What do you think of the growing prevalence of drone and anti drone technology as it continues to proliferate in modern military operations?

SFC Josh Billingsley — Fri, 20 May 2016 14:27:22 -0400

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 20 at 2016 2:29 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Fri, 20 May 2016 14:29:22 -0400

It's the new normal.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made May 20 at 2016 2:29 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Fri, 20 May 2016 14:29:32 -0400

I think drones will become game changers like protecting ships and anti-shipping.

Response by SGT David T. made May 20 at 2016 2:33 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 20 May 2016 14:33:30 -0400

As long as they remain human controlled, I think it is great. Rain down fiery death upon our enemies with no casualty risks to us. What's not to like?

Response by Maj William W. 'Bill' Price made May 20 at 2016 2:40 PM

Maj William W. 'Bill' Price — Fri, 20 May 2016 14:40:46 -0400

On the surface, this all sounds great. Dig a little deeper, and many of you may recall the multiple drone hacks from past years. Have those problems been solved? I found one indicator that progress has been made here: http://www.defensetech.org/2014/05/21/darpa-unveils-hack-proof-drone/. So I do hope that is the case for the sake of the soldier in the field. If it isn't, we could see our own technology being turned against us. Great topic, SFC Josh Billingsley. Thanks for putting this log on the fire.

DARPA Unveils Hack-Proof Drone

The Pentagon’s research arm unveiled a new drone built with secure software that prevents the control and navigation of the aircraft from being hacked. The program, called High Assurance Cyber Mili…

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 20 at 2016 2:44 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 20 May 2016 14:44:53 -0400

We started out with two guys smacking each other. Then one guy picked up a rock. Then one wore a helmet so the rock woulnd't hurt.

Eventually it escalated so that "our" risk became minimal (drones). Now it is escalating to compensate for that.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made May 20 at 2016 3:03 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Fri, 20 May 2016 15:03:35 -0400

If it keeps troops alive , what's not to like?

Response by SFC Josh Billingsley made May 20 at 2016 3:09 PM

SFC Josh Billingsley — Fri, 20 May 2016 15:09:04 -0400

I feel like fundamental questions about the safety of these systems are still being answered. I understand there is alot of scrutiny on hackability, but I feel that this could result in something worse: the complete dehumanization of combat. When I can push a button, and a man on the toher side of the world dies, does it make it too easy to kill? They speak of video games desensitizing us to violence, what if actual violence is so sterilized on our end that we never take into account the true extent of our actions? I'm not saying I'm against drone warfare, I will always be in favor of measures that protect American lives, but I also feel that war comes at a cost that should be carefully considered and not callously disregarded. i feel that drone technology may very well lead us to disregard these human elements and make it easier for us to feel that warfare is not the necessary evil it is.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 20 at 2016 4:24 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 20 May 2016 16:24:16 -0400

Technology never stands still; if we stop innovating we will become obsolete and will be overrun by those that are still advancing.

Response by SN Greg Wright made May 20 at 2016 4:32 PM

SN Greg Wright — Fri, 20 May 2016 16:32:13 -0400

Get used to it. Within a hundred years drones will replace everything, and I mean all materiel, with the possible exception of infantry...but maybe even that.

Response by Eugen Toma made May 20 at 2016 5:51 PM

Eugen Toma — Fri, 20 May 2016 17:51:34 -0400

Unmanned systems is the way of the future. We all just need to find a balance between the good and the bad and learn to live with it. Safety and border security should priority No. 1.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 20 at 2016 6:01 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 20 May 2016 18:01:54 -0400

Cryptologic Technician Communications, Master at Arms to COMSPAWARSYSCOM. I'm a geek I love Technology.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2016 10:14 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 May 2016 22:14:12 -0400

I don't know for certain, but I think the Drones were originally created for clandestine operations and should have stayed there. The general public's right to know how we fight our battles ends at the end of their nose. We telegraph entirely TOO much information to our enemies or potential enemies. Oh, and by the way, their are enemies among us. Letting everyone know that we have a new weapon is similar to telling the enemy where the next Special Ops will launch.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2016 1:11 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 May 2016 01:11:11 -0400

I saw this coming when I was 10 years old and watched the Robin Williams movie "Toys".

Response by COL Charles Williams made May 21 at 2016 1:35 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 21 May 2016 01:35:11 -0400

I like it.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2016 6:43 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 May 2016 18:43:58 -0400

Its just next evolution in warfare. Oddly enough its not new or novel. We have been experimenting with them since 1918. In some respects the first combat drone was used in desert storm, if you think about what a TLAM is. The Tomahawk Cruise Missle is nothing more than a Kamakzie disposable drone.

No one seemed to have a issue in the 90's when we lobbed over 180 of them in the gulf. I see drones being a force multiplier. It wont replace 100% all air power. I think it will take up a significant chunk. One of the biggest limitations in a flying weapon system is the human. If you can take the human out of the cockpit you can make the system lighter faster and stronger. You can dedicate more of the space to systems versus having to implement life support systems, like ejection seats, climate control and bulky oxygen tanks. When I say take the human out of the cockpit, I am not saying taking the human out of the loop. I believe it will still be monitored and the pilot will still need to have weapon release authority.

Its only hurdle is politics. Not just from the world stage, but internally as well. It seems like in our Armed Forces history we have a bad habit of resisting new technologies as it makes certain practices in warfare obsolete. The knight and his sword became obsolete to the gun. The Cavalryman on horse back became obsolete to the tank. Many interdiction operations were battled in the air. Each one those changes with warfare was met with resistance until an aggressor decided to force the change.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made May 23 at 2016 11:24 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Mon, 23 May 2016 11:24:12 -0400

It's the future and should be embraced. On the scale of things we are with drones today where the Army was with airplanes about 10 years after the Wright brothers first flight. There are many advances in this technology ahead of us and in the long run if it makes air warfare safer for humans its a good thing.

Response by SrA Bruce Kersman made May 25 at 2016 7:58 AM

SrA Bruce Kersman — Wed, 25 May 2016 07:58:21 -0400

Any time American lives can be spared, I say yes!!! Drones must be used in a responsible way regarding targeting and civilian lives as well... I realize sometimes there is collateral damage which is totally unavoidable... We, as a country, should have declared WAR ON ISIS !!! This pitty-patty we do should have be resolved even back in Viet Nam.... RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN A WAR ARE VASTLY OUTRAGEOUS...

Response by Cpl Kevin Osborne made May 25 at 2016 8:40 AM

Cpl Kevin Osborne — Wed, 25 May 2016 08:40:34 -0400

I think that drones have the potential to reduce our casualties while getting into small obscure places, like bunkers that we were unable to before. That is, of course until the technology is sold to our enemies. In the future these things could be equipped with facial recognition and locate someone in a GP tent!

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made May 25 at 2016 9:35 AM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Wed, 25 May 2016 09:35:39 -0400

Modern military operations? Robot bombs are almost as old as gun-powder. The use of drones to conduct guesswork assassinations during a counterinsurgency operation is wrong and only creates more enemies. Right now the US seems to killing 9 civilians for every one actual "terrorist" . Those 9 are related to many other people So every time I hear of a drone strike in one of the many countries they are being used to conduct assassinations which are not "military operations" , that kills a terrorist I go , Terrific, 1 enemy dead, 99 more new ones.

Realize the USA's use of drones is not to fight a "war" or to eliminate an enemy. It is to cause more enemies to arise so the MIC and the interests of other special interests are furthered and they can grow their "war" . Which was no war to begin with, but they will eventual cause enough enemies to make it a real one, and I don't mean the fake one now occurring as pushed in the MSM or in government propaganda.

Response by MSG Mark Million made May 25 at 2016 10:24 AM

MSG Mark Million — Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:32 -0400

I am in favor of anything that helps our troops stay out of harms way. That being said, if the drone recon doesn't clearly show the way is clear or show clearly what was needed, then it needs to be noted as inconclusive and if troops go in based on inconclusive information, they should know this and be prepared based for contigincies the operator might not have been able to see.

Response by SPC Douglas Hemmingway made May 25 at 2016 11:04 AM

SPC Douglas Hemmingway — Wed, 25 May 2016 11:04:03 -0400

As long as there is a human somewhere in the decision making process I don't mind drones. However it seems that those in command are wanting to have the aeronautical and robotics engineers and computer programmers come up with more and more autonomous UCAV type drones. It seems to me the ones in charge are using certain science fiction franchises as primers and not warnings. No machine should ever be autonomous and there should always be humans involved at every decision making level of deployment of any weapons system.

Response by LTC Eric Udouj made May 25 at 2016 11:43 AM

LTC Eric Udouj — Wed, 25 May 2016 11:43:44 -0400

I would poise a question back to all in regards to the question asked. For over a decade we have been breeding over confidence in our being the global leader in this capability. and the true aspect is that those years have passed. Have we incorporated counter-drone drills at the tactical level. Are we training for the loss of tactical and operational air superiority due to drone - even while having strategic air superiority?

Response by GySgt Duane DaVein made May 25 at 2016 4:58 PM

GySgt Duane DaVein — Wed, 25 May 2016 16:58:08 -0400

I believe the use of drones in a military capacity turns warfare into butchery. History has needed warriors to fight battles for thousands of years. The difference between a man or woman at arms and a murderer is that a soldier's life is at risk on the battlefield. That makes war honorable. All members of the Armed services are at risk of death in battle. Most of us don't take real pleasure in killing our enemies. Them or us. Now the rich people who send us to war want to replace us with machines. Some little wimp on a computer can butcher someone 1000's of miles away with no risk to their personal safety. That is no war, that is murder. Tomorrow we will have terminators. How cool is that?

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made May 27 at 2016 11:16 AM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Fri, 27 May 2016 11:16:12 -0400

Drones were used by the Israelis to locate mobile and static SAM batteries, monitor enemy movements, and gather ELINT in Lebanon. The U.S. modified target drones to fly into Iraqi airspace disguised as coalition aircraft in order to test and gather ELINT of the Iraqi air defense network during Desert Shield/Storm.

What we're seeing is the logical progression into other areas of air combat as Maj. Shaun Stanton pointed out.

Take out the life support and crew escape systems, cockpit instrumentation and interface controls, you end up with a very agile combat aircraft capable of extended ranges and endurance. Removing the pilot from the cockpit increases the number of individuals that can operate these aircraft and significantly reduces the training pipeline. Flying a fighter is very physically demanding. Using RPV's means that people with physical conditions that would render them ineligible for a fighter pilot slot, yet have excellent hand-eye coordination (gamers), will be able to fill these roles.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2016 2:38 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 May 2016 02:38:53 -0400

How dare those upstart "intelligent" Americans develop weapons that would give them a FAIR advantage against those who cut off heads, kill children for playing soccer, and burning captured pilots. We simply must extinguish the competitive spirit so our orders from on high can be as explosive as possible. We must begin a program that will appeal to the wimps and wusses in the United States who instruct the children NOT to humiliate any member of the opposing team, with words such as " air ballll, air ballll, "swing batter swing" and no clapping when you win. And lets not forget the schools in NC who will no longer recognize a Salutatorian or a Valedictorian in any class. Remind our operatives in the US that exploitation of these schools is ideal in decreasing the amount of fighting spirit in the military of the US.