U.S. Military Shoots down Iranian Drone over Iraq

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by CarolinaTiger61, Mar 13, 2009.

Page 1 of 3
  1. CarolinaTiger61

    CarolinaTiger61 Recently Repatriated

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    49
    Wired.com is reporting that last month a U.S. fighter jet shot down an unmanned Iranian drone flying over Iraq. The article mentions how the "Obama administration is looking for ways to reach out to the Tehran regime -- dangling invitations to international conferences, and offering promises of renewed relations. Which means the drone incident comes at a particularly sensitive time."

    Maybe they shouldn't be flying drones over our military, especially given their history of aiding the insurgency in Iraq. If anything, I'd think this would help our footing in advance of any potential talks with Iran. It's like saying, "We'll talk with you, but we're still capable of crushing you if you mess with our affairs."

    I'm also interested in the personal perspective here. I'm sure the pilot who shot that thing down is pretty stoked. His head is probably so big it barely fits inside the cockpit. Fighter pilots are confident enough when they're not in the air, so imagine how bad it gets when they actually accomplish something.
     
    CarolinaTiger61, Mar 13, 2009
    #1
    1 person likes this.
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    These iranian drones are small, crude, unstealthy, and incapable of being armed with missiles. It is doubtful whether they carry sensors more complex than simple TV cameras. But the third world has recognized that part of the US immense power is their ability to know what the enemy is doing and prevent him from doing the same. So they are trying to use RPVs because the technology is affordable compared to satellites and the complex, high-flying recon vehicles that we use.

    Trouble is . . . they really can't be used in an environment protected by air defenses and combat aircraft. So the statement that this gives the Iranians the capability to overfly any US base in the middle east is hyperbole. It only gives them a theoretical ability. Our bases, ships, and forces are well-defended against these threats.

    Yes, the fighter pilots like to shoot them down and there will be more and more unmanned aircraft in the future to deal with. We will be shooting them down with unmanned fighters within 10 years. It is already being tested. Robotic war is here.
     
    red55, Mar 15, 2009
    #2
  3. TheDude

    TheDude I'm calmer than you.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    717
    Sarah Conner warned against this.
     
    TheDude, Mar 16, 2009
    #3
  4. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    Depends on how you're using the term "robotic war".

    I agree that the proliferation of unmanned, remotely controlled aircraft is underway - hell, the first ones flew in Vietnam. But the artificial intelligence required to autonomously engage and kill without a human in the loop is a long way away.

    We can kill via drone right now. What we cannot do is sense, detect, identify, determine possible collateral damage, decide, and engage - all autonomously.

    And the toughest part of that, believe it or not, is the link between sensing and identifying autonomously. Very, very complex AI involved to make that happen. We're nowhere near being able to do that with enough confidence to allow a drone/robot to shoot on it's own decision cycle. At least, not in a conflict below the level of all out war for literal survival.

    By the way - this is nothing to look forward to. Sanitizing warfare by taking the immediate human risk out of pulling the trigger is just another, more decentralized way of encouraging extremely brutal and disproportionate warfare. Much easier to kill when it looks like a video game. Much easier to become a terrorist when the other side is killing your side with machines.

    The enemy always gets a vote. The Iraqis and Taliban have proven that humans still control the nature of warfare and technology is still only an enabler, not a panacea. Since war is a human phenomenon, I suspect it will always be so.

    Oh - and the dude who shot that thing down is secretly pumped about it. But his buds have given him a new callsign and (while secretly coveting his "victory") are giving him sh!t for killing a robot. Just a guess, but I'd wager on it.
     
    Bandit88, Mar 16, 2009
    #4
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Still, . . . All of these technologies are in advanced stages of development. In 10 years they will be operational. The human link will only give permission to engage and the software will fight the battle.

     
    red55, Mar 16, 2009
    #5
  6. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    2035. At the earliest. And even then, there's one HUGE almost INSURMOUNTABLE obstacle in the way. DoD funding. These systems (and the infrastructure requirements to make them work reliably) are hugely expensive. Things that are hugely expensive will soon be out of favor. Standby for procurement holiday part two.

    It's all interesting. It's also all still very much theoretical and in early R&D.

    It's going to happen. But we'll both be very old men when it does.
     
    Bandit88, Mar 16, 2009
    #6
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Indeed, the economy may prevent full acquisition and deployment of every cutting-edge weapon, as will our current involvement in two knife fights where we can't use all of our tech. But it hinders our enemies as well. We will have future wars against more sophisticated enemies and our R & D is not lagging a bit. It is one area that we still have a huge edge.

    And in economies of scale, robotic aircraft actually cost less than their manned counterparts. They require no life support systems, they are stealthier, more agile, and have longer ranges. In terms of pilot costs (training, salary, insurance, death benefits) they save huge amounts of money.

    It's in advanced R & D, my friend. Experimental aircraft are already flying. DARPA is working on some amazing projects. I see a lot of this stuff on the RFP lists every day and that's just what's in the white. The black R & D budget . . . well, who knows . . . but it is said to be working on technologies two generations ahead--anti-gravity, zero-point technology, directed energy weapons, force fields.

    Bet you a case of Mexican beer. :grin: The X47 will be flying in 2009 and could enter production in 2014. That's the physical platform necessary. Fighter pilot software has been around for two decades and is very advanced. The line between "remotely piloted" and "self piloted" will become increasingly blurred.

    Robot Fighter Thoroughbred Set to fly this Fall

    The Return of UCAS
     
    red55, Mar 16, 2009
    #7
  8. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    It's a bet. Not a fair one, though. I have insider information. :grin:

    And the savings in human life support are dwarfed by the costs inherent in the off-board systems required to make the autonomous aircraft work from an employment standpoint.

    You're a techno-nerd, Red? Who knew? :wink:
     
    Bandit88, Mar 16, 2009
    #8
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Programmers are cheaper salaried and far cheaper to train than pilots and we need far fewer of them. Most are contractors and have no government pensions involved. Cost savings and effectiveness are driving this issue and like everything else, automation will continue to improve, including AI. 100 years ago we never thought there would be elevators without operators. 50 years ago we never thought there would be trains without engineers. 25 years ago we never thought there would be robotic surgeons. Today we can't imagine a robotic fighter jet . . . but it will be fighting within a decade.

    Techno-wizard! :grin:
     
    red55, Mar 17, 2009
    #9
  10. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    No offense, Red. But save the lectures. :grin:

    I'm very familiar with this topic.

    In 2019 (after 3 more crystal footballs and CLM's rise to SEC coaching legend), I will quietly collect on the wager. Then share it with you in whatever rest home you're living in. :grin:

    You're not wrong. You're just early. :thumb:
     
    Bandit88, Mar 17, 2009
    #10
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page