Pentagon Office Planning 'Avatar' Fighters and Fighter-Launched Drone Swarms (washingtonpost.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pentagon Office Planning 'Avatar' Fighters and Fighter-Launched Drone Swarms (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by timothy on Wednesday March 9, 2016 @04:34AM from the why-use-people dept.

schwit1 writes: High over Alaska last summer, the Pentagon experimented with new, secret prototypes: Micro-drones that can be launched from the flare dispensers of moving F-16s and F/A-18 fighter jets. Canisters containing the tiny aircraft descended from the jets on parachutes before breaking open, allowing wings on each drone to swing out and catch the wind. Inch-wide propellers on the back provided propulsion as they found one another and created a swarm.

113 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Gay niggers from outer space GNAA =- AVATAR ASS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 04:39 · Score: -1

Avatar for Gay Niggers
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it.

You can watch GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE on Youtube.
Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org , a popular "news for trolls" website
Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________* G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________* G________anaannana________________________________ ________A N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O *_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C Gary Niger gary_niger@gnaa.us GNAA Corporate Headquarters 143 Rolloffle Avenue Tarzana, California 91356
Enid Al-Punjabi enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.us GNAA World Headquarters No.33 Kyutei Bld. 2F, Shinjuku 2-11-7, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan ????????2??11-6
Copyright (c) 2003-2015 Gay Nigger Association of America
Ich Bindawalross (London) - GNAA (NYSE: GNAA) President Nigger released a statement today regardi
1. Re:Gay niggers from outer space GNAA =- AVATAR ASS by Aryeh+Goretsky · 2016-03-09 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hello,
  Your copyright date needs to be updated.
  Regards,
  Aryeh Goretsky
  
  --
  Dexter is a good dog.
And the agency is called SCO by drew_kime · 2016-03-09 04:42 · Score: 4, Funny

They must have figured the name SCO is available now.

--
Nope, no sig
1. Re:And the agency is called SCO by ChunderDownunder · 2016-03-09 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Darl McBride sues US Government at $32/drone for embedding Linux in their firmware?
I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 04:43 · Score: -1

...in Avatar. How can you expect the Americans to leave all of that valuable Unubtainium ore in the ground? I imagine they'll get some payback in the sequel.
1. Re: I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Where did you route them to?
2. Re: I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by HumanWiki · 2016-03-09 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Null0
3. Re:I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-03-09 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  The reality would be offering apartments and air conditioners to the youths, who will flock to the new towns so they can have what passes for an iPhone in the future.
  The old priests and chieftains, like those with power everywhere, will resist it, perhaps sucking in the SJWs of the future, who, enjoying patting blue skins on the head as quaint, without thinking of them as quaint, will agree there is value in forcibly keeping them in loincloths and barking at the moon.
  The media should do its job, which is to embarrass any company or government that rips off the natives rather than making them rich. This should include embarrassing SJWs who think the priests and chieftains are in it for anything other than power, a patronizing-racist concept.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re: I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by Coren22 · 2016-03-09 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  The AC is claiming he setup the route that turned out to be so poor for the marines. He was the root cause of all those people dying.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
5. Re:I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by budgenator · 2016-03-09 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think that was Americans?
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
6. Re:I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Who else could accomplish interstellar travel?
7. Re:I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  probably some nation with manned orbital launch capability
8. Re:I routed for the Marines and the Colonel by MrKaos · 2016-03-09 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  The reality would be...
  bumping some orbital body large enough to obliterate the area in question and small enough not to destroy the planet's surface. You would classify it enough so that some of your own people would die so that you could bond with the natives in a shared experience of grief, tell them that the area is dangerous and that by stretching our own meager resources we might have the equipment to render the area safe again, one day. In the meantime we can only protect you natives if you stay away from the area.
  Why the fuck would you risk your own assets when you can control what falls on where from orbit and no one can see your preparations and planning. In that regard Avatar is more stupid than a bunch of Jar Jar Binks.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Great by TheCarp · 2016-03-09 04:47 · Score: 0

Now if we could only get the cool technology developed for something other than our war with Eastasia thanks.
The LAST thing we need is expanding military capability.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Military capability is the one thing you absolutely want to stay ahead on. Hopefully you'll never have to use it, but when push comes to shove you want to be able to turn the enemy into a smoldering pile of slag.
2. Re:Great by ScentCone · 2016-03-09 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  The LAST thing we need is expanding military capability.
  No, the last thing we need is people who think you should die for expressing your opinion having greater military capability. And the way to make that not worth it to them is to have countermeasures that are wildly more sophisticated than what they have to fight with. Small, non-manned tools like this REDUCE what we have to spend and deploy in any given scenario. And at the same time the technology lends itself to everything from fire fighting to wildlife monitoring in other venues. You're confusing tools with tool users. Just say it: you don't think it's appropriate to push back against groups like ISIS or regimes like North Korea's. Don't bother explaining why, since that's an irrational point of view and any attempt to justify it is going to be based on a broken world view. But at least just say what you mean, in plain language, and quit pretending that advances in technology are, in and of themselves, a bad thing.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily true when the enemy is within yourself.
  Haha, j/k, thats just what the Chinese told me to say.
4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  then certainly military spending should go down at some point. something that hasn't happened in decades.
5. Re:Great by TheCarp · 2016-03-09 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  > No, the last thing we need is people who think you should die for expressing your opinion having greater military capability....like this REDUCE what we have to spend and deploy in any given scenario
  The second part seems counterproductive to the first.
  There is no military solution here, all you do by making the use of force easier is make it easier for our for profit military industry to create more enemies in their desire for endless war.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
6. Re:Great by Archtech · 2016-03-09 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  No, the last thing we need is people who think you should die for expressing your opinion having greater military capability. And the way to make that not worth it to them is to have countermeasures that are wildly more sophisticated than what they have to fight with.
  The Russians have already done that.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
7. Re:Great by umghhh · 2016-03-09 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  The war is in fact endless. It is part of being a human to do war.
  It is like a medal - there are two sides of it - you want to have one you get the other one too. The wars of humanity will end with humanity.
  This does not mean that we should not try to prevent war as much as possible but if we want to eradicate war and violence we will ultimately fail. Society that has refused violence and war and was at the same time not protected by another bigger and less peaceful does not exist long - attempts have been made, none were successful.
  OC concentrating on war only is as silly as refusing to fight in any conditions. Leadership of NK is as delusional as leadership of today's Germany.
  In words of a great poet of war: "Doing right ain't got no end" so there will always be war. Endless as you said.
8. Re:Great by gtall · 2016-03-09 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, we can always count on China to keep the sea lanes free and open.
9. Re:Great by ScentCone · 2016-03-09 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  then certainly military spending should go down at some point. something that hasn't happened in decades
  It went down hugely as the Soviet threat dried up, and then has wobbled up and down in different sectors as different issues presented themselves. If we were dealing with everything we're dealing with now while only having the technology of the 1980's, military spending would be MUCH higher.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
10. Re:Great by ScentCone · 2016-03-09 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  The second part seems counterproductive to the first.
  No, it's not. Because technology isn't static, and our need to field and support as many human beings has gone down hugely. Which reduces everything from health care (and related veteran) costs to administrative costs. Staying focused on things like remote imagining and unmanned vehicles isn't free, but it produces results with far less cost per task (though we could use better human espionage/intelligence in many cases - that's a different problem, though it is also made more effective per human involved because of newer technology, especially on the back end analysis part).
  
  There is no military solution here
  There is no solution for mass murdering, medieval-minded theocratic thugocracies that can work without the ready enforcement of military power. The solution is for such entities to be gone from earth. You're hoping to talking (for example) a large chunk of Islam into thinking differently and giving up on everything they say they are required by Allah to do. What is your non-military way of dealing with that, when part of how they do it involves things like rolling a column of trucks into a village, grabbing the school teacher out of the school and shooting her in the head in front of her students as they burn the school down? Were you going to hang out by the school and sing folks songs to the Taliban or to ISIS so they won't do that? Please explain in detail how you would prevent a school full of girls from being kidnapped and sold by a bunch of machine-gun-carrying Boko Haram fighters without the use of force. Really, details, please. Or admit that your "solution" is to abandon a growing portion of the world to exactly that mindset.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
11. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Your post comes across as deep and meaningful, yet ignores most of history.
  Wars have been predominantly fought as tools of the elite. Yes, individuals squabble, fight, and bicker. But to wage war requires the focused interests of the moneyed ruling class.
  Name one war in modern history that was started by a majority vote of the people to do so?
  Didn't think so.
  Most people are actually happy to just get along and make do as best they can.
12. Re:Great by Ralph+Wiggam · 2016-03-09 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  Now if we could only get the cool technology developed for something other than our war with Eastasia thanks.
  Like the internet and GPS?
13. Re:Great by ScentCone · 2016-03-09 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the shrill "War is not the answer!" crowd are moral relativists who will always resist recognizing that doing things like fighting in WWII isn't the same as starting WWII. Or that using necessary force to push Saddam's annexation invasion forces out of Kuwait isn't the same as starting a war.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
14. Re:Great by TheCarp · 2016-03-09 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well, my solution would start by the complete abandonment of your medieval simplistic assessment of a large section of the human population as guided by nothing more than blind superstition.
  This is not even CLOSE to an accurate description of ANY real issue. In fact, your cowboyism serves to do nothing but rally people behind such polarizing and simplistic views that serve as little more than an excuse to continue the carnage.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
15. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm generally for an effective military, but maybe not all international military problems can be solved with more military spending. We already have the capability to demolish NK, the issue is that the regime has a hostage population that we aren't willing to exterminate. And ISIS is largely a local sociopolitical problem which we can't solve by shooting more locals. Similar stuff has been going on in Africa for decades, and we have already learned that going in shooting people or carelessly taking sides is counterproductive. Military is an essential part of the solution, but blind faith in military might is just ignoring the reality of how peaceful societies are developed. Even people who LIVE in Syria are leaving because there is nobody they are willing to fight for, what makes you think external powers can pick the "right" side in any given local situation?
16. Re: Great by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-03-09 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or we could do like Switzerland - put a military rifle and trainee in every household in the outer cantons and then just never get involved in wars for a couple hundred years (not even Hitler was foolish enough to try to take Switzerland) . Spend those trillions elsewhere.
  They don't seem to have a need to glassify the rest of the planet. Maybe that's not such an unhealthy attitude. Heck, the USG can't even beat the Taliban, and all they have are small arms.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
17. Re:Great by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-03-09 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wars have been predominantly fought as tools of the elite. Yes, individuals squabble, fight, and bicker. But to wage war requires the focused interests of the moneyed ruling class.
  Name one war in modern history that was started by a majority vote of the people to do so?
  Not that the people voted, but after 9-11, a majority of the US population rallied behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Granted, the war in Iraq was largely based off of incorrect intel, but at the time most supported it off of what was known.
  The catalyst for those wars was the four hijacked planes, which was certainly not voted on by the people in the various countries those in the Taliban came from.
  The Korean war had a 78% approval rating the first year. Granted, that dropped considerably after the first year. Vietnam was similar. Only 22% of democrats disapproved of the Vietnam war in the beginning vs. 28% of Republicans, who disapproved, when it started. It's interesting how the Democrat disapproval rating for Vietnam increased once Nixon went into office and the republicans disapproval rating decreased some. After both steadily rising for years
  The majority of the US wanted to stay out of WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was attacked the public opinion quickly changed.
  But yeah, most of us would like to avoid wars as much as possible. Once society advances to the point of no longer being tribal, most of us aren't interested in waging war unless we're directly attacked. But that's a first world perspective where little, if anything, is scarce.
18. Re:Great by ScentCone · 2016-03-09 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  what makes you think external powers can pick the "right" side in any given local situation?
  What makes you think that's impossible when it comes to military force, but possible when it comes to sanctions or other non-military diplomatic-style power?
  
  More to the point: just because the situation in one area is murky doesn't mean that it's in any way ambiguous who's right or wrong when a caravan of trucks loaded with men carrying machine guns pulls into a village and starts shooting school teachers in the town square. There are plenty of VERY cut and dry cases. For a "local" sociopolitical problem, ISIS sure is swimming in hundreds of millions of dollars, getting financial, logistical, and personnel support from all around the globe, and expanding their operations into (among other places) Africa. Their propaganda (which relies heavily on the narrative that they are militarily powerful and victorious) is being put to use around the world and gaining the support of people who perform mass killings in Europe and North America - not just in Syria or Iraq.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
19. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Hitler had reasons not to take Switzerland. (1) populated by aryans already - many even spoke german. Not the kind of people to enslave/extinguish. (2) not strategically placed on the road to more 'lebensraum'.
  Switzerland was a dead end - no need to go there. Whether it could be taken easily or not wasn't even an interesting question.
20. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  The war is in fact endless. It is part of being a human to do war.
  Humans fight wars when there are resource conflicts. Avoid the resource conflicts, and war is unnecessary. With a green revolution we could feed everybody - with the pill we avoided exhausting this new food supply. Therefore, the western world could keep internal peace after WWII. We are simply not running out of the most important - food. Some other countries do the stupid and have more kids at every opportunity - exhausting any food supply. Hence endless wars in Africa & the middle east. When you have poverty levels all the way down to starvation, you have masses who is easily lead to believe they can gain from war. Spin doctors / religious leaders then have an easy time motivating/recruiting troops.
21. Re: Great by dpidcoe · 2016-03-09 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  In addition to what the AC pointed out, Switzerland is a tiny country (barely bigger than the city of Dallas, TX according to google) with some pretty rugged mountains and not a lot in the way of natural resources. The defensive strategies for a small country with barely any resources don't really scale up to a large country with loads of natural resources and a population in the hundreds of millions.
22. Re: Great by Shatrat · 2016-03-09 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Switzerland = 1590 square miles, Dallas = 380 square miles.
  Switzerland is a verdant crossroads between FR, DE, IT, and AT with huge strategic value.
  Dallas is a horrible shit hole of hot concrete and blue laws (I was born there).
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
23. Re:Great by lgw · 2016-03-09 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  So ISIS doesn't exist? Boko Haram doesn't exist? If your solution to bad people is to pretend there are no bad people, that doesn't sound like a good strategy to me.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
24. Re:Great by rtb61 · 2016-03-09 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  War most certainly is not endless, it just reflects the psychology of it's instigators. Basically eliminate psychopaths and you will eliminate war. The remaining humans simply lack the motivation to drive war where as psychopaths quite simply feed there ego by expressing the ultimate in their mind of control by taking the lives of other humans. So we only need one war to end all war the war of the 99% relatively normal population against the 1% psychopath population.
  What the US military in this instance scampers past is of course the high performance, ramming speed, jet powered drones, the could hang in rotation in defensive formations to take out any approaching aircraft. Again similar swarm technology, drones at a fraction of the cost of fighters in set to launch at ratios between 10 to 100 to one. Better than a missile, because they any individual drone can miss and miss and miss and still pass on data to other drones, to improve vector approaches to ensure a hit (all happening regardless of flares or chaff, they will fly through both, acknowledge error and correct, so impact fuses work best). Drones work by far best in defensive applications simply because the closer to the supply point the bigger the swarm you can amass and sustain especially with regard to recovery and relaunching.
  In offensive operations they are only really affective against more primitively armed opposition.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
25. Re: Great by Bitbeisser · 2016-03-10 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Switzerland = 1590 square miles, Dallas = 380 square miles. Switzerland is a verdant crossroads between FR, DE, IT, and AT with huge strategic value. Dallas is a horrible shit hole of hot concrete and blue laws (I was born there).
  It's a real pain with the math education in the US of A. Switzerland has an area of 41,285 km2, that's 15,940 square miles if you are stuck with Fred Flintstones unit, so you are still off by a factor off 10... But I like the description of Dallas...
26. Re: Great by dpidcoe · 2016-03-10 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's a real pain with the math education in the US of A.
  I spent all of 10 seconds googling. Looks like I misspoke and they were talking about Dallas and the surrounding developed area, I was using the number given here: http://www.travelersdigest.com...
  
  Real classy though jumping to conclusions like that.
27. Re: Great by dpidcoe · 2016-03-10 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I literally spent 10 seconds googling it, this said 1.5: http://www.travelersdigest.com... But regardless, Switzerland is very small compared to the total area in the US. My point about defensive strategies not scaling up still stands.
28. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-10 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  interestingly enough, every war mentioned was driven by false flag attacks (pearl harbor was know to be attacked, and ignored so it could be used to draw the us in WWII) and total lies to fuel the agenda of bankers and the military industrial complex that has been such a boon in profits for said assholes. as mentioned by a previous poster, we are all just tools for some dark agenda we will probably never know about until it is too late, or ever have a clue what the hell is going on.
  This is truly the fourth reich, at least for the for democracy formally know as the u.s.a..
29. Re:Great by TheCarp · 2016-03-10 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sure our one sided profit-minded foriegn policy for the past half century has created a number of enemies and caused many of them to band together behind all manner of scary banners. They will continue to do this and continue to make new scary banners as long as we continue to provoke them.
  The only reason they do it can be seen as easily as the yellow fluid that pours down your leg every time they go "boo".
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 04:49 · Score: 1

This seems like a good idea to counter the advancements in Russian anti-aircraft missiles. Seeing as how they have come quite a long way it would make sense to use drone swarms to make their life a nightmare. I think the USAF was trying to do the same thing with the tacit rainbow project. Where B-52s would release large numbers of drone like anti-radar missiles that would loiter over the battlefield near suspected anti-aircraft units.
The minute they turn on their radars, BAM, they would have large numbers of drones just seconds away from their unlucky ass. This would turn the job into having to counter the incoming swarm of drones AND then firing missiles at the manned fighters, making a unit that wants to stay mobile pretty much useless because it wouldn't be able to counter the number of targets with a portable amount of missiles (ammo).
1. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-09 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Defeated by networked radar systems, same as stealth, since they would be hunting the radar source, which will be miles away and off the flight path.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by Rei · 2016-03-09 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. Release a drone from altitude and you don't technically even need to give it active propulsion, just active flight surfaces to control its glide. That said, with a glider or weak-powered craft, you are going to be fairly subject to winds. Then again, that only matters for some types of applications - it would be a problem for using them to conduct a ground attack or surveilance, but if you're using the drones as sort of a smart aerial "screen" against incoming missiles, maybe not.
  Seems to me that the most logical approach for hitting ground targets is paired active/passive control. You make each element smart enough to carry out the mission on its own reasonably well, but have a human controlling the elements / swarms for as long as they can. So they can't stop the attack or re-route it by jamming - if they jam, it goes into auto attack mode. Which if anything would make them more likely to attack, because then you no longer have a human worrying, "is that actually a military target or could I possibly be mistaking something civilian?" - instead, a fraction of the swarm goes after the jammer while the others seek other targets in the area. You deincentivize jamming, in favor of hiding.
  The two keys to cost are mass production and size. They really could get very low unit prices here. And shaped charges aren't that heavy at all. A few kilograms can take out a tank. Far less for lightly-armoured or unarmoured targets. And the smarter the attacking element, the more effective it can be with its charge - focusing on weak points or hitting areas that have already been damaged. You already see the move in this direction with modern anti-tank weaponry.
  On the downside, you face risks of ending up releasing "unexploded bomblets". You really need to get the dud rate down to essentially zero for that to be acceptable in modern warfare.
  
  --
  You can't change that... by gettin' all... bendy.
3. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by Rei · 2016-03-09 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Also, my other thought on this topic is, air superiority and air to ground attacks are all good, but that's only half of the picture, you still have to have some sort of ground capabilities to take and hold ground. When will that go robotic?
  It's obviously a lot further into the future. One envisions, rather than raining bombs down on a city, one rains down small (as small as you can) armed "rovers" with rapid reaction times to gunfire (issuing counterfire / seeking cover) and constant close communications with air support and reinforcements. So if someone does attack or take one out, they're quickly swarmed by reinforcements. And obviously if the rovers visually identify weapons they can engage targets - under human control if unjammed, autonomously if jammed. Most of the time you'd want them sitting still and conserving power (they'd either need to be able to access refueling drops on their own, be passively powered, or self-destruct when their energy supplies run out), but you'd ideally want a platform mobile enough that it could move between areas, through buildings, etc if needed, and ideally at a good speed. In civilian areas you'd want them to be very obvious and actively warn people away from them in their local language.
  Counter-tactics to such weapons would obviously be tactics that keep as far away from it as possible (so that you're not at the site when reinforcements arrive) and offer no reasonable reaction time to the attack, such as IEDs. Counters to that, in turn, are more eyes looking for suspicious activity and better sensors.
  
  --
  You can't change that... by gettin' all... bendy.
4. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  So hack into their networks and tell their missiles to shoot down their own planes. They would probably have some kind of human in the loop system to try and defeat that. So you launch an initial wave of decoy drones that look the same as the attack drones but cost a fraction. Then you watch their networks to find their command and control. You take out the command and control and hack into their networks and either cause the missiles to fire at their own aircraft or just fire without a target at all and they quickly run out of ammo.
5. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Indeed. Release a drone from altitude and you don't technically even need to give it active propulsion, just active flight surfaces to control its glide. That said, with a glider or weak-powered craft, you are going to be fairly subject to winds. Then again, that only matters for some types of applications - it would be a problem for using them to conduct a ground attack or surveilance, but if you're using the drones as sort of a smart aerial "screen" against incoming missiles, maybe not.
  Well the Tacit Rainbow project used very small jet engines I believe. I think that was sort of a big problem with that project in the 80s, the actual loiter time was much less than what was advertised so they did. But now drones loiter for 14 hours fully loaded, so I think the game has changed.
6. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Also, my other thought on this topic is, air superiority and air to ground attacks are all good, but that's only half of the picture, you still have to have some sort of ground capabilities to take and hold ground. When will that go robotic?
  Probably inevitable at this point. Killer robots seem to be the future.
  
  It's obviously a lot further into the future. One envisions, rather than raining bombs down on a city, one rains down small (as small as you can) armed "rovers" with rapid reaction times to gunfire (issuing counterfire / seeking cover) and constant close communications with air support and reinforcements. So if someone does attack or take one out, they're quickly swarmed by reinforcements. And obviously if the rovers visually identify weapons they can engage targets - under human control if unjammed, autonomously if jammed. Most of the time you'd want them sitting still and conserving power (they'd either need to be able to access refueling drops on their own, be passively powered, or self-destruct when their energy supplies run out), but you'd ideally want a platform mobile enough that it could move between areas, through buildings, etc if needed, and ideally at a good speed. In civilian areas you'd want them to be very obvious and actively warn people away from them in their local language.
  All good ideas. Would be very frightening to be on the ground during that though. Just personally kind of a nightmare of mine.
  
  Counter-tactics to such weapons would obviously be tactics that keep as far away from it as possible (so that you're not at the site when reinforcements arrive) and offer no reasonable reaction time to the attack, such as IEDs. Counters to that, in turn, are more eyes looking for suspicious activity and better sensors.
  Yeah it would be a really interesting thing to have a robot that figures out peoples motives. Be very useful in close combat I guess.
7. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-09 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  And if the launchers use the same tactics as the SSN - keep all other friendlies away, so anything you encounter is an enemy to be destroyed - they can be autonomous. Launch and forget.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by umghhh · 2016-03-09 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  this is called arms race and can be won only with the ultimate weapon that ends it all (if used). If not ended it will continue forever.
9. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  And how do you know Russian advances in anti-aircraft missiles are capable of shooting anything down let alone a stealth fighter or bomber? Air superiority is achieved by eliminating enemy radar positions that can be ferreted out pretty easily and destroyed with low causalities. The US alone has taken out air defense systems comprised of Russian, Chinese, and European hardware with ease. Of course Russia or China doesn't sell their top of the line hardware but than again neither does the US. So what evidence is there of this superior Russian technology? Take away Russia's nuclear weapons and they are about as dangerous as one of their former colony states. We are talking about a country that has a smaller GDP than the state of California. Have they displayed this ability in any recent military action? The fact is nobody knows exactly how good stealth aircraft are until they are really put to the test.
10. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly I am starting to agree with this line of thinking. Take the same insane amounts of money we spend on warfare and put it into repairing our bodies, fighting diseases, making people smarter and life easier, cheaper & abundant power, clean water for everyone, and more realistic fake jiggly boobs. :-) Spend the money we do destroying each other to make the planet inhabitable by all WITHOUT fighting wars over limited resources. Make the pie bigger, not fighting over a smaller piece.
  Bet you didn't see that coming did you.
11. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  I would argue that the Russian T-50 ( which *works* and is a real tested system) would shit all over the a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II">F-35 "Little Turd".
  Granted, the F-22 is a fairer comparison, but many believe the T-50 will win. Apologies for the Facebook link, but the poster makes some good arguments.
12. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by Whorhay · 2016-03-09 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  The smaller a jet engine the less efficient it is because of mechanical limits in the manufacturing process. Although technology has improved a good bit in the last few decades and smaller jet engines are far more practical than they were in the 80's. Even with those improvements though military drones mostly use props when endurance is a concern and speed isn't.
13. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by jafiwam · 2016-03-09 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I would argue that the Russian T-50 ( which *works* and is a real tested system) would shit all over the a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II">F-35 "Little Turd".
  Granted, the F-22 is a fairer comparison, but many believe the T-50 will win. Apologies for the Facebook link, but the poster makes some good arguments.
  From your article: "Number Built: 5 prototypes"
  Yeah, ok, they can duct tape an RPG7 on the two that can fly and go head to head with operational and soon to be combat tested aircraft.
14. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by the_Bionic_lemming · 2016-03-09 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  seeing as how they surprised us with their cruise missiles and their history of aircraft creation, I wouldn't be counting any chickens...
  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10...
  
  --
  _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
15. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by LWATCDR · 2016-03-09 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  Not really. Take out the radar and the SAM systems are blind plus it still must be LOS for the target and the launcher. Plus how do you network them? RF? that gives away locations and can be jammed plus limited bandwidth if you are not in LOS. Fiber optic and or copper? Makes things a lot less mobile and fixed targets are easy to hit.
  Also networked radar does not defeat stealth. Bi static might but again that is a complex problem.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
16. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by angel'o'sphere · 2016-03-09 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  You are watching to many science fictions. Or more precisely: the wrong ones.
  There is no "hack into the network" button.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
17. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by dpidcoe · 2016-03-09 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Except that all of the longevity machinery and jiggly boob simulations in the world won't really help you vs a crazy guy with an RPG who's convinced that god told him to kill you and/or destroy your way of life.
18. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by lgw · 2016-03-09 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Take the same insane amounts of money we spend on warfare and put it into repairing our bodies, fighting diseases, ..
  We spend more on Medicare than we do on the military. We spend more on social security than we spend on the military. What was your point again?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
19. Re: Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, the money gets spent alright. Not to improve humanity, but to support corps' profit margins.
20. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-09 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Networking them one-way is easy enough. A stand-off AWACS broadcasts all the position information to every drone.
  Also, an airplane that is stealth head-on is much more visible to radar from the side or bottom. Again, just make a general broadcast of target info. Networks don't have to be 2-way to be useful. And today's stealth technology has been defeated by going back to WW2-style radars with lower frequencies (someone forgot to check, so this was discovered by accident).
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
21. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't really mention Medicare you brought that up, without me mentioning me at all. So what is YOUR point?
  I will say the "military budget" doesn't even begin to explain the trillions we have spent on wars. How do you explain how we wasted 2 trillion dollars in Iraq?
22. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  You would be surprised how rare it is to actually see that guy around. Certainly MUCH more rare than someone you love getting cancer or having a heart attack. So why not put the funds against the things we all will face, instead of the one in a billion chance someone gets hurt in a terrorist attack?
23. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by bradrum · 2016-03-09 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  Tell the Iranians nuclear facilities that, or the Tor project that after the FBI recently compromised quite a few peoples anonymity, or the NSA that in pretty much every corner of the internet.
24. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by LWATCDR · 2016-03-10 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  "Also, an airplane that is stealth head-on is much more visible to radar from the side or bottom."
  But all that visible.
  "today's stealth technology has been defeated by going back to WW2-style radars with lower frequencies (someone forgot to check, so this was discovered by accident)."
  VHF radar can not be used in SAMs You can not fit a VHF radar in a SAM or an AWACS much less a fighter so it will be limited to LOS and have a very large footprint. You take it out with a low observable low altitude strike weapon like the AGM-158. You still want the low observable part to keep the AAA from locking on to the strike weapon.
  In theory you could have a VHF radar tracking a target and then getting an IR guided SAM close enough to hit the target but that is not that simple of an issue.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
25. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-10 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  The ww2-type radar is obviously a tactical advantage - the russians are putting them all over the place. Never said it would be used in the air. A stand-off fighter would be useful for spotting stealth fighters from the side, top, or bottom, since you can't make stealth work equally well in all directions. As for the lower-frequency radars on the ground, even if they can't immediately tell exactly where you are, they do give warning - and when you know where to look, you know where to position your assets so they can be in a position to launch an air-to-air missile up your tailpipe.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
26. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by painandgreed · 2016-03-10 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Defeated by networked radar systems, same as stealth, since they would be hunting the radar source, which will be miles away and off the flight path.
  Yes, but what it really comes down to, or goes to next, is that if we spend money on the drones, will they spend money on the networked radar system and its deployment. Then we build a counter measure, etc. Like most war, it will come down to money and industrial manufacturing with a significant lead in the beginning to those that have already sunk costs into the effort, while sunk costs hurt other elements of the economy.
27. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by dpidcoe · 2016-03-10 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming todays numbers on terrorist attacks will remain constant in your utopian future in which we've beat our swords into plowshares. That's kind of like claiming firewalls are pointless because you haven't been hacked in a few years (while posting from behind your firewall).
  
  Also, terrorists aren't the only threat. If we fall behind in military technology but get our little utopia going, other countries are going to be jealous. All it takes is a charismatic leader in a country that's made some bad decisions in the past to convince the people that it's all our fault. At that point the only options are to bribe them to not kill us (not sustainable) or fight a defensive war with inferior tech when they inevitably decide they're coming over to take our cancer machines and medicine.
28. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by LWATCDR · 2016-03-10 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Lower frequency radars "VHF" radars have several issues.
  1. They are large. The longer the wavelength the bigger the antenna. Easy to spot and hard to move.
  2. They must be on the ground so you have a small coverage area as far as low altitude targets go.
  3. They are not accurate enough for terminal SAM guidance.
  And yes stealth aircraft tend to optimize RCS for ingress and egress but they still have a small RCS from other profiles. The exception may be close to straight up and straight down. Take a look at the B-2 and I think you will see that it probably has a low RCS for 360 degrees.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
29. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-10 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Given that defense+veteran's benefits is almost 2/3 of federal spending, maybe it's better to just dial it back a bit? Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, and he was right.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
30. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-10 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hilltops make great places. Ask the Russians - they're deploying them with their allies in Syria.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
31. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by LWATCDR · 2016-03-11 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  And great targets.
  A hill will get you a bit more a 500ft hill will get you 27.4 miles. throw in clutter and jamming and you will still be facing an low observable standoff missile hitting you. Once the standoff missile crosses the radar horizon the target will have 3 minutes or less to engage. AAA will not be effective since they can not use VFR for targeting. Your only hope is optically guided SAMS or optically targeted AAA and if it is foggy or at night those might not even be effective.
  VFR radar was dropped for microwave for many good reasons. Now it can prevent a sneak first strike but in battle it will be degraded very quickly because of it's size. It is kind of like HF backscatter radar in that respect.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
32. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-11 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have ignored that it's not like it's an either-or choice. Low frequency radar for detecting an intruder, high frequency for targeting once you know someone is in the area. Sure, you might have time to get a radar-seeking missile off, but they've just killed your aircraft - and the aircraft costs a heck of a lot more.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
33. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by angel'o'sphere · 2016-03-12 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, that is not 'lets have a battle and we hack in real time into your network'.
  This are backdoors of ages old hacking.
  Again: there is not "hack this network" button.
  And: seucred network can not be hacked. Plain and simple put.
  Hacking relies on bugs, errors, wrong set ups or other failures.
  You can't just attach something ot a network and say: lets hack it.
  You have a complete moronic idea what 'hacking' is and how it works.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
34. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by LWATCDR · 2016-03-16 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  The microwave frequency radar will not be able to target a low-rcs target or guide a missile to it. That is the entire point of low-observables. You also don't get that the VHF radar will be targeted not with a ARM but with a standoff weapon. You really do not seem to know very much about radar and weapon systems.
  High frequency radar is only used for backscatter OTH radar systems. They are huge and not portable. What Russia is using is VHF radar.
  This is one way they will be dealt with.
  1. An EC-135 will detect the VHF area search radar and localize it.
  2. Satellites will locate the very large and hard to move VHF area search radar.
  3. A B-52, B-1, B-2, F-15... will launch a low observable stand off weapon that will fly at low altitude to avoid the VHF radar for as long as possible.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
35. Re:Days of anti-aircraft missiles numbered by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-16 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  The low-frequency radar is NOT for targeting - it's for the initial warning that someone is there. Then you light up the skies with targeting radar. I made that clear. Also, it's kind of hard to take out 10 different radar sites at one time - word gets out, and they're cheap to build.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
they found one another by turkeydance · 2016-03-09 04:51 · Score: 2, Funny

life finds a way
drone swarms not good for usa by sittingnut · 2016-03-09 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

comments here say this would be good counter to russian anti aircraft weapons, but real beneficiaries of drone swarm technologies, which are relatively cheap and easy to deploy(and will be ever more so as times goes on), and not that secret, will be smaller nations defending against bigger costlier high tech aircraft, missiles, and drones( and big ships at sea).
this would be another form of asymmetric warfare, like guerrilla and terrorist warfare.
in fact, biggest losers will be usa and nato.
1. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 05:16 · Score: -1
  
  This based on your undoubtedly expert and extensive knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of these drone swarms, and your detailed analyses of the combat scenarios in which they would deployed. Please share.
2. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by BarbaraHudson · 2016-03-09 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  And they will be totally useless against howitzers lobbing shells from +20 miles away.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by Hognoxious · 2016-03-09 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Because the bigger nations can't have swarms of drones too. It's big and expensive traditional planes, or drones. Not both. Them's the rules.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
4. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by barc0001 · 2016-03-09 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  How do you figure? Drone "swarms" capable of doing any damage to a destroyer or carrier group will be incredibly easy pickings for a single CIWS system. And drone swarms with members small enough to evade detection or destruction by a CIWS system won't be able to do jack to those same assets. Drone swarms also won't be able to do anything to fast moving, high flying, GBU dropping aircraft.
  These drones the US is developing on the other hand will be autonomous and in future able to seek human sized targets with a small explosive in coordination with the other members of the swarm. Imagine the US "clearing" a city like Fallujah not by blockading it and sending in the troops, but by broadcasting a warning to clear all civilians from the city and telling everyone to leave unarmed and scanning the departing people for weapons and known enemies. Then 24 hours later C130s fly over and dispense thousands or even tens of thousands of these swarm explosive drones and they sweep the city looking for human sized heat signatures, homing in and destroying any that are found. Then a wave of tread mounted heavy drones rolls in to secure the place for several months in conjunction with smaller swarms of overhead drones who look to pick off any stragglers who emerge from hiding due to being starved out.
  The biggest winners are going to be the US and NATO (and of course the military industrial complex who will happily build hundreds of thousands of these drones). They'll be able to conduct invasions without risking a single life on their side and not have to worry about the political effects of soldiers' bodies coming home in coffins on the news.
5. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by TheCarp · 2016-03-09 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I already have imagined it, and I find the concept so abohorent that its reason enough to tear the flag down and burn the pentagon to the ground before it happens.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
6. Re: drone swarms not good for usa by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Down this rabbit hole I see nothing but inhumanity. The retaliation will be aimed at civilian population (since wiping drones out doesn't sap the enemies will to wage war). Innocents will be targeted with the nastiest deaths that science can muster. Drones will do whatever they are programmed to do.
7. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks. I needed to read some mitigation of the GP. Seems like the only hope for relief of the fear of a human is another human.
8. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by angel'o'sphere · 2016-03-09 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  any damage to a destroyer or carrier
  Exploding a small drone on top of your radar antenna costs you mere grams of C4.
  group will be incredibly easy pickings for a single CIWS system.
  Plastic drones don't show up on radar.
  And drone swarms with members small enough to evade detection or destruction by a CIWS system won't be able to do jack to those same assets.
  See above, ofc they will.
  Drone swarms also won't be able to do anything to fast moving, high flying, GBU dropping aircraft.
  Yes, but they easily fly into the air intake of a fighter about to be launched from a carrier. Or explode over the head of the deck personal.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
9. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by barc0001 · 2016-03-09 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Annnd, you're on some list somewhere now. And we all know what happened last time someone tried to burn the Pentagon...
10. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by vux984 · 2016-03-09 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  . Imagine the US "clearing" a city like Fallujah not by blockading it and sending in the troops, but by broadcasting a warning to clear all civilians from the city and telling everyone to leave unarmed and scanning the departing people for weapons and known enemies. Then 24 hours later C130s fly over and dispense thousands or even tens of thousands of these swarm explosive drones and they sweep the city looking for human sized heat signatures, homing in and destroying any that are found.
  
  Was that sarcasm? Because that sounds like precisely the sort of weapon terrorists would want to use. Minus the C130 to deliver them, and minus the warning to civilians.
  A container truck full of human seeking drones with small improvised explosives attached is precisely the sort of tech that a small insurgent group would be able to muster and deliver to a populated area... or release towards a military base on their home turf.
  Or on a smaller scale, just park cars around town; remotely pop the trunk and then 10 little drones pop out and make a beeline for the 10 nearest people and explode at point blank range. Do that all over a city.
11. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by barc0001 · 2016-03-09 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think you vastly overestimate the sophistication of drone swarms that an asymetric foe might field. For that matter, calling them swarms might be generous. For comparison the thing that killed and injured more soldiers in Iraq than anything else was the IED. Which is basically 19th century tech - bury a bomb, set it off with wires hooked to a detonator, or if you're feeling fancy, use a cellphone as the detonator (presuming it isnt jammed).
  Developing a drone swarm, let alone one that could fly miles out to open sea and precision attack a warship, is a very lofty undertaking with an uncertain payoff.
12. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by TheCarp · 2016-03-10 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  > Annnd, you're on some list somewhere now.
  Like that is new.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
13. Re:drone swarms not good for usa by angel'o'sphere · 2016-03-12 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Developing a drone swarm, let alone one that could fly miles out to open sea and precision attack a warship, is a very lofty undertaking with an uncertain payoff.
  It certainly is not. Check what an Exocet missile is ...
  And then you only need a single drone flying to a carrier and exploding on the radar dome. Not a drone swarm.
  And if you want to make that seriously, you only need drones that can do two things: identify the target, avoid to collide with each other.
  That is all a toy thing in our days.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
One more step.... by Lumpy · 2016-03-09 05:04 · Score: 1

Make them big enough to do all the above, but each one carries a standard frag grenade. Then swarm the city homing in on human targets to explode about 3 feet from.
Instead of bombing a city to hell.... drop 50,000 human seeking frag grenades.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:One more step.... by Thud457 · 2016-03-09 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they make them screech
  
  I'm a 30-second bomb! I'm a 30-second bomb!
  And then start counting down in the local language.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
2. Re:One more step.... by drew_kime · 2016-03-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they make them screech
  
  I'm a 30-second bomb! I'm a 30-second bomb!
  And then start counting down in the local language.
  Then detonate a random time between 5 and 15 in the countdown.
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
3. Re:One more step.... by Dutch+Gun · 2016-03-09 05:27 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why? That's what nukes are for. And if we ever reach the point of wanting to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of civilians, then wiping out their cities would probably be seen as a bonus, not a deterrent.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
4. Re:One more step.... by umghhh · 2016-03-09 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  There is no 'if' - we want to wipe them enemies out and only the media coverage of the mess that results when we do, can stop us from actually doing it. NB machetes and their well organized users can effectively kill half a million humans in 3 months. That is how humans operate.
5. Re:One more step.... by Salgak1 · 2016-03-09 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect. Nukes are terror weapons, when used in a counter-value (i.e. city) mode. Any city contains a fortune in useable resources. Nuking it destroys them. Killing only the population preserves those resources.
  However, grenade-drones aren't what you would even VAGUELY consider cost-effective. If you want to kill the population and keep the resources mostly intact, the weapon of choice is either a fast-acting/short duration chemical agent or an enhanced-radiation weapon (i.e. a "neutron bomb").
  And before you start quoting the Geneva Conventions, if the decision was made to depopulate a city, they're not concerned about the relatively trivial issue of International Law.
6. Re:One more step.... by Lumpy · 2016-03-09 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  herp derp......
  Nuke it and you cant do anything with it. kill all the people and hose out all the guts, you get a free city!
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
SQUEEEEAAALLLLL!!!! by the_skywise · 2016-03-09 05:29 · Score: 1

The geek in me is squealing...
But the more rational side of me is concerned about what this portends...
"War... War never changes..."
1. Re:SQUEEEEAAALLLLL!!!! by Salgak1 · 2016-03-09 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  "On the evidence, peace is a purely theoretical state of affairs whose existence we deduce because there have been intervals between wars."
  - Dr. Jerry Pournelle
oh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 05:31 · Score: 0

noes
Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 05:31 · Score: 0

I have a feeling this will play out so that war will be OUR guys/gals playing a video game against THEIR guys/gals. No real fighting - just video games. Of course, DOD will still want gazillions of dollars to play/create off-the-shelf games.
1. Re:Finally by umghhh · 2016-03-09 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with this concept is that once you destroy any recognizable fighting capability of the humans on the 'other' side (whatever that means) they will try to use something that does not look like weapon but does damage anyway. You can see where that leads on both sides of big wall between Israel and G. Strip. If there are some ways out of hell this is the misery and low level aggression will just spill all over the globe the 'syrian refugee crises' way.
  Something tells me that this actually means there are few humans too many on this little planet to avoid such scenario.
2. Re:Finally by jafiwam · 2016-03-09 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with this concept is that once you destroy any recognizable fighting capability of the humans on the 'other' side (whatever that means) they will try to use something that does not look like weapon but does damage anyway. You can see where that leads on both sides of big wall between Israel and G. Strip. If there are some ways out of hell this is the misery and low level aggression will just spill all over the globe the 'syrian refugee crises' way. Something tells me that this actually means there are few humans too many on this little planet to avoid such scenario.
  There's a Peter Weller movie about that called "Screamers."
Avatar by wardrich86 · 2016-03-09 05:59 · Score: 1

Avatar: The Last Dronebender
Nice by sootman · 2016-03-09 06:16 · Score: 1

This is a big improvement over v. 1.0, which were launched from the flare dispensers of stationary F-16s and F/A-18s. Good work.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Full-size drone 'wing-man' by globaljustin · 2016-03-09 06:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

TFA description doesn't mention the 'Avatar' details at all.
The swarms are cool, but the 'Avatar' program is with *full size* F-15, F-16, and F-18's that are autonomous drones that follow a lead pilot in an F-22 or F-35...from TFA:

One new project not previously reported is called Avatar, and calls for the Pentagon to pair high-tech “fifth-generation” fighter jets like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with unmanned versions of older jets like the F-16 Fighting Falcon or F/A-18 Hornet, which would be flown without a pilot for the first time.
The Avatar effort was previously called Skyborg by SCO and is known as “the Loyal Wingman” concept in the Air Force, Roper said. The program will require unmanned fighters to act with enough autonomy that the pilot in the manned jet doesn’t have to direct them all the time.
This is also the future for Google's AI-cars, the actual practical application will be in long-haul trucking. AI will never replace human drivers...Google's cars with no steering wheel will never be implimented. However, we will see the self-driving car tech used in the same way as this aircraft application. One human-driven lead vehicle with AI drones following the human.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
F35 can't do that? by angel'o'sphere · 2016-03-09 09:11 · Score: 1

Is that again a posting about the fail of the F35?
Just wondering ...

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Avatars can be jammed, they really mean autonomous by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-03-09 09:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Somebody needs to go and look up the definition of avatar.

The idea of recycling old jets into autonomous aircraft goes back many decades, the new part is putting AI in them, but suggesting there could still always be a man-in-the-middle is deceptive. It only works 100% if the jet can fly itself and make weapons fire decisions autonomously, that is not an avatar, that is the terminator, with wings.
No, "we" don't. Stop parroting lies for illiterate by denzacar · 2016-03-10 02:49 · Score: 1

Defense takes up ~20% of US Federal budget, paid out mostly directly to the military.
That's your tax dollars paying for soldiers, guns, tanks, missiles, ships, bases and for buying allies through foreign aid (a tiny piece of it all).
Veterans also represent a sizeable chunk of the whole thing, either through compensation paid out to them by the government, or through medical costs.
Again... your tax dollars are spent on all that.
"Medicare" takes up ~27% of US Federal budget BUT... and it's a HUGE BUT...
It is paid out from TRUST FUNDS, paid into by the workers, from their payroll and income taxes as INSURANCE for themselves and their families.
NOT your tax dollars - THEIR tax dollars, entrusted to the government, to be paid out TO THEM in the time of need.
I.e. That's people's savings for the rainy day.
Cause it rains on just and the unjust alike. And it never stops.
That's why government HANDLES that much cash - but it is NOT spent.
It is RETURNED to those who've provided it. With interest.
Same goes for social security, of which only a tiny chunk is actual spending instead of again - savings.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens