U.S. deploying first robotic aerial drone squadron

It looks like the unmanned aerial drones now on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon be getting a lot more company, with the U.S. reportedly set to deploy its first full-on "robotic" drone squadron. According to the AP, the US will be deploying an unspecified number of MQ-9 Reaper "hunter-killer" drones, which are about the size of a jet fighter and are able to fly at speeds of 300 mph and reach altitudes of 50,000 feet -- each of which can be controlled from a base in Nevada. While further details are obviously scarce, the drones will apparently be deployed to Afghanistan first, with the fleet expected to expand to Iraq sometime between this fall and next spring.

[Via Slashdot]

[chadow @ Jul 18th 2007 1:11PM]

Thats some pretty cool shit. I used to be able to watch similar unmanned planes, and these things are coming a long way. I wouldn't want this squadron after ME.

[Frankenstein Black @ Jul 18th 2007 1:18PM]

"with the fleet expected to expand to Iraq sometime between this fall and next spring." Expand to Iraq next spring? With all the hub bub in DC I though we would be out by then. Oh well, the NeoCon Tea-Bagging of America continues :^(...

[murray @ Jul 18th 2007 2:08PM]

Out by next spring? You are funny. We will be there for at least another 5 years.

[anonymouse @ Jul 18th 2007 5:34PM]

"between this fall and next spring... thought we would be out by then..."

not necessarily incompatible plans... people out, robots in...

[NHAnimator @ Jul 18th 2007 1:25PM]

With all of this droning, how are Democrats supposed to sleep. The Capitol is not soundproof, ya know?

[chadow @ Jul 18th 2007 1:30PM]

I cant even begin to state my opinions on what you just brought up. I don't suppose this is the forum for that. Anyway, I wish the US would spend more money on research like this, instead of declaring a war against a verb that can never be "won"

[Bad Beaver @ Jul 18th 2007 2:24PM]

You got it wrong, war on the word was declared *exactly* so things like this would get plenty funding before being bought by the government for unheard sums of money better spent on education, healthcare, 3rd world aid...

By the way, I declare this the most cynically named product of the year. Disgusting.

[rdaneel72 @ Jul 18th 2007 1:33PM]

Why would they name them "hunter-killers?" HKs were the automated flying drones that SkyNet used to WIPE OUT ALL HUMANITY in the Terminator movies. Seems like bad karma to me.

[Electromodo @ Jul 18th 2007 1:37PM]

You are waiting for the iPhone comment, are you? ;) Here it is:

Q: Why did US military first launched the unmanned airplane, and not an unmanned car?

A: Because it is easier for the robot to steer in the air, as no people distracted by their touch-screen iPhones get in the way!

;)

[riggs @ Jul 18th 2007 2:35PM]

while im not a muslim (shoot im agnostic if THAT) your comment sounds highly ignorant and disrespectful and i have a bunch of friends that i talk to from the UK who think the same way that you do which is really sad...

[Bad Beaver @ Jul 18th 2007 1:45PM]

Thank you.

[Phreak511 @ Jul 18th 2007 1:48PM]

"I wish the US would spend more money on research like this, instead of declaring a war against a verb that can never be "won"..."

No, Terror (especially the Islamo-Facist kind) can never be won. But it is a war. Here in the UK, we are fighting a war against terror and against those who hate our way of life.

We need a few of those Hunter-Killers circling London and targeting a couple of mosques...


Cheers!

[Jake @ Jul 18th 2007 2:12PM]

i do hope you're only joking.

[murray @ Jul 18th 2007 2:13PM]

They don't hate your way of life. That's what your politicians tell you, and you're a gullible fool for believing it.

What they hate is your government's behaviour.

[Samo @ Jul 18th 2007 4:49PM]

I live in London, and I have to say... A small small minority think like Mr. Phreak511 over here... His views are his own (and my opinion of his opinion is that his opinion is dysfuinctional), and it's idoits like him that makes us more xenophobic.

Yes, we need to deal with terrorism, but it's not the religion that's at fault, it's the evil, clever masterminds that use any religion for violent reasons...

But, i would like the UK gov to buy some... don't we lose enough lives already?

[Electromodo @ Jul 18th 2007 2:01PM]

So are those able to be a completely unmanned drones or they always require an operator in the command center? I didn't get that clearly...

[Mark @ Jul 18th 2007 2:27PM]

It kind of depends. They can be programed to to circle an area and take pictures for surveillance. However if the drones are going to launch a weapon at a target they are required by the Geneva Convention to have a human operator. There is a loop hole in the convention that allows unmanned systems to target weapons. So in the future if you are holding a gun a robot can attempt to destroy the gun if you are injured/killed in the process that falls under the category of collateral damage.

[JJ @ Jul 18th 2007 7:35PM]

So if I understood it correctly, Mark: Under the Geneva Convention, unmanned aerial vehicles or similar, are allowed to shoot another unmanned weapon, aerial vehicle or similar without human intervention?

Then that means if a UCAV or UAV such as that above sees an insurgent wielding an RPG, then it will lock onto the heat signature of the RPG and automatically fire at it, thereby killing the human holding the RPG.

That is such a big loophole.

Wow, it's starting to get eerily similar to the robots in Terminator. Imagine when we advance in AI software and we allow them to make decisions on their own, or make them self-aware, then that is when it gets scary.

Now they're putting them into squadrons. Let's hope there isn't any friendly fire.

[murray @ Jul 18th 2007 2:11PM]

Harsh but true.

As a side note, the word "drone" seems like a poor choice for these things anyway. A drone bee has no stinger. It only makes good sense to use the term for unarmed UAVs.

[Todd @ Jul 18th 2007 2:20PM]

The pentagon's PR department wouldn't let General Atomics call it the "Grim Reaper" but its close enough as is.

Also, if you think the idea of a squadron of pilot-less attack planes is psychologically damaging, imagine hundreds of these things, painted black, circling over head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0eoeYSylCI

[Todd @ Jul 18th 2007 2:25PM]

The Pentagon's PR department wouldn't let General Atomics call it the "Grim Reaper" but it's close enough as is.

And if you think a squadron of pilotless attack planes is psychologically damaging, imagine hundreds of these things, painted black, circling overhead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0eoeYSylCI

[riggs @ Jul 18th 2007 2:37PM]

oops that was meant for vV phreak Vv not you electro :D

[Electromodo @ Jul 18th 2007 3:28PM]

That's ok, I still felt ashamed :)

[Big @ Jul 18th 2007 2:46PM]

When I saw Mission Impossible III's trailer I assumed tom Cruise was being attacked by an A-10 Thunderbolt but it was actualy a Predator B.

These things typicaly carry Hellfire missiles - Bombs are too heavy and don't carry a machine gun either so I suspect the drones would only be neccesary against enemy convoys - or - if Osama Bin Ladin ever shows up again.

What America really should do is develop robots shaped like large rolling balls which are gyroscopicaly stabilized to roll across terrain - carrying machine guns internaly - and visual equiptment...something similar to the droids in Star Wars Episodes I and II.

I can't wait till America reaches the point where we can throw droids at the enemy and watch their horror when they realize that robots killing them will demoralize them and they can no longer simply kill US soldiers to demoralize us.

In the end, that is what unmanned warfar is all about.

KILL THE ENEMY with superior FUNDING.

[Stephen @ Jul 18th 2007 3:00PM]

And when we run out of enemies with high morale, we can simply antagonize some other part of the world until they go crazy enough to attempt some sort retaliation against us. Better yet, why spend any money sending these things to other countries when there are plenty of hippy liberals we can shoot as traitors here at home.

War is peace FTW!

[Mace @ Jul 18th 2007 3:35PM]

1. The MQ-9 is not a full on "robot" at all, and even if it was,
B. The Global Hawk is "more" robotic, and is already in service.

The only REAL differences between the MQ-9 Reaper and the MQ-1 Predator is a different engine, and it can carry more munitions.

[Uncle Red @ Jul 18th 2007 4:33PM]

IMHO...Robots are autonomous and do not need support. Thus, these are still REMOTE-controlled drones. They can't land, refuel or re-arm autonomously. They can be programmed to track, target, idle, encircle and evade. But there is still (and should be) a human in control.
Asimov is rolling in his grave....

[Mace @ Jul 18th 2007 5:35PM]

actually, only the Global chicken..er... Hawk can be "programed" to do any of those things. The pred/reaper is flown through out the whole mission, with someone controlling the camera by hand. There's nothing really revolutionary about the reaper, it's merely a major upgrade that's been waiting in the wings for quite some time.

[Chris @ Jul 18th 2007 4:20PM]

It has been about a year since I worked a project related to this aircraft, but the term for this type of vehicle had evolved by then, if memory serves correctly, to ROA (Remotely Operated Aircraft), which is clearly more accurate.

These things are very cool though, much cheaper than the Globalhawk.

[VicD @ Jul 18th 2007 7:22PM]

The shroud of the dark side has fallen, begun the drone war has

[! @ Jul 18th 2007 9:22PM]

Step forward Hunter-Killer, do your job.

[Caleb @ Jul 18th 2007 10:18PM]

Dude, this stuff is crazy. Did you know that with these drones, the Air Force can watch terrorists go to meetings, set up IEDs and even follow them home all through aerial surveillance? Craziness.