Black Hornet another small drone heralding the end of Infantry with rifles

[rksl-rock 1301]

ECM is an obvious reply to micro drone technology but it also takes out your tech too.

Yes, but it requires a hi-tech country to produce one or at least deep pockets to buy military grade kit.

As to Iran's capability it was good enough to hack the USA's most advanced UAV,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21373353

I'm sorry but I still don't believe that Iran hacked and took over the RQ-170. I believe they salvaged a crashed UAV and exploited it for their own internal propaganda.

Even allowing the Iranians to see details of the US Drone Base in Afghanistan:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/07/287743/iran-releases-decoded-video-from-us-drone/

As for decoding the hard drives of the downed UAV, well lets be honest its not out of the realms of probability. But if you read some forums its either Iran faked the video with bits from YouTube and documentaries or its a CIA plant to mess with the Iranians.

If you are going to push one theory you have to be prepared that other theories are just as good as your own. After all there is just as much proof for any of the other theories. Even the one where Aliens are helping the Iranians. The same ones that helped the Nazis!

so either American Drone developers are stupid or the Iranians have an education system, I think you will find that as it has a higher literacy rate than the Arab world, that the answer is the latter.

I don't discount that there are many incredibly Intelligent Iranians. I met a few when I was at Uni and by and large they were some of the most analytical people I have ever met. But don't confuse literacy with education. Literacy in many Muslim states is a requirement of religious education which does not equate to scientific and technological study.

But I do find it hard to credit that a special CIA backed super secret UAV with a state of the art sensor package was flying around with no encryption, well maybe engineers and programmers are known to be lazy so simple low level encryption is a possibility. I would suggest that different sensors use different recording media. Especially if the sensors are palletised and unconnected. The on-board sensors (Optics) are probably completely separate from the mission payload eg: hi-res SAR cameras and "multi-spectral sensors" in the payload bays. So maybe the optics data which was shown wasn't considered sensitive enough to encrypt? Whos knows? Maybe we can get a statment out of the CIA :P

By the way for those who can not comprehend that Iran has an educated workforce consider it has Nuclear Power and a rocket system capable of orbital technology and building its own spy satellites and GPS system, its own vehicle and Aircraft manufacturing as well as its own electronics industry, all developed in its War with Iraq when the west was supporting and supplying Sadam while embargoing Iran. As to its Hi Tech threat level I refer you to this 2005 UN Report:

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteipc20057_en.pdf

See also:

http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program

But look at the level of technical proficiency and infrastructure compared to the west. Once you leave the large cities in Iran the scale and coverage of infrastructure reduces massively. 20-30Km outside of a major conurbation and its back to 16th century style farming. No automation etc. Its not about intelligence, which believe I do not doubt. its about the ability to exploit that intelligence to produce infrastructure and manufacturing capability to support these super hi-tech projects. Why has it taken Iran so long to do all these things if as they claim they are the equal if not superior to the "West". its simple, they dont have the same sort of infrastructure "we" have to a compete with the west and its money.

instead they appear to engage in what the western, educated (and very cynical) media see as sham propaganda stunts. eg:

Iranian Space Monkey

3 Proven Iranian PR Fakes

F-313 Criticism - Mockup and nothing else

Iran has been arming Drones since the Iran Iraq war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghods_Mohajer

So were the Germans in 1944, everyone has been doing it for years. The question is, "Is Iran's new technology comparable to the West and Israel as they claim?" I have my doubts given the level of working practical tech they have shown recently. I seriously doubt they have a comparable industrial capability to any western country at this time which is the key to large scale production for a self sufficient military nation. I still strongly believe, as professional defence analyst seems to, that Iran is not a military threat at this time but may grow to be one in the future. Ten or 20 years from now unless their stated political goals change then the US, Israel and other so called "anti-Islamic" nations will be under threat.

Consider also that Israel says the source for the drone or rocket that took out an Israeli warship was Iran.

http://guardianlv.com/2012/10/israeli-fighter-jet-shoots-down-enemy-drone-but-retaliatory-response-looms/

Iran has been, according to Israel, supplying Palestinians with increasingly complex drone technology. As the Palestinians are a vassal state to Iran in much the way Iraq was a vassal state of the US until Kuwait; and as you supply your vassals with cast off technology, not your latest stuff; it follows that what the Palestinians see is 10 to 20 years behind what Iran has.

Iran has been fighting a war against the West and in particular the US with proxies for years, be it Hezbollah, Iraqi dissidents/insurgents, Syria, Taliban and many other Terrorist groups and you name it they have either provided material or financial support. But I seriously doubt that Iran has tech that is 20 years ahead of what they are fielding in Syria and Palestine now. A lot of the drone tech being shown on TV appears to be made form commercially available parts for RC aircraft. I think Liveleak has some video of a recovered "drone" in Syria. It had Futaba servos in it. Not military grade actuators.

Iran is clearly capable with drone technology, is it top of the range high quality technology, probably not. Though we cannot be certain so beware but as I pointed out it does not have to be, quoting Stalin "Numbers have a quality all of their own" ten thousand commercial off the shelf drones would simply overwhelm the defense system of say an aircraft carrier or a company of highly trained Marines or even SEALS with all their expensive technology and training for a fraction of the cost.

I think Iran is clearly capable of exploiting commercially available technology. I seriously doubt they have the indigenous capability to make their own systems but as you say maybe they don't have to. With the right scenario and tactics a hammer is sometimes just as effective as a rifle (If you hid behind the door and whack them on the head) but you probably wont come off so well if you try standing in the street and throwing at someone 100m away.

But going back to your example..."ten thousand commercial off the shelf drones" etc. But are they capable of carrying any meaningful amount of ordinance to do a decent level of damage and do you really think they are capable of control even 5% of that number at one time in a coordinated attack. Nah I don't either.

More importantly a single drone can as easily kill a President or a General or a CEO in the west, as a Terrorist in Pakistan. A Hundred COTs drones with a shaped Charge Warheads could probably do it as easily as a multi million dollar predator with Hellfires.

Oh most definitely, in-fact there is a "new" drone out that is designed to do just that... well its meant for Terrorists but if the President/General/CEO were to piss off the operators enough... maybe they might just switch targets :butbut:

Edited February 14, 2013 by RKSL-Rock

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Mattar_Tharkari et all.

Funny you should mention the electric Fly Swater:

The Anopheles Mosquito

Payload various including the Malaria Virus which Kills 1.2 Million people every year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/03/malaria-deaths-research

The Mosquito is of course self Guiding but uncontroled where as the Black Hornet can attack a choosen target.

The payload of a Mosquito is much smaller than that a Black Hornet could carry

Something like Black Hornet could carry say a Taser charge or a hypadermic dart full of anasthetic or a spray of sarrin or other chemical agent, remember Georgi Markov, or simply a charge about the size of a single bullet flown and guided straight to the target's head.

Funny thing is people sleep and when they do their ability to use a fly swatter is somewhat diminished.

And Of course the optimum size for a current drone weapon is about that of a Dinner Plate, more than capable of carrying a Grenade, a fly swatter would not help much then.

I hope that my own nations government bodies consider such threats and future weapon developments with a degree of seriousness as this threat is real.

Kind Regards walker

[Messiah 2]

You're familiar with Newton's third law I assume...

What do you pressume will happen when something the size of the Black Hornet attempts to fire a round or taser prongs? Where does the Black Hornet magically hide the battery required to deliver a viable charge... and assuming one could, then what? All you have achieved is stunning your target, therefore requiring the aforementioned (and quickly forgotten by your tangented rambling) soldier to go in an aprehend/deal with him...

Funny thing is people sleep and when they do their ability to use a fly swatter is somewhat diminished.

Unless Obama has taken to sleeping outdoors, you've yet to answer how this destroyer of worlds is not thwarted by a simple door.

I hope that my own nations government bodies consider such threats and future weapon developments with a degree of seriousness as this threat is real.

I hope they find something better to waste their time and money on at this stage. That you're comparing millions of years of fine tuned evolution to a concept that's only been around for the best part of 70 years (at a stretch)... forget it, all your bizarre threads are utterly nonsensical.

[slatts 1978]

I still fail to see how this means the end of foot soldiers. Humans out preform computers hands down in sooo many areas, where as a drone/robot can only be specialized in a handful of areas.

Even still if this black hornet carried some sort of payload, I'll just close my windows and lock my doors and I've foiled millions of $ worth of technology! It's gonna be noisy if it wants to get in.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Slatts.

A soldier in a building is non effective, you have essentialy confined the soldier to barracks.

In reply to Messiah.

I think you are taking me a little too literaly. One merely needs to build a drone to a payload specification. Consider the Black Hornet is built to carry a payload of a camera and a radio transmiter. One would probably only need to increase the hornet by half again to carry a shaped charge sufficient to blow a hole in someones skull. Certainly existing dinner plate sized comercial off the shelf drones are capable of carrying a payload the size of a grenade.

The Dragan Fly has a payload capacity of 800g (28.2oz)

http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x8/specifications/

A complete HEDP round including projection charge and cartridge case is about 230 g the warhead weighs in at just 45 grams.

http://www.mlmintl.com/40mmHEDP-M433I.pdf

The US army is already using the Switchblade as RKSL-Rock pointed out in his post there are others too:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/October/Pages/SmallDroneCarriesAnyPayloadYouWant.aspx

Some people really need to get their head out of their ass!

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 14, 2013 by walker

[ProfTournesol 956]

Some people really need to get their head out of their ass!

I guess we all agree with you on that point.

[slatts 1978]

Hi all

In Reply to Slatts.

A soldier in a building is non effective, you have essentialy confined the soldier to barracks.

Wasn't it soldiers who took out the worlds most wanted man in building? ;) Pretty fecking effective if you ask me.

[rksl-rock 1301]

Some people really need to get their head out of their ass!

If I'm being generous here I have to say the "sensationalist" title you started this post is what is doing you down here. Nothing you have posted backs the initial statement that title makes sense. Not a single syllable.

Again I'm trying to be generous here, if you were to say it marks the rise of the drones and the end of lives wasted crossing open ground and entering buildings without proper recon then i think most would agree. But you've gone off on a fanciful tangent as usual. Micro-drones haven't come that far yet. It reads a bit like the plot of a Tom Selleck movie i watched recently. Maybe you've seen it recently too, Runaway?

Being not so nice, you are being your normal "bat-shit-crazy-but-oh-so-entertaining" self. ;)

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to RKSL-Rock. As I pointed out in the first post of the thread.

...So now I guess I had better deal with my usual controversial and thought provoking headline...

I intended to stimulate debate, it is a forum, that is what forums are for; to debate issues.

Weaponising what was once a recon platform is what has allways happened, the first balloons used to spot enemy troop movements which then became zeplins, the first powered air craft in WWI were spotter planes they quickly became armed.

That Recon platforms become weapons is just natural evolution of the payload platform. Hense the predator got the Helfire and on we go to the switchblade and others that will inevitably follow it. And Iran for one has a history of developing such platforms.

As to the reason I think it makes the battlefield untenable for the infantry soldier with a rifle. Simply cost, the deciding fator in all wars. Mass produced these future armed drones will cost little more than a rifle magazine. And they are far more accurate than a rifle bullet you can guide it right to the targets head. The first nation to do this will be as effective a shock to their oponent with the infantry and rifle as was the long bow at the Battles of Crecy and Agingourt to the French knight.

Luckily many in the defense community realise this:

http://defense-update.com/features/2010/december/31122010_suicide_uavs_5.html

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/21/bird-like-microdrones-poised-to-swoop-into-battle/

And Who could forget those swarm Drone Videos.

http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/creepycool-video-tiny-uavs-flying-in-formation/

Right up to the top:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/future-warfare/all/

And the Taser armed Drone is already here:

http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/21/tased-from-above-new-robot-copter-to-begin-patrolling-our-skies-video/

I could go on but you get the idea by now I presume.

No I have not watched the film you mention nor to the best of my knowledge any film written by Tom Selleck.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 14, 2013 by walker

[Lauxman 10]

Are these drones going to tell the commanders who use them who is a combatant and who isn't? Are they going to conduct shuras? How reliable will they be? I know that Predators are relatively reliable, but smaller UAS are notorious for just randomly losing signal and crashing.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe some people just do a little search about how many drones crashed or were lost in recent conflicts/wars? How reliable are those mini drones in real world and combat conditions today? Or is it just that some people take the advertisments/marketing of the industry a bit too serious and trying to make some sensational news/articles and forum discussions about?

[Messiah 2]

Maybe some people just do a little search about how many drones crashed or were lost in recent conflicts/wars? How reliable are those mini drones in real world and combat conditions today?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/12/450-british-military-drones-lost

As always, taking the guardian at face value.

Or is it just that some people take the advertisments/marketing of the industry a bit too serious and trying to make some sensational news/articles and forum discussions about?

Some just seem to enjoy making mountain's out of molehills/the sound of their own voice.

As to the reason I think it makes the battlefield untenable for the infantry soldier with a rifle. Simply cost, the deciding fator in all wars. Mass produced these future armed drones will cost little more than a rifle magazine. And they are far more accurate than a rifle bullet you can guide it right to the targets head. The first nation to do this will be as effective a shock to their oponent with the infantry and rifle as was the long bow at the Battles of Crecy and Agingourt to the French knight.

That's pure conjecture, you're making this up as you go along.

[instagoat 133]

The reason I put these drones in my "Arma 3 tech" thread is that Arma 3 is taking place in 2035.

Even then, drones will not replace infantrymen. And, in a fully blown war, costs will drop rapidly, simply because everything will be streamlined to bare necessities (or in the case of germany, made less reliable while remaining complex and difficult to maintain. Case in point, first employment of Tiger and Panther.).

Drones are useful for surveillance, area and pinpoint, patrol, area denial, ground support, supply and SAR purposes.

Drones cannot take ground, they cannot hold ground and they cannot defend ground. For those reasons alone, they will not replace soldiers on the ground who can intelligently and rapidly make the call.

If you want to see what an army of drones would look like, put down a bunch of tanks in Arma and let them try to navigate a town. That´s about what you´ll get.

And even in the long term, when these systems will be perfected, the points I stated above will not have been changed one bit. Drones are a support weapon of the infantry, like every other arm of the military, in the grand picture. They will be specialty weapons like tanks, fighterbombers and warships. There´s a reason why the Infantry is called the Crown of all battlefield arms.

[krycek 349]

Well it's the same type of discussion like "air superiority would replace the need for ground units","tank is obsolete","all we need is artillery","future is light mobile units" and so on and on.What these people fail to understand is that warfare is an ecosystem,each "arm" has its role or is an addition.Mini drones are here because they complement the scouting process for infantry.

Jeez swarm of drones???C'mon.:j:

Maybe I should go to the shop and buy a few thousands rc copters,world domination here I come.

[antoineflemming 14]

Wasn't it soldiers who took out the worlds most wanted man in building? ;) Pretty fecking effective if you ask me.

Nope. Soldiers didn't kill bin Laden. Sailors... ;)

[slatts 1978]

If we must be technical ;) Highly trained sailors would could kill you with a twig :p

[scrim 1]

If anyone believes this will be the end of the infantry, all I can say is that people have predicted the end of the infantry since WW1. Considering how many times it has been extremelly disproved by now, it just becomes older and older and more ignorant every time it's said. Infantry is the one combat arm that has without a single pause dominated warfare since the Greeks formed the phalanx formation almost 3000 years ago and essentially smacked the cavalry in the face with red hot frying pan. No one has ever won a war without infantry, or even been able to put up the most basic defence without infantry.

Imagine pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait without infantry. Not gonna happen, because they're going to overrun your airfield the moment your planes start acting hostile.

It won't change when the North Koreans or Iranians are being pushed back, it's not gonna happen without infantry, no matter how many Norwegian drones you buy.

If you buy thousands of these, you're going to need several persons to make up shifts for piloting just the individual drones, you're going to need hundreds and hundreds of thousands of personnel to maintain them, repair them, fly them from and to the battlefield, not to mention that there are going to be tens of thousands that will have to be sent back to the factory for advanced repairs that can't be performed in the AO, meaning that the manufacturers will be positively burnt out before repairing even 1% of them. Just like how planes and tanks never replaced the infantry but came to support them, these drones will at best be issued one or two per platoon on the paper, and even less IRL to be used by the unit out in the field at the commander's discretion. That's a bloody long shot from replacing the infantry...

Edited February 15, 2013 by scrim

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Debate about the increasing use of Smaller and more complex drones and the ethical and practical questions it raises is a controversial one. The increasing automation of the battlefield and the increasing levels of autonomous self governing robots taking the decision of when to kill is clearly a topic of discussion worthy of being debated in the Oftopic section of this forum.

That debate is now also being had in the wider world as this BBC report shows:

4 March 2013 Last updated at 00:23

Robot warriors: Lethal machines coming of age

By Jonathan Marcus

BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

The era of drone wars is already upon us. The era of robot wars could be fast approaching.

Already there are unmanned aircraft demonstrators like the arrow-head shaped X-47B that can pretty-well fly a mission by itself with no involvement of a ground-based "pilot".

There are missile systems like the Patriot that can identify and engage targets automatically.

And from here it is not such a jump to a fully-fledged armed robot warrior, a development with huge implications for the way we conduct and even conceive of war-fighting...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21576376

As always follow the link to the original text in full

The debate is an important one and to those who say no it will never happen I would put it to them that: the French Knights before the battle of Agincourt thought exactly the same about the Longbow and Bodkin Point as you do about a swarm of dinner plate sized drones armed with a shaped charge, and both will result in the same effect.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 4, 2013 by walker
clarity

[dm 9]

I would say that the debat on robot autonomy requires or even deserves its own, bullshit free, thread for proper discussion...

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to DM as I pointed out in reply to RKSL-Rock where I pointed out that in the first post of the thread I made it clear why the headline was important.

...So now I guess I had better deal with my usual controversial and thought provoking headline...

I continued, linked below:

...I intended to stimulate debate, it is a forum, that is what forums are for; to debate issues...

By the way title of the thread parts emboldened for emphasis:

Black Hornet another small drone heralding the end of Infantry with rifles

As to whether we are talking the end of all infantry in the field that is a more complex question about whether to risk a soldiers life in the field and whether it is economic and needful I would submit that it requires the redifining of what is an infantryman in the field? And that the flexibility of the human mind and body lend themself to dealing with that which is not programed or previously encountered but as to numbers and the rifle, I think their time other than as a ceremonial device will soon pass. I think the future soldiers weapon is far more likely to be a backpack full of drones of various sizes and fuctionality; and a universal control mechanism, than a rifle.

Kind Regards walker

[NoRailgunner 0]

walker - please define what is "soon" and what is "future" - next year, decade, century or millennium? Have a look what kind of drones/robots are just used as testbed/prototypes or demonstrators and what is really in "done" = in use/fielded (not in somekind of test/trial program!!). How many drones/robots do assist soldiers and how many are replacing them (= intentionally designed + made to replace soldiers)??

[scrim 1]

The debate is an important one and to those who say no it will never happen I would put it to them that: the French Knights before the battle of Agincourt thought exactly the same about the Longbow and Bodkin Point as you do about a swarm of dinner plate sized drones armed with a shaped charge, and both will result in the same effect.

Kind Regards walker

The differance is that the French knights at Agincourt A, weren't infantry but were rather beaten by infantry, and B, completely disregarded any sensible tactics and charged right into what they should've known was a death trap, with lousy terrain for them.

The BBC just demonstrates that sheer stupidity and ignorance continues to dictate what they write about military matters in that article. An AA system that, provided it's allowed to, can lock on and fire automatically against targets that come to it, or a drone that has an autopilot, are both far cries from a "robotic warrior" that freely roames the battlefield, killing anything it doesn't recognise as friendly.

[maturin 12]

The debate is an important one and to those who say no it will never happen I would put it to them that: the French Knights before the battle of Agincourt thought exactly the same about the Longbow and Bodkin Point as you do about a swarm of dinner plate sized drones armed with a shaped charge, and both will result in the same effect.

Ok, so your analogy is completely non-historical, but I know that Agincourt wasn't the point.

You also failed to notice that a bodkin is a tiny lump of metal, replacing a professional warrior who requires acres of land, dozens of retainers, hundreds of peasants and an entire family tree to support him. As a weapon system, a single unit takes a generation to produce, and is the only output of the entire political system. He's ripe to be replaced by a swarm of cheap bodkins or bullets.

Unfortunately for your analogy, you're advocating replacing the archers with even greater numbers of kamikaze knights who are drastically more complex and expensive, and self-destruct. Oh, and who are nigh uncontrollable.

I could entertain the idea that the proliferation of such small drones could trigger the end of small unit actions by unarmored elite infantry units, or further erase the distinction between civilian and combatant in warzones. That is, it's worth killing a highly trained American soldier with such a drone, but we can still field vastly greater numbers of conscripts with (by then, much better) rifles and ECM devices. And even a beggar with a gun will always have superior capabilities navigating tactical spaces than an autonomous robot. But for the foreseeable future we lack the resources, AI technology, heck, even the rare earth metals to revolutionize warfare like this. By the time it is feasible, any number of emerging technologies will have already done that, that, making direct comparisons with the status quo idiotic.

But a forum topic tagline that stupid is good for getting views.

[MissionCreep 12]

Didn't tanks already end the use of infantry in 1918? No - they developed tactics and countermeasures against them. Infantry could be protected by a swarm of similar autonomous robots or by ECM. On the lighter, side what could be a lot of fun would be black hornet skeet shooting.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Civilian use of Drones will be a major driver in the debate:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729066.200-backlash-against-civilian-drones-begins.html

I think the argument about about the myth of privacy in the US is a dead one. :( When US citizens are already watched by private contractors acting on behalf of big corporations with an increasingly corporate controled congress, occasionaly contracted by government though more often not. You are watched via the internet and your mobile phones, one has only to think of Carrier IQ and the FBI's secret involvement in it, you sign away your rights every time you tick the licence enrolment box on a web page or sign for a new mobile phone hidden in the small print is a legalese that says they can f**k you up the ars* when ever they want to, as Mark Zukerberg said "Privacy is Dead."

Kind Regards walker