41–50 of 78 posts
As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?
As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?
We can use the title from https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapo... , which is the article this one is lifting from. I'd change the URL also, but it seems to be hard paywalled.
Current cruise missiles are optimised for long range but not for final target accuracy, they actually use onboard offline terrain data to cruise to their target. Accuracy of 99% is considered bad as it might mean collateral damage. Also final target is predefined and aborting or changing target is non-trivial. With these so called "suicide drones", human operators can actions based on current situation, like, pinpoin…
> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished. — Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling
So he was right but it only holds true while you maintain the advantage.
As I understand it, my grandfather helped to develop a suicide drone that got to its target area at hypersonic speed in the late 1950s. For the Pentagon. It was called the Minuteman ICBM, and it entered service in 1962. Is it possible to get a less misleading title on this article than "Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed"?
So it's a one time use drone with a high speed delivery system.
Suicide drone? So... a missile?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished. — Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling
You have a point, but he wasn’t completely wrong. Though it contains the assumption your advantage is indefinite. In reality the foe catches up. So he was right but it only holds true while you maintain the advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because it can loiter in the air for up to 2 hours in the target area before destroying its target.
So the difference between a missile and a drone is that one can fly in circles a little long than the other?
At that time, it initiates a secondary boost motor and attacks.
We didn’t used to call this a suicide drone; we called it a loitering munition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished. — Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling
You have a point, but he wasn’t completely wrong. Though it contains the assumption your advantage is indefinite. In reality the foe catches up. So he was right but it only holds true while you maintain the advantage.
The message of "Slaughterbots" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA ) seems both more prescient and more urgent than ever given this news. Our continued reckless development and deployment of autonomous weaponry without thought to the consequences is deplorable, and its consequences could be staggering.
For controls on this to work, there would have to be a treaty governing development among the big nuclear powers —then they with their big sticks dictate the rules to the rest.
In the vacuum of that everyone will feel they have to develop or get left behind.
Additionally something like this (the enabling of political “decapitations”) is only seriously countered by MAD. So nothing would keep Colombia from developing their own and taking out Maduro for example if they were reasonably sure a better alternative would rise in VZ.
Suicide drone? So... a missile?