Future Navy toys

[ttystikk]

Americans have a N.I.M.B.Y attitude towards drones. Wanna fly over foreign countries to survey and attack? That's fine, but fuck you for flying those over my house. I've said for years that until Americans have to deal with constant surveillance (which we pretty much have) , invading forces and threat of attacks every day, they won't care about supporting it everywhere else around the world, we're insulated from it. I've always been surprised at the general "better them, than us" attitude without realizing it's not , usually, the people of the area but the government or fringe forces that are the problem. Too much ignorance.

How would you react if an invading force was fucking up your neighborhood and killing your friends and family for something you had nothing to do with other than just living in a particular region under a particular government?

All of our endless foreign military adventures will have a high cost and we will pay, sooner or later.

Just ask the British Empire.

 

[jonsnow399]

All of our endless foreign military adventures will have a high cost and we will pay, sooner or later.

Just ask the British Empire.

Wars in the not so distant future will be machine vs machine, the first one to run out of machines loses.

 

[TacoMac]

Wildly unsupported bullshit presented as fact.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

That's just one of about 28,000 articles. Start reading, asshat. It all starts the same way:

The controversial U.S. drone strike program in the Middle East aims to pinpoint and kill terrorist leaders, but new documents indicate that a staggering number of these “targeted killings” affect far more people than just their targets.


According to a new report from The Intercept, nearly 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets” of the attacks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-bombing-hospital-doctors-without-borders-kunduz.html

 

[TacoMac]

Wars in the not so distant future will be machine vs machine, the first one to run out of machines loses.

Sadly, that will be us. Once China stops sending us all our parts and Russia stops doing all of our programming, we're screwed.

 

[neosapien]

 

[WeedFreak78]

Political and commerce leaders realize America's time at the top of the proverbial food chain is coming to an end and they're willing to use any and all force to hold on as long as possible, no matter the long term costs. I believe were entering a time when having a singular "world power" isn't going to work the way it has in the past, because of technology and a exponentially expanding world population. Not to mention we only became a great world power because Europe and Asia were in disarray after WW2. That seems to be our MO, fuck everyone else up so we have the opportunity to prosper without competition. Greece, Rome, Spain, Britain... history repeats itself, America's next on that list...

 

[dstroy]

My uncle was on the Tomahawk team at General Dynamics. That said, it's a 25 year old weapon system now.

Fire and forget is only the first stage of autonomous war fighting, and we are well past that now.

I wish I could believe what you are saying is true but I know better.

What does it being an old platform have to do with the stuff that is put into it now? Tomahawks are not fire and forget, they are constantly looking for an update mid-flight, and that was just an example anyways. That's cool that your uncle worked on them 25 years ago. The only true fire and forget ship-based offensive weapon we still use are harpoon missiles (in the navy at least).

You are confusing autonomous flight to a destination with weapons release authority. There will ALWAYS be someone with weapons release authority, and IF there is some degree of autonomy then a person will have to give that up.

This isn't science fiction, the machine isn't going to be able to take control and override human decision. What good is a weapon that doesn't do what you tell it to do?

Wouldn't it be nice to tell a drone to patrol an area and look for potential targets? That's where we are at now, and we sure as hell don't just shoot at whatever we want either.

We need permission to shoot at something, and making an offensive move is a decision that is made very carefully at a very high level.

Do you really want to know WHY the government is so hell bent on using drones? Because there is zero chance of losing a skilled pilot, and because they can maneuver much better because there isn't a squishy human inside. They can be up for longer because you just swap pilots out at the console, more uptime means more intel, air superiority, the list goes on and on. Nowhere on the list is "lets make autonomous killing machines that we have no control over", that's delusional paranoia.

 

[TacoMac]

Actually, the primary reason we use drones is the complete lack of accountability.

When a pilot kills a friendly, he's fucked. There's a hearing. Lots of people get involved.

When it's some low level corporal at a laptop pulling the trigger, it's much easier to throw his ass under the bus.

 

[greg nr]

Domestic drone surveillance is just one vote away. Actually, sessions could probably do it with just a presidential directive. They are already using them along the border.

Armed drones would be a step too far. Even if under civilian police control, nobody wants a bomb dropped on their heads, or get strafed by 50 or 30 cal's as collateral damage . It's the same reason they don't have attack helicopters.

Drones are much, MUCH cheaper than manned helicopters. They can fly low and slow, quietly, and have enough high speed cameras to be able to pick up just about everything and everyone over a period of time. All of Your guerrilla grows are belonged to them.

 

[cannabineer]

My errors don't kill innocent civilians.

This is refreshing: you admit to being in error

 

[dstroy]

Actually, the primary reason we use drones is the complete lack of accountability.

When a pilot kills a friendly, he's fucked. There's a hearing. Lots of people get involved.

When it's some low level corporal at a laptop pulling the trigger, it's much easier to throw his ass under the bus.

So someone is still held accountable? You just contradicted yourself. lol. And they're not all enlisted, just some of them are because the demand for bodies to fill seats is high so they had to open it up to enlisted as well, they still have the same qualifications and training.

Just because they aren't sitting in a cockpit doesn't mean they aren't a pilot, they are. They still follow the ROE that we all do, and are held accountable if they don't, but their hearings aren't public because they contain sensitive information that can be actionable still. Which is why the general public doesn't get to know about it because they'll blab. Or get on an internet forum and bitch and whine about something they don't fucking have a clue about.

RPA pilots still go to pilot school.

 

[ttystikk]

Wars in the not so distant future will be machine vs machine, the first one to run out of machines loses.

I agree completely. We might run out of human targets first.

 

[ttystikk]

This is refreshing: you admit to being in error

Now it's your turn.

 

[ttystikk]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

That's just one of about 28,000 articles. Start reading, asshat. It all starts the same way:

The controversial U.S. drone strike program in the Middle East aims to pinpoint and kill terrorist leaders, but new documents indicate that a staggering number of these “targeted killings” affect far more people than just their targets.


According to a new report from The Intercept, nearly 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets” of the attacks.

So first you assert that drone strikes never kill innocents, then you call me a silly name and provide citations supporting my position that they do.

I think you need to update your meds.

 

[ttystikk]

I hope you're enjoying your trip to China! I'm jealous, all the way down to my taste buds.

 

[ttystikk]

What does it being an old platform have to do with the stuff that is put into it now? Tomahawks are not fire and forget, they are constantly looking for an update mid-flight, and that was just an example anyways. That's cool that your uncle worked on them 25 years ago. The only true fire and forget ship-based offensive weapon we still use are harpoon missiles (in the navy at least).

You are confusing autonomous flight to a destination with weapons release authority. There will ALWAYS be someone with weapons release authority, and IF there is some degree of autonomy then a person will have to give that up.

This isn't science fiction, the machine isn't going to be able to take control and override human decision. What good is a weapon that doesn't do what you tell it to do?

Wouldn't it be nice to tell a drone to patrol an area and look for potential targets? That's where we are at now, and we sure as hell don't just shoot at whatever we want either.

We need permission to shoot at something, and making an offensive move is a decision that is made very carefully at a very high level.

Do you really want to know WHY the government is so hell bent on using drones? Because there is zero chance of losing a skilled pilot, and because they can maneuver much better because there isn't a squishy human inside. They can be up for longer because you just swap pilots out at the console, more uptime means more intel, air superiority, the list goes on and on. Nowhere on the list is "lets make autonomous killing machines that we have no control over", that's delusional paranoia.

I said nothing about not being able to control them.

I'm also on record as being an advocate for the increased use of drones vs manned aircraft.

My concern is when the programming includes protocols for engagement that do not include a human in the loop.

It will begin in limited fashion, then expand slowly, just as any military technology does.

You'll only need to worry if you don't have an IFF transponder.

...unless of course the drone in question is operated by a hostile force. We aren't the only ones developing these systems, after all.

 

[jonsnow399]

I said nothing about not being able to control them.

I'm also on record as being an advocate for the increased use of drones vs manned aircraft.

My concern is when the programming includes protocols for engagement that do not include a human in the loop.

It will begin in limited fashion, then expand slowly, just as any military technology does.

You'll only need to worry if you don't have an IFF transponder.

...unless of course the drone in question is operated by a hostile force. We aren't the only ones developing these systems, after all.

Boeing introduces their drone tanker today
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/12/19/boeing-offers-sneak-peek-of-mq-25-tanker-drone/

 

[ttystikk]

So someone is still held accountable? You just contradicted yourself. lol. And they're not all enlisted, just some of them are because the demand for bodies to fill seats is high so they had to open it up to enlisted as well, they still have the same qualifications and training.

Just because they aren't sitting in a cockpit doesn't mean they aren't a pilot, they are. They still follow the ROE that we all do, and are held accountable if they don't, but their hearings aren't public because they contain sensitive information that can be actionable still. Which is why the general public doesn't get to know about it because they'll blab. Or get on an internet forum and bitch and whine about something they don't fucking have a clue about.

RPA pilots still go to pilot school.

I'm not throwing the pilots under the bus. They will engage the target they're told to, and some of those will be the result of faulty intel.

This will happen when the UCAVs are autonomous, too.

 

[cannabineer]

Now it's your turn.

After you own up to how you ran Pinny off the boards.

You called him faggot, remember?
And when he complained about it, you used every teenager-technical excuse in the book to dodge what you did, remember?

This is why your name to me is Mud.

Perhaps you should check your collarbone account. You're likely to find someone else for general torment.

 

[see4]

Now it's your turn.

Tell us again how students should be able to eliminate their student loans through bankruptcy.

After you own up to how you ran Pinny off the boards.

You called him faggot, remember?
And when he complained about it, you used every teenager-technical excuse in the book to dodge what you did, remember?

This is why your name to me is Mud.

Perhaps you should check your collarbone account. You're likely to find someone else for general torment.

Oh wow, didn't take tinystikk to be a homophobe. I knew he was not a critical thinker, but a homophobe? Yuck. What a horrible person.

Ohh, even better, he has a sock account!