5 ms·

“We don’t have to develop new planes,” Roper said. “We don’t have to develop fundamentally new weapons. But we have to work the integration and the concept of o

“We don’t have to develop new planes,” Roper said. “We don’t have to develop fundamentally new weapons. But we have to work the integration and the concept of operation. And then you have a completely new capability, but you don’t have to wait long at all.” Whilst this is simply common sense, it's actually pretty radical thinking for the military. The big military contractors will be worried about this idea gaining widespread acceptance.

ipsin 11y ago
Yeah, I'm going to assume that the billions still slated for the F-35 and B-21 bomber will still be spent.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
There are issues. 1. Power source - battery, or something else? 2. Clean-up - do the drones self-destruct, or do they (literally) fall into enemy hands? 3. Range 4. Payload - HE? Are these flying mines/grenades? 5. Security - EMP, jamming, comm-layer hacks. The defensive applications are probably stronger than the offensive ones.
patcheudor 11y ago
I recently built an acrobatic FPV hexacopter and given its abilities to carry a payload as well as quick flight in close quarters it stuck me as the perfect weapon. Even without cellular or satellite communication to it, the thing has a 1.5 km line of sight range. Why spend billions on the F-35 when you could drop a swarm of these on some insurgents, each with a few grams of explosive. Have a pilot direct the swarm then once close enough to the target(s) have other pilots pick-up quadrants or even individual drones. Get close to the target(s) and trigger the explosives on the drone. It's likely possible to get the component cost easily below $1000 each. Even at $10,000 or $100,000 each, it would be a cheaper alternative to programs like the F-35. If the US isn't developing them, then others will. The thing that is quite scary is that this technology is available and here today with all the components necessary shipped from China.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  The F35 isn't being developed solely to combat insurgents, though it'll likely fill that role at some point.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    The also plan a urban warfare module for the F35? At least the vertical take off module would make some sense then.
- zby 11y ago
  Poisonous stings instead of explosives
- reitanqild 11y ago
  I'm constantly reminded of "Kill decision" by Daniel Suarez that I read last year based on a recommendation here. It plays these ideas (cheap, autonomous) out for some quite interesting reading, only it is the bad guys who are in control.
  - artursapek 11y ago
    "Bad guys" is based on perspective anyway
    - unit91 11y ago
      Hardly. "Enemy" is a matter of perspective, but there are actual "bad guys", regardless of what side I'm on. As a simple illustration, if you were a holocaust victim at Auschwitz, the Nazi regime is your enemy, even if you're passive in your resistance, as many were. The Nazis are also the bad guys. Even though you are the Nazis' enemy, you are not the bad guy. The bad guys are the ones murdering millions. Often in conflicts, both sides are bad guys (for example, warring criminal gangs). The term "bad guys" doesn't necessarily mean there are "good guys" opposing them.
      - 11y ago

ipsin 11y ago

Yeah, I'm going to assume that the billions still slated for the F-35 and B-21 bomber will still be spent.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

There are issues. 1. Power source - battery, or something else? 2. Clean-up - do the drones self-destruct, or do they (literally) fall into enemy hands? 3. Range 4. Payload - HE? Are these flying mines/grenades? 5. Security - EMP, jamming, comm-layer hacks. The defensive applications are probably stronger than the offensive ones.

patcheudor 11y ago

I recently built an acrobatic FPV hexacopter and given its abilities to carry a payload as well as quick flight in close quarters it stuck me as the perfect weapon. Even without cellular or satellite communication to it, the thing has a 1.5 km line of sight range. Why spend billions on the F-35 when you could drop a swarm of these on some insurgents, each with a few grams of explosive. Have a pilot direct the swarm then once close enough to the target(s) have other pilots pick-up quadrants or even individual drones. Get close to the target(s) and trigger the explosives on the drone. It's likely possible to get the component cost easily below $1000 each. Even at $10,000 or $100,000 each, it would be a cheaper alternative to programs like the F-35. If the US isn't developing them, then others will. The thing that is quite scary is that this technology is available and here today with all the components necessary shipped from China.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
The F35 isn't being developed solely to combat insurgents, though it'll likely fill that role at some point.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  The also plan a urban warfare module for the F35? At least the vertical take off module would make some sense then.
zby 11y ago
Poisonous stings instead of explosives
reitanqild 11y ago
I'm constantly reminded of "Kill decision" by Daniel Suarez that I read last year based on a recommendation here. It plays these ideas (cheap, autonomous) out for some quite interesting reading, only it is the bad guys who are in control.
- artursapek 11y ago
  "Bad guys" is based on perspective anyway
  - unit91 11y ago
    Hardly. "Enemy" is a matter of perspective, but there are actual "bad guys", regardless of what side I'm on. As a simple illustration, if you were a holocaust victim at Auschwitz, the Nazi regime is your enemy, even if you're passive in your resistance, as many were. The Nazis are also the bad guys. Even though you are the Nazis' enemy, you are not the bad guy. The bad guys are the ones murdering millions. Often in conflicts, both sides are bad guys (for example, warring criminal gangs). The term "bad guys" doesn't necessarily mean there are "good guys" opposing them.
    - 11y ago