Point. Click. Kill: Inside The Air Force's Frantic Unmanned Reinvention

Wow...somebody zeroized the onboard computer during a flight. That's kinda funny. Some of you might wonder, why even have the option to erase the onboard RAM at the finger tips of the pilot? Well, to prevent capture of mission critical data and reverse-engineering of the software. How many of you have lost your iPhone (along with personal info) and wanted to do a remote wipe? Plenty I'm betting. But the software engineers should've put a "Are You Sure You Want To Erase All Data? Click OK." prompt. That could've saved that particular UAV.

One thing the engineers should consider is mounting a gun on the reaper. Not every situation calls for a Hellfire missile. A few rounds from a .30 mm chin gun could save a lot of money when used on a single individual(s) placing an IED compared to a missile. Not to mention enabling the UAV to loiter around longer when it's exhausted its complement of missiles. That's my two cents anyways.

Nice you can train at home with the equipment and software out there. It's a nice time to be in the U.S. Airforce. I wish I was still in for the fun. I worked on the SR71, F-15 & F-16 and A-10 aircraft. I fixed the Jet and turbofan engines plus tuned them on testcell. It was easy and fun trimming out the fan blades.

Nice you can train at home with the equipment and software out there. It's a nice time to be in the U.S. Airforce. I wish I was still in for the fun. I worked on the SR71, F-15 & F-16 and A-10 aircraft. I fixed the Jet and turbofan engines plus tuned them on testcell. It was easy and fun trimming out the fan blades.

I am just afraid that it is becoming too easy and sanitary for us to kill in this manner.

Missiles have less recoil than mounted guns. Release, then ignite, means the only impact to your flight is the loss of weight. A nose mounted gun would tend to push the plane upward, which would need compensation, and these things are not "fighter plane" responsive.

Also, missiles are far easier to direct than ballistic fire. You can steer them with lazers, while a bullet just goes forward on its tragectory, making collateral and missed kills more likely.

There is also the issue of range.

Finnally, there is a certain intentional psychological effect of drone warfare, wherein, you have an unassailable, unknown, and silent foe who can kill you with reasonable disgression without you even knowing it. Furthermore, even if you were to observe your indefatigable opponent, the best you can do againt the assaliant is put your life against nothing more than a price tag to a government with enough money to pay that cost for every member of your cause.

Wow!?!?! Some stupid american can kill from his home on the other side of the planet. What is wrong with you people?!?!. You should export goods and services and not death. Check your freaking washed brains and respect other beings more you hitler clones. Just stop the killings!

In the 1960's I received several Air Medals as a combat aircrewman in VietNam, so I've witnessed true carnage from the vantage point of a cozy cockpit high up above the explosions. Killing, then, was much like playing one of today's video games. I couldn't help but wonder what it would be like if I'd been born elsewhere on the planet and was a recipient down on the ground, instead of in a comfortable bomber high up in the air.

There's no questioning the cold-blooded efficiency of the real-life "Predator Video Game." However, it would be a mistake to lose sight of the fact that armed drones are a double-edged sword. They just haven't yet been utilized as such.

Here on Planet Earth, nobody is perfect. Roles get reversed and/or people make mistakes, either by accident or by design.

Bottom line: What happens in 20 years or so when hundreds of these machines are patrolling the skies over America, and (a la "Broken Arrow") one or more drone crews go rogue? What kind of security is being implemented to prevent that?

What kind of guarantee does the private US citizen have, that some kind of overblown Martial Law scenario won't also include Predator or Reaper drones? They're already being flown over the USA on test missions. What kind of guarantee will we have as to the integrity and trustworthiness of the drone crews? (LOL -- will they be trained by ACORN organizers, for example?)

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the hit TV Series "24" getting some mileage out of the possibility of rogue Reaper drones flying over the east coast. They've already come pretty close to that very thing.

One more point: What countries can we use our armed drones on, just at our own discretion? Do we just send a drone out across the planet whenever and wherever we want? Does the CIA have their own unaccountable armed drones that nobody else knows about, like they did in the 2005 movie "Syriana"? (The final scene where the CIA secretly took out a royal with an armed drone, was indeed chilling.)

Who--by name--maps out the armed drone flight plans and missions and what criteria do they use? If we'd have had this technology 30 years ago, would we have secretly used it in Central America or elsewhere?

This is becoming an important point of ethics. I think the general population on this planet would like some kind of assurance that there's adequate adult supervision here. Armed drones with this much capability certainly do raise the bar on planetary warfare, as in 'almost eliminate it entirely.'

If you ask me, the threat of rogue UAV's doesn't exist as long as we keep a human being piloting the aircraft from the ground. What we have now is basically like actually piloting a plane, only from the comfort of somewhere safe. Where it gets into hazy areas is if we start adding more and more artificial intelligence. If we limit AI to only controlling minor aspects, like correctional adjustments to prevent a stall or etc, then I'll feel safe in my own home. The day a plane is flown completely on it's own and merely takes orders is the day all those sci-fi movies like Stealth and Eagle Eye become a distinct possibility.

It's amazing. The existence of Human beings will be unimaginable if they merge with AI robots with these kind of deadliest unmanned aerial vehicles Technology is so sharp but better use for good deeds.

MYO HAN HTUN (a) KO TOE

Woohoo. One step closer to extinction. Humans suck.

Look at today's cockpit. The pilot fly, aims, and fires from sensors and monitors (especially at night). Now, remove the pilot and put him in another room doing the same things, only now the electrical signal goes from button in plane to system in plane to button in room to system on plane. Planes already run with computerized stabalizers. All you have done is take a human being out of harms way.

Human judgement is still strongly at the center of the loop (as is human error, as the article clearly demonstrated). These things are not going to go "rogue." A person would have to go rogue, and that could happen just as easily in a F16 (actually, easier, since the drone pilot can be walked up to and shot). Could an oppressive government use these to oppress its people? Sure, but there is no shortage of conventional means to do the same. The military has clearly stated the wepons systems (in the near future) will be human controled. The computers on the plane control some flight operations, but it is a human choosing targets and pulling the trigger.

Now, the argument that this dehumanizes warfare from the Viet-bomber is vaild. The same argument, however, could be put (and historically has been) to the bow&arrow, the gun, artillary, airbombing, and ballistic missiles. The evolutino of warfare has been to kill your enemy without being killed. The greater the distance betwixt you, the less human they are and the more advanced your military ability. Otherwise, if you want "humane" conflict, the planet should go back to "deathmatches of champions" or better yet "contest of arms between kings."

I argued eariler that the very dehumanizing of it makes it a deterent to reprisal (no one to counter against).

By the way, despite the movies, a drone in the air is completely at the mercy of manned aircraft, as their responces are so slow as to be worthless against any force with anti-air capabilities or manned aircraft in the sky.

IF you want to be afraid of unmanned warfare, think about how simple it would be to construct and compute a system with a movement/infrared sensor (any home security system), minor robotics, and a signifigant firearm (say, a .50). We have all seen the remote control sniper set ups in the movies (which most any good engineer could make at home). Imagine a system set to put three rounds directly into any medium to large sized warm body that moved into sensor range. Ten of those would only cost me a few thousand to set up and make my compound a very sticky place to assault.

Put those on every streetcorner and enforce a good curfew. Airdrop them accross an urban area and trap an entire city indoors. That, where the choice to fire does not require human action, is where things get scary.

This is the thing... eventually we'll have multitudinous killing machines, devices, magnetic resonance killers, bio-selective killers, bio-electronic killers, chemicals, pulse wave killers, robots, nanite killers, thought-wave killers, seed genome killers, wave disruption killers... on and on.

It won't end!!!

Will we survive our technological adolescence? i dunna think so...

We love the thrill of the kill just too much. This oneupsmanship, power and control which is totally addictive and irresistible to men.

Why, it seems to be just plain fun, all this auto robotic weaponry to annihilate each other.

Oh - and what gamer wouldn't like to be an expert drone pilot? There's millions. On the other hand, my friend just said, "But they can't shoot back. There is NO HONOR in that."

?!

Cdin
------------------------
cdin.us/all
cdin.org
cdin.us/blogsites
: )

rpenri: In case you forgot, RAM is volatile. Under normal conditions there's a window of only a couple seconds after powering down where it is recoverable. I'm sure if one were shot down, by the time anybody reached it, the RAM would be unrecoverable. A much greater concern would be the flash memory on-board.

I wonder if the new training track will eventually allow any of the "borrowed" cockpit pilots to be returned to duty. Seems like there is a much larger pool of potential UAS pilots now. E.g., injured or disabled soldiers from every service, not just A.F. Many are eager to continue their careers, but are unable to be in the field. Even retirees, etc.

luv the way u naysayers go on about ethics in war; where was the ethics when planes were smashed in2 twin towers,. you also carry on about these drones going rouge etc; i think you'll find brainwashed bombers are no different from drones, they're just as unemotional & just as programmed as drones;.
i say bring on the technology,if armed forces can take out terriosts, while sitting in safety 1/2 a planet away, then great. there will be lots of mothers,wives,sisters & daughters, not having to get news that their luv'd 1's died in sum hell hole on other-side of planet;
i would hope armed forces have more drones on land that can go ahead of convoys,& take the roadside bombs out or @ least take explosions, instead of soldiers;
i think also where possible they should be using g.e.v's or maybe hovercraft

One more way to killing one another...
Yes it is more easy to kill behind the monitor...

"But they can't shoot back. There is NO HONOR in that."

You want to talk about honor? These guys were setting up IED's meant to kill a few unsuspecting soldiers probably on a fuel supply mission. FYI you can't shoot back when a roadside bomb goes off. As you can see the bomb could have killed anybody, maybe a bunch of kids walking to school. Also, when somebody IS shooting at you, you are not concerned that you are in a fair fight. This is not some dumb video game where you respawn in 10 seconds.

If you actually listen to the video you would realize that target acquisition and actually firing is not even done by the same people that guide the missile to the target. That is a long cry from everybody's perception of robots going rogue and killing us. If you really think every vehicle in a war zone needs to have a human driver then step right up and enlist.

The reason why armed drones are so popular among the ground forces is that the USAF has _NEVER_ wanted the "air to mud" close air support mission. The Air Farce wants FIGHTER pilots, gallant knights on jet-horseback who go out to joust with opponents who are their chivalrous equals. Flying A-10 "Warthogs" is career suicide, and and I've got about the same chance of winning the lottery that an A-10 squadron commander has of getting a star.

Armed drones let ground commanders get back into the air support game that the fighter jocks of the USAF were too good to do.

At least with Navy pilots, everybody knows that when you go "feet dry", Job #1 is to make sure the Marines on the ground live to fight another day.

Ken Mitchell
Citrus Heights, CA

RE: The reason why armed drones are so popular among the ground forces is that the USAF has _NEVER_ wanted the "air to mud" close air support mission.
That is a demonstrably false statement. Read RAND's "Learning Large Lessons: The Evolving Roles of Ground Power and Air Power in the Post-Cold War Era" (updated version free online) for a primer on the real history and direction on the topic. Follow up with "The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate", and close out the reading with "Storm over Iraq: Airpower and the Gulf War".
As to advancements in weaponry somehow leading to a sterile morality as well as a sterile battlefield...Well, take a look throughout history.
Weapons have ALWAYS been advancing. That can only be a surprise to some people because others have to think about it for them for a long time. It is the nature of MAN that is unchanging (it seems some people need reminding of that a lot lately). And finally, if one thinks that high tech weaponry somehow makes us immune to counterattack, well they must have been pre-school or younger on 9-11-2001 to be so unfamiliar with the concept of 'Asymmetrical Warfare'.
~sigh~
Comments like many of those in this thread are why I rarely visit the more 'general' science and tech media boards on Miltech topics. We now return to the regularly scheduled carping and emoting.

Capt. Brockshus reports for work at an Air Force installation in Nevada, but why? As high-bandwidth Internet connections proliferate, why not outsource some of the less desirable shifts, and allow people who don't want to live in the Nevada desert to still help out? Log in to the server from, say, Key West, receive your turnover briefing, three, two, one, MARK. You're on the stick. Finish your shift still wearing your PJs, do your debrief and head for the beach.

http://www.archivale.com

unreal content, great thanks for author!

http://english-essay-writing-help.org/custom-writing-help.php

Very soon we may have no actual human contact with our enemies. It will be much easier to kill them and not think of them as human.

Very soon we may have no actual human contact with our enemies. It will be much easier to kill them and not think of them as human.

piolenc, you're right of course. Nevada is where the pilots work from now, but really they could work from anywhere. Probably not in pyjamas though. I think the Air Force still has more discipline than that. However if they keep switching over to drones, they really will become the "Chair Force".

Food for thought. When I was a child I used to play with my father's ARMY shovel. When I was 10 or 11 I was taught how to use it and how it was once used in Vietnam. Needless to say I learned more about my father that day then I ever wanted to. Now I'm an adult with with a 10 year old son (My father passed away a few years back) and I still have that shovel. I have no plans teach my son how to use the shovel for combat, but he knows it was his grandfathers ARMY shovel. Today it's my son's shovel and we often use it to garden with.

UAV's are nothing more than a tool used to complete work in an efficient manner. How you use that tool is subject to the intentions of the human wielding it. While there is no doubt that Predators are getting exposure for how they are used in battle overseas, realize that they are also used here in the USA to save lives. ONLY By order of congressional approval can a UAV be authorized to fly over populated airspace to (for example) monitor fire lines and patrol our borders. In both of these cases the UAV's used are limited to observation only and under VERY strict rules of the FAA, but they perform a task that is very important to the safety of every individual person "civilian" in America. NASA's Ikhana could be back in the air soon patrolling California, monitoring fire lines and helping fire fighters on the ground by directing efforts toward hot spots. This was authorized during last year's fire season by the Governor of California and was very successful.
The point is even if you are anti-war don't let your right to be so skew your view of how this tool can be and is being used to save lives too.
Those who are or have ever served in the military think about the times you had to rest/loiter around a combat situation. Imagine the calm you would have if you knew that above your head was a Predator watching your camp and the perimeter while you rested. The emotional and psychological advantage of troops knowing that they are safe and have a tactical advantage is invaluable.

@finitesolutions

Ehemm... Dear Jackass,

You should have been wiped out by one of these "Stupid Americans" and their drones before you were so kindly provided the privilege to read such a fine American article, on such a fine American website, on the fine World Wide Web created by THE UNITED STATES MILITARY... YOU F*CKING D*PSHIT. Our country provides billions in foreign aide. So, while you're busy being "That Guy", our country is spending billions on wars (it could be spending on our own citizens) to keep other countries from annihilating themselves and each other. Now hand over your natural resources and your basic human rights. You don't deserve them anymore.

awkward? yep
uncalled for? yep
does he have a point? yep

DarkMadder summarized my thoughts pretty well except that for that when Im angry I grow cold-hearted and prepare to slaughter such jackasses for their their lack of brain

Now I know why the media does not ordinarily show battle footage of our current war. It is too damn depressing. Just look at how the drone wiped out that group of insurgents. With that power, we can wipe out entire buildings where "insurgents" are perhaps dwelling, potentially taking out women and children without any care. As I listen to the scientist explain how the drone works, he does not skip a beat as he views an entire group of humans demolished in an instant. Perhaps they were all insurgents, and the killing was justified...but more likely than not, there will be a time when innocent lives are lost without a second thought.

When the enemy can't even see you, or eventually realizes what is above them, the most they can do is destroy a heap of metal which will be readily replaced. This is almost cheating.

While drones may seriously benefit the tides of battle certainly in the favor of the country with the money and technology to produce such machinery, much more deep thinking about the morals and ethics should be done before we implement these drones. But apparently it's too late, because as is the case with most military actions, it will always be shoot first and then ask questions later. Almost certainly a few decades from now, we will look back at the War Against Terrorism and regret the instantaneous implementation of unmanned vehicles that destroy lives without discrimination.

they COST TO MUCH
before this much corruption can occur these drones must be widespread, only way to decrease cost is to decrease bulk and every bit of non-vital-to-mission-fancy-(costly)-equip.
as I have already said

sure humanity is sliding downhill, nothing can be done.
My philosophy is SAVE YOURSELF when the unnmanned drones come (with AIs mind you ;) ) to kill everyone

It's interesting how humanity suddenly sucks when we're looking at more efficient ways to kill those who hide behind civilian shields, many times children; kill men, women, and children indiscriminately; and throw acid in the face women who are trying to better themselves. Yes, yes, yes, it's incredibly interesting how we are suddenly savages when we try to stop that.

As for the article itself, it's incredibly interesting. I can really understand why my friend's been seriously considering going into the USAF's drone pilot program.

I suppose one could find ways of negating drone kills or even turning them against the country which deployed them.

If an enemy was able to determine the type of laser used for targeting, they could construct laser grenades. If your IED went off prematurely, you toss one of these grenades out and it starts emitting the same frequency laser as the targeting laser.

Or you could use slight of hand. Detonate an IED next to a bunch of innocent people, making it appear that they had been trying to conceal it. We launch on and kill these innocents, and the PR feedback gets extreme.

I would think that these guys would use our tricks against us. Simply construct or buy small, cheap, radio controlled trucks and remotely drive the IED's down the street.

Eventually, though, we may reach a point where both sides of a conflict are simply releasing drones and other automata against each other (an original star trek episode covered this). At that point, you seriously need to question the entire point of the conflict. In the star trek episode, the war was completely simulated, then based on the outcome of the simulation, people were ordered to enter death chambers. All the killing, without the economic overhead of actual weapons.

Rodney

Rodney

Having been there and done that for REAL, I wonder why someone felt it necessary for these video game jockies to wear what appears to be actual flight suits?

A flight suit is one of many pieces of protective clothing and gear worn by real pilots and air crew members. A flight suit is flame resistant to protect a flier.

Unless these guys are permitted to smoke while playing with their joy sticks, I can't see much chance of any open-flame risks.

In my opinion, to equate these ground-pounders to fliers is an insult to every real flier who put his butt on the line for real, in search of his/her enemy...and who sometimes bought the farm if the plane crashed. Those fellows didn't get to go home to a warm bed if they had a bad day.

This job requires nothing more expensive than basic BDUs, not Nomex flight suits. A flight suit implies a job these guys simply do not do.

It's a job, someone has to do it, but it's not a flight billit. It's not even real combat. "We're on the ragged edge" indeed! 'One Air Force official' needs a lesson on what a "ragged edge" REALLY is!

Former Naval AVIATOR

Nothing is perfect, but such weapons need to be as close to perfect as we can make them. During WWII the Americans were able to overcome the Japanese Zero fighter plane because an intact one was found in the Aleutians. If we were to lose a Predator drone with an intact Hellfire missile, the Pakistani ISI (who has been the main sponsor of the Taliban and other terrorist organizations) can reverse engineer one for their own use. It would make assassinations of key American personnel and Hamid Karzai a possibility. The engineers and builders of these craft owe it to our military to perfect a fail safe system that would prevent such an occurence from happening. It's bad enough the Pakistanis have nuclear tipped ICBMs and have shielded A.Q. Khan from arrest.

"A traveler has no protection besides his fire-arms; and the constant habit of carrying them is the main check to more frequent robberies" --Charles Darwin from The Voyage Of The Beagle

Now that we have both Unarmed Remote Control Aerial Vehicles and the Armed Remote Control Vehicle does this mean that a person is no longer limited by age when applying for work in the Armed Forces? Remote control vehicles has been for many years now the providence of older persons. Any time you go out to the areas where these remote control vehicles are being used it seems that the majority of operators are older persons. It has been this way for 50 to a hundred years at least. I think it may continue so.

With this being the situation as it stands right now. Isn't it just possible that older person even those in their waning years could be available to handle this type of remote vehicle as physical strength and manual dexterity are no longer a requirement in the game. I have found that older persons do not have the egocentric need to prove themselves that younger person do. They actually find it distasteful to kill someone and therefore do it with less enthusiasm for whole sale destruction.

73
dray

While I was in the military, I saw the one of the first armed Predators being used against the Iraqi Air Force. In fact, after we transcribed the IQA COMINT for NSA, we were told to remove it from the transcript because it was still a heavily guarded secret. Considering how scared the Iraqis were of any possible engagement with our Air Force -- and the Iraqi pilot in this instance even tucked his tail back to base when this happened -- I thought, "How cowardly could we possibly be?"

Just like anybody can be a big shot on the Internet, I suppose the US military thinks it's really tough when it doesn't have to shed blood with its own hands.

Medieval knights and men at arms disparaged the longbow archer for the same reasons of making combat impersonal and sanitary and thought crossbows made killing too easy. We're repeating the past with new technology funny enough.

"King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery."

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

I wonder when we'll all be required to play drone simulations in our free time. :)

re: DarkMadder, TechnoFreakFace

you have made my day, thank you. thank you, america, for spreading culture technology democracy and love to our poor countries. thank you for not letting us "to annihilate our selves". and hooray to USA' media too since such brainwashed drones (pun intended) could' ve been only found in soviet communistic countries around '60.

ben, europe

These ethical drones can provide support to future American officials defending the use of killer drones by showing how carefully the United States is working to be humane in its self-defense against international terrorism.
|Written by Dimitri from Eat Healthier Foods |

well, Nothing is perfect, but such weapons need to be as close to perfect as we can make them. During WWII the Americans were able to overcome the Japanese Zero fighter plane because an intact one was found in the Aleutians. If we were to lose a Predator drone with an intact Hellfire missile, the Pakistani ISI (who has been the main sponsor of the Taliban and other terrorist organizations) can reverse engineer one for their own use. It would make assassinations of key American personnel and Hamid Karzai a possibility. The engineers and builders of these craft owe it to our military to perfect a fail safe system that would prevent such an occurence from happening. It's bad enough the Pakistanis have nuclear tipped ICBMs and have shielded A.Q. Khan from arrest.

www.lipoescultura.net/lipoaspiracao/

Even the cops in the UK are being given a format of these drones to use for 'anti social' behaviour monitoring. It all reeks of big brother really doesn't it?

www.mercleasing.co.uk

Excellent post!

http://www.towinbet.com/