# Drones are just Airpower without the Adult Diapers - Vice News



## dimsum (15 May 2014)

https://news.vice.com/article/debating-drones-is-dumb

Normally I wouldn't put up Vice News articles/Op-Ed pieces, but this one is a pretty good breakdown of what RPAs are (and are not).  

For those who have read the article, I will now call my microwave a "robotic kitchen chef drone".


----------



## Journeyman (15 May 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> For those who have read the article, I will now call my microwave a "robotic kitchen chef drone".


And what will you call your microwave, for those of us who have not read the article?


----------



## dimsum (15 May 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And what will you call your microwave, for those of us who have not read the article?



Heathen Skynet autonomous heating element that's taking the jobs from real heating elements   ;D


----------



## Griffon (15 May 2014)

"War should be horrible and traumatic—but not because this ennobles the spirit, or cultivates the warrior’s virtues, or creates the hardened but fully-rounded character reflective of the entire human condition. War should be horrible and traumatic because otherwise it threatens to become merely a game, or merely a job, and the consequences of warfare where only one side stands to lose are inhumane and unacceptable. [...] if humanity is worth saving, it must be because humanity is humane; in sacrificing our humanity, we give up the end in order to serve the means." - D.E. Whittkower

Giving machines the autonomy to kill makes it more of a game, it makes it easier to take the lives of others by distancing ourselves from the act.  Taking the pilot out of the aircraft and placing him at a control centre may also do something similar.  But there's also another side: the stresses of war and taking lives have also been shown to impact drone pilots much the same as they affect their in-aircraft counterparts.  However, the pilots in-theatre are always surrounded by co-workers going through the same experiences, and when they leave theatre after their tour they are removed from the environment where they experienced that stress.

When a drone pilot goes to work, he or she goes to work in the evening (daytime in theatre), spends the night conducting missions, and goes home in the morning to wish their significant other a good day before sleeping away the day.  They don't have the support and understanding of their peers around them like they would in-theatre.  And when the operation is over, they are still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress.

If you deploy the drone pilots to the operational theatre, then the effects on the drone pilots would probably be something similar to those on in-aircraft pilots; whether those effects would be lesser or not, I have no idea.  But having a bunch of un-manned aircraft flying around in-theatre, picking off other human beings with no risk to those that are operating them? That's akin, IMHO, to dropping a nuke and walking away.

Keep the pilot in the aircraft. They know the risks, and have accepted them in joining. I know I have.


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> Giving machines the autonomy to kill



And who has done that?



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Taking the pilot out of the aircraft and placing him at a control centre may also do something similar.



You think?

Why?

The difference between sitting in a bomber at 20,000 feet and releasing a GPS-guided bomb and sitting in a Ground Control Station (GCS) is what, exactly? Besides the increased dignity of waste elimination in the latter case, that is. The author of the article has that precisely correct.

Nobody is doing the whites-of-their-eyes strafing run thing anymore.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> But there's also another side: the stresses of war and taking lives have also been shown to impact drone pilots much the same as they affect their in-aircraft counterparts.



I was never a "drone" pilot, for one. There is no such thing.

I was a UAV Mission Commander.

A "drone" is a type of UAV that is programmed before flight. The machines being discussed are another sub-species: the Remotely-Piloted Vehicle or, preferably, the Remotely-Piloted Aircraft. True "drones" are rather useless these days.

I felt no such stresses.

I've seen no indication that any of my "in-aircraft counterparts" felt them, either.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> However, the pilots in-theatre are always surrounded by co-workers going through the same experiences, and when they leave theatre after their tour they are removed from the environment where they experienced that stress.



Everybody is "surrounded" by "co-workers going through the same experiences", unless they are in complete isolation.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> When a drone pilot goes to work, he or she goes to work in the evening (daytime in theatre),



Yeah?

There are no set hours. For long missions, there are shifts. I was in theatre, and went in early in the morning, early in the evening, late at night, or at whatever time was required for the mission that we were running.

We tended to avoid late morning to late afternoon, though, because performance during the launch phase sucked at those times, due to the heat.

Kind of the opposite of your claim, actually.

We could launch under hot conditions, if necessary, but only at the cost of fuel and, hence, endurance.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> They don't have the support and understanding of their peers around them like they would in-theatre.



Why not?



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> And when the operation is over, they are still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress.



Which would be the same environment to which the guy in theatre returns once his tour is over.

And the guys in theatre are also "still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress".

The difference, again, is what? I'm not seeing it.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> If you deploy the drone pilots to the operational theatre, then the effects on the drone pilots would probably be something similar to those on in-aircraft pilots;



Which, in my experience and observation, was negligible, if it existed at all.

Anyway, sorry, I'm probably missing something. You were operating what, Heron? Sperwer? Scan Eagle?



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> I have no idea.



This is the only thing that you said with which I agree.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> But having a bunch of un-manned aircraft flying around in-theatre, picking off other human beings with no risk to those that are operating them? That's akin, IMHO, to dropping a nuke and walking away.



And what, under the appropriate circumstances, would be wrong with "dropping a nuke and walking away"?

What about gunners firing 155 mm projectiles at a target 30 k distant? The risk to them was...



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Keep the pilot in the aircraft. They know the risks, and have accepted them in joining. I know I have.



Good idea.

And let's eliminate all of the other risk-reduction measures too, then.

No more helmets, ballistic vests and eyewear, ejection seats...

"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." George S Patton understood more about war than you. The object of war is to win. Any other object is ridiculous. Failing to take advantage of any means to achieve the object is idiotic.

I have been accepting risks for a few decades now. I'll not accept stupid and unnecessary ones, however. Apparently, you have yet to learn that.

Modern UAVs have their place above the battlefield. There is no logical argument against that. Aside from any risk-reduction, perceived or real (we lost how many aircrew members in Afghanistan?), there is the distinct advantage of lengthy missions, allowing more coverage than manned aircraft can provide. I had the luxury of being able to watch potential targets for an hour or three in order to ensure that they were valid or not, all while sipping my tea and munching Spunkmeyers.

There is a fair number of innocent people still alive precisely because I could take that time, and be absolutely certain.

I had more than enough responsibility over life and death, but never felt any stress about it, because I could be sure.


----------



## GnyHwy (15 May 2014)

> "War should be horrible and traumatic—but not because this ennobles the spirit, or cultivates the warrior’s virtues, or creates the hardened but fully-rounded character reflective of the entire human condition. War should be horrible and traumatic because otherwise it threatens to become merely a game, or merely a job, and the consequences of warfare where only one side stands to lose are inhumane and unacceptable. [...] if humanity is worth saving, it must be because humanity is humane; in sacrificing our humanity, we give up the end in order to serve the means." - D.E. Whittkower



The yellowed sentence really makes me wonder.  Is he suggesting we give them a handicap?  I don't see how evening things up and prolonging the agony is more humane than a quick and decisive win.

Also, when is it ever true where only one side stands to win, drone or no drone?   This statement might hold true for the exact moment of the strike, but the fact that the target made the list in the first place would imply that they have had some successes prior to that moment in time.


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2014)

Yup. I don't know who this Whittkower guy is, but I'll take General Patton's opinions on war over his any day.


----------



## Griffon (15 May 2014)

I don't read it as losing the war itself, but more that there is a risk of incurring a loss. Whether it be a flight crew, a platoon, whatever. It's the sentiment that there is a cost to war that matters to me, and more than a financial one. I wouldn't suggest it should be an even fight by any means, but that both sides should have a risk of significant loss. A bunch of robot drones flying around and shooting people? That's cowardly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 May 2014)

It's a lot more discriminatory than a nuclear warhead, long range machinegun fire or even artillery (not the GPS kind  ). It's way more stealthy at catching the bad guys in the act, unawares.

Besides, that's our job, to kill the bad guys. It also saves our good guys from dying. That should be enough to end the argument right there.

It's also more humane than most methods. One minute you're digging a coffee can into a road, you hear a whisper (OK more like a train) but that only lasts a second and before your brain can register you're dead, your looking at the 17, 21, 35 (whatever number they're using now) ugliest virgins, who are standing there telling you to change your clothes, have a shave and get water for dinner. 

Their mother-in-laws are coming to meet you before they move in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 May 2014)

Most would be unaware that drones both aerial and underwater have been around since the 40's (German radio guided bomb and acoustic torpedo's and  think the acoustic torpedo has been around longer than that) oh yea lets not forget the V1 or the Japanese Fire balloons.


----------



## Journeyman (15 May 2014)

A UAV driver is less likely to drop a bomb on friendly troops, killing Canadians, then claiming "...oh, I felt my life was in danger...."


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> I don't read it as losing the war itself, but more that there is a risk of incurring a loss.



Incurring losses increases one's chances of losing the war, either by depleting one's valuable human resources or losing public support at home.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Whether it be a flight crew, a platoon, whatever.



"Whatever"?

Those "whatevers" are somebody's sons or daughters or fathers or mothers or husbands or wives or brothers or sisters. Their lives count. Their families, left shattered by the risks that you value above their lives, count.

How many funerals have you attended? How many ramp ceremonies? For how many families have you struggled to find words that had some meaning, that could offer them some support, magically reduce their grief? How many friends and colleagues have you lost prematurely?

I've gone through that far too many times, as have many here, and many of them have gone through that many more times than I have, and/or lost people even closer to them.

I stood across from Mark Wilson's coffin at the cemetary, saw his young son's hand resting on it and the look in the kid's eyes, and could barely maintain my composure. That image haunts me still, and wrenches my guts everytime that it pops into my mind (like now, thank-you-very-much). My youngest son was about the same age.

"I'm sorry that your (insert relationship here) was killed, (insert title/family name here), but you can take great comfort in knowing that we made sure that it was a fair fight by not using certain technological advantages available to us".

Screw that, and anybody that thinks that "incurring risk" is a more important concept.

This is not kiddie soccer, where natural competition is sacrificed upon the altar of esteem-preservation-at-any-cost. It's win, or else.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> I wouldn't suggest it should be an even fight by any means, but that both sides should have a risk of significant loss.



One dead person is very significant. And, in any conflict, I'd infinitely prefer that it was not one of my own. I have endeavoured to ensure that it was not, but rather the opposite.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> A bunch of robot drones flying around and shooting people? That's cowardly.



They are not robots, and not drones. Pay attention.

Modern aircraft tend to be fly-by-wire, with computers between the pilot's controls and the aircraft's control surfaces. Now make part of that chain wireless. That is the difference. A human being controls the UAV, just as a human being controls a manned aircraft.

The target cares not one whit what it was that dropped the bomb on him. It makes no difference.

The Royal Flying Corps believed that parachutes were fit only for cowards and Artillery observers in tethered balloons, so thousands of intelligent and talented young men met untimely and unpleasant deaths during the Great War as they rode their shattered, burning aircraft into the ground, or jumped to escape the flames just like those poor sods atop the World Trade Centre.

And you think that that is a good thing?

I don't want you anywhere near me in a conflict.

In fact, I do not want you on my side, as you clearly are not. Be honest, at least, and wear he opposition's uniform.


----------



## Griffon (15 May 2014)

My sincerest apologies for some of the wording in my last post, it was made in haste.  I do not mean to make little of the sacrifices made by our members at all, and I'm sorry you took it that way.  I haven't personally known anyone that lost their life in our Operations, but I do know many that have come back changed, physically or otherwise.

I am not sure how the physical separation from the fight affects the decision making of the pilot, but it seems to me that the individual that is personally there would tend to act with more discretion as everything is much more real and personal.  Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys? Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe? Are they able to attain the same level of SA, not being personally in the environment?  I'm sure that there have been studies or papers that discuss these questions; I'll try to take some time this weekend to find some and educate myself. If I can find any, which is doubtful. 

It may be old fashioned of me to think this, but I would rather be in the aircraft providing CAS to troops on the ground than control the RPA above their heads. And I would like to think they would rather a real person up there too.

Each one of us is (or should be) very well aware of the potential risks that come with this profession.  Do I want to lose my life carrying out my duty? No. I would much rather I, and everyone else that goes, come home in one piece.


----------



## dimsum (16 May 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> I am not sure how the physical separation from the fight affects the decision making of the pilot, but it seems to me that the individual that is personally there would tend to act with more discretion as everything is much more real and personal.  Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys? Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe? Are they able to attain the same level of SA, not being personally in the environment?  I'm sure that there have been studies or papers that discuss these questions; I'll try to take some time this weekend to find some and educate myself. If I can find any, which is doubtful.
> 
> It may be old fashioned of me to think this, but I would rather be in the aircraft providing CAS to troops on the ground than control the RPA above their heads. And I would like to think they would rather a real person up there too.



...or, perhaps, from some of us who have been UAV folks and know just how much (or little) SA we have.

I can assure you that not being physically in the cockpit has *ZERO* bearing on how "real" the fight seems.  UAV operators have access to all the comms methods aside from physically looking at the target with the naked eye- and how detailed would one's naked eye be at 20Kft or more?  I can also assure you that since UAV operators (sensor operator and pilot) can see with a good level of detail and have been on target for hours/days, they have MUCH more SA than the A-10 rolling in for 30 seconds.  Remember - the CAS pilot is also looking through a camera, be it on a SNIPER pod or otherwise.  

What people also seem to forget is that the UAV crew is more than just the two people operating the aircraft.  Larger ones (Predator and up) will have an entire team of Int folks analyzing the picture and other info gathered; sometimes they will pick stuff up that the operators miss.  Their job is invaluable in keeping SA of the fight and reducing casualties - more eyes/brains looking out for things that just don't seem right, and reducing the chances of dropping on the wrong folks.

As for how much the troops would rather have a CAS aircraft vice a UAV, it's less sexy than an A-10 rolling in but would you want something protecting your back 30 seconds at a time with an on-call duration of maybe a few hours, or something sitting on top of you for a day and soaking up the ground situation (there's that SA thing coming up again) and ready to drop at your call?  If I was the person on the ground, I think that I'd want the latter and not give two whits about whether the pilot is inside the plane or not, but that's just me.  As to whether it's a "real" person or not, let me ask - when you talk to someone over the phone or text them, do you wonder if the person on the other end is "real"?  I'm being facetious here but my point is that the UAV is flown/operated by people on the other end, not some random Skynet computer.  

Somewhat-related fun fact:  For those who frown on the term UAV Pilots because they aren't physically in the aircraft, that the word "pilot" has a much older meaning in the maritime world (think "harbour pilot" or the traditional nickname for a warship's Navigating Officer, none of which steer the ship these days) than in the air world.


----------



## Journeyman (16 May 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys? Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe?


The UAV driver has the time to think more dispassionately and seek additional input.  Feel free to Google Tarnak Farm.



Edit:  deleted harshness....comments on people posting when they haven't a clue outside their lane....you know, sensitive stuff.  :nod:


----------



## Griffon (16 May 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Edit:  deleted harshness....comments on people posting when they haven't a clue outside their lane....you know, sensitive stuff.  :nod:



My first post was based on a formed opinion I had from years ago, with little research done to amend/update it in years.  So your first assertion was actually more correct, in that I "don't have a clue" about the current thoughts and views on the subject.  Loachman and Dimsum obviously have personal, real world experience with RPA operations, and so their words carry much weight with the readings I am now doing with respect to the morality of these operations, or what the media (and the subject article) calls "drone" strikes.  

But this is my lane.  Conversations about the morality of war are everybody's lane.  And, more importantly, it is my lane as I am in the military pilot occupation; I am not yet trained, but this directly affects my future.

I will have a clue.  The posts of this thread have made me rethink where I stand on RPA warfare; as a result, as I have already stated, I will be spending quite some time in the next few days reading what I can in the interest of reformulating my opinion (I'll be sure to include Tarnak Farm, thanks).  Thank you, gentlemen, for sharing your insights on the subject.

P.S.: I'm very curious what you deleted.  I normally find your harshness...refreshing.  And often quite entertaining too.


----------



## Loachman (16 May 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> My sincerest apologies for some of the wording in my last post, it was made in haste.



Accepted.

Thank-you.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> I am not sure how the physical separation from the fight affects the decision making of the pilot, but it seems to me that the individual that is personally there would tend to act with more discretion as everything is much more real and personal.



That will, to a large degree, vary with the individual but no pilot in theatre during my time dropped on anything anyway without approval from the appropriate commander in accordance with an established process. That commander's staff would be watching the live video feed from the aircraft, manned or unmanned. They would often be watching feeds from more than one aircraft involved, and have more situational awareness than the crews of those aircraft.

It was no less personal for me in my box than for a guy in a jet at many thousands of feet above everything. He'd be watching a thermal image of the events unfolding just as I would, but wouldn't get any pizza until his mission was over. I had communication with multiple agencies and a large moving-map display, and three other people in the box with me. We could compare opinions and interpretations of what we were seeing instantly. We could take our time and get it right.

We could stop an engagement at any time, if we had the slightest doubt, and I did that more than once - and was right each time.

There was an incredible amount of care taken by all in the "kill chain" to avoid costing innocent Afghan lives as much as friendly ones. It was not, however, cumbersome, and was appropriate to that conflict.

I have over three thousand hours as a Kiowa Pilot, during which my principal role was recce plus directing artillery fire, attack helicopters, and close support fighters. I have several hundred as a police helicopter pilot as well. The principles are very, very similar.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys?



The difference, either way, is negligible, if it exists at all.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe?



Due to distance, altitude, speed, and technological factors there is no difference. None.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Are they able to attain the same level of SA, not being personally in the environment?



At least as good, tactically, and perhaps better.

Certainly better than what I had as a Kiowa pilot, as I had to dodge wires and cows and such while trying to keep mental track of my position, my No 2's position (those guys always got lost/left behind), friendly positions, and enemy positions. That was more fun, but also more frustrating and harder to do.

I cannot speak about a guy in a bomber at 20000 feet in a cramped cockpit at night.

The only situational awareness that I lacked in the box was the feel for what my machine was doing.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> It may be old fashioned of me to think this, but I would rather be in the aircraft providing CAS to troops on the ground than control the RPA above their heads.



Which is natural, and understandable. I would have preferred to have been actually flying in theatre as well, but I certainly do not regret my Sperwer experience at all.

Your last couple of posts give me reason to hope.

Thank-you.

And you are probably the first target of Journeyman's "harshness" to ever ask for a repeat. That alone made it worth logging on this morning.


----------



## Shrek1985 (16 May 2014)

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.


----------



## Journeyman (16 May 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> The push for drones is easy to understand; casualties=disapproval, remove the casualties from your side and no one will care.


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:




Opinion......*informed* opinion....    _~sigh~_   :not-again:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 May 2014)

Shrek.......the War of 1812 just called, they need you to come back and organize another slaughter so we can help save the world.


----------



## dimsum (17 May 2014)

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 (17 May 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> 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 (17 May 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (17 May 2014)

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 (17 May 2014)

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 (17 May 2014)

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 (28 May 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> 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 (28 May 2014)

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 (28 May 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> 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?





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are so all over the map, I am having a hard time following your logic.
> 
> Are you a Trekkie by chance?
> 
> ...



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 (28 May 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> _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.



			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> easier to use



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



			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> 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 (28 May 2014)

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 (28 May 2014)

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 (28 May 2014)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> 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 (28 May 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> 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 (28 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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 (28 May 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> 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 (28 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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 (28 May 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> 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 (29 May 2014)

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


----------



## Journeyman (29 May 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

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


----------



## Nemo888 (29 May 2014)

DARPA has some really out there research projects. You can't get PTSD if you get your hippocampus zapped and can't transfer short term memories to long term storage. Memory wiping a squad once they get back inside the wire sounds like science fiction. But DARPA will pay for some mad scientists to try and do it. Meat drones may be a cheaper alternative.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/05/D1-Tucker-military-building-brain-chips-treat-ptsd/85360/?oref=d-river

http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/research-news/%E2%80%98free-choice%E2%80%99-primates-can-be-altered-through-brain-stimulation


----------



## dimsum (29 May 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> DARPA has some really out there research projects. You can't get PTSD if you get your hippocampus zapped and can't transfer short term memories to long term storage. Memory wiping a squad once they get back inside the wire sounds like science fiction. But DARPA will pay for some mad scientists to try and do it. Meat drones may be a cheaper alternative.
> 
> http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/05/D1-Tucker-military-building-brain-chips-treat-ptsd/85360/?oref=d-river
> 
> http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/research-news/%E2%80%98free-choice%E2%80%99-primates-can-be-altered-through-brain-stimulation



[tangent]

Well, who would have thought that Fox's TV series Dollhouse was prophetic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_%28TV_series%29

[/tangent]


----------

