Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Air Force Drones Are Crashing Than Ever As Mysterious New Problems Emerge (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the falling-from-the-sky dept.

schwit1 points out that a record number of Air Force drones crashed in major accidents last year. Leading the accident count is the Reaper which has seen a number of sudden electrical failures. The Washington Post reports: "A record number of Air Force drones crashed in major accidents last year, documents show, straining the U.S. military's fleet of robotic aircraft when it is in more demand than ever for counterterrorism missions in an expanding array of war zones. Driving the increase was a mysterious surge in mishaps involving the Air Force's newest and most advanced 'hunter-killer' drone, the Reaper, which has become the Pentagon's favored weapon for conducting surveillance and airstrikes against the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other militant groups. The Reaper has been bedeviled by a rash of sudden electrical failures that have caused the 21/2-ton drone to lose power and drop from the sky, according to accident-investigation documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Investigators have traced the problem to a faulty starter-generator,but have been unable to pinpoint why it goes haywire or devise a permanent fix.

141 comments

  1. It's not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Defense contractors focus on process rather than getting good people, and over time, the good people leave. The Raytheon et al don't care, they just put more restrictive processes in place.

    It won't help, if you don't have good people, you won't have good products, no matter how good your processes are.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:It's not surprising by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Business schools teach that employees are fungible assets, i.e. interchangeable parts, so the only things that matter are things that can be tracked on spreadsheets -- like process. The fact that people matter is quickly becoming forgotten in the quest for maximizing quarterly return on investment.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:It's not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is some truth to the idea......you don't want your entire company dependent on a single person (bus factor).

      When I write code, I try to write it in a way that someone else can easily follow me. But if you hire incompetent people, you'll get incompetent results, and your drones will crash. You can buy them faster computers or tell them to use more unit tests, but if they're incompetent, their unit tests will be incompetent, too. The focus needs to be on people, not process.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:It's not surprising by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      The fact that people matter is quickly becoming forgotten in the quest for maximizing quarterly return on investment.

      That was forgotten long ago! It's in a graveyard next to research and development funding.

      The only place you will find those are startups with passionate leadership. Once Wall Street gets involved, it's all over.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    4. Re:It's not surprising by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, business schools are full of morons with no real fucking understanding of the businesses they claim to know how to run.

      An MBA used to be an engineer who went back to school to learn to be a manager.

      Someone who get a business degree and then an MBA? They're a useless idiot, with no real world understanding, and the mistaken belief they know how to run things.

      I've met a few of those ... and they definitely fall into the category of if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

      How people got hoodwinked into believing these idiots on anything defies any rational explanation.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:It's not surprising by EEPROMS · · Score: 2

      when anyone mentions MBA's it reminds me of the ABC Australia Background Briefing podcast about how an MBA has no real relationship to good management. So much so many large innovative companies now view an MBA as a bit of a joke.

      Podcast
      http://canadapodcasts.ca/podca...
      Transcript
      http://www.abc.net.au/radionat...

    6. Re:It's not surprising by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Defense contractors focus on process rather than getting good people, and over time, the good people leave.

      This is all of government, and it has to be that way because you are spending public money. You can always say, but hey Bill Gates or Steve Jobs didn't care about process and look what they achieved. But then neither did Kenny Lay, Bernard Ebbers, Dick Fuld, Bernie Madoff etc etc. and when it comes to the integrity of your nation, it's better to plod along at moderate pace and survive, than to fly and possibly crash and burn.

    7. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NAVY Engineer here... having worked with Raytheon's "Best" on several projects, they are.. well.. Fvcking Morons. I have yet to meet one that should be employed in any engineering capacity at all. the "solutions" they tend to come up with are overly complex and often doomed to failure due to piss-poor engineering knowledge and practices. We often re-do much of their work with a team 1/4 the size with results that actually function.

    8. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And likely cheap Chinese electronics.

      Really, once gov't opened sourced DoD contractors to use COTS (e.g. CPUs), the era of custom, well tested MILSPEC electronics went to the wayside of ISO9001/CE spec components. And at 50,000 feet--it doesn't work out well.

    9. Re:It's not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This is all of government, and it has to be that way because you are spending public money

      Right, I'm not saying we should get rid of process......rather, that process is less important than people. You need to focus on making sure your people are good: you can't expect the processes to make up for that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:It's not surprising by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Defense contractors focus on process rather than getting good people, and over time, the good people leave.

      I've been watching this happen firsthand over the last few years, it's really sad.

    11. Re: It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Process is set by federal law, and the people are bureaucrats. The taxpayers are terminally fucked.

    12. Re:It's not surprising by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Way back, about 8 years ago, I didn't depend on any one employee. I depended on all of them. I don't even like calling them employees as we worked together.

      Of course, we were somewhere around 220 people, as I recall. We had no HR. I was just as likely to help the cleaning crew as not. I didn't hire them to do work I couldn't do - I hired them to do things quicker and better than I could. Strangely enough, it worked. I do notice a trend in "programmers" as of late. I do not like it. I do not like it one bit.

      Don't let this go to your head but, let's say I've lots and lots of experience at this. You? You're a good programmer (or could be, but I'm pretty sure you program in C, C++, Java, and probably a bit of bash, Perl, and Python. - Just guesses based on previous comments.)

      How can I tell you're a good programmer? The way you approach your "arguments" or "statements" online. There have been times I've wanted to disagree with you 'cause you almost certainly reached the wrong conclusion BUT I'll be damned if I can find the flaw in your logic - and I was on the MIT debate team.

      I'd have hired you. I'm sure you'd have been up to full speed in six months with a mentor for just the first two and then just using the mentor when you got stuck. We had a very large and very complex code base that actually had to be adjusted, as well as adjusting the models, for each and every situation - but we could save pre-sets.

      So, don't let it got to your head. And, in traditional Slashdot style, "Go piss up a rope!" ;-)

      By the way, there's a huge difference between those who call themselves programmers today and those people I hired back from 1991 to 2005. (I needed no new programmers after 2005 but sold in 2007 and finalized the sale almost exactly eight years ago, today. I don't know what the difference is and I'm going to use a favorite quote of mine - it's nearly verbatim and might be verbatim. (Consider, I was paying 120k to start for qualified people, slightly less for training - I even sent some to school.)

      Anyhow, the quote: "Code comments go in the code, not on a coffee soaked index card on your desk, asshole."

      I think the guy had been employed with us for maybe two weeks when he said that. I also imagine most would have fired him on the spot. I brought him into the office, pulled the code, and sat there and documented it with him - and learned a lot. We're still in touch today and he has no reason to work (I made sure to share the wealth when I sold) but he seems to like the job.

      I'd rather not disclose how much I sold for, it requires some explaining, so feel free to email. The missus says I can have a laptop in the bedroom so long as I behave myself and get some sleep.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:It's not surprising by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      Right, I'm not saying we should get rid of process......rather, that process is less important than people. You need to focus on making sure your people are good: you can't expect the processes to make up for that.

      But that's what I was trying to say, you can't make the people more important.
      The same process that prevents corruption also prevents talent. The best you can hope for is mediocrity (which is actually fine once you accept the risks involved)

    14. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defense contractors focus on process rather than getting good people, and over time, the good people leave. The Raytheon et al don't care, they just put more restrictive processes in place.

      Bad processes don't necessarily drive away all the good people, since the alternative might be a job that actually wants you to work 80hrs/week. Of course productivity takes a hit based on complex dysfunctional processes. I'd tend to think the semi targeting that seems to be going on of late towards replacing higher grade workers with lower grade workers is what is causing more to leave. It also means you have no particular incentive to improve. Even if you did get promoted, well, I've seen what team leads and managers have to put up with.

    15. Re:It's not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But that's what I was trying to say, you can't make the people more important.

      And I'm saying people are more important, and no process you can make will change that. Note I'm not saying that we should get rid of the process, but if you hire Bernie Madoff, you can't expect processes to stop him from being evil.

      Sometimes processes are unavoidable, and we need them, especially in large companies, to facilitate communication (and as you correctly mention, to stop bad behavior). But if you are thinking, "We have good processes, the quality of the people we hire doesn't matter," then your company will fail.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:It's not surprising by lhowaf · · Score: 2

      It's great to read posts by and about technologists with character, humor, intelligence and mettle. I hope your example isn't lost on those following in your footsteps.

    17. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively stated...well motivated people that believe in your product and your message and your process will deliver a good and lasting experience.

      Drones replacing underpaid people that were on the bench anyway, that didn't believe you were really doing good in the world...yeah...they'll last a couple years tops. You don't pay these people, and you're not paying them to produce robots that will replace them. Hi. Welcome to the world. We do things different.

    18. Re:It's not surprising by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      There is however a lot to be said for saving money and buying cheap weaponry...
      One of the primary design goals of WW2 aircraft was to be as simple and cheap to build as possible.
      The cheaper a plane is the more you can build, and the less costly it is when the enemy shoots one down.
      And the simpler a plane is, the easier you can repair it once it gets damaged.

      For drones the above makes even more sense, it's perfectly viable to have a huge fleet of cheap drones because a shot down drone doesn't result in a captured or killed pilot and training competent pilots is also very expensive. A cheap drone that gets shot down isn't a huge loss.

      Modern weaponry however is far too expensive, far to complex and far too fragile...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    19. Re:It's not surprising by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Business schools teach that employees are fungible assets

      No. Crap Business schools teach that. Or people who attend only half of the lectures of good business schools think that.

      Real business schools teach that there's no right way to run a business. They teach that you can create an enterprise by creating a production line, or by tying an entire product to a single worker, that you can build a business with high level of expertise, or that you can proceduralise everything and make people interchangeable.

      Anyone who got to the end of a business school thinking that there's one correct answer such as "employees are fungible" should have spent more time at school.

    20. Re:It's not surprising by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Once Wall Street gets involved, it's all over.

      Is there really so much difference between Wall St and Sand Hill Rd?

    21. Re:It's not surprising by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Point of order: is not "getting good people" an important part of "process"?

    22. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defense contractors focus on process rather than getting good people, and over time, the good people leave.

      Don't you mean "Defense contractors focus on profits rather than doing good work, and over time, the good people get squeezed out to make way for mediocre people willing to work for less..

    23. Re:It's not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a point worth considering.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:It's not surprising by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I try to share because I know my methods worked - for me. Humans are assets, not just "resources." I can imagine that a fairly new employee calling the boss (and owner) of a company who was, rough guess, doing about 1.2m per year in business would have been fired on the spot. I swallowed my pride and learned something new. Someday, maybe, I'll write a book but nobody will read it - it'll just sit on a shelf somewhere. Nobody every listens to KGIII.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    25. Re:It's not surprising by KGIII · · Score: 1

      In addition, should I plug away at a book?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    26. Re:It's not surprising by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      And I'm saying people are more important, and no process you can make will change that.

      Yes the people (as in citizens) are more important, which is why in public service there are bureaucratic processes.

      Note I'm not saying that we should get rid of the process, but if you hire Bernie Madoff, you can't expect processes to stop him from being evil.

      In govt you can. Because you simply implement a policy where any executive decision needs to be reviewed by 3 other independent executives from 3 other independent agencies. Then it needs approval from a ministerial secretary, and if deemed a large enough risk, the minister themselves.
      This is how it works, and it stops loose cannons like Bernie Madoff from doing whatever they like.

      But if you are thinking, "We have good processes, the quality of the people we hire doesn't matter," then your company will fail.

      Govt doesn't care, they have no competition. The prime objective of the state to to avoid risk, and heavy process is the only way to achieve that.

    27. Re:It's not surprising by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      Only if you're well-medicated. It's hard (especially these days) to make a compelling story without car crashes or vampires (maybe vampire EMTs?) but you use colorful language and that helps a lot. Maybe pound out a chapter or two and see how it feels?

    28. Re:It's not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      By the way, there's a huge difference between those who call themselves programmers today and those people I hired back from 1991 to 2005. (I needed no new programmers after 2005 but sold in 2007 and finalized the sale almost exactly eight years ago, today. I don't know what the difference is and I'm going to use a favorite quote of mine - it's nearly verbatim and might be verbatim. (Consider, I was paying 120k to start for qualified people, slightly less for training - I even sent some to school.)

      I've wondered about this too.....are students really coming out worse? Or is it just my imagination? I don't know, but it worries me.

      There have been times I've wanted to disagree with you 'cause you almost certainly reached the wrong conclusion BUT I'll be damned if I can find the flaw in your logic - and I was on the MIT debate team.

      Well if you disagree, you should say so anyway; you're a reasonable person so there must be a reason for you to disagree. Maybe we can come up with a reason together: two heads are better than one, etc. The argument doesn't have to be perfect for us to come to a more nuanced understanding of a topic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:It's not surprising by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think I may give it a shot - if you're interested in a preview drop me an email. I'll eventually set up a site for it as well. I have an idea - you gave it to me. It will be written like a work of fiction, not as a text book. It will be based on reality though - and it will probably be completely true. I'm just not going to tell them that.

      Did you ever read the book Cheaper By The Dozen? The movies sucked - the book was actually really good. I almost wanted to become and efficiency engineer based on that book alone. It's funny because, in a way, I did. I made vehicular traffic more efficient. I made shopping in stores less efficient for the customer but more effective for the company. I made exit routes for arenas, should they have emergencies, both indoors and outdoors. (I even got to go to the UK and get out of my comfort zone with football/soccer hooligans.) In fact, if one were careful you could actually find a younger me in a documentary about that. But, I shan't tell tales out of church. ;-)

      I was, technically, credited but I don't believe the documentary is on IMDB and it sure as hell wasn't famous. I did get paid a small sum. It actually cost me more money to take part in the documentary than they paid me. I had to pull up old code, I had to get the guys to add graphics (we didn't really use much in the way of graphics - it's VERY compute intensive in some areas but compute cycles got cheaper but they weren't in 1999-2000) and then make it play more or less as a movie while I pretended to do stuff - more or less I was just talking while the graphics played and I pretended to do stuff. It was silly but it's what the producer/director wanted.

      So, I'm thinking some sort of novel. I value your views, opinions, and insight. I'd also be honored if you took the time to drop me an email letting me know (if you want) when to notify you as it has reached the point of some value. I've got some spare time actually - I was going to dedicate it to relearning some programming but this could actually be better for the world than yet another calculator application.

      The email address is real and checked on a semi-regular basis and I'm starting to feel better already. We may have poor health care in America overall but, truth be told, if you can afford it (and that's a big if) then we have some of the best care in the world. As I can afford it, they brought two specialists in from hospitals a couple hundred miles away. Just for pneumonia... But, I didn't want to be held down for too long while on wanderlust and I'm still, technically, bed-ridden but I was out on the beach today.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    30. Re:It's not surprising by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine if a two-week-old hire had told the boss, the owner, the code author (but bad, bad code), and the absolute authority what that programmer told me, today? I mean, I can only go by what I read from posts from people like you. Can you imagine what would have happened had they told the boss that code comments go in the code and not on a coffee soaked index card and referred to the boss as an asshole?

      Eventually, I had lots of proprietary data housed which meant I had security on staff. I can only imagine that, today, they'd have emptied his desk for him, changed/deleted his accounts (if they're smart), and had him in the parking lot waiting in less than 30 minutes. I don't know if they're worse but I do think I see more bugs. I also know there's a lot more code now.

      That and, I have too much respect for you to argue with you unless I can point out an unreasonable conclusion. It's possible to use logic to reason your way to a completely backwards result. It's never been anything *that* bad so I've never felt obligated to bring it up. I just view it as an alternative conclusion and one that I disagree with. I think I have, at one point, when you were painting Libertarians with a large brush. (I think that was you.)

      You're one of the people who still posts here who has value. You're one of the ones that are left here that I still respect their opinions. You're one of the ones that I know I can ask a question and you'll do your best to answer it. You're one of the ones who could call me an idiot and, frankly, I'd certainly look to see where I'd made the mistake as opposed to just assuming the name caller was just not smart enough to understand what I was saying.

      Yeah, I'd have loved to have hired you back in the day. Early 1990s, starting at 120 with benefits and two weeks plus two weeks personal time. It was hard back then. They didn't really have programmers who were traffic modelers. It just didn't exist like it does now. What did exist was trains, fleet management, plane scheduling, cargo ships, and that was pretty much it. I was, literally, the entire industry for a long time.

      Hell, I cheated. I paid a university to do some research. We were going to build out a lab for modeling pedestrian traffic - specifically stores of varied types (you should note a general layout change in many store starting in 1999-2001, by the way. So, I paid a local university, got the data, built the lab, and hired the researchers before they even got their degree. I paid for them to take a few different courses in programming AND computer science (there's a difference, damn it - but you know that.)

      Traffic modelers didn't exist, really. Traffic engineers were a thing, barely. Err... If you get really curious and spend some time in the archives - you might find out how some of the curriculum changed and why it changed in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

      I suspect you'd have loved it. Just from our conversations here. It was the cusp of a new technology. I had an employee ask why I was building out a research lab when we didn't have any competition. I was building it because I knew we *would* be having one. (It was just a warehouse with movable partitions, various stage settings, lighting changes, and some very, very, expensive cameras that were not just high speed but high definition and could track pretty much everything. We did stuff like setup up a [redacted] convenience store and then paid people to shop there. For a while we worked for [redacted] and we actually ran live data collection.

      What we did is we had the models but we went out to get real world data. With that data, we looked to see if the models matched the data. If it didn't, we collected more data. If it still didn't then we fixed the models. Then, and only then, do I feel you can make accurate predictions. I'm fine with changing a model, massaging data, and all that but it has to be done right. There's a reason the company, with a new name, is still considered the best in the industry. There are some fly-by-night

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    31. Re:It's not surprising by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      The same process that prevents corruption

      I'm confused. This statement makes absolutely no sense when referring to our horrendously corrupt government.

    32. Re:It's not surprising by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. This statement makes absolutely no sense when referring to our horrendously corrupt government.

      I'm not sure when "horrendously" fits on the Standard Institute for Units of Measure. But assuming you are American, it's not as horrendous as you might think:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    33. Re:It's not surprising by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine if a two-week-old hire had told the boss, the owner, the code author (but bad, bad code), and the absolute authority what that programmer told me, today? I mean, I can only go by what I read from posts from people like you. Can you imagine what would have happened had they told the boss that code comments go in the code and not on a coffee soaked index card and referred to the boss as an asshole?

      That means he respected you (and the fact that you didn't fire him indicates you respected him)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action.

    1. Re:Once is Happenstance by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Investigators have traced the problem to a faulty starter-generator

      I.e. a big fucking coil, the exact kind of thing an EMP wants to whomp on, even with military hardening against it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Once is Happenstance by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action.

      We have met the enemy, and he is us.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Once is Happenstance by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Investigators have traced the problem to a faulty starter-generator

      I.e. a big fucking coil, the exact kind of thing an EMP wants to whomp on, even with military hardening against it.

      I was thinking the magnetron out of a microwave oven. But yeah, same idea.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    4. Re:Once is Happenstance by segedunum · · Score: 2

      The Russians have invested heavily in electronic warfare and jamming systems, and they have said relatively little about them. I for one would be very uneasy as to how networked and full of electronics western military hardware is. Drones have already been GPS hijacked. Heck, western ships have ethernet LANs on them and Microsoft has been developing Windows for Submarines. Crazy.

    5. Re:Once is Happenstance by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Show me a real life EMP weapon in action. I'll wait. No its because the part in question was built by the lowest bidder.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    6. Re:Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the fifth time SHUT THE FUCK UP you know NOTHING but ANECDOTES.

    7. Re:Once is Happenstance by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Nukes can generate EMPs. That said, I agree that it is likely shitty construction or shitty engineering.

    8. Re:Once is Happenstance by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Supposedly, Russian MiGS are using tube radar equipment, not because they are behind the times, but because they are much more resistant to EMP. So yes, I'm sure Russians have explored the use of electromagnetic pulses as a battle tactic.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re: Once is Happenstance by mSparks43 · · Score: 2

      Exactly my thought.

      It's thoughtcrime tho.

      Thinking the ruskies can make the entire US drone fleet worthless if they wanted is punishable by death.

      All it needs is some more tinfoil.

    10. Re: Once is Happenstance by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      Russia is developing a secret 'MICROWAVE GUN' that can shoot a drone out of the sky from six miles away, claims military official

      By Jonathan O'Ca

      True story....

    11. Re:Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CHAMP.

      https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVwuqt-rnKAhWquoMKHbfADLMQtwIIHDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0mjua2e8Y7k&usg=AFQjCNHzZGSCylxBZncJ6lXer04gEz7xAQ&sig2=YEXkO-lSfX03jHIz_HHIug&bvm=bv.112064104,d.amc

    12. Re: Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats.

      Out of 100 comments, yours is the only one to have any idea what a generator is.

    13. Re: Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it needs is some more tinfoil.

      "Citizen, due to national emergency please hand over your hat!"

    14. Re:Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that you will only know about most weapons that do exist only when they are used in a way too much public to hide. Remember the "stealth helicopter" from when they killed Bin Laden?

    15. Re:Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is competent - and Syria is a fine place for testing anti-drone stuff. If the drone fall in an unreachable place, nobody will know just how it got disabled. If it seems irregular, it can always be blamed on ISIL.

    16. Re:Once is Happenstance by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      "If it's a covert operation, you deny that you did it, but you don't necessarily deny it happened. If it's a clandestine operation, you deny it happened, but you don't necessarily deny that you did it." -- The Covert Comic

    17. Re:Once is Happenstance by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Sure it's fun to hate on bureaucratic incompetence - which is a very real thing. But here we're talking about sudden failures of military hardware in active warzones. Engineering failure does not necessarily suggest itself as the most simple/likely reason for the pattern of crashes.

      TFA does mention that about 25% of the crashes occurred stateside during test flights and pilot training. Crashes under those circumstances don't seem very suspicious. But when a well-tested drone model with an experienced operator crashes in a war zone, well....

    18. Re:Once is Happenstance by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia mentions the rather old MiG-25 as carrying vacuum tube radar equipment. However I don't see any mention of new MiG aircraft using tubes. Do you know if the newer models do in fact retain this technology?

    19. Re:Once is Happenstance by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not only is that over but it was because they didn't have the manufacturing capabilities to make shielded electronics at the time; not because tubes were cheaper, but because tubes were possible. It also had a crazy-ass display for the same reason.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Once is Happenstance by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      There are easy ways to produce EMP, however, they are generally destructive in some way, so it is a one shot weapon.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    21. Re:Once is Happenstance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has worked on imported Russian aircraft (I have personal experience with L-39, L-139, Mig-21, and Mig-29), it is my opinion that the Russians rarely upgrade the hardware. Some L-39's would have vacuum tubes, but the Mig-29s I worked on had relatively advanced computers.

    22. Re:Once is Happenstance by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft has been developing Windows for Submarines"

      Deployed for a decade or more. We know it as Windows XP.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    23. Re:Once is Happenstance by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, the transmitter is generally a traveling wave tube. But that's the only one. They're sorta like the magnetron in your microwave oven.

  3. maybe Chinese state espionage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wholesale theft of corporate and defense secrets repeatedly makes headlines. Perhaps manufacturing or software flaws have been deliberately introduced...

    1. Re:maybe Chinese state espionage? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Why would they reveal anti-drone technology like that? If you've got a counter weapon, you shouldn't use it until you really have to. Otherwise your "enemy" will create a counter to your counter, and so forth.

    2. Re:maybe Chinese state espionage? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Theft is much easier than deliberately introducing flaws. Any changes would have to be made via carefully controlled ECRs (Engineering Change Requests). Flaws are much more likely the result of quality going down in an attempt to meet overoptimistic production schedules, rather than as the result of deliberate sabotage.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:maybe Chinese state espionage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given a mate's experience at Raytheon, I've learned two things:

      1) Security processes don't guarantee security. Good values guarantee security. Nobody joins a private killing-machine company out of strong moral conviction, which means that essentially nothing these companies do is secret.

      2) Quality is important, but propaganda is often a cheaper substitute.

    4. Re:maybe Chinese state espionage? by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Why would they reveal anti-drone technology like that? If you've got a counter weapon, you shouldn't use it until you really have to. Otherwise your "enemy" will create a counter to your counter, and so forth.

      It depends on the tech. If the Russians or Chinese developed it they would want someone else to test it against us in proxy wars. Like the Russians testing their GPS-jamming gear on us, which they've done.

    5. Re:maybe Chinese state espionage? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Would any nation that has staff at all levels of US mil, command, policy and political levels as trusted second and third generation totally cleared team members risk discovery over a short term prototype drone project?
      No nation would risk their generations of well placed deep penetration staff over a shot term, stop gap, no bid contractor platform.
      The real US drones will be AI ready over a set zone and fall back on the Vietnam war fantasy of a free fire zone.
      Until then its just contractors that sold prototypes that have expected design issues as their mission time is too long.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re: maybe Chinese state espionage? by IBME · · Score: 1

      Maybe my ass. Bottom line is it will now cost more. Wars are not meant as a solution but to either get money or more precisely to control it. If the pos's cost more they think they won, even if on paper it stinks.

  4. Hm by fluffernutter · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sounds like they're manufactured in China.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Hm by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Sounds like they're manufactured in China.

      It does sound surprising like the DJI Phantom's propensity to fall out of the sky. I thought the military stuff would be better than Chinese toys but perhaps not.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like its made in the USA, who has outsource all their primary manufacturing to China and as such has no work force left with enough knowledge on how to manufacture quality products. Its all about cheap these days.

    3. Re:Hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they're manufactured in China.

      Or running WindowsXP . . . . .

    4. Re:Hm by nytes · · Score: 1

      By the same companies that were manufacturing hoverboards, no doubt.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  5. insurance... by zlives · · Score: 1

    they should probably get GAP coverage at least until the debt runs out...

  6. Not that hard to figure out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Air Force Academy is in Colorado,
    Colorado legalizes Marijuana,
    Drones crash.

    Doah!

    1. Re:Not that hard to figure out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Doah!" ??? do-ah?

    2. Re:Not that hard to figure out... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Give him a break. He was high.

    3. Re:Not that hard to figure out... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Then take LSD and they will fly again (along with everything else)

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Not that hard to figure out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drone control is in Nevada, outside Las Vegas. Which also recently made legal-ish weed more available. So.... pass the vape!

    5. Re:Not that hard to figure out... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      American components, Russian components; All made in Taiwan!!

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  7. Seems like the same old tech problem by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every time you ramp production of tech way up, quality control suffers, as you have to bring in new, inexperienced technicians to meet production deadlines. It's no secret that Obama has greatly increased the use of drones over his predecessor, so obviously production demands have gone way up, to the point where the Air Force doesn't have enough pilots and the few pilots they have are working 80 hour weeks.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  8. Obnoxious use of fractions and tons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is "21/2-ton" supposed to mean? 10.5 tons? 2.5 tons? And what "ton" are we talking about, 1000 kg or some other bullshit definition based on pounds?

    1. Re:Obnoxious use of fractions and tons by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      For the metric version it would likely be 'tonne' or 'metric ton'. As for the 21/2, I'll agree with you that this is badly presented. Don't get me started on issues of US value representation, since it will probably get me -1ed to hell.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Obnoxious use of fractions and tons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if the early computer desktop manufactures would have given us fraction symbols like ½ & ¼ the OP could have better represented it like 2½-ton...

    3. Re:Obnoxious use of fractions and tons by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oy! And to think... 2½

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re: Obnoxious use of fractions and tons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not just wtite 2.5 instead?

    5. Re:Obnoxious use of fractions and tons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is posting that first redundant? The "editor" could have posted it correctly. Don't be a maroon!

    6. Re: Obnoxious use of fractions and tons by Xest · · Score: 1

      Because then we couldn't have a geeky discussion about the best way to represent two and a half tons, although, I'm convinced that 21/2 is not it. Even 2 + (2^-1) is more readable.

  9. CCC = cheap chinese crap by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    They should get navy seals to take out the people on the hill that made that call.

    1. Re:CCC = cheap chinese crap by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      They should get navy seals to take out the people on the hill that made that call.

      I am suspecting the key components that have the issue are probably not Chinese, since they would not pass muster for a security audit. China doesn't have the monopoly on 'cheap crap' or 'badly QAed crap'.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:CCC = cheap chinese crap by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Great to hear that good ol' 'Merican companies can still compete with the Chinese in a least one metric: production of cheap crap!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Misterious clickbait supprisingly appears on /. by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    It will shock you!

  11. Explanations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there are many possible explanations, including...
    http://www.gizmag.com/battelles-dronedefender-beam-gun-uavs/39885/
    http://www.gizmag.com/anti-uav-defense-system-radio-beam-drones/39778/

  12. 21/2 Ton? by bad_fx · · Score: 1

    Why not just say 10.5 Ton? :p

    1. Re:21/2 Ton? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      2½ ton works for me. (Slashdot has many hidden talents)

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:21/2 Ton? by PPH · · Score: 1

      2.5 Tons?

      What's that in Roman Numerals?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:21/2 Ton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.5 Tons?

      What's that in Roman Numerals?

      II et I/II

    4. Re:21/2 Ton? by nytes · · Score: 1

      It's still going to ruin your day if it falls on your house.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  13. The rushed gap between pilots and AI by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lack of awake pilots for the distances and hours? Lack of classic jet designs ready for the role of 24/7 leadership decapitation? AI drones not ready yet?
    Contractors sold the US a complex prototype drone system that got more and more upgraded but what was offered was still not ready for the role.
    Years later the basic issues cant be hidden from the press. The electrical failures would point to having to find savings and a lack of good long term design.
    Ready for the sale pitch and fly by, long term its going to be replaced soon was seen as mission ready. US policy stretched that time line out too far and now the issues creep in.

    Or wait for the new cover story other nations can spoof the connections and GPS globally and are gliding the drones down at will. The very mysterious talking points.
    The drones need an expensive new encryption upgrade and will be just fine again.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:The rushed gap between pilots and AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of awake pilots for the distances and hours?

      Judging by the number of times I've fallen asleep in places like The Overthere, Emain Macha, and Verdant Brink... Yeah, this is probably it.

      When you turn war into vidya games, it gets really boring.

    2. Re:The rushed gap between pilots and AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of these posts are in English.

    3. Re:The rushed gap between pilots and AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Dun Crauchon how I miss you.

  14. Simple math... by dasgoober · · Score: 1

    Make more drones = $$$
    Make more drones + Make replacements for drones that fell outta the sky = $$$$$$

    Do they have to fear losing their contract for having some of their drones fall outta the sky??
    I doubt it.

  15. Did anyone check with the ISTSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone check with the IS Transport Safety Bureau about their findings?

  16. Predictable, Really by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thisi is what happens when you plunder alien technology from their crashed vehicles without understanding the underlying theories and principles before grafting it onto our own.

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    1. Re:Predictable, Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps we should have plundered the alien tech from the vehicles that didn't crash.

    2. Re:Predictable, Really by cosm · · Score: 1

      Thisi is what happens when you plunder alien technology from their crashed vehicles without understanding the underlying theories and principles before grafting it onto our own.

      How the fuck is this +5 Interesting? Do you millennials really believe the US Gov is using alien technology in it's UAVs? I'm guessing none of you have seen the type of shit that passes for code in the government.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    3. Re:Predictable, Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That sir or madam AC deserves +21/2 moderation.

    4. Re:Predictable, Really by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Mod points, my kingdom for mod points!

  17. weighs how much? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    11.5 tons seemed like a lot, and denormalized fractions still aren't common in the press, despite my many letters. Since I'm not familiar with the current slang terms, so I had to look it up. "21/2-ton" is apparently street lingo for 5,000 US pounds. For the international audience out there, that is about 75 Akkadian bitu, or nearly 12 million Roman siliqua.

    The crazy things you kids say these days.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:weighs how much? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      2 1/2 ton is old army lingo from deuce and half trucks, the first trucks we sent lend lease to Russia when the Germans attacked them during WW II and our lines were about to collapse.

      So, people like to use it for things.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:weighs how much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11.5 tons seemed like a lot

      Well, bombs do weigh a lot; scientifically and humanistically.

  18. Re:However... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The enemies in this case are those fleecing the US taxpayers to fill our armed forces with halfassed shoddy crap.

    Sure, there might be a thin veneer of deniability, a "we couldn't possibly have known, it was a rogue engineer" of Volkswagen proportions, but all these things are vetted from the very top, and tested and retested endlessly. So long as the percentage of 'duds' doesn't break certain limits beyond which the complicity would become too obvious, there will continue to be tragic little whoopsies.

    When you've got the market cornered and employees in charge of awarding you contracts, every crash is just another new sale anyways.

  19. Where are the systems engineers? by ThosLives · · Score: 1

    Why would a critical system like this not have a redundant generator? The 1-hour battery backup claimed is definitely not effective redundancy.

    Seems crazy that a couple-pound, maybe thousand-dollar generator would be forgone because a vehicle loss is "only" a couple million dollars.

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  20. You'd think that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think that, but actually GA has done *exactly* what a bunch of bureaucrats at Wright Pat told them to do, even though they pointed out, repeatedly, that it was stupid. This is an Air Force Acquisitions problem, not a govt contractor problem. AC because I worked for that organization.

    1. Re:You'd think that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many mistakes did you catch in the Washington Post article? I counted several.

      My favorite mistakes were the swapped pics on the MQ-1 and MQ-9.

  21. Steady Losses by godel_56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually looking at the graphs in TFA, the total losses have been pretty steady for the last five years, just proportionally more in the Air Force in 2015, as opposed to the other services.

    1. Re:Steady Losses by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I remember a few years back it was noticed that the Air Force crashed a higher percentage of its drones than the Army. One of the big operational differences that caused this was that the Army let to drones handle take off and landings automatically, while the Air Force insisted on a human pilot doing it remotely. If that is still an issue then it could be contributing to the numbers in this report, especially as the Air Force has trouble finding and retaining drone pilots.

    2. Re:Steady Losses by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      I remember a few years back it was noticed that the Air Force crashed a higher percentage of its drones than the Army. ...

      It's probably a repeat of the old anti-submarine drone helicopters of a few decades ago. They used pilot trainees that had washed out of training, and although they were competent they had morale issues. It was found out that some were crashing intentionally, which really pissed off the maintainance crews that had to work on them!

      I'll bet the Airforce is using washed out pilots, but the Army is training new pilots just for the drones.

  22. Just bad parts by randomErr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The issue is that we're on generation 3 and 4 of these air crafts. From what I hear a lot of the original systems have been re-engineered to be lighter, more power efficient, and easier to source parts for. But in the process the design, especially main controller, has cut corners. They now have thinner leads on the boards that can't take extreme temperatures or electrical interference caused by extreme loads on straining motors. Also they're taking these units on longer mission in more extreme conditions putting more stress on the machines.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
  23. Probably civ use of mil bands by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    My guess (ok, it's an informed experience) is that it probably has to do with civilian use, permitted and non-permitted, of bandwidth near or at the military drone frequencies, which tend to skip in and out of civilian frequencies.

    It could also be intentional, but I'm going to doubt that. Unless DOD was stupid enough to outsource the comm packages to China or the EU, in which case it's a hack, since they know we have more drone packages worldwide than they do.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Probably civ use of mil bands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a veteran, my guess is the drones are cheap crap.

      I never experienced any sort of interference from civilian radios while using standard modulation and hop when on mission. Remember it is only on that frequency for a small fraction of a second. If all it takes to break your drone is a small fraction of a second in loss of communication, then it is less advanced then my toy quad. IOW that is extremly unlikely.

      Anyways they said the generators are failing, how exactly is interference causing that?

  24. Outsourcing production by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    Somewhere on those drones you will find a sticker that reads "Made in China"

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  25. The Real Problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US Air Force drones do not have:
    - RTL-F (Return To Launch on Fail)
    - OUR-F (Orbit Until Recover on Fail)
    - STR-F (Swap To Redundant on Fail)
    - Onboard "stall/slip" detect and correct in the flight controller.
    - the ability to without constant radio input unless they are the really new ones.

    Most of the Global Hawks that have fallen out of the sky were from radio failures. They just go into a flat spin when their comms die. Most of the Predator/Reaper failures not caused by radio failure have been from "coffin corner" events. Poor engineering. But then again, GA builds to Mil-Spec.

    1. Re: The Real Problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you wrote is complete, utter lies. Everything.

  26. It couldn't be the Chinese components... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Certainly, the Chines would never embed known vulnerabilities that could be remotely activated in components that they know will be used for American weapons.

    No. Certainly not.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  27. New drones or older drones? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this is confined to newer drones, I'd bet that a bean counter somewhere decided they could cut costs by putting in a 90 amp alternator instead of a 130 amp alternator.

  28. Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No no no no no.

    They don't focus on 'process'. They focus on 'making money'.

    Any way they can cut corners, process or personnel, will get cut. And if the taxpayer has to buy new drones, well, so much more money for those who build them.

    AC

  29. I thought robots crash less often than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's up with that? You know, the whole insurance rates will go down thing.

    1. Re:I thought robots crash less often than people by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      What's up with that? You know, the whole insurance rates will go down thing.

      That's a mistaken idea, spread by people that think all computers are built by Superman (with the help of Batman).

      Humans can watch out for mistakes, and correct them.

      Computers embody all of the mistakes from all of the designers and programmers, and continue to make them over and over.
      That computers work even as well as they do, is truly a testiment to the hard work in debugging. But we never find them all...

      P.S., Never drive anywhere near a driverless car.

      yes I know you were kidding. 8-)

  30. Terminator 3: Rage of the Machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hollywood warned us. Future generations will ask why we didn't listen.

  31. RoHS ? by Gim+Tom · · Score: 1

    Real solder needs lead.

  32. If one breaks, carry two. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Isolate the second unit and activate it using battery power, only after isolating the first unit.

    If that does not give you enough reliable flying hours to always get the drone home, well I'll just go and grow a third kidney.

  33. Russian Lasers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly Lasers. Particularly those of the same ilk that destroyed the challenger shuttle....

  34. War and terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > counterterrorism missions in an expanding array of war zones

    Is it called terrorism if done in a war zone? Why call it terrorism if it isn't? Or call it a war if it isn't?

  35. This is great news ! by Lennie · · Score: 1

    If the numbers really are that nearly 90 percent of people killed in drone strikes "were not the intended targets" of the attacks then I think the US should stop using them. Failure in use is the next best thing I guess.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
    https://theintercept.com/drone...

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
    1. Re:This is great news ! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      When the intended target is surrounded by numerous people that aren't the target, but happen to be other terrorists or bomb builders, or other bad people, who cares if they are collateral of the target?

      These aren't random civilians getting killed, they are collateral targets that weren't the original target.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  36. Planned Obsolescence by dr.Flake · · Score: 1

    Simple

    Someone needs to find the Planned Obsolescence chip that counts the number of landings and take-offs and reset it.

    You could ask the local printer ink shop to do it for you.

    duh.

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    1. Re:Planned Obsolescence by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Simple

      Someone needs to find the Planned Obsolescence chip ...

      You know... I am not so sure that is actually just a joke. 8-(

  37. UAVs are no good for military purposes by Max_W · · Score: 1

    For fighting savages - maybe. But in a conflict with peers or near-peers the UAV technology would fail massively due to the radio-link inherent vulnerability.

    Jamming, GPS spoofing, break-ins, etc. are real.

    Besides, military drones create a really bad nefarious image for civil drones too. And by this causing a great harm to the world economy, as the UAV (RPAS) is promising and realistic technology in many domains of civil industry.

  38. The real engineers replaced by software engineers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today in commercial environment the word "engineer" is banded about freely (software engineer, system engineer).

    Hopefully in drone-land they start with real aerospace engineers and add on software, informatics, and security.

  39. Don't blame conspiracy what is likely be stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Defense contractors, DOD, government purchasing rules and processes, all hyper-bureaucratic, do not assure quality or reliability, because bureaucracies are not first about that. They are about themselves and their continued existence.
    * The US, despite the delusions mindless jingoists would like to believe, is less technology savvy or capable today than it was 30 years ago. A large part of this comes from outsourcing. Today >95% of ALL ELECTRONICS made on the planet, including electronics the US DOD depends on, are made within a 200 mile radius of a point in the middle of the South China Sea - most electronics in Shenzhen China and surroundings while most semiconductors in Hsinchu Taiwan. American does NOT MAKE much. And you can not design or innovate well what you do make yourself because 90% of high tech product innovation is manufacturing process innovation!! He who does the manufacturing owns the innovation, the control of the technology and the economic fruits of that control. That is not America and hasn't been for 20-40 years.
    * The internet has NOT made people smarter - it's made the majority stupider. People are lazy and the internet has fed that laziness to the point where fundamentals in any specialty are not longer a skill but a bizarre rarity.

    The most likely cause is stupidity at some point in the product development or supply chain.

  40. WHERE DID THEY BUY THE CHIPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    china? again?