Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Not sure if I'd want ride of the valkyries or benny hill.

mkopec_sl said:

Are you fucking kidding me? Not useful? Do you even imagine?

Click to expand...

This shit isnt csi svu where they backtrace your ip via a gui interface.

Back during Iraq insurgents where able to tap into video feeds of uavs. Granted the feeds were unencrypted(lol) but imagine dealing with a near peer enemy. Your drone is worthless if you cant control or it cant see. Its even more worthless if they are able to capture it and turn it against you. The idea that you can throw a 2-3 thousand dollar ultralight uav and its going to be combat effective is just wrong.

BrutulTM_sl said:

TheUX5 | Trimbleis bad ass. I think it might have some issues with the FAA though. It's also like $50K which is more than i would be willing to pay, but it also has much more sophisticated imaging capabilities than I would need.

Click to expand...

Cool. Trimble makes the GPS I'm currently working with.

Cad_sl said:

Also the counter-battery artillery radars can track mortar shells and other artillery in the air and those shells aren't much bigger than a hand grenade. Don't confuse "Not easily tracked because they are small" with "too small for radar hurr hurr"

Click to expand...

True, but how are ya gonna tell the difference between bird_01 and uav_01? Arty and mortar shells have speeds and flight paths which make them obviously apparent.

but then u get hit by counter battery bra.

CHECK FUCKIN MATE

See, that's the kind of drone I was talking about when I was saying I doubted drones could provide less collateral damage, because they are basically an airplane without a pilot. I wasn't envisioning a "swarm of tiny ones dropping hand grenades", because that's practically worthless if you actually intend to "assassinate" someone. At worst you need the equivalent of a Hellfire, and even if you use a 1-shot drone...it is still firing the same Hellfire with the same targeting system, same accuracy, and same blast radius. And now it is only firing one, so if you miss you've just alerted the target. You need something bigger to be combat effective, and again, same weapons as a manned aircraft.

Drones certainly make a difference, obviously, and are the wave of the future no doubt, but I think people don't really understand that there is a huge difference between those tiny ones linked above and something that the military can actually deliver effective ordnance with. And then how that ordnance gets to the target, which is via the same basic systems as a manned aircraft. At least right now. I don't doubt that eventually things will change and we'll have different options, but that is more likely to be simply because we do away with manned aircraft almost completely, not because something is more suited for a drone. If a weapon is worth deploying, it is worth deploying on any system that can deliver it effectively.

Well that MQ-9 that CAD talked about above maximum payload of 3,800lbs, the MQ-9 can be armed with a variety of weaponry, including Hellfire missiles and 500-lb laser-guided bomb units.

I see the little drones used for surveillance mostly. Small, nearly silent and if they are small enough, they can even get into structures. I mean imagine that. Checking structures is probably one of the most deadly forms of combat for foot soldiers. But im sure eventually they will find a way to weaponize them.

I envision it more as a self destructing unit, maybe with some C4 or some shit. Even if one of those small ones could carry like 5 lbs, that's enough to clear a small area, don't you think?