Comments on: Drones: America's new Air Force

"60 Minutes" reports on the increasing use of Predators and other UAVs in the battlefield--piloted from an airbase in Nevada.

[capnvan]

This article has a few issues.

1. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death had nothing to do with UAVs. One of his associates was captured and convinced to betray his safehouse. His safe house was kept under surveillance, but that could have been done by virtually any surveillance asset. The UAVs played no active role in discovering his whereabouts or his death. If anything, it was a tribute to very old-fashioned human intelligence work, precisely the opposite of the increased reliance on airborne, unmanned assets.

2. If the UAV has changed the face of war, someone has yet to tell the USAF. While there are 28 Reapers in the inventory, we're well on our way to 187 F-22s. That would be the vehicle which, since entering active service in 2005, has been tasked with precisely 0 combat missions despite our being in 2 wars.

3. Using a Hellfire missile, which was designed for anti-tank operations, against an individual sniper is a disturbing misuse of resources.

4. '"What if you get it wrong?" Logan asked.
"We don't," Gough replied.
"Ever?" Logan asked.
"That's a tough question," Gough said after a pause. "Yeah. We have the resources to make sure we're right. In battle, in combat, in the fog and friction of war, there are always gonna be times that your judgment isn't with hindsight, you can see things with more clarity." '

I'm not sure if Gough was poorly quoted, but since we know that UAVs have played a role in some of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan, either his response as written is a misquote, he is highly deluded, or he outright lied.

[tbonehauer]

1. Umm...source? I would say that if the UAV's were used to track his whereabouts so that he could be captured...that would be about as active of a role as you could expect from any manned or unmanned aircraft.

2. Someone has yet to tell the USAF even though in the article Chambliss states that the Air Force is going to buy more unmanned aircraft than it will manned aircraft.

3. If that sniper had killed even one american soldier you would probably be the first person to complain because the air force had a reaper on station that DIDN'T fire its hellfire missiles on that target.

4. As others have pointed out, yeah mistakes will happen, 1000 civilian casualties is pretty low considering how long we've been involved in both of the current wars. Compare those casualties to the ones when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The best we can do is try to minimize civilian casualties, and having an aircraft that can observe for 24 hours at a time is going to significantly reduce the civilian casualties in future conflicts.

[rpen25]

It depends on where the sniper is in relation to our troops. A very cleverly hidden sniper using hard structures for cover sometimes can only be taken out with an airstrike. Yes, it seems illogical and maybe even excessive, but that's how dangerous a sniper is. A sniper can literally stop an entire brigade of troops. They're THAT demoralizing AND deadly. Without a good location on him and the means to kill the sniper, it's almost impossible not to incur losses. They say the best way to take out a sniper is with another sniper. If you haven't got one of your own there, the second way would be to use mortars or grenades. But grenades (either hand-thrown or self-propelled) or mortars aren't exactly pinpoint accurate, not to mention limited in range. You can loft one over cover, but there's no guarantee that it'll hit and kill him (if it even reaches him). A sniper is trained to move his location after every shot to avoid being located. A sniper is also usually armed with a high powered rifle and scope that can strike further than standard issue assault rifles. Tanks and other armored vehicles sometimes have to be called in. But they're not always available or close enough. I agree that dropping a 5,000 lb. bomb is excessive. But a 500 lb. bomb isn't. If an aircraft has a lock on a sniper, I would definitely call in an airstrike versus going Rambo and trying to outshoot a hidden sniper with an itchy finger.

[rpen25]

The man isn't going to say, "Yes, it's a crapshoot every time we pull the trigger." That's just not going to happen. Everyone knows that war is hell. Innocent people die in war. Friendly fire happens in war. That's why war should only be used as a last resort. But he's not going to give the enemy any ammunition in a war of propaganda to sway the course of the war. That's the reality. It is propaganda, but I'll tell you that it's 1000x better than carpet bombing. Entire cities were leveled, their populations almost entirely wiped out, just to destroy a ball bearing factory or munitions depot.

[SIGHUP]

UAV are only so good with people driving them. What we need to do is get a computer system to drive the UAV. We could call it SkyNet.

[rpen25]

That is an awesome idea. Later, we could allow this "Skynet" to be in charge of our nuclear weapons arsenal. That way, there will be NO WAY human error can come into the mix and accidentally start armageddon! You sir, are a genius!

[sparrowhyperion]

These things are a recipe for disaster....

[disco-legend-zeke]

A couple things:

1. There is now a sniper UAV chopper, a much cheaper, lighter RC with a high powered rifle. The advantage being the ability to take out a single target with minimal collateral.

2. Controlling military aircraft missions from Indian Springs makes it a bonafide military target. Not exactly inspiring to potential Las Vegas tourists.

[rpen25]

Um...there are numerous military bases ALL around big cities in America. Lackland AFB in San Antonio, TX. That's where ALL new airmen get basic training. Pearl Habor, another place that has already seen an attack, is a big Naval base.

It is almost IMPOSSIBLE for any country to attack US cities with conventional weapons without the US' early warning system being on alert. NORAD watches the skies over N. America and can track virtually everything. Not to mention any army building up it's forces at our borders would have to do so either in Mexico or Canada. Last time I checked, they didn't allow foreign armies on their territory. Two, since 9/11, security at military bases has been ramped up considerably. It is very hard to successfully carry out an attack on a US military base. You might kill some of the guards at the gate, but it's very hard to successfully put an entire air base out of commission without resorting to NBC (nuclear, biological or chemical) attacks. Even then, the personnel have protective suits and are trained to be able to work and defend the base wearing them. Not to mention the base having trained military personnel with deadly military hardware at their disposal ready to fend off attackers. It would just be stupid. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, because there have been attacks on our bases worldwide and attempts here in the States, but it wouldn't prevent us from carrying out our mission even if there was a successful attack.

f anything, the Pentagon would be a more likely target as it is the central point for military operations for the US. And, unless you didn't know, there is extensive security around Washington, DC and any plane or aircraft unauthorized in the no-fly zone would immediately be met with F-16 fighters. There are also rumors that the military has set up surface to air missiles around Washington DC in case someone is on a suicide mission. But that's purely speculation.

[shootfirst]

LOL skynet. Here is what I didn't see is how safe is it to operate these planes since they are remote controlled. Technology may not exist to hack into them yet, but time is a sensitive thing. The UAVs can go weaponless, but the fact that they travel so fast and have such fantastic operation will allow people to just take control and use the UAV as a weapon itself.
Point blank not being in the battle it gives pilots the ability to disassociate themselves from the battle. Bombing is hard when you are in the plane and can see the results of what you do, but the best thing for the military is they can order strikes and then hide the outcome since the pilot is never really there and digital footage can easily be altered or replaced. Why do you think they have the pilots sitting in the US instead of putting them in the country they are blasting and if one pilot there doesn't do it, transferring command of a UAV isn't that hard unlike a pilot actually up in the air. There have been several sci fi movies that reach into how remote bombing and everything works.
I think UAVs are awesome for recon, but to use them to actually blow up targets is something that should be considered as like they said there is no reset button and it is hard to discern what you see on that screen as opposed to what is really on the battlefield. To relate there is supposed to be more solar storms in the coming future and to have a UAV armed during something like this might bite them in the butt hard.

[rpen25]

It's not because of that. It's because moving all the equipment necessary to communicate and control the UAVs is expensive and unnecessary. Why spend all that money on moving the equipment into the theatre of operations when it could be kept relatively safe in the US without the threat of an attack on the base? The equipment isn't exactly "handheld".

PS...those infrared screens are being used by real pilots everyday. Forward looking infrared cameras are used on gunsights and missiles to track and target enemy units from long range. Air to ground radar is used to lock on to structures on the ground when the pilot is too high above the ground to see with his own eyes. BVR, or beyond visual range targeting is used by fighter pilots to engage and destroy enemy aircraft farther than the human eye can see. So in essence, modern war has already shifted into the "Nintendo" phase already. Everything is already like a video game.

[rpen25]

A weapon going off due to a solar storm is highly unlikely. An unarmed bomb can be dropped from altitude and not explode on impact. This safety feature helps bombers and other attack aircraft evade attack from other aircraft. By dropping their load and external fuel stores, an F-16 for example can get away if outnumbered because it's load was lightened by a few hundred thousand pounds. The bombs are basically inert until they are armed. The weapons CAN go off, but it is highly unlikely due to all the safety mechanisms put into place to prevent accidental detonation.

[krollins83]

For those of you that seem to think this can be done without mistakes, you need to take another look at whats going on in these wars. We're dealing with an enemy that has intentionally blends in with a civilian population, has used them for shields in the past, and wants civilian casualties so they can use them as propaganda.

The best way to be "sure" about something, if these is such a thing in these situations, is to be able to take our time in the surveillance - something we can't do with manned jets. Sometimes it's obvious (smoking, white gun), sometimes it's not, but these UAV's give us the best chance of getting it right.

[zmonster]

The US military has killed almost 1,000 innocent Afghani civilians using these idiotic drones in the past two years.

[krollins83]

Care to cite a source on that? Or did you just sort of "pull that one" from somewhere?

[SIGHUP]

SkyNet has not been invented yet so those Drone are still piloted by humans. Basically even if that number that you 1000 pull out of your ass number was right, those people still would have died from a manned aircraft.

[efd39]

The war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban will not stop just because they use drones or not. The weapon alternatives to drones are likely to kill a lot more innocent people which is why they get used.

If only the Taliban and Al Qaeda cared as much about harming innocent people, there wouldn't be a war at all. And no, I don't think growing opium to poison people for money and disfiguring teachers/killing leaders to maintain control are the hallmarks of innocence or even freedom fighters repelling "invaders".

[slickuser]

These are useless when waging war against a country with army like Iran. They will shoot down them. It will not be easy to violate their air space...

Fortunately for Americans, the Taleban in Pakistan ran out of launchers (I forgot the name of it, the one Americans provided to them) they used against Soviet planes....

[madmindset]

Don't be so sure about that. I remember reading about the Global Hawk UAVs doing surveillance flights over Iran and being mistaken for UFO's. I think they fly around 50K to 60K feet up and have a 30+ hour flight endurance.

[rpen25]

What kind of army does Iran have? One that is immune to bullets and bombs? They may have a million+ man army. But that's why God invented cluster bombs, land mines and Napalm. They're extremely effective at incurring large amounts of casualties on infantry and armored units.

[efd39]

You don't need them until after all the anti-aircraft weapons have been blown to bits... just like what happened in Iraq. Until then, satellites do just fine.

[terminalblue]

this article was written by a drone, lol

[breakaoss]

It is war! People die during war. 1,000 civilian casualties? That's it? Give me a break. Compare that to times when all we could do is carpet bomb a place.

[Dr_Zinj]

Stinger missiles won't do much good against a target 10,000 feet or more in altitude as 10K is it's maximum altitude it can reach. It has a range of 8 km, but that doesn't do much good unless you have line of sight to the target.

Friendly Fire Isn't. While the drone operator doesn't have to worry about being killed, injured, or captured, and consequently has more time to consider his (or her) moves, and reduce the possibility of accidently killing our own people; accidents do happen. We will have instances where the operator, or the commander, orders the strike and ends up targetting our people instead of the enemy. There will also be instances where they strike innocent civilians instead of the enemy.

The disassociation of the operators and commanders from the results of a bad strike is disturbing. It's too easy to blow off blowing up a bus load of children when you're 7000 miles or more away. And when you use a hellfire missile to destroy a house and everyone in it (women, children, infants) just to kill one terrorist, that's an attrocity. There's a reason why we have snipers. It puts accuracy, and 'humanity' into surgical strikes.

Most disturbing is the use of these platforms against non-military, non-criminal civilian targets. If it hasn't happened already, it will. There should be a civilian oversight organization over the use of ALL of these drones; whether military, CIA, or other entity.

[zdr93523]

The disassociation of what you know and what you think you know is astounding! Much of our public opinion (see some of the above posts) is based on the opinions of a few people that actually know nothing about what they are talking about!

Your opinion and reality are two completely different things, don't poison others minds with a rant about a topic that it is obvious to some that you know only what you are spoon fed by the media.

This was a good, objective, informative article.

[Dr_Zinj]

I certainly hope zdr93523 comment was an accidental reply to mine and that he/she/it intended it as a reply to the article.

There is no disassociation of what I know and what I think I know. My technical knowledge is sound and in the public domain, as is my psychology.

You want credentials?

MSgt, USAF (Retired) should be more than enough.

[efd39]

There is and always has been civilian oversight of the military--its called the Secretary of Defense, the President, and Congress... all civilians and all either elected directly or appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It was designed that way from the beginning of US government to ensure the military remained a tool of the government rather than becoming the government itself.

There is less disassociation for a pilot who has to watch the footage from a zoomed in lens than a B-52 pilot who drops carpet bombs from altitude and never sees the direct damage. Though not covered in this article, other articles have covered the mixed emotions, stress, and sometimes depression that these UAV crews experience--even from the missions that only kill "the bad guys".

[dailofan]

I don't doubt the man that said that nothing had more to hurt Al Qaeda than these drones.

However, I also think that these things may do much more harm to the US over the long-term. I think these really make the world think of us as a cowardly, "evil Empire". Imagine worrying that these things are flying over invisible and can take you out at any moment.
It just reminds me of the evil forces that the good guys are always uniting to fight against in every sci-fi movie.
These weapons may have a valid place in our arsenol, but we should be debating hard the moral ramifications of how, when, and where to use them.

[Mac User Too]

Submarines were once considered 'cowardly', but the world got over it. Imagine a totally unmanned Air Force, Navy and Army. That's where this technology is headed and won't it be wonderful? Think about it. American casualties are the only reasons public opinion reversed itself on the Iraq war. Without those casualties and with the American people behind our invasion, do you think Iran and North Korea would be acting so cocky?

[modstang]

first of all learn how to spell. second of all where did anybody say anything bout iran? they just said they work well against our curent enemies.

also the launchers are called stingers, and even though their heat seeking you have to aim in the general direction. if you would have looked it up instead of just mindlessly opening your mouth you would know that their range is only about 15,000 feet and the uav flies up to 50,000 feet. i think our generals would have thought about that before they just deployed a 11 million dollar weapon to get shot down.

[modstang]

lol everyone on here hasn't got a clue what their talking about. you don't know about the training these pilots go through. these uav have a huge advantage the enemies don't know their there they have the option to take their time to shoot their target, whether they wait 5 minutes or 5 hours to where they are in a less populated area.
civilians need to stay out of the war out of our military and out of our cia. let the people who signed the dotted line and are paid to keep the country safe do their job. the less you know the better off the country is civilians do enough nosing around in eachothers lives they need to stay out of national security.
this article was fyi not hey we need you to come baby sit us and stick your nose where it doesn't belong.

[hassan_bin_sober]

Now you can tell your parents all that time playing Space Invaders was not in vain!