Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Drones for Canadian military

  1. #1

    Default Drones for Canadian military

    While I'm not a big fan of the way Obama murders people all over the world with drones (leading to ongoing hatred towards the west), I believe they are an important part of the way forward.

    They definitely make sense for patrolling the Arctic, our Aurora's are getting older, and manpower is expensive to train. Credit where credit is due, I hope the Liberals proceed down this path for:

    - close combat support for our troops
    - Arctic and ocean surveillance (needed around 2020 to augment or replace Auroras)

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...rity-1.3468269

    An MQ 9 reaper (the drone the military wants) can stay aloft for 27 hours, versus 17 for aurora, or 3 for CF 18.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene...cs_MQ-9_Reaper

    Or maybe the triton, which is a navalized global Hawk:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nort...n_MQ-4C_Triton
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-02-2016 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Aurora not Orion (although same platform)

  2. #2

    Default

    Drone technology has vastly improved and there is a place for the tech.
    - Surveillance and recon in close support...definitely, the very small ones have proven invaluable to troops on the ground that use hand launch versions operated by a "smart phone" to check trail and avoid ambushes, IEDs and obstacles...they have been very impressive in this role.

    - Augmenting conventional manned Surveillance and reconaircraft (like the Aurora and it's smaller sisters)...definitely

    Based on the experience of Drone use within the limited of current technology
    - Any form of armed support....not a chance, with no true situational awareness combined with command delays (operator input to vehicle action) they are proven to not be consistently accurate enough to be trusted. Time may change that, but not in the foreseeable future.

    - As a primary source of Domestic patrol...not at this time for similar reasons

    IMO T

  3. #3

    Default

    Its the way of the future really. Crazy to think we could get to a point where wars are fought via machines. I guess those years of Call Of Duty gaming will finally pay off
    youtube.com/BrothersGrim
    facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

  4. #4

    Default

    ^funny thing is, on that drone wikipedia article, the US actually converted an F16 squadron to drone duty. Can you imagine that? One day you are a fighter pilot flying at Mach 1, next day you have joystick and a screen... and a less impressive story for the person you are trying to pick up at the bar.

    The other interesting thing is on those reaper drones they are starting to install air-to-air missiles (sidewinders). Its not impossible to think we could use drones with air-to air missiles to patrol the borders re Russian bombers or similar, in the not very far distant future.
    Last edited by moahunter; 29-02-2016 at 04:36 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Its the way of the future really. Crazy to think we could get to a point where wars are fought via machines. I guess those years of Call Of Duty gaming will finally pay off
    Violent video games: The vast military training ground (boot camp) that conditions and desensitizes kids that killing people is without consequences and remorse, who grow up to become the drone gamers of tomorrow.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Its the way of the future really. Crazy to think we could get to a point where wars are fought via machines. I guess those years of Call Of Duty gaming will finally pay off
    Violent video games: The vast military training ground (boot camp) that conditions and desensitizes kids that killing people is without consequences and remorse, who grow up to become the drone gamers of tomorrow.
    This also relates to moa's comment.

    There are huge moral and ethical issues with this...

    IMO it's immoral to allow machines to do our killing...we must never remove the human quotient too far from the this sickening process as we will remove what remains of the humanity.

    Second is the ethical...until such time as armed drones go autonomous...another issue again...their will be control lags. As has already taken place (btw I am opposed to the use of armed drones at this time) in the middle east as a last minute deflection (wind sheer, turbulence, thermal, wind) that cannot be compensated for can cause the target to be missed and others hit. (Something that I believe has never been admitted to but, through unconfirmed sources, I understand has happened. Take it for what it's worth)

    There is also limited situational awareness, something that has caused more than one combat pilot not to fire only to find out if he had it would have been the wrong target.

    Because of the nature of drones, control lag, limited real input, who should be held accountable/responsible for a friendly fire?

    Not the operators fault due to control lag, so is it the machine? Can't hold a machine accountable (why I oppose autonomous armed drones). Is it the command and control decision makers? Like that's gonna happen IMO. So whose to be held account?

    As moa pointed out there is the coming possibility of drones being armed for air to air.

    Scares the heck outta me. A fair number of times through the cold war and into the 80s there were occasions fighter pilots were ordered to fire on unidentified targets and did not because it didn't seem "right"(situational awareness). On getting closer they were civilian airlines that had encountered various communication problems. It even happened here in Canada in the 60s.

    Think Korean airlines 007...bad enough with a human that questioned the firing orders several times...imagine an autonomous drone that doesn't.

    While the technology is impressive...is it right? Is it moral? An extremely serious moral and ethical question.

    I don't believe it is.

    T
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 29-02-2016 at 07:43 PM.

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The other interesting thing is on those reaper drones they are starting to install air-to-air missiles (sidewinders). Its not impossible to think we could use drones with air-to air missiles to patrol the borders re Russian bombers or similar, in the not very far distant future.
    In 2002 a Predator MQ-1 and an Iraqi Mig-25 Foxbat had a brief dogfight. Unfortunately the Predator only carried Stingers and the one it fired locked onto the heat trail of the missile that the Foxbat fired, which in turn took down the Predator.

    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  8. #8

    Default DOD report - flocking drones

    Interestingly there was an old DOD report that if our goal is simply Arctic sovereignty, "flocking" drones could do the trick:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article546005/

    You don't need amazing avionics to simply intercept a Russian bomber (unlike a fighter).

    It seems the airforce have a specific type of drone in mind, capable of firing a helfire missile and two 113 kg bombs:

    http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/...k-armed-drones
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-03-2016 at 06:24 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •