Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
For some reason half of what I wrote go deleted so I will just simply say this: There is concern that overuse of drones will put soldiers in the background and civilians at the fore. I'm not stating unequivocally that that is the future we are destined for, but it is a concern to some. I think you might need to take a break, you are losing your composure it seems. You have got yourself into your mode where you see everything as an attack and so are lashing out at any post.

Except your entire point ignores the fact that the modern role for drones can't exist in a war between equals. We have problems with collateral damage because you have drone pilots "playing god" with the ability to sit above the battlefield beyond and decide who lives or dies. The problem isn't the fact that they aren't getting shot at directly, it's that we've given them a "point and click" weapon that makes killing easy, but failed to give proper oversight to make sure that every target is a legitimate one.

In a real war that "playing god" role instantly disappears because a Predator-style drone is useless against modern AA weapons. On a battlefield between equals you can't just sit there waiting and laughing about who you're about to kill, every mission has to be carefully planned in advance against a specific valuable target. You aren't going to have drones flying around blowing up random civilians who "looked like they had a gun", you're going to have drones attacking high-value military targets to cripple the enemy's ability to fight back.

Hey, you know, this whole "attack high value targets that are too well defended for manned aircraft to hit" mission sounds kind of familiar. Didn't we invent something to do it already? Oh yeah, they're called cruise missiles.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

Doesn't the F-22 also have a "super computer" on board, that you can theoretically slave drones into a formation around the plane?

Or, am I thinking of the F-35?

 Peregrine wrote:
Except your entire point ignores the fact that the modern role for drones can't exist in a war between equals. We have problems with collateral damage because you have drone pilots "playing god" with the ability to sit above the battlefield beyond and decide who lives or dies. The problem isn't the fact that they aren't getting shot at directly, it's that we've given them a "point and click" weapon that makes killing easy, but failed to give proper oversight to make sure that every target is a legitimate one.

Could you explain the oversight mechanisms in place for UAV strikes, please? I'm honestly curious, and you seem to know exactly what they are.

Incidentally, how is the situation you described any different from standard air power? A guy in a Super Hornet at 18,000 feet is also just pointing and clicking, essentially, since we haven't seen a serious challenge to our air superiority since the Vietnam War ended.

 Seaward wrote:
Could you explain the oversight mechanisms in place for UAV strikes, please? I'm honestly curious, and you seem to know exactly what they are.

I'm not 100% sure, I don't remember where to find the latest information I saw on the subject. If I remember right the drone operators pick the targets, but they have to be approved by the next step up the chain of command? IIRC the problem was less "we don't have formal oversight" and more "our oversight is a rubber stamp and we don't overrule enough targets". The article described an incident where the drone operator thought it was a valid target, his superior agreed out of (apparent) eagerness to believe they had a good target, and it turned out to be a complete mistake where innocent people died. Once they got the initial idea that it was a bad guy there really wasn't much effort to confirm whether that initial assumption was correct.

Incidentally, how is the situation you described any different from standard air power? A guy in a Super Hornet at 18,000 feet is also just pointing and clicking, essentially, since we haven't seen a serious challenge to our air superiority since the Vietnam War ended.

1) Because the conventional aircraft don't have the extended endurance of a drone. A Hornet airstrike has to be planned in advance against a designated target, you can't just have it circle the battlefield for days at a time until a target of opportunity shows up and/or you get bored enough to drop a hellfire missile on a "terrorist" just to see the pretty fireworks.

2) Because the Hornet pilot isn't calling his own targets, while the drone operators do. A fighter pilot 18,000' above the battlefield is probably acting on information provided by someone on the ground with a good view of the situation, while a drone pilot is using grainy video from the drone to decide who lives and who dies, making them a lot more vulnerable to mistakes.

2) There's apparently a psychological factor involved where the pilot of the Hornet is still close enough to the action to intuitively see it as a battle, where the drone pilot is just clicking pictures on a computer screen and has a harder time intuitively seeing the targets as actual human beings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

To be fair, the F-22 also demonstrates a simple rule about modern weapons: you don't get them overnight. If you want to have a modern fighter 20 years from now (and who knows what the political situation might be) you'd better start working on it today, not when you finally realize that you need it.

Besides, if anything the F-35 is the one that needs to be cut. Thanks to the idiocy of how we bought them the unit cost is now up to F-22 levels for a plane that can't do the F-22's air superiority job, can't do the precision strike role of a proper stealth aircraft (F-22 or B-2), and can't do the conventional bombing role of a much cheaper B-52 style bomb truck. At this point just cancel the entire project and buy more F-22s.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) Because the conventional aircraft don't have the extended endurance of a drone. A Hornet airstrike has to be planned in advance against a designated target, you can't just have it circle the battlefield for days at a time until a target of opportunity shows up and/or you get bored enough to drop a hellfire missile on a "terrorist" just to see the pretty fireworks.

That's largely untrue. Manned aircraft don't have the loiter capabilities of drones, that's correct, but it's not like they have none at all. A hell of a lot of air support during the recent conflicts - the majority I'd argue, in fact, without knowing numbers offhand - has been provided by patrolling aircraft called in ad hoc to hit something that crops up on the ground.

2) Because the Hornet pilot isn't calling his own targets, while the drone operators do. A fighter pilot 18,000' above the battlefield is probably acting on information provided by someone on the ground with a good view of the situation, while a drone pilot is using grainy video from the drone to decide who lives and who dies, making them a lot more vulnerable to mistakes.

I'm not sure that a twenty-six year-old FAC or ANGLICO Marine on the ground is necessarily more or less better at picking targets wisely than a twenty-six year-old UAV pilot.

2) There's apparently a psychological factor involved where the pilot of the Hornet is still close enough to the action to intuitively see it as a battle, where the drone pilot is just clicking pictures on a computer screen and has a harder time intuitively seeing the targets as actual human beings.

I'd need to see a study of some sort on this before I truly bought it. Hell, get four hundred feet off the runway in a commercial airliner and the world below's already taken on a curiously remote quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Besides, if anything the F-35 is the one that needs to be cut. Thanks to the idiocy of how we bought them the unit cost is now up to F-22 levels for a plane that can't do the F-22's air superiority job, can't do the precision strike role of a proper stealth aircraft (F-22 or B-2), and can't do the conventional bombing role of a much cheaper B-52 style bomb truck. At this point just cancel the entire project and buy more F-22s.

Ah, yes, but naval aviation is the first responder of the military air power world.

 Seaward wrote:
That's largely untrue. Manned aircraft don't have the loiter capabilities of drones, that's correct, but it's not like they have none at all. A hell of a lot of air support during the recent conflicts - the majority I'd argue, in fact, without knowing numbers offhand - has been provided by patrolling aircraft called in ad hoc to hit something that crops up on the ground.

Yeah, but there you're responding to something happening on the ground with a specific idea of what you want to go after. That's entirely different from parking a drone 24/7 over another country and just waiting to see if anything hellfire-worthy shows up.

I'm not sure that a twenty-six year-old FAC or ANGLICO Marine on the ground is necessarily more or less better at picking targets wisely than a twenty-six year-old UAV pilot.

It's not a question of experience, it's a question of information availability. The guy on the ground has a better view of the situation, and probably has evidence like "they just shot at us", where the drone operator has a video feed of questionable quality and evidence like "it looks like a group of young men and some have guns". Unless I'm missing something I don't think our troops on the ground are allowed to call in airstrikes on the mere suspicion that somebody might be a terrorist.

I'd need to see a study of some sort on this before I truly bought it. Hell, get four hundred feet off the runway in a commercial airliner and the world below's already taken on a curiously remote quality.

I think it has to do with the fighter pilot having a better sense of "being there", while the drone operator is much more detached from the whole thing. I won't dispute that the pilot probably doesn't have the same sense of "being there" that the troops on the ground have, but there's a good reason why we don't give our pilots a full load of bombs, assign them a country, and tell them "go have fun".

(Granted, I've only flown civilian aircraft, not military ones, but there's a distinct difference between flying a real plane and flying a simulator on a computer screen, and I really doubt saying "this is controlling a real drone" would change that intuitive feeling.)

Well, according to popular mechanics, wars fought 20+ years from now the majority of the aerial vehicles will be drones of some sort or another. The reason for this being the limitations of human airmen. There is only a certain amount of G a human body can sustain and still function. A drone doesn't really have this problem. Also, a drone can have multiple pilots, meaning that the only limitation to airtime is fuel, in addition, they don't need to have the extra bulk that the equipment that keeps humans alive at high altitude adds to modern warplanes. All of these factors mean that as long as the jamming/hacking thing can be solved, drone will likely be the airforce within 50 years if not earlier.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Well, according to popular mechanics, wars fought 20+ years from now the majority of the aerial vehicles will be drones of some sort or another. The reason for this being the limitations of human airmen. There is only a certain amount of G a human body can sustain and still function. A drone doesn't really have this problem. Also, a drone can have multiple pilots, meaning that the only limitation to airtime is fuel, in addition, they don't need to have the extra bulk that the equipment that keeps humans alive at high altitude adds to modern warplanes. All of these factors mean that as long as the jamming/hacking thing can be solved, drone will likely be the airforce within 50 years if not earlier.

I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Actually it likely will be solved, at least the hacking part. The jamming thing maybe not so much, or the solution isn't as apparent, but it is most definately doable. Plus, with all of the benefits that a Drone airforce has over a human one you could definately see the military pouring immense amounts of money into the issue.

 whembly wrote:
I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Sure it will, you just need to get the AI technology to the point that you can trust it to fly the entire mission without human intervention. No communications link = no hacking/jamming problem. In fact in a real war between equals it would happen even faster, since you no longer have to worry about pesky details like collateral damage and can focus on "kill anything within 50 miles of point X that looks like a tank".

 Ratbarf wrote:

I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Actually it likely will be solved, at least the hacking part. The jamming thing maybe not so much, or the solution isn't as apparent, but it is most definately doable. Plus, with all of the benefits that a Drone airforce has over a human one you could definately see the military pouring immense amounts of money into the issue.

Right... the only way you can ensure that these drones cannot be hacked or jammed is to pre-program them so that they can complete their mission offline.

Now, that may be okay for the "spy" variants... but, the armed ones? No way dude

Therefore, there will ALWAYS be a place for actual piloted planes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Sure it will, you just need to get the AI technology to the point that you can trust it to fly the entire mission without human intervention. No communications link = no hacking/jamming problem. In fact in a real war between equals it would happen even faster, since you no longer have to worry about pesky details like collateral damage and can focus on "kill anything within 50 miles of point X that looks like a tank".

ninja'ed.

There's a peice somewhere about the DoD considering this (on the armed variants) and they're not too keen on it.

Right... the only way you can ensure that these drones cannot be hacked or jammed is to pre-program them so that they can complete their mission offline.

Now, that may be okay for the "spy" variants... but, the armed ones? No way dude

Therefore, there will ALWAYS be a place for actual piloted planes.

Nope, there are several theories in the works already as to create security algorithms that would take to infinity to solve.

The jamming thing is another problem, but where there's a will there's a way. Just because you don't believe that science can't do it does not mean that it is impossible. In fact until proven otherwise it should be assumed that everything and anything is possible with sufficently advanced technology, and to think otherwise is to ignore the pattern of human invention for the past 10 thousand years.

 whembly wrote:
Right... the only way you can ensure that these drones cannot be hacked or jammed is to pre-program them so that they can complete their mission offline.

Actually the hacking problem is a trivial one, you use enough encryption for the control signals that breaking it takes longer than the length of the drone's mission. All you're left with then is jamming, and even then all you can really do is force the drone to go into "lost contact" mode and return to base without finishing the mission.

(Note that the story a while back about "hacking" a drone involved getting into the unencrypted video feed the drone was broadcasting, not the actual control system.)

Therefore, there will ALWAYS be a place for actual piloted planes.

Until you have an enemy that is willing to risk the collateral damage of letting armed drones off the leash, at which point all of your manned aircraft become little more than target drones that add to your casualty list.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I can guarantee you that "hacking/jamming" prevention will never be solved, thus manned planes will always have a place.

Sure it will, you just need to get the AI technology to the point that you can trust it to fly the entire mission without human intervention. No communications link = no hacking/jamming problem. In fact in a real war between equals it would happen even faster, since you no longer have to worry about pesky details like collateral damage and can focus on "kill anything within 50 miles of point X that looks like a tank".

Then the wwar against the ironmen begins muahahah!

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

By my research it seems like it's supposed to be able to function in a ground support role, it's one of the reasons why they had a separate version for the marines. Ground support is a stressed, if secondary, feature that it's touted as having by the DoD and lockheed martin. It's also supposed to be able to fly in the rain, but I don't think they're letting it do that either. I think it was designed for everything possible and just ended up not being good at ground support to the point where we just use F18s instead since it's cheaper, but it's in there as something it's supposed to be able to do.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't understand how the f-22 isn't classified as a strike craft. Does it not carry surface to ground weaponry? I had thought that one of it's theoretical roles was as a strike craft in areas with enemy radar cover.

:edit: In looking up it's original design program strike craft was one of it's sub roles. I can see how it wouldn't have done much of that by now though. It hasn't done much of anything except suffocate people.

It wasn't designed as such, and its air-to-ground ordinance payload maximum is pathetic. It also needs somebody on the ground or another aircraft doing laser designation if it's dropping laser-guided munitions.

It was designed as a pure air superiority fighter, and we'll need those if we go to war with China or Russia. But since we're not going to war with China or Russia anytime soon, it's an extremely expensive insurance policy that, as far as I know, has seen zero combat thus far despite plenty of opportunity. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, but we probably didn't ultimately need it in the inventory.

By my research it seems like it's supposed to be able to function in a ground support role, it's one of the reasons why they had a separate version for the marines. Ground support is a stressed, if secondary, feature that it's touted as having by the DoD and lockheed martin. It's also supposed to be able to fly in the rain, but I don't think they're letting it do that either. I think it was designed for everything possible and just ended up not being good at ground support to the point where we just use F18s instead since it's cheaper, but it's in there as something it's supposed to be able to do.

As far as I know the Marine Corps was NEVER slated for the F-22. If it can't go on a carrier (and more specifically an LHD) then we don't want it. The F-35B's been our baby and is going active next year with successful sea trials, and plenty of flight trials and weapons trials under it's belt. It also hasn't to my knowledge caused any naval aviators to pass out...



from what I'm lead to understand from a tedious brief I had to sit through before I got out, the F-35B is a 5th Gen Multirole combatant to slot in on the Marine Corps CAS/Air Superiority role and has performed well in trials for both. Again and most important to the Corps, they can go with us, replacing our /very/ old Harrier II airframes.



I'm also lead to understand that the 35 will be replacing the F-18 and the EA-6B Prowler. That's gonna save money and training as one unified platform in all roles can't help but save costs on parts acquisitions and allows the closing of two of the airframe specific specialty school trees in favor of a single unified program. Also increases Corps capabilities cause we can bring a EW/ECM bird with us on a MEU float for support instead of having to call a carrier group if they happen to be nearby for prowlers.

Peregrine wrote:

Huh. Well, I congratulate you on holding yourself to a higher standard. I just wish I could be confident that all of the other people flying those drones have the same standards.

What you are seeing is not a failure of oversight, but an explosive expansion in the field. When we invaded Afganistan there were 48 UAVs spread across the Army,Navy/Marines, and Airforce. Nearly all of those assets would be considered national or at the lowest corps assets. Now there are something like 1500 from the national level to platoon level. You can't expand like that and realistically expect the standards to remain the same.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reaper and predator drones would be close to useless against any up to date military. They're slow, they don't possess stealth technologies, they're not particularly resilient, and they don't carry weapons that can kill before being within range of most up to date anti air weapons. Fighting a technologically capable enemy sort of invalidates the kind of warfare those drones are useful for in the first place. The sentinel is built with actual anti state capabilities in mind.

Bwah ah ha ah ha ahahaha. Do you know what the radar cross section of a Predator is? How about an F-16, F-18, etc. You clearly have no idea what type of warfare drones are good for, or how capable they are in the modern battlefield. More of you sourcing your ass.

Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Could you explain the oversight mechanisms in place for UAV strikes, please? I'm honestly curious, and you seem to know exactly what they are.

I'm not 100% sure, I don't remember where to find the latest information I saw on the subject. If I remember right the drone operators pick the targets, but they have to be approved by the next step up the chain of command? IIRC the problem was less "we don't have formal oversight" and more "our oversight is a rubber stamp and we don't overrule enough targets". The article described an incident where the drone operator thought it was a valid target, his superior agreed out of (apparent) eagerness to believe they had a good target, and it turned out to be a complete mistake where innocent people died. Once they got the initial idea that it was a bad guy there really wasn't much effort to confirm whether that initial assumption was correct.

Unless something has vastly changed since I left, and I have little doubt they have not, this is not even close to correct. Manned and unmanned assets require authorization from the same source, not in their chain of command, if you are saying drones lack oversight then manned CAS lack oversight as well. The only things that allow unilateral decisions on the part of the pilots are troops in contact and ROE in defense of friendly troops or self, which are basically the same thing.

Incidentally, how is the situation you described any different from standard air power? A guy in a Super Hornet at 18,000 feet is also just pointing and clicking, essentially, since we haven't seen a serious challenge to our air superiority since the Vietnam War ended.

1) Because the conventional aircraft don't have the extended endurance of a drone. A Hornet airstrike has to be planned in advance against a designated target, you can't just have it circle the battlefield for days at a time until a target of opportunity shows up and/or you get bored enough to drop a hellfire missile on a "terrorist" just to see the pretty fireworks.

2) Because the Hornet pilot isn't calling his own targets, while the drone operators do. A fighter pilot 18,000' above the battlefield is probably acting on information provided by someone on the ground with a good view of the situation, while a drone pilot is using grainy video from the drone to decide who lives and who dies, making them a lot more vulnerable to mistakes.


2) There's apparently a psychological factor involved where the pilot of the Hornet is still close enough to the action to intuitively see it as a battle, where the drone pilot is just clicking pictures on a computer screen and has a harder time intuitively seeing the targets as actual human beings.

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


I'm also lead to understand that the 35 will be replacing the F-18 and the EA-6B Prowler. That's gonna save money and training as one unified platform in all roles can't help but save costs on parts acquisitions and allows the closing of two of the airframe specific specialty school trees in favor of a single unified program. Also increases Corps capabilities cause we can bring a EW/ECM bird with us on a MEU float for support instead of having to call a carrier group if they happen to be nearby for prowlers.

The EA-6 was replaced relatively recently by the EA-18. I have little doubt that no replacement for the EA 18 is in the works. If you think your Harriers are old you should ask around about the last guys that Flew Prowler or Sea Viking...or th guys flying the C-3s. I'm fairly sure the F-35 will eventually replace all 18's, but hopefully by the end of thier service life the EA18s will be replaced by a dedicated platform or a modification of the medium range naval bomber the navy desperately needs.

Just what I heard, personally I like the idea of full airframe integration like that, that said a medium range bomber sounds delicious. If you want to talk old aircraft I'm a C-130/C-12 crew chief by trade and I cross trained as a Huey mech (I was attached to the H&HS Squadron out of MCAS Yuma which flies C-12s and Hueys if you desperately want to fact check me) of our HH-1N Hueys (Yes H) most of our airframe data plates are Vietnam era. Sea Knights would also be a good pick for some old as hell airframes. There's I believe at least one fourth generation Sea Knight pilot out there.

 AustonT wrote:
What you are seeing is not a failure of oversight, but an explosive expansion in the field. When we invaded Afganistan there were 48 UAVs spread across the Army,Navy/Marines, and Airforce. Nearly all of those assets would be considered national or at the lowest corps assets. Now there are something like 1500 from the national level to platoon level. You can't expand like that and realistically expect the standards to remain the same.

Total drones, or armed drones?

And I can understand the expansion factor, but if expanding the drone force means accepting more civilian deaths because the qualified operators are stretched too thin, well, that means it's time to limit the number of armed drones until more training can be done.

Unless something has vastly changed since I left, and I have little doubt they have not, this is not even close to correct. Manned and unmanned assets require authorization from the same source, not in their chain of command, if you are saying drones lack oversight then manned CAS lack oversight as well. The only things that allow unilateral decisions on the part of the pilots are troops in contact and ROE in defense of friendly troops or self, which are basically the same thing.

Ok, found the article. Like I thought, the problem was not the technical presence of oversight, but a failure to question the initial assumptions made by the drone operators, and a belief that studying a target through a drone camera is enough, even when no ground forces are in contact with the target to confirm its identity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-drone-20110410,0,2818134,full.story

End result: oops, we just killed a bunch of civilians, sorry about that. Or there's the CIA's version of how to do it, where all you have to do is look suspicious enough or have the misfortune of being nearby when it's time to kill a "terrorist".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/cia-drones-marked-for-death/


Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA) and less about the use of drones in a battlefield role supporting ground troops against targets we're very confident are enemies and shooting back.

Why would I fact check you?

I was in country when the last combat EA-6 flight happened. I've always been an A-6 fanboi and I'm very critical of the current navy procurement scheme (as if it matters). Air frame integration SOUNDS great until you do it. The Navy has worshiped at the altar of parts commonality for too long. It has cost them(us) a true naval air superiority fighter, a medium bomber, carrier based tankers, fixed wing carrier asw, and a severe curtailment of the range and capacity to put munitions on target. The F-18 was never intended to be the front line fighter of the Navy, and yet here it is. Virtually alone on the deck next to an aging fleet of support aircraft. How long before some good idea fairy decides the F18 can take the E3s role? Or perhaps the C/F-18 will perform replenishment operations? It's gone too far.

 Peregrine wrote:

Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA)...

Would you prefer an explosive cigar? Or, perhaps an attack helicopter? Granted the latter was Israeli.

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA)...

Would you prefer an explosive cigar? Or, perhaps an attack helicopter? Granted the latter was Israeli.

Yeah, I actually would. If the CIA had to use explosive cigars or attack helicopters they'd actually have to think carefully about their targets instead of just deciding that any sufficiently large group of "military age males" is a terrorist camp and blowing it up.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
What you are seeing is not a failure of oversight, but an explosive expansion in the field. When we invaded Afganistan there were 48 UAVs spread across the Army,Navy/Marines, and Airforce. Nearly all of those assets would be considered national or at the lowest corps assets. Now there are something like 1500 from the national level to platoon level. You can't expand like that and realistically expect the standards to remain the same.

Total drones, or armed drones?

And I can understand the expansion factor, but if expanding the drone force means accepting more civilian deaths because the qualified operators are stretched too thin, well, that means it's time to limit the number of armed drones until more training can be done.

Total drones. I couldn't tell you without spending more time than I'd care to how many of them are armed, lets just say a lot more than 40. Reaper wasn't in service, Hunter wasn't armed, Predator was like one or two squadrons.

Unless something has vastly changed since I left, and I have little doubt they have not, this is not even close to correct. Manned and unmanned assets require authorization from the same source, not in their chain of command, if you are saying drones lack oversight then manned CAS lack oversight as well. The only things that allow unilateral decisions on the part of the pilots are troops in contact and ROE in defense of friendly troops or self, which are basically the same thing.

Ok, found the article. Like I thought, the problem was not the technical presence of oversight, but a failure to question the initial assumptions made by the drone operators, and a belief that studying a target through a drone camera is enough, even when no ground forces are in contact with the target to confirm its identity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-drone-20110410,0,2818134,full.story

End result: oops, we just killed a bunch of civilians, sorry about that. Or there's the CIA's version of how to do it, where all you have to do is look suspicious enough or have the misfortune of being nearby when it's time to kill a "terrorist".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/cia-drones-marked-for-death/


Though, I should clarify that my objection is more about the use of drones as an assassination tool (such as by the CIA) and less about the use of drones in a battlefield role supporting ground troops against targets we're very confident are enemies and shooting back.

I wrote more and deleted it thinking it was too much but I see now I should not have. I scanned the article and found what I was looking for. I'll won't post the relevant parts unless you want me to, I'm deliberately trying not to be insulting but this article doesn't really say what you think it does, and not what the writer wants it to.

A drone cannot make independent confirmation, the use of the word possible is almost always attached to any report. Even things we KNOW. In our world certain words carry more meaning than others: possible, probable, and confirmed being what we are talking about. I can count on one hand the number of times I submitted or allowed a member of a team I commanded to transmit a report with the word "confirmed." Another asset MUST confirm aerial intelligence, that occurs in the linked article. The other problem with the linked article and your point about drone oversight is the part where the drone never fires, nor does it make the unilateral decision to engage. A ground unit confirmed weapons that the air unit classed possible and a joint command cleared Army and Air Force teams to engage. That's hardly a lock of oversight, and the failure is not on the part of the drones but on the ground forces for failing to perform thier end of manned unmanned taming. If they weren't visula they shouldn't have confirmed, but they did. If you'd like I can pull the pertinent parts of the article for you.

The CIA is a whole different kettle of fish.

 AustonT wrote:
Why would I fact check you?

I was in country when the last combat EA-6 flight happened. I've always been an A-6 fanboi and I'm very critical of the current navy procurement scheme (as if it matters). Air frame integration SOUNDS great until you do it. The Navy has worshiped at the altar of parts commonality for too long. It has cost them(us) a true naval air superiority fighter, a medium bomber, carrier based tankers, fixed wing carrier asw, and a severe curtailment of the range and capacity to put munitions on target. The F-18 was never intended to be the front line fighter of the Navy, and yet here it is. Virtually alone on the deck next to an aging fleet of support aircraft. How long before some good idea fairy decides the F18 can take the E3s role? Or perhaps the C/F-18 will perform replenishment operations? It's gone too far.

People seem to be obsessed with it around here.

You make a fair point though as much as I like the Hornet the shelf is mighty bare right now for Naval Air Operations.

Meh, I'm an obsessive fact checker but checking someone life experience, you know unless we are talking credentials. I could not care less. You know a SSG Kilgore? mayyyyybe GySG. He'd be a QA if your did.

What may I ask do you like about the Hornet, and I'll be honest I'm asking because I pretty much love to point out how its inferior in nearly every way to the aircraft it has replaced.

 AustonT wrote:
Another asset MUST confirm aerial intelligence, that occurs in the linked article.

Where exactly? The article even explicitly states that the target was out of sight of the ground forces, miles away from their location by the time the attack happened. At 7:38 they report that they can't see it, at 7:40 they "confirm" the target.

The other problem with the linked article and your point about drone oversight is the part where the drone never fires, nor does it make the unilateral decision to engage.

Ok, I'll grant that, the drone itself didn't fire before they realized the mistake (I remembered that part wrong), but it was pretty clearly the fault of the drone crew getting trigger happy. It's not too difficult to imagine a similar scenario where the drone is carrying more missiles and makes the entire attack itself.

A ground unit confirmed weapons that the air unit classed possible and a joint command cleared Army and Air Force teams to engage. That's hardly a lock of oversight, and the failure is not on the part of the drones but on the ground forces for failing to perform thier end of manned unmanned taming. If they weren't visula they shouldn't have confirmed, but they did. If you'd like I can pull the pertinent parts of the article for you.

The oversight issue is that there didn't seem to be very much skepticism about the report. On paper there might have been plenty of oversight, but was it used effectively? Why didn't anybody realize that this was a bad idea until after the missiles had been fired?

And there definitely is fault from the drones, if the drone hadn't been there (or had an operator that was less eager to kill something) would they have been so confident in their identification of the target? Or would they have been forced to get closer and have the ground troops look at it, at which point they would (hopefully) realize that it's not a threat? The military even admitted that there was fault from the drones, and took steps to try to avoid a similar situation. If there was no fault from the drones there would have been no need to do any of that.

The CIA is a whole different kettle of fish.

Is that agreement or disagreement that the CIA is a problem?

I'll won't post the relevant parts unless you want me to, I'm deliberately trying not to be insulting but this article doesn't really say what you think it does, and not what the writer wants it to.

Please do. If this issue is being reported inaccurately I'd like to know what exactly is going on.

 AustonT wrote:
Meh, I'm an obsessive fact checker but checking someone life experience, you know unless we are talking credentials. I could not care less. You know a SSG Kilgore? mayyyyybe GySG. He'd be a QA if your did.

What may I ask do you like about the Hornet, and I'll be honest I'm asking because I pretty much love to point out how its inferior in nearly every way to the aircraft it has replaced.

Hahah, Kilgore.... hmmm it's been two years so it depends when he got there. But no no one by that name in QA when I was there.

Honestly I like the lines on the Hornet. XD weak reasoning I know. It's done admirably as a "jack of all trades master of none" but it really shouldn't have to be doing that in the first place. I give the airframe credit for adaptability though no matter how much it's stretched wafer thin in it's current multirole/EVERY damn role position.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Another asset MUST confirm aerial intelligence, that occurs in the linked article.

Where exactly? The article even explicitly states that the target was out of sight of the ground forces, miles away from their location by the time the attack happened. At 7:38 they report that they can't see it, at 7:40 they "confirm" the target.

For one you have the "screeners" which are the unmanned exploitation team, IME these guys are useless gakkers but that is beside the point. Lets start from the beginning:

American aircraft began tracking the vehicles at 5 a.m.

The crew of an AC-130, a U.S. ground attack plane flying in the area, spotted a pickup and a sport utility vehicle with a roof rack converge from different directions.

At 5:08 a.m., they saw one of the drivers flash his headlights in the darkness.

The AC-130 radioed the Predator crew in Nevada: "It appears the two vehicles are flashing lights, signaling."

With that, the travelers became targets of suspicion.

The initial spot report is made by an AC-130, not a drone. The drone is there to confirm "suspicious activity" or that's how I would characterize it in my log.
The real issue here is apparent right away.

At 5:14 a.m., six minutes after the two Afghan vehicles flashed their lights, the AC-130 crew asked the A-team what it wanted to do about the suspicious vehicles.

"Roger, ground force commander's intent is to destroy the vehicles and the personnel," came the unit's reply.

Lets shelve that for now, but this has nothing to do with drone oversight, or them circling the battlefield lie gods deserving who lives and who dies. Which I believe is a near verbatim quote.
The drone comes on target

At 5:15 a.m., the Predator pilot thought he saw a rifle inside one of the vehicles.

"See if you can zoom in on that guy," he told the camera operator. "Is that a …rifle?"

"Maybe just a warm spot from where he was sitting," the camera operator replied, referring to an image picked up by the infrared camera. "Can't really tell right now, but it does look like an object."

"I was hoping we could make a rifle out," the pilot said. "Never mind."

This mirrors discussions and outright arguments I have had hundreds of times. and it's the reason drones don't do independent confirmation. A gun and a cane look a lot alike. The pilot is overzealous, the MPO is cautious. The report the give however is accurate, the author tries to make it more dramatic than it is; regardless of how the drone operators feel they must report factually. If I see Snow white and the seven dwarves its: 7 pax 1 poss AF, 7 poss JM no uniform. poss whistling while they work. moving E.

A few minutes later, the pilot appeared to downplay the screeners' observation, alerting the special operations unit to "a possible rifle and two possible children near the SUV."

An accurate assessment.

"Bring them in as close as we can until we also have [attack aircraft] up," the unit's radio operator said. "We want to take out the whole lot of them."

You see how the issue isn't the drone?

The Predator video was not the only intelligence that morning suggesting that U.S. forces were in danger.

"We're receiving ICOM traffic," or intercepted communications, the A-Team radioed the Predator crew. "We believe we may have a high-level Taliban commander."

This is an independent source confirming suspicious activity, that's three sources: AC-130, MQ-1, and an intercepts unit with no DF (according to the article). AT NO POINT does the drone section positively identify weapons or even upgrade their observation to probable.

At 7:40 a.m., the A-Team radioed that its captain had concluded that he had established "positive identification" based on "the weapons we've identified and the demographics of the individuals plus the ICOM."

"the weapons we've identified" not you we. To me that indicates the ground force identified the weapons themselves, clearly that wasn't the case. Is that somehow the drone operators fault? No. That's the guy on the ground.
The guy who concluded that he was going to attack the vehicles 3 hours ago before the drone even entered the equation.

The other problem with the linked article and your point about drone oversight is the part where the drone never fires, nor does it make the unilateral decision to engage.

Ok, I'll grant that, the drone itself didn't fire before they realized the mistake (I remembered that part wrong), but it was pretty clearly the fault of the drone crew getting trigger happy. It's not too difficult to imagine a similar scenario where the drone is carrying more missiles and makes the entire attack itself.

Really? The drone crew was trigger happy? As I pointed out above the guy on the ground wanted to kill those vehicles before the drone came into the picture, The Kiowas, who are themselves manned reconnaissance pilots do the shooting and never bother to do a target check with their ball? Of all the people involved the drone guys have the least to answer for; they observed and reported; which is their job.

A ground unit confirmed weapons that the air unit classed possible and a joint command cleared Army and Air Force teams to engage. That's hardly a lock of oversight, and the failure is not on the part of the drones but on the ground forces for failing to perform thier end of manned unmanned taming. If they weren't visula they shouldn't have confirmed, but they did. If you'd like I can pull the pertinent parts of the article for you.

The oversight issue is that there didn't seem to be very much skepticism about the report. On paper there might have been plenty of oversight, but was it used effectively? Why didn't anybody realize that this was a bad idea until after the missiles had been fired?

If anything what you are saying here is that the guy on the ground suffers from a lack of oversight, again we are talking about drones; you made the point several times that drones lack oversight and your example is a drone that doesn't shoot and doesn't make the decision to shoot while you gloss over the manned assets doing the shooting and the guy on the ground. This article addresses literally nothing about oversight on drones and has a lot to do with armchair generaling a guy on the ground with the benefit of hindsight.

And there definitely is fault from the drones, if the drone hadn't been there (or had an operator that was less eager to kill something) would they have been so confident in their identification of the target? Or would they have been forced to get closer and have the ground troops look at it, at which point they would (hopefully) realize that it's not a threat? The military even admitted that there was fault from the drones, and took steps to try to avoid a similar situation. If there was no fault from the drones there would have been no need to do any of that.

Theres nothing in this article that supports this, if it wasn't the drone it would have been the AC-130; they reported what they saw as accurately as they could. What they said in between to each other had no effect on the ground commander, who made it quite clear what his intentions were before the drone was involved.

The CIA is a whole different kettle of fish.

Is that agreement or disagreement that the CIA is a problem?

The CIA doesn't play by the same rulebook we do.

I'll won't post the relevant parts unless you want me to, I'm deliberately trying not to be insulting but this article doesn't really say what you think it does, and not what the writer wants it to.

Please do. If this issue is being reported inaccurately I'd like to know what exactly is going on.

Literally the day before this incident happened THIS article appeared in the same newspaper singing a vastly different tune.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-drone-crews21-2010feb21,0,5789185,full.story

Though more than 95% of their missions involve gathering intelligence or watching over troops, pilots sometimes must decide whether to open fire. They operate under the same rules as pilots of fighter jets or attack helicopters. Only after going through a long checklist of safeguards are they cleared to push a black button on the throttle and squeeze a gray trigger on the joystick to release a bomb or missile.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meh lots of quote boxes makes response ugly, I can't get this sorted.

To be clear, I also place plenty of blame on the guy on the ground who also got trigger happy. However, I still think the drone was part of the problem, for this reason:

"I was hoping we could make a rifle out," the pilot said. "Never mind."

"Sounds like they need more than a possible," the camera operator told the pilot. Seeing the Afghan men jammed into the flat bed of the pickup, he added, "That truck would make a beautiful target."

"Why didn't he say 'possible' child?" the pilot said. "Why are they so quick to call kids but not to call a rifle."

The Army said evidence that the convoy was not a hostile force was "ignored or downplayed by the Predator crew,"


To me it seems pretty clear that the drone operators wanted it to be a real target, so they (consciously or unconsciously) saw only the evidence that confirmed their assumption. Instead of "let's find out what's going on", they went in with a plan of "get the justification we need to launch the attack". And that is a dangerously irresponsible way of handling things when you've invented the ability to deploy point and click hellfire missiles anywhere you want with no risk.

Now, I'd be happy to hear that this is the exception to the rule with military drones, but is really that unbelievable that this kind of attitude could be popular in the CIA's drone program? We've certainly seen them using a rather loose definition of "legitimate target" and "acceptable collateral damage".