Guest Blackwater Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 FoxNews BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq : The airplane is the size of a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada. The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill. That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected "soon," says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? "We're still working that," Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview. The Reaper's first combat deployment is expected in Afghanistan, and senior Air Force officers estimate it will land in Iraq sometime between this fall and next spring. They look forward to it. "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said. The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over to Reapers. - - - - - Unfortunately, this is yet another bit of ultra-expensive high-tech war machinery that's going to be barely usable in the KINDS of warfare the US is likely to be engaged in over the next decades. We're not dealing with commie hordes pouring over the hilltops, we're dealing with foe that hide amongst local populations - indistinguishable until they strike and indistinguishable 60 seconds later. Only on very rare occasion will we be able to determine that anyone of significance is in a particular, isolated, spot at a particular time. Even then, they'll just be replaced five minutes later. This kind of warfare can only be done ONE way - by human soldiers on the ground, backed-up by local informants. It's dirty and bloody and really really dangerous and high-tech has relatively little to offer. SOME kinds of high-tech are useful however. Improved communications and surveillance systems for example. If a soldier can instantly get multiple views of where HE is, where his fellow soldiers are, what they are doing and where 'marked' enemies are hiding then he's got a significant tactical advantage. There has been some experimentation with hand-launched "hover-bots" that provide an overhead view - unfortunately not to all the soldiers - and some attempts to use real-time imagery from higher-altitude drones or even satellites. If image-ID technology allowed enemies to be 'marked' with a laser pointer and then automatically followed by the surveillance drones, this would be a VERY useful system. Once 'marked' - the targets visual and infrared biometrics could follow them around, at least within a combat zone, so soldiers could know if they were creeping around behind to take a shot or congregating with several other 'marked' men to prepare an ambush. We've GOT the computer power and software. Surveillance drones are (or CAN be) relatively cheap. Hand-launched observation platforms can and have been built, but need a bit more refinement. Data/Image eyepieces for each soldier are also yesterdays technology. So why is money put into these ultra-expensive attack drones instead of where it could REALLY make a difference ? Because Cheneys MIC buddies can get richer quicker, that's why. Cheney isn't the ONLY one either. The MIC owns a LOT of politicians in both major parties. Time to rat 'em out and clean house dontchathink ? Nah ... you'll pull the lever for the same old corrupt scumbag next election too ...... Quote
Guest Joe Steel Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:469b6c12.87905 @news.east.earthlink.net: > FoxNews > BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq : The airplane is the size of a jet > fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and > reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar > targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. > > The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it > bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in > Nevada. > > The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation > history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even > in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill. > > That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected > "soon," says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? "We're still > working that," Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview. > > The Reaper's first combat deployment is expected in Afghanistan, and > senior Air Force officers estimate it will land in Iraq sometime > between this fall and next spring. They look forward to it. > > "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said. > > The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a > 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for > Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 > miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over to > Reapers. > This is a very, very bad idea. The only thing stopping rogue regimes, like the Bush regime, from starting all the wars they want to have is public opposition to body bags. Give these guys robots and we won't be able to stop them. Quote
Guest Blackwater Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:53:00 -0000, Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com> wrote: >bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:469b6c12.87905 >@news.east.earthlink.net: > >> FoxNews >> BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq : The airplane is the size of a jet >> fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and >> reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar >> targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. >> >> The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it >> bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in >> Nevada. >> >> The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation >> history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even >> in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill. >> >> That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected >> "soon," says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? "We're still >> working that," Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview. >> >> The Reaper's first combat deployment is expected in Afghanistan, and >> senior Air Force officers estimate it will land in Iraq sometime >> between this fall and next spring. They look forward to it. >> >> "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said. >> >> The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a >> 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for >> Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 >> miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over to >> Reapers. >> > >This is a very, very bad idea. The only thing stopping rogue regimes, >like the Bush regime, from starting all the wars they want to have is >public opposition to body bags. Give these guys robots and we won't be >able to stop them. Absolutely. Oh, and don't discount the NEXT regimes interest in TNT diplomacy. Hillary and Obama might be JUST as taken with these new toys as "W"s boys. They represent the ability to apply force WITHOUR CONSEQUENCES (tangible consequences anyway). It would be like a fallout-free nuclear weapon or a disease that only kills fundamentalist moslems - hard to resist. Quote
Guest Joe Steel Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:469b9002.2904250@news.east.earthlink.net: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:53:00 -0000, Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com> > wrote: > >>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:469b6c12.87905 >>@news.east.earthlink.net: >> >>> FoxNews >>> BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq : The airplane is the size of a jet >>> fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and >>> reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar >>> targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. >>> >>> The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it >>> bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away >>> in Nevada. >>> >>> The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in >>> aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed >>> moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to >>> hunt and kill. >>> >>> That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected >>> "soon," says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? "We're still >>> working that," Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview. >>> >>> The Reaper's first combat deployment is expected in Afghanistan, and >>> senior Air Force officers estimate it will land in Iraq sometime >>> between this fall and next spring. They look forward to it. >>> >>> "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said. >>> >>> The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a >>> 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for >>> Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 >>> miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over >>> to Reapers. >>> >> >>This is a very, very bad idea. The only thing stopping rogue regimes, >>like the Bush regime, from starting all the wars they want to have is >>public opposition to body bags. Give these guys robots and we won't >>be able to stop them. > > > Absolutely. Oh, and don't discount the NEXT regimes interest > in TNT diplomacy. Hillary and Obama might be JUST as taken > with these new toys as "W"s boys. They represent the ability > to apply force WITHOUR CONSEQUENCES (tangible consequences > anyway). It would be like a fallout-free nuclear weapon or > a disease that only kills fundamentalist moslems - hard to > resist. > You're right. We can't give anyone a pass on this monstrosity. Clinton and Obama may use these things, too. Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Blackwater wrote: > > - - - - - > > Unfortunately, this is yet another bit of ultra-expensive > high-tech war machinery that's going to be barely usable > in the KINDS of warfare the US is likely to be engaged in > over the next decades. > I think that's completely incorrect. Unmanned aircraft will be vital in military efforts in the coming decades. > We're not dealing with commie hordes pouring over the hilltops, > we're dealing with foe that hide amongst local populations - > indistinguishable until they strike and indistinguishable 60 > seconds later. Only on very rare occasion will we be able to > determine that anyone of significance is in a particular, > isolated, spot at a particular time. Even then, they'll just > be replaced five minutes later. > But this is why the unmanned vehicles are vital. 1) Unmanned can stay on station for long periods, perhaps even ultimately days. This is impossible with people on board. 2) Latency can be reduced to almost nothing when the attack capability is on station so that means if you find some house being used by the bad guys, your ground troops can stay hidden and call in an air strike that hits almost right after they ask for it. This means they are directing attacks and reduces any response in their direction. 3) No people on board leaves more room for more weapons, etc. 4) Ultimately it might be possible to provide ground support equipment and technology drops from aircraft that stay on station. Imagine being in a fire fight and running out of ammunition or needing something specific. This could be dropped to you via GPS guidance. > This kind of warfare can only be done ONE way - by human > soldiers on the ground, backed-up by local informants. It's > dirty and bloody and really really dangerous and high-tech > has relatively little to offer. > It has a lot to offer. If you were walking down a road, you'd want to send your drone flying off ahead with heat sensing technology to suss out the bad guys, wouldn't you? > SOME kinds of high-tech are useful however. Improved > communications and surveillance systems for example. > If a soldier can instantly get multiple views of where > HE is, where his fellow soldiers are, what they are > doing and where 'marked' enemies are hiding then he's > got a significant tactical advantage. > But that's what they are working on and this includes the ability to strike those enemy without yourself being exposed to fire. In Afghanistan, the US special forces called in air strikes and the enemy didn't have the information from where those call ins were coming. That worked very well during the pre-Tora Bora battles. As far as I know, it is still working although long stay on station times, recallable cruise missiles, etc. are needed to lower costs and make new tactics possible. > There has been some experimentation with hand-launched > "hover-bots" that provide an overhead view - unfortunately > not to all the soldiers - and some attempts to use real-time > imagery from higher-altitude drones or even satellites. If > image-ID technology allowed enemies to be 'marked' with a > laser pointer and then automatically followed by the > surveillance drones, this would be a VERY useful system. > But for some reason you don't want to engage those enemy from the air? > Once 'marked' - the targets visual and infrared biometrics > could follow them around, at least within a combat zone, > so soldiers could know if they were creeping around behind > to take a shot or congregating with several other 'marked' > men to prepare an ambush. > > We've GOT the computer power and software. Surveillance > drones are (or CAN be) relatively cheap. Hand-launched > observation platforms can and have been built, but need > a bit more refinement. Data/Image eyepieces for each > soldier are also yesterdays technology. So why is money > put into these ultra-expensive attack drones instead of > where it could REALLY make a difference ? > The military needs these attack drones for the reasons I stated above. They also need other means and obviously includes means of telling friend of foe, as in the Tillman tragedy. -- "I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn Monroe, "Bus Stop" Quote
Guest Blackwater Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:52:44 -0000, Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com> wrote: >bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in >news:469b9002.2904250@news.east.earthlink.net: > >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:53:00 -0000, Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com> >> wrote: >> >>>bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:469b6c12.87905 >>>@news.east.earthlink.net: >>> >>>> FoxNews >>>> BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq : The airplane is the size of a jet >>>> fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and >>>> reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar >>>> targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. >>>> >>>> The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it >>>> bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away >>>> in Nevada. >>>> >>>> The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in >>>> aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed >>>> moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to >>>> hunt and kill. >>>> >>>> That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected >>>> "soon," says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? "We're still >>>> working that," Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview. >>>> >>>> The Reaper's first combat deployment is expected in Afghanistan, and >>>> senior Air Force officers estimate it will land in Iraq sometime >>>> between this fall and next spring. They look forward to it. >>>> >>>> "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said. >>>> >>>> The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a >>>> 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for >>>> Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 >>>> miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over >>>> to Reapers. >>>> >>> >>>This is a very, very bad idea. The only thing stopping rogue regimes, >>>like the Bush regime, from starting all the wars they want to have is >>>public opposition to body bags. Give these guys robots and we won't >>>be able to stop them. >> >> >> Absolutely. Oh, and don't discount the NEXT regimes interest >> in TNT diplomacy. Hillary and Obama might be JUST as taken >> with these new toys as "W"s boys. They represent the ability >> to apply force WITHOUR CONSEQUENCES (tangible consequences >> anyway). It would be like a fallout-free nuclear weapon or >> a disease that only kills fundamentalist moslems - hard to >> resist. >> > >You're right. We can't give anyone a pass on this monstrosity. Clinton >and Obama may use these things, too. They represent an 'omnipotent' kind of POWER ... and that can corrupt even the most saintly. Besides, todays "liberals" aren't really anymore into "liberty" than their GOP cousins. The libertarian spirit OD-ed at Woodstock and ain't been seen since. Quote
Guest Blackwater Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:15:19 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >Blackwater wrote: >> > > >> - - - - - >> >> Unfortunately, this is yet another bit of ultra-expensive >> high-tech war machinery that's going to be barely usable >> in the KINDS of warfare the US is likely to be engaged in >> over the next decades. > >I think that's completely incorrect. Unmanned aircraft will be vital in >military efforts in the coming decades. I disagree. I think our likely foes have learned the weaknesses of our methods. They now remain "invisible", blend in, don't congregate in large numbers. What good is a gun (drone-mounted or not) when you can't see the target ? There's a constant stream of traffic from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Most are reasonably legit. The terrorists are right there with them. We may SEE people moving via a surveillance drone, but which are bad and which are not ? Can't tell. >> We're not dealing with commie hordes pouring over the hilltops, >> we're dealing with foe that hide amongst local populations - >> indistinguishable until they strike and indistinguishable 60 >> seconds later. Only on very rare occasion will we be able to >> determine that anyone of significance is in a particular, >> isolated, spot at a particular time. Even then, they'll just >> be replaced five minutes later. >> >But this is why the unmanned vehicles are vital. > >1) Unmanned can stay on station for long periods, perhaps even >ultimately days. This is impossible with people on board. "Reaper" can only stay aloft 18 hours ... two LESS than the current "Predator". It's also much larger and noisier, meaning it would have to maintain a higher altitude to avoid detection. >2) Latency can be reduced to almost nothing when the attack capability >is on station so that means if you find some house being used by the bad >guys, your ground troops can stay hidden and call in an air strike that >hits almost right after they ask for it. This means they are directing >attacks and reduces any response in their direction. This IS a potential use for such devices - but their firepower is comparatively limited. "Reaper" might carry two hellfires, or one hellfire and a 20mm cannon, or some small bombs. This means it can make ONE good strike and maybe do a little butt- covering afterwards. IMHO, the only way to exploit this is to assign a pool of UAVs to an area and put them under the direct control of the ground troops. There should always be two or three of the things hovering around nearby. If you need one you grab one out of the pool and direct it to target. Cutting-out the middleman (men?) will not only speed up response but also cut down on "friendly fire" problems. For the ground-pounder, the net effect is like having your own little fighter-bomber assigned to your platoon. >3) No people on board leaves more room for more weapons, etc. Yea, but the POLITICAL savings are greater. Also the political DANGERS ... because these things make it TOO easy for politicians to entertain a firepower solution to their problems. >4) Ultimately it might be possible to provide ground support equipment >and technology drops from aircraft that stay on station. Imagine being >in a fire fight and running out of ammunition or needing something >specific. This could be dropped to you via GPS guidance. A conventional plane or chopper can do this too. If they'd work on their targeting, they could even drop supplies from a higher, safer, altitude. >> This kind of warfare can only be done ONE way - by human >> soldiers on the ground, backed-up by local informants. It's >> dirty and bloody and really really dangerous and high-tech >> has relatively little to offer. >> >It has a lot to offer. If you were walking down a road, you'd want to >send your drone flying off ahead with heat sensing technology to suss >out the bad guys, wouldn't you? It's not going to be a "Reaper" providing such data. Too big, too expensive. A mini-drone instead. But where ARE such drones ? Oh and this kind of sensing only works out in the open. What good is it on a crowded street ? As I said, the foe is learning our methods. It's not going to give us a clear shot most of the time. >> SOME kinds of high-tech are useful however. Improved >> communications and surveillance systems for example. >> If a soldier can instantly get multiple views of where >> HE is, where his fellow soldiers are, what they are >> doing and where 'marked' enemies are hiding then he's >> got a significant tactical advantage. >> >But that's what they are working on and this includes the ability to >strike those enemy without yourself being exposed to fire. In >Afghanistan, the US special forces called in air strikes and the enemy >didn't have the information from where those call ins were coming. That >worked very well during the pre-Tora Bora battles. As far as I know, it >is still working although long stay on station times, recallable cruise >missiles, etc. are needed to lower costs and make new tactics possible. > > >> There has been some experimentation with hand-launched >> "hover-bots" that provide an overhead view - unfortunately >> not to all the soldiers - and some attempts to use real-time >> imagery from higher-altitude drones or even satellites. If >> image-ID technology allowed enemies to be 'marked' with a >> laser pointer and then automatically followed by the >> surveillance drones, this would be a VERY useful system. >> >But for some reason you don't want to engage those enemy from the air? Generally, it won't be possible - without extreme 'collateral damage'. An M-16 at five meters does a clean job. You seem to have this notion of tomorrows "battlefield" being some patch of open desert. Nope, it's the downtown section of large cities for the most part. They KNOW we abhor killing civvies ... >> Once 'marked' - the targets visual and infrared biometrics >> could follow them around, at least within a combat zone, >> so soldiers could know if they were creeping around behind >> to take a shot or congregating with several other 'marked' >> men to prepare an ambush. >> >> We've GOT the computer power and software. Surveillance >> drones are (or CAN be) relatively cheap. Hand-launched >> observation platforms can and have been built, but need >> a bit more refinement. Data/Image eyepieces for each >> soldier are also yesterdays technology. So why is money >> put into these ultra-expensive attack drones instead of >> where it could REALLY make a difference ? >> >The military needs these attack drones for the reasons I stated above. >They also need other means and obviously includes means of telling >friend of foe, as in the Tillman tragedy. The military needs UAVs ... but not this UAV. It's a porkbarrel project that will NEVER pay for itself. Better to buy ten, or fifty, small surveillance UAVs and soldier-interface systems instead. Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Blackwater wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:15:19 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" > <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > >Blackwater wrote: > >> > > > > > >> - - - - - > >> > >> Unfortunately, this is yet another bit of ultra-expensive > >> high-tech war machinery that's going to be barely usable > >> in the KINDS of warfare the US is likely to be engaged in > >> over the next decades. > > > >I think that's completely incorrect. Unmanned aircraft will be vital in > >military efforts in the coming decades. > > I disagree. I think our likely foes have learned the > weaknesses of our methods. They now remain "invisible", > blend in, don't congregate in large numbers. What good > is a gun (drone-mounted or not) when you can't see > the target ? > Presumably you can find your target. The problem is if you just this guy walking around yourself blending in, you can't personally engage or your enemy will overwhelm you. The problem now is latency, how long it takes between you finding the target and the target is engaged. By having drones on station for days at a time, costs are reduced, impact on nearby countries you might have to fly over is reduced, and you greatly reduce the time to engage. > There's a constant stream of traffic from Pakistan to > Afghanistan. Most are reasonably legit. The terrorists > are right there with them. We may SEE people moving > via a surveillance drone, but which are bad and which > are not ? Can't tell. > So you send people in on the ground and they make the decisions. Clinton was afraid of that because of the risk, but there's no reason to risk people needlessly. That means there's little reason to have piloted airplanes where drones would do a better job. > >> We're not dealing with commie hordes pouring over the hilltops, > >> we're dealing with foe that hide amongst local populations - > >> indistinguishable until they strike and indistinguishable 60 > >> seconds later. Only on very rare occasion will we be able to > >> determine that anyone of significance is in a particular, > >> isolated, spot at a particular time. Even then, they'll just > >> be replaced five minutes later. > >> > >But this is why the unmanned vehicles are vital. > > > >1) Unmanned can stay on station for long periods, perhaps even > >ultimately days. This is impossible with people on board. > > "Reaper" can only stay aloft 18 hours ... two LESS than > the current "Predator". It's also much larger and noisier, > meaning it would have to maintain a higher altitude to > avoid detection. > I'm talking about the direction this is going. Ultimately you'll see these things on station for days. And they could be refuelled, again a future concept. So you have piloted refuelling aircraft fixing up the drones as they move around keeping the enemy off guard. > >2) Latency can be reduced to almost nothing when the attack capability > >is on station so that means if you find some house being used by the bad > >guys, your ground troops can stay hidden and call in an air strike that > >hits almost right after they ask for it. This means they are directing > >attacks and reduces any response in their direction. > > This IS a potential use for such devices - but their firepower > is comparatively limited. "Reaper" might carry two hellfires, > or one hellfire and a 20mm cannon, or some small bombs. This > means it can make ONE good strike and maybe do a little butt- > covering afterwards. > Actually, it carries 14 Hellfire or two 500 pound bombs or something like that. Predator carries only two Hellfires. > IMHO, the only way to exploit this is to assign a pool of > UAVs to an area and put them under the direct control of > the ground troops. There should always be two or three > of the things hovering around nearby. > It's not that they hover nearby it's that there are moving around the country handing off responsibilities to each other. It could even be that the pilot stays the same in a certain zone but the aircraft he's controlling changes as they move about. This moving about makes it difficult for the enemy to use the locations of the drones to tell where ground troops are. > If you need one > you grab one out of the pool and direct it to target. > Cutting-out the middleman (men?) will not only speed up > response but also cut down on "friendly fire" problems. > Right but you can't have some guy on the ground controlling something that big, not with current tech, because he's likely to have other things to do. One idea is to bring in more troops virtually to control various weapons. For example, if you have a convoy with 10 troops and 100 automatic guns that are fired either locally or from Florida, the guys in Florida can help just when you need them. Then they can be over at another convoy that needs them just as soon as they are done at this one. This is a troop multiplier. It also reduces Americans in harm's way. > For the ground-pounder, the net effect is like having your > own little fighter-bomber assigned to your platoon. > I'm essentially talking about that. > >3) No people on board leaves more room for more weapons, etc. > > Yea, but the POLITICAL savings are greater. Also the > political DANGERS ... because these things make it > TOO easy for politicians to entertain a firepower > solution to their problems. > The US gets plenty of crap outside of just its own casualties to make it think twice before getting into as many wars as possible. > >4) Ultimately it might be possible to provide ground support equipment > >and technology drops from aircraft that stay on station. Imagine being > >in a fire fight and running out of ammunition or needing something > >specific. This could be dropped to you via GPS guidance. > > A conventional plane or chopper can do this too. > I know it can although it doesn't have the stay on station capability of a drone. > If they'd > work on their targeting, they could even drop supplies from > a higher, safer, altitude. > I'm talking about using GPS guided smart "bombs" as delivery systems. A few thousand pounds could be used to create an armed mule, not a tank because people aren't in it, that goes out front giving you your eyes without risk and engaging the enemy as needed. You call these in only when you need them so you can hike over tough terrain and then get your supply drop. > >> This kind of warfare can only be done ONE way - by human > >> soldiers on the ground, backed-up by local informants. It's > >> dirty and bloody and really really dangerous and high-tech > >> has relatively little to offer. > >> > >It has a lot to offer. If you were walking down a road, you'd want to > >send your drone flying off ahead with heat sensing technology to suss > >out the bad guys, wouldn't you? > > It's not going to be a "Reaper" providing such data. Too big, > too expensive. A mini-drone instead. But where ARE such drones ? > Reaper is the engagement direction. I could also be the on station support direction. You are right smaller is better for just looking down and giving you data. You'll notice that they want these bigger drones though because it feels pretty helpless when you can't help your guys but you can see them. I think we remember that situation where the Afghan leader was killed by the Taliban and the Predator didn't have enough fire power. > Oh and this kind of sensing only works out in the open. What > good is it on a crowded street ? As I said, the foe is learning > our methods. It's not going to give us a clear shot most of > the time. > House to house, I suspect you are going to have to use land drones like I was talking about above. It helps to arm them so the enemy is encouraged to engage. > >> SOME kinds of high-tech are useful however. Improved > >> communications and surveillance systems for example. > >> If a soldier can instantly get multiple views of where > >> HE is, where his fellow soldiers are, what they are > >> doing and where 'marked' enemies are hiding then he's > >> got a significant tactical advantage. > >> > >But that's what they are working on and this includes the ability to > >strike those enemy without yourself being exposed to fire. In > >Afghanistan, the US special forces called in air strikes and the enemy > >didn't have the information from where those call ins were coming. That > >worked very well during the pre-Tora Bora battles. As far as I know, it > >is still working although long stay on station times, recallable cruise > >missiles, etc. are needed to lower costs and make new tactics possible. > > > > > >> There has been some experimentation with hand-launched > >> "hover-bots" that provide an overhead view - unfortunately > >> not to all the soldiers - and some attempts to use real-time > >> imagery from higher-altitude drones or even satellites. If > >> image-ID technology allowed enemies to be 'marked' with a > >> laser pointer and then automatically followed by the > >> surveillance drones, this would be a VERY useful system. > >> > >But for some reason you don't want to engage those enemy from the air? > > Generally, it won't be possible - without extreme 'collateral > damage'. An M-16 at five meters does a clean job. > But that risks our guys too. You need that and you need to mitigate the risk, so you have both means. > You seem to have this notion of tomorrows "battlefield" being > some patch of open desert. Nope, it's the downtown section of > large cities for the most part. They KNOW we abhor killing > civvies ... > That's why they go there. If we were willing to engage and they knew it, they wouldn't so much go there. In any case, yea, you have to have something to deal with that and I think armed drone mules that can be GPS dropped as needed are a possible asset for that. > >> Once 'marked' - the targets visual and infrared biometrics > >> could follow them around, at least within a combat zone, > >> so soldiers could know if they were creeping around behind > >> to take a shot or congregating with several other 'marked' > >> men to prepare an ambush. > >> > >> We've GOT the computer power and software. Surveillance > >> drones are (or CAN be) relatively cheap. Hand-launched > >> observation platforms can and have been built, but need > >> a bit more refinement. Data/Image eyepieces for each > >> soldier are also yesterdays technology. So why is money > >> put into these ultra-expensive attack drones instead of > >> where it could REALLY make a difference ? > >> > >The military needs these attack drones for the reasons I stated above. > >They also need other means and obviously includes means of telling > >friend of foe, as in the Tillman tragedy. > > The military needs UAVs ... but not this UAV. It's a porkbarrel > project that will NEVER pay for itself. Better to buy ten, or > fifty, small surveillance UAVs and soldier-interface systems > instead. > I don't know what this costs. I think that there is legitimate need in the larger direction and this could be useful. I don't have specific technical details, just that basic claim. -- "I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn Monroe, "Bus Stop" Quote
Guest Ben Turner Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Blackwater wrote: > > Unfortunately, this is yet another bit of ultra-expensive > high-tech war machinery that's going to be barely usable > in the KINDS of warfare the US is likely to be engaged in > over the next decades. > Do you think the pentagon types care? They get another toy....we get to pay. SSDD. Remember the government press conference on 9/10/2001 (one day before the WTC attack) saying that the pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion (with a "T") dollars? Do you remember that the 9/11 attack on the pentagon killed a whole bunch of accountants? Surely it's all a bunch of coincidence....right? Quote
Guest Blackwater Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:59:22 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >Blackwater wrote: >> >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:15:19 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Blackwater wrote: >> >> >> > >> > >> >> - - - - - >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, this is yet another bit of ultra-expensive >> >> high-tech war machinery that's going to be barely usable >> >> in the KINDS of warfare the US is likely to be engaged in >> >> over the next decades. >> > >> >I think that's completely incorrect. Unmanned aircraft will be vital in >> >military efforts in the coming decades. >> >> I disagree. I think our likely foes have learned the >> weaknesses of our methods. They now remain "invisible", >> blend in, don't congregate in large numbers. What good >> is a gun (drone-mounted or not) when you can't see >> the target ? >> >Presumably you can find your target. A big presumption. Even the ground-pounders regularly screw it up. You often won't know who the bad guy is until the second he pulls the AK out from under his robe. They'll make sure there are a lot of civvies around too, just to maximize the chances of you screwing up. >The problem is if you just this guy >walking around yourself blending in, you can't personally engage or your >enemy will overwhelm you. The problem now is latency, how long it takes >between you finding the target and the target is engaged. By having >drones on station for days at a time, costs are reduced, impact on >nearby countries you might have to fly over is reduced, and you greatly >reduce the time to engage. Again, you're talking about some other kind of war - one in relatively open spaces. Yea, we'll do SOME of that, but the foe KNOWS that's our strong point and has been refining methods that minimize his exposure. I'm talking about the kind of war where we've lost the vast majority of soldiers - suburban Baghdad or its equivalent. Busy and crowded. Everything's fine and then boom - the IED goes off and fire comes out of the crowd and nearby windows. It's a really bad kind of situation for our soldiers and drones are only going to be of VERY limited help. Far better if we could move 100 SOLDIERS into the area within a few minutes. >> There's a constant stream of traffic from Pakistan to >> Afghanistan. Most are reasonably legit. The terrorists >> are right there with them. We may SEE people moving >> via a surveillance drone, but which are bad and which >> are not ? Can't tell. >> >So you send people in on the ground and they make the decisions. And that's how we're doing it. Drones don't help. Some HUMAN has to actually stop the little caravan, peek in their saddlebags and eyeball the people to see if any are on the 'most wanted' list. To the western eye, they all look much the same ... Drones CAN help in initially locating these little caravans with no risk to an aviator. Of course the drones ain't cheap so a rocket up the wazoo costs us a bundle. "Cheaper" than explaining a dead pilot, but still ... >Clinton >was afraid of that because of the risk, but there's no reason to risk >people needlessly. That means there's little reason to have piloted >airplanes where drones would do a better job. Yep, there ARE niches where they can serve quite well. However, they're a POLITICAL fix, not a military fix. They'll save a few pilots, but won't fight the war any better. Probably a bit worse. >> >> We're not dealing with commie hordes pouring over the hilltops, >> >> we're dealing with foe that hide amongst local populations - >> >> indistinguishable until they strike and indistinguishable 60 >> >> seconds later. Only on very rare occasion will we be able to >> >> determine that anyone of significance is in a particular, >> >> isolated, spot at a particular time. Even then, they'll just >> >> be replaced five minutes later. >> >> >> >But this is why the unmanned vehicles are vital. >> > >> >1) Unmanned can stay on station for long periods, perhaps even >> >ultimately days. This is impossible with people on board. >> >> "Reaper" can only stay aloft 18 hours ... two LESS than >> the current "Predator". It's also much larger and noisier, >> meaning it would have to maintain a higher altitude to >> avoid detection. >> >I'm talking about the direction this is going. Ultimately you'll see >these things on station for days. And they could be refuelled, again a >future concept. So you have piloted refuelling aircraft fixing up the >drones as they move around keeping the enemy off guard. The "direction this is going" is towards UAVs that are as large and costly as F-16s yet not as effective. That's my big complaint here. The trend is towards PORK, not function. Sure, we COULD build lots of cheap drones that would work really well with soldiers in the field - but there's less money (and interest) in doing so. The MIC would rather crank out complex items they can hide all sorts of cost over-runs and ripoffs in. It's like the IED problem, they don't want to armor the Hummers, they want to build big new APCs instead - delivery date who-knows-when. >> >2) Latency can be reduced to almost nothing when the attack capability >> >is on station so that means if you find some house being used by the bad >> >guys, your ground troops can stay hidden and call in an air strike that >> >hits almost right after they ask for it. This means they are directing >> >attacks and reduces any response in their direction. >> >> This IS a potential use for such devices - but their firepower >> is comparatively limited. "Reaper" might carry two hellfires, >> or one hellfire and a 20mm cannon, or some small bombs. This >> means it can make ONE good strike and maybe do a little butt- >> covering afterwards. >> >Actually, it carries 14 Hellfire or two 500 pound bombs or something >like that. Predator carries only two Hellfires. 14 ? Well, that's enough to flatten the entire armed forces of some of the nearby 'stans. Not exactly what you want for downtown Baghdad however ... IMHO, if you want to deliver 14 hellfires, bolt 'em to an F-16, A-10 or chopper with a human pilot calling the shots. 'Reaper' is a great weapon - unfortunately it's not the weapon we NEED. It's for "some other war". North Korea, maybe ... >> IMHO, the only way to exploit this is to assign a pool of >> UAVs to an area and put them under the direct control of >> the ground troops. There should always be two or three >> of the things hovering around nearby. >> >It's not that they hover nearby it's that there are moving around the >country handing off responsibilities to each other. It could even be >that the pilot stays the same in a certain zone but the aircraft he's >controlling changes as they move about. This moving about makes it >difficult for the enemy to use the locations of the drones to tell where >ground troops are. The important thing is that there are always a few within five or ten minutes of where the battle may break out. In practice, as some ran low on fuel they'd head home mostly on autopilot, as fresh ones arrived on station. A constant presence. This would serve best in Afghanistan where we've got guys wandering around in the hills. The UAVs should be their infrared eyes, looking down and around from on high, but ready to plunge downwards at a moments notice. >> If you need one >> you grab one out of the pool and direct it to target. >> Cutting-out the middleman (men?) will not only speed up >> response but also cut down on "friendly fire" problems. >> >Right but you can't have some guy on the ground controlling something >that big, not with current tech, because he's likely to have other >things to do. Often no, sometimes yes. I urge the capability of operation by the ground troops because it will lessen the chances of some distant pilot making mistakes. There have been rather a lot of 'friendly fire' casualties in these wars. An alternative/adjunct is to give the ground troops direct access to the drones targeting screen AND the operator. If the 'X' isn't on the right people they can shout "Whoa Nellie !" and draw a new 'X' on the screen. "Shoot THAT Bub, not US !". >One idea is to bring in more troops virtually to control >various weapons. For example, if you have a convoy with 10 troops and >100 automatic guns that are fired either locally or from Florida, the >guys in Florida can help just when you need them. Then they can be over >at another convoy that needs them just as soon as they are done at this >one. This is a troop multiplier. It also reduces Americans in harm's >way. Florida is not viable - too much signal latency because you'd have to use satellites. Well, unless we're invading Cuba ... :-) Since "the war" isn't constant over large areas, skirmishes mostly, it's quite possible for all operators to concentrate their efforts on the battle at hand. Each operator might be assigned five drones, each in various sectors. 99.9% of the time they're on autopilot. If something goes down in one sector however, they can just forget the autopiloted drones for awhile and assume real-time control of the ones nearest the combat zone. Depending, they may set some of the autodrones to head that way too on their own - backup firepower. This scheme would work for the surveillance drones too. We might always have 100 of them in the sky above Baghdad, 50 or so over each of the other large cities, yet comparatively few operators. When the boom ! happens, they switch to real-time mode and start reporting movements to the ground troops. >> For the ground-pounder, the net effect is like having your >> own little fighter-bomber assigned to your platoon. >> >I'm essentially talking about that. Fighter-bombers are NOT good for Bahghdad. >> >3) No people on board leaves more room for more weapons, etc. >> >> Yea, but the POLITICAL savings are greater. Also the >> political DANGERS ... because these things make it >> TOO easy for politicians to entertain a firepower >> solution to their problems. >> >The US gets plenty of crap outside of just its own casualties to make it >think twice before getting into as many wars as possible. I haven't seen that link. Seems we don't give a damn about "other" casualties ... or at least not MUCH of a damn. 150 Iraqis killed today ? Ho-Hum ... >> >4) Ultimately it might be possible to provide ground support equipment >> >and technology drops from aircraft that stay on station. Imagine being >> >in a fire fight and running out of ammunition or needing something >> >specific. This could be dropped to you via GPS guidance. >> >> A conventional plane or chopper can do this too. >> >I know it can although it doesn't have the stay on station capability of >a drone. Not MY fault they haven't built long-duration aircraft. Think a mini U2 with a small turboprop - or, did you ever see a Bede BD-5J ? http://www.bd5.com/bd01001.htm http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0256.shtml They were also availible with wing extentions - for long range and/or higher altitudes. >> If they'd >> work on their targeting, they could even drop supplies from >> a higher, safer, altitude. >> >I'm talking about using GPS guided smart "bombs" as delivery systems. Also a very good idea ... IF the guidance/control system can be made cheaply enough. OUGHT to be possible ... if we hire some other country to make it. >A >few thousand pounds could be used to create an armed mule, not a tank >because people aren't in it, that goes out front giving you your eyes >without risk and engaging the enemy as needed. You call these in only >when you need them so you can hike over tough terrain and then get your >supply drop. The cargo-pilots will complain ... no more combat pay :-) >> >> This kind of warfare can only be done ONE way - by human >> >> soldiers on the ground, backed-up by local informants. It's >> >> dirty and bloody and really really dangerous and high-tech >> >> has relatively little to offer. >> >> >> >It has a lot to offer. If you were walking down a road, you'd want to >> >send your drone flying off ahead with heat sensing technology to suss >> >out the bad guys, wouldn't you? >> >> It's not going to be a "Reaper" providing such data. Too big, >> too expensive. A mini-drone instead. But where ARE such drones ? >> >Reaper is the engagement direction. I could also be the on station >support direction. You are right smaller is better for just looking down >and giving you data. You'll notice that they want these bigger drones >though because it feels pretty helpless when you can't help your guys >but you can see them. I think we remember that situation where the >Afghan leader was killed by the Taliban and the Predator didn't have >enough fire power. Sorry, but I still smell PORK instead of the fine perfume of enlightenment. They'll concentrate all the money on a few, large, complex, expensive drones that are only good for a few selected kinds of operations. >> Oh and this kind of sensing only works out in the open. What >> good is it on a crowded street ? As I said, the foe is learning >> our methods. It's not going to give us a clear shot most of >> the time. >> >House to house, I suspect you are going to have to use land drones like >I was talking about above. It helps to arm them so the enemy is >encouraged to engage. "Land drones" = easy targets. Have you SEEN these "robots" move around ? Pitifully slow and clumsy. While they serve OK for poking around suspected IEDs, they're not actual "combat" machines. Wait until they can make 'bots that skitter around like spiders on crank. 20 years ? >> >> SOME kinds of high-tech are useful however. Improved >> >> communications and surveillance systems for example. >> >> If a soldier can instantly get multiple views of where >> >> HE is, where his fellow soldiers are, what they are >> >> doing and where 'marked' enemies are hiding then he's >> >> got a significant tactical advantage. >> >> >> >But that's what they are working on and this includes the ability to >> >strike those enemy without yourself being exposed to fire. In >> >Afghanistan, the US special forces called in air strikes and the enemy >> >didn't have the information from where those call ins were coming. That >> >worked very well during the pre-Tora Bora battles. As far as I know, it >> >is still working although long stay on station times, recallable cruise >> >missiles, etc. are needed to lower costs and make new tactics possible. >> > >> > >> >> There has been some experimentation with hand-launched >> >> "hover-bots" that provide an overhead view - unfortunately >> >> not to all the soldiers - and some attempts to use real-time >> >> imagery from higher-altitude drones or even satellites. If >> >> image-ID technology allowed enemies to be 'marked' with a >> >> laser pointer and then automatically followed by the >> >> surveillance drones, this would be a VERY useful system. >> >> >> >But for some reason you don't want to engage those enemy from the air? >> >> Generally, it won't be possible - without extreme 'collateral >> damage'. An M-16 at five meters does a clean job. >> >But that risks our guys too. You need that and you need to mitigate the >risk, so you have both means. Well, you've gotta decide ... how many Iraqi kids are morally and/or politically equivalent to one American soldier. Yea, it's an evil question if there ever was one .... >> You seem to have this notion of tomorrows "battlefield" being >> some patch of open desert. Nope, it's the downtown section of >> large cities for the most part. They KNOW we abhor killing >> civvies ... >> >That's why they go there. If we were willing to engage and they knew it, >they wouldn't so much go there. Yea, they still would - civvie bodies = cover, plus supplies are more availible. Afghanistan is different because the "cities" are mostly widely-spaced 1-story mud-brick slums. Safer to make use of the rugged mountains and Pakistani border instead. >In any case, yea, you have to have >something to deal with that and I think armed drone mules that can be >GPS dropped as needed are a possible asset for that. A simple pod full of ARMS would be a very useful thing, especially in Afganistan. We send guys WAY out there and they can only carry just SO much stuff up those mountains. It would be nice if they could get a ton of fresh ammo, mortar shells and water on short notice no matter WHAT nasty little canyon they were in. Just wire the stuff with det-cord so it can be destroyed if it falls off-target. >> >> Once 'marked' - the targets visual and infrared biometrics >> >> could follow them around, at least within a combat zone, >> >> so soldiers could know if they were creeping around behind >> >> to take a shot or congregating with several other 'marked' >> >> men to prepare an ambush. >> >> >> >> We've GOT the computer power and software. Surveillance >> >> drones are (or CAN be) relatively cheap. Hand-launched >> >> observation platforms can and have been built, but need >> >> a bit more refinement. Data/Image eyepieces for each >> >> soldier are also yesterdays technology. So why is money >> >> put into these ultra-expensive attack drones instead of >> >> where it could REALLY make a difference ? >> >> >> >The military needs these attack drones for the reasons I stated above. >> >They also need other means and obviously includes means of telling >> >friend of foe, as in the Tillman tragedy. >> >> The military needs UAVs ... but not this UAV. It's a porkbarrel >> project that will NEVER pay for itself. Better to buy ten, or >> fifty, small surveillance UAVs and soldier-interface systems >> instead. >> >I don't know what this costs. I think that there is legitimate need in >the larger direction and this could be useful. I don't have specific >technical details, just that basic claim. I don't think there's a legitimate need for THIS drone. Even "Predator" is over-priced to the point where there aren't nearly enough of them for all useful roles. Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 "Blackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message news:469b6c12.87905@news.east.earthlink.net... > FoxNews > BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq : The airplane is the size of a jet > fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and > reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar > targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. > The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it > bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in > Nevada. That fucker rocks!!! Made in America! Tested in Iraq! Soon to be seen (not really) in Iran!!!!!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-haw. Quote
Guest Michael Ejercito Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 On Jul 16, 6:53 am, Joe Steel <JoeSt...@NoSpam.com> wrote: > b...@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:469b6c12.87905 > @news.east.earthlink.net: > > "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said. > > > The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a > > 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for > > Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 > > miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over to > > Reapers. > > This is a very, very bad idea. The only thing stopping rogue regimes, > like the Bush regime, from starting all the wars they want to have is > public opposition to body bags. Give these guys robots and we won't be > able to stop them. This is why we need robots to serve the function of cannon fodder, so there will be much fewer body bags. Michael Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Michael Ejercito wrote: > > On Jul 16, 6:53 am, Joe Steel <JoeSt...@NoSpam.com> wrote: > > b...@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in news:469b6c12.87905 > > @news.east.earthlink.net: > > > "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said. > > > > > The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a > > > 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for > > > Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 > > > miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over to > > > Reapers. > > > > This is a very, very bad idea. The only thing stopping rogue regimes, > > like the Bush regime, from starting all the wars they want to have is > > public opposition to body bags. Give these guys robots and we won't be > > able to stop them. > This is why we need robots to serve the function of cannon fodder, > so there will be much fewer body bags. > They just send the broken robot to reBoot Hill for a needed upgrade. -- "I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn Monroe, "Bus Stop" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.