The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Remote Controlled Warfare : The Discussion
The Ender
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I think most people are already pretty familiar with the MQ-1 Predator UAV by now - the premiere 'drone' attack aircraft used by the United States (I dislike the term 'drone' when referring to contemporary UAVs, as it suggests a level of autonomy that these vehicles do not currently have. All of them have some level of automated functionality, but by and large these are remotely controlled vehicles, not robots) which is quickly becoming a staple of modern air power. They have a very limited performance envelope in comparison to manned aircraft in just about any role (low maneuverability, low flight ceiling, limited range, video latency problems that limit pilot performance, etc), but they're delivered both awesome concrete results & opened the eyes of both weapons systems manufacturers & buyers as to what the future may hold for these sorts of toys.
Speaking strictly in terms of effectiveness as a platform, I think there is zero question that a unmanned vehicle - even a contemporary UV with all of the contemporary performance trade-offs - is strictly a better investment for many roles currently taken by manned vehicles: search-and-destroy (SEAD, as the military acronym goes) ground attack aircraft, front-line armored gun platforms (both conventional tanks & newly emerging 'protected gun system' wheeled vehicles), attack submarines & any reconnaissance element. A UV is less vulnerable, less expensive and, crucially, it's crew is not lost if the vehicle is lost; you don't have to jeopardize well trained people to take advantage of their talents if they're at the controls of a UV.
If & when performance issues are worked-out, I can only see the scope of remotely controlled vehicle use expanding (a high performance interceptor UV would be strictly better than any high performance manned interceptor, for example. The same goes for close air support).
The ramifications for this emerging paradigm shift are just gobsmacking. Did you know, for example, that one of the proposed ways for solving latency problems with the MQ-1 is to axe the video feed in favor of simply tapping into the data links of nearby Abrams and/or Apache vehicles? So, literally, the pilot of the Predator would only be seeing a battlefield as represented by some simple terrain contours and icons that represent different objectives / targets (that being said, there is a lot of resistance to this sort of proposal from within the American armed forces, for both practical & ethical reasons).
What does it mean when a significant part of a belligerent's army has no skin in the game, and might not even have to see the results of their actions aside from whatever abstract feedback their monitors give them? That might seem like a loaded question, but I really don't know if the answer is necessarily negative: if we don't have jittery pilots or gunners, ones that haven't absorbed the foxhole paranoia of being in a combat theater, do we really see as many accidental civilian casualties? If we shift judgement as to what should / shouldn't be shot-up away from emotionally stirred people in favor of an objective-focused mechanical system, would we not get far fewer atrocities? How could it be called a net bad if fewer servicemen / servicewomen ended-up with PTSD, physical injuries, etc, because they were operating remotely?
Unmanned military vehicles, D&D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4hY9BdG6SA...Oh Goddammit!
Pull the plug before it's too late!
With Love and Courage
0
Posts
That's pretty much the extent of my argument. If my one cousin could have his fingers back and my other cousin could not have PTSD because some kind of robot replaced them, then I think that would have been swell.
On a related note, drones be commercializing near where I live.
I've seen a UAV take off and land from my local municipal airport as well. They are kinda creepy dye to the low altitude and fairly quiet nature.
While googling for a link about this, I found this kinda interesting thing on the whole issue:
http://io9.com/psychologists-propose-horrifying-solution-to-ptsd-in-dr-1453349900
That's fucked.
...It's interesting that UAV pilots still get some form of PTSD. I have to imagine it's a milder form? I mean, there's a world of difference between knowing in some abstracted way that you killed someone, and killing someone right in front of you, feeling and smelling the aftermath of the effect.
My bet is that most of the PTSD reductions would probably be for cases where pure reconnaissance is needed, in an area where getting shot at by anti-air, hit by anti-air or shot down is very likely. I can see life threatening situations like that being traumatic enough to for some pilots to cause PTSD.
Quite relevant reading for this thread:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20725_6-myths-about-drone-warfare-you-probably-believe.html
Written by a 6 year veteran drone pilot.
...I don't even know what to say.
The guy complains for a full page about logistics, having to follow the chain of command and being unable to indiscriminately shoot weapons at whatever suited his fancy. Then the author / editor use stories of egregious privacy violations as a backboard to bounce poop jokes off of.
I'm not even sure what the point of that article was. "Did you know that being a drone pilot is not like what they show in the movies?" Well, I think might've guessed.
(I really dislike Cracked in general).
I don't either like or dislike Cracked (never really frequent the site), but I think your bias creeped up here champ. The article won't win a Pulitzer, but it's not bad.
I've watched drone missions before, and he accurately describes much of what occurs, even if it is with a tone of levity. Those guys eventually get pretty warped. It's almost like being in solitary confinement. They develop ways to cope with what they do and where they work.
You're also forgetting one important axiom: Everyone bitches about their jobs. Their jobs happen to be flying 16 million sky flyin' death machines.
People have different reactions to the same stimulus. Someone might get PTSD from an experience while others do not. You could have a car accident survivor with more disruptive PTSD than a combat vet, but that doesn't place any judgement value on the trauma suffered.
Yes, that's a fair point: I was very grossly incorrect about PTSD.
Can we perhaps talk about the implications of telepresent mechanized warfare?
Military software security has never been great and it is embarassing to point out that a large number of our drone fleet has, at one point or another, contracted malware.
The faster a drone goes the more problems lag is going to create. Latency is already a well known issue for the drones we have and it isn't likely to change anytime soon. The likelihood of fighting a war in the next 20 years in a country that has stable satellite connections we can use is unlikely.
Having them also doesn't limit the ability to have war crimes. Not only are there malfunctions to consider, but also the fact is that the drones are still manned by people. It certainly hasn't stopped our drones from violating sovereign airspace to strike at targets in other countries in the past few years.
As I said though, tactically they are valuable. Theoretically the ability to swap out crews as needed is a great improvement for surveillance and reconnaissance. The lack of vulnerabilities created by life support systems is great. It removes some maintenance and repair issues that revolve around manned aircraft (especially regarding O2 lines, and also toilets *shudder*). They're also flexible enough to be used in multiple roles.
However, they will not be taking over entirely for manned aircraft for the same reason we didn't turn the entire army into tank battalions. They are good in certain situations, but not all of them. Heavier and more powerful aircraft have a better time flying in worse conditions, while drones have a lot of preconditions for their flights. Right now manned aircraft are available for a lot of mission types and their commands will fight tooth and nail to keep them flying by expanding their capabilities. Just look at the B-1B, they've been trying to decommission it since the turn of the millenium, but now it's got a sniper pod for surveilance, advanced aeronautics systems, and a tonnage capacity that beats the B-52. They're even trying to work in a freaking laser system on it to destroy munitions.
Maybe they should just make it digital and online, instead.
Is it?
From where I stand, the people who are really responsible for ordering deadly military actions are comfortably removed from the devastating emotional toll of killing already; removed from it by layers of humans who don't actually get to say "no".
Is there really a moral benefit in making sure the people on the bottom rung of that ladder are emotionally damaged by the killing?
A few more DARPA improvements and the people piloting them can be phased out.
Also the whole "Let's spend $65 Billion with a B on shit that doesn't work!" thing you get with manned aircraft,
It's easy to figure out what the US Airforce is thinking at anytime.
"Wooosh, POW, look at my huge michael-bay-esque fancy techno murder cock"
The A-10 is lunchmeat against anti-air systems from even 25 years ago, let alone modern ones, the F-22 is what you get when you give a design team near-unlimited money and then get surprised that the per-unit cost is excessive, and I could fill a whole thread talking about the F-35's problems.
It doesn't help that the media is ignorant and/or deliberately misleading whenever they discuss any military procurement program. (Doesn't help that the contractors and DoD are, either.) Pulling information from this level of noise is difficult.
If that were 100% true they wouldn't be trying to kill the A-10.
It's a gigantic gatling gun with jet engines attached.
If that doesn't give you your huge weapon hard on (no homo) nothing will.
It is 100% true. You missed the "michael-bay-esque techno" part. It's there for a reason.
The A-10 is cool and all, but it's OLD. It doesn't use super advanced, cutting edge technology and thus doesn't appeal to the US Airforce.
Well, the Advanced Tactical Fighter program (when it was initially proposed in 1981) was a pretty legitimate concept. The Eagle was a 20 year old design that had entered service a half-decade earlier, and with the normal development time and life-cycle of airframes it was legitimately time for the Air Force to start looking at the next generation of airframes.
Most of the problems and cost overruns with the ATF program (and F22) came from a fucked up procurement system, repeated cuts in production numbers, and the Air Force constantly changing requirements - even though a lot of those requirement changes were pretty legitimate or sensible with relation to the design cycle and threats. The flyaway costs for the F22 aren't that ridiculous when you compare it to similarly capable aircraft.
The F35 is just a fucking boondoggle. It doesn't seem that anyone actually wants it, it's costs are ridiculous for the capabilities, especially compared to the F/A 18 or Strike Eagle.
The A-10 gets a bit more love than it really deserves, especially when any country with a somewhat modern AA system will cut it to shreds and where the chances of the USSR surging through the Fulda Gap aren't exactly that likely. On any likely modern battlefield, drones and AC-130's can do just about anything an A10 can do and do it better.
Also, when you take a look at the numbers of say...the Global Hawk program, the numbers for the F22 or F35 program don't look especially bad. The Predator line is pretty cheap, which isn't surprising because it's basically off-the-shelf components. As capabilities increase, you're probably going to see program and flyaway costs that are comparable to our manned aircraft programs.
I'd love to see the numbers on the Sentinel program as well.
Aging fleets create massive maintenance issues. When we phased out the C130H and phased in the J model we went from spending millions a year on structure maintenance to almost nothing just at one base. The continually threatened B-1b is a maintenance POS. The A10 is aging rapidly.
The expense of updating older aircraft doesn't always pay off.
Not only do they not fire willy nilly, they have a ridiculously high bar to meet before they can launch a missile. The target has meet certain thresholds, like it's a truck with a massive gun on it. And that gun has to be precariously aimed at friendly forces, and if it doesn't fire, they have to call in a lawyer who looks at their camera feeds, and either agrees or disagrees with their assessments, and then authorizes their use of force. Sometimes even more people get involved, like indigenous forces CO's, and they literally have a conference call while they talk about this truck with a gun on it kinda aimed at friendly forces but doing nothing. Maybe they blow it up, maybe they don't.
The guy wasn't kidding when he said they only shoot something 15% of the time.
The Air Force is moving away from single mission combat systems, and the A-10 is one of those. There are already multiple close air support (CAS) systems available, and more in the planning stages.
Enter the HELLADS 150kw laser designed to take down munitions, arty, rockets and missiles. Stick it in the B-1 (which they have) and you have an airframe that can go supersonic or slow down to survey the battlefield, provide CAS and bombing capabilities, and it's not as vulnerable to enemy radar as the A-10 (supposed to be at least).
the benefit is that it makes the people in power (at least in a democracy) less likely to order military strikes
depending on what numbers you believe, somewhere between three and five thousand people have been killed by drone strikes under the obama administration. Perhaps a couple hundred of those have been truly legitimate military targets (again, depending on whose numbers you believe), some have been confirmed to be civilians, and most are generic 'militants,' which is basically the term the government uses to describe a dead body it cannot immediately identify.
some of those targets (ex: osama) would perhaps have been worth sending people to kill, or perhaps lobbing a few missiles at. But many probably would not have been, which means a lot of bystanders would still be alive.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
If someone's a threat, that person should be neutralized.
Thinking like yours is why we didn't kill Osama when we had the chance in the 90's.
It really doesn't!
I'd say the reasons are social and political. Politicians are tremendously callous towards casualties on both sides, and many westerners are shockingly callous to violence against brown people.
I wonder if, beyond all the obvious racial factors, the relative lack of, y'know, getting bombed in Europe and the US makes it harder for us to imagine it and more likely to do it. I'm not a psycho - I don't want us to get blown up just to increase our empathy for Middle-Easterners. But I think it must be a factor - the way we react to a bomb in London compared to the way we talk about a bomb in Baghdad is astonishingly different.
Anyway, I don't think it's tech that is to blame. If anything, tech has the potential to help.
Oh we're absolutely insulated from that sort of violence. Well, "we" meaning those of us westerners lucky enough to not be part of the boots on the ground armed forces. Obviously (like, empirically proven factually true) our boots on the ground people are not so insulated.
If some sort of fake video game personality on the drone means the drone pilots have fewer debilitating mental problems later on down the road, I see that as a good thing.
I really don't believe that PTSD stops our military leaders from ordering military actions though. Like, where is there any evidence for that?
That said, I would be equally appalled if they were jets doing the bombing; the campaigns against Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War are a semi-decent parallel to the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation, and were probably even more fucked up, at least numbers wise.
I mostly agree, but I do think the lack of American casualties involved in drone warfare works to mitigate political opposition to war.
Be able to get complete reconnaissance of an area, including indoor environments, be able to take out the enemy without bombing the infrastructure to hell...if you really wanted to avoid civilian casualties, maybe you could even equip some of them with nonlethal weapons. Or leave a bunch of them up as a 24-7 perimeter defense.
I've started worshiping my new robotic overlords early, just to be on the safe side.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Oh I agree with that.
But i don't think PTSD does the same thing as casualties in terms of mitigating political opposition. There's a dark grimy underbelly of the military brass that won't say it out loud, but thinks that PTSD sufferers are fakers and malingerers, and that they don't have "real" problems.
It's pretty clear from that article that the military decision makers don't know thing one about what the drone pilots go through and deal with.
Nuclear and biological weapons are pretty far removed from this thread, but there's no reason to assume that people who oppose drone warfare don't also oppose both of those. I am far more bothered by the US arsenals of nuclear weapons than I am by its drones, but that issue deserves its own thread.
I'm disturbed by drone technology for many reasons, but most of my immediate horror is directed toward toward their use in Pakistan specifically rather than their existence itself.