This is too US-centric, especially as it implies that drone proliferation will slow down if the US stops its own development. This is nonsense.
Fact is, the US was a late adopter to more modern drones, or UAVs, having fallen behind countries like Israel and South Africa who had developed propeller-driven surveillance UAVs and used them operationally in combat from the late 1970s.
Both gained much experience in the use of drones to evade surface to air missiles and developed stealth prototypes, including the South African Flowchart, and began early work on weaponising them. As a result, both Israel and South Africa were early exporters of drones, selling to dozens of countries and remaining major sellers. When the US needed to acquire tactical UAVs in the 1980s, it acquired Israeli Tadira Mastiffs. It wasn't until nearly a decade later that the first Predator flew, in 1994.
Both the above countries have armed drones for sale, though refuse to publicise their sales. So even if the US were to scale back its drone research massively, it would not do anything to slow down this pace of development elsewhere, which has only increased with more countries and companies building drones and their subsystems.
It was only in 2001 that trials were first carried out to arm Predators with Hellfire missiles. Not because they were more effective weapons platforms than manned aircraft, but because the idea was to shorten the time needed between spotting a target on the UAV's cameras and hitting it with a bomb or missile.
As such, most countries don't actually need armed drones. They're slower and more vulnerable than manned combat aircraft, are not designed to dash to target areas quickly and are typically more expensive to operate than aircraft like the Embraer Super Tucano or Aerosud AHRLAC because they need more ground equipment and a ground control station. The market for surveillance drones, especially those that can provide some level of persistent surveillance, is huge and growing bigger. The number of countries specifically requesting armed drones, however, remains low.
> This is too US-centric, especially as it implies that drone proliferation will slow down if the US stops its own development. This is nonsense.
Where do you get that from?
Some quotes from the article:
Virtually every country on Earth will be able to build or
acquire drones capable of firing missiles within the next ten
years. Armed aerial drones will be used for targeted killings,
terrorism and the government suppression of civil
unrest. What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United
States to do anything about it.
“Once countries like China start exporting these, they’re going
to be everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years,
every country will have these,” Noel Sharkey, a robotics and
artificial intelligence professor from the University of
Sheffield, told Defense One.
Singer cautions that while the U.S. may be trying to wean
itself off of armed UAV technology, many more countries are
quickly becoming hooked.
So, what option does that leave U.S. policy makers wanting to
govern the spread of this technology? Virtually none, say
experts. “You’re too late,” said Sharkey, matter-of-factly.
The rest of your post, other than the comments on earlier-than-US use of drones, is a rehash of the various points in the article.
It's underscored by one of the quotes used to end the piece off:
Less impressed, Sharkey said the U.S. still has time to
rethink its drone future. “Don’t go to the next step.
Don’t make them fully autonomous. That will proliferate
just as quickly and then you are really going to be sunk.”
And the opening premise of the article is not only that armed UAV technology is spreading, but that the reader should somehow be concerned that the US is unable to stop it. It speaks about what options are available to US policy makers to govern the spread of the technology, correctly answering 'none' but not once mentioning that the US never had any ability to govern the spread of UAV technology. Especially because it was not the originator of it.
The rest of the article is ok, particularly the quotes attributed to Singer (an excellent writer on the subject), Sam Brennan and Mary Commings and the maps showing which countries are using or developing armed and unarmed UAVs. I just feel it's let down by the editorial slant and US-centric focus.
Thanks for this. I was always curious about the influence of Israeli tech in the drones here in Arizona in the late 90's.
At that time I was the technical rep for Snap-on Equipment, and I was called by TRW outside of Ft Huachuca. They needed equipment that could diagnose the computer system used in a drone, but the engine was a Moto Guzzi from Italy, and it had fuel injection on it that had been supplied by the Israelis. The fuel injection system had been stripped of all the diagnostic capability for some reason, so TRW was having a hard time diagnosing the system. I sold them a Simutech, which was this big octupus of wires that let you tap into all the PCM signals at once.
'The USA has been igniting and fuelling this arms race with ever greater use and weaponization of drones, but now the process is self-sustaining. Even if the USA should cease developments of its drone program and start decommissioning the crafts, that in itself would not stop drone armament, since several other actors would in all probability continue developments on programs that are now already in full action'
Interesting, I took it to mean that this journalist is like most others, in that he starts from the assumption that the U.S owns the world and has the right to rule it as such.
:) I certainly won't dispute that you may have been right, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
As an aside, if you were right:
Unpalatable as the sentiment may be, there is still something to the notion that the USA does have a lot of influence over major parts of the world.
I think we can all generally agree that as a nation they do have an unusual degree of possibilities to set examples and fashions, and I like it much better when the administration feels like championing human rights or restrictions on certain kinds of particularly nasty weapons than when it's bent on exporting new justifications for steps towards totalitarianism or more cost-effective ways to slaughter people.
So if people in general indeed seem to think that the USA has both possibility and some kind of obligation to do things like try to curtail a rise in drone warfare, I actually feel kind of pleased at that. To the extent that it's real, I think it's welcome, and to the extent that it's conceit, maybe it's at least a constructive one.
It is a stretch, but not a huge one. UAV tech used in the military has a high degree of variation. They use everything from custom made [1] UAVs with a lawn mower engine on up to full jet powered aircraft to the spacecraft you've linked to. The lower end aircraft are the more portable ones (can be carried into a region) and really aren't much more complex than a hobbyists RC plane. Primary difference being the sensor package and hopefully a more secure communication and control system than the typical hobbyist RC aircraft would use.
[1] EDIT: I suppose, really, all of them are custom and not COTS, yet. I meant one-off, low production UAVs with a specific application in mind. Their design standards are far lower (because of cost) and have no real maintenance plan (again, because of cost). They just need cameras in the sky in a specific area, and sending another aircraft (like Predator) out may not be feasible (cost, time, risk).
> Every country ...
Only every country that is, wants to be or pretends to be a military power.
Many (smaller) countries realized long ago that if they would end up at war with a much larger neighbour, their own military power would be of no use, and gave up on maintaining and building self-sufficient military machines.
Instead, they focus on a certain aspect of military operations, and develop and maintain that segment of their armies in order to make a somewhat meaningful contribution to a certain alliance, hoping that alliance will help them should they ever need it.
Defensive versus attacking capabilities differ very strongly though. The quagmire defense is not soo expensive, I would think. For example, Switzerland has lots of basements and guns and gun training. That just sounds like such a lame headache to take and hold.
A great example of the cost discrepancy in the context of drones: You see a "drone" flying towards you. Is it a) a dressed up $20 RC toy plane, or b) a flying bomb that can take lives or take out hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars of hardware?
Presumably, you wouldn't want to risk b), which means for every instance of a) you'd presumably end up committing resources to counter it, if the odds of b) are "high enough", where "high enough" could easily be 1% chance of a bomb or less if the 1% case is sufficiently lethal.
You could see a hidden defending force "swarming" an invader with toys with the odd highly lethal weapon in the mix very cheaply to slow an advance...
A "flock" of light unarmed vehicles surrounding with one or more armed vehicles that drop in and out of the flock to do their thing would likely be extremely difficult to deal with.
And mountains. Despite all the hideous death-dealing technology developed in the past century or so, mounting a successful invasion is still nearly as constrained by geography as it was a few thousand years ago.
“Once countries like China start exporting these, they’re going to be everywhere really quickly. Within the next 10 years, every country will have these,” Noel Sharkey
How about you change "China" to "USA" - Basically the same right? What's so wrong about China having drones that he singles them out?
Because it's the common perception that USA would never sell their weapons to terrorists or third world countries where there is little to no control over them, but China lacks such a moral compass and will sell to anyone who is willing to pay. A completely wrong perception, but there it is.
I agree - I guess my beef is that the USA have already "exported" them. Whether that's physically or just the idea of drones in general. Having said that, whoever comes up with an idea for a deadly product first and shows it to someone else is ultimately responsible, not always these so-called rogue nations.
I'm not sure he says it's wrong that China have drones - but china is already a well known supplier of technology and they havn't signed an international agreement against exchange of drone technology.
Thus, you're more likely to see China manufacturing and exporting drones to whomever wants to buy than the US.
The commenters [in the article] seem to be largely avoiding phrasing these in moral terms. It's more that the Chinese are far more willing to spread these systems than the US (at present). China's making huge inroads across the globe by spreading their technologies (for economic or military or other uses). The US already established itself as a global power. China is still growing in that regard and is trying to woo nation-states that the US or others have held or still hold significant influence over.
Something that wasn't mentioned is command & control. 1st tier militaries will have satellite communications, and be able to operate their drones world-wide. 2nd & 3rd tier militaries will have nearby ground-stations, with control capabilities limited to just-over-the-horizon.
Again, control of the high-ground is key.
With regard to PRECIPITOUS HEIGHTS, if you are
beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy
the raised and sunny spots, and there wait for him
to come up.
Certainly not trivial, and certainly not for $1K. Perhaps in 10 years like the article suggests.
However, you could probably take an off-the-shelf large R/C plane or helicopter and put a small explosive payload in it, then crash it into somewhere. Even that would be hard to do for under $1K, and range would be limited.
That drone will not be able to carry much of a payload at all. I would be surprised if you could add a few extra ounces to it without it being bogged down.
Would be a better candidate. Perhaps a small drone could drop an activated payload, but I would forget about launching anything off of them, as that would likely blow the drone out of the sky due to the thrust generated by the payload's propellant.
The big problem there is the telemetry. Make it semi autonomous - fly to target at 500', then dive straight down and detonate.
I'm fairly confident I could put together an aircraft that could travel 20km with a 3km payload and self-destruct at the destination for less than $1k.
And if it was practicable and effective it would have been done already.
The IRA experimented with this decades ago and gave up and lest be honest the average al Qaeda terrorist cell would find using human suicide bombers much easier to use.
Where are these 'al-qaeda' terror cells of yours? The ones that see their lives as having no more value than that of a housefly's? Did I miss out on the Kool Aid?
Terrorists only use the tactics their people can execute effectively which is why terry talliban use crude IED's and target soft civilian targets and don't go toe to toe with the SAS.
The IRA did experiment with RC planes as an attack vector they decided that it was not worth the effort - Car bombs and improvised mortars where a better weapon more bang for the buck
Where is this evidence you have of the IRA using drones? I assume there is some, I assume you have it, so it should be no problem to post a link, or maybe two links as single source is sometimes not good enough.
Have you been to Afghanistan? Ever met a genuine terrorist? You seem to make assumptions as if you know how these terrorist people think.
Earlier you were talking about those fictional 'al-qaeda' fellows, not to be confused with those genuine 'Taliban' (the word means 'students'). There is a difference, that is why we have these different labels and words for things, it helps us to explain what we mean. You can't just use any old words interchangeably and spell things wrongly.
Regarding your digressions...
I have been watching the news and, from what I can remember, these 'Taliban' of yours have been attacking paid up military folk and the mercenary civilian contractors sent there on some bounty hunt to support a military operation. The general idea is that, wherever you live, you attack an uninvited occupying army, it does not matter where they are from, how trans-gendered they are, whether they call themselves 'SAS' or whatever. If there are soldiers in silly little uniforms occupying your country then they are fair game to the likes of 'the talliban' (your spelling).
If I remember, the 'Coalition of the Willing', of which I guess you support wholeheartedly from the comfort of your armchair, bombed the Red Cross food depot, not once, but twice. They have also bombed plenty of wedding parties. I think you will find these are 'soft targets'.
All considered, I think it is about time you got off your armchair and went to see a bit of the real world.
"I saw it on TV once" - is that the only source you have?
Remote control planes have been around for decades - you grandfather probably had one made of things like balsa. I am sure that those Irish people were not so retarded that they did not see the possibilities of putting some Semtex in one and flying into Balmoral or somewhere. A little switch on the nose, no timing device needed. It is all imaginable. Yet, we mustn't let our imaginations get the better of ourselves. There is a distinction between reality, propaganda and imaginations of an over-active mind. This Brigade 55 of yours, met anyone in it?
And maybe you'd like to share with the rest of us exactly where you get your knowledge eh.
My point was that the PIRA one of the most effective terrorist organisations in recent times did look at model planes/drones and discarded then as not an effective weapon/tactic.
Brigade 55 are of course the circa 2000 foreign fighters imported into Afghanistan and used as a cadre.
but as you seem to be so well informed you should know that.
Heck, I can have an armed drone next month. Buy a quadrotor coptor, an Arduino kit, a camera and a GPS chip. Some software and anybody can deliver a charge to a location and make a Youtube video of the whole thing.
Its way past technology outpacing our ability to react. The brave new world is here, with such wonders in it.
But quadrotors can be dialed in to an arbitrary GPS coordinate accurately and deliver a payload. That's the whole ballgame with assassination or sabotage.
The only place a quadrotor would shine above a model aircraft in this case would be moving into a building. Any open air location would be equally vulnerable to either solution, with the model aircraft capable of bringing more to the party, as it were.
...or operating around obstacles (trees, overhangs, vehicles). Anyplace that has to be approached in anything except a fast horizontal vector, which in town is any place at all pretty much?
Add to that identifying a target visually and tracking. A plane could hit a fixed target but if its moving, a model plane could have an awful time matching speed and direction.
I guess the title should say "Every developed and some developing countries". Other countries have troubled economies that barely allow to have armed forces, let alone to purchase a new hardware.
On the contrary - quite a few poorer countries have remarkably well-funded militaries. There's a saying in Africa - "The poorer the country, the bigger the Mercedes."
> Armed aerial drones will be used for targeted killings, terrorism and the government suppression of civil unrest. What’s worse, say experts, it’s too late for the United States to do anything about it.
Yes, it would be best for only the US to have this technology, as they would surely only use it for good..
This reminds me of the story about Theodore Hall, who gave secrets from the US atomic bomb projects to the USSR, allegedly for the sake of preventing a monopoly of such power by the US and balancing out the two major power blocs to prevent one from simply destroying the other, with all the associated horrors.
Fact is, the US was a late adopter to more modern drones, or UAVs, having fallen behind countries like Israel and South Africa who had developed propeller-driven surveillance UAVs and used them operationally in combat from the late 1970s.
Both gained much experience in the use of drones to evade surface to air missiles and developed stealth prototypes, including the South African Flowchart, and began early work on weaponising them. As a result, both Israel and South Africa were early exporters of drones, selling to dozens of countries and remaining major sellers. When the US needed to acquire tactical UAVs in the 1980s, it acquired Israeli Tadira Mastiffs. It wasn't until nearly a decade later that the first Predator flew, in 1994.
Both the above countries have armed drones for sale, though refuse to publicise their sales. So even if the US were to scale back its drone research massively, it would not do anything to slow down this pace of development elsewhere, which has only increased with more countries and companies building drones and their subsystems.
It was only in 2001 that trials were first carried out to arm Predators with Hellfire missiles. Not because they were more effective weapons platforms than manned aircraft, but because the idea was to shorten the time needed between spotting a target on the UAV's cameras and hitting it with a bomb or missile.
As such, most countries don't actually need armed drones. They're slower and more vulnerable than manned combat aircraft, are not designed to dash to target areas quickly and are typically more expensive to operate than aircraft like the Embraer Super Tucano or Aerosud AHRLAC because they need more ground equipment and a ground control station. The market for surveillance drones, especially those that can provide some level of persistent surveillance, is huge and growing bigger. The number of countries specifically requesting armed drones, however, remains low.