The Drone News and Discussion Thread

Ugh, the National Guard is getting drones. And the reaction is predictable.

Interesting. That is in my neck of the woods.

On that Bush V Obama thing... Predators and Reapers weren't a very mature technology yet when Bush was in office.. And we had enough shit going on in Afghan and Iraq to not need them outside of those borders, the Taliban had not entirely retreated to Pakistan by then.

I'm not saying that to support Obama's policies, just stating a fact. It's a much more mature technology now that we have figured out how to use more effectively than when Bush was in office.

I know its somewhat tasteless given the subject matter, but I couldn't resist this bit:

I stiffened in bed a lot when I was a teenager, but drones had very little to do with it...fnar fnar.

I stiffen whenever I've had an armed drone flying around in mark 1 eyeball range, mostly because it made me feel much safer.

I still don't get the hand wringing about drones. I am bothered about our bad intel and lack of HUMINT. But everything people say about drones was said about:

• "smart bombs"
• cruise missiles
• strategic bombing
• warfare in general

Because New Technology Is Evil. It's not a recent thing. Back in the day, there were papal decrees banning the use of crossbows.

edited 29th Jun '13 11:03:55 AM by NativeJovian

Well, that was less about "new technology is evil" and more about "something that lets a peasant kill an armored knight is a threat to our social order". And they were kinda right.

edited 29th Jun '13 11:08:09 AM by RavenWilder

Something about a king catching a Crossbow Bolt in the eye.

I can see the wariness of the drones as an observation platform. Our government here state side is becoming increasingly intrusive.

As for the appeal to tragedy that is a two edged sword. They are killing militants and terrorists as well as the civilians.

But I would prefer better intel and the smaller foot print weapons be used. They work quite well and have been proven in combat situations.

That's whats the real sin of all this high tech stuff. Basic intel and warfighter skills are left to rot on the vine. Sure we have subject matter experts, but they leave the military and intel world. Tired of low pay and crap for benefits they get out. We have to rediscover them because a drone or spysat won't tell you if your "high value target" left the house and some random kids are there or if that flat spot isn't quicksand.

Both Robert Baer and Richard Marcinko have lamented the lack of HUMINT in the CIA and the over reliance on tech.

edited 29th Jun '13 12:15:08 PM by TairaMai

It also means that the US would have to leave HUMINT to other Intelligence Agencies that have the assets and experience in the region — in the old North West Frontier, that'll be the British, Russians...and the Pakistanis and Iranians.

Saab could take pilot out of Gripen, says CEO

Lockheed was toying with an unmanned version of the F-16 back in The '90s. It was a way to patrol "no fly zones" longer and without risking a pilot.

Drone lands on carrier

Video and it is awesome...

http://news.yahoo.com/navy-completes-1st-unmanned-carrier-132056652.html

As someone who knows very little about aircaft, I can only say that the drone looks cool. And by all accounts, this was a pretty big step for drone technology.

I heard somewhere that it was operating without human input. Still, it is pretty cool...

At least until some Austrian bloke shows up and asks for Sarah Connor.

Question: What is so controversial about drone strikes? It's basically just an air strike.

Terrorists hide in the civilian population. So we hit them and civlies die. Or we do nothing and appear weak and they continue shooting school girls and planting IE Ds.

Some strikes are "double taps": we hit once then again. The Taliban and those in the area claim that we're hitting "first responders" or aidworkers. I doubt that, given the propaganda value of dead civilians and that fakery is very common in the middle east.

The same complaints that drones can't tell terrorists or insurgents from civilians are the rehashing of the complaints over the GPS and laser guided bombs of the 90's. It's "unfair", "how would you like drone strikes?", etc.

Now the intel that guides the strikes can suck. The CIA's love affair with high tech and SIGINT means that they tend to miss legitimate targets because the "intel told them that the real target was there".

But even Pakistan likes the drone strikes, but many elements there support the Taliban and the tribes that are attacking the US. So they must condemn them openly.

Well you've got two types of opposition to drone strikes, though who just scream "DRONES ARE EVIL!" And those who understand that a drone strike is the same as an air strike, and would oppose an air strike in the exact same situation. The second kind don't have an issue with drones, they just use drones strikes as a shorthand for "badly intelligenced attacks on what is often just a bunch of civilians".

That I think is the thing people miss. The intel isn't as good as the CIA and other alphabet soup agencies say it is.

Al Queda stopped using lots of phone usage when they caught on that we were listing in. The Taliban hide behind the civilian populace. Either way those back in the drone control center can't be certain.

And we've let the HUMINT rot on the vine. There are few human assets in the tribal areas (not that Pakistan would let us put boots on the ground). It's a win-win for Pakistan: We shoot and hope to hit something and look evil. The Government over there has insurgent population culled for free and can blame the US when things go wrong.

taira; There is also the fact the CIA tends to be a lot more heavy handed then even most military drone strikes. The CIA isn't afraid to smack the same target twice with a hellfire which has a pretty big impact footprint. Or dropping a 500lb or bigger bomb. We have light weight small footprint weapons like I have mentioned multiple times before.

If they were using things like the Viper Strike, Small Diameter Bombs, the new guided Hydra Rocket, DIME, and other small foot print precision weapons the collateral would likely be smaller but would still kill the target.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has ended his visit to Pakistan by "pledging to end drone strikes against militants "very, very soon"." [1].

Interesting. So... then what? Let Al Qaeda and the Taliban fully use the tribal areas as a base for attacking Afghanistan and Pakistan? Might well be the case now that the US is pulling out of the former. If the Pakistani government publicly says they need drone strikes to stop, I suppose let them stop, even if behind the scenes they still wanted the strikes to take place.

Give the Pakistani government drone technology and let them take the heat?

edited 2nd Aug '13 7:03:28 AM by betaalpha

The Pakistanis can buy "drones" from their other best friend — the Chinese.