Slashdot Mirror
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."
And the cost will be what? $5 billion a piece?
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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!)
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
So when do the land based killer units get going?
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.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
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.
“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.
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.
Iraq and Serbia had radar systems. Iran, Syria, North Korea all have good radar networks, other future threats will too.
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.
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.
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.
I don't respond to AC's.
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...
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Up next, the new soldier on the field engages the enemy only while horribly ill from the common cold!
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.]
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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...
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
Forgot why I watched it, but this is just like the movie Stealth... except without the AI.
is what it looked like to me ... a HUGE one!
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
"threats"?
One that hath name thou can not otter
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.
Tactically, this is a SAC B-52 replacement.
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.
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.
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...'
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.