|
|
Post by Garf on Jul 18, 2015 16:05:00 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Garf on Jul 18, 2015 16:29:55 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 18, 2015 18:30:28 GMT -7
Heh, the last one is more dangerous to the pilot than anyone. But yes, peoples stupidity is going to cost us all some liberty, again.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 19, 2015 8:08:33 GMT -7
Yep. It sure will. The sad part is it will all be done out of fear of "something maybe" rather than an actual, credible threat.
The second video is a good example. Just look at the smoke trails from the rockets... they are completely unguided, don't fly straight, and in one case they couldn't even hit the ground. So, I'm supposed to believe someone is actually going to use one of these to.... do what? Down a passenger jet? Blow up an office belonging to the side of a political divide they disagree with? Use it as a remote hit man?
Let's turn to reality for a second. The US government, with virtually unlimited resources and access to technology we haven't even thought of yet, uses large scale airplane style drones armed with guided missiles to conduct attacks on their targets. By necessity this means whatever or whoever else might be near the target at the time is also condemned to die in a large fireball. If strapping a small missile-like projectile or a pistol or even a machine gun onto the belly of a drone was a viable means of eradicating pests then they would already be doing it.
But they aren't, and I think that bears some thought as to why they aren't. I believe it just isn't practicable. There are way too many "ifs" in the equation. Some of these were brought out in the previous thread: the audible warning; the impossibility of a servo-driven system "chasing" a moving target and ending up with a solid hit on target; the vulnerability of the platform itself to damage. The use of a high-flying drone eliminates detection, most of the sound (if not all of it), and uses proven guidance technology to put the missile on top of a dime, turning whoever might be holding said dime into toast.
To me, this kind of horsing around with drones would be like a firearms company building a new high-cap (magazine) rifle and making YouTube videos of it being used to hold up liquor stores and shoot at small-sized paper targets in an abandoned schoolyard. It's marketing a product in a way designed to invoke fear, and remember the blanket targeting of this marketing is going to people who have the right to vote but do other amazing feats such as sign petitions to ban the 1st Amendment because Beyonce says so (exercising the very rights they demand be taken away).
That's just where this will go if the drone videos continue to be a rain of stupidity marked by a frat-boy kind of total disregard for safety and just plain common sense. It's bad enough we have videos of idiots giving some girl who's never fired a handgun before a .500 revolver and stand idly by while she splits her skull open when firing it with no idea of what recoil is waiting for her. Now the idiot's tool of the moment appears to be drones. Yes, between this and a string of people who fly a 40-ton, multi-engine aircraft for a living making panic-filled reports anytime a drone is visible from their aircraft, as though a 2-lb parcel of plastic and wires will automatically end up right in their intakes and always result in a crash. It won't be long before some government agency looking for yet another "program" that requires additional funding to seize the moment and protect us all from idiots, in this case idiots without the real means to do the damage they pretend to do.
You can't blame the cat if you dress like a mouse and scurry across the floor squeaking as you go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 19, 2015 9:13:28 GMT -7
Those are not practical for the military or probably most people, but that doesn't mean its not a viable weapon system, just not efficient. The military wants drones for stand off weapons, like 10s or maybe hundreds of miles stand off which is why they want a large platform to carry existing heavy weapons. For the up close and personal stuff they can either laser or GPS designate a target for heavy ordinance, or use effective longer range direct fire. A lot of those options non military don't have.
I think you could develop a weapons platform with a multi rotor that would be accurate and stable, it would be expensive and larger than what we are seeing with these and still only be a small arm on a mobile platform, which is basically what a person is anyway.
But viable is not effective, and to be used for what? All that time and development spent for a system that is easily detected and countered in its weapons effective range? its not a leap of technology, its a side effect of technological advance that people tend to do, and no more a threat than any weapon is of itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 19, 2015 11:28:50 GMT -7
Certainly they are no more a threat than the weapons themselves but you know the world we live in. Everything black with "a big clip" is an assault weapon and the only people who own them are mass murderers in the wings, right?  What I'm basically saying is that if the current trend continues, that trend being people anxious to foster the idea that drones can be anyone's private mobile weapons platform, then we can expect the typical nervous Nellies to react in the same way they do over even far less (in their view) diabolical devices. In short, if the drone kiddies don't knock it off soon they can expect Uncle to jump in there with bans and severe limitations. My guess would be bans on overflight of populated areas (cities) for a start, then forced reduction in range by making the manufacturers limit transmitter power. Next thing you know there'll be MADD (Mothers Against Drone Drivers) running ads to remind us of the dangers of these evil devices. Far as I know, there is no drone equivalent of a NRA that would have any influence over people willing to enact bans and restrictions in their zeal to show their constituents that they care. I don't own a drone, I thought maybe I would like to try my hand with one, maybe do some filming in some of the more remote but beautiful parts of NW FL/S. AL that are really hard to navigate being so swampy, yet are easily accessible by air. Probably by the time I pick a decent one I can afford I'll need a license to own one, a permit to fly one, paperwork to transport it inter-state, and a separate permit to charge the batts. I don't like it, but that's how a whole generation or more of our citizens think - if you're afraid of something, ban it or make it so difficult to get or use it becomes impractical. I suspect people like that are helped along in their decisions by other people feeding their paranoid imaginations with things like drone weapons platforms. What we need is a minority, Muslim, transgender drone that would be impervious to any criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 19, 2015 12:13:03 GMT -7
Heck we already have people calling for out right bans on them because they carry a camera, as if any helicopter or airplane already doesn't have capability to see what they are worried about, have they watched TV news in the last 40 years? No doubt weaponizing them will give fuel to that fire and big brother is quick to act on demands if it expands their power, but it won't be anything minor, it will something like declaring all aircraft, model or not be under the perview and control of the FAA.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 19, 2015 14:40:30 GMT -7
I would LOVE to see the reaction at FAA when their phone lines start melting down from the huge volume of drone fliers calling to file flight plans and requesting NOTAMs be issued warning all other aircraft to be aware of their flight operating area. All in the name of safety, of course. Then, if I could read a plane's tail number from the ground (with binoculars), I'd be calling the FAA complaining the aircraft failed to maintain separation and potentially put my drone and the safety of all others in the area in jeopardy.
I wonder if they really want to open that can of worms? Well, knowing them to be a government agency, I know that their first goal is self-preservation followed closely by a need to expand in order to merit more personnel and control a larger budget. It isn't so much about what they control as much as it is that they grow. That's how promotions are assured and larger bonuses are guaranteed.
The EPA is a good example. They impose a series of rules, some get litigated while everyone else pretty much learns the new meaning of "acceptable" and proceeds accordingly. By the time the litigation is resolved, it's 99% of people complying with their "laws" so they don't really need all those people to run around checking up on everyone because every time they do they see compliance. It's only when the EPA can start issuing NEW rules and getting its fingers into some previously untouched area that they can justify maintaining, maybe even growing, their enormous bureaucracy. More programs, more directors, assistant directors, managers, supervisors, worker bees. That's in every government agency you can name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garf on Jul 21, 2015 7:18:16 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Jul 21, 2015 9:42:27 GMT -7
Well I guess it is "problem solved."
1. The FEDS are involved
2. The FEDS are pointing out there are existing laws they can use to curb arming drones
3. The FEDS are paying the video maker a visit to have a little chat
So that's all we need to know, according to the news. There are laws against it, therefore we can all feel safe knowing the whole USA and all of it's territories are an Armed Drone Free Zone.
Laws like this worked so well in Chattanooga.
|
|
