MQ-9 Gets Some Action on the Field

The MQ-9 has just been released into Iraq and is now carring out missions actively...Its main purpose is to give ground troops support...What do you think? Is this the new wave of generation fighters for the Airforce their looking for? www.foxnews.com... ....enjoy the read

Good Day
Skept!cal


p.s. They have a video of it on the link i provided if interested

I think giving machines the responsibility & authority to kill human beings is a step in the wrong direction that's what I think.

How many times have these unmanned aerial vehicles blown up houses full of women and kids?

Here's how many:
www.telegraph.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.independent.co.uk...
www.abc.net.au...
www.crooksandliars.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...

I realise there're still controlled by human operators currently but that is the direction these UCAV's are heading in. Completely automated combat aircraft. Mark my words.

A scary prospect to say the least. Would you trust a computer program to distinguish you from an enemy combatant from a few thousand feet in the sky?

These things are still not combat worthy in my opinion. They should stick to using them as reconnaissance drones.

So is this craft a waste of the US taxpayers money?...I was looking at the similarities to its counterpart the Predator Drone and honestly theres not a whole lot of difference...Should the US Government instead of spending money on this new model kept the old?

Good Day
Skept!cal

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


I do agree alot of what you have to say...the thought of a computer deciding on a kill is actually a REALLY scary thought...but you have to look at the other side of the coin...these machines are saving lifes as well...just some fruit for thought

Good Day
Skept!cal

reply to post by skept!cal


Not waste, more like serious misallocation of resources.

Were automating everything too fast; and it's backfiring. We're taking the control and power away from intelligent pilots and placing everything more and more in the hands of microchips and software programs.

Big mistake.
Of course it's far superior to the Predator, it's huge, it's fast, it can carry upto 14 missiles that's not the point.

It's not necessary. That niche is already filled by the F-16, F-18, F-22 and F-35.

We don't need Unmanned Aerial Vehicles carrying out major air sorties, that's the point. Were managing just fine with manned Aerial Vehicles which are far more reliable, effective and accurate.

This whole hard-on for anything automated/computerised being better than a human is ridiculous. When will people learn not to put their faith in computers?
How many times have computers let us down? How many times do you want to smash your computer? How many times have computers brought the world to the brink of war? (And that has happened)

It's like Terminator 2 or something!

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


So i guess what your saying is someone better go and get Sarah Connor out of bed...cause the wars coming!!...okay sorry back to the subject

Skept!cal

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


How can you use examples of UAVs being involved with the death of civilians as a reason that increased autonomy is bad and then concede that all of these strikes were ultimately controlled by a human operator?

And what about the number of friendly forces and civilians killed by manned aircraft, have you done a detailed study that shows unmanned aircraft have a higher incident rate?

At the end of the day no computer will take the decision to kill a human being, that authority will almost* always be taken by the operator. In these cases that operator will have the same information a pilot in the cockpit would have; i.e. information from forces on the ground or data from the aircraft’s sensors. What real benefit is the human?



* I say almost because in cases where the target is predefined and fixed I can foresee complete authority being given to the aircraft as is pretty much the case with cruise missiles and some other munitions.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
How many times have these unmanned aerial vehicles blown up houses full of women and kids?

I checked some of your links to my knowledge, neither the BBC links nor the Crooks and Liars specify that arms were deployed by a UAV. Indeed, some say that they were involved, but it could be that it performed reconnaissance. In fact, take a look at this excerpt from one of your links...

The army said the madrassa in the tribal area of Bajaur bordering Afghanistan was destroyed by helicopter gunships early on Monday.

At least three helicopters were reportedly involved in the attack

Source: BBC News Link

It's a little unfair to pin attacks by helicopters onto UAVs, isn't it? Also...

An unmanned aerial vehicle... observed the would-be attackers as they dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement," he told the AFP news agency. The individuals left the road site and were followed from the air to a nearby building. Coalition forces employed precision guided munitions on the structure.

Source: BBC News Link

While this one does mention the UAV, it only shows that it did reconnaissance. It does NOT specify that it uncaged munitions. It's a poor thing to assume that it did so and use it as proof since it won't hold any water. The same problem is seen at this link, because it specifies only an "Air Strike", rather than an "MQ-9 Reaper", entirely different things.

I realise there're still controlled by human operators currently but that is the direction these UCAV's are heading in. Completely automated combat aircraft. Mark my words.

What I find strange is that you're condemning an unmanned aircraft for having the same faults as a manned aircraft. The difference between a Reaper and an F-16 is that there isn't a guy sitting inside the jet, so you don't have to care about loss of life if it gets shot down (isn't that a good thing?), but the system of events are the same between the two. Airplane gathers information, presents it to pilot, pilot makes decision, aircraft carries it out. These errors of judgment are not unique to UAVs. See the following:

A US fighter plane in Afghanistan has accidentally bombed a group of Canadian troops, killing four soldiers and injuring eight others.

The incident, which occurred during a routine training exercise, happened near the southern city of Kandahar, 14 kilometres (eight miles) from the airport.

US officials said initial reports suggested that the pilot of at least one of a group of F-16 fighter planes had mistaken a live-fire exercise for hostile fire.

Clicky

This is the exact same problem you describe above, except this is a manned F-16 jet. Why, then, do you criticize a UAV for having the same problems as an aircraft system which you maintain as a one?

These are pilot errors. The irony here is that you condemn them, and yet the only way to escape them is to automate, at which point they become computer errors .

These aircraft killed people? Yeah, and this keyboard just typed this tipo i mean teapo i mean typo.

All hilarity aside, the logic of your claim is badly skewed.

Actually the Predator Drone did do damage...it was not just a recon plane although that is its main mission...The Predator Drone can carry up to 4 Hellfire missles...here are some examples of some of the destruction the Predator Drones have done....news.bbc.co.uk... ....www.reuters.com... ....blog.wired.com... ....so their are documented cases of the Predator Drone doing some damage on the battlefield...but their is no doubting the new drone was made for killing

Good Day
Skept!cal

reply to post by skept!cal


Oh, I've no doubt that the drones have killing capability. The two points I was trying to bring up were that 1) Some of the evidence cited by The Godfather of Conspira can't be readily used since there are no statements linking the weapons use to the UAV itself, and 2) that the firings are still done with buttons pressed by human hands.

Sorry for the confusion