
Army Tests Flying Robo-Sniper - philf
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/army-tests-new/
======
ghotli
This is one of the most frightening things I've seen on HN. A fleet of these
killing machines would be so much more effective than ground troops at
"killing the enemy". What bothers me is that if these are so much cheaper to
make, and more accurate with less collateral damage then it makes our regime
more effective at snuffing out foreigners that intelligence deems as dangerous
for one reason or another.

It seems that this is one of those devices that you can not fight with,
especially if they are deployed in great numbers. What do you do, stay inside
if the U.S has deemed you a threat? Hack it to try to take control of it? That
seems like a scarier proposition and one that is much more likely.

We're concerned that "loose nukes" will fall into the hands of "the enemy". An
attack like that would cause great collateral damage. Eighty years from now,
will we be worried about a competing economy that has the technical prowess to
create such a killing machine as is linked in this article? Eisenhower warned
us in his final speech as president against the Military-Industrial Complex
that drives our capitalist nation to create more effective and more deadly
weapons.

Does mankind need this kind of weaponry?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex>

~~~
kiiski
"It seems that this is one of those devices that you can not fight with,
especially if they are deployed in great numbers. What do you do, stay inside
if the U.S has deemed you a threat? Hack it to try to take control of it? That
seems like a scarier proposition and one that is much more likely."

Logically you just build an automated robotic anti-sniper system that shoots
down any of these as soon as they get in range. That shouldn't be much of a
problem for any military force with decent recourses nowadays.

~~~
ghotli
A good point, yet that again causes an escalation of an "arms race" of this
kind of weaponry.

It's also a matter of logistics, where do you deploy the anti-sniper drone
equipment? Around everywhere a sensitive target may go?

I suppose I'm not arguing that these things won't continue to be built and
countermeasures won't be adapted to that kind of warfare. It was merely meant
as an expression of the general concern that our modern societies keep working
toward very efficient and accurate ways to kill one another.

It was stated more out of the depression that I know that just posting my
thoughts to the internet won't do much good. Yet it's something that's worth
mentioning in between the cacophony of other shouting voices wishing that
things were this way or that. At least a subset of individuals I consider my
peers have seen it, and thought about it at least once today.

~~~
roboneal
"Our modern societies keep working toward very efficient and accurate ways to
kill one another"

We could always go back to the less accurate ways of killing each other like a
good old fashion Viking raid, barbarian hordes, firebombing cities Dresden
style, concentration camps, and let's not forget Fatman & Little Boy.

~~~
ghotli
I'd say it's not mutually exclusive. The sudden ability to take out those whom
your government feels is "doing wrong" without being concerned about potential
collateral damage is a new thing indeed. It makes war more palatable, less
like the atrocities you describe above. That said, access to this kind of
small, accurate technology considerably lowers the threshold between deciding
to kill someone, and implementing that decision. At least I like to assume
that the probability of wide spread collateral damage makes the decision
harder to make.

The problem lies in the fact that "both sides" will eventually have this
technology, and that the notion of "doing wrong" is unfortunately subjective.

------
stcredzero
I proposed this idea around the time the last pirate attacks were in the news.
Merchant ships could provide some sort of landing pad and automatically
detaching power umbilical. Such drones could "visit" transiting merchant
vessels and land there to loiter in good weather. Once the merchant is out of
danger, the drone could fly to its next assignment.

My original idea involved launchers in standard cargo containers, linking to a
remote control facility on demand by satellite, but independent drones only
requiring such landing pads would be even cheaper.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
costs are too high currently for escorting anything but very high value
targets. that will change over time though.

------
run4yourlives
This isn't really a threat to an established military operation. Just another
risk on the battlefield. A simple decoy/killer routine should be pretty
effective in taking them out. It's hard to make a vehicle both air worthy and
armoured.

The major issue I see is that this is a terror organization's wet dream.
Instead of dirty bombs and nukes, you can easily establish a fleet of these
things and let them loose on a city. Put them on blimps, set them for about
500 ft., arm them with $5 motion sensors (no need for any real target
selection) add a grenade or two and you have a suicide rifleman that blows up
once his magazine is empty.

Easily released by a van or two a few miles from the next Superbowl.

------
joshwa
Curious to know how they compensate for windage? Elevation is easy to
calculate, but at non-trivial ranges wind becomes a major factor in
ballistics.

Also: why are there not soldier-portable computer-guided sniper rifles? Deploy
spotter + servo-driven rifle platform, dial in windage, designate target with
laser or via screen, point, click, boom.

------
Estragon

      The name needs changing. But the Autonomous Rotorcraft 
      Sniper System looks like it may have a big future — maybe on 
      land, or maybe at sea.
    

Or maybe in LA? <http://tinyurl.com/foucault-google-books>

~~~
stcredzero
Sniper Autonomous Rotorcraft? Plural could be SARs, or a networked system
would be SARS.

------
aidenn0
It seems to me that a gas-operated semi-automatic rifle is a poor choice for
an unmanned vehicle, as there is nobody to clear out a jam. I suspect that if
this proves effective, they will take a non-automatic action and motorize it
as that is far less prone to jamming.

------
DanielBMarkham
I think this is A. Big. Deal. Probably much more so than most other UAV news.

Having a silent sniper sitting at 3 thousand feet just below the cloud deck
with the ability to pick off targets up to a mile (making up some 2nd
generation specs, but bear with me) is a total game-changer in all kinds of
ways. Ideally a blimp would be better than a freaking expensive helicopter,
and satellite/laser modes of operation would be better still (perhaps)

In World War II, the Japanese sent a balloon barrage across the pacific to set
fires up and down the West Coast. It was such a success that officials put a
lid on press accounts for fear that the Japanese would realize what they were
on to.

Now imagine hundreds of these suckers, small and silent, moving across a city
while camouflaged against the sky. It would be like the apocalypse. The only
recourse I can see is for the entire population to live inside and
underground.

Amazing.

------
rthomas6
>The name needs changing.

What about the Autonomous Sniper System? Or the Autonomous Rotocraft Sniper
Engine?

It was so close, I just had to make the joke.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Reconnaissance, Observation and Vital Execution Rotocraft, for a little throw-
back to the old Prisoner series...

------
jared314
It sounds like the key will be effective communication between the operators
and ground forces.

------
mdg
Sounds just like the Death Star

