Fadaar
That guy
- 11,118
- 12,146
Operation Copper Duneis an interesting little look into what goes on over there. Not all of the information in there is correct, but whatever.
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
McQueen
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,229
- 5,844
I was watching The Military Channel Presents last month, and the topic of drone payloads came up. Initially, and in response to the cries of innocent casualties, they had to tone down the ordinance used. The idea is that the missiles are strong enough to kill whatever they're aimed at, but weak enough to leave DNA evidence for later identification.
Fadaar
That guy
- 11,118
- 12,146
I've never seen a UAV (MQ-1 or MQ-9) loaded with anything except theAGM-114 Hellfire. They're light enough to be loaded by hand (two people), and their blast radius is pretty small. Another weapon the US has been fielding recently is theSmall Diameter Bomb. I've seen one of our jets hit a target the size of a dumpster from 12 miles away with one, it's insanely accurate along with lethal blast radius of 10m and zero collateral outside that. Not really sure how that magic works, but it does.
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,937
- 11,947
How is a drone strike any more or less an "assassination" than a manned aircraft doing the exact same thing? Is it because they could potentially kill one of our people if they get lucky? Is it that it is too much like a video game if someone sits behind a monitor instead? At many of the ranges and/or conditions that they are launching these strikes, a human pilot wouldn't be able to see much of anything different than the drone operator does, so it isn't like the pilot could somehow go "I see innocents, I'm disobeying orders!" If you get ordered to launch at something, and there is no order allowing you to make a judgment call, you fucking launch. Human pilot or drone controller, it makes no difference.
So again I ask, how is a drone any more assassination than a manned aircraft?
So again I ask, how is a drone any more assassination than a manned aircraft?
Fadaar
That guy
- 11,118
- 12,146
You're more right than you could possibly know.
That being said, there's a much bigger psychological hit to the aircrew of a manned aircraft when they do commit to a strike on an improperly identified target. UAV pilots and sensor operators (enlisted personnel that are essentially equivalent to the back seater aircrew of manned aircraft such as the F-15E and F-18F) at least get to go home and sleep in their own bed at night, whereas the manned aircraft aircrew are still in whatever sand covered shithole they're currently deployed to. It's a shit situation no matter which way you slice it, but when something goes wrong and you see it happen firsthand instead of on a computer screen 5,000 miles the psychological aspect is infinitely greater.
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,937
- 11,947
Yeah, I get that the impact on the crew is much higher if they are actually in the aircraft, no doubt about it. But I'm just looking at it from the viewpoint of "the enemy" or whomever is calling drone strikes assassinations.
And Tuco, I obviously don't know exactly either, but I highly doubt that there is much difference. Missiles, rockets, dumb bombs, etc...are all the same. There isn't a different one for drones vs. manned aircraft. At least that I'm aware of, and it would surprise the hell out of me if it were the case because why spend twice as much to make the same thing? A hellfire missile still needs to be guided by the same targeting system no matter if it launched from an A-10, an Apache, or a drone. A 500-lb bomb still gets released via the same type of targeting computer and a person watching it and pushing a button, even if that person is now miles away.
The only difference that I can see is that the aircraft itself is smaller, harder to detect/shoot down, and there is zero risk for the pilot. I mean, you *could* have a computer do everything on a drone, including firing, but you could have it do that on a manned aircraft if you chose also. And, as far as I know, they don't do that on drones anyway because there always needs to be a human making the decisions.
And Tuco, I obviously don't know exactly either, but I highly doubt that there is much difference. Missiles, rockets, dumb bombs, etc...are all the same. There isn't a different one for drones vs. manned aircraft. At least that I'm aware of, and it would surprise the hell out of me if it were the case because why spend twice as much to make the same thing? A hellfire missile still needs to be guided by the same targeting system no matter if it launched from an A-10, an Apache, or a drone. A 500-lb bomb still gets released via the same type of targeting computer and a person watching it and pushing a button, even if that person is now miles away.
The only difference that I can see is that the aircraft itself is smaller, harder to detect/shoot down, and there is zero risk for the pilot. I mean, you *could* have a computer do everything on a drone, including firing, but you could have it do that on a manned aircraft if you chose also. And, as far as I know, they don't do that on drones anyway because there always needs to be a human making the decisions.
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,937
- 11,947
Lower would be my only concern really, because my expectation is that they are pretty much the same. Same systems, same weapons, same everything except the guy pushing the button is further away is all. I will be greatly surprised if a drone can do it with less collateral damage.
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,937
- 11,947
Well, I guess a lot of this is open to interpretation then. I mean, a Tomahawk can take these guys out from hundreds of miles away with pretty damn good accuracy...but probably a lot more collateral damage. A Maverick missile can be launched from a pretty decent distance too, and probably wouldn't fuck up too much extra. A Hellfire requires being a lot closer, but Apaches are more than capable of popping up over a ridge and launching one into a village, depending upon the terrain of course. An F-15 could drop a retarded bomb (retarded as in it slows down via fins instead of following the trajectory it was on when released) and probably be in very little danger since it went by at high speed. Make it a laser-guided bomb and it could even be at high altitude.
I see your guy's point about how perhaps a very small drone with a single weapon on it can get in closer and ensure a better kill and perhaps less collateral. But my point was sort of that, it is still the same weapon, just being delivered a little differently. Perhaps that delivery does make a difference, I don't know. But it seems to me that if you really want to be precise, you can do it with a multitude of non-drone platforms as well. It just depends on if we really want to be precise, or if we just want to expend as little effort (thus drones) as possible?
I will admit that perhaps I'm missing something, or that perhaps they really do have different weapons for drones. I'm not aware of them if that is true, however.
I see your guy's point about how perhaps a very small drone with a single weapon on it can get in closer and ensure a better kill and perhaps less collateral. But my point was sort of that, it is still the same weapon, just being delivered a little differently. Perhaps that delivery does make a difference, I don't know. But it seems to me that if you really want to be precise, you can do it with a multitude of non-drone platforms as well. It just depends on if we really want to be precise, or if we just want to expend as little effort (thus drones) as possible?
I will admit that perhaps I'm missing something, or that perhaps they really do have different weapons for drones. I'm not aware of them if that is true, however.
- 26,579
- 40,912
Well you also have these little $500 helicopter jobs that can do some damage too. On top of that, they can get anywhere, even inside structures, virtually silent, too small for radar, and are easy as shit to fly. Drones are the future. Who needs a $30 million fighter jet if you can have a million drones, if not more, for the same price?
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,037
Yeah, that's the scary part about drones--the economics of it. When you can field 10 drones, for every one fighter--the amount of intelligence and coverage they will provide becomes a completely different beast. While the U.S. has enough jets to technically maintain air coverage at a pretty high concentration; everyone knows that it's economically draining to keep those jets operational for years. Between maintenance, pilot fatigue, training, fuel costs--having 24/7 sky coverage is anenormousburden. And even with those vast cost's it's hardly perfect, and there are big holes even in war zones.
The scary part about drones is that, while they do the same job, they can do it soefficientlythat things like guerrilla tactics and attrition warfare become impossible. That's a pretty scary thing; considering for decades the only hope the third world (IE most of the world) has had against first world armies is the fact that they can bleed them through attrition. Once that's gone, the impunity by which a nation acts will be changed dramatically.
The scary part about drones is that, while they do the same job, they can do it soefficientlythat things like guerrilla tactics and attrition warfare become impossible. That's a pretty scary thing; considering for decades the only hope the third world (IE most of the world) has had against first world armies is the fact that they can bleed them through attrition. Once that's gone, the impunity by which a nation acts will be changed dramatically.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 48,284
- 83,819
Well stated. And as a robotics engineer and citizen in said nation I am looking forward to the future.
Fadaar
That guy
- 11,118
- 12,146
You're actually pretty spot on. Systems and weapons may not quite be identical, but manned aircraft can carry everything a UAV can and then some. MQ-1 Predators (once again, purely from what I've seen as an outside observer) only ever go up with one Hellfire, while MQ-9 Reapers can take off with four. Despite the airframes of Reapers and Predators being much newer, the actual optics and targeting systems for manned aircraft are more up to date. Only reason I can say this is because our squadron started fielding the Sniper XR-SE (upgraded version of the Lockheed Sniper XR targeting pod) earlier this year. Its one of the advantages of software upgrades to the big airframes and their ability to use plug-and-play technology, not unlike your modern desktop computer. Needless to say, the Sniper is the one thing Lockheed has gotten right in the last decade. It really is the best system on this jet right now (new radar package being implemented later this year and finally rolling out early-middle next year... thanks Raytheon!). All this being said... manned aircraft, despite their old airframes, are rocking the most up to date technology for weaponry. Combine that with the ability to put a 500 pound JDAM or a 250 pound GBU-39 (check my link above) up someone's (moving) asshole from 15-20 miles away while flying at 25-40,000 feet (around the same altitude as UAV's to answer previous concerns)... yeah, the capabilities are almost equivalent, if not better for manned aircraft. I would personally put manned aircraft ahead due to communication latency issues. The primary problem with UAV's is the slight time lag involved in control/movement inputs on aircraft operating half the world away from a control center at Creech AFB outside Las Vegas combined with the inherent lag in satellite communications. Manned aircraft only have to deal with the radio issue and not the actual piloting.
This is the big selling point for UAV's -- they can fly around for 12+ hours without having to refuel, whereas a normal manned aircraft only has a fraction of the loiter time without having to hit the tanker (maybe three hours if they conserve fuel properly, but in these scenarios they're refueling damn nearly every hour until called upon to drop ordnance). Combine this with the fact that they can tap out with another guy coming on shift without having to fly the jet back and swap it out (ie the UAV pilot simply talks to the oncoming shift pilot about what's up and lets him take over in the seat without the aircraft ever having to leave the airspace it's in) and the logistical aspect of UAV's becomes that much easier. It's not uncommon for a UAV to take off one day and not come down until 24+ hours later.
