4 ms·

Current cruise missiles are optimised for long range but not for final target accuracy, they actually use onboard offline terrain data to cruise to their target

Current cruise missiles are optimised for long range but not for final target accuracy, they actually use onboard offline terrain data to cruise to their target. Accuracy of 99% is considered bad as it might mean collateral damage. Also final target is predefined and aborting or changing target is non-trivial. With these so called "suicide drones", human operators can actions based on current situation, like, pinpoint the target based on realtime images, that actually means limiting collateral damage because of machine errors. which also gives them ability to abort if situations have changed substantially.

kragen 6y ago
> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished. — Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling
- mc32 6y ago
  You have a point, but he wasn’t completely wrong. Though it contains the assumption your advantage is indefinite. In reality the foe catches up. So he was right but it only holds true while you maintain the advantage.
  - _jal 6y ago
    Which in turn leads to "all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis
  - kragen 6y ago
    Tell it to the Zulus who got massacred by early machine-guns or the Congolese who couldn't successfully rebel against the atrocities of King Leopold's machine-gun-armed forces, the atrocities that inspired Heart of Darkness. Even before the opposing side caught up (around 1965, by my reckoning) the effect of the machine-gun was precisely the opposite of "exposure to battle and disease [being] greatly diminished". Some would argue especially before that time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23473201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23473201
    - mc32 6y ago
      I made no implication on justice or fairness. My implication is that the side with the upper hand afforded by this machinery would enjoy less battle induced disease and losses. It’s not a revelation. What it can do though is make the possessor overconfident and while the battle numbers are in your favor, you may yet not have the stamina to win the war—unless you’re completely ruthless.
      - kragen 6y ago
        The reason I brought up those situations is not that they were unfair — although they were, that wasn't the point. It's because Gatling predicted that his wonderful invention would diminish exposure to battle and disease overall, reducing the total of harm done by warfare to humanity — not just to the winning side. He was spectacularly, world-changingly wrong about that. In the same way, praveen9920 is predicting that "suicide drones…actually means limiting collateral damage". "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for mass-murdering civilians on the side of the military you are nominally fighting against, which is a war crime if done intentionally. Praveen9920's optimistic predictions are likely to turn out to be catastrophically mistaken, like Gatling's, and for very much the same reason.
        mc32 6y ago
        Right so my point is Gatling was right but not completely right. He was right that it could minimize the need for military personnel on the possessors side, rather than overall reduction (which is more or less fantasy, but may have some truth if the foe gives up earlier than they would if they thought they had some chance at winning, though like I said overconfidence can result in difficulties incurred by going further than prudent —for your side).
        praveen9920 6y ago
        These drones can actually take away control from machines and give it to humans. Learning from history, it is not a good thing in long run. Humans are good at judging the situation but they come with bias and emotions
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Everyone should just get along and not produce weapons :)
  - kragen 6y ago
    To the extent that those of us who are making a positive contribution to society can slow down and impede the progress of those who are working to put more and more power in the hands of trained killers with more advanced weapons, we will have a better future with less destructive conflicts. Of course it is better to impede the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at you than the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at them. Eliminating weapons entirely seems unlikely.
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      If you're avoiding war and you don't have the ability to win war, you're not peaceful or virtuous, you're just weak.
      - memexy 6y ago
        “Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish as a result of my play with them, but because I can allow them to do what they wish in the course of my play with them.” ― James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        Tip: If you can't win the peace you're weak no matter how many weapons you have. I'm half a century old. The US hasn't managed to win the peace in my lifetime. Every attempt to impose it's will by force has left it weaker not stronger.
    - memexy 6y ago
      Unlikely but a worthwhile goal to keep in mind and work towards.
  - praveen9920 6y ago
- praveen9920 6y ago
  Dr Richard Jordan Gatling underestimated human craving for violence. His prediction has accuracy of a Gatling gun. Note: huge fan of Gatling gun
AlanSE 6y ago
So what you're saying is that two-way communication right up until the final strike is kind of a recent thing? I wouldn't argue with the value of that, but most people don't really have the proper context to evaluate.
- praveen9920 6y ago
  No. Not exactly. Having control over manoeuvrability until final strike is recent thing.
ra7 6y ago
Missiles like Brahmos or P800 Oniks (on which the former is based) have 1-1.5 meter CEP accuracy. They can also hit a moving target using mid course navigation. They are accurate alright, though a bit overkill for scenarios where drone attacks could be used. Agreed with rest of the points.
- praveen9920 6y ago
  accuracy reported are usually from standard test conditions. In practice, deviation is high.
nradov 6y ago
Your information is outdated. The latest Tomahawk missiles support GPS guidance in addition to digital scene matching. And they do allow retargeting in flight. Accuracy is typically quoted in CEP, not percentage.
- praveen9920 6y ago
  Military tech almost always has redundant systems for navigation. The reason why missiles don't prefer GPS or any other radio-based navigation as primary is that it is not reliable and not secure enough. An enemy can disrupt or worse alter the signals to re-target the missile. yeah, probably my info is outdated. I am not an expert on military tech.
GoodJokes 6y ago
if the situation changed substantially, also known as "the brown person isn't there anymore".

kragen 6y ago

> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished. — Dr. Richard Jordan Gatling

mc32 6y ago
You have a point, but he wasn’t completely wrong. Though it contains the assumption your advantage is indefinite. In reality the foe catches up. So he was right but it only holds true while you maintain the advantage.
- _jal 6y ago
  Which in turn leads to "all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis
- kragen 6y ago
  Tell it to the Zulus who got massacred by early machine-guns or the Congolese who couldn't successfully rebel against the atrocities of King Leopold's machine-gun-armed forces, the atrocities that inspired Heart of Darkness. Even before the opposing side caught up (around 1965, by my reckoning) the effect of the machine-gun was precisely the opposite of "exposure to battle and disease [being] greatly diminished". Some would argue especially before that time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23473201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23473201
  - mc32 6y ago
    I made no implication on justice or fairness. My implication is that the side with the upper hand afforded by this machinery would enjoy less battle induced disease and losses. It’s not a revelation. What it can do though is make the possessor overconfident and while the battle numbers are in your favor, you may yet not have the stamina to win the war—unless you’re completely ruthless.
    - kragen 6y ago
      The reason I brought up those situations is not that they were unfair — although they were, that wasn't the point. It's because Gatling predicted that his wonderful invention would diminish exposure to battle and disease overall, reducing the total of harm done by warfare to humanity — not just to the winning side. He was spectacularly, world-changingly wrong about that. In the same way, praveen9920 is predicting that "suicide drones…actually means limiting collateral damage". "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for mass-murdering civilians on the side of the military you are nominally fighting against, which is a war crime if done intentionally. Praveen9920's optimistic predictions are likely to turn out to be catastrophically mistaken, like Gatling's, and for very much the same reason.
      - mc32 6y ago
        Right so my point is Gatling was right but not completely right. He was right that it could minimize the need for military personnel on the possessors side, rather than overall reduction (which is more or less fantasy, but may have some truth if the foe gives up earlier than they would if they thought they had some chance at winning, though like I said overconfidence can result in difficulties incurred by going further than prudent —for your side).
      - praveen9920 6y ago
        These drones can actually take away control from machines and give it to humans. Learning from history, it is not a good thing in long run. Humans are good at judging the situation but they come with bias and emotions
deathgrips 6y ago
Everyone should just get along and not produce weapons :)
- kragen 6y ago
  To the extent that those of us who are making a positive contribution to society can slow down and impede the progress of those who are working to put more and more power in the hands of trained killers with more advanced weapons, we will have a better future with less destructive conflicts. Of course it is better to impede the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at you than the progress of those whose weapons are pointed at them. Eliminating weapons entirely seems unlikely.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    If you're avoiding war and you don't have the ability to win war, you're not peaceful or virtuous, you're just weak.
    - memexy 6y ago
      “Strength is paradoxical. I am not strong because I can force others to do what I wish as a result of my play with them, but because I can allow them to do what they wish in the course of my play with them.” ― James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      Tip: If you can't win the peace you're weak no matter how many weapons you have. I'm half a century old. The US hasn't managed to win the peace in my lifetime. Every attempt to impose it's will by force has left it weaker not stronger.
  - memexy 6y ago
    Unlikely but a worthwhile goal to keep in mind and work towards.
- praveen9920 6y ago
praveen9920 6y ago
Dr Richard Jordan Gatling underestimated human craving for violence. His prediction has accuracy of a Gatling gun. Note: huge fan of Gatling gun

AlanSE 6y ago

So what you're saying is that two-way communication right up until the final strike is kind of a recent thing? I wouldn't argue with the value of that, but most people don't really have the proper context to evaluate.

praveen9920 6y ago
No. Not exactly. Having control over manoeuvrability until final strike is recent thing.

ra7 6y ago

Missiles like Brahmos or P800 Oniks (on which the former is based) have 1-1.5 meter CEP accuracy. They can also hit a moving target using mid course navigation. They are accurate alright, though a bit overkill for scenarios where drone attacks could be used. Agreed with rest of the points.

praveen9920 6y ago
accuracy reported are usually from standard test conditions. In practice, deviation is high.

nradov 6y ago

Your information is outdated. The latest Tomahawk missiles support GPS guidance in addition to digital scene matching. And they do allow retargeting in flight. Accuracy is typically quoted in CEP, not percentage.

praveen9920 6y ago
Military tech almost always has redundant systems for navigation. The reason why missiles don't prefer GPS or any other radio-based navigation as primary is that it is not reliable and not secure enough. An enemy can disrupt or worse alter the signals to re-target the missile. yeah, probably my info is outdated. I am not an expert on military tech.

GoodJokes 6y ago

if the situation changed substantially, also known as "the brown person isn't there anymore".