The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
hi hi
Computers today certainly have the capability to function without a human pushing the button, but there are definitely practical and ethical concerns about that. There is a notion out there that people are inherently lazy, but in my experience, people also inherently desire self-determination. Many people want responsibility. They want to be the ones making decisions.
In regards to collateral damage, it is that double standard that makes this perpetual war possible in the first place. I often hear lots of different formulations of that timeless phrase. "War is war," "boys will be boys," or simply, "Life isn't fair," as if it were an excuse for what should have been, but through the unwillingness of others, never will. In a strictly practical sense though, people desire fairness. Employing sudden death without warning is a great way to garner yourself more enemies. History is filled with examples of empires that ended up shooting themselves in the foot because they figured they could treat their colonies however they wanted and not suffer any repercussions.
As for the technology itself though, I suspect that if the US Air Force didn't have such an enduring love affair with the F-22, drone fighter technology would be years ahead of where it is today. I worked on a civilian program that did image recognition and autonomous guidance programming back in 2005, and I can tell you that it is not a lack of technology holding them back.
Computers today certainly have the capability to function without a human pushing the button, but there are definitely practical and ethical concerns about that. There is a notion out there that people are inherently lazy, but in my experience, people also inherently desire self-determination. Many people want responsibility. They want to be the ones making decisions.
In regards to collateral damage, it is that double standard that makes this perpetual war possible in the first place. I often hear lots of different formulations of that timeless phrase. "War is war," "boys will be boys," or simply, "Life isn't fair," as if it were an excuse for what should have been, but through the unwillingness of others, never will. In a strictly practical sense though, people desire fairness. Employing sudden death without warning is a great way to garner yourself more enemies. History is filled with examples of empires that ended up shooting themselves in the foot because they figured they could treat their colonies however they wanted and not suffer any repercussions.
As for the technology itself though, I suspect that if the US Air Force didn't have such an enduring love affair with the F-22, drone fighter technology would be years ahead of where it is today. I worked on a civilian program that did image recognition and autonomous guidance programming back in 2005, and I can tell you that it is not a lack of technology holding them back.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
I personally don't think taking the pilot out of the fighter is a good thing, though I realize its inevitability. There really isn't a pressing need for better drone technology; in another limited war, the weapons we have work just fine, and in a serious war against a real opponent, drones will be of limited use. Indeed, a serious war is what I'm concerned about; I think we are getting too used to having total air superiority, too reliant on remote control and GPS technologies (a real opponent can knock satellites down with ease). A war against a real opponent could make us deeply regret terminating the F-22 production line; the F-35 is an inferior "budget" model that won't be operational for a long time.icekatze wrote:As for the technology itself though, I suspect that if the US Air Force didn't have such an enduring love affair with the F-22, drone fighter technology would be years ahead of where it is today. I worked on a civilian program that did image recognition and autonomous guidance programming back in 2005, and I can tell you that it is not a lack of technology holding them back.
I'm also concerned that the more we mechanize our warfare, the more detached we are likely to become from the horror and suffering that war causes. When we don't have any "skin in the game," war has the danger of becoming perpetual.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
hi hi
Relying on GPS is a significant problem in a real war. US aircraft carriers used to have inertial navigation, but those got pulled out and replaced with GPS. (Although, in a real war, a nuclear exchange is possibly a bigger problem, but I'll sidestep that for the time being.) There may not be much need for drone fighters in today's limited war, but as a friend of mine who works in the aerospace industry used to say, "The pilot is the biggest design problem."
We have the capability to make totally self contained drones, drones that don't need to communicate with home or use GPS. (We had a guidance program that made decisions based on image recognition.) We have the capability to make drones that communicate with each other, can fly in thousands-strong, complex swarm formations without crashing into each other. Drones are going to be more fuel efficient and thus be capable of longer range, they won't have to worry about pilot fatigue, they'll have a significantly smaller radar cross-section when contrasted with a similarly capable manned aircraft, they'll be able to withstand higher G-forces, they are not limited to a human field of view.
We have the technology, but we haven't put it to use. When we do get around to making a drone fighter aircraft (which last I heard was planned for sometime in the next 20-30 years.), then we'll know for sure, but I predict that they'll outperform manned aircraft by a significant margin.
Relying on GPS is a significant problem in a real war. US aircraft carriers used to have inertial navigation, but those got pulled out and replaced with GPS. (Although, in a real war, a nuclear exchange is possibly a bigger problem, but I'll sidestep that for the time being.) There may not be much need for drone fighters in today's limited war, but as a friend of mine who works in the aerospace industry used to say, "The pilot is the biggest design problem."
We have the capability to make totally self contained drones, drones that don't need to communicate with home or use GPS. (We had a guidance program that made decisions based on image recognition.) We have the capability to make drones that communicate with each other, can fly in thousands-strong, complex swarm formations without crashing into each other. Drones are going to be more fuel efficient and thus be capable of longer range, they won't have to worry about pilot fatigue, they'll have a significantly smaller radar cross-section when contrasted with a similarly capable manned aircraft, they'll be able to withstand higher G-forces, they are not limited to a human field of view.
We have the technology, but we haven't put it to use. When we do get around to making a drone fighter aircraft (which last I heard was planned for sometime in the next 20-30 years.), then we'll know for sure, but I predict that they'll outperform manned aircraft by a significant margin.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
The question of moral implications when using more drones is one, should machines decide when and if to kill? I feel that the decision to end another person/s existence should always be a human one, and never a computers. This way people have someone to blame, not some faceless machine doing what it was programmed to do based on value inputs.
As for the ethics of using drones I think it`s about the same as using long range rockets, such as the Tomahawk cruise missile, AC-130 gunship, conventional air strikes, beyond Line Of Sight Artillery strikes, mines even. War isn`t fair, never has been, never will be. The strongest make the rules, the odd adage still hold true; Might makes Right.
If I gave you the choice between being a pilot or being a drone operator, honestly, which would you choose?
Can you honestly say that you wouldn`t want to soar higher than the birds, above the clouds, like Icarus reaching for the sun?
As for the scale of conflict, I don`t think large scale nuclear conflict will really occur. I think the largest counties are smart enough to see what that would bring. It`s the smaller states that could start the limited exchange, North Korea comes to mind. In all the history I've read, America`s modus operandi is to throw vast amounts of men and machines at a given problem. Id along with it`s large scale of production capabilities make it rather good at fighting conventional wars, I also think that if it was not the aggressor in the conflict the war wariness would not become a problem.
Even if we had full mechanization of warfare, unless the befits gained by fighting a war out way the costs, Social and Economic, war would not become perpetual, there would be a critical mass were it was A; to expensive to continue fighting or B; the Social costs became too much, in either war wariness or international out cry.
I don`t doubt we have the technological means to create very complex drones, but what would we use these "Drone Swarms" for?
I would like to see much more development in the field of ground drones, for starters better E.O.D drones would be good, mine and other explosive clearance drones need some major improvements. I'd also like to see combat drones be used on a squad level. Such as small recon drones to give an extra eye in the sky when needed. Or small sentry drones armed with Light Machine guns that can be set to guard positions and give alert to drone operators wherein they can take action with said drone and LMG. Maybe even small drones that are deployed into houses and other urban setting that can be detonated with different explosives, Flash bangs, HE, ect.
I've applied to the British Regular Army as an Infantrymen, or these are drones I'd like to see anyway.
As for the ethics of using drones I think it`s about the same as using long range rockets, such as the Tomahawk cruise missile, AC-130 gunship, conventional air strikes, beyond Line Of Sight Artillery strikes, mines even. War isn`t fair, never has been, never will be. The strongest make the rules, the odd adage still hold true; Might makes Right.
If I gave you the choice between being a pilot or being a drone operator, honestly, which would you choose?
Can you honestly say that you wouldn`t want to soar higher than the birds, above the clouds, like Icarus reaching for the sun?
As for the scale of conflict, I don`t think large scale nuclear conflict will really occur. I think the largest counties are smart enough to see what that would bring. It`s the smaller states that could start the limited exchange, North Korea comes to mind. In all the history I've read, America`s modus operandi is to throw vast amounts of men and machines at a given problem. Id along with it`s large scale of production capabilities make it rather good at fighting conventional wars, I also think that if it was not the aggressor in the conflict the war wariness would not become a problem.
Even if we had full mechanization of warfare, unless the befits gained by fighting a war out way the costs, Social and Economic, war would not become perpetual, there would be a critical mass were it was A; to expensive to continue fighting or B; the Social costs became too much, in either war wariness or international out cry.
I don`t doubt we have the technological means to create very complex drones, but what would we use these "Drone Swarms" for?
I would like to see much more development in the field of ground drones, for starters better E.O.D drones would be good, mine and other explosive clearance drones need some major improvements. I'd also like to see combat drones be used on a squad level. Such as small recon drones to give an extra eye in the sky when needed. Or small sentry drones armed with Light Machine guns that can be set to guard positions and give alert to drone operators wherein they can take action with said drone and LMG. Maybe even small drones that are deployed into houses and other urban setting that can be detonated with different explosives, Flash bangs, HE, ect.
I've applied to the British Regular Army as an Infantrymen, or these are drones I'd like to see anyway.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
That's why even if we HAVE self-driving cars they'll always need to be manned by a licensed driver, so someone can take the blame.Charlie wrote:The question of moral implications when using more drones is one, should machines decide when and if to kill? I feel that the decision to end another person/s existence should always be a human one, and never a computers. This way people have someone to blame, not some faceless machine doing what it was programmed to do based on value inputs.
This. I don't get the obsession with the evil of drone strikes, I've never seen any evidence that they are any less precise than regular airstrikes.As for the ethics of using drones I think it`s about the same as using long range rockets, such as the Tomahawk cruise missile, AC-130 gunship, conventional air strikes, beyond Line Of Sight Artillery strikes, mines even.
Drone operator. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to fly an F-22, but I'd also love to go home every day to my own place rather than a forward base somewhere. My understanding is that the Chair Force usually gets decent lodging, but I'll take a base in the States still.If I gave you the choice between being a pilot or being a drone operator, honestly, which would you choose?
Can you honestly say that you wouldn`t want to soar higher than the birds, above the clouds, like Icarus reaching for the sun?
[/quote][/quote]As for the scale of conflict, I don`t think large scale nuclear conflict will really occur. I think the largest counties are smart enough to see what that would bring. It`s the smaller states that could start the limited exchange, North Korea comes to mind.
There's no benefit to anyone in starting a nuclear exchange, even places like NK simply don't benefit from it. HAVING nukes is great, because it means that an invasion is extremely hazardous, USING them is...problematic.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Yes, even after it becomes technologically viable, I don't think we'll see self-driving cars for a long time for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that the car manufacturer surely doesn't want the liability.fredgiblet wrote:That's why even if we HAVE self-driving cars they'll always need to be manned by a licensed driver, so someone can take the blame.
I think this is purely a perception issue; I don't think that most people realize that these drones are piloted. It's also a problem with the nature of the missions (most of which are secret), so when the foes on the ground claim there are civilian casualties, the military really hasn't been in a position to contradict or clarify.fredgiblet wrote: I don't get the obsession with the evil of drone strikes, I've never seen any evidence that they are any less precise than regular airstrikes.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
The precision often comes down to the human intelligence not only what can be seen from the air. Systems malfunctions form the lower percentage of incorrect strikes, as far as I know. It is more often miss identified targets by ground assets that cause a lot of the collateral damage.This. I don't get the obsession with the evil of drone strikes, I've never seen any evidence that they are any less precise than regular airstrikes.
I can`t blame you for choosing like that, but I'd like to point out that, out of the seven different "Airbases" in Afghanistan, five of them were actual Airports. So there would be a fairly high level of luxury compared to other areas. Still it wouldn`t compare to being able to go home and kick off your shoes.Drone operator. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to fly an F-22, but I'd also love to go home every day to my own place rather than a forward base somewhere. My understanding is that the Chair Force usually gets decent lodging, but I'll take a base in the States still.
What I meant was smaller more backward counties coming into position of Nuclear arms. Counties that are most often radical religious types, the counties that would bat an eye lid at the opportunity to launch a strike against the "big, bad" America. North Korea wouldn`t, it was an example state. Kim Jong-un`s military leaders would stop him from starting trouble like that. More over China doesn`t want American forces to build up in the Korean region, so they stopped him. Further more it`s worth considering that America still has enough Nukes, although they are aging, to cover the entire North Korean country in blast craters a few times over, if it so tickled their fancy.There's no benefit to anyone in starting a nuclear exchange, even places like NK simply don't benefit from it. HAVING nukes is great, because it means that an invasion is extremely hazardous, USING them is...problematic.
Nukes are mostly show pieces however. Used in defensive ways, such as nuking an invading fleet, would leave you with an irradiated coast line and a considerable amount of sea area. Using them to attack a far superior enemy would be equally disastrous, America has more nukes. This is not even considering environmental damage or what the international community would do.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
"Our parachutes were made by the lowest bidder"...Charlie wrote:Arioch is right, final strike orders will human ones for a long time still. I often wonder weather it was movies that made people afraid of machines like that. ED-209, HAL 9000 and other robots come to mind. Are people naturally afraid of machines that can replace them or decide to remove them with force?
... but yes. Drones basically represent a form of influence that can be exerted over people, and thus someone will always oppose them. If you e.g,. got rid of all of the explicit weapons that have ever been made, then someone would start agitating over shovels/spades. If you purged the Earth of anything other than dirt, water, and soft plant matter, then someone would raise a fuss over words and/or limbs being usable to exert control over someone.Charlie wrote:Is it hard coded it us?
And no matter how far they took it they'd be right, you can use all of those things & more to control people, it's just people tend to be neurotic about it. That's why people like me oppose gun control (note: not a gun-nut, nor an NRA member, though that bullet key-chain was tempting): when we see gun-control advocates, they always seem to be pushing something absolutely nutty, emotional, and/or political instead of something reasonable. It happens.
The difficulty varies, but it actually has been done before. A US military 90's-era design lacked the proper encryption, so some militants in the middle-east were able to get into it's data stream. I don't think that they could control it (as I best recall it had two data streams: an unencrypted video stream, and an encrypted control/telemetry stream), but if I remember right they were able to time their jamming to take it down where they wanted. Presumably this wouldn't happen in a modern design (bogo-mips are just so cheap now), but it is worth noting. Also of note (though also unlikely to be useful) is that encryption systems have been found to have flaws after their introduction before.Charlie wrote:As for hacking, I really don`t think it would be that easy for a military system to be hacked, even by a another military power. If it were so, it would have already been done.
The lack of a multi-year WW3 or other long-duration air war is the reason why fighter drone technology hasn't progressed faster than it has. There hasn't been enough utility to justify a crash-program.icekatze wrote:As for the technology itself though, I suspect that if the US Air Force didn't have such an enduring love affair with the F-22, drone fighter technology would be years ahead of where it is today. I worked on a civilian program that did image recognition and autonomous guidance programming back in 2005, and I can tell you that it is not a lack of technology holding them back.
I somewhat disagree on the usefulness of fighter-drones in a major war. They could potentially be very useful for Wild Weasel, as well as for area-denial (let's say, directly over a major enemy airbase), both of which are tasks that could be done in a jamming-resistant way. However, the chances of such a war breaking out are so low...Arioch wrote:There really isn't a pressing need for better drone technology; in another limited war, the weapons we have work just fine, and in a serious war against a real opponent, drones will be of limited use. Indeed, a serious war is what I'm concerned about; I think we are getting too used to having total air superiority, too reliant on remote control and GPS technologies (a real opponent can knock satellites down with ease). A war against a real opponent could make us deeply regret terminating the F-22 production line; the F-35 is an inferior "budget" model that won't be operational for a long time.
As for the F-22, I agree. Maybe we stopped production at the right point, but I think we should have paid to have the production line put into climate-controlled secure storage. It shouldn't have taken even a meaningful fraction of the program's cost, and it's "insurance value" would have been immense.
I don't know. I would expect that, but if we managed to get a fighter-mountable free-electron laser weapon (let's say with an explosively-pumped pulse generator), then it could completely change fighter doctrine away from the maneuver strategy that we currently follow, to a fuel-preservation strategy, with the fighters (and bombers, and..) mounting omnidirectional laser optics. That could massively rebalance the importance of maneuverability in air combat.icekatze wrote:We have the technology, but we haven't put it to use. When we do get around to making a drone fighter aircraft (which last I heard was planned for sometime in the next 20-30 years.), then we'll know for sure, but I predict that they'll outperform manned aircraft by a significant margin.
Regardless, I expect drone technology to be leveraged into improvements for control systems on manned aircraft.
The US modus operandi since the Civil War (North vs. South, not Colonies vs. Britain; it was apparently one of the earliest wars to be indicative of what WW 1 & 2 would be like) has apparently been closer to "throw the most effective method against the problem", though certainly we don't normally skimp on volumes either.Charlie wrote:In all the history I've read, America`s modus operandi is to throw vast amounts of men and machines at a given problem. Id along with it`s large scale of production capabilities make it rather good at fighting conventional wars, I also think that if it was not the aggressor in the conflict the war wariness would not become a problem.
The note about aggressor status is quite accurate. We seem to react like a bunch of exceptionally dangerous hornets...
The big delayer on ground-based drones is terrain. Much easier to control something that doesn't have to deal with large numbers of obstacles. I assume that recon drones are available, but I'm not certain when you'd be able to use them, unless you've got a HUD I think that would be very awkward for infantry to deal with. The auto-sentry idea would probably be better as cheapo sensor heads, with a UAV in the area.Charlie wrote:I would like to see much more development in the field of ground drones, for starters better E.O.D drones would be good, mine and other explosive clearance drones need some major improvements. I'd also like to see combat drones be used on a squad level. Such as small recon drones to give an extra eye in the sky when needed. Or small sentry drones armed with Light Machine guns that can be set to guard positions and give alert to drone operators wherein they can take action with said drone and LMG.
So, Smart-grenades? The US military was working on something sort-of like that for that infantry rifle that got canceled.Charlie wrote:Maybe even small drones that are deployed into houses and other urban setting that can be detonated with different explosives, Flash bangs, HE, ect.
It's an emotional reaction instead of a logical one. I can understand the worries about drones, but that calls for oversight, not rabid opposition.fredgiblet wrote:This. I don't get the obsession with the evil of drone strikes, I've never seen any evidence that they are any less precise than regular airstrikes.
True, but if anyone would actually use them against the US (against someone else is different, a few years ago I could see the possibility of Pakistan and India getting into a shooting match again in a decade or two), then it would presumably be North Korea. Apparently, even back in the Cold War they were some of the only people aligned with the Soviets whose brass actually believed it's own propaganda. I think it's unlikely, but if anywhere was gonna do it, then NK (followed, probably distantly, by Iran), is who I'd bet on.fredgiblet wrote:There's no benefit to anyone in starting a nuclear exchange, even places like NK simply don't benefit from it. HAVING nukes is great, because it means that an invasion is extremely hazardous, USING them is...problematic.As for the scale of conflict, I don`t think large scale nuclear conflict will really occur. I think the largest counties are smart enough to see what that would bring. It`s the smaller states that could start the limited exchange, North Korea comes to mind.
Technically speaking, legalities say that usually there are civilian casualties. I forget the details, but terrorists almost always fall into the "civilian" and "illegal combatant" categories. As a result, the military has to do some verbal dancing to move people away from the weasel-word (civilian) to the important one (combatant). The definitions in the Geneva convention & similar aren't designed for modern press releases.Arioch wrote:I think this is purely a perception issue; I don't think that most people realize that these drones are piloted. It's also a problem with the nature of the missions (most of which are secret), so when the foes on the ground claim there are civilian casualties, the military really hasn't been in a position to contradict or clarify.fredgiblet wrote: I don't get the obsession with the evil of drone strikes, I've never seen any evidence that they are any less precise than regular airstrikes.
There are other circumstances, too. Apparently within the last year or so the US Air Force accidentally killed some apparently peaceful cleric in Yemen. He had been raising some ruckus against Al-Qaeda if I remember right, a known member had gone to speak with him to try to iron things out, and we hit both at the same time because we assumed the Al-Qaeda member was meeting with another member that we just didn't know about. You can say that's what people get for knowingly associating with terrorists, and I would technically agree, but I also realize that things like that are part of the source of uproar in these cases.Charlie wrote:The precision often comes down to the human intelligence not only what can be seen from the air. Systems malfunctions form the lower percentage of incorrect strikes, as far as I know. It is more often miss identified targets by ground assets that cause a lot of the collateral damage.This. I don't get the obsession with the evil of drone strikes, I've never seen any evidence that they are any less precise than regular airstrikes.
Technically, Russia has a good number more nukes than the US does. When the latest treaty restrictions went into effect, we actually refurbished some to get ourselves back up to the agreed-upon maximum. Apparently Russia's military is so technologically lousy (well, okay, "apparently" it was so lousy in the cold-war that we would have rolled into Moscow before we realized we'd won...) that they think (and I guess we agree) that nukes are the only way that they could protect their own borders from us if we decided to attack, so we let them keep more than us despite the land-mass difference.Charlie wrote:Nukes are mostly show pieces however. Used in defensive ways, such as nuking an invading fleet, would leave you with an irradiated coast line and a considerable amount of sea area. Using them to attack a far superior enemy would be equally disastrous, America has more nukes. This is not even considering environmental damage or what the international community would do.
Well, that and the fact that their ICBMs are apparently lousy shots. I got the impression that they might have built that "largest in the world" nuke so they could actually hit the target with a single warhead.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
So, it not so much the drones that are a problem as the fact the people inherently don`t like any form of "Big Brother".... but yes. Drones basically represent a form of influence that can be exerted over people, and thus someone will always oppose them. If you e.g,. got rid of all of the explicit weapons that have ever been made, then someone would start agitating over shovels/spades. If you purged the Earth of anything other than dirt, water, and soft plant matter, then someone would raise a fuss over words and/or limbs being usable to exert control over someone.Charlie wrote:Is it hard coded it us?
And no matter how far they took it they'd be right, you can use all of those things & more to control people, it's just people tend to be neurotic about it. That's why people like me oppose gun control (note: not a gun-nut, nor an NRA member, though that bullet key-chain was tempting): when we see gun-control advocates, they always seem to be pushing something absolutely nutty, emotional, and/or political instead of something reasonable. It happens.
As for me, I too a oppose gun control, but for maybe more practical reasons. There was a gun amnesty program a few years back here, it encouraged many people to turn in the illegal guns. Apartheid-era gun owners who had not renewed their gun licences with the change of government along with people who owned illegal firearms could turn in their arms to the police and no charges wold be filed. Many people, many of these white hold outs, turned in a vast number of firearms. These guns were to be destroyed by the police, but due to corruption a large portion were sold on the black market to criminals. Now due the gun control it is next to impossible to get a gun licence, with house breakings and car jackings on the rise, many few betrayed by the Amnesty Act. While this won`t happen in other western countries I don`t believe, I do see your point about how people will find a way to complain about can and cannot be used as a weapon. In Britain where guns are nonexistent, stabbings are common.
True. But as far as the safety aspect of it goes, it seems reasonable to assume that the drones will not be turned on their masters anytime soon.The difficulty varies, but it actually has been done before. A US military 90's-era design lacked the proper encryption, so some militants in the middle-east were able to get into it's data stream. I don't think that they could control it (as I best recall it had two data streams: an unencrypted video stream, and an encrypted control/telemetry stream), but if I remember right they were able to time their jamming to take it down where they wanted. Presumably this wouldn't happen in a modern design (bogo-mips are just so cheap now), but it is worth noting. Also of note (though also unlikely to be useful) is that encryption systems have been found to have flaws after their introduction before.Charlie wrote:As for hacking, I really don`t think it would be that easy for a military system to be hacked, even by a another military power. If it were so, it would have already been done.
My World History Depth Studies extended only from 1900-2000, so most of what I know regarding American history before that is conjecture. Still, there is a pattern in how the US fights, they have always had better armed and more soldiers on the field. The Great War doesn`t really show this, because of it`s nature. The Second World War had the arguably inferior Sherman tanks fighting the Panther in ratios of sometimes 8 to 1, the Sherman tank was far more easily made when compared to the Panther and with it`s speed and size worked well in "Human Wave" tactics if they could be called such a thing. The Shermans simply beat the slower Pathers, and other tanks, with numbers and speed.The US modus operandi since the Civil War (North vs. South, not Colonies vs. Britain; it was apparently one of the earliest wars to be indicative of what WW 1 & 2 would be like) has apparently been closer to "throw the most effective method against the problem", though certainly we don't normally skimp on volumes either.Charlie wrote:In all the history I've read, America`s modus operandi is to throw vast amounts of men and machines at a given problem. Id along with it`s large scale of production capabilities make it rather good at fighting conventional wars, I also think that if it was not the aggressor in the conflict the war wariness would not become a problem.
The note about aggressor status is quite accurate. We seem to react like a bunch of exceptionally dangerous hornets...
The big delayer on ground-based drones is terrain. Much easier to control something that doesn't have to deal with large numbers of obstacles. I assume that recon drones are available, but I'm not certain when you'd be able to use them, unless you've got a HUD I think that would be very awkward for infantry to deal with. The auto-sentry idea would probably be better as cheapo sensor heads, with a UAV in the area.Charlie wrote:I would like to see much more development in the field of ground drones, for starters better E.O.D drones would be good, mine and other explosive clearance drones need some major improvements. I'd also like to see combat drones be used on a squad level. Such as small recon drones to give an extra eye in the sky when needed. Or small sentry drones armed with Light Machine guns that can be set to guard positions and give alert to drone operators wherein they can take action with said drone and LMG.
Perhaps the examples I gave was not descriptive enough. The drones would all be man portable, I think they would mainly be used in urban environments but design would be able to overcome the limitations imposed by terrain given enough time and funding. As for the recon drones I was thinking of militarizing some of the radio controlled commercial air drones, longer battery life, more rugged, ect. As for the "HUD" I was thinking something like this.
The sentry drones would not operate on their own, they would be part of a system of layers of protection. The first layer could be cheaply made disposable senors that detect moment along with radio receivers and transmitters, if they detect a human sized presence that does not emit a Friend or Foe Identification check of some kind, maybe embedded inside the uniforms, an alert is sent to the systems operator. The next level of layered protection would then be the armed sentry drones.
In a sense, yes. I was thinking instead using newly designed munitions, like smart grenades, we simply alter the way the are delivered. With the drone a soldier come armed it with High Explosives and drive it up to a wall, and detonate. This way he would not have to carry a Rocket Launcher that is capable of destroying the wall, but a smaller disposable drone.So, Smart-grenades? The US military was working on something sort-of like that for that infantry rifle that got canceled.Charlie wrote:Maybe even small drones that are deployed into houses and other urban setting that can be detonated with different explosives, Flash bangs, HE, ect.
As for the smart grenades, do you mean this?
It might also be worth considering that it may not be a country, per say, that uses Nuclear weapons in anger. I can think of a few Middle Eastern Fundamentalist groups that would fire one the the US. Nuclear Terrorism might be a thing of the future as more countries are able to make such weapons.True, but if anyone would actually use them against the US (against someone else is different, a few years ago I could see the possibility of Pakistan and India getting into a shooting match again in a decade or two), then it would presumably be North Korea. Apparently, even back in the Cold War they were some of the only people aligned with the Soviets whose brass actually believed it's own propaganda. I think it's unlikely, but if anywhere was gonna do it, then NK (followed, probably distantly, by Iran), is who I'd bet on.
Charlie wrote:The precision often comes down to the human intelligence not only what can be seen from the air. Systems malfunctions form the lower percentage of incorrect strikes, as far as I know. It is more often miss identified targets by ground assets that cause a lot of the collateral damage.
That is still a failure of the intelligence factor, not the weapon system. While it is regrettable that the cleric was killed, people would do well to remember that the drones are tools, tools of war. You can`t blame the sword for whom it cuts.There are other circumstances, too. Apparently within the last year or so the US Air Force accidentally killed some apparently peaceful cleric in Yemen. He had been raising some ruckus against Al-Qaeda if I remember right, a known member had gone to speak with him to try to iron things out, and we hit both at the same time because we assumed the Al-Qaeda member was meeting with another member that we just didn't know about. You can say that's what people get for knowingly associating with terrorists, and I would technically agree, but I also realize that things like that are part of the source of uproar in these cases.
Charlie wrote:Nukes are mostly show pieces however. Used in defensive ways, such as nuking an invading fleet, would leave you with an irradiated coast line and a considerable amount of sea area. Using them to attack a far superior enemy would be equally disastrous, America has more nukes. This is not even considering environmental damage or what the international community would do.
Actually you are nigh dead on, during the cold war the Soviets had few Nuclear Warheads but a higher amount of Megatonnage, the amount of explosive power that each warhead could bring. The Soviet Military was easily more than 10 years behind the US. From about 1950, when both counties were on roughly equal footing technology wise, the US steadily gained ground of the Russians. While simpler Russian weapons, such the AK-47 and it`s variants are testament to Soviet engineering, the US was unparalleled when it came to more complex designs. The US missile guidance system were much better that the Soviet counter parts, this is the reason the Russian built such heavy hitting bombs, because as you said they could miss. While the Soviets could have easily destroyed America with what they had, they were aware that their missiles did not compare to the US ones. This is what lead to the Fail-Deadly system empolyeed by Russia, allegedly still in operation, the danger that the US could wipe out the Soviets before they could counter launch. Even the Cuban missile crisis was a two part operation by Khrushchev, first it was a bargaining chip against the US, whom had missile bases in Turkey, second it would give the Soviets a leg up by allowing them to launch more quickly and with more accuracy. You are correct in your view of the AN602 hydrogen bomb, "largest nuke in the world", it was the predicate end of the Soviet design strategy, "Bigger is better".Technically, Russia has a good number more nukes than the US does. When the latest treaty restrictions went into effect, we actually refurbished some to get ourselves back up to the agreed-upon maximum. Apparently Russia's military is so technologically lousy (well, okay, "apparently" it was so lousy in the cold-war that we would have rolled into Moscow before we realized we'd won...) that they think (and I guess we agree) that nukes are the only way that they could protect their own borders from us if we decided to attack, so we let them keep more than us despite the land-mass difference.
Well, that and the fact that their ICBMs are apparently lousy shots. I got the impression that they might have built that "largest in the world" nuke so they could actually hit the target with a single warhead.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Pretty much, yeah.Charlie wrote:So, it not so much the drones that are a problem as the fact the people inherently don`t like any form of "Big Brother".
Before & during the US civil war, we fought in basically the same way as everyone else: get a bunch of guys, walk or charge them in, and use cavalry & artillery to help out a bit. Afterwards, we apparently switched our general style of combat to "use the target's kryptonite". I've gotten the impression that the French and British might have still been using the old style in WW1 (in fact, I understand it to have been a large part of why they lost so many soldiers).Charlie wrote:My World History Depth Studies extended only from 1900-2000, so most of what I know regarding American history before that is conjecture. Still, there is a pattern in how the US fights, they have always had better armed and more soldiers on the field.
The thing with the Shermans is deceptive. Apparently they were designed around the same time as a German tank that they were actually comparable to (the Panzer 1, I think?). The Shermans themselves were never actually intended to fight other tanks, as the US was following a "tanks against infantry, tank-destroyers against tanks" philosophy at the time. The use of Shermans against Panzers was apparently partly because they were just so common, and partly because it was apparently difficult to tell them apart from the tank destroyers at a glance. Another problem is that the heavy designs apparently didn't get finished in time for the war, though they did make it in time for Korea.Charlie wrote:The Second World War had the arguably inferior Sherman tanks fighting the Panther in ratios of sometimes 8 to 1, the Sherman tank was far more easily made when compared to the Panther and with it`s speed and size worked well in "Human Wave" tactics if they could be called such a thing. The Shermans simply beat the slower Pathers, and other tanks, with numbers and speed.
Though, as far as the volume of Shermans, it's worth considering something: before the most recent recession, the US GDP apparently had a yearly growth that was roughly equal to the size of the German economy.
Land Warrior is what I was thinking of, too. That having been said, in an urban combat situation I'd worry about ambushes & similar. If you're being backed by a tank or something then one of it's crew members could act as a forward-observer, without having to worry too much about ambushes, but someone on foot could be attacked at any moment if the surrounding area hasn't been locked down. A HUD could allow ground troops to take advantage of occasional lulls, and it would also allow them to use gun-mounted cameras to look around corners without exposing themselves, but beyond that I think drone surveillance probably belongs one or two levels above "squad".Charlie wrote:Perhaps the examples I gave was not descriptive enough. The drones would all be man portable, I think they would mainly be used in urban environments but design would be able to overcome the limitations imposed by terrain given enough time and funding. As for the recon drones I was thinking of militarizing some of the radio controlled commercial air drones, longer battery life, more rugged, ect. As for the "HUD" I was thinking something like this.
That seems much more realistic. I was imagining someone using a concussive explosive device of some sort to knock your immobile drone over, so that they could walk up and strip it of it's weapon and ammo.Charlie wrote:The sentry drones would not operate on their own, they would be part of a system of layers of protection. The first layer could be cheaply made disposable senors that detect moment along with radio receivers and transmitters, if they detect a human sized presence that does not emit a Friend or Foe Identification check of some kind, maybe embedded inside the uniforms, an alert is sent to the systems operator. The next level of layered protection would then be the armed sentry drones.
I was thinking of it's predecessor program actually, but yes. Also, I think there was a sci-fi show (Babylon 5, maybe?) that featured what were basically hand-held, guided RPGs. I think such a thing could actually be made for low yields, using model rocket engines & cheap IC chips (some of the PIC line cost less than a dollar per chip, and you can get programmer kits at Radio Shack for ~$20). For that matter, I think the seeker-head from the first-generation Sidewinder missile could be duplicated with parts from Radio Shack.Charlie wrote:In a sense, yes. I was thinking instead using newly designed munitions, like smart grenades, we simply alter the way the are delivered. With the drone a soldier come armed it with High Explosives and drive it up to a wall, and detonate. This way he would not have to carry a Rocket Launcher that is capable of destroying the wall, but a smaller disposable drone.So, Smart-grenades? The US military was working on something sort-of like that for that infantry rifle that got canceled.
As for the smart grenades, do you mean this?
-
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 pm
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
During the US civil war a lot of things changed and some historians consider it the first modern war in history or at least a forshadow of things to come. For example: use of automatic weapons (gatling guns and others) in defense and offense, baloons for observing and targeting enemy positions with artillery, trenches and the use of mines against it, etc...Before & during the US civil war, we fought in basically the same way as everyone else: get a bunch of guys, walk or charge them in, and use cavalry & artillery to help out a bit. Afterwards, we apparently switched our general style of combat to "use the target's kryptonite". I've gotten the impression that the French and British might have still been using the old style in WW1 (in fact, I understand it to have been a large part of why they lost so many soldiers).
A lot of other states had send military observers for this reason.
In WW1, the US was late on the scene and they had no experience to fight such a war. So their losses were high in their first engagements. So the US forces had to be trained to fight in the way of the british and french before they could attack without horrible losses.
The Problem in this war was that neither side had an idea how to break through the enemy lines and get enough reinforcements quickly enough on the other side of no mans land. The germans failed early 1918 because their forces were not mobile enough and the the allies succeded becaus they had newer weapons (tanks), enough reinforcements and the germans run low on supplies.
The Sherman was a nice tank for the time it was designed (I think after the fall of France in WW2). The best german Tanks at that time were the Panzer III and IV, both in the early stages of their development and the Sherman was better than those two models in 1940. It had some terrible issues when hit by anti tank munition and burned easily at first, till they changed how they stored their ammunition aboard (it was called "Tommykocher" = Britcooker for that reason by german soldiers). However, development didn't stop and the germans used a lot of experiences gained in the war against russia to build the Panther and upgrade their older models.The thing with the Shermans is deceptive. Apparently they were designed around the same time as a German tank that they were actually comparable to (the Panzer 1, I think?). The Shermans themselves were never actually intended to fight other tanks, as the US was following a "tanks against infantry, tank-destroyers against tanks" philosophy at the time. The use of Shermans against Panzers was apparently partly because they were just so common, and partly because it was apparently difficult to tell them apart from the tank destroyers at a glance. Another problem is that the heavy designs apparently didn't get finished in time for the war, though they did make it in time for Korea.
As far as I remember, the allies didn't ship over the Pershing tank because of possible supply problems and only did so in 1945 when they started invading Germany and send over a small number of them.
Ah well... sorry for that long post.
Forum RP: Cydonia Rising
[RP]Cydonia Rising [IC]
[RP]Cydonia Rising [IC]
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
It was the Panzer IV, and contrary to popular belief they were broadly comparable. The main problem that the Americans faced from what I've seen is that the brass didn't understand that the Tiger was a big deal or that the Panther was going to be (theoretically) the primary tank of the German army. They thought the Germans were going to stick with the Panzer IV for the duration so they never bothered to finish their upgraded designs until it was too late.Absalom wrote:The thing with the Shermans is deceptive. Apparently they were designed around the same time as a German tank that they were actually comparable to (the Panzer 1, I think?). The Shermans themselves were never actually intended to fight other tanks, as the US was following a "tanks against infantry, tank-destroyers against tanks" philosophy at the time. The use of Shermans against Panzers was apparently partly because they were just so common, and partly because it was apparently difficult to tell them apart from the tank destroyers at a glance. Another problem is that the heavy designs apparently didn't get finished in time for the war, though they did make it in time for Korea.
The reason the Sherman ended up fighting tanks was simple. They were there. When your buddies are dying you don't say "Let's wait for the tank destroyers to show up." you say "Let's roll."
We actually did have a heavy tank design when WW2 started, but they sucked so we didn't send any over. The Pershing was rushed into service but it was so far behind they barely got any over.
Indeed. It would be funny if they weren't so earnest. I read a hard-left blog where the buy posted a link to someone talking about how we're willing to do ANYTHING to combat terrorism, which killed ~3500 people since 2000, yet we don't ban guns that kill tens of thousands per year. The amusing thing about that to me was how it applies INSIDE the gun control debate as well. They're desperately trying to ban "assault weapons" which are involved in less than 3% of murders while doing nothing about handguns that make up 90+%. I wouldn't AGREE with a handgun ban, but I can at least see how it could be beneficial.Absalom wrote:they always seem to be pushing something absolutely nutty, emotional, and/or political instead of something reasonable.
I wouldn't. I'd bet it would be their warheads, but I doubt they'd be the ones using them. Far better to pass them off to an extremist group and have them do it.I think it's unlikely, but if anywhere was gonna do it, then NK (followed, probably distantly, by Iran), is who I'd bet on.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
It was my understanding that the only reason the US didn't have any decent heavy tanks was because the Army brass didn't want them; the doctrine was to anti-tank guns and tank destroyers instead, as Absalom mentioned. I thought I had read that the heavy Pershings could easily have been ready and deployed much earlier, but they were delayed by opponents of the program.
The American military has been in "apex predator" mode for so long that it's sometimes hard to remember that they were once playing the "quantity is quality" game, at least as far as tank combat was concerned.
The American military has been in "apex predator" mode for so long that it's sometimes hard to remember that they were once playing the "quantity is quality" game, at least as far as tank combat was concerned.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Well, I can`t say much for the musket era tactics used by America, I can give input on The Great War tactics of Britain and France.Before & during the US civil war, we fought in basically the same way as everyone else: get a bunch of guys, walk or charge them in, and use cavalry & artillery to help out a bit. Afterwards, we apparently switched our general style of combat to "use the target's kryptonite". I've gotten the impression that the French and British might have still been using the old style in WW1 (in fact, I understand it to have been a large part of why they lost so many soldiers).Charlie wrote:My World History Depth Studies extended only from 1900-2000, so most of what I know regarding American history before that is conjecture. Still, there is a pattern in how the US fights, they have always had better armed and more soldiers on the field.
You are somewhat correct in saying that Britain did not adopt "modern" battlefield tactics right away. During the opening years of the Great War Britain did not use combined arms theory very much, they were one of the last major powers to adopt the Maxim machine gun. This combined with their lack of infantry support, bombardment of the target before rushing it, during a push to claim ground meant their troops suffered greatly. While they did eventually buy many machine guns and use better tactics, such as bombardment and air recon, they still felt that massed infantry was the way to go along with cavalry charges. It is worth noting the Britain did disband the cavalry after the war, expect for special units, and the battlefield remained virtually unchanged, even had they used better tactics from the beginning it would have made little difference due to the nature of the war, it was already a meat grinder. The French were basically the same, however they adopted the Maxim faster and used the bombardment tactics before the British.
Yes and no. M4 Shermans wern`t solely Infantry support vehicles, it was designed as a utility tank. It was designed to replace the aging M3 Stuart and the M3 Lee, the German Blitzkrieg Tactics were still fresh in the minds of the designers, they designed the M4 Sherman with that in mind. The M4 had speed, mobility, and a gun big enough for it to be multi-role. While it was designed as a untlity tank by the time the first Shermans saw action, they were used primarily for three roles;The thing with the Shermans is deceptive. Apparently they were designed around the same time as a German tank that they were actually comparable to (the Panzer 1, I think?). The Shermans themselves were never actually intended to fight other tanks, as the US was following a "tanks against infantry, tank-destroyers against tanks" philosophy at the time. The use of Shermans against Panzers was apparently partly because they were just so common, and partly because it was apparently difficult to tell them apart from the tank destroyers at a glance. Another problem is that the heavy designs apparently didn't get finished in time for the war, though they did make it in time for Korea.Charlie wrote:The Second World War had the arguably inferior Sherman tanks fighting the Panther in ratios of sometimes 8 to 1, the Sherman tank was far more easily made when compared to the Panther and with it`s speed and size worked well in "Human Wave" tactics if they could be called such a thing. The Shermans simply beat the slower Pathers, and other tanks, with numbers and speed.
Though, as far as the volume of Shermans, it's worth considering something: before the most recent recession, the US GDP apparently had a yearly growth that was roughly equal to the size of the German economy.
First recon, like the light tanks that they were superseding, the M4s made very good Scout vehicles. As opposed to light tanks which could be knock out by Anti-tank rifles or even heavy machine guns. Or Jeeps which could not provide heavy fire support should the need arise.
Second Infantry support, while not designed for it, the M4 made a good fire support vehicle against other Infantry with it`s 75 mm gun or one of it`s machine guns. It also could be used to attack fortifications, mainly houses that have been occupied.
Lastly Anti tank roles, the Sherman was never intended to fight other tanks, the training manual had only one page on tank versus tank combat. However throughout the war the Sherman was upgraded, mainly heavier guns, it started with the better 76mm gun.
The tank destroyer you mention must be the M36, it was designed to fight the heavy German tanks. It was very similar to the Sherman at distances, the difference was clear, however, when you got close, it had a massive 90mm gun. The designer of the M36 ( I have forgotten his name, sorry ) did not want his tank destroyers to be replaced by US heavy tanks and slowed the production of the M26 Pershing heavy tank to the point where it did not enter service until the very end of the war. The M26 lead the way for US heavy tank designs.
I've had a bit of a re-think of the drone idea. Instead of making one man a droneman, have a support vehicle to carry them. If the droneman`s drone was shot down his eyes in the sky would be gone, he'd have to receive information from the Land Warrior system alone. However on a purpose designed support vehicle there may be hundreds of drone. These drone could roam the skys above an urban environment scanning roof tops and windows for snipers and ambushes. They could would have cameras sending intel back to the base vehicle, lifting the fog of war. Each drone may have a laser range finder to paint targets for the air force. They could also be armed with small missiles, say the size of my hand, in an anti-personal role. The missiles would be fired and penetrate the human body, through body armor and such, and then detonated. This would limit the shrapnel's effects, however, I can see a problem with this weapon. While it could be used to pick off enemy troops, public opinion of it would be very low.Land Warrior is what I was thinking of, too. That having been said, in an urban combat situation I'd worry about ambushes & similar. If you're being backed by a tank or something then one of it's crew members could act as a forward-observer, without having to worry too much about ambushes, but someone on foot could be attacked at any moment if the surrounding area hasn't been locked down. A HUD could allow ground troops to take advantage of occasional lulls, and it would also allow them to use gun-mounted cameras to look around corners without exposing themselves, but beyond that I think drone surveillance probably belongs one or two levels above "squad".Charlie wrote:Perhaps the examples I gave was not descriptive enough. The drones would all be man portable, I think they would mainly be used in urban environments but design would be able to overcome the limitations imposed by terrain given enough time and funding. As for the recon drones I was thinking of militarizing some of the radio controlled commercial air drones, longer battery life, more rugged, ect. As for the "HUD" I was thinking something like this.
Yes, the system is quiet easy to overcome. Get behind the gun and you can knock it over, get above it you could throw big rocks at it. Even holding a blanket in-front of you might confuse it. Honestly, while brainstorming it`s potential uses I found it was a little ineffective. Modern combat is suppose to be about movement and mobility, quick strikes and such. If we use it in a long term defensive setting, it`s weaknesses and flaws can be more easily exploited. In fast moving warfare, the drone may be unnecessary, at the very least it would be extra weight for average soldiers or take up space on mechanized infantry vehicles. I'm sure someone can come up with something better give time. At least the disposable sensor devices would be quiet effective.That seems much more realistic. I was imagining someone using a concussive explosive device of some sort to knock your immobile drone over, so that they could walk up and strip it of it's weapon and ammo.Charlie wrote:The sentry drones would not operate on their own, they would be part of a system of layers of protection. The first layer could be cheaply made disposable senors that detect moment along with radio receivers and transmitters, if they detect a human sized presence that does not emit a Friend or Foe Identification check of some kind, maybe embedded inside the uniforms, an alert is sent to the systems operator. The next level of layered protection would then be the armed sentry drones.
What size of munition are we talking?I was thinking of it's predecessor program actually, but yes. Also, I think there was a sci-fi show (Babylon 5, maybe?) that featured what were basically hand-held, guided RPGs. I think such a thing could actually be made for low yields, using model rocket engines & cheap IC chips (some of the PIC line cost less than a dollar per chip, and you can get programmer kits at Radio Shack for ~$20). For that matter, I think the seeker-head from the first-generation Sidewinder missile could be duplicated with parts from Radio Shack.Charlie wrote:In a sense, yes. I was thinking instead using newly designed munitions, like smart grenades, we simply alter the way the are delivered. With the drone a soldier come armed it with High Explosives and drive it up to a wall, and detonate. This way he would not have to carry a Rocket Launcher that is capable of destroying the wall, but a smaller disposable drone.
As for the smart grenades, do you mean this?
If it will fill the role currently filled by say the 40mm grande launchers, you would either need to design it in such a way that it is compatible with the 40mm tube or design a new weapon/delivery attachment. I think your smart munitions would be a very good improvement on the 40mm under-slung grenade launcher.
If it is larger than than small arms, that role is already filled by either the
Javelin missile launcher for "smart" missiles.
Or the AT-4 for more generalized exploding of things.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
You don't need missiles, you could equip a VTOL UAV with a machine gun & a grenade launcher, and assign it to the support vehicle. People would still be opposed to it, but the ammo would presumably be cheaper, which the brass would like, and it wouldn't sound as frightening as "missile drone". Sometimes the trick is to say "half dozen" instead of "six".Charlie wrote:I've had a bit of a re-think of the drone idea. Instead of making one man a droneman, have a support vehicle to carry them. If the droneman`s drone was shot down his eyes in the sky would be gone, he'd have to receive information from the Land Warrior system alone. However on a purpose designed support vehicle there may be hundreds of drone. These drone could roam the skys above an urban environment scanning roof tops and windows for snipers and ambushes. They could would have cameras sending intel back to the base vehicle, lifting the fog of war. Each drone may have a laser range finder to paint targets for the air force. They could also be armed with small missiles, say the size of my hand, in an anti-personal role. The missiles would be fired and penetrate the human body, through body armor and such, and then detonated. This would limit the shrapnel's effects, however, I can see a problem with this weapon. While it could be used to pick off enemy troops, public opinion of it would be very low.Land Warrior is what I was thinking of, too. That having been said, in an urban combat situation I'd worry about ambushes & similar. If you're being backed by a tank or something then one of it's crew members could act as a forward-observer, without having to worry too much about ambushes, but someone on foot could be attacked at any moment if the surrounding area hasn't been locked down. A HUD could allow ground troops to take advantage of occasional lulls, and it would also allow them to use gun-mounted cameras to look around corners without exposing themselves, but beyond that I think drone surveillance probably belongs one or two levels above "squad".
The dime-a-dozen sensors would also make the drones work out better. They'd allow an "overwatch" crew to assign targets to UAVs involved with the operation, as well as passing targets higher up the chain, for heavier Air Force patrols to deal with. They could be used in other ways, too, which I suspect could only be fully predicted by knowing ahead of time what that particular battlefield was like.Charlie wrote:Yes, the system is quiet easy to overcome. Get behind the gun and you can knock it over, get above it you could throw big rocks at it. Even holding a blanket in-front of you might confuse it. Honestly, while brainstorming it`s potential uses I found it was a little ineffective. Modern combat is suppose to be about movement and mobility, quick strikes and such. If we use it in a long term defensive setting, it`s weaknesses and flaws can be more easily exploited. In fast moving warfare, the drone may be unnecessary, at the very least it would be extra weight for average soldiers or take up space on mechanized infantry vehicles. I'm sure someone can come up with something better give time. At least the disposable sensor devices would be quiet effective.That seems much more realistic. I was imagining someone using a concussive explosive device of some sort to knock your immobile drone over, so that they could walk up and strip it of it's weapon and ammo.
I'm thinking "infantry grenade sized". Smaller yield, since you've got a rocket motor & guidance system stuck on, but more targeted, since it could presumably deal with corners & such easier than by bouncing. At most ~7 inches for the main body, with maybe an extendable tailfin section, but probably no extending sections, and maybe as large as 3 inches diameter. 6" by 2" (5.08 cm) seems like a much more reasonable size, though. Also, I'm not thinking of launcher grenades (though I guess it'd be about the same size?), I'm thinking of hand grenades. Soldier-level standard-issue, not squad-level.Charlie wrote:What size of munition are we talking?I was thinking of it's predecessor program actually, but yes. Also, I think there was a sci-fi show (Babylon 5, maybe?) that featured what were basically hand-held, guided RPGs. I think such a thing could actually be made for low yields, using model rocket engines & cheap IC chips (some of the PIC line cost less than a dollar per chip, and you can get programmer kits at Radio Shack for ~$20). For that matter, I think the seeker-head from the first-generation Sidewinder missile could be duplicated with parts from Radio Shack.
If it will fill the role currently filled by say the 40mm grande launchers, you would either need to design it in such a way that it is compatible with the 40mm tube or design a new weapon/delivery attachment. I think your smart munitions would be a very good improvement on the 40mm under-slung grenade launcher.
If it is larger than than small arms, that role is already filled by either the
Javelin missile launcher for "smart" missiles.
Or the AT-4 for more generalized exploding of things.
I assume they would primarily be used from under cover as a counter to suppression fire, but with a "Land Warrior" system you could build a way-point interface, so that would allow them to be used along with a sensor UGV as an infantry guided missile. Greatly restricted payload, though, so it couldn't realistically dislodge the LAW, Javelin, AT-4, or anything else along those lines, I'd have suggested a charge-launched gyro-jet system in a "high-low" arrangement for that sort of thing. It wouldn't be an anti-tank weapon for any current tank that I can think of, either (maybe some of the dedicated scouting tanks? does anyone still use those?). I assume "smoke" or "tear gas" would be common payloads. Imagine a launcher grenade with a smaller payload, but no need for a launcher, and you've roughly got the idea.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
The reason I thought missiles and not your load out in the first place was for the size and weight. The missiles might be more expensive, along with the evil terror in the skies factor, but they would keep the drone a lot smaller and lighter. I think smaller light drones would be needed as you would need far more than six.You don't need missiles, you could equip a VTOL UAV with a machine gun & a grenade launcher, and assign it to the support vehicle. People would still be opposed to it, but the ammo would presumably be cheaper, which the brass would like, and it wouldn't sound as frightening as "missile drone". Sometimes the trick is to say "half dozen" instead of "six".
When the wind is dead, with my pellet gun`s iron sights I can reliably hit;
A plastic bottle top at 15 meters
A human head sized object at 100 meters
A human sized torso at 300 meters
So a trained marksman would be able to hit the drones quite easily, the smaller drones would still be shot out of the sky but having more than six means losses can be replaced.
Still, while effective I think, the anti personal rockets would not make this a favorite of anyone.
Perhaps the key then is to use six of your large drones, armed with their current load out, and lots of tiny flying unarmed autonomous senor drones. Let the senor drones gather the bulk of information and have the armed drones in reserve.
Much like you said the smaller, cheaper drones would handle the information gathering, giving targets or reasons for the larger UCAVs to investigate.The dime-a-dozen sensors would also make the drones work out better. They'd allow an "overwatch" crew to assign targets to UAVs involved with the operation, as well as passing targets higher up the chain, for heavier Air Force patrols to deal with. They could be used in other ways, too, which I suspect could only be fully predicted by knowing ahead of time what that particular battlefield was like.
To be honest, I am still a little confused on how it is delivered.
The changeable payloads would definitively be a must.
I don`t think the charge would be enough to even damage most armored vehicles. Maybe smaller types like the Humvee or British Land Rover, but it would not be able to damage or more than annoy people in mine and blast protected vehicles.
I know every single Apartheid-era vehicle was mine and blast protected. RG-31`s are in use in Afghanistan now, I believe that these would be able to comfortably absorb they small sized explosives.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
Sorry for the delay, I live in Moore, OK.
That's what I was thinking, yes. The combat drone(s) sit on the vehicle, the sensor drones are scattered among personnel (maybe two or three mobile ones per individual, with however many stick-and-forget sensors in addition), and vehicles.Charlie wrote:Still, while effective I think, the anti personal rockets would not make this a favorite of anyone.
Perhaps the key then is to use six of your large drones, armed with their current load out, and lots of tiny flying unarmed autonomous senor drones. Let the senor drones gather the bulk of information and have the armed drones in reserve.
The smart-grenade? I think I already mentioned that it's intended use would be anti-personnel? Honestly, I'm not certain that it would have enough charge for armored opponents, but in the theoretical future you could include image processing, at which point a shaped-charge would help with that. Maybe appropriate for lightly armored targets, not for anything heavier.Charlie wrote:To be honest, I am still a little confused on how it is delivered.
The changeable payloads would definitively be a must.
I don`t think the charge would be enough to even damage most armored vehicles. Maybe smaller types like the Humvee or British Land Rover, but it would not be able to damage or more than annoy people in mine and blast protected vehicles.
I know every single Apartheid-era vehicle was mine and blast protected. RG-31`s are in use in Afghanistan now, I believe that these would be able to comfortably absorb they small sized explosives.
Re: The "Real Spacecraft" Thread
It's called institutional secrecy, IIRC. The whole project was signed off to multiple design and manufacturing firms with a few performance requirements and space allotment.Mr Bojangles wrote:That was a great article. There's a follow-up to it:
The F-1B
Not only did NASA reverse-engineer the engine, one of the companies in the Advanced Booster Competition is using that data to create the F-1's successor, the F-1B. Same beast, modern tech. Fun times.
"It has to lift this much weigh and fit inside a container shaped like this."
The firms didn't keep the paperwork once they stopped getting commission and we lost the technical plans for most of our spacecraft. nowadays, everything has a massive number of complete or partially complete copies floating around on flashdrives, wiki pages, and errant hard disks that it'd take a major technological disaster to wipe out our ability to find at least bits and pieces to pick up. Heck there's a massive government data center in... arizona or utah... that's been cataloging every scrap of information it can access on the net; basically think of it as the nation's keylogger.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
On the Sherman/Heavy tank there was no one reason things turned out that way, but one thing I dont think I saw mentioned, maybe overlooked, was that there were two fronts in this war. I skimmed, admittedly, but every mention I saw was of Panzers Tigers and Europe but the Sherman was in every way superior to the tanks available to the Japanese. Also a match for early and mass produced Panzers, had greater range than the m-26, the A2 version ran on diesel as opposed to gasoline which was a logistical blessing. The Army was set on its operating doctrine, the researchers were going after pet projects like electric drives, and the Sherman was simply good enough.
Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread
hi hi
Concerning the use of tanks in WW2: from what I have been told, the Americans had several big advantages in artillery that, as long as they had accurate maps, made them very effective. It is also my understanding that they knew about their advantage and pressed it regularly.
On the topic of drones and their vulnerabilities to ground fire:
• Wind speed increases with altitude, and not always evenly. What may seem like calm air at ground level may be blowing 10+ mph at 100 feet above ground level. And often times not in exactly the same direction as at ground level.
• Small objects in the sky without any reference points have a tendency to vanish.
• Predator drones can cruise at 7620 meters
• Light helicopters can, on average, hover at around 1900 meters.
• They're quiet.
• They're quick.
Thats not to say shooting down drones would be impossible, but they have some pretty good advantages vs ground targets. I suspect in a real contest between air and ground, they would both be using computer calculated firing solutions. Even if a real war between major powers manages to not kill every last human being on the planet, we're almost certainly going to see a Kessler Syndrome. Optical targeting is getting pretty advanced these days, and I think if there were ever a big need (like no more GPS satellites) it would ripen very quickly.
((Also, it is my understanding that some of the largest concerns about drone strikes are not simply because they are scary, but because they are happening so frequently. 3,100 people in Pakistan since 2004, only 1.5% of which were identified targets. Signature strikes, and double tap strikes which target first responders, are big concerns. So its really not so much the fact that they are drones themselves, but the way in which they are used.))
Concerning the use of tanks in WW2: from what I have been told, the Americans had several big advantages in artillery that, as long as they had accurate maps, made them very effective. It is also my understanding that they knew about their advantage and pressed it regularly.
On the topic of drones and their vulnerabilities to ground fire:
• Wind speed increases with altitude, and not always evenly. What may seem like calm air at ground level may be blowing 10+ mph at 100 feet above ground level. And often times not in exactly the same direction as at ground level.
• Small objects in the sky without any reference points have a tendency to vanish.
• Predator drones can cruise at 7620 meters
• Light helicopters can, on average, hover at around 1900 meters.
• They're quiet.
• They're quick.
Thats not to say shooting down drones would be impossible, but they have some pretty good advantages vs ground targets. I suspect in a real contest between air and ground, they would both be using computer calculated firing solutions. Even if a real war between major powers manages to not kill every last human being on the planet, we're almost certainly going to see a Kessler Syndrome. Optical targeting is getting pretty advanced these days, and I think if there were ever a big need (like no more GPS satellites) it would ripen very quickly.
((Also, it is my understanding that some of the largest concerns about drone strikes are not simply because they are scary, but because they are happening so frequently. 3,100 people in Pakistan since 2004, only 1.5% of which were identified targets. Signature strikes, and double tap strikes which target first responders, are big concerns. So its really not so much the fact that they are drones themselves, but the way in which they are used.))