Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 07, 2016, 04:19:59 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98781 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Drones/UAV/UAS/Bots  (Read 35351 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2184


« Reply #100 on: December 12, 2015, 11:04:20 AM »

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/12/drone-strikes-are-creating-hatred-towards-america-will-last-generations/124327/?oref=d-river

From the article:

"... in the wake of the ISIL-linked terrorist attacks in Paris, four whistleblowers in the United States Air Force wrote an open letter to the Obama Administration calling for an end to drone strikes. The authors, all of whom had operational experience with drone strikes, wrote that such attacks 'fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like Isis, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool.' They say that the killing of innocent civilians by American drones is one of most 'devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world.'"
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #101 on: December 12, 2015, 12:31:11 PM »

So, the obvious question is presented:

What then to do instead about the Jihadis who are the target of the strikes?  I'm guessing invading again would be even less popular , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #102 on: December 13, 2015, 11:56:16 AM »

Great to see Bigdog stop in!  Some thoughts on this:

They are whistleblowers in terms of protection for criticizing policy, but it sound to me like they are 4 people entitled to an opinion.  Having operational experience in the drone program would not necessarily make them knowledgeable on motivation for terror and joining ISIS.  That said, that viewpoint seems valid.

Bombing from an unmanned aerial vehicle, to the bombed, is quite similar to bombed by a pilot bombing mission.  Yes I can see the difference in perception.  It appears cowardly that we want to protect our own loss of life, but that is a worthy interest IMOttt.

Our rules of engagement and other circumstances cause most of these bombing missions to not drop strike any targets.  I think we go to great lengths to protect civilian loss of life, in the context that this is war that they declared on us.  

ISIS and al Qaida leaders and terrorists kill in war and then hide among these civilians.  Which side is endangering the civilians?  Them.  WHo gets blamed?  Us.  Israel knows how this works.

One alternative is not attack and then wait for them to end their grievance against us.  Efficacy aside, we can measure the political power of that in Rand Paul's candidacy.  Even Bernie says attack and destroy them.  I doubt he would but that is beside the point.

The worst part is that we seem to be faking a war effort with our drone strikes.  By having a half effort going to defeat them, they are surviving it and able to use it as said, to generate more enthusiasm for their effort.  What we did in other war efforts was probably far more brutal, but it was part of a commitment to winning and therefore it had an ending to it.  

On the political side, the newly elected Nobel winning President seemed unlikely to continue the drone strikes, yet he did.  Some of us wondered what the outrage would have been had that been a Republican Commander in chief the last 7 years.  Now it seems that Obama used this method of limited warfare for his entire term only to get it banned before we really try to defeat this enemy.

To Crafty's question:  Obviously there is a ground component necessary to win when the free world decides to get serious.  I believe there is a great urgency as they are literally breeding terrorists in their rape and pillage warfare.  This reported effect strengthens the argument to act urgently and decisively, in my view. 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 03:56:21 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #103 on: December 26, 2015, 12:56:15 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/technology/a-silicon-valley-for-drones-in-north-dakota.html?emc=edit_th_20151226&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #104 on: January 17, 2016, 12:13:05 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/verge/videos/1022225121147164/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #105 on: January 18, 2016, 09:49:43 PM »

http://discover.economist.com/?a=21650071&cid1=d/soc/Facebook/dyn/21650071/20151222-00:00am/paid/social-LA/BR-TE/BRPII/n/subs/US/BR-LIT&cid3=UM
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #106 on: January 28, 2016, 08:20:37 AM »

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/538487741193658368?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=marchagainstmonsanto
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2016, 09:50:01 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/GlobalNews/videos/962560870458345/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #108 on: February 08, 2016, 10:55:21 AM »


https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" data-mce-href="https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891" data-mce-style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">https://player.vimeo.com/video/107995891

Beautiful, but OTOH it looks like we are headed for a world where one can be on camera everywhere all the time.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #109 on: March 09, 2016, 06:50:02 PM »

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/09/pentagon-admits-has-deployed-military-spy-drones-over-us/81474702/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #110 on: March 09, 2016, 06:53:57 PM »


Life in the era of hope and change.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #111 on: March 26, 2016, 07:04:04 PM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/274293-playing-the-drone-playbook
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #112 on: June 08, 2016, 10:55:48 AM »

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/WATCH-IAIs-answer-to-ebemy-drones-456226
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 639


« Reply #113 on: July 08, 2016, 04:54:25 PM »

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/dallas-police-used-robot-bomb-kill-ambush-suspect-mayor-n605896
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #114 on: July 08, 2016, 06:54:22 PM »


First time using an explosive device, but I believe that bots armed with firearms have been used before, though I can't cite a case off the top of my head.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 639


« Reply #115 on: July 09, 2016, 08:06:40 PM »


First time using an explosive device, but I believe that bots armed with firearms have been used before, though I can't cite a case off the top of my head.

I think you're right.

It just occurred to me as to how bad people will defend against bots and explosives.... it's actually pretty simple.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #116 on: August 09, 2016, 04:57:43 PM »

http://www.investigativeproject.org/5563/hizballah-uses-attack-drone-as-offensive
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2184


« Reply #117 on: August 10, 2016, 01:37:16 PM »

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/my-droneski-just-ate-your-ethics/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #118 on: August 10, 2016, 04:44:27 PM »

 shocked shocked shocked
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #119 on: August 29, 2016, 10:24:27 PM »

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/65-year-old-woman-takes-out-drone-over-her-virginia-property-with-one-shot/
« Last Edit: August 30, 2016, 07:23:25 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #120 on: August 31, 2016, 08:52:59 AM »

The FAA vs. the Future
Posted: 30 Aug 2016 08:07 AM PDT
The new FAA rules (part 107) for the commercial use of drones are now in force..   Let me summarize them for you in a single picture:
 
The FAA rules (needed) are not only years late, they contain a major flaw.
It's a flaw so large, it's similar to regulating cars with the rules used for horse drawn carriages.   You can see this flaw in the rules they are proposing:
   Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS.
   A person operating a small UAS must either hold a remote pilot airman certificate with a small UAS rating or be under the direct supervision of a person who does hold a remote pilot certificate (remote pilot in command).
   No person may act as a remote pilot in command or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time.
See the flaw yet?
The flaw is that the FAA's commercial drones require a pilot at the controls.  A pilot!   
Really? 
The fact is, as a professional pilot, I can tell you categorically that drones don't need a pilot.  Not inside the aircraft or on the ground with a controller.  They can fly on their own. 
You can see this in how they developed.  Drones only became a disruptive technology the moment that low cost computer chips exceeded the intellectual capacity of insects in 2011.  They didn't become disruptive due improvements in the batteries, motors, and materials used to build them.  These new chips make drones smart enough to do everything insects (flies, bees, etc.) do.  That means they don't need pilots to:
   Stabilize themselves.
   Take-off, land, and navigate.
   Accomplish complex mission tasks.
As you can see, drones only become truly disruptive when they don't have pilots at all.  Yet, the FAA is regulating them in a way that forces drones to have pilots.
Let me put this in terms of work.  Drones without pilots make the following things possible (none of which are possible with pilots at the controls):
   Tireless.  Accomplish tasks 24x7x365. 
   Scalable.  Billions of drones can be used at the same time.
   Costless.  The cost per minute for drone services would drop to almost nothing. 
If these capabilities are unleashed, it's possible to do for drones what the Web/Internet did for networking. 
What is needed is a ruleset that makes Dronenet possible, not a system designed for commercial dilettantes. 
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 639


« Reply #121 on: September 08, 2016, 02:09:58 PM »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-dakota-becomes-first-us-state-to-legalise-use-of-armed-drones-by-police-10492397.html

One thing I found troubling, "However, the state's police union amended the Bill, limiting the ban to only lethal weapons..."

Since when do police unions have the power to legislate? That's news to me.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #122 on: September 08, 2016, 06:44:03 PM »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-dakota-becomes-first-us-state-to-legalise-use-of-armed-drones-by-police-10492397.html

One thing I found troubling, "However, the state's police union amended the Bill, limiting the ban to only lethal weapons..."

Since when do police unions have the power to legislate? That's news to me.

Probably poorly written. It probably means that the police union lobbied to have the bill amended, and was successful.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 639


« Reply #123 on: September 08, 2016, 11:32:51 PM »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-dakota-becomes-first-us-state-to-legalise-use-of-armed-drones-by-police-10492397.html

One thing I found troubling, "However, the state's police union amended the Bill, limiting the ban to only lethal weapons..."

Since when do police unions have the power to legislate? That's news to me.

Probably poorly written. It probably means that the police union lobbied to have the bill amended, and was successful.

I think you're correct in terms of the bill. It still sets a precedent. The part that I take issue with, is Clinton (or anyone that doesn't believe in freedom), having access to better equipment, that is "too" effective... myself for example. I'm kind of a totalitarian guy, and if I was ruler, you can bet, I would be heavy handed, no two ways about it.

There is an almost virtual absence of any of the big five 1%er clubs here in Mexico, or any other international crime organizations, other than people that are native to Mexico. Why? We have tons of drugs, heroin, meth, marijuana; yet, they won't step foot here. They won't even come and visit. It's because law enforcement here (combined with the cartels' brutality), isn't what it is in other places. We are militarized, and in fact, work directly with the military on patrol, using the same weapons, because it's effective, but brutal.

I don't think it is in the interest of freedom to just open the gates on something, because it works. Freedom and human rights, and anyone interested in them, get lost permanently. I believe the use of drones, both as stated in the article, and the use of the bot in Texas, are the wrong way to go if you believe in freedom, and we've known each other here for years you and I. You already know what I think of BLM trash. I'd have them hung in the streets. It does bring an interesting point though... where do we draw the line between effective law enforcement, and freedom?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 09:03:51 AM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #124 on: September 12, 2016, 12:30:21 PM »

Cognitive Dominance
Posted: 26 Aug 2016 08:46 AM PDT
I'll get some down and dirty insurgent thinking up tomorrow. 

In the meantime, here's some of my thinking on a strategic concept that could direct the development of autonomous robotics.  It's called cognitive dominance. 

Cognitive dominance is the ability to make more and better decisions than the competition through the use of autonomous robotics.  This scenario, written in pentagon speak, applies some of the ideas I outlined earlier.   
_______

The war started when a peer competitor’s African client state invaded a weaker neighbor.  The peer competitor had been investing heavily in this client state over the last decade in order to gain exclusive access to a massive tract of increasingly rare, arable land.  To expand this precious resource, the client state (with the peer competitor’s backing) invaded a neighboring country to seize its arable acreage.  This aggression created a massive humanitarian crisis, sending tens of millions of refugees north towards the safety of the European Union.  The global response to this aggression was immediate and clear, but the demands to withdraw went unheeded. 

To overcome this impasse, the US issued a stern call to the client state to withdraw and to back it up, US military forces were sent to to the region.  This move prompted the peer competitor to decry US intervention in the “internal affairs” of Africa and that US forces would not be permitted within 1,000 nautical miles of the affected region.  To back this declaration up, the peer activated a massive A2/AD defense system it had been building in the client state over the last decade.   With this move, the situation became a direct threat to US and global security.  Simply, if this provocation was allowed to stand, Africa and much of the rest of the world would be quickly divided into areas of control, defined by the effective range of A2/AD systems.  To prevent this outcome, a combined US led Joint Task Force was assembled to remove the peer competitor’s A2/AD system from the region and force the client state to return to it’s pre-war borders. 

This was the first major war since rapid advances in RAS inspired a revolution in military affairs transformed the US military.  The fruits of this transformation were seen in the first days of the war when the Joint Force opened up its first front in the war with RAS platforms and weapons systems already inside inside the opponent’s territory and formations.  In fact, much of this mix of cyber and robotic weapon systems had already penetrated the opponent years ago.  These cyber side weapons had been built to slowly traverse the Internet on their own looking for target systems to disable when hostilities began.  On the robotic side, there were long term underwater vehicles screwed in the sandy muck of the client state’s harbor, a critical pathway for the peer competitors long supply chain.  Other robotic weapons systems were entrenched in the landscape in and around the peer’s installations.

These prepositioned systems had been gathering detailed information on the peer country’s order of battle in the client state for many years.  In fact, some of these prepositioned systems were cognitively adept enough to actively retrieve [and analyze on the spot] the detailed information most needed by the Joint Force Commander.  This information provided a critical part of the “big data” in the Joint Cloud that Joint Force autonomous systems used to construct detailed physical, organizational, and systemic models of the opponent.  These models made it possible for the Joint Task Force commander to run the millions of simulated engagements needed to develop successful methods of attack and uncover the nasty surprises that could put the mission in jeopardy. 

Based on this earlier work, the first major assault of the war was designed to stress the peer’s A2/AD system in order to gather intelligence on its operation, deplete its resources, and [if possible] reinforce the Joint Force’s prepositioned forces with new capabilities.  The assault was composed of RAS swarms of smart air, land and sea platforms set to a high degree of variable autonomy.  Given the risk of the mission, the human teams teamed with the swarms were stationed beyond the edge of the battle area.  The RAS swarms were trained to deceive, jam, and confuse the active sensor network, on land and in space, the opposition’s defense systems relied upon for strike guidance.  This worked.  The defense system was lit up like a Christmas tree and fired multiple salvos of hypersonic missiles at the Joint Force assault.  However, when these missiles reentered, they were unable to find the ships and aircraft they were expected to destroy.  The second wave sent by the defense system was composed of thousands of low cost RAS platforms packed to the brim with lightning fast PGMs.  The RAS platforms, manufactured in large volume over the last two decades, were expected to close on targets and overwhelm them with superior mass.

As these forces closed, it became clear that this wasn’t going to be a fair fight.  The Joint Force personnel at the edge of the effective battlespace were not surprised to see that the cloud-based training system they used to train their RAS swarms up until the last few days had successfully exploited the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the peer’s A2/AD system.  These swarms were able to systematically confuse, jam, outmaneuver, evade, and destroy the much more numerous RAS platforms of the opponent due to the far superior situational awareness, adaptability, and training of the traditionally developed systems deployed against them.  The swarms that did make it through did run into a surprise when the anti-air mobile laser used RAS based cognitive capabilities to knock out a dozen Joint Force drones before it was taken out of action.  Fortunately, the peer’s employment of RAS platforms that were cognitively dangerous, was limited to this this mobile laser.  This allowed the surviving drones to successfully reinforce the prepositioned assets before departing for recovery.

One the second day, the Joint Force Commander decided, based on the high degree of success so far, to accelerate the battle plan and takedown the entire A2/AD system without delay. The takedown assault began with an attack by hypersonic MIRVed missiles launched by F-35s in the north and converted Aegis cruisers at the edge of the peer’s defensive envelope.  These missiles released mesh networked MIRVs with the cognitive capability to rapidly evaluate their local situation and adopt the appropriate tactics during the handful of seconds available in the reentry phase.  To their credit, the MIRVs worked as expected, and they were able to take out the mobile RAS lasers that had been so problematic the day before.   Simultaneous with this, the forward deployed RAS forces sprang into action.  Cyber weapons forced the systems they had penetrated into critical collapse and the RAS UUVs in client state’s harbor blew up two peer munitions transports, crippling resupply efforts.  In few short hours, the entire defense grid, with tens of thousands of PGMs still unused, was down and Air Force and Navy continuous monitoring by flights of man/machine teams went into action to ensure it stayed dark.
The moment the grid went down, the third and final phase of the operation was launched.  This phase leveraged the automation of the US military’s logistics system to rapidly stage a ground assault force to secure the area.  Largely automated, this system was able to move men and material at and construct forward bases at an unprecedented pace.  It was so fast, in fact, the Army and the Marines were ready to stage their assaults within a few weeks of the success over the defense grid.  The men on the assault teams were armed with RAS weapons and able to find, identify, track, and engage multiple threats simultaneously.  They were teamed with RAS attack dogs and RAS mules serving as the support base for the swarm of RAS drones constantly gathering information for the team. 

The Army teams moving overland and Marine teams arriving by amphibious assault [in and around the harbor] traveled rapidly within self-driving RAS vehicles.  Since these vehicles, and the drones above them, were all using decentralized movement protocols, thousands of robotics vehicles were able to maintain high speed forward advance without congestion.   Mesh networks connected these ground assault teams with the reinforced prepositioned forces, the combat overwatch above, and each other.  The ground assault’s RAS driven vehicles rapidly converged on the defended points identified by the prepositioned forces.  Despite some hard fought engagement and a few attempted ambushes, the ground assault was over quickly.  It was later determined that that due to the rapidity of the assaults, the peer competitor was completely unprepared for a ground assault. 

Cognitive dominance achieved, the Joint Force Commander accepted the surrender of the enemy commander.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6372


« Reply #125 on: September 18, 2016, 06:17:09 AM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eagles-snatch-hostile-drones-sky-125833672.html

http://www.livescience.com/56106-dutch-police-anti-drone-eagles-video.html
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 06:19:19 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #126 on: September 25, 2016, 01:01:38 AM »

http://www.easyreadernews.com/135574/redondo-beach-drone-ordinance/?utm_source=Daily+News&utm_campaign=b423
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38275


« Reply #127 on: September 26, 2016, 02:33:16 PM »

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/25/naked-mike-rowe-pulls-shotgun-on-drone-filming-his-bedroom/
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!