Slashdot Mirror


Air Force Drones Hit 1 Million Combat Hours

coondoggie writes "If you needed any more evidence as to how important unmanned aircraft have become to the US military operations, the US Air Force today said drones have amassed over one million combat hours flown. While that number is impressive, it took the planes known as Global Hawk, Predator and Reaper, almost 14 years to do it, but it could take only a little over another two years to cross the two million mark according to Air Force officials."

6 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Glenn Greenwald Tweeted This One Well by darien.train · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "A moment of silence, please, to honor the brave robot we lost today in Libya: http://is.gd/e1Oyyj "- Original Link

    --
    I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
    1. Re:Glenn Greenwald Tweeted This One Well by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that each drone costs almost as much as a primary school building, I think we should all pause to reflect.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  2. A good thing... by steve+buttgereit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that these things, by today's definitions, are neither hostile nor a part of war. It would be a much less peaceful world otherwise.

  3. Another reason to question buying the F35 by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    UAVs are smaller, more versatile, cheaper to buy and maintain, stealthier, don't get tired(in the traditional sense) and can loiter for greater periods. The Canadians estimate each F35 at $150M. I don't see an advantage for the F35 that UAVs won't meet or exceed in a few more years. The F35 is a plane looking for a mission, like the Comanche attack helicopter was.

  4. Re:Wish there were more. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like the program and hope to see it expanded. I think the US should have these continually flying sorties all over the world. So if a bad guy shows up in Europe, the US can easily take him out with a Tomahawk missile or two.

    I'd prefer if they started by doing this in Manhattan.
    I heard there are some non-patriots actually inside the Beltway in D.C.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  5. Re:Extreme dishonor. by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Murdering goat herders from 50000 feet by remote control is the most extreme form of cowardice I have ever seen or heard of.

    Engaging the Taliban with robots is not a fair fight. It's not honorable. But the point of combat isn't a fair fight, it's not to gain honor, it's to win. And winning means making the fight as unfair as possible- fighting him on your terms, not his, using tactics and terrain where you can use your strengths and your equipment to your advantage. So instead of engaging the Taliban on foot, you engage him in such a way that he can't hit you back. That means engaging masses of Taliban with AK-47 assault rifles with A-10s tankbusters armed with 30 mm gatling guns designed to take out Soviet armor. Chasing down footsoldiers with Apache gunships. Obliterating Taliban headquarters with GPS guided artillery rockets which allow you to put 200 pounds of high explosive within a meter of where you're aiming, from 25 miles away. Or having some guy in Nevada shoot at a truck carrying Taliban leaders with a Reaper drone.

    Fighting unfairly is nothing new. That's why armies try to take the high ground, and have better weapons and armor than their enemies, and to attack with superior numbers, and better discipline. Because it makes the fight unfair. Fighting unfairly is how the Battle of Agincourt was won. The English used a weapon- the longbow- that allowed them to take out the French knights before the French could get them. It was unfair, it was dishonorable, and it delivered the French a crushing defeat. And fighting unfairly and dishonorably is also how the Taliban fight. The Taliban have trouble beating the U.S. in a firefight so they have increasingly used improvised explosive devices that allow them to attack U.S. troops without exposing themselves. They pretend they're civilians so the U.S. doesn't know who to hit. They hide in the middle of civilians so that it's impossible to attack them without hitting civilians. They use suicide bombers. Is it fair? Is that honorable? Of course not. But their goal is to win, not to be honorable, or to fight fair.

    There are limits to what's acceptable. Killing civilians deliberately, or with reckless disregard, is one of these, and sometimes the U.S. military has done this. And whether the U.S. really should be in Afghanistan at this point is debatable. But fighting unfairly is the whole point and it's naive to argue otherwise.