a return address. These don't have one. It's truly a sneak attack. With enough of these, you could literally obliterate your enemy on the first strike, even before the enemy knows it's at war.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[LWATCDR]

Still a cruise missile. Not all cruise missiles have an SRB to launch them. Some are air launched. A cruise missile is just a one way UAV with a warhead

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[Anonymous Coward]

It travels at 150knots, 60K ceiling, an array of microphones could locate and target this thing using the compute power of an iPhone
even at low altitude it could be targeted, it's not as if this thing can make right angle turns, or is even capable of marking quick changes in heading due to the SOL limiting the speed at which changes can be made due to environment
2.3 liter, 4 cylinder, some something like a honda b-series motor, they are loud unmuffled
No RADAR necessary with these slow moving IC powered UAVs
Once we talk nukes you have lost the game, that is a weapon that can only be used in an asymmetric manner.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are good examples, if they had them we would not have used them.
This is the danger of a non-state organization having them, they CAN use them in an asymmetric manner.
We should build nuclear power plants, not nuclear weapons

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[wigaloo]

Sure, we can shoot down 80 missiles if we get lucky..

No, I don't think so. From Wikipedia: "As of February 2007, the U.S. missile defense system consists of 13 ground-based interceptors at Ft Greely in Alaska, plus two interceptors at Vandenberg AFB, California." There are a lot of doubts about the effectiveness of this existing system. See the work of MIT Professor Theodore Postol here.

Re:UAV ? ICBM

[R2.0]

The reason the RQ-4 has not gotten munitions is because it would be, by SALT II, a cruise missile if armed with deployable kinetics.

Did anyone else first read that as "deployable kittens?" No?

That's ok - it didn't really phase me either.

Cue Terminator Theme...

[dmgxmichael]

So when do the land based killer units get going?

Re:Cue Terminator Theme...

[Anonymous Coward]

So when do the land based killer units get going?

Exactly my first thought...anytime I see the words "autonomous" and "combat vehicle" put together I wince. Sure, we've made strides in computer programming, but nothing id trust a life in. Judgment Day appears to be on its way!

Re:Cue Terminator Theme...

[Jeng]

Don't worry, we have a copy of Norton we can load on to Skynet's computers when the day comes. That should delay things.

Re:Cue Terminator Theme...

[powerlord]

Can't we just teach it to download Pr0n and watch as it consumes all its resources? (see? the internet isn't a disgusting pile of filth, its a "first line of defense" against the rising A.I. menace!)

Re:Cue Terminator Theme...

[deapbluesea]

So when do the land based killer units get going?

Already there. Just need to load a cannon on the front, scale up a bit and redesignate it as an AT-AT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

Re:Cue Terminator Theme...

[RivenAleem]

I always wondered how Leeloo managed to get to War, without having to spend a few weeks on Porn

Hydrogen

[OzPeter]

I was going to ask "why hydrogen?", then I think I answered my question myself. I would guess that if you had a fossil fuel based system then all your enemies would need to do is point some sort of spectrographic analyzer at the sky and detect a trail of combustion emissions - where the trail ends is where you aim your counter measures. With a hydrogen based system it would be a lot harder to detect a trail a of water vapour in a sky full of water vapour.

Re:Hydrogen

[Dynedain]

Actually it's probably more likely that making it hydrogen-based qualifies it for earmarked expenditures in Congressional appropriations.

Re:Hydrogen

[spacepigninja]

I would have thought there were more obvious benefits to using hydrogen fuel cells:

lower heat produced during electricity generation means lower heat signature(not sure any missiles use spectrometry to find targets).

lighter than a internal combustion engine I think... also more joules per kilogram from the hydrogen.

quieter.

green :-P

Re:Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's actually pretty easy to detect a water vapor trail. If the sky is full of water vapor already, it appears as a visible contrail, and if the sky isn't full of water then the presence of the water vapor in the trail will be just as apparent as the trail of combustion emissions.

Re:Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

Also: Hydrogen may suck as a volumetric energy store (E.G.: A tank full of gasoline has more energy than the same volume of hydrogen), but is one of the best in terms of gravimetric energy storage (Energy stored per unit of mass). Grab free oxygen out of the air, mix with incredibly light hydrogen, and BOOM, tons of energy. And considering one of the biggest considerations in ultra-endurance is fuel weight, which is limited by take-off weight...

Re:Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's probably more likely that making it hydrogen-based qualifies it for earmarked expenditures in Congressional appropriations.

Probably not, seeing as how it's completely funded by Boeing.

Re:Hydrogen

[ZFox]

I haven't been able to make it through the latest year's tax code, but it could be listed there as a tax incentive. Sort of like us buying an energy star appliance.

Re:Hydrogen

[quanticle]

Well, I doubt that spectrographic analysis is too useful. Simply put, there's a lot of air over any specific point of earth. In comparison with that total volume of air, the exhaust trail of even a thousand jets is probably still beneath the threshold of detection.

I'd argue that the purpose of the hydrogen is to 1) earn subsidies from the alternative energy lobby in Congress and 2) increase the endurance of the aircraft. Given that the UAV is designed for visual and electronic intelligence gathering, loiter time is a key requirement.

Re:Hydrogen

[lennier]

Why hydrogen indeed. One reason comes to mind:

You can make it on today's nuclear-powered warships.

This has nothing to do with civilian spinoffs and everything to do with being able to park off Unhappy Country X's coast and proceed to make them even more unhappy without dragging that pesky petroleum supply chain.

Now you can do it with UAVs and nukes too.

Everyone wins!

Not much payload

[pushing-robot]

Even the far smaller Predator can carry up to 750 pounds and stay aloft for at least 40 hours. Though I guess you could still throw in a bunch of Spikes and still have a nice Macross Missile Massacre.

Fantastic...

[vvaduva]

We constantly find new and amazing ways to kill each other more easily. Too bad this much effort doesn't go in other directions which are more beneficial to mankind, and are aimed at saving lives rather than taking them.

Re:Fantastic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off commie!

Re:Fantastic...

[countertrolling]

There are some who think culling the population a bit is beneficial to mankind..

Re:Fantastic...

[Jeng]

You make it sound like its not beneficial to mankind to kill off some of its less co-operative members.

Re:Fantastic...

[HolyLime]

That part will probably never change. What I would like to point out would be the money making venture in this. This is probably a low risk way for Boeing to make money. Because wouldn't this be one of the first deployment of a hydrogen powered military vehicle, and I KNOW someone is going to prove me wrong in this. But after this gets into general production and the cost lowers it should be relatively easy for the company to turn around and find other uses for the engine and few system. What OTHER things can we power since there is now an established, low cost, reliable hydrogen power system out there. Since this is Boeing maybe a first application could be civilian aircraft, and then moving on from there. But my point is I think someone will figure out much more lucrative, noncombat way of utilizing this system. And if someone really wants to commit murder lack of available weaponry is not going to stop them; just grab a chair or a bat.

Re:Fantastic...

[Barsteward]

we've got a few hydrogen buses on trail in london... :o)

Re:Fantastic...

[AnonymousClown]

There are some who think culling the population a bit is beneficial to mankind..

If that were the case, then the areas of the World with the least conflict would have the highest population growth. There doesn't seem to be a relationship between wars and population reduction - unless you get into outright genocide; such as in Rwanda. As misanthropic as I am, I don't see that as a very efficient solution.

Economic development seems to be the best way to reduce population growth - see Europe.

Now, all we need to do is stop these entitlement programs that are based upon pyramid schemes that get politicians to beg for population growth - see Western World. We in the US are lucky because we have all those people wanting to move here and work. Wait until the Social Security and Medicare start bleeding red. All those old people in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico and even Texas will be begging for the borders to be opened up and for those workers to come here and pay their employment taxes to support them in their lifestyles.

I'm telling you. It will happen.

Re:Fantastic...

[Anonymous Coward]

We constantly find new and amazing ways to kill each other more easily. Too bad this much effort doesn't go in other directions which are more beneficial to mankind, and are aimed at saving lives rather than taking them.

Those who explore non-lethal directions exclusively fall victim to those who explore the lethal. Pacifists can only survive when there are non-pacifists around to protect them. Two or three centuries ago a warlike clan of pacific islanders settled a remote island. Isolated and over time they became pacifists. When their blood relatives who remained behind discovered them a few generations later the pacifists were killed and/or enslaved.

Re:Fantastic...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Incidentally, outright genocide just made a little dent. The anomaly between 1990 and 2000 is visible; but in terms of long-term growth rates, turning the entire country into an abattoir had about the same effect as a slight bump in the condom supply would have.

Re:Fantastic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Humanity. Stay alert and mind your wallet...

- T

Re:Fantastic...

[evilviper]

We constantly find new and amazing ways to kill each other more easily.

We already have exceptionally convenient ways to kill EVERYONE. Every weapon developed after thr 1960s is actually designed to make it easier to SELECTIVELY kill people. In other words, less collateral damage.

And making it HARD to kill people isn't a good thing. Go back through antiquity, and you'll find that, though it was difficult, more people were being killed then, than now. Better weapons reduce the body count, as the war is won more quickly, rather than being a bloody, multi-year war of attrition.

Too bad this much effort doesn't go in other directions which are more beneficial to mankind, and are aimed at saving lives rather than taking them.

What? Better weapons beget better battle-field medicine. A great many scientific advancements have been made in war-time, which save a huge number of lives, both during and long-after the particular wars.

Re:Fantastic...

[halivar]

No, you probably couldn't. As the largest (in dollars) importer of global exports, it is very probable that without the US, dozens of developing nations would simply disappear off the map. Parent post is just as naively chauvinistic as the grandparent.

Re:Fantastic...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that for that utopian idea to work, everyone has to agree to stop the killing at the same time. If just one nation wants to go on being aggressive, then it would be suicide to not also be prepared to kill.

Or, let me put it this way: "You first!"

Re:Fantastic...

[sznupi]

Well, since you stressed "in dollars"... ;p

(but seriously, US of course trades primarily with very much developed economies; everything would probably find similar equilibrium fairly quickly, and long-term it might actually end up fine, considering the overblown levels of resource consumption per capita at the place (X axis), nearly the farthest from what this rock can actually provide)

Re:Fantastic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me?

A 2.2L Hydrogen engine that runs for a long time? Where can I buy one to replace the 2.2L DOHC in my Saturn?

Re:Fantastic...

[mdielmann]

Bingo. Without the huge effort put into the Manhattan Project, we wouldn't have access to one of the cheapest, cleanest, and (currently) most sustainable power supplies out there. Now if we could get rid of the spectre of that war and start using it in North America (and the rest of the world), we could start seeing some serious payoff.
This doesn't even mention all the other wonderful side effects of nuclear research, much of which has been based on military or security desires.

Re:Fantastic...

[h4rr4r]

I suggest they go first.

Re:Fantastic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember kids, racism is OK as long as its directed at those evil amerikkkanz!

Re:Fantastic...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Since when was "American" a race?

Re:Fantastic...

[zeoslap]

While the body count isn't anywhere near as high both World Wars were convincingly won much quicker than the two we are currently embroiled in.

Re:Fantastic...

[halivar]

Most of our exports go to developed countries that, in the long run, probably don't need us. Then can import from someone else. That's because we don't have an export economy (except for agriculture; another point in favor of not nuking the US quite yet).

It's the developing countries whose economies are built on supplying our "overblown levels of resource consumption" that would be hardest, and possibly irrevocably, hit. We're talking about countries that export pure luxury goods like cocoa, coffee, exotic fruits, and cheap textiles, and mostly to the US.

Re:Fantastic...

[sznupi]

Those goods, when imported, are a quite small part of such high levels of consumption though. And since they seem to all revolve around products of agriculture...this field is so messed up we can't be certain what the outcome would be (considering how, say, the developed world, and among it US to a large degree, exports also agricultural products to developing places, which is certainly not universally seen as a good thing; all the while agricultural production in developed world is quite unsustainable, greatly contributing to mentioned levels of resource consumption)

Re:Fantastic...

[evilviper]

both World Wars were convincingly won much quicker than the two we are currently embroiled in.

Not really. The "war" part of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts lasted all of a couple weeks. All standing military forces were defeated, and the capitols were occupied almost immediate.

Stealth, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why exactly do we need stealth UAVs, again? I was under the impression that "terrorists" are unlikely to have much access to radar bases...

Re:Stealth, huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

Iraq and Serbia had radar systems. Iran, Syria, North Korea all have good radar networks, other future threats will too.

Re:Stealth, huh?

[copponex]

That's funny. I don't remember any of those countries attacking the United States, but I do remember the United States attacking them. I guess you meant "future threats to our empire."

I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation. -William Tecumseh Sherman

Re:Stealth, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

When?

Re:Stealth, huh?

[sznupi]

"threats"?

Re:Stealth, huh?

[copponex]

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
(I added a little here and there from memory)

Korea - 1904 - Marines land in Russo-Japanese War
Yugoslavia - 1919 - fought serbs in Dalmatia
Korean War - 1951-1953
Iran - 1953 - Overthrew democratic Iranian government
Iraq - 1963 - Supported Ba'ath coup
Iran - 1980s - material support for Saddam Hussein against Iran
Iraq - 1990-1991 - Gulf War
Iraq - 1990s - airstrikes, embargoes
Yugoslavia - 1992-1994 - Naval blockade of Serbia, airstrikes
Yugoslavia - 1999 - NATO airstrikes, occupation of Kosovo
Iraq - 2003-Present - Invasion and occupation of Iraq
Korea - 1951-Present - military stationed at the 38th parallel

Syria is sort of small potatoes, but we currently use them to outsource the torture of terrorism suspects. The military in control there is like the royal family in Saudi Arabia - they raise their voices to impress their subjects, but never enough to lose favor with the imperial army that's stationed at two of their borders.

The correct question, really, is to ask where we have not had our military involved in the last 100 years. I doubt you could come up with twenty nations outside of Africa where our boots have not been felt.

Re:Stealth, huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

I never said those states attacked the United States, they are generally considered to be threats that the United States and NATO wargames for and uses for considering what capabilities will be a factor in the next 5-30 years.

Iraq and Serbia were nations the US/NATO had airwars with in the last 15 years, both had integrated air defense networks. Iran, Syria, the DPRK are threats with integrated air defense networks and are threats the US/NATO plans for.

Re:Stealth, huh?

[copponex]

I was just pointing out how irrational the threat perception was. Basically, this is preparing our military for the eventuality of someone fighting back. Perhaps if we would stop arming and invading the world, we could spend less money arming ourselves.

Re:Stealth, huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

The United States did that, it was called the 1920s and '30s.

Somehow the world still had wars without the US being involved.

Were the United States to retreat back into a isolationist doctrine, the People's Republic, Russian Federation or Pan Islamic nationalism would quickly rise up and do terrible things.

How is planning for the DPRK or Iran "irrational"? Both governments are quickly arming for offensive goals against stable Republics (Japan, RoK, Israel) and even the Islamic neighbors of Iran are calling for military action before they totally ruin the region.

Recognizing the capabilities and threats of Syria are also rational they have been and are again destabilizing allies of Hezbollah and have worked on nuclear weapons programs outside the Non-Proliferation-Treaty.

Re:Stealth, huh?

[copponex]

The United States did that, it was called the 1920s and '30s.

The United States occupied Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, and had active military in Russia, Turkey, China, and Yugoslavia during those years. Not to mention we were selling weapons to the Nazis throughout the thirties. You'll remember, I hope, that Standard Oil was caught selling aviation fuel to the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese as late as 1941.

Were the United States to retreat back into a isolationist doctrine, the People's Republic, Russian Federation or Pan Islamic nationalism would quickly rise up and do terrible things.

That's more like it. If we don't rule the world with terroristic threats of violence, invasions, mass murder (or collateral damage, if you prefer) of civilians and their civilizations, who will?

How is planning for the DPRK or Iran "irrational"? Both governments are quickly arming for offensive goals against stable Republics (Japan, RoK, Israel) and even the Islamic neighbors of Iran are calling for military action before they totally ruin the region.

It's irrational because we created Iran, for one. Iran was a relatively stable democracy in 1953, but we decided to help the British retake "their" oil fields, and destroyed their secular government for money. Second, the DPRK is so poor and inept that they are barely able to get a Hiroshima size nuclear weapon to detonate, let alone transport a device that would survive the trip and explode correctly. Our assistance to Pakistan with their nuclear weapons technology seems far more disastrous, especially since they have not signed the NPT either. Of course, Israel still denies the obvious truth that they have nuclear stockpiles, and they refuse to give them up in exchange for Iranian reciprocation. But these are the same sort of people that still insist the UN weapons inspections programs didn't work in Iraq.

Recognizing the capabilities and threats of Syria are also rational they have been and are again destabilizing allies of Hezbollah

Hezbollah is the only functioning support system for Lebanese since Israel and the US have repeatedly invaded since the early eighties. I suspect your imaginary Chinese invasion would leave a similar shell of highly militant Baptists throughout the southeast, who also pray before their suicide attacks against the invading forces.

Something tells me you'd be rooting for the home team as well, and it's just unfortunate you can't understand why that spells long term disaster for any empire.

Re:Stealth, huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

"Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, etc"

Monroe Doctrine. Isolationism doesn't mean everyone is sitting at home.

Compare that to what the French, Italians, UK, Soviets were doing and a few thousand Marines in Haiti looks like a picnic. Yes, Soviet expansion through Eurasia was Imperialism on the same scale as the United Kingdom.

Hezbollah is not the only support system for Lebanon, far from it, it's a disruptive military and political entity only focused on Islamic militarism. Lebanon isn't an Islamic state you know, but Hezbollah would sure like them to become one. The United States entered Lebanon in the 1980s because there was a UN mandate, we went there with the French if you'll recall.

Now I may be biased against Hezbollah, after all I did get wounded by a Hezbollah 122mm rocket on 1 June 1994.

The DPRK's ineptness sure made quick work of an advanced RoK gunboat a few months ago.

Iran threatens to destroy Israel with atomic weapons, Israel has never made that threat to any other nation.

Re:Stealth, huh?

[copponex]

So isolationism means our imperialism is isolated to the Western Hemisphere? I think I can partially agree to that.

Hezbollah is not the only support system for Lebanon, far from it, it's a disruptive military and political entity only focused on Islamic militarism. Lebanon isn't an Islamic state you know, but Hezbollah would sure like them to become one. The United States entered Lebanon in the 1980s because there was a UN mandate, we went there with the French if you'll recall.

I find no resolutions that support your argument on this page. For the most part, the resolutions condemn Israel and demand that it withdraw from Lebanese territory. The US and France were supposed to be a multinational force that kept the peace after Israel invaded Lebanon and destroyed Beirut in retaliation for supporting the PLO, but were never seen as neutral in the Lebanese Civil War. As found on Wikipedia:

It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support -- which I strongly opposed for a week -- to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on 19 September and that the French conducted an air strike on 23 September in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision. --Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the Marines

Lebanon is a mostly muslim state, which has a constitution that forces a Christian leader - a constitution enforced by repeated Western intervention. If they decide they want a theocracy, then they do so at their own peril. As of 2006, again from Wikipedia:

On 26 July during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hezbollah's "retaliatory attacks on northern Israel", a rise of 29 percentage points from a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, was the level of support for Hezbollah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hezbollah, along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Iran threatens to destroy Israel with atomic weapons, Israel has never made that threat to any other nation.

Israel has had it's famed "Samson Option" for a long time, and even this year has issued warnings through diplomatic channels that they will use tactical nukes to destroy Iranian's nuclear capacity if they feel it's necessary. In April of 2008, Ben-Eliezer said, "An Iranian attack against Israel would trigger a tough reaction that would lead to the destruction of the Iranian nation."

The last time Iran tried to invade another nation was in the 1980s. Israel's latest invasion of another nation was in 2006, and it has been illegally occupying parts of Palestine since 1967.

GE 999

[demonbug]

“The program is moving quickly, and it’s exciting to be part of such a unique aircraft,” said Drew Mallow, Phantom Eye program manager for Boeing.

He sounds like a bolt.

No to worry!

[quickpick]

Should such systems enter into service, they will at all times be under the control of highly trained military crews on the ground.

how comforting, so if it does kill anyone at least we know they meant to.

targeting algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

Targeting algorithm for autonomous warplane:
Is object 37.5 +/- 1 degree C ? Weapons free : Weapons free

Re:targeting algorithm

[Lithdren]

Up next, the new soldier on the field engages the enemy only while horribly ill from the common cold!

ZOMG!

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need is a spinning mirror, and you could vaporize a human target from space....Kent's tracking system is gone!!!

Hydrogen for Long Endurance Flight?

[perpenso]

Hydrogen may be the most efficient combustible fuel, giving the aircraft the longest range per fuel payload? With an unmanned aircraft the usual safety concerns regarding hydrogen do not apply.

Re:Hydrogen for Long Endurance Flight?

[sznupi]

It gives a lot of energy per weight, but not per density; which is a problem / a matter of trade-offs in an aircraft.

Re:Hydrogen for Long Endurance Flight?

[DerekLyons]

Hydrogen may be the most efficient combustible fuel, giving the aircraft the longest range per fuel payload

It also imposes a huge penalty in the form of the massive tanks required to hold a reasonable quantity.
 

With an unmanned aircraft the usual safety concerns regarding hydrogen do not apply.

Yeah, after all there won't be a ground handling and maintenance crew, and the fuel won't have to be shipped or handled either. Oh, wait...

Re:Hydrogen for Long Endurance Flight?

[perpenso]

Hydrogen may be the most efficient combustible fuel, giving the aircraft the longest range per fuel payload

It also imposes a huge penalty in the form of the massive tanks required to hold a reasonable quantity.

That was my original assumption too. However we have a high endurance aircraft that can remain aloft for 4 days. I'm having to reevaluate that assumption given the facts. FWIW, the engine is from Ford and a car using a similar engine has a range of 130 miles so the tanks can't be too large. Also the aircraft seems to be using more exotic materials. Some article referred to a composite layer so it may use less metal than the consumer tanks, or maybe the reinforcement allows for greater internal pressures (ie more fuel).

With an unmanned aircraft the usual safety concerns regarding hydrogen do not apply.

Yeah, after all there won't be a ground handling and maintenance crew, and the fuel won't have to be shipped or handled either. Oh, wait...

I was thinking in terms of being shot at in a combat zone, not ground crews. FWIW, ground crews are pretty well versed at handling high explosives, white phosphorus and various other items that are probably more hazardous than a hydrogen fuel tank. Apparently these tanks are safe enough for consumer vehicles, the Ford auto for example.

Re:Hydrogen for Long Endurance Flight?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are carrying nukes, how does safety not apply???

Software

[thodelu]

All this improvement in range, capacity, flight time, avionics and control systems is not matched by similar improvements in 'autonomous' AI abilities. The 'AI' used in these systems is not true AI but simply is a very sophisticated control system. No 'autonomous' plane built so far can land on its own. No 'search and rescue autonomous plane' built so far can automatically spot for wreckage. The wisdom in autonomous robotics these days seem to be heavily favoring control system based solutions as opposed to classical AI, something which HAS to happen for Skynet to grow sentient.

Re:Software

[sznupi]

Passenger airliners routinely land without pilots touching direct control inputs. UAVs supposedly not doing it is not exactly a case of technological obstacles, more procedural / etc. ones.
Spotting wreckage is not that far off, too...it might be just as well a specific way of using various sensors.

"classical AI"?

Re:Software

[CompMD]

Of course UAVs can land autonomously. Heck, the autopilot and control system I built in college for a few grand can land a 200lb helicopter fully autonomously, no pilot in the loop. Military UAVs can land autonomously as well (AAI Shadow), though some don't have to (the AeroVironment Raven just falls and you go pick it up).

Re:Software

[thodelu]

Hmm.. I was not aware that passenger aircrafts land without pilot intervention. It was about an year back that I was researching for exactly such autonomy in aircrafts - are you positive on this?
What I meant by classical AI is AI approaches of 80s - expert systems, neural nets, decision models, etc - current autonomous robots rely little on these types and more on control systems to actually control the transducers. BTW, I am not referring to the path planning code used in these drones which indeed is what I would call classical AI, but am referring to code which moves the flaps, etc.

Re:Software

[sznupi]

Ehh...they are doing it for few decades (granted, US was / perhaps is a bit late with bringing those systems to any notable number of airports, but...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_categories - CAT IIIb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNtlS_HUKU
(also, searching CAT IIIb or autoland brings generally lots of results; I have no idea how could you miss it)

How does the code moving the flaps, etc. influence the emergence of Skynet? ;p

Re:Software

[Xest]

Pretty much every passenger plane and UAV in the last decade or two has been able to automatically land itself.

Techniques do also exist to automatically spot certain things see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-optical_MASINT#Applications

In the example of mass-graves, this has been used to automatically detect mass graves in the nations that were former Yugoslaiva (Serbia, Bosnia etc.). Whilst this technology hasn't been fitted onto autonomous UAVs yet there's a simple reason for that and it's certainly not that it isn't possible, but in fact because it's just that much cheaper to butcher an existing airframe like a C130 than it is to create a full blown UAV project to cater to this tech.

Regarding the difference between the AI used here and what you deem 'true' AI I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're referring to strong AI, then no, we're nowhere near that even on super computers, let alone in aircraft. We don't really want AI that's capable of largely uncontrolled emergence flying aircraft, what happens when it decides to try and land on the freeway because it looks enough like a runway? It's better to stick to what we have and retain control either directly with pilots (remote or in the aircraft) or by predefined flight paths and ILS technology to make sure things go where they're supposed to go, and land where they're supposed to land, and leave things like neural nets for what they're good at- spotting patterns in feedback from Electro-optical MASINT kit and such, or using genetic algorithms to optimise airframe shapes in the first place.

TRAITOR!!!

[DogDude]

Asking the price of any military purpose automatically makes you a traitor and an America-hater. Please turn yourself in at your local FBI office. We have no place in this country for people who question the economics, ethics, or efficacy, of any part of the military-industrial complex.

Re:TRAITOR!!!

[ArcherB]

Asking the price of any military purpose automatically makes you a traitor and an America-hater. Please turn yourself in at your local FBI office. We have no place in this country for people who question the economics, ethics, or efficacy, of any part of the military-industrial complex.

Um.... This thing is British. You can't use this as an excuse to hate America, although I don't think you really need facts for that.

Re:TRAITOR!!!

[ultranova]

This thing is British. You can't use this as an excuse to hate America, although I don't think you really need facts for that.

Britain, Arizona, Texas... they're all parts of America, you know.

Taranis?

[Philip K Dickhead]

Why am I put in mind of a particular Latin phrase, when I read the name of this death-bot? Why would BAE christen the thing with a homophone for Tyrant?

Sic semper Taranis!

Murder by numbers, 1-2-3
It's as easy to learn
As your A-B-C...

Re:Taranis?

[thaig]

Because, unlike you, they aren't homophonic.

Re:Taranis?

[quanticle]

They didn't christen it with a homophone for tyrant, they christened it with the name of the Norse god of thunder. I guess they wanted the name to be a little more sophisticated than "Thor".

Re:Taranis?

[Philip K Dickhead]

I always heard that as Tyr.

Re:Taranis?

[HopefulIntern]

Tyr was the god of war, who lost his hand to the Fenris Wolf. Thor is the god of thunder, with the hammer etc.

Some things the government does better

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And this ain't one of them. Technological design from the Senate? Give me a break!

I understand the technological need for a "Big Dumb Booster" project- but one that uses *solid fuel propellant*, and then cutting out all the possible uses for it from the budget, is just plain madness. Must really be just an attempt to funnel taxpayer money to investment in Utah

Beautiful ladies!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Little Girl: That's horrible!

Vulcan, God of the Forge: (Leans close) Well, you see, all you do is sit harmlessly, thousands of miles away from the battlefield and just push...the...button [pushes her cute nose.]

More unmanned weapons? Egh...

[Que914]

The extent to which we've removed humans from the battlefield is really starting to disturb me. The public objection to American coming home in body bags up 'til the past decade has served as at least a mild deterrent to using force, but when we can kill with little or no risk to our own soldiers, what's left to provide our leaders with a motive for restraint?

Egh...

Re:More unmanned weapons? Egh...

[couchslug]

"The extent to which we've removed humans from the battlefield is really starting to disturb me."

Then you don't know much about war, or have the idea it should be "sporting" for some reason. If you favor casualty parity, do volunteer to be one. :)

Pilots were already in lofty isolation from much of the battlefield in World War 1, as were long-range artillerists. A tiny number of remote operators doesn't isolate the tens of thousands of infantry needed for modern warfare.

Re:More unmanned weapons? Egh...

[deapbluesea]

Pilots were already in lofty isolation from much of the battlefield in World War 1, as were long-range artillerists.

Although you reference WWI, it isn't true that pilots were isolated, just not as muddy. In WWII, we lost ~160,000 airmen, and 33,700 planes. Kenneth K. Hatfield (2003). "Heartland heroes: remembering World War II.". p.91 (wiki reference)

Current UAV operators in the AF actually suffer PTSD. http://www.military.com/news/article/predator-pilots-suffering-war-stress.html?col=1186032310810&wh=news. While there is the typical response of "there's no crying in war", etc, most of these guys are fighter pilots with combat experience who were kicked over into the Predator world against their will. They are not the ones who couldn't hack being shot at in the first place.

As for the parent poster, I'm glad we're mechanizing the battle field. I'd rather have every possible advantage over the bad guys that I can have. War is not about fair fights, it is about bringing so much pain and suffering to bear that the enemy simply loses the willpower to continue. It would be good for Congress to remember that before declaring war in the first place, and for the President as he executes the war. If that philosophy were brought fully to bear, then hopefully no one would want to start a fight in the first place, because the consequences are too high. (Now, let the down modding begin)

Reminds of the movie...

[myshadows]

Forgot why I watched it, but this is just like the movie Stealth... except without the AI.

Re:Reminds of the movie...

[Dusty101]

Actually, it reminded me of the movie "Toys".

Mortar with Wings

[abbynormal brain]

is what it looked like to me ... a HUGE one!

Skynet?

[Anonymous Coward]

No Skynet jokes yet?

B-52

[S-100]

Tactically, this is a SAC B-52 replacement.

Re:B-52

[Anonymous Coward]

With a very limited payload though, it mostly definitely cannot carry conventional warheads, and can barely carry nuclear ones.

So has Taranis flown yet?

[meringuoid]

I've been reading the odd scraps of information coming out about Taranis for a few years now. Supposedly it was supposed to begin flight trials in 2010; has this happened yet, or have they just shown off the prototype model on the ground to a few media hacks?

There was an interesting conspiracy theory put about a while back that Taranis was only incidentally a scary UAV project - that its real purpose was technology laundering. BAE have had access to American stealth technology through the JSF project; Taranis is a stealth aircraft supposedly developed independently. So if ten years from now BAE start selling stealth drones to every sheikh with a few billion quid in his trousers, they'll say 'oh, this technology is derived from the Taranis project. Nothing to do with the American secrets we were shown while working on the F-35, no, not at all...'

Re:So has Taranis flown yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don,t read up to good. stealth technology is a uk project which was shared freely to its allies. The US with its dollars just progressed this technology. Stolen is not good, shared is a better description.

Nerf!

[Adustust]

Anyone else notice that the 'Phantom Eye' looks the same as one of those NERF whistling footballs with a wing taped to the top of it? Who needs munitions, we could just add giant whistlers to these babies and have 4 day long howler missions for psychological warfare purposes. Or fun. Or whatever.

Dont codemn what you cant fathom

[Anonymous Coward]

All you white ppl are quick to condemn every project your govts undertake, be it military or otherwise. Unfortunately for u ur comments feelings and experience dont matter. What matters is the ability of ur govts to stay ahead of the brutal challenges posed by ur enemies. Iran, china and russia would not mind to see ur countries wiped from the face of the earth or worse have you reduced to insignificance. U better appreciate the fact that the number soldiers may be reduced in future conventional wars. becos i know non of you fuckheads will want to fight for any cause.