One issue with our current UAV setup is the fact that they are trained, sortie-mentality pilots who fly missions, possibly fire off missiles, and kill people, then go home to their wife and kids. Flying a UAV is, in some ways, more stressful than flying a manned plane. Not only does a Predator drone have to fire missiles at targets, but it often has to stick around, and assess the damage. Most manned missions are hit-and-runs, and you never have to see the damage you've done.
[url]http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_remote_stress_080708/[/url]
I don't know if I could go through soldier, civilian, soldier, civilian, every 16 hours 5 days a week.
If anything, proxy war is a plus. Less deaths is good.
Instead of dying troops and dying terrorists you get only dying terrorists. I don't see any bad in that.
Sure war and death is bad, but if it reduces the killcount, why not?
Even if you had to go face to face, history has proven US will not stop it's warmongering.
You have to use your billion weapons somewhere.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32819919]If anything, proxy war is a plus. Less deaths is good.
Instead of dying troops and dying terrorists you get only dying terrorists. I don't see any bad in that.
Sure war and death is bad, but if it reduces the killcount, why not?
Even if you had to go face to face, history has proven US will not stop it's warmongering.
You have to use your billion weapons somewhere.[/QUOTE]
Implying every person the US kills is a terrorist. May I kindly direct you to Used Car Salesman's post. Sure, most of them are the "bad guys", but that's in the US' perspective. If we use our power against the weak to uphold our beliefs, then our beliefs will always go. Believe me, the US has some very backwards ideas on things sometimes, and it's not always good that they're easy to support.
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;32841198]Implying every person the US kills is a terrorist. May I kindly direct you to Used Car Salesman's post. Sure, most of them are the "bad guys", but that's in the US' perspective. If we use our power against the weak to uphold our beliefs, then our beliefs will always go. Believe me, the US has some very backwards ideas on things sometimes, and it's not always good that they're easy to support.[/QUOTE]
So instead we should let soldiers die in war just because higher ups have a bad cause?
Blame the people, not the machines.
In my personal opinion, however, the US military having UAVs is like giving a baby a loaded gun.
Nothing like sending a 1000000000 $ worth of equipment out to see what these 2 factions are doing
I mean we breaking into peoples business and we are putting our money on the front lines just to be nosy i know it is safing pilots lives but thats expensive money we are breaking down the drain.
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;32844114]Blame the people, not the machines.
In my personal opinion, however, the US military having UAVs is like giving a baby a loaded gun.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, lets instead send babies to war so they get shot and die.
[QUOTE=Jaspercats;32844390]Nothing like sending a 1000000000 $ worth of equipment out to see what these 2 factions are doing .[/QUOTE]
UAVs are cheaper then Modern fighter planes used by the U.S Military
RQ-1 / MQ-1 Predator: USD $4.5 million per aircraft
F-22 Raptor: USD $150 Million per Aircraft
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;32817129]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.[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't make it better.
The DoD "says" it's video feed is the only thing unencrypted and says it was only a keylogger.
Apparently SOP and OPSEC aren't something taught to the operators. why does the operator have a digital media device in a secure location plugged into a console? The drones have no active defense from digital attack and pretty much everything the military uses has Intranet access, what the virus didn't have was access to a internet portal.
The video feed is sent via wireless, so chances are if it was unencrypted so were the other control frequencies to the drone. To the average coffee drinking, tv watching dunce a video feed being leech doesn't seem all to big of a deal. It's quite a big deal, means that both the military and manufacture don't seem too concerned about encryption, we also don't have any idea how long the Iraq's have been doing this. It's a great intel source, the drone does fly over friendly forces and gives a general overlay of the area. They managed to breech something this serious and it's no big deal.
An operator with an Ipod gave a drone fleet a virus and six Iraqi's with Iranian supplied laptops and a DirectTV dish with simple Russian made data leeching software managed to leech video feed from a drone.
Yup no threats there, except when a competent and more technologically advanced enemy decides to take a whack at it.
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=xCladx;32854770]UAVs are cheaper then Modern fighter planes used by the U.S Military
RQ-1 / MQ-1 Predator: USD $4.5 million per aircraft
F-22 Raptor: USD $150 Million per Aircraft[/QUOTE]
Comparing a reconnaissance tool to a combat fighter. It's like comparing a HMMWV to an M1A1, two different roles and two different systems.
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;32841198]Implying every person the US kills is a terrorist. May I kindly direct you to Used Car Salesman's post. Sure, most of them are the "bad guys", but that's in the US' perspective. If we use our power against the weak to uphold our beliefs, then our beliefs will always go. Believe me, the US has some very backwards ideas on things sometimes, and it's not always good that they're easy to support.[/QUOTE]
We killed a US citizen last week. Terrorist is also the wrong word. Terrorists are people who use a means of terror to incite terror into a populace to further a political or ideological cause. The guys on the ground fighting to get us out of their country are "insurgents" because they oppose the US strategy and restructuring of the nation. Opposing the US' ideology or implementation of policy into your nation is wrong and met with force, hence why they're insurgents.
[QUOTE=Weps;32859008]Still doesn't make it better.
The DoD "says" it's video feed is the only thing unencrypted and says it was only a keylogger.
Apparently SOP and OPSEC aren't something taught to the operators. why does the operator have a digital media device in a secure location plugged into a console? The drones have no active defense from digital attack and pretty much everything the military uses has Intranet access, what the virus didn't have was access to a internet portal.
The video feed is sent via wireless, so chances are if it was unencrypted so were the other control frequencies to the drone. To the average coffee drinking, tv watching dunce a video feed being leech doesn't seem all to big of a deal. It's quite a big deal, means that both the military and manufacture don't seem too concerned about encryption, we also don't have any idea how long the Iraq's have been doing this. It's a great intel source, the drone does fly over friendly forces and gives a general overlay of the area. They managed to breech something this serious and it's no big deal.
An operator with an Ipod gave a drone fleet a virus and six Iraqi's with Iranian supplied laptops and a DirectTV dish with simple Russian made data leeching software managed to leech video feed from a drone.
Yup no threats there, except when a competent and more technologically advanced enemy decides to take a whack at it.
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
Comparing a reconnaissance tool to a combat fighter. It's like comparing a HMMWV to an M1A1, two different roles and two different systems.
[/QUOTE]
The operators used portable media to input their flight logs. The machines aren't connected to the military's network, hence the need for portable media.
You're assuming the video was transmitted over the same transmission gear that the control signals were. This is highly unlikely as, from an engineering perspective, you'd want the two to be transmitted separately for redundancy. Encrypting video is far more costly (in terms of processing power) than encrypting the control signals so it isn't surprising that they might neglect to encrypt the video feed, but still encrypt the control feed. It [I]was[/I] a big deal at the time, but now the video is also encrypted and that concern has been dealt with.
Can you really still call it a reconnaissance tool when it's equipped with ordinance? It's an indisputable fact that unmanned aircraft cost less to build and operate than the equivalent manned system.
You can talk about political motives all you want, but don't blame the latest tools of war for any perceived injustices.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;32867640]The operators used portable media to input their flight logs. The machines aren't connected to the military's network, hence the need for portable media.
You're assuming the video was transmitted over the same transmission gear that the control signals were. This is highly unlikely as, from an engineering perspective, you'd want the two to be transmitted separately for redundancy. Encrypting video is far more costly (in terms of processing power) than encrypting the control signals so it isn't surprising that they might neglect to encrypt the video feed, but still encrypt the control feed. It [I]was[/I] a big deal at the time, but now the video is also encrypted and that concern has been dealt with.
Can you really still call it a reconnaissance tool when it's equipped with ordinance? It's an indisputable fact that unmanned aircraft cost less to build and operate than the equivalent manned system.
You can talk about political motives all you want, but don't blame the latest tools of war for any perceived injustices.[/QUOTE]
The media devices the operators use isn't for flight logs (flight logs are still filed via paper), the device contains operational parameters for the mission, same devices have been used in the AH-64 and OH-58 since the early 80's.
NLOS control of the drones is via satellite relay and terrestrial communications (same form of transmission as the video feed, the system the Iraqi's used "Skygrabber" is a satellite feed data leeching software). This means the machines are connected to C4I infrastructure. In secondary proof it's abundantly apparent the machines are connected to C4I because data and video feeds can be shared across agency networks.
Even if the machines weren't connected to C4I via satellite, the media devices are plugged into either an Intranet connected machine or a machine that had Intranet portal capabilities because the media devices use military software to plan and stage military operations.
As for being too costly, we have 7,500 M1 tanks at a cost of $14.5 million each sitting and rusting, we have a aircraft boneyard that is the worlds largest non-flying airforce, ect... I'm thinking cost isn't a big issue, the overlying cause was ignorance and complacency of the military bureaucracy.
As far as the virus goes, the media devices are or SHOULD be encrypted to MIL-STD 188 requirements. So how exactly does a virus breech the a US Military Intranet, gain access to a device and system that is most certain encrypted to MIL-STD 188 and at the very least to AES-256 with SHA-256 Hash? You also mean to say that Military Network Security Specialists couldn't get rid of a simple keylogger? (It was a virus and keylogger and it kept coming back.)
I like this part of the article:
[QUOTE]But they’re sure that the infection has hit both classified and unclassified machines at Creech. That raises the possibility, at least, that secret data may have been captured by the keylogger, and then transmitted over the public internet to someone outside the military chain of command.
[url]http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/exclusive-computer-virus-hits-drone-fleet.ars[/url][/QUOTE]
Directly shows either the drones or media devices have access to military Intranet.
As far as the comparison to a Air Superiority Fighter and Unmanned Aerial Reconnaissance Vehicle, yeah there is a difference. A MQ-9 couldn't even fight a MiG-9, hence it's a Hunter/Killer Recon Vehicle, not a Fighter or Attack aircraft. It's payload capabilities aren't even enough to render CAS, it's still a surveillance tool any way you shake it.
While it may be a tool, it's a tool designed to be used in armed conflict. It's a direct design and production of war, it's merely a cleaner and faster way for man to kill fellow man with using his own hands. I'll say as I please about the tools of war.
I appreciate the details you've collected but I stand by the following points:
[B]1. Operating costs do matter[/B] - It may be a poor idea to compare "Hunter/Killer Recon Vehicles" to Fighter aircraft, but unmanned vehicles are more cost effective than comparable manned systems that perform the same support roles. One might also argue that the support vehicles are more valuable than 5th generation aerial combat vehicles as we are fighting ground wars against technologically inferior forces. The massive expenditures of the US military are just further reason to switch to using less costly systems.
[B]2. The risks drones present over there manned equivalents are minute[/B] - The hardware used to operate the drones is sufficiently separated to make direct control impractical for outside sources. Even if malicious code were added, the unusual behavior would be trivial to detect and the drones could be dispatched fairly easily by the combat aircraft we've spent so much on. I'm confident the virus would have been dealt with sooner had the local system admin not attempted to "play the hero" by hiding the breach from his superiors. They could also disallow the use of portable media to further strengthen the security of the system.
[B]3. Drones are no less ethical to use than any other modern weapons technology[/B] - This is directed more at "Used Car Salesman"s comments. I just don't see how it's "fair" for us to use tanks, satellites, and fighter aircraft against insurgents but somehow it's unfair for us to use drones. Seems like a double standard. I'd like to hear the rationale behind why one modern weapons system is any less ethical than another. I accept that some, like land mines or nuclear weapons, are inhumane; but unmanned aircraft?
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;32884610]I appreciate the details you've collected but I stand by the following points:
[B]1. Operating costs do matter[/B] - It may be a poor idea to compare "Hunter/Killer Recon Vehicles" to Fighter aircraft, but unmanned vehicles are more cost effective than comparable manned systems that perform the same support roles. One might also argue that the support vehicles are more valuable than 5th generation aerial combat vehicles as we are fighting ground wars against technologically inferior forces. The massive expenditures of the US military are just further reason to switch to using less costly systems.
[B]2. The risks drones present over there manned equivalents are minute[/B] - The hardware used to operate the drones is sufficiently separated to make direct control impractical for outside sources. Even if malicious code were added, the unusual behavior would be trivial to detect and the drones could be dispatched fairly easily by the combat aircraft we've spent so much on. I'm confident the virus would have been dealt with sooner had the local system admin not attempted to "play the hero" by hiding the breach from his superiors. They could also disallow the use of portable media to further strengthen the security of the system.
[B]3. Drones are no less ethical to use than any other modern weapons technology[/B] - This is directed more at "Used Car Salesman"s comments. I just don't see how it's "fair" for us to use tanks, satellites, and fighter aircraft against insurgents but somehow it's unfair for us to use drones. Seems like a double standard. I'd like to hear the rationale behind why one modern weapons system is any less ethical than another. I accept that some, like land mines or nuclear weapons, are inhumane; but unmanned aircraft?[/QUOTE]
No doubt in this conflict drones are a key machine. It's easy when fighting against a technologically deprived enemy or unarmed enemy to win with something like a drone.
Iran has proven it's got the metal and means to combat us on a relativity advanced scale in terms of technology, we also know China and Russia aren't chumps when it comes to technology either. If a conflict was to break out between the US and an enemy of technological equality the US is in big trouble because the US military has tailored itself to fight this enemy and not all possible threats as it has in the past.
We've been toying around in the desert with the bush men too long and gotten overly confident. Sure the drones may work great against them, but when an enemy with a competent AAA defense grid, competent air forces, Counter-Intelligence capabilities and Cyber-Warfare capabilities starts a conflict with us, we'll be seriously under gunned.
Took us 3 years to up-armor HMMWV for use in urban environments in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we restructure all branches and even altered our laws and policies as a nation.
I can see were people can claim it's "unfair" to use drones. The same was said about the sniper when he entered the battlefield in competent force. During the First World War a sniper was seen as a dirty, ungentlemanly form of combat, it didn't give the opposing force a fighting chance.
Drones are just this era's sniper.
My concern is more evolve around the possible misuse of drones by the US Government and the many mistakes surrounding their development and deployment on the battlefield.
[QUOTE=Weps;32885144]No doubt in this conflict drones are a key machine. It's easy when fighting against a technologically deprived enemy or unarmed enemy to win with something like a drone.
Iran has proven it's got the metal and means to combat us on a relativity advanced scale in terms of technology, we also know China and Russia aren't chumps when it comes to technology either. If a conflict was to break out between the US and an enemy of technological equality the US is in big trouble because the US military has tailored itself to fight this enemy and not all possible threats as it has in the past.
We've been toying around in the desert with the bush men too long and gotten overly confident. Sure the drones may work great against them, but when an enemy with a competent AAA defense grid, competent air forces, Counter-Intelligence capabilities and Cyber-Warfare capabilities starts a conflict with us, we'll be seriously under gunned.
Took us 3 years to up-armor HMMWV for use in urban environments in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we restructure all branches and even altered our laws and policies as a nation.
I can see were people can claim it's "unfair" to use drones. The same was said about the sniper when he entered the battlefield in competent force. During the First World War a sniper was seen as a dirty, ungentlemanly form of combat, it didn't give the opposing force a fighting chance.
Drones are just this era's sniper.
My concern is more evolve around the possible misuse of drones by the US Government and the many mistakes surrounding their development and deployment on the battlefield.[/QUOTE]
Well, thanks to the ridiculous level of military spending, this nation has the technology to combat both threats. It's not economically ideal but we have "played it safe" by developing all of these stealth fighters and such.
I like the sniper comparison but I thought the western world had grown out of the idea of chivalrous warfare? I still contend that an unmanned drone is no less ethical than the manned equivalent.
There are far greater threats to individual liberties and lives than having unmanned aircraft flying around. Wiretapping and the equivalent breaches of privacy for networked computers seems to be the greater threat. If you're referring to the drones being used for covert raids against foreign targets; is that any different from how the CIA or special forces operate?
[QUOTE]Well, thanks to the ridiculous level of military spending, this nation has the technology to combat both threats. It's not economically ideal but we have "played it safe" by developing all of these stealth fighters and such.[/QUOTE]
Actually we're spending twice as much as we did during the Cold War on a force three times as small, with 1/3rd the weapons being used.
The majority of our forces designed for Asymmetrical Warfare have been decommissioned or are dilapidated.
[QUOTE]I like the sniper comparison but I thought the western world had grown out of the idea of chivalrous warfare? I still contend that an unmanned drone is no less ethical than the manned equivalent.[/QUOTE]
Idealism's never die, they just fade a bit. Remember this nations majority is still the older generations both leader and voter wise.
I don't argue drones are any less ethical than a manned aircraft, but they also fit the bill better for Armed Surveillance and Recon that a F-22.
[QUOTE]There are far greater threats to individual liberties and lives than having unmanned aircraft flying around. Wiretapping and the equivalent breaches of privacy for networked computers seems to be the greater threat. If you're referring to the drones being used for covert raids against foreign targets; is that any different from how the CIA or special forces operate?[/QUOTE]
I'm speaking of the recent approval for use of drones on US soil. As far as threats of wiretapping and breaching of computer networks, the Government pretty much is going about a semi-legal means, it built a majority of our communications network in this country.
Yes it's a smaller threat, but when we all those to accumulate they become big threats. We took out a US citizen last week in Afghanistan...who's next?
As for the difference between a CIA Operative and SF Operators. The CIA operates with any oversight, as to where SF MUST abide by the Geneva Convention, Houge Convention and UCMJ.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.