14 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

I just watched a special on TV about the US war in Iraq, and in it they described how they used flying drones to accomplish many things. The first drone, the shadow drone, would "shadow" or follow a group of insurgents as they went about their business. If the insurgents were targeted, a Predator drone would be launched and take the place of the shadow drone. When the insurgents would get together in a truck, the Predator would fire a hellfire missile at it, "eliminating" the target.

What was scary about this to me was the fact that the drones are flying at an altitude of around 10,000 feet while they do their work. 10,000 FEET! That means that insurgents could a) never really see/hear the drones, and b) never hit the drones even if they spotted them. Imagine, if you're an insurgent, that you might be watched by a drone you can't see/hit, and at any time it could wtfpwn you with a missile. Geez, talk about paranoid.

[Pav:3d]

Your tax dollars at work

Thats the future of warfare right there, flying robots

[TheDR]

What i would be scared about is someone using the technology against us D:

If we get new technology, the enemy will normal acquire the need for it.

[CommanderJB]

Drones are very much the perfect weapon for counter-insurgency; the primary advantage here is their unmatched ability to loiter over an area of interest and keep you updated, in real time, as to exactly what's going on below. They're not so great for genuine war though as they're not that stealthy (yet) and will generally not last long against an air defence system; sitting high up in one area travelling at low speed is not exactly conducive to the survival of any aircraft in a hostile AAA environment. They have considerable uses; artillery spotting is perhaps the biggest, (and you can really use a radio-controlled plane with a digital camera strapped to it for this), but in the same battlefield surveillance role outside of COIN you start to see serious drop-offs in capability of drones.
Both the importance of and level of sophistication of surveillance technology cannot be overstated on the modern battlefield. Any army that knows where the enemy is is always going to have a huge advantage disregarding any other disparity (though of course technology being the way it is the disparity is for the moment at least always skewed in favour of those operating the UAVs). Combine this with Hellfires on the drones and there really isn't anything the insurgents can do as you say. Of course the economics of this are ridiculous - Hellfires are expensive as, well, hell, and they'd be lucky to destroy a $20,000 pick-up truck, and usually just a bit of a brick building. But for an army with money to burn, they're the best choice there is, as the repeated successful strikes from Predator and Reaper drones have shown.
The only thing I'm not sure about is that you say they used separate drones for shadowing targets, then launched Predators to engage them. Predators and even Reapers are not fast things. They are in fact very slow indeed. It'd take quite a while to get one prepped, launched and directed to target; far longer than you'd expect a gaggle of insurgents to remain in any one place if they were having the meeting intel tipped you off about. Perhaps you mean that theatre surveillance drones such as the RQ-4 Global Hawks give the intel needed to move the Predator drones to the right location; there's a big difference (between both the scenarios and the drones).

[Waris]

Recently I stumbled upon something similar, but new at the same time: cruise missile launched from somewhere and can go loitering above a specified area for days, waiting for a command to slam on things.

Obviously I brought it up to Comr4de to let him see whether it can fit in somewhere in RotR.

[Crazykenny]

A controlable cruisemissile... cool.

[Warbz]

I can only think of this as a good thing, until they get hold of them, which is most unlikely.

[CommanderJB]

Waris, on 13 Oct 2008, 23:56, said:

Recently I stumbled upon something similar, but new at the same time: cruise missile launched from somewhere and can go loitering above a specified area for days, waiting for a command to slam on things.

Obviously I brought it up to Comr4de to let him see whether it can fit in somewhere in RotR.

Sounds tricky. Most cruise missiles are designed to fly in the very upper edge of the subsonic range, and given that they don't have true wings they really need to fly this fast in order for their bodies to generate the required lift. Any slower and you'd have to make major changes to the airframe design compared to what we see today. Dale Brown's StealthHawks come to mind - flat, surfboard-shaped objects with weapons bays underneath. Do you have any links to more info?

[Ghostrider]

Yeah JB, I think you're right in saying the predator would be patrolling elsewhere and once the shadow drone finds a target, the predator would move to that area. Otherwise it would take ages for the predator for get to the target, if it had to be launched from the closest base.

[tank50us]

gotta love the drones, now we need the Iowas back in service... nine 16" main guns.... death from over the horizon

[partyzanpaulzy]

It reminds me one episode of the Stargate: SG-1, where team SG-1 pointed red laser on enemy Jaffa (hostile guy with energetical spear).
This Jaffa tries to keep this green point out of his uniform while the missile is going to him.

[Alias]

EpicWarbz, on 14 Oct 2008, 1:52, said:

I can only think of this as a good thing, until they get hold of them, which is most unlikely.

I honestly fail to see how you can think a new method of killing is something "good".

[Ghostrider]

Alias, on 15 Oct 2008, 0:52, said:

EpicWarbz, on 14 Oct 2008, 1:52, said:

I can only think of this as a good thing, until they get hold of them, which is most unlikely.

I honestly fail to see how you can think a new method of killing is something "good".

Well, if the target was going to be killed, better it be by a drone than by a group of soldiers who could be killed. Assuming the cause is just. Hence the US Army phrase "Working to unman the front lines".

[Alias]

Ghostrider, on 15 Oct 2008, 16:21, said:

Alias, on 15 Oct 2008, 0:52, said:

EpicWarbz, on 14 Oct 2008, 1:52, said:

I can only think of this as a good thing, until they get hold of them, which is most unlikely.

I honestly fail to see how you can think a new method of killing is something "good".

Well, if the target was going to be killed, better it be by a drone than by a group of soldiers who could be killed. Assuming the cause is just. Hence the US Army phrase "Working to unman the front lines".

No killing is justified.

[Ghostrider]

Alias, on 15 Oct 2008, 1:22, said:

Ghostrider, on 15 Oct 2008, 16:21, said:

Alias, on 15 Oct 2008, 0:52, said:

EpicWarbz, on 14 Oct 2008, 1:52, said:

I can only think of this as a good thing, until they get hold of them, which is most unlikely.

I honestly fail to see how you can think a new method of killing is something "good".

Well, if the target was going to be killed, better it be by a drone than by a group of soldiers who could be killed. Assuming the cause is just. Hence the US Army phrase "Working to unman the front lines".

No killing is justified.

Well, that's a very opinionated response, probably better suited for the philosophy thread. But IF one must kill, better to do it without getting others killed. Thus the drones are quite valuable, and imo a good use of technology.

Edited by Ghostrider, 15 October 2008 - 05:28.