Drones are just Airpower without the Adult Diapers - Vice News

[dimsum]

https://news.vice.com/article/debating-drones-is-dumb

Normally I wouldn't put up Vice News articles/Op-Ed pieces, but this one is a pretty good breakdown of what RPAs are (and are not). 

For those who have read the article, I will now call my microwave a "robotic kitchen chef drone". 

 

[Journeyman]

For those who have read the article, I will now call my microwave a "robotic kitchen chef drone".

And what will you call your microwave, for those of us who have not read the article? 

 

[dimsum]

And what will you call your microwave, for those of us who have not read the article? 

Heathen Skynet autonomous heating element that's taking the jobs from real heating elements  ;D

 

[Griffon]

"War should be horrible and traumatic—but not because this ennobles the spirit, or cultivates the warrior’s virtues, or creates the hardened but fully-rounded character reflective of the entire human condition. War should be horrible and traumatic because otherwise it threatens to become merely a game, or merely a job, and the consequences of warfare where only one side stands to lose are inhumane and unacceptable. [...] if humanity is worth saving, it must be because humanity is humane; in sacrificing our humanity, we give up the end in order to serve the means." - D.E. Whittkower

Giving machines the autonomy to kill makes it more of a game, it makes it easier to take the lives of others by distancing ourselves from the act.  Taking the pilot out of the aircraft and placing him at a control centre may also do something similar.  But there's also another side: the stresses of war and taking lives have also been shown to impact drone pilots much the same as they affect their in-aircraft counterparts.  However, the pilots in-theatre are always surrounded by co-workers going through the same experiences, and when they leave theatre after their tour they are removed from the environment where they experienced that stress.

When a drone pilot goes to work, he or she goes to work in the evening (daytime in theatre), spends the night conducting missions, and goes home in the morning to wish their significant other a good day before sleeping away the day.  They don't have the support and understanding of their peers around them like they would in-theatre.  And when the operation is over, they are still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress.

If you deploy the drone pilots to the operational theatre, then the effects on the drone pilots would probably be something similar to those on in-aircraft pilots; whether those effects would be lesser or not, I have no idea.  But having a bunch of un-manned aircraft flying around in-theatre, picking off other human beings with no risk to those that are operating them? That's akin, IMHO, to dropping a nuke and walking away.

Keep the pilot in the aircraft. They know the risks, and have accepted them in joining. I know I have.

 

[Loachman]

Giving machines the autonomy to kill

And who has done that?

Taking the pilot out of the aircraft and placing him at a control centre may also do something similar.

You think?

Why?

The difference between sitting in a bomber at 20,000 feet and releasing a GPS-guided bomb and sitting in a Ground Control Station (GCS) is what, exactly? Besides the increased dignity of waste elimination in the latter case, that is. The author of the article has that precisely correct.

Nobody is doing the whites-of-their-eyes strafing run thing anymore.

But there's also another side: the stresses of war and taking lives have also been shown to impact drone pilots much the same as they affect their in-aircraft counterparts.

I was never a "drone" pilot, for one. There is no such thing.

I was a UAV Mission Commander.

A "drone" is a type of UAV that is programmed before flight. The machines being discussed are another sub-species: the Remotely-Piloted Vehicle or, preferably, the Remotely-Piloted Aircraft. True "drones" are rather useless these days.

I felt no such stresses.

I've seen no indication that any of my "in-aircraft counterparts" felt them, either.

However, the pilots in-theatre are always surrounded by co-workers going through the same experiences, and when they leave theatre after their tour they are removed from the environment where they experienced that stress.

Everybody is "surrounded" by "co-workers going through the same experiences", unless they are in complete isolation.

When a drone pilot goes to work, he or she goes to work in the evening (daytime in theatre),

Yeah?

There are no set hours. For long missions, there are shifts. I was in theatre, and went in early in the morning, early in the evening, late at night, or at whatever time was required for the mission that we were running.

We tended to avoid late morning to late afternoon, though, because performance during the launch phase sucked at those times, due to the heat.

Kind of the opposite of your claim, actually.

We could launch under hot conditions, if necessary, but only at the cost of fuel and, hence, endurance.

They don't have the support and understanding of their peers around them like they would in-theatre.

Why not?

And when the operation is over, they are still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress.

Which would be the same environment to which the guy in theatre returns once his tour is over.

And the guys in theatre are also "still in the same environment where they incurred the combat stress".

The difference, again, is what? I'm not seeing it.

If you deploy the drone pilots to the operational theatre, then the effects on the drone pilots would probably be something similar to those on in-aircraft pilots;

Which, in my experience and observation, was negligible, if it existed at all.

Anyway, sorry, I'm probably missing something. You were operating what, Heron? Sperwer? Scan Eagle?

I have no idea.

This is the only thing that you said with which I agree.

But having a bunch of un-manned aircraft flying around in-theatre, picking off other human beings with no risk to those that are operating them? That's akin, IMHO, to dropping a nuke and walking away.

And what, under the appropriate circumstances, would be wrong with "dropping a nuke and walking away"?

What about gunners firing 155 mm projectiles at a target 30 k distant? The risk to them was...

Keep the pilot in the aircraft. They know the risks, and have accepted them in joining. I know I have.

Good idea.

And let's eliminate all of the other risk-reduction measures too, then.

No more helmets, ballistic vests and eyewear, ejection seats...

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." George S Patton understood more about war than you. The object of war is to win. Any other object is ridiculous. Failing to take advantage of any means to achieve the object is idiotic.

I have been accepting risks for a few decades now. I'll not accept stupid and unnecessary ones, however. Apparently, you have yet to learn that.

Modern UAVs have their place above the battlefield. There is no logical argument against that. Aside from any risk-reduction, perceived or real (we lost how many aircrew members in Afghanistan?), there is the distinct advantage of lengthy missions, allowing more coverage than manned aircraft can provide. I had the luxury of being able to watch potential targets for an hour or three in order to ensure that they were valid or not, all while sipping my tea and munching Spunkmeyers.

There is a fair number of innocent people still alive precisely because I could take that time, and be absolutely certain.

I had more than enough responsibility over life and death, but never felt any stress about it, because I could be sure.

 

[GnyHwy]

"War should be horrible and traumatic—but not because this ennobles the spirit, or cultivates the warrior’s virtues, or creates the hardened but fully-rounded character reflective of the entire human condition. War should be horrible and traumatic because otherwise it threatens to become merely a game, or merely a job, and the consequences of warfare where only one side stands to lose are inhumane and unacceptable. [...] if humanity is worth saving, it must be because humanity is humane; in sacrificing our humanity, we give up the end in order to serve the means." - D.E. Whittkower

The yellowed sentence really makes me wonder.  Is he suggesting we give them a handicap?  I don't see how evening things up and prolonging the agony is more humane than a quick and decisive win.

Also, when is it ever true where only one side stands to win, drone or no drone?  This statement might hold true for the exact moment of the strike, but the fact that the target made the list in the first place would imply that they have had some successes prior to that moment in time.

 

[Loachman]

Yup. I don't know who this Whittkower guy is, but I'll take General Patton's opinions on war over his any day.

 

[Griffon]

I don't read it as losing the war itself, but more that there is a risk of incurring a loss. Whether it be a flight crew, a platoon, whatever. It's the sentiment that there is a cost to war that matters to me, and more than a financial one. I wouldn't suggest it should be an even fight by any means, but that both sides should have a risk of significant loss. A bunch of robot drones flying around and shooting people? That's cowardly.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's a lot more discriminatory than a nuclear warhead, long range machinegun fire or even artillery (not the GPS kind ). It's way more stealthy at catching the bad guys in the act, unawares.

Besides, that's our job, to kill the bad guys. It also saves our good guys from dying. That should be enough to end the argument right there.

It's also more humane than most methods. One minute you're digging a coffee can into a road, you hear a whisper (OK more like a train) but that only lasts a second and before your brain can register you're dead, your looking at the 17, 21, 35 (whatever number they're using now) ugliest virgins, who are standing there telling you to change your clothes, have a shave and get water for dinner.

Their mother-in-laws are coming to meet you before they move in.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Most would be unaware that drones both aerial and underwater have been around since the 40's (German radio guided bomb and acoustic torpedo's and  think the acoustic torpedo has been around longer than that) oh yea lets not forget the V1 or the Japanese Fire balloons.

 

[Journeyman]

A UAV driver is less likely to drop a bomb on friendly troops, killing Canadians, then claiming "...oh, I felt my life was in danger...."

 

[Loachman]

I don't read it as losing the war itself, but more that there is a risk of incurring a loss.

Incurring losses increases one's chances of losing the war, either by depleting one's valuable human resources or losing public support at home.

Whether it be a flight crew, a platoon, whatever.

"Whatever"?

Those "whatevers" are somebody's sons or daughters or fathers or mothers or husbands or wives or brothers or sisters. Their lives count. Their families, left shattered by the risks that you value above their lives, count.

How many funerals have you attended? How many ramp ceremonies? For how many families have you struggled to find words that had some meaning, that could offer them some support, magically reduce their grief? How many friends and colleagues have you lost prematurely?

I've gone through that far too many times, as have many here, and many of them have gone through that many more times than I have, and/or lost people even closer to them.

I stood across from Mark Wilson's coffin at the cemetary, saw his young son's hand resting on it and the look in the kid's eyes, and could barely maintain my composure. That image haunts me still, and wrenches my guts everytime that it pops into my mind (like now, thank-you-very-much). My youngest son was about the same age.

"I'm sorry that your (insert relationship here) was killed, (insert title/family name here), but you can take great comfort in knowing that we made sure that it was a fair fight by not using certain technological advantages available to us".

Screw that, and anybody that thinks that "incurring risk" is a more important concept.

This is not kiddie soccer, where natural competition is sacrificed upon the altar of esteem-preservation-at-any-cost. It's win, or else.

I wouldn't suggest it should be an even fight by any means, but that both sides should have a risk of significant loss.

One dead person is very significant. And, in any conflict, I'd infinitely prefer that it was not one of my own. I have endeavoured to ensure that it was not, but rather the opposite.

A bunch of robot drones flying around and shooting people? That's cowardly.

They are not robots, and not drones. Pay attention.

Modern aircraft tend to be fly-by-wire, with computers between the pilot's controls and the aircraft's control surfaces. Now make part of that chain wireless. That is the difference. A human being controls the UAV, just as a human being controls a manned aircraft.

The target cares not one whit what it was that dropped the bomb on him. It makes no difference.

The Royal Flying Corps believed that parachutes were fit only for cowards and Artillery observers in tethered balloons, so thousands of intelligent and talented young men met untimely and unpleasant deaths during the Great War as they rode their shattered, burning aircraft into the ground, or jumped to escape the flames just like those poor sods atop the World Trade Centre.

And you think that that is a good thing?

I don't want you anywhere near me in a conflict.

In fact, I do not want you on my side, as you clearly are not. Be honest, at least, and wear he opposition's uniform.

 

[Griffon]

My sincerest apologies for some of the wording in my last post, it was made in haste.  I do not mean to make little of the sacrifices made by our members at all, and I'm sorry you took it that way.  I haven't personally known anyone that lost their life in our Operations, but I do know many that have come back changed, physically or otherwise.

I am not sure how the physical separation from the fight affects the decision making of the pilot, but it seems to me that the individual that is personally there would tend to act with more discretion as everything is much more real and personal.  Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys? Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe? Are they able to attain the same level of SA, not being personally in the environment?  I'm sure that there have been studies or papers that discuss these questions; I'll try to take some time this weekend to find some and educate myself. If I can find any, which is doubtful.

It may be old fashioned of me to think this, but I would rather be in the aircraft providing CAS to troops on the ground than control the RPA above their heads. And I would like to think they would rather a real person up there too.

Each one of us is (or should be) very well aware of the potential risks that come with this profession.  Do I want to lose my life carrying out my duty? No. I would much rather I, and everyone else that goes, come home in one piece.

 

[dimsum]

I am not sure how the physical separation from the fight affects the decision making of the pilot, but it seems to me that the individual that is personally there would tend to act with more discretion as everything is much more real and personal.  Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys? Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe? Are they able to attain the same level of SA, not being personally in the environment?  I'm sure that there have been studies or papers that discuss these questions; I'll try to take some time this weekend to find some and educate myself. If I can find any, which is doubtful.

It may be old fashioned of me to think this, but I would rather be in the aircraft providing CAS to troops on the ground than control the RPA above their heads. And I would like to think they would rather a real person up there too.

...or, perhaps, from some of us who have been UAV folks and know just how much (or little) SA we have.

I can assure you that not being physically in the cockpit has ZERO bearing on how "real" the fight seems.  UAV operators have access to all the comms methods aside from physically looking at the target with the naked eye- and how detailed would one's naked eye be at 20Kft or more?  I can also assure you that since UAV operators (sensor operator and pilot) can see with a good level of detail and have been on target for hours/days, they have MUCH more SA than the A-10 rolling in for 30 seconds.  Remember - the CAS pilot is also looking through a camera, be it on a SNIPER pod or otherwise. 

What people also seem to forget is that the UAV crew is more than just the two people operating the aircraft.  Larger ones (Predator and up) will have an entire team of Int folks analyzing the picture and other info gathered; sometimes they will pick stuff up that the operators miss.  Their job is invaluable in keeping SA of the fight and reducing casualties - more eyes/brains looking out for things that just don't seem right, and reducing the chances of dropping on the wrong folks.

As for how much the troops would rather have a CAS aircraft vice a UAV, it's less sexy than an A-10 rolling in but would you want something protecting your back 30 seconds at a time with an on-call duration of maybe a few hours, or something sitting on top of you for a day and soaking up the ground situation (there's that SA thing coming up again) and ready to drop at your call?  If I was the person on the ground, I think that I'd want the latter and not give two whits about whether the pilot is inside the plane or not, but that's just me.  As to whether it's a "real" person or not, let me ask - when you talk to someone over the phone or text them, do you wonder if the person on the other end is "real"?  I'm being facetious here but my point is that the UAV is flown/operated by people on the other end, not some random Skynet computer. 

Somewhat-related fun fact:  For those who frown on the term UAV Pilots because they aren't physically in the aircraft, that the word "pilot" has a much older meaning in the maritime world (think "harbour pilot" or the traditional nickname for a warship's Navigating Officer, none of which steer the ship these days) than in the air world. 

 

[Journeyman]

Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys? Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe?

The UAV driver has the time to think more dispassionately and seek additional input.  Feel free to Google Tarnak Farm.



Edit:  deleted harshness....comments on people posting when they haven't a clue outside their lane....you know, sensitive stuff.  :nod:

 

[Griffon]

Edit:  deleted harshness....comments on people posting when they haven't a clue outside their lane....you know, sensitive stuff.  :nod:

My first post was based on a formed opinion I had from years ago, with little research done to amend/update it in years.  So your first assertion was actually more correct, in that I "don't have a clue" about the current thoughts and views on the subject.  Loachman and Dimsum obviously have personal, real world experience with RPA operations, and so their words carry much weight with the readings I am now doing with respect to the morality of these operations, or what the media (and the subject article) calls "drone" strikes. 

But this is my lane.  Conversations about the morality of war are everybody's lane.  And, more importantly, it is my lane as I am in the military pilot occupation; I am not yet trained, but this directly affects my future.

I will have a clue.  The posts of this thread have made me rethink where I stand on RPA warfare; as a result, as I have already stated, I will be spending quite some time in the next few days reading what I can in the interest of reformulating my opinion (I'll be sure to include Tarnak Farm, thanks).  Thank you, gentlemen, for sharing your insights on the subject.

P.S.: I'm very curious what you deleted.  I normally find your harshness...refreshing.  And often quite entertaining too.

 

[Loachman]

My sincerest apologies for some of the wording in my last post, it was made in haste.

Accepted.

Thank-you.

I am not sure how the physical separation from the fight affects the decision making of the pilot, but it seems to me that the individual that is personally there would tend to act with more discretion as everything is much more real and personal.

That will, to a large degree, vary with the individual but no pilot in theatre during my time dropped on anything anyway without approval from the appropriate commander in accordance with an established process. That commander's staff would be watching the live video feed from the aircraft, manned or unmanned. They would often be watching feeds from more than one aircraft involved, and have more situational awareness than the crews of those aircraft.

It was no less personal for me in my box than for a guy in a jet at many thousands of feet above everything. He'd be watching a thermal image of the events unfolding just as I would, but wouldn't get any pizza until his mission was over. I had communication with multiple agencies and a large moving-map display, and three other people in the box with me. We could compare opinions and interpretations of what we were seeing instantly. We could take our time and get it right.

We could stop an engagement at any time, if we had the slightest doubt, and I did that more than once - and was right each time.

There was an incredible amount of care taken by all in the "kill chain" to avoid costing innocent Afghan lives as much as friendly ones. It was not, however, cumbersome, and was appropriate to that conflict.

I have over three thousand hours as a Kiowa Pilot, during which my principal role was recce plus directing artillery fire, attack helicopters, and close support fighters. I have several hundred as a police helicopter pilot as well. The principles are very, very similar.

Is a UAV driver really less likely to hit our own guys?

The difference, either way, is negligible, if it exists at all.

Or does the separation reduce the ability for the pilot to identify friendlies from foe?

Due to distance, altitude, speed, and technological factors there is no difference. None.

Are they able to attain the same level of SA, not being personally in the environment?

At least as good, tactically, and perhaps better.

Certainly better than what I had as a Kiowa pilot, as I had to dodge wires and cows and such while trying to keep mental track of my position, my No 2's position (those guys always got lost/left behind), friendly positions, and enemy positions. That was more fun, but also more frustrating and harder to do.

I cannot speak about a guy in a bomber at 20000 feet in a cramped cockpit at night.

The only situational awareness that I lacked in the box was the feel for what my machine was doing.

It may be old fashioned of me to think this, but I would rather be in the aircraft providing CAS to troops on the ground than control the RPA above their heads.

Which is natural, and understandable. I would have preferred to have been actually flying in theatre as well, but I certainly do not regret my Sperwer experience at all.

Your last couple of posts give me reason to hope.

Thank-you.

And you are probably the first target of Journeyman's "harshness" to ever ask for a repeat. That alone made it worth logging on this morning.

 

[Shrek1985]

If you won't loose anyone when you fight, why not go to war all the time?

We already live in a video game world.

We already feel nothing as a people when we go to war. No rationing, no conscription, only the families of the dead and wounded and those actually at the sharp end notice anything.

Humans care little for what happens in other places, to other people who look different and lead different lives.

No, we want to take all the skin out of the game? Yeah, this is going to go greeeeeeat.

Lee said that; "It is good that war is so terrible, we should grow too fond of it." I'm really rather positive, as a cynical student of history and human nature that if we really commit to armed drones, it will go very, very bad for us as a species. Not terminator-bad, but as in totally-disconnected from the consequences of violence-bad.

The push for drones is easy to understand; casualties=disapproval, remove the casualties from your side and no one will care. You can even point out to them how much of the money you save on training and housing human soldiers can now be spent on general vote-buying initiatives.

If you really see a pilot-less remote-controlled vehicle as being the same kind of safety measure as body armour, I got nothin; you live on a different world than I do. That's so sensational an approach to the discussion, so out there, it blows my mind, I can't engage it.

I think this is going to happen; humanity has been way too long without a really hard lesson. I can't stop it. Not like any resolution in the UN or treaty has ever actually improved anything ever; we need to learn this the hard way. Possibly over a hundred years or so. So whatever, let's get on with the decay, yes? .

Griffon, frankly, I think your initial response was closest to the mark. While the everyone-poops theory has many applications to life the universe and everything, this isn't one.

 

[Journeyman]

The push for drones is easy to understand; casualties=disapproval, remove the casualties from your side and no one will care.

Nice sentiment -- almost painful to read in its oversimplified irrelevance, but cute in a 1st-year university, Chicken Little-way nonetheless.  anic:


You believe we're on the path to Armageddon because the voters are up in arms over the massive loss of life inherent in all of the crewed fighter-bomber/ISR aircraft Canada's lost?  Providing remote on-station loiter for surveillance/reconnaissance....and occasional strike...equals taking "all the skin out of the game"?    :facepalm:




Opinion......informed opinion....    ~sigh~  :not-again:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Shrek.......the War of 1812 just called, they need you to come back and organize another slaughter so we can help save the world.