Drones in your sky?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:33 pm

WmZiggy wrote:The Base is Bagram AFB. The reason they don't kill these terrorists are ROEs (Rules of Engagement). It's the old story since Vietnam (perhaps Korea) - politicians. When war is politicized, military members needlessly die. If they just let the generals run the Nation's wars and let military members do what they are trained to do, there would be less loss of life. The current Administration is the worst, in this regard, of any I have experience in my lifetime and during my 30 years of military service.

Finally, I have a good friend and former Wing commander who is the executive director of drone studies at UND School of Aerospace in Grand Forks, ND. They are working hand-in-hand with the FAA at developing rules (including ethics) that will regulate drone use by individuals, industry, business, military and government in the U.S. North Dakota currently has air space approved and set aside for testing drones. PS: the "toys" referred to here are classified as drones and the rules/standards/license to use/ and all the rest will be determined by the FAA in the near future.

War is not a 'game'.

I find the idea of 'rules' to be ridiculous.

Me or them....................

And yes war is not 'humane'. It cannot be so.

For the above reasons I hope to never be 'at war' ever!!!!!

Being a trained jarhead, I do understand!:(

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:07 pm

Why isn't a drone armed? Easy question to ask, but not to answer. There are different drones for different purposes. As you add functionality, you add weight. As you add weight, you add size. As you add size, you add noise. And as you add anything, you need better batteries.

If the purpose is recon and stealth - observing while not being observed - then you want something small and quiet. If you want something that is big and strong enough to be armed with a gun and ammo, and can withstand any recoil, then you've got something too big and loud. So, you have to stay further away which means better camera equipment and different types of weaponry. More weight.

Guns, ammunition, batteries, telephoto lenses, broadcasting equipment... that stuff is not light. So it's always a compromise between weight, size, power, and capabilities.

As far as personal "drones" go, they're nothing to be afraid of. The "drone" in the original post looks like a Phantom DJI. (A guy I work with has one as does the campus marketing department. They use it for taking aerial photography of campus.) And, it was most likely there doing the same thing as the person who took the picture - taking pictures of the kite festival. He just had a different vantage point.

I bought my son a "drone" the other day. A Hubsan X4. A little quadcopter about the size of your open hand. No camera, but they do have a model that does have a camera. I really want to get one for myself now! They're a lot of fun to fly.

beeg · Post by **beeg** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:10 pm

Ed in Tampa wrote: They also showed pictures of terrorists outside the fence of the big airbase in Afghanistan (Belmugan or something like that) at night. They would stay about 50 yards away and then go up toward the fence and back off. Later that same evening short range missiles hit on base and 14 injured and 4 killed. Again I wondered why they didn't arm the drones and just blow anyone away that came within 100 yard of the fence at night.

There they didn't need it armed. Just have a Marine sniper take care of that.

ryanbp01 · Post by **ryanbp01** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:21 pm

I have seen one being used to video a train excursion last July. I wonder if a person would happen to see one flying over their property if it becomes eligible for target practice?
BPR

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:49 pm

ryanbp01 wrote:I have seen one being used to video a train excursion last July. I wonder if a person would happen to see one flying over their property if it becomes eligible for target practice?
BPR

Are you in the habit of using other aircraft for target practice?:D

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:05 pm

I would think it would be trespassing just like driving an ATV or pickup truck or any other vehicle on your property would be. If it makes sense to take a shot in those cases, then go ahead.

sawmill · Post by **sawmill** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:17 pm

A few years ago the PITA boys were spying on a private hunting club with one and they used it for target practice. There was a vid of it on another web site. Never heard the outcome from it

ryanbp01 · Post by **ryanbp01** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:23 pm

&quot wrote:Are you in the habit of using other aircraft for target practice?:D

Well, now that you mention it...
When I was 13, I wanted to get into model rocketry. My Dad took me to the local hobby shop and bought me a starter kit. Dad also bought me some fuse since the electric launchers weren't reliable. So I built the rocket and we went down to the local junior high school to launch it. Dad handed me the lighter after everything was set up and I lit the fuse. There was a successful launch, however there was a plane which was overhead which was missed by inches or so my Dad thought. We both came away from that experience remembering two things: 1) ALWAYS look for aircraft using a good air of binoculars and 2) cut the fuse longer in case the launch needed to be aborted.

Fast forward 40 years. My son got into model rocketry in 4H. Boy, was I glad to see the technology improve in that time!

BPR

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:10 pm

heathicus wrote:Why isn't a drone armed? Easy question to ask, but not to answer. There are different drones for different purposes. As you add functionality, you add weight. As you add weight, you add size. As you add size, you add noise. And as you add anything, you need better batteries.

If the purpose is recon and stealth - observing while not being observed - then you want something small and quiet. If you want something that is big and strong enough to be armed with a gun and ammo, and can withstand any recoil, then you've got something too big and loud. So, you have to stay further away which means better camera equipment and different types of weaponry. More weight.

Guns, ammunition, batteries, telephoto lenses, broadcasting equipment... that stuff is not light. So it's always a compromise between weight, size, power, and capabilities.

As far as personal "drones" go, they're nothing to be afraid of. The "drone" in the original post looks like a Phantom DJI. (A guy I work with has one as does the campus marketing department. They use it for taking aerial photography of campus.) And, it was most likely there doing the same thing as the person who took the picture - taking pictures of the kite festival. He just had a different vantage point.

I bought my son a "drone" the other day. A Hubsan X4. A little quadcopter about the size of your open hand. No camera, but they do have a model that does have a camera. I really want to get one for myself now! They're a lot of fun to fly.

Why not just pack any extra space in the drone with C4 dive down on the cowards as they hide waiting to set off the IED and blow their butts to the 72 virgins?

How hard could it be to rig a drone to carry a grenade or two?

Frankly I won't mind if they built a small nuke and dropped that on them. Doesn't have to be a meg ton bomb just a small one equal to 1 ton of conventional explosives.

If that is a problem why not rig the drone to laser illuminate the terrorist and use an laser guided missile launched from one of the plane/helos on base? They had time to get a plane in the air. Besides air bases in hostile territory should be like aircraft carriers and always have a fighter umbrella over head.

If that fails nuke the whole country and say sorry.

I sure don't understand why we have to allow our soldiers to die when there is no need. If we can watch the enemy come in bury a bomb and then run to hiding place and sit and wait until a truck convoy comes and we can't do anything about it, there is something really really wrong.

I would not want to be the commander that says I watched on TV as the terrorist buried the IED then hide in a culvert and waited until your sons truck was over it and set it off. I didn't do anything but watched hoping it would be a dud.

Gene Howe · Post by **Gene Howe** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:40 am

RIGHT ON, ED!!!
This rules of engagement crap just sucks.
The only rules should enable the 'neutralizing" ie. KILLING of the enemy.

Ed in Tampa wrote: SNIPPED
I sure don't understand why we have to allow our soldiers to die when there is no need. If we can watch the enemy come in bury a bomb and then run to hiding place and sit and wait until a truck convoy comes and we can't do anything about it, there is something really really wrong.

I would not want to be the commander that says I watched on TV as the terrorist buried the IED then hide in a culvert and waited until your sons truck was over it and set it off. I didn't do anything but watched hoping it would be a dud.