News Its the start of Skynet

[Grover]

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/unmanned-stealt.php

completely autonomous aircraft? time to man the Armageddon shelters! :goodnight:

on a serious note: automatic carrier landing is a good idea, if it can be safely accomplished that is

 

[T.Neo]

I sure hope nobody has the bright idea to transfer the 'wonderful authority' of lethal force over to a machine such as this... :dry:

 

[Turbinator]

Why can't civilian aviation look this good?

 

[Urwumpe]

Why is it such a deal, the combat drones had been test flying for quite some time, even with autonomous attack patterns. I remember reading about two such drones doing coordinated bombing runs without human assistance.

Which isn't that impressive yet, since it also works in computer games. Target selection will be more important there.

 

[RS-232]

video is here:

 

[Ark]

The whole "killing people by remote control" thing scares the crap out of me. If war is reduced to pressing a button and watching a bunch of ill-equipped brown people die with no risk to you and your people, then war is going to look like the easy solution to every problem. I don't want to see US servicepeople die any more than the next guy, but the threat of justifying that sacrifice to the voters is the only thing that keeps our warmongering in check.

You can't put technology back into the box, but the entire drone warfare thing isn't going to make the world any better off. The way things are looking, I will never see another period in my lifetime where the US isn't actively killing people, by remote or otherwise.

 

[garyw]

The whole "killing people by remote control" thing scares the crap out of me. If war is reduced to pressing a button and watching a bunch of ill-equipped brown people die with no risk to you and your people, then war is going to look like the easy solution to every problem.

It's already here. It has been since the V2.

 

[T.Neo]

ill-equipped brown people

And is that better or worse, than killing ill-equipped pink people?

Also, a lot of the people the US has been killing-or trying to kill- in the last few years have been anything but "ill-equipped"- they seem to be well enough equipped to be a serious adversary to the most technologically advanced military on the planet...

It's already here. It has been since the V2.

The V2 was not guided to the target directly by a human, but it also didn't launch itself on its own decision...

 

[Urwumpe]

It's already here. It has been since the V2.

Don't forget the V1, damnit! It is its ancestor!

If there is anything to be proud of as German, it is a national dedication to find better ways to kill people.

Also, far worse as killing from afar without a personal look into the eyes of your enemy (Archers, I am looking at you), is killing him outside the battlefield, at his home, regardless if you do it by a UAV or by a knife.

 

[garyw]

The V2 was not guided to the target directly by a human, but it also didn't launch itself on its own decision...

I was pointing out that the V2 was essentially a 'press the button' killing weapon - just like cruise missiles. If you want to correct me make sure you understand my point. Thats why I included the quote.

 

[Ark]

I'm just not cool with anything that allows the wealthy, industrialized countries to kill members of poorer countries with absolute impunity and no risk to themselves. If you think your cause is worth killing people for, you ought to be willing to put your own people on the line.

I think Obama has latched on to the drone program because he gets to show the Republicans he can warmonger and escalate as well as they can, but not have to explain to his base why larger numbers of American soldiers are coming back dead. Again, I don't want to see our people die, but maybe if we had to pay a higher price for our interventions, we wouldn't still be in these useless, wasteful wars after a decade.

As long as taxpayer money flows to the defense industry, and defense industry money flows to lobbyists and PACs, and US casualty numbers are low enough to prevent rioting in the streets, our government will see no reason to stop finding new reasons to fight. Even if they have to completely fabricate justifications (*cough*Iraq*cough*).

 

[Urwumpe]

The poor mans UACV is the suicide terrorist. I don't know which is worse.

 

[RS-232]

Don't forget the V1, damnit! It is its ancestor!

If there is anything to be proud of as German, it is a national dedication to find better ways to kill people.

Also, far worse as killing from afar without a personal look into the eyes of your enemy (Archers, I am looking at you), is killing him outside the battlefield, at his home, regardless if you do it by a UAV or by a knife.

Dont forget the Horten Ho 229 from Germany in WWII . America took it a step further (or a couple) after that
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229[/ame]

 

[Ark]

The poor mans UACV is the suicide terrorist. I don't know which is worse.

Yeah. I don't want to get into which side is better than the other one, but they seem a lot more willing to send people to die for their cause than we are.

Though, if you want to get technical, you could make the argument that IEDs operate by remote control with no risk to the operator.

 

[Urwumpe]

Dont forget the Horten Ho 229 from Germany in WWII . America took it a step further (or a couple) after that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

There was also a French model from the interwar period, that had some similarities, also Alexander Lippisch did much more designs. His P.11 was the opponent to the Ho 229

 

[Ghostrider]

What, no love for the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Bug"]Kettering Bug[/ame]?

 

[Urwumpe]

What, no love for the Kettering Bug?

Not really... it was a military secret until the end of WW2 and did not influence the later designs - all US cruise missiles after WW2 had been based on the experience with captured V1, the Kettering Bug was terribly outdated by the lack of further development since 1921. Same with Soviet Union designs.

 

[Ghostrider]

Yes, but it's so damn cute.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, but it's so damn cute.

I would rather want to cuddle a Regulus...

It should have a tag "ACME" somewhere.

 

[Turbinator]

Why is it such a deal, the combat drones had been test flying for quite some time, even with autonomous attack patterns. I remember reading about two such drones doing coordinated bombing runs without human assistance.

The main difference between the already deployed UCAV vehicles and the future UCAS such as the Northrop Grumman's X-47B is the tactical areal unmanned combat ability. Dogfight capability, and complete automation. The new generation of unmanned combat air vehicles are going to be able to take on a human piloted aircraft and win. They are going to be able to operate completely independent of human input. Imagine a UCAS that lifts off, refuels mid-air, performs CAS, takes down enemy contacts, provides close air support, and returns to base. All without a human at the helm. That is the ultimate goal of the UCAS program and the X-47B.

To remove this from the equation: