Drones - underhand, unfair and damned un-English?

[Viking Warrior]

Excellent bit of equipment and saves lifes. Nothing new just making use of first class technology

[Window Cleaner]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Close air support and the front line soldier serve 2 completely different purposes.

 

SEALS were needed because there isn't a robot out there close to matching a person for articulate movement, coordination and communication. A pilot essentially just sits there pressing buttons, which can often be easily be done in a safe location hundreds of miles away.

 

 

Seals were needed because it was a one off 100% no fail mission.

[buctootim]

it was a one off 100% no fail mission.

 

Why did they use Americans then?

[Sleaford_Saint]

Piece from The Telegraph for a little background....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9552547/The-air-force-men-who-fly-drones-in-Afghanistan-by-remote-control.html

[PhilippineSaint]

Wheres my Poll ??

[pap]

The comparison with cruise missiles is a fair one, but I think drones, or more broadly, military automata - have got a lot more potential; a complete game changer. Right now, our ten drones will be remotely piloted by real people. There's a human constraint which affects our ability to scale. As soon as these things are sufficiently automated, anyone with enough raw material and manufacturing capability ( or money ) can buy themselves air power.

 

The biggest air battle in history involved around 200 planes, while the Luftwaffe operated just under 2K planes of all kinds at its height. Military types: how many drones could a country like China could put in the air if they didn't have to consider stuff like availability, capability, training and fatalities. 1K? 10K? It's the potential scale that I find fascinating and a bit scary. How many countries have the air capability to deal with 10K drones bearing down on their capital city?

[Lighthouse]

These drones aren't cheap pap and once their potential is realised they will only get more advanced and therefore expensive. Maybe China do have the cash to build 10,000 drones but then they would also have the cash to build 10,000 manned aircraft or 100,000 tanks or 1,000,000 front line infantry etc. etc.

 

War has been determined by who has the best resources available since the beginning of time, drones are going to change that.

[pap]

These drones aren't cheap pap and once their potential is realised they will only get more advanced and therefore expensive. Maybe China do have the cash to build 10,000 drones but then they would also have the cash to build 10,000 manned aircraft or 100,000 tanks or 1,000,000 front line infantry etc. etc.

 

War has been determined by who has the best resources available since the beginning of time, drones are going to change that.

 

If you were talking the relative difference between say a Spitfire and a fighter jet, you'd be bang on sir. Even if you compare one fighter jet generation to the next, your point holds up admirably. This article suggests that the pendulum has swung the other way in terms of budgetary considerations.

 

... drones reduce the dollar cost of using lethal force inside foreign countries. Most drones are a bargain compared with the available alternatives. Manned aircraft, for instance, are quite expensive: Lockheed Martin's F-22 fighter jets cost about $150 million each; F-35s are $90 million; and F-16s are $55 million. But the 2011 price of a Reaper drone was $28.4 million, while Predator drones cost only about $5 million to make. (And Hellfire missiles are a steal at less than $60,000 each; you could buy one with a home equity loan.)

 

Full article is worth a read.

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/12/take_two_drones_and_call_me_in_the_morning