The Drone News and Discussion Thread

Shush you. Besides, the colonials wouldn't get the joke.

US providing weapons for Italy's drones.

UK seeking to fit Brimstone air-to-ground missile (basically Hellfire+ ) to their ten-strong Reaper fleet.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Lol. We won't bite too hard.

So what do you guys think of the "back pack drones" aka the guided flying grenade like the Switchblade. this thing◊

This little booger

It seems no one is quite sure if it is a guided munition or a type of drone.

Who watches the watchmen?

Useful bits of kit, especially for Recce.

The Switchblade reminds me of the IAI Harpy and IAI Harop.

Keep Rolling On

I could see it as a better option to say a flurry of grenades or air support in some cases.

Who watches the watchmen?

Here's the thing Trivialis, you keep saying "We". I'm not sure who "We" is.

But I can say that "I" want war to cost as little as possible for "us"(Being my country and its allies). I'm not really worried about the drone fleets of other countries. China has already been ripping off the Predator for some time, if we got into a scuffle with China, I don't think we would fear drones.

We would just pack more javelins to take them out of the sky at a moments notice, or shoot them down from the air in the first place. As I said, drones aren't really a threat to a first world military as they are now.

And whenever they do become advanced enough to do that, my side will have them first. And by the time our competitors have equivalent arms, my side will have something better that is a game changer. The goal for "me" isn't necessarily peace, it's staying ahead of the pack so that it's peace on our(NATO) terms. That's really the goal at the end of the day. Tipping the scales is the goal.

I still think you're overreacting about current drone platforms though. Honestly, as I've mentioned, they really don't perform that well and are extremely specialized in when they can be used. They aren't anywhere being sophisticated enough to pull some weird Modern Warfare 2 shit.

edited 5th May '13 3:21:16 AM by Barkey

Another point against the idea that drones are more dangerous because the controller is across the world. The person controlling the drone might be across the world but the people feeling and arming it are just as close as they would be with a regular plane.

Also the ability to strike without the risk of the controller being hit happens all the time, look at cruise missiles. Israel just shot a bunch of missiles at Damascus, there was no risk to the controller during that; there was no risk to the sub commanders during Libya when they fired of a bunch of missiles at Gadaffi's air defences (resulting in their being no risk to the pilots of the manned aircraft when they bombed Gadaffi's ground troops). Non of these situations saw the controlled be at risk when they used their weapon, exactly like drones.

So what's the difference? Should we regulate cruise missiles? Manned aircraft when the enemies air defences have been blow to crap?

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

@Silasw: I guess that would be part of the frustration that surrounds the soldier in risk aspect.

To those who disapprove of drone use, a big problem that I think that comes off to me, judging from the reactions of those in the military or not that are not advocating against drones, is that there is an implication that it's not fair to use those in war; this would mean by abstaining from using it, it would correlate with more risk to soldiers. To be honest, I don't think I've seen outright statements except for one that prefers US military casualties over civilians. While I will put faith in those who are anti-drone that they do not wish for anyone, soldiers or civilians, dying, it's more apparent to me the inherent advantages of using drones for the purposes the US uses them now. So when you rather have less drone use, the people who voiced their disapproval over that sentiment because it comes off as insulting since using drones has cut back on the risk to soldiers.

If I have just misinterpreted or incorrectly assumed someone's intentions, I apologize. I thought if this was brought more clearly in the open (if it already hasn't), that it would hopefully bring some more understanding on the dissonance between those for or against (if this isn't too simplified).

I said I'd rather have a solider than a civilian die, I didn't specify US military. And yes, I would prefer no one getting killed, but when making ROE and decisions on the field I would like them to be made in a manner that values innocent civilian lives at least as much as military lives. Don't see how not using drones would help with that though.

edited 5th May '13 12:18:41 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

It wouldn't. I can't personally speak to the experience, but by all accounts being in foot patrols in combat zones is incredibly tense and nerve-wracking. Accidents are far more likely to happen.

EDIT: You can find ISAF's rules of engagement, or rather, a set of illustrative vignettes, here (PDF). They are fairly strict - especially in comparison to the Soviets (not that that is a very high bar at all).

edited 5th May '13 12:25:12 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

^

I did perimeter security for engineers building public works projects overseas, it's nerve-wracking as fuck.

The Man Who Invented the Predator

via Air&Space...

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

A bit of a late response.

By "we" in the paragraph you quoted, I mean the international community. Projects like UN, NATO, Geneva, and NPT are formed to demonstrate that while wars still exist, they are suppressed to some degree. That's what I mean. It was not directly each country wanting the best and safest for only itself, but rather, wanting to reduce conflicts collectively.

My point in that quote was that an automated or a remote-controlled weapon naturally reduces field risks, due to a lack of pilot. That may be a good thing, but it also removes a factor that makes you want to not attack. Like you said, we use drones in Pakistan because we don't want to risk pilots. So if drones weren't available, we might be hesitant to strike terrorists in Pakistan. That's what I mean by being free to attack.

See, drones are only defensively advantageous if you're the one using it. It's still meant to have good offensive power against your foes. So if you're the one being attacked, you still get hurt. It's not like pepper sprays and other "nonlethal weapons" where you actually don't want to kill.

So if drones are used by two countries in conflict with each other, then each country might save lives from using its own drones, but it will lose lives due to attacks from enemy drones. At best, it evens out; otherwise, there's likelihood that overall casualties will increase because, as I said above to Barkey, the countries are more free to attack each other.

In other words, having a defensive tech that minimizes risks on your side is great, yes. But you also have to consider minimizing risks from attacks you receive, and that's not as guaranteed by this tech when you have a drone-based conflict.

Drones as they are now don't cause that much destruction, true. But their remote controlling at core embodies a potential that could be found in satellite attacks, the idea of "hit anywhere from anywhere" like a sniper. And if that kind of "sniper" technology is available, I believe that it's worth having some deterrence on it, at least informally. I'm just saying we should be wary of that while we use discretion on drones.

I'll ask again. Are you affirming that drones are not kill sats? It looks like Silasw and Barkey are making this clear distinction, that drones are very specialized and quite different from these sniper techs that should be limited. Do you agree with that?

And by extension, if we're able to have a fully robotic air force, we should limit that for the same reason. I was confused because you seemed to say that the only reason we don't use that is because we don't have it yet, not because of any deterrence factor.

Actually, the destruction was partly because the weapons technology became quite advanced while people were still using older attitudes and tactics of war with those newer weapons. Like trying to rush forward with numbers when there are machine guns. The killing power increase greatly in proportion to defensive power.

Also:

There is indeed something wrong with it; it's called importing drama. It's one thing to argue with someone, but don't go another thread to say the same thing in absence of that someone. That's not a fair discussion.

Really, stop trying to oppose me, and instead try to work the discussion from a common ground. I never said drones should be banned completely; I said they're worth exercising extra conscientious caution. I'm just presenting one view of people who show doubt towards remote/robotic warfare, and might be dissatisfied with how they're used. It's supposed to show insight behind it.

Aprilla said "I'm not entirely behind it, but I understand the spirit of it." It would help if Aprilla explains what the person meant by that, because I don't think Tuefel is understanding the spirit of it.

edited 6th May '13 11:48:10 AM by Trivialis

Ladies and Gentlemen: Beer Drones.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Proof that this technology kicks ass. Beer drones.

This is the crux of your — and many other anti-drone people's — argument, and it's quite frankly crap. America could bomb the shit out of a good portion of the planet with absolutely zero chance of injury for any American serviceman except the remote possibility of someone spraining their finger pushing the "launch cruise missiles" button. By the logic you're espousing here, there's no reason for America not to do that — and yet, we haven't.

Except that, as has already been pointed out in great detail, drones are not a threat in contested airspace. It's easy to shoot down drones — certainly easier than fielding one. Any nation capable of using drones in combat is going to be capable of defending their airspace against enemy drones, so the idea of heavy-duty drone-vs-drone combat is a nonstarter.

This is a blatant slippery slope argument that has absolutely no basis in reality. Theoretical future Kill Sats have nothing to do with current drone usage.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

You're right, we haven't. We could attack other nations with impunity - until you realize that other nations with same could technology could attack us with impunity. Then both sides would be helplessly damaged. We realize that and choose to hold a mutual agreement not to recklessly attack just because we can. Even if we have to mutually lose out on what we can gain by warfare.

You see what I mean? This is deterrence having a degree of effect right now. It's the same reasoning as avoiding mutually assured destruction from more powerful weapons, only that the degree of destruction is smaller.

I know that - it looks like you and a couple others are assuring me that drones aren't the scary weapons, that you would indeed deter those scary weapons. I'm just asking if Tuefel agrees with that.

No, they couldn't. The United States has the most powerful military in the world, by far. Barring the sort of things that conventional military power can't defend against (nuclear strikes and terrorist attacks, basically — and with nukes we can always nuke back), no one could attack us "with impunity".

How does that not apply to drones as well? The reason we don't go making drone strikes in China, or Russia, or the UK, or wherever else is because doing so would seriously piss them off and prompt them to react. Just like any other hostile act, like dropping bombs or launching cruise missiles or landing an invasion force. How are drones in any way different to any of that?

Not quite. We're saying that drones aren't the scary weapons, true, but not that we need deterrence against the scary weapons. The scary weapons are deterrence. The reason why no one messes with a nuclear power is because, if push comes to shove, they can nuke you out of existence and there's nothing you can do to stop them. Thus, nukes are a deterrence against attacking (including attacking with nukes of your own).

If the United States were the only country with nukes? I'd be quite okay with that. Everyone would be deterred from attacking us, and we wouldn't have to worry about things like mutually assured destruction. It'd be great for us. Less so for other countries, obviously, but it's not our job to worry about them.

edited 6th May '13 6:33:49 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

First of all, this is "by the logic I'm espousing here", before we actually distinguish weapons of impunity. I meant that if we attack "with absolutely zero chance of injury for any American serviceman", then that causes problems for us if the shoe was on the other foot. That's why, even if we could attack like that, we don't. That's the deterrence I'm stressing.

And that's my point, they're not different from other things that should not be used recklessly. The people who don't like drones mainly want to keep it that way, and remind US not to cross the line. That's really the core idea.

Saying that scary weapons are deterrence is really a semantics point. What I'm saying is that the remote-controlled weapons, like the sniper analogy I showed, would likewise be deterrence. Such weapons are a deterrence against attacking, lest things get bad.

Unfortunately, not everyone lives in US, even for people that come to this site. How are we going to keep the United States from abusing its power and acting imperialistic, if it only cares about itself?

I said this before: wishing that US will remain superior isn't really an argument for or against a particular weapon at all. It's just a subjective wish that your side wins.

But the shoe isn't on the other foot, and won't be for the foreseeable future, so why should that matter to us? I mean, signing international treaties like the Geneva convention is one thing, because "we promise not to nerve gas you if you don't nerve gas us" has a tangible benefit for both parties. But what does America gain by restricting usage of drones? Nothing. So there's no reason for us to do so.

Then why focus on drones at all? Why not include cruise missiles, guided bombs, artillery shells, and other means of attacking someone way the hell over there without putting any of our guys in a position where the enemy can shoot back?

By developing such weapons themselves, and acting as a counter to American power. You know, like China, Russia, the EU, India, etc.

Well, yeah. The point I'm making is that the US has no incentive to reign in drone strikes when there are no downsides to their use from the American perspective. The "subjective wish that your side wins" is a given — and to make sure they keep winning, the US will use drones until they have a compelling reason not to.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Because it sets the difference between discussing "Drones" and discussing "Drones in this particular global situation where we're a global power".

Of course we can use whatever we want if the situation is made for it... and it was sustained that way.

So once they do, will deterrence kick in? Then we're in agreement.

There's an effect that's inversely proportional to how the weapon is. The more powerful a weapon technology is, the more deterrence is needed. Shorter-ranged artillery shells do not need as much of a mutual agreement because instead of it, the fact that you have to risk getting close enough gives you incentive to not attack unless necessary.

You've completely lost me at this point. What are you actually arguing the US should do with its drone program?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Essentially, we have nothing to gain by restricting our drone use. The only motivation for doing so is essentially an act of charity, "playing nice". Which isn't an incentive at all, because governments don't do things out of charitable intentions, that's just realpolitik for you.

As for the thing about laser guided bombs and cruise missiles, those technologies are far more deadly and far more useful than drones. Would it somehow be better if we used unarmed Predators for surveillance, and then fired Tomahawks from nearby ships at the targets while the drones stuck around for confirmation on the hit?

Would that be better? Would it make drones somehow less evil than having hellfires on the drones?

What if we exclusively used satnav, and used satellite imagery to decide when and where to attack a target with cruise missiles? Would that be better?

The point I'm trying to make is that regardless, this shit is going down. We're going to strike these targets. Using drones with hellfires is the most surgical way that we can do that while limiting collateral damage. It'd be perfectly ok for you to have a bone to pick with our decision to conduct these strikes in the first place. But blaming drones is idiotic, because we could accomplish the same thing with different weapons at our disposal. It would be just as low risk to our military personnel, but it would go down way less clean if we did it that way.

Don't him and haw because we're good at what we do. Questioning if it's a good idea to do it is one thing, that's valid, but don't question how we do it, because in this case, it's the best way to do something we're determined to do regardless. Using a more inefficient and less surgical means of doing these strikes is absolutely backward as fuck as a suggestion.

Likely Ninjad by this point.

You already answered your very first question with the quote block. “A ‘’’drone aircraft’’’ is not a satellite orbiting the earth firing some obscenely powerful weapon from orbit and never will be.”

This has been said multiple times. I even expanded it for you.

“If they want to develop a satellite weapon they will do it. The development of this weapon will not be even remotely dictated by the mere existence of drones. It will be dictated by people in the Pentagon stating a need for it and convincing enough people to research, build, and put it into place. “

Never mind the number of times myself and others have stated a drone is not a kill sat we should not be repeating the obvious.

Also Barkey and Silas both prefer drone use over manned craft use and last I checked don’t really agree with you in general, Barkey especially.

Your assertion about an all robotic air force needing some special limitation is nonsense. Really at this point the horse is dead and turning into paste. We don’t have an all drone air force because we honestly do not have the technology or capability to make it happen. The drones as they exist are too limited to do all the same things our manned craft do at this point. If the military could make it happen they would use them in the same roles we currently use aircraft for. If you are talking about autonomous aircraft, something we are a long ways off from achieving at this point, it would be a completely different argument. As drone tech exists and is likely to exist for the foreseeable future, drones will be controlled by a person with at best limited autonomy comparable to autopilot functions.

Sniper Techs? What on earth are you going on about?

Actually it is about scope and scale. This was a long, large, and drawn out war with many large powerful nations participating. The casualties didn’t happen all at once they took over 4 years to build up. The U.S. losses were at 116,000 Total. The nations that suffered the most were the ones who were in the war the longest. Despite comparably less lethal weapons the American Civil War using muzzle loaded black powder weapons killed over half a million Americans alone. This was a smaller scale war with a nation divided that was dragged out and it was using older technology. Protracted Wars of Attrition, which is what every single high casualty war has ever been, stack up the total body count. The more people fighting it the higher the count. Better weapons do not mean more people will die. If WWI had been fought with armies 1000 apiece and lasted one month the total deaths would be quite lower. Scope(who is fighting who), Scale(sizes of the militaries in the fight), and Duration(how long this goes on) are more important than the weapons used.

Look at the wars post WWII where we started using new technology. Korean war didn’t even break one million over 3 years of fighting. Vietnam took nearly twenty years to achieve it’s death tolls. The tech compared to WWI and WWII was significantly more advanced.

It goes on and on. Despite having comparably more lethal tech the only way we achieve high body counts is to make a conflict drag on for longer and longer stretches of time.

Your assertion that more lethal and effecitve tech=more dead people is at best questionable and does not stand up to examination.

I am afraid it is not. Not only were no particular individuals singled out, the bulk of it was argh the thread is frustrating and specific points stated as being infuriating. All of this was stated here in the drone thread before going over there. Nothing was said behind anyone’s back other then the thread is frustrating to varying degrees. Again don’t like it. Either post in the thread to discuss it or hit the report button.

First off, ‘’’NO’’’. I hope I don’t need to clarify that statement. You do not get to tell me how to think, what opinions I hold, or if I agree with someone else’s. I do not agree with you and many of your statements because I find them questionable and frequently lacking in factual information. Unless you actually start arguing your points from actual statements of fact there will be no common ground.

No you have said drones need some sort of special restrictions because they are drones. Despite the fact they only have one major separation of difference from manned aircraft. Where the pilot and the controls are located. None of the Drones we have been using are Autonomous craft. They all require someone to control it. The military personnel operating said aircraft have the same amount of responsibility as other pilots. They have the chain of command, Rules of Engagement, Etc the whole nine yards of military restrictions, rules, and regulations we put on aircraft. Why? Because they are aircraft and we use them as aircraft.

There is nothing special about remotely operating a drone that truly sets it apart from manned aircraft. We can do the exact same things with manned craft. The people who are in charge of the drones use in Pakistan and Yemen would have no problems using manned craft dropping 500lb smart bombs on their targets instead of the drones.

One, I am not Aprilla. Aprilla is entitled to his opinion I do not have to share his opinion. Two I do not agree with many of your statements or opinions as I am very sure I have made that very clear by this point.

This article not only points actual military use of the drones kills fewer bystanders then manned aircraft. It also nicely points out my earlier point of the larger bombs manned craft tend to use are too big for how we are using fire support.

For those wanting quick info.

The article has two pages and various links.

Who watches the watchmen?

Trivialis, I think you'd find more support if you didn't push the slippery slope argument of hyper advanced Kill Sats resulting from drone use. Having a concern about misuse or overuse of drones under bad intelligence is something I think everyone who has posted so far, regardless of level of comfort around drones themselves, would agree with. You just push it to an exaggerated conclusion that doesn't take in the true capabilities of drones or the policies for using them well.

The technology about drones is solid. I won't perpetuate the evils of new weapon systems. I think even you believe that but just object to the US foreign policy that dictates the use of it. And despite how I don't feel realpolitik is ideal, the circumstances surrounding the targets we use drones against make drones one of the best ways the US has against them right now.

Which makes me wonder another thing: what and how is the situation about sending soldiers in Pakistan right now?

If we really wanted assassination drones, we would find a way to miniaturize and attach that aerial laser the Air Force and Navy have been using. Then we wouldn't need to ever worry about civilian casualties. We could just kill the one dude we've been tracking and go home.

It's going to go one of two ways, either the way we're currently doing it, where special operations missions stray just a wee bit across the border from Afghanistan, or we send a full-on invasion force. I strongly doubt we're ever going to openly acknowledge and perform boots on the ground missions with conventional troops in Pakistan.

The only reason we would ever do that is if they truly became a failed state, and we would invade them immediately if their government was pending imminent collapse, purely for the purpose of securing their nukes to prevent them from going loose and getting into the wrong hands.

After that we would probably just help with the humanitarian stuff. Pakistan has the most UN Peacekeepers iirc, because it gets them back experienced troops that they don't have to pay for, so we could just send them all home to help quell the issues.

edited 6th May '13 8:19:33 PM by Barkey