Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#51

Post by deathgrips »

kragen wrote: post #31
praveen9920 wrote: post #19

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

Everyone should just get along and not produce weapons :)

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#52

Post by mc32 »

kragen wrote: post #48
mc32 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tell it to the Zulus who got massacred by early machine-guns or the Congolese who couldn't successfully rebel against the atrocities of King Leopold's machine-gun-armed forces, the atrocities that inspired Heart of Darkness . Even before the opposing side caught up (around 1965, by my reckoning) the effect of the machine-gun was precisely the opposite of "exposure to battle and disease [being] greatly diminished". So…

I made no implication on justice or fairness. My implication is that the side with the upper hand afforded by this machinery would enjoy less battle induced disease and losses. It’s not a revelation.

What it can do though is make the possessor overconfident and while the battle numbers are in your favor, you may yet not have the stamina to win the war—unless you’re completely ruthless.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#53

Post by Ras_ »

dang wrote: post #39
kragen wrote: post #18

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.

Here's the original non-paywalled one. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/sensors-electronic-wa...

This twitter thread has most of the relevant new info that was added after the first article: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1270068190224232450

OSD budget entries: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... (feb 2020) & https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... (first public appearance feb 2018)

It could be a tactical ballistic missile (MLRS/HIMARS launched) payload because the slide's 100k-200k target can't include the launch missile (ATACMS missile 800k each, cruise missiles too expensive as well). Not necessarily just a kinetic one since ISR is mentioned. Surveillance platform that's sometimes a bomb, under an unclear amount of human control? Quite a terrifying idea.

At least one similar looking drone delivery project from the 2000s with an ICBM was terminated because it couldn't be guaranteed that it wouldn't look like a nuclear launch.

This article from May 28 is also worth a glance. "SWARMS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: THE CASE FOR DECLARING ARMED AND FULLY AUTONOMOUS DRONE SWARMS AS WMD" https://mwi.usma.edu/swarms-mass-destruction-case-declaring-...

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#54

Post by kragen »

mc32 wrote: post #49
benaiah wrote: post #15

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.

No one is going to stop development for fear the other will have the advantage. 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 o…

Not the big nuclear powers — they should be relatively easy to get onboard, because preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons is comparatively easy compared to preventing proliferation of drones. The ones to watch are the smaller countries who have in effect lost their sovereignty to the nuclear powers: maybe Colombia, but also Taiwan, Canada, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Bangladesh.

More worryingly: Daesh, Baruch Goldstein's fan club, the next Anders Breivik, the janjaweed, Boko Haram, Voluntad Popular, antifa groups, the collectively fired Minneapolis Police Department, the Hells Angels, MS-13, etc.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#55

Post by SupriseAnxiety »

benaiah wrote: post #15

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.

I was thinking of this video, why don’t they just give all the gamers a replaceable robot to control from far away. Or why electronics are all? Literally just use an EMP and level the playing field. Mechanical>Electronic in this instance

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#56

Post by kragen »

mc32 wrote: post #52
kragen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell it to the Zulus who got massacred by early machine-guns or the Congolese who couldn't successfully rebel against the atrocities of King Leopold's machine-gun-armed forces, the atrocities that inspired Heart of Darkness . Even before the opposing side caught up (around 1965, by my reckoning) the effect of the machine-gun was precisely the opposite of "exposure to battle and disease [being] greatly diminished". So…

I made no implication on justice or fairness. My implication is that the side with the upper hand afforded by this machinery would enjoy less battle induced disease and losses. It’s not a revelation. What it can do though is make the possessor overconfident and while the battle numbers are in your favor, you may yet not have the stamina to win the war—unless you’re completely ruthless.

The reason I brought up those situations is not that they were unfair — although they were, that wasn't the point. It's because Gatling predicted that his wonderful invention would diminish exposure to battle and disease overall, reducing the total of harm done by warfare to humanity — not just to the winning side.

He was spectacularly, world-changingly wrong about that.

In the same way, praveen9920 is predicting that "suicide drones…actually means limiting collateral damage". "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for mass-murdering civilians on the side of the military you are nominally fighting against, which is a war crime if done intentionally.

Praveen9920's optimistic predictions are likely to turn out to be catastrophically mistaken, like Gatling's, and for very much the same reason.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#57

Post by mc32 »

kragen wrote: post #54
mc32 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is going to stop development for fear the other will have the advantage. 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 o…

Not the big nuclear powers — they should be relatively easy to get onboard, because preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons is comparatively easy compared to preventing proliferation of drones. The ones to watch are the smaller countries who have in effect lost their sovereignty to the nuclear powers: maybe Colombia, but also Taiwan, Canada, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Bangladesh. More worryingl…

I agree there, except for the domestic organizations. They could develop crude drones but not the hypersonic loitering kind —I’m not even sure they’d need that. Hypersonics only make sense when you need to penetrate stiff air defenses and get to destination to neutralize the big armament from reaching altitude.

They could be used by the US, Russia, China, India, Pak, Israel to “decapitate” “rouge” regimes incapable of retribution.

Mexican and ukranian drug orgs? maybe crude non hypersonic for whatever political purpose.

Or imagine the ndraghetta having the crude variety during the time they tried offing magistrates quicker than the state was able to convict the perps... or the Italian red brigades...

!!

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#58

Post by kragen »

deathgrips wrote: post #51
kragen wrote: post #31

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

Everyone should just get along and not produce weapons :)

To the extent that those of us who are making a positive contribution to society can slow down and impede the progress of those who are working to put more and more power in the hands of trained killers with more advanced weapons, we will have a better future with less destructive conflicts. Of course it is better to impede the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at you than the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at them.

Eliminating weapons entirely seems unlikely.

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#59

Post by mc32 »

kragen wrote: post #56
mc32 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made no implication on justice or fairness. My implication is that the side with the upper hand afforded by this machinery would enjoy less battle induced disease and losses. It’s not a revelation. What it can do though is make the possessor overconfident and while the battle numbers are in your favor, you may yet not have the stamina to win the war—unless you’re completely ruthless.

The reason I brought up those situations is not that they were unfair — although they were, that wasn't the point. It's because Gatling predicted that his wonderful invention would diminish exposure to battle and disease overall , reducing the total of harm done by warfare to humanity — not just to the winning side. He was spectacularly, world-changingly wrong about that. In the same way, praveen9920 is predicting th…

Right so my point is Gatling was right but not completely right. He was right that it could minimize the need for military personnel on the possessors side, rather than overall reduction (which is more or less fantasy, but may have some truth if the foe gives up earlier than they would if they thought they had some chance at winning, though like I said overconfidence can result in difficulties incurred by going further than prudent —for your side).

Re: U.S. Army Vintage Racer Concept Suggests Hypersonic Entry For Loitering UAS

#60

Post by praveen9920 »

ra7 wrote: post #40
praveen9920 wrote: post #19

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…

Missiles like Brahmos or P800 Oniks (on which the former is based) have 1-1.5 meter CEP accuracy. They can also hit a moving target using mid course navigation. They are accurate alright, though a bit overkill for scenarios where drone attacks could be used. Agreed with rest of the points.

accuracy reported are usually from standard test conditions. In practice, deviation is high.
Post reply on HN