• Should we Widen the use of UAV?
    44 replies, posted
Should we widen the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles? Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), also known as a Unmanned aircraft System (UAS) or a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) or unmanned aircraft, is a machine which functions either by the remote control of a navigator or pilot (called a Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs) or autonomously, that is, as a self-directing entity. Pros: Pilots are out of harms way - UACVs will save pilots lives. Pilot is very expensive to train and replace quickly UAVS can be programmed to complete the mission autonomously even when contact with its GCS is lost. Less weight - this can affect many things like endurance time, acceleration, payload and so on. One or two pilots and all the stuff you put in the cockpit can weight quite a bit. Greater manoeuvrability - in modern day fighter aircraft human tolerance is the limiting factor for the number of g forces the plane can pool during rapid manoeuvres, with UACV this bottleneck is eliminated so they can be very manoeuvrable indeed. I am Pro because the benefits of UAV far out weight the drawbacks of using UAV instead of Manned aerial Vehicles. Discuss.
I think the US should stop all of their money wasting on stupid wars and use their resources for more noble reasons instead of 'widening the use of UAV's', or in my words: build more machines to kill more innocent people.
[QUOTE=danelo;32759925]I think the US should stop all of their money wasting on stupid wars and use their resources for more noble reasons instead of 'widening the use of UAV's', or in my words: build more machines to kill more innocent people.[/QUOTE] Because they only kill innocent lives as we all know.
[QUOTE=danelo;32759925]I think the US should stop all of their money wasting on stupid wars and use their resources for more noble reasons instead of 'widening the use of UAV's', or in my words: build more machines to kill more innocent people.[/QUOTE] UAV's are still flown by pilots, they're just cheaper and don't put the pilot at risk if something goes wrong.
You didn't give any cons... I suppose a con would be that there's a risk of mechanical failure, and the authority carrying out actions isn't physically present, they're miles away controlling the drone. So if a drone was carrying a missile payload, and for some reason the crew lost contact with it and it was still flying, it would eventually crash; if it lost control over a populated area that's obviously problematic. I don't know if the authority-being-present thing is a huge problem though.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;32760270]You didn't give any cons... I suppose a con would be that there's a risk of mechanical failure, and the authority carrying out actions isn't physically present, they're miles away controlling the drone. So if a drone was carrying a missile payload, and for some reason the crew lost contact with it and it was still flying, it would eventually crash; if it lost control over a populated area that's obviously problematic. I don't know if the authority-being-present thing is a huge problem though.[/QUOTE] Actually if it loses connection with it's controllers, autopilot kicks in and it flies itself back to base. If you meant an actual mechanical failure that hinders it's ability to fly resulting in a crash, well, that happens to jets and helicopters anyway.
"UAVS can be programmed to complete the mission autonomously even when contact with its GCS is lost." is theoretically a con, is situations change. [editline]13th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ElectricSquid;32760270]You didn't give any cons... I suppose a con would be that there's a risk of mechanical failure, and the authority carrying out actions isn't physically present, they're miles away controlling the drone. So if a drone was carrying a missile payload, and for some reason the crew lost contact with it and it was still flying, it would eventually crash; if it lost control over a populated area that's obviously problematic. I don't know if the authority-being-present thing is a huge problem though.[/QUOTE] pilots really can't identify targets if they're droppin JDAMs from far up... That's where the future of UCAVs is imo, flying vending machines. (long loiter, large selection of armament)
[quote]President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, said that for almost a year, "there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we've been able to develop."[/quote] Drones don't cause great collateral damage, and even so it would most likely have a failsafe if its carrying a missile payload.
[QUOTE=xCladx;32763874]Drones don't cause great collateral damage, and even so it would most likely have a failsafe if its carrying a missile payload.[/QUOTE] they done tests with nuclear weapons with UAV's, so they cause a quite bit of damage
I was a UAV Operator, and these are truly incredible pieces of technology. They're not without their drawbacks, however. They are extremely susceptible to weather conditions; much more so than manned aircraft. Even light cloud cover puts the machine at serious risk for link-loss with the ground control station, and any sort of dust, smoke, or fog in between the aircraft and the ground renders its optical systems nearly useless. The most commonly deployed platforms (the Hunter and Shadow platforms) also suffer from a comparatively low loiter time before needing to be recalled for refueling, and are also extremely loud; especially the Shadow platform. However, the benefits of UAVs far outweigh the drawbacks. First and foremost, every second of the mission is recorded and streamed directly back to the ground control station. This, combined with the aircraft's ability to safely loiter over an area for an extended period of time, allows operators to be extremely thorough, meaning less civilian casualties and friendly fire incidents. While the larger platforms, such as Predator variants, are typically better suited for strike missions because of their longer range, heavier payload, and more advanced optics systems, the smaller platforms are superb reconnaissance and surveillance tools, which can mean the difference between a convoy being ambushed by entrenched forces and a route traveled without incident. The optics are also incredibly powerful, when not suffering from poor weather conditions. The thermal optics system can use thermal scarring and thermal shadowing to pinpoint and track objects of interest (areas where vehicles have been parked for some time will be cooler because of the shade provided by the vehicle, dirt disturbed by troop or vehicle movement will be cooler, vehicles which have recently been operated will be warmer, locations where something has been buried recently will be cooler, etc, etc). Mortar sites, especially, are heavily susceptible to discovery from UAV platforms; which affords soldiers in FOBs a bit of breathing room, as they no longer have to concern themselves too heavily with mortar strikes inside the fence. Yes, UAVs are the wave of the future, and for obvious reasons. The technology is only becoming more impressive, and they allow a level of freedom and assurance that is impossible to guarantee from traditionally operated aircraft. Over the next several years, we will see a massive spike in the number of remotely operated vehicles on, and above, the battlefield.
[QUOTE=Verky;32763902]they done tests with nuclear weapons with UAV's, so they cause a quite bit of damage[/QUOTE]Got a source on that?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;32760233]UAV's are still flown by pilots, they're just cheaper and don't put the pilot at risk if something goes wrong.[/QUOTE] There's a more significant disconnect between a screen and real life, and it normalizes the use of violence in real life as though it were a video game. [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] Also, I'd hate to be too reliant on drone tech if anti-US forces get sold the chinese/russian jamming equipment.
Nothing wrong the principle of their usage, but remember that UAVs are *not* an invincible, unpunished "eye" or "killer" which can do anything it wants. When the U.S. Army tested out its digital equipment during the Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment at the National Training Center in the late 1990s, the resident Opposing Forces had little trouble fooling those hi-tech systems--Predator UAVs included. But don't let that "ever-accelerating pace of technological change" blind you. War is a dialectic process involving actions and counteractions between the contesting sides, and UAVs are a part of that.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;32764823]Got a source on that?[/QUOTE] YEAH, links in a sec.
The only thing I can find is a nuclear power plant for a UAV platform, not a UAV nuclear munitions platform.
[QUOTE=Contag;32765011]There's a more significant disconnect between a screen and real life, and it normalizes the use of violence in real life as though it were a video game. [editline]14th October 2011[/editline] Also, I'd hate to be too reliant on drone tech if anti-US forces get sold the chinese/russian jamming equipment.[/QUOTE] You think being in the air and not really seeing your enemy face to face is any different?
[QUOTE=MR-X;32774113]You think being in the air and not really seeing your enemy face to face is any different?[/QUOTE] Uh, yeah, of course it is?
A pilot sitting in a F/A-18 strike fighter at 15,000 feet doesn't see his target face to face. He just sees the signatures on thermal or hears a fire support mission and presses fire.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;32774664]A pilot sitting in a F/A-18 strike fighter at 15,000 feet doesn't see his target face to face. He just sees the signatures on thermal or hears a fire support mission and presses fire.[/QUOTE] Yes, and he also experiences forces from flight and is actually physically there.
[QUOTE=Contag;32774791]Yes, and he also experiences forces from flight and is actually physically there.[/QUOTE] Okay, so add feedback to GCS?
I wish we could de-invent the entire UAV thing. If we completely remove our people from any possibility of harm while maintaining the ability to murder others with impunity, then we'll just start bombing people to solve every problem. We're already seeing this, our president is ordering remote-controlled killings in Pakistan and Yemen without authorization from Congress or the American people. That could not happen if it carried the risk of American airmen being killed. Fear of having to justify the deaths of loved ones in pointless military interventions is the ONLY thing keeping our government from simply entering a state of constant, perpetual, 1984-esque war. You could argue we're already there. America has been bringing death and destruction, often to innocent people, for an entire decade with no end in sight. Drones just make it easier and more acceptable to continue those practices. Accuse me of hating the troops if you like, but America shouldn't be able to wage war without putting our own people in harm's way and paying the price. That's how you make a good decision about whether your cause is REALLY worth starting a war over. With no soldiers coming home dead, maimed, or traumatized, and all the blood and death and horror taking place half a world away, why would our warmongering ever stop? If all our people have to do is sit in an air-conditioned booth playing Mafia Wars in between remote-controlled murders, what affect will those deaths ever have on Americans? Not only that, but drone technology further expands the gap between rich developed nations and poor underdeveloped ones. We get to kill them from afar with impunity, and they can't touch us. They have to die in huge numbers for their causes and beliefs, and we don't. It's just another way for the few to maintain oppression and control over the many. Lastly, these things could be turned against us at any time. How are you going to feel knowing that everywhere you go, a remote-controlled camera in the sky is probably watching you? We already have precedent that the president apparently has the right to order drone killings of American citizens without due process, how will you feel when drones start carrying out targeted killings of supposed terrorists in this country? Or drug cartel members? Or whatever other excuse the administration comes up with? Personally, I'm waiting for someone to find the Achilles Heel of the entire drone system. They rely on wireless radio control, which means it can be detected, intercepted, hijacked, jammed, and generally fucked with. Maybe all my fears will be unfounded when Predators start crashing and burning in the Afghan mountains because a few guys crossed some wires on a ham radio and built a jammer. But I guess if that happens, they'll just program the drones to go and kill people without human control, and Skynet will officially come online.
Yes we should, as long as we use it lawfully and don't shit all over another country's sovereignty
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32774941]I wish we could de-invent the entire UAV thing. If we completely remove our people from any possibility of harm while maintaining the ability to murder others with impunity, then we'll just start bombing people to solve every problem. We're already seeing this, our president is ordering remote-controlled killings in Pakistan and Yemen without authorization from Congress or the American people. That could not happen if it carried the risk of American airmen being killed. Fear of having to justify the deaths of loved ones in pointless military interventions is the ONLY thing keeping our government from simply entering a state of constant, perpetual, 1984-esque war. You could argue we're already there. America has been bringing death and destruction, often to innocent people, for an entire decade with no end in sight. Drones just make it easier and more acceptable to continue those practices. Accuse me of hating the troops if you like, but America shouldn't be able to wage war without putting our own people in harm's way and paying the price. That's how you make a good decision about whether your cause is REALLY worth starting a war over. With no soldiers coming home dead, maimed, or traumatized, and all the blood and death and horror taking place half a world away, why would our warmongering ever stop? If all our people have to do is sit in an air-conditioned booth playing Mafia Wars in between remote-controlled murders, what affect will those deaths ever have on Americans? Not only that, but drone technology further expands the gap between rich developed nations and poor underdeveloped ones. We get to kill them from afar with impunity, and they can't touch us. They have to die in huge numbers for their causes and beliefs, and we don't. It's just another way for the few to maintain oppression and control over the many. Lastly, these things could be turned against us at any time. How are you going to feel knowing that everywhere you go, a remote-controlled camera in the sky is probably watching you? We already have precedent that the president apparently has the right to order drone killings of American citizens without due process, how will you feel when drones start carrying out targeted killings of supposed terrorists in this country? Or drug cartel members? Or whatever other excuse the administration comes up with? Personally, I'm waiting for someone to find the Achilles Heel of the entire drone system. They rely on wireless radio control, which means it can be detected, intercepted, hijacked, jammed, and generally fucked with. Maybe all my fears will be unfounded when Predators start crashing and burning in the Afghan mountains because a few guys crossed some wires on a ham radio and built a jammer. But I guess if that happens, they'll just program the drones to go and kill people without human control, and Skynet will officially come online.[/QUOTE] arguably, drones are a more direct way of doing what the CIA has been doing for decades, except with robots instead of humans. We've waged proxy wars for a long time. No dead Americans come home dead from those.
blowback comes back (ironically?)
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32782919]arguably, drones are a more direct way of doing what the CIA has been doing for decades, except with robots instead of humans. We've waged proxy wars for a long time. No dead Americans come home dead from those.[/QUOTE] True. Doesn't much change my opinion about the subject, we shouldn't be manipulating other people into dying for our cause either.
[QUOTE=danelo;32759925]I think the US should stop all of their money wasting on stupid wars and use their resources for more noble reasons instead of 'widening the use of UAV's', or in my words: build more machines to kill more innocent people.[/QUOTE] They don't target innocent people directly, are you saying our military is out to murder innocents? believe me, they aren't.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32774941]I wish we could de-invent the entire UAV thing. If we completely remove our people from any possibility of harm while maintaining the ability to murder others with impunity, then we'll just start bombing people to solve every problem. We're already seeing this, our president is ordering remote-controlled killings in Pakistan and Yemen without authorization from Congress or the American people. That could not happen if it carried the risk of American airmen being killed. Fear of having to justify the deaths of loved ones in pointless military interventions is the ONLY thing keeping our government from simply entering a state of constant, perpetual, 1984-esque war. You could argue we're already there. America has been bringing death and destruction, often to innocent people, for an entire decade with no end in sight. Drones just make it easier and more acceptable to continue those practices. Accuse me of hating the troops if you like, but America shouldn't be able to wage war without putting our own people in harm's way and paying the price. That's how you make a good decision about whether your cause is REALLY worth starting a war over. With no soldiers coming home dead, maimed, or traumatized, and all the blood and death and horror taking place half a world away, why would our warmongering ever stop? If all our people have to do is sit in an air-conditioned booth playing Mafia Wars in between remote-controlled murders, what affect will those deaths ever have on Americans? Not only that, but drone technology further expands the gap between rich developed nations and poor underdeveloped ones. We get to kill them from afar with impunity, and they can't touch us. They have to die in huge numbers for their causes and beliefs, and we don't. It's just another way for the few to maintain oppression and control over the many. Lastly, these things could be turned against us at any time. How are you going to feel knowing that everywhere you go, a remote-controlled camera in the sky is probably watching you? We already have precedent that the president apparently has the right to order drone killings of American citizens without due process, how will you feel when drones start carrying out targeted killings of supposed terrorists in this country? Or drug cartel members? Or whatever other excuse the administration comes up with? Personally, I'm waiting for someone to find the Achilles Heel of the entire drone system. They rely on wireless radio control, which means it can be detected, intercepted, hijacked, jammed, and generally fucked with. Maybe all my fears will be unfounded when Predators start crashing and burning in the Afghan mountains because a few guys crossed some wires on a ham radio and built a jammer. But I guess if that happens, they'll just program the drones to go and kill people without human control, and Skynet will officially come online.[/QUOTE] I think the whole "preserving the costs of war" argument is deeply flawed. When has the cost of war ever made a difference? We went to Iraq and lost thousands of troops, we did the same in Korea and Vietnam; modern weaponry didn't make those wars any less costly. The millions lost in the "world wars" didn't prevent those conflicts. What of the Romans? The Persians? I dismiss your claim that technology has reduced the cost of war in such a way that it has made conflicts more desirable or easier to justify; leaders have been convincing their followers to fight before we ever had drones, or tanks, or guns, or bows, or clubs. The tools don't define the politics of war. Are you really advocating not using a tool at our disposal just to "even the playing field" for our foes? Drones aren't inhumane like landmines, biological/chemical, or nuclear weapons, so don't even try comparing them to those tools.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32774941]I wish we could de-invent the entire UAV thing. If we completely remove our people from any possibility of harm while maintaining the ability to murder others with impunity, then we'll just start bombing people to solve every problem. We're already seeing this, our president is ordering remote-controlled killings in Pakistan and Yemen without authorization from Congress or the American people. That could not happen if it carried the risk of American airmen being killed. Fear of having to justify the deaths of loved ones in pointless military interventions is the ONLY thing keeping our government from simply entering a state of constant, perpetual, 1984-esque war. You could argue we're already there. America has been bringing death and destruction, often to innocent people, for an entire decade with no end in sight. Drones just make it easier and more acceptable to continue those practices. Accuse me of hating the troops if you like, but America shouldn't be able to wage war without putting our own people in harm's way and paying the price. That's how you make a good decision about whether your cause is REALLY worth starting a war over. With no soldiers coming home dead, maimed, or traumatized, and all the blood and death and horror taking place half a world away, why would our warmongering ever stop? If all our people have to do is sit in an air-conditioned booth playing Mafia Wars in between remote-controlled murders, what affect will those deaths ever have on Americans? Not only that, but drone technology further expands the gap between rich developed nations and poor underdeveloped ones. We get to kill them from afar with impunity, and they can't touch us. They have to die in huge numbers for their causes and beliefs, and we don't. It's just another way for the few to maintain oppression and control over the many. Lastly, these things could be turned against us at any time. How are you going to feel knowing that everywhere you go, a remote-controlled camera in the sky is probably watching you? We already have precedent that the president apparently has the right to order drone killings of American citizens without due process, how will you feel when drones start carrying out targeted killings of supposed terrorists in this country? Or drug cartel members? Or whatever other excuse the administration comes up with? Personally, I'm waiting for someone to find the Achilles Heel of the entire drone system. They rely on wireless radio control, which means it can be detected, intercepted, hijacked, jammed, and generally fucked with. Maybe all my fears will be unfounded when Predators start crashing and burning in the Afghan mountains because a few guys crossed some wires on a ham radio and built a jammer. But I guess if that happens, they'll just program the drones to go and kill people without human control, and Skynet will officially come online.[/QUOTE] Implying that pilots are in any danger nowadays anyway. Hint-Unless it's an organized army, they're not. This generation of aircrafts is probably going to be the last manned one. Pilots in the airplane just limit the capabilities of the aircraft, you can't maneuver too sharp or you'll pass out and lose control.
Drones aren't anything new, we've had drones for intelligence gather since the 1950's. (Yes, look it up.) The UAV is going to go the way of the Stryker MGS. Suppose to replace the tank on the battlefield, only to find out the tank is going to be on the battlefield for quite some time to come. The drone has it's place, but it's not going to replace man craft for a while. To date we've had drone feeds "hacked" because of the lack of encryption, a good portion of a drone fleet is currently battling a virus, ect... There was a reason SAC never removed humans from the Minuteman and Peacekeeper defense grid. Then you have to address the possible issue of drones being used for privacy invasion by Gov't agencies or Local LE.
[QUOTE=Weps;32814682]To date we've had drone feeds "hacked" because of the lack of encryption, a good portion of a drone fleet is currently battling a virus, ect... [/QUOTE] Only the video feed lacked encryption, the drones were never at risk of going rogue. The virus is a keylogger but it has no access to the internet and it ended up on the control stations via portable media the operators use. It probably would have been removed by now if the local systems admins had been honest about the issue and reported it to people higher up in the chain of command sooner.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.