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

61–70 of 78 posts

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

#61

Post by praveen9920 »

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

Dr Richard Jordan Gatling underestimated human craving for violence. His prediction has accuracy of a Gatling gun.

Note: huge fan of Gatling gun

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

#62

Post by praveen9920 »

AlanSE wrote: post #32
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…

So what you're saying is that two-way communication right up until the final strike is kind of a recent thing? I wouldn't argue with the value of that, but most people don't really have the proper context to evaluate.

No. Not exactly. Having control over manoeuvrability until final strike is recent thing.

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

#63

Post by praveen9920 »

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 :)

Wishful thinking. :)

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

#64

Post by kragen »

mc32 wrote: post #57
kragen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Agreed, it would be surprising if the Zetas were able to develop hypersonic drones. But I don't think the hypersonic part is vital to their political assassination capacities.

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

#65

Post by praveen9920 »

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…

These drones can actually take away control from machines and give it to humans. Learning from history, it is not a good thing in long run. Humans are good at judging the situation but they come with bias and emotions

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

#66

Post by deathgrips »

kragen wrote: post #58
deathgrips wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weapon…

If you're avoiding war and you don't have the ability to win war, you're not peaceful or virtuous, you're just weak.

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

#67

Post by kragen »

est31 wrote: post #30
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"?

The B in ICBM stands for ballistic. That means they are mainly bound by gravity for most of their travel. Hypersonic drones on the other hand are far more steerable. Curious droid has a great video on the difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0t06EkZJcM

I definitely don't intend to deprecate modern precision-guided munitions. They obsolete nuclear-tipped ICBMs as thoroughly as ICBMs obsolete muzzle-loaded rifles. My complaint was strictly that the article's title, unbelievably, failed to mention any of the attributes that constitute that difference. It was like seeing a chimpanzee describe a sniper rifle as a fast rock thrower.

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

#68

Post by kragen »

irjustin wrote: post #36
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"?

Not sure why you're fighting so hard on this w/ other replies. How is the title misleading? The attack vehicle falls within the definition of a drone and the article is reporting on its hypersonic ability. Sure you could claim an ICBM is a drone (I don't agree, but that doesn't seem to matter), but why try exclude this from that label? Weird hill to die on just to include your grandfather's story.

Well, I guess rebutting mindless clickbait, getting insulted by idiots, and dealing with the kind of people who think "weird" is a reasonable criticism (I guess we know what table you sat at in high school, gullible pseudoscience blogger boy, and it wasn't the nerd table) seemed like it would be a fun way to spend my Tuesday night.

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

#69

Post by stubish »

noncoml wrote: post #2

Suicide drone? So... a missile?

Really strange the 'suicide drone' branding, given this War of Terror and Suicide Bombing, or WWII and Kamikaze attacks. I wouldn't have thought the US military would want to be associated with the word. Maybe they don't, but the media isn't happy with 'loitering'. I guess 'loitering' isn't much better now I think of it, with the term mostly used regarding prostitution.

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

#70

Post by memexy »

kragen wrote: post #58
deathgrips wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weapon…

Unlikely but a worthwhile goal to keep in mind and work towards.
Post reply on HN