If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   US Navy unveils its first full drone squadron, three of which are already on suspension for buzzing the tower   (foxnews.com) divider line 89
    More: Interesting, navies, unmanned aircraft, Coronado  
•       •       •

7944 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 May 2013 at 10:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-02 08:44:08 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-02 09:07:25 AM
The Navy also gave reporters a look at HUQ-1's drone command system:

www.txis.com
 
2013-05-02 10:19:21 AM
Is buzzing the tower a euphemism?
 
2013-05-02 10:19:36 AM

UNC_Samurai: The Navy also gave reporters a look at HUQ-1's drone command system:

[www.txis.com image 850x647]


NERD-gasm....
 
2013-05-02 10:19:56 AM

UNC_Samurai: The Navy also gave reporters a look at HUQ-1's drone command system:

[www.txis.com image 850x647]


It makes sense now.
 
2013-05-02 10:20:06 AM
He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.
 
2013-05-02 10:21:15 AM
UNC_Samurai:

Took me a minute to realize wtf I was looking at...  What is that, a Runabout?
 
2013-05-02 10:22:27 AM
OMG! An SFB reference!
 
2013-05-02 10:22:28 AM
FTA: the [unmanned] squadron will be aboard the Navy's new littoral combat ship

Unmanned?  Shouldn't there be one little man in that boat?
 
2013-05-02 10:24:10 AM

UNC_Samurai: The Navy also gave reporters a look at HUQ-1's drone command system:

[www.txis.com image 850x647]


Heh, won a memorable match with one of those...my opponent thought he was staying out of range of my drone stack, until I pointed out he was using pursuit plotting, and HAD to move just one more hex toward me...POW, 144 damage to a shield, bridge hit, captain killed.

Almost as funny as the time he ran over his team mate while his expanding sphere generator was fully charged...
 
2013-05-02 10:25:02 AM
On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?
 
2013-05-02 10:27:11 AM

PunGent: UNC_Samurai: The Navy also gave reporters a look at HUQ-1's drone command system:

[www.txis.com image 850x647]

Heh, won a memorable match with one of those...my opponent thought he was staying out of range of my drone stack, until I pointed out he was using pursuit plotting, and HAD to move just one more hex toward me...POW, 144 damage to a shield, bridge hit, captain killed.

Almost as funny as the time he ran over his team mate while his expanding sphere generator was fully charged...


Sounds like some of the battles I was in. They didn't call me the U.S.S. Swiss Cheese for nothing. God, I was terrible player!
 
2013-05-02 10:28:09 AM
Crop of sci-fi novels to spring up about drones being distracted by "I have 50,000 dollars I inherited. Give me your account number so I can transfer" or drones transmitting it continuously and shutting down computers everywhere.

in 3 2 1 years
 
2013-05-02 10:28:23 AM

PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?


My guess is anything the Navy would be tracking and attacking can't outrun even a helicopter so why have something that needs to fly orbits around a target instead of something that can just hold station and fire away.
 
2013-05-02 10:30:29 AM

ChipNASA: UNC_Samurai: The Navy also gave reporters a look at HUQ-1's drone command system:

[www.txis.com image 850x647]

NERD-gasm....



Meh. They just scream and leap.
 
2013-05-02 10:30:57 AM

PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?


Not Navy, but I'd imagine it was so they wouldn't have to build drone carriers. You can land a helo anywhere.
 
2013-05-02 10:32:54 AM

Fizpez: PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?

My guess is anything the Navy would be tracking and attacking can't outrun even a helicopter so why have something that needs to fly orbits around a target instead of something that can just hold station and fire away.


And the logistics and trust invovled with landing something unmanned on a cleared helipad on the back of a frigate vs. trying to catch a arrestor cable coming in at 100kts with a billion dollars of assets on a carrier deck.
 
2013-05-02 10:32:59 AM

PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?


It's a littoral combat ship, so some likely missions would be supporting amphibious assaults and/or surveiling costal waters for small-craft threats and targets.
 
2013-05-02 10:33:17 AM

Fizpez: PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?

My guess is anything the Navy would be tracking and attacking can't outrun even a helicopter so why have something that needs to fly orbits around a target instead of something that can just hold station and fire away.


True...but I'd imagine fixed-wing drones have better endurance and time-to-target than helicopter drones, much like the Navy's jets have better speed than it's manned helicopters.

They deploy any 'regular' drones off carriers/other ships?  If you could pitch one off a destroyer, even, seems like you'd get some aerial recon bang for your buck...recovery could be tricky, of course.

Have to make seaplane drones, and bring back the old-school floatplane recovery cranes :)
 
2013-05-02 10:35:33 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.


www.teamjimmyjoe.com

It makes sense. The US has a clear advantage in contracting out to basement-dwelling drones, all with superior piloting and sharpshooting skills to anything the US military could produce.
 
2013-05-02 10:36:56 AM
Hmmmmm.....what they need now is an artificially intelligent computer system to control many more drones.
 
2013-05-02 10:39:13 AM
Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.
 
2013-05-02 10:39:57 AM

PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?


Dipping sonar and towed MAD arrays.  Also easier recovery in that most warships have a helipad.

This is how you recover a fixed wing drone on a boat:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDsA-Y2b4EM">https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=oDsA-Y2b4EM

/they're already testing a carrier launched drone that looks like a B-2 as well in terms of fixed wing
 
2013-05-02 10:40:27 AM

Thunderboy: PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?

Not Navy, but I'd imagine it was so they wouldn't have to build drone carriers. You can land a helo anywhere.


Ding!

ex HC/HSL puke
 
2013-05-02 10:40:50 AM
When will nerve stapling replace keelhauling?
 
2013-05-02 10:41:02 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.


Privatizing the army. There is no way that can turn out bad!
 
2013-05-02 10:42:03 AM

LemSkroob: DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.

Privatizing the army. There is no way that can turn out bad!


This will wind down once a pipeline is established to provide military operators.
 
2013-05-02 10:42:45 AM

PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-4C_Triton">http://e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-4C_Triton

They have fixed wing drones, not just a squadron of them.

For something on a ship rotary wing drones make more sense as they are easier to land.

They are working on fighters that can land on ships, but they are a ways out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B">http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
 
2013-05-02 10:44:28 AM

SpdrJay: Hmmmmm.....what they need now is an artificially intelligent computer system to control many more drones.


A system like that would be very expensive. The drones should be programmed to protect it at all costs.
 
2013-05-02 10:44:33 AM

ha-ha-guy: PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?

Dipping sonar and towed MAD arrays.  Also easier recovery in that most warships have a helipad.

This is how you recover a fixed wing drone on a boat:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDsA-Y2b4EM">https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=oDsA-Y2b4EM

/they're already testing a carrier launched drone that looks like a B-2 as well in terms of fixed wing


Cool snag.

MAD arrays are small enough to be drone-portable now?  cool.
 
2013-05-02 10:45:53 AM

lymond01: And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity



Peiopel have been "preserving soilders" with every advancement in military.

Bows, muskets, machine guns, artillery, bombs, nukes, etc.

Switching to drone actuall has little impact on our ability to control air space and reign damage down.
 
2013-05-02 10:46:52 AM
A large balloon could deploy thousands of these in a matter of hours if it gets high enough into the atmosphere.
 
2013-05-02 10:47:59 AM
And one Admiral's daughter (Penny Benjamin)
 
2013-05-02 10:47:59 AM

liam76: PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-4C_Triton">http://e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-4C_Triton

They have fixed wing drones, not just a squadron of them.

For something on a ship rotary wing drones make more sense as they are easier to land.

They are working on fighters that can land on ships, but they are a ways out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B">http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B


Interesting.  Land based, I see...I wonder if we'll eventually launch a 'drone carrier', like the mini carrier we used in WWII to launch Piper Cubs for artillery spotting during Dragoon.
 
2013-05-02 10:48:02 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.


In the case of these drones not really creepy as they are just flying cameras and various systems for identifying targets.  They aren't armed.

Seems like a HUGE waste of money as I can't imagine what they pay per hour for guys to operate unmanned helos.
 
2013-05-02 10:49:04 AM

lymond01: Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.


So long as they aren't white, Jebus-loving, 'Murikan children, who really cares?
 
2013-05-02 10:51:35 AM

Fano: When will nerve stapling replace keelhauling?


Well, you gotta bribe enough countries to overturn the UN ban, otherwise it's just not worth it....if you run police state, build X2 police powers units instead, you can double em up as garrison troops if your armor tech is good enough...throw in AA defense versus those pesky missile attacks once you get multiple abilities...

/yes, it's possible I play too much Alpha Centauri
 
2013-05-02 10:51:48 AM
My dad's an Admiral.
www.techaddiction.ca
 
2013-05-02 10:51:56 AM
Replacing military helicopters and fixed wing aircraft with drones = good idea

Arming the CIA with weaponized drones = bad idea
 
2013-05-02 10:55:11 AM

bugmn99: SpdrJay: Hmmmmm.....what they need now is an artificially intelligent computer system to control many more drones.

A system like that would be very expensive. The drones should be programmed to protect it at all costs.


True, and you would definitely want to put the brain of the system in an impregnable bunker so nothing could ever destroy it.....
 
2013-05-02 10:55:46 AM
Nearly Headless Nuke.
 
2013-05-02 10:58:07 AM
Kirk actually says "Death, destruction, disease....horror"
 
2013-05-02 10:58:44 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.


Saw that.  Whisky Tango Foxtrot...Over?  If they have any kind of weaponry on them how is this even legal under international law.  Wouldn't it be a violation of the Geneva Convention?  Seriously we outsource killing to civilian video gamers?
 
2013-05-02 11:00:11 AM
Negative Ghost Rider, pattern is full.
 
2013-05-02 11:01:49 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.


Not really - the equipment is still in testing. When they roll it out, Navy personal will be operating it.
 
2013-05-02 11:04:15 AM

lymond01: Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.


Drones dramatically reduce civilian casualties.
 
2013-05-02 11:07:09 AM

give me doughnuts: lymond01: Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.

So long as they aren't white, Jebus-loving, 'Murikan children, who really cares?


The last time we fought a full scale war against an enemy that wasn't Caucasian was Vietnam.
 
2013-05-02 11:14:20 AM

Digitalstrange: And one Admiral's daughter (Penny Benjamin)


Came for the Top Gun reference, leaving after being told, "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern's full"
 
2013-05-02 11:16:14 AM

NumberFiveIsAlive: UNC_Samurai:

Took me a minute to realize wtf I was looking at...  What is that, a Runabout?


No, it's a control sheet from Star Fleet Battles, a table-top Star Trek war game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_Battles

/ISC Plasma splash FTW
 
2013-05-02 11:17:29 AM

meanmutton: give me doughnuts: lymond01: Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.

So long as they aren't white, Jebus-loving, 'Murikan children, who really cares?

The last time we fought a full scale war against an enemy that wasn't Caucasian was Vietnam.


You're thinking of the Korean War, which technically never ended. 'Nam was a 'police action'
 
2013-05-02 11:17:46 AM

meanmutton: Drones dramatically reduce civilian casualties.


I'm not entirely convinced of that  check out the best representation that i've found so far.
 
2013-05-02 11:17:50 AM

tothekor: Sounds like some of the battles I was in. They didn't call me the U.S.S. Swiss Cheese for nothing. God, I was terrible player!


I started naming my ships the U.S.S. We're Dead, because I was awful.
 
2013-05-02 11:18:57 AM
Meanwhile over at the Marine Corps:

Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 1 Testing Unmanned Helicopter in Afghanistan

The K-MAX is able to carry up to 3.5 tons of supplies and munitions up to 250 miles, and has the ability to auto drop cargo in varying environments. During a "brown out" simulated dust storm -- aimed at replicating Afghanistan's harsh work environment -- cargo was still able to be delivered, according to test personnel.

The Marine Corps and Navy wanted the K-MAX to surpass 6,000 pounds of cargo drops per day for five days, with one mission successfully dropping 3,500 pounds.

cmsimg.marinecorpstimes.com
 
2013-05-02 11:19:31 AM
10 Receive flight plan
20 Take off
30 Process flight plan
40 return to base
50 goto 10
60 Get over Macho Grande

uh oh
 
2013-05-02 11:21:34 AM
Negative ghostrider, the pattern is full.
 
2013-05-02 11:26:34 AM
uh...I just looked at the pic...when I said a large balloon could deploy thousands of drones, I meant small drones.

/next time I might even read the article
 
2013-05-02 11:30:02 AM

Harry Freakstorm: 10 Receive flight plan
20 Take off
30 Process flight plan
40 return to base
50 goto 10
60 Get over Macho Grande

uh oh


But you won't ever get over Macho Grande!
 
2013-05-02 11:30:27 AM
i555.photobucket.com

Just wait until they go on strike to protest their unfair working conditions...
 
2013-05-02 11:30:59 AM
Why would we want to put meat inside of warplanes any more? It's expensive and reduces efficiency.
 
2013-05-02 11:31:34 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: uh...I just looked at the pic...when I said a large balloon could deploy thousands of drones, I meant small drones.

/next time I might even read the article


Maybe something larger than a balloon?
 
2013-05-02 11:31:44 AM
And there I was on the other side of the world, just doing what I was told, just like every other eighteen, nineteen, and twenty-year old naïve kid.

Throughout my entire tour in Helmand, I only remember kids like me, they all were young and naïve! Some were so blinded by patriotism, they didn't care why they were there, they were American and they would fight for their country. I mean, come on! Even I, a naïve country boy could see that this third world country had nothing to do with our freedom. Did fighting terrorism mean killing thousands of innocent people? I didn't know the answer, but what I did know was that I wanted to get my ass out of there and back to that little country town where at least some things made sense.

I then put my Nintendo controller away, and headed for the NEX. My mind was  a blur of memories of communication problems and flickering CRTs. The war stories I could tell you would make your hair curl.
 
2013-05-02 11:51:20 AM

jso2897: Why would we want to put meat inside of warplanes any more? It's expensive and reduces efficiency.


Because electronics just don't have the ability to adapt, improvise and overcome. No we need meat brains, just the brains mind you not the actual bodies, to control our drones. In the future signing up for the Air Force are Nave will mean you are agreeing to have your brain ripped out of your body and implanted into an AKV.
 
2013-05-02 12:09:06 PM
0.tqn.com
Did they look like this?
 
2013-05-02 12:21:38 PM

TheGogmagog: TheShavingofOccam123: uh...I just looked at the pic...when I said a large balloon could deploy thousands of drones, I meant small drones.

/next time I might even read the article

Maybe something larger than a balloon?


I would have said those pilots were drunk but they're Brits. It takes days of drinking for them to get drunk.
 
2013-05-02 12:22:03 PM
What buzzing the tower might look like:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-02 12:32:16 PM

WordsnCollision: What buzzing the tower might look like:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 624x224]


Tyler Fitzgerald: You know what I need? I need a drink. There's some ice and stuff back there. Why don't you make us all some old fashioneds?
Ding Bell: "Old Fashions"? Do you think you oughta drink while you're flying?
Tyler Fitzgerald: Well stop kidding, will ya, and make us some drinks! You just press the button back there marked "booze". It's the only way to fly!

/The stunt pilot that did that flying was Frank Tallman.
/On Saturday 15 April 1978, Tallman was making a routine ferry flight in a twin engine Piper Aztec from Santa Monica Airport, California, to Phoenix, Arizona under visual flight rules when he continued the flight into deteriorating weather, a lowering ceiling and rain. He struck the side of Santiago Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains near Trabuco Canyon at cruise altitude, dying in the ensuing crash.
 
2013-05-02 12:35:45 PM
image.shutterstock.com

Just take out the queen and they'll calm down.
 
2013-05-02 12:44:46 PM

meanmutton: lymond01: Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.

Drones dramatically reduce civilian casualties.


not going to war drasitally reduces human casualties.
 
2013-05-02 12:52:30 PM

Slaves2Darkness: jso2897: Why would we want to put meat inside of warplanes any more? It's expensive and reduces efficiency.

Because electronics just don't have the ability to adapt, improvise and overcome. No we need meat brains, just the brains mind you not the actual bodies, to control our drones. In the future signing up for the Air Force are Nave will mean you are agreeing to have your brain ripped out of your body and implanted into an AKV.


And this is why I refuse to call them drones: because they aren't autonomous.  There are still pilots making all the decisions, they just aren't sitting in the aircraft.  The electronics aren't doing anything beyond following pilot commands.
 
2013-05-02 12:54:28 PM
What I would love to see is some of this drone technology in the hands of the Coast Guard. Someone swept overboard? Pleasure craft lost at sea? Deploy a set of high-speed drones that fly programmed search patterns that can locate them within a matter of minutes.
 
2013-05-02 01:03:54 PM

PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?


much easier to land... especially on frigates and destroyers. If it's fixed wing you literally have to catch it using contraptions like a net or something similar.
 
2013-05-02 01:05:18 PM

meanmutton: lymond01: Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.

Drones dramatically reduce civilian casualties.


If that were true, we wouldn't have re-defined "terrorist" to include "all adults between 15 and 60", now, would we?

Drones have their uses, but have not yet supplanted the Mark One Eyeball.
 
2013-05-02 01:07:19 PM

Squeebee: What I would love to see is some of this drone technology in the hands of the Coast Guard. Someone swept overboard? Pleasure craft lost at sea? Deploy a set of high-speed drones that fly programmed search patterns that can locate them within a matter of minutes.


And strafe 'em in the water! Oops, wrong drone...
 
2013-05-02 01:09:09 PM

jso2897: Why would we want to put meat inside of warplanes any more? It's expensive and reduces efficiency.


True...until someone figures out how to jam your drone operating frequency...
 
2013-05-02 01:10:52 PM
well, we have a generation of kids who are well qualified to blow up shiat using an Xbox controller.

/ greetings, starfighter. you have been recruited by the star league to defend the frontier against Xur and the ko-dan armada.
 
2013-05-02 01:53:50 PM

Mimic_Octopus: meanmutton: lymond01: Recalling, once again, the original Star Trek episode where two countries fight with computer simulations to preserve their infrastructure (roads, buildings, libraries, schools, etc). So humans get a warning their area has been hit, then all affected walk into an incinerator.

SPOILER

Kirk, at the end, blows up one of their computers. The leader says, now the other side will think we are really attacking! There will be destruction, mayhem, horror!

To which Kirk replies, then you will know war and knowing war, you may choose to end it.

And this is where we are heading -- we are preserving the US soldiers but using drones means it doesn't cost us anything to kill. At least when we put our own people in harm's way, we might consider not fighting at all. Now we can accidentally obliterate children with impunity.

Drones dramatically reduce civilian casualties.

not going to war drasitally reduces human casualties.


Or not.
 
2013-05-02 02:01:09 PM

T-Servo: DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.

[www.teamjimmyjoe.com image 500x461]

It makes sense. The US has a clear advantage in contracting out to basement-dwelling drones, all with superior piloting and sharpshooting skills to anything the US military could produce.


It makes more sense to put them in military uniforms and have them recite their oath and be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not only will contractors be paid more than anything the US Military personnel will be paid (that should be fixed too, military should be paid the same of what we're paying contractors if these "armchair warriors" in the Congress and Senate want to fight wars with them) costing more than using military personnel, but the contracting company always sets it up so the employee(s) and company has a contract that says they can't be held legally responsible for their actions. That's why Blackwater is still around, consistently changing it's name to hide from lawsuits. I rather have the military subject to international law controlling these aircraft than some kid in a basement thinking he'll get extra points for blowing up a funeral or wedding.
 
2013-05-02 02:02:18 PM

Cuyose: Fizpez: PunGent: On a serious note, any Navy guys want to explain why the went with helicopter drones, rather than fixed wing?

For tending sonar buoys?

My guess is anything the Navy would be tracking and attacking can't outrun even a helicopter so why have something that needs to fly orbits around a target instead of something that can just hold station and fire away.

And the logistics and trust invovled with landing something unmanned on a cleared helipad on the back of a frigate vs. trying to catch a arrestor cable coming in at 100kts with a billion dollars of assets on a carrier deck.


That is basically what I was thinking.  The Navy likes helicopters because they don't have to have a carrier deck (which ruins their combat ships).

However, that being said... my hobby level drones can land themselves on tarmac no problems.  The moving deck of a ship... yeah, probably not so easy.  BUT, a little re-thinking would get you a robotic arm on a long track (the length of the ship) which is keyed to a very accurate transponder in the vehicle.  You "catch" it on the fly (using an electro-magnet).  If you miss, no biggy, just fly over again.  If you catch, you cut the drone power and use the robotic arm to bring it down to the hanger level.  You can launch them the same way.  Keep in mind, most drones have absolutely absurd power to weight ratios.

Believe it or not, this system is actually under development by a bunch of geeky college kids.  The original idea was mine, but the actual implementation is far far beyond my meager skills.  I seriously doubt the military will ever be interested.  But our "future product" might include a car with a scout drone built in.
 
2013-05-02 02:06:49 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: T-Servo: DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.

[www.teamjimmyjoe.com image 500x461]

It makes sense. The US has a clear advantage in contracting out to basement-dwelling drones, all with superior piloting and sharpshooting skills to anything the US military could produce.

It makes more sense to put them in military uniforms and have them recite their oath and be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not only will contractors be paid more than anything the US Military personnel will be paid (that should be fixed too, military should be paid the same of what we're paying contractors if these "armchair warriors" in the Congress and Senate want to fight wars with them) costing more than using military personnel, but the contracting company always sets it up so the employee(s) and company has a contract that says they can't be held legally responsible for their actions. That's why Blackwater is still around, consistently changing it's name to hide from lawsuits. I rather have the military subject to international law controlling these aircraft than some kid in a basement thinking he'll get extra points for blowing up a funeral or wedding.


I was being sarcastic. No have no clue the depths of my hatred for Blackwater, Halliburton, and other war profiteers. Lockheed Martin, too.
 
2013-05-02 02:30:15 PM
>The squadron will have eight manned helicopters and a still-to-be-determined number of the Fire Scout MQ-8 Bs

Hmmm... MQ-8 B Fire Scout. MQ-8 B Fire Scout. Where have I heard that mentioned before?

Oh yes... Now I remember.
 
2013-05-02 02:39:17 PM

T-Servo: DarkSoulNoHope: T-Servo: DarkSoulNoHope: He says most Navy drones now are operated by contractors overseen by military personnel.

Ok, this is farking creepy.

[www.teamjimmyjoe.com image 500x461]

It makes sense. The US has a clear advantage in contracting out to basement-dwelling drones, all with superior piloting and sharpshooting skills to anything the US military could produce.

It makes more sense to put them in military uniforms and have them recite their oath and be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not only will contractors be paid more than anything the US Military personnel will be paid (that should be fixed too, military should be paid the same of what we're paying contractors if these "armchair warriors" in the Congress and Senate want to fight wars with them) costing more than using military personnel, but the contracting company always sets it up so the employee(s) and company has a contract that says they can't be held legally responsible for their actions. That's why Blackwater is still around, consistently changing it's name to hide from lawsuits. I rather have the military subject to international law controlling these aircraft than some kid in a basement thinking he'll get extra points for blowing up a funeral or wedding.

I was being sarcastic. No have no clue the depths of my hatred for Blackwater, Halliburton, and other war profiteers. Lockheed Martin, too.


Sorry, my sarcasm detector is broken today due to another mindless job interview. Someday I'll find a fulfilling job, once my name is picked out of a hat, but for now working on my sarcasm detector.
 
2013-05-02 02:54:52 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: I was being sarcastic. No have no clue the depths of my hatred for Blackwater, Halliburton, and other war profiteers. Lockheed Martin, too.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector is broken today due to another mindless job interview. Someday I'll find a fulfilling job, once my name is picked out of a hat, but for now working on my sarcasm detector.


No problem. If I'm writing sentences like, "No have no clue..." it's not like I'm being that observant (damn allergy medicine).
 
2013-05-02 04:10:48 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

USA USA USA
 
2013-05-02 04:13:32 PM
Once the Big Dogs are released, we're toast.

strikefighterconsultinginc.com
 
2013-05-02 04:36:34 PM

Digitalstrange: And one Admiral's daughter

Roomba...

FTFY...
 
2013-05-02 05:30:31 PM

UNC_Samurai: The Navy also gave reporters a look at HUQ-1's drone command system:

[www.txis.com image 850x647]


SCE to AUX!
 
2013-05-02 07:12:55 PM

Salmon: Once the Big Dogs are released, we're toast.

[strikefighterconsultinginc.com image 537x403]


Quad mechs suck. The extra legs take up tonnage that could be used for LRMS, Gauss Rifles. and ER PPC's. Stupid Freebirth.
 
2013-05-02 08:51:14 PM

Galileo's Daughter: [0.tqn.com image 500x281]
Did they look like this?


No, those are USAF.

/I can make salute
 
2013-05-03 01:49:24 PM

BumpInTheNight: Is buzzing the tower a euphemism?


It's when you hum loudly enough to cause vibrations when you're giving a guy a
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report