Drones are just Airpower without the Adult Diapers - Vice News

[dimsum]

Shrek,

We are not talking about autonomous drones - incidentally, cruise missiles are exactly that but no one seems to go up in arms about the infernal, ungodly nature of an AGM-109 Tomahawk - but Remotely-Piloted Aircraft.  There is a crew (including a pilot) on the other end. 

As for having no skin in the game, what do you think of a manned fighter/bomber launching a long-range munition outside the engagement envelope of a SAM system?  Should they continue speeding towards the target and wait until they're lit up by the SAM fire-control radar before they shoot, so there is some "skin in the game"?  So they can play fair and have a 50/50 chance of getting shot down?  I'd like to see how many pilots put up their hands for that.

 

[cupper]

https://news.vice.com/article/debating-drones-is-dumb
For those who have read the article, I will now call my microwave a "robotic kitchen chef drone".

I wouldn't make it as a drone pilot. No patients. I find myself yelling at my robotic kitchen chef drone to hurry up.

We are not talking about autonomous drones - incidentally, cruise missiles are exactly that but no one seems to go up in arms about the infernal, ungodly nature of an AGM-109 Tomahawk - but Remotely-Piloted Aircraft.  There is a crew (including a pilot) on the other end. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tomahawks aren't exactly autonomous, in the sense that they need to be told where to go through a targeting program , as opposed to a truly autonomous weapon which when launched, will hunt for a target, interrogate it, and decide on its own based on set criterion if it is friend, foe or nothing significant.

 

[George Wallace]

If you won't loose anyone when you fight, why not go to war all the time?

We already live in a video game world.

We already feel nothing as a people when we go to war. No rationing, no conscription, only the families of the dead and wounded and those actually at the sharp end notice anything.

Humans care little for what happens in other places, to other people who look different and lead different lives.

No, we want to take all the skin out of the game? Yeah, this is going to go greeeeeeat.

Lee said that; "It is good that war is so terrible, we should grow too fond of it." I'm really rather positive, as a cynical student of history and human nature that if we really commit to armed drones, it will go very, very bad for us as a species. Not terminator-bad, but as in totally-disconnected from the consequences of violence-bad.

The push for drones is easy to understand; casualties=disapproval, remove the casualties from your side and no one will care. You can even point out to them how much of the money you save on training and housing human soldiers can now be spent on general vote-buying initiatives.

If you really see a pilot-less remote-controlled vehicle as being the same kind of safety measure as body armour, I got nothin; you live on a different world than I do. That's so sensational an approach to the discussion, so out there, it blows my mind, I can't engage it.

I think this is going to happen; humanity has been way too long without a really hard lesson. I can't stop it. Not like any resolution in the UN or treaty has ever actually improved anything ever; we need to learn this the hard way. Possibly over a hundred years or so. So whatever, let's get on with the decay, yes? .

Griffon, frankly, I think your initial response was closest to the mark. While the everyone-poops theory has many applications to life the universe and everything, this isn't one.

Reading that, it confirms to me that Darwinism is alive and killing our youth. 

Shrek

Turn off your cell phone for a week or longer.  It has damaged your cognitive functions.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Anyone remember the good old days when machine-guns were pooh-poohed by professional soldiers because they took the humanity and need for personal courage out of a good face to face infantry fight?

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is a certain meme making the rounds in the United Nations these days, about Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems. It is a nearly terminally stupid discussion ... and that's by the incredibly low intellectual standards that the UN sets for itself. But it has captured the imaginations of the feeble minded, the young, emasculated males (and their feminine counterparts) and so on ... about 87.63% of humanity, in other words. I think it spreads in the drinking water ... which is why I recommend whisky without ice.

 

[Nemo888]

A lot of DARPA money is being dumped into making uav's autonomous. To pretend larger drones like the x-47b are not being designed with autonomous capabilities is a bit disingenuous. They are no more immoral than air dropped mines and will be great for area denial. Very long term of course one wonders what governments will do when they realize they no longer need soldiers, but by then I will be in the ground.

 

[Shrek1985]

Nice sentiment -- almost painful to read in its oversimplified irrelevance, but cute in a 1st-year university, Chicken Little-way nonetheless.  anic:

You believe we're on the path to Armageddon because the voters are up in arms over the massive loss of life inherent in all of the crewed fighter-bomber/ISR aircraft Canada's lost?  Providing remote on-station loiter for surveillance/reconnaissance....and occasional strike...equals taking "all the skin out of the game"?    :facepalm:

Well, I like to really bring it down to earth for people with sunny and incorrect views of human nature, distracted by new toys. Funny thing is, historically, new weapons change very little in warfare. As Patton noted; a weapon is at the zenith of it's effectiveness on the enemy, when it is at the nadir of it's reliability and familairity. Drones are different, because they buy into that milksop aspect of human nature. My *4th* year university teacher, in my history of WWI class noted that while there was nothing "sexy" about cpl bloggings sitting behind a vickers gun and mowing down 500 germans, it was effective.

But I point out there is a strong moral difference between any role in which there is a risk of death and one in which there is none. Lots of Machinegunners were killed in WWI, in vietnam, pilots of mach 2 jet fighters were taken down by lucky hits from Mosin Nagants.

I think Canada and her voters have shit-all to do with it. I think what idiots seem to want is remote-controled fighting robots waging war from afar; sterile, safe and politically palatable. I see this as horrendously dangerous in a moral sense in terms of what it will do to our willingness to wage war and our ability as a people to wage war ourselves when we inevitably have to once again.

Reading that, it confirms to me that Darwinism is alive and killing our youth. 

Shrek

Turn off your cell phone for a week or longer.  It has damaged your cognitive functions.

Eh George; show your work buds.

I see a lot of blow-hards essentially ridiculing my opposition to lowering the denomination of warfare and waging it to the level of a weekend playing XBOX, and precious little intelligent debate.

Anyone remember the good old days when machine-guns were pooh-poohed by professional soldiers because they took the humanity and need for personal courage out of a good face to face infantry fight?

Oh, you mean like every WES/MILES excercise ever? "Support weapons? PAH! It's men with rifles who will will this battle! Another section into that house we've been hosing with MG and 84 fire."

It's not even in the same sandbox Mike. Let's be real clear here; I can make a distinction between a fight which is as unfair as possible and which is reduced to Predadorks killing people from half a world away. I'm a bastard, really. Napalm, clusterbombs, landmines; let's do it! I could give a damn about little kids maimed by someone else's mines, or mine frankly. Ooops, shit happens. If there was a guy in the thing popping AGM-114s into weddings and family cars, I wouldn't care, because the guy could get killed. That mutal risk? However disparate? Morally important to the process of waging war.

It's a totally different call to make between sending a remote-controlled robot in, vs a person who could die. It's easier, it's cheaper and based on my observations of human nature and recent history, it makes sending in the RC plane of death a lot more attractive. You'll send that thing into situations which are a lot less clear than the manned aircrafty, because who cares, right? Cheaper, more replacable, and let's face it; WAY easier to micro manage.

Or as President Obama told one aide; "I'm really good at killing people".

 

[George Wallace]

You are so all over the map, I am having a hard time following your logic. 

Are you a Trekkie by chance?

A Taste of Armageddon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKmUd0zHW4w

 

[Shrek1985]

Shrek,

We are not talking about autonomous drones - incidentally, cruise missiles are exactly that but no one seems to go up in arms about the infernal, ungodly nature of an AGM-109 Tomahawk - but Remotely-Piloted Aircraft.  There is a crew (including a pilot) on the other end. 

As for having no skin in the game, what do you think of a manned fighter/bomber launching a long-range munition outside the engagement envelope of a SAM system?  Should they continue speeding towards the target and wait until they're lit up by the SAM fire-control radar before they shoot, so there is some "skin in the game"?  So they can play fair and have a 50/50 chance of getting shot down?  I'd like to see how many pilots put up their hands for that.

Hey, nice reducto ad absurdium Dimsum. It's war, not a duel. You people need to stop trying to score more snark points with your pals and maybe try to engage this intelligently.

And when did I ever say "autonomous?" Oh, I said "terminator" as in; "*NOT* terminator-bad", but I see how you all could have missed that while you were busy projecting and insulting ideas you clearly cannot engage. I'm not seeing a world ruled by robot overlords, working people to death building their chrome armies. honestly I think, seeing as how society makes soldiers, not the military; we'll essentially culturally select against that mindset; because we'll do almost all our killing from behind computer screens. Then someone will figure out a way to overturn our technological terror (nice SW ref, eh?) and suddenly, we'll need people who can fly a plane in CAS, or drive home an attack at bayonet point. And we'll have damn few of them and no mechanism to train, equip, support or deploy them, because the concept of drones is so damn attractive and i'll admit it; it is.

Drones are cheaper (for now), easier to use and in some ways, such as manuverability, they can perform better than manned equivalents due to the lack of the human component.

But hey; like I said; we're due another hard lesson.

As to your question; I have zero problem with that, because they can still die, the crew had to take risks all the way from basic to the landing back at base.

If you consider the Tomahawk; the crew aren't half way around the world; they're in theatre and fighting a modern opponent, they'd be at serious risk. as is...being air/ground/sea launched...hmmmm, quite a bit of risk there. Unlike the Predadork in his office. I mean, far as I know the Tomahawk uses GPS, INS and TERCOM, not command guidance, but hey TOW is a BGM system and it's wireguided, so I'm willing to buy that there is a aux system for just that. I mean, there's a whole separate discussion, ala John Paul Vann for using weapons like Tomahawks against insurgents, but whatever.

But hey, why limit yourself? I mean, I don't require ever cruise missile be converted to an Ohka Bakka Bomb, but just while you're at it, why hold back?

You are so all over the map, I am having a hard time following your logic. 

Are you a Trekkie by chance?

A Taste of Armageddon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKmUd0zHW4w

No George, I hate Trek and SW almost to distraction.

Utopian thinking, which, if you follow it all the way to the end, Drone warfare (and trek, and SW) is; always leads to war. And does it badly, and without any real understanding.

I get my SF from Baen.

 

[Loachman]

we'll need people who can fly a plane in CAS, or drive home an attack at bayonet point. And we'll have damn few of them and no mechanism to train, equip, support or deploy them, because the concept of drones UAVs is so damn attractive and i'll admit it; it is.

It will be a long time, if ever, before UAVs replace manned aircraft. There are too many limitations upon them.

UAVs controlled via satellite links cannot, for example, engage moving targets because of the lag in the two-way signals involved.

This is why the USAF UAV crews involved in direct engagements were working out of airfields such as KAF.

Manoeuvring against aerial threats would similarly be limited.

Drones UAVs are cheaper (for now),

Nope.

The costs of the Ground Control Stations adds up.

Take one guy out of a cockpit, and place two or three guys in a box with a bunch of computers and precision directional emitters instead.

Little Sperwer, in its day, was the most expensive airframe that the CF operated.

easier to use

Your experience, upon which this claim is based, is what, again?

in some ways, such as manuverability, they can perform better than manned equivalents due to the lack of the human component.

Not yet, and not for a while to come.

Current UAVs are very unmanoeuvrable. They are designed for endurance rather than carrying anything more than one or two weapons and take a long time to turn.

the crew had to take risks all the way from basic to the landing back at base.

And the real difference is? Our crews risked the same, save the flights themselves. While I am very conscious of the fact that my risk level was extremely low compared to that of those outside of the wire, it still existed. Had I left seven seconds earlier on a short drive one night on my first tour, I'd have had a Chinese rocket detonate less than five metres from me. A number of MTTF pers were wounded by another rocket, and their LSVW destroyed, a couple of days before I left at the end of my second. In any case, I considered myself to be safer in KAF than I'd have been back home; the speed limit was 20 km/hr and I did not have to spend 1.5 hours per day driving on 400-series highways in Ontario to get to and from work.

Unlike the Predadork in his office.

"Predadork". Hmmm. What were you saying about "precious little intelligent debate"?

You clearly have no concept of his/her job, yet you see fit to insult him/her so.

Throughout the history of warfare, people have sought to lower the risk to themselves while increasing it for their opposition. UAVs fit that model just as well as archery, armour, artillery, tanks, and every other technological advance in their time. They are no different in that regard.

The only difference of any significance between a UAV and a manned aircraft is the frequency and means by which the crew can relieve themselves, and the time that the machine can stay on station.

And fair fights are for numpties.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Shrek,

So what about the Germans and their V1 & V2 rockets. They're equitable. Launched (and aimed), from a distance, devastating, yet not quite as accurate and without the loiter time.

Technology has advanced a tad is all.

And as you seem fond of Patton: "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

Winning wars is about killing the other guy as quickly, accurately, as demoralizingly and as much as possible.

It's not about Teutonic Knights living under a code of chivalry,

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was attached to DRES Suffield for RPV trials in the 80's. I recall a drone body used for balance and equipment fitting, but all flight tests were done using a large RC aircraft to test concept and software. Slung underneath was a camera with as I recall a rangefinder. The RPV was used to call artillery fire onto targets. I am not sure but I think they were using some sort of inertia guidance system, although GPS was a future option.


http://www.uavs.ca/outreach/HistoryUAVs.pdf
Defence Research Establishment Suffield
In 1979, under the auspices of the Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), a joint US/Canadian feasibility
study was undertaken to improve the US Army Ballistic Aerial Target System (BATS) using Canadian
developed CRV-7 rocket motors. The TTCP program culminated in a vehicle known as ROBOT-5 standing
for “Rocket Boosted Target.” Defence Research Establishment Suffield (DRES) later initiated a program for
both 7 and 9 motor configurations and later developed ROBOT-9.
By 1984 DRES had developed a number of aerial test platforms including:
• ROBOT-9
• ROBOT-5
• TATS-102
• Twin-HULK
• R2P2
ROBOT-5 and ROBOT-9 were proven to be very effective and extremely low-cost, high-speed target drones.
Following their success, DRES began the proof-of-concept development of a winged, rocket-boosted, multistaged
target that was named Robot-X.
The Robot-X drone, designed for travel at high-subsonic speeds, was able to maintain a low altitude hold,
manoeuvre along a pre-programmed path, and have a range greater than 37 kilometres. Wind tunnel tests
were conducted in 1982 and the forward-wing, canard-configured, drone’s design was frozen.3

 

[dimsum]

It's a totally different call to make between sending a remote-controlled robot in, vs a person who could die. It's easier, it's cheaper and based on my observations of human nature and recent history, it makes sending in the RC plane of death a lot more attractive. You'll send that thing into situations which are a lot less clear than the manned aircrafty, because who cares, right? Cheaper, more replacable, and let's face it; WAY easier to micro manage.

Or as President Obama told one aide; "I'm really good at killing people".

Shrek,

Of course we will send those things into situations that are much less clear, but not because it's not cheaper, nor replaceable.  It's because of the loiter time, where you have time to actually get a better situational awareness picture instead of making a snap call, relatively-speaking, from a CAS platform.  Everyone gets up in arms about a killing from a UAV; no one bothers to ask how long the target was being watched (likely days or more, continuously) and the stack of evidence that has to be compiled and checked with Legal, the Commander, etc. before the weapon gets fired.  One could call it "micro-managing", I would call it "making sure no LOAC or ROE are being broken while engaging or helping engage the target". 

Loachman has already alluded to this, but the difference between a Launch/Recovery Element for a UAV (at the present time) and a manned aircraft is that the LRE is a fixed spot on the base for most larger UAVs.  That's all fine and good for a technologically one-sided conflict like Afghanistan, but when bases become seriously threatened in a near-peer situation, I think some people's perceptions on the safety of "Predadorks" will change.  As others have mentioned, slingers/archers/etc. in earlier times would have been held in the same regard by most.

Finally, and I say this without snark but genuine curiosity, I've gotta ask - what trade are you?  I know fast-jet guys (traditionally the most anti-UAV of the bunch) in both militaries I've worked with that have less hatred for UAVs than you do, especially after they've talked to/done a rotation with the UAV unit and see what really happens. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Finally, and I say this without snark but genuine curiosity, I've gotta ask - what trade are you?  I know fast-jet guys (traditionally the most anti-UAV of the bunch) in both militaries I've worked with that have less hatred for UAVs than you do, especially after they've talked to/done a rotation with the UAV unit and see what really happens.

His profile says he's a Reserve MCpl with 4RCR.

 

[dimsum]

His profile says he's a Reserve MCpl with 4RCR.

Seen. 

Shrek, are you at UWO?  I'm going out on a limb here since it's been a while, but is your 4th year WWI (and I suspect she still teaches WWII) history prof an old British lady?  If so, she was an awesome prof. 

 

[dapaterson]

but is your...  history prof an old British lady?

That's a hell of a way to describe the Commander of 31 CBG.

http://history.uwo.ca/people/faculty/millman.html

http://theroyalcanadianregiment.ca/snr_off/bios/millman_b.html

 

[dimsum]

That's a hell of a way to describe the Commander of 31 CBG.

http://history.uwo.ca/people/faculty/millman.html

http://theroyalcanadianregiment.ca/snr_off/bios/millman_b.html

Actually I was thinking of Barbara Murison but after flipping through a few of the faculty pages, turns out it's likely Jonathan Vance, who was my prof for Aviation History.  Good prof as well, but I did find it a little strange that he didn't actually like flying and was more interested in "the romanticism of aviation" (or words to that effect).

 

[Infanteer]

he didn't actually like flying and was more interested in "the romanticism of aviation" (or words to that effect).

So, he's the perfect fit for a UAV Pilot? 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Shows up at the command trailer wearing a scarf, leather helmet and flying goggles...... ;D

 

[Journeyman]

Shows up at the command trailer wearing a scarf, leather helmet and flying goggles...... ;D