There was a new agreement reached today between the UK and France to jointly develop Drone Technology, one aim being to replace Fighter Aircraft with Drones. See here - Cameron and Hollande finalise plans for Anglo-French drone

As an anything-that-flies enthusiast from way back I'm technically interested in the drones and in seeing how they develop and what technology they use. So it will be fascinating to see how that pans out. Fat chance that the discussion will stick to that, but I've put it in the title, so there.

The article, however, is thought-provoking at different levels, the political, the moral as well as the technological.

There is an interesting turn of phrase at the bottom of that article, namely,
A recent report by the Ministry of Defence said multiculturalism was a significant factor in the public opposition to conflict, as a war-weary public becomes increasingly uncomfortable with seeing British troops deployed to countries from which they once came. --- Lots of issues there.

Yes you are quite correct there mjsmsprt40 in that there are positive uses for drones and it makes a pleasant side to the more violent pattern. I hope the progressive side will become wider.

Step over to that table and pick up your "Katsung47" medal.

No.

I need no examples of good usages of drone technology, I know them all.
What worries me it's how it's used upon us, not on the farmer's cattle and I'll never accept, as you do, that theres a "small price" to pay so drone technology can be used to, allegedly, very good things.

Bel, I have bad news for you. You're already accepting it, whether you know it or not.

You typed your reply on some sort of computer, which accessed the Internet. That Internet was and still is part of the military-industrial complex. "They" are spying on you right now through your device, as likely as not.

No, you can't escape. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the collective. Your cattle will be raped and your women will be rustled. Don't ask what that means, you don't want to know.

Happy now?

OK-- attempt at humor aside, here's the facts: Much of what we use today is the result of military hardware being put to civilian use. Fly from Lisbon to London on a commercial airliner? The first airplane was built with military purposes in mind, and the first big advances in aviation came about as the result of military applications of the aircraft. The airplane became viable because of military needs, and we turned these craft to civilian use as they became available.

I've already mentioned GPS. That started out as a military device, quickly becoming adapted to civilian navigational purposes.

I get quite a bit of information from the weather websites-- here, I favor Accuweather--and of course I look at regional radar coverage for the American Midwest since I'm likely to go somewhere in the region. The British made the earliest serious efforts at this-- for military purposes when it turned out that radio waves bounced off of aircraft and you could see the enemy coming earlier. Of course the military uses radar to this day-- you won't see a destroyer without a set on board.

The Internet got its start as the Arpanet-- at least around here-- and it was communication between the big universities and the military establishment. You wonder why such a heavy CIA/FBI/NSA presence exists on the Internet-- who do you think invented the thing?

And you worry about drones. It's a little late to bolt and bar the door, the horse has run off some time ago.

No, you can't escape. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the collective. Your cattle will be raped and your women will be rustled. Don't ask what that means, you don't want to know.

Happy now?

You're not understanding. I have nothing against the military component on developing technology.

The problem here is if you find funny to appear on the drone's "pilot" screen while riding your van in the middle of your USA, got locked into the weapon system and kaboom. No more mjm.

The problem here it's the usage of military technology on the population by their own security forces. The problem here is, like the Romans have already asked, and who guards the guardians?

The problem here is why people are being increasingly treated as being the enemy, as being a menace. A menace for who???

Drone technology increases all these problems by a thousand times, at a never saw before scale. Nothing to be minimized.

Focus on that and don't diverge, mjm. Good intentions will not protect you.

Why wait for drones? If "they" wanted to off me, they've had the technology ever since before I was born.

Do you really think an F-14 didn't have the technology to lock on to my vehicle and send a missile my way? That's 1970s technology-- the F-14 is out of date today and isn't used by US forces anymore-- but they had the technology back then to do the job from over the horizon if they put their minds to it. Pick up my van on radar, get the target lock, send a heat-seeking or radar-guided missile-- show's over.

Drones are just the latest scary weapon system. Like a lot of other hardware that first saw light-of-day in the military, it's getting into civilian hands for civilian purposes. A Quad-copter with a camera mount flying over a farmer's field isn't nearly the same thing as a Predator flying over Afghanistan, but the Quad is, in fact, an offspring of the Predator. Not as fancy-- you probably can't sit at a table and see what the Quad sees on a screen like you can with the Predator- though maybe you can, it depends on your camera after all-- but it's the same idea.

You probably need a heavier aircraft than a Quad-copter for crop-dusting, that stuff is heavy and is probably beyond the Quad's lifting capabilities-- but the technology exists so it can be done with a different aircraft.

Mj

that description make me have some Question .

Who's and which satelite they use to Control the Drone Cross Continent ?

i guess one satelite isnt enuf .

Mj

that description make me have some Question .

Who's and which satelite they use to Control the Drone Cross Continent ?

i guess one satelite isnt enuf .

These days, a fair number of drones are robots. Set it and forget it, it flies the pre-set course. The TV-guided drones use secure signals over standard  communications satellites-- which incidentally most of those are military/commercial combination satellites- for their guidance. And, you're right-- curvature of the Earth means it takes more than one satellite to control a drone flying over Afghanistan when you're in Colorado. Just off the top of my head, the signal might have to bounce off ten satellites at least between drone and controller. Robot drones are becoming more common simply because you can lose a satellite signal, but you can't lose pre-programmed instructions unless the drone's on-board computer faults.

The problem here it's the usage of military technology on the population by their own security forces. The problem here is, like the Romans have already asked, and who guards the guardians?

The problem here is why people are being increasingly treated as being the enemy, as being a menace. A menace for who???

Drone technology increases all these problems by a thousand times, at a never saw before scale. Nothing to be minimized.

Therein lies the problem, but it's based on paranoia on what "might happen" and assumes not only a hostile Government (a creation beloved of a certain group who shall be nameless) but also a lack of awareness of the checks and balances that exist and which are still needed.

The fallacy in paranoia thinking is simply this:

If you had a government that was prepared to act as aggressively as you fear against "its" citizens, then no amount of moaning would prevent it from acquiring the tools to do so. The solution is not in the moaning, it's in the need to make sure you don't vote in that sort of government in the first place.

mjm - yes the military have had a hand in much of the drone technology, although the man in the park with his remote controlled model steam ship (or indeed in his attic with his model train) may have something to say about that.

One prime example is the Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) used in the maritime industries. See here in Wikki for a run-down on ROVs..

Edit: On the subject of paranoia: Tungsten: The perfect metal for bullets and missiles.

I wonder if I have to start worrying now about someone dropping a tennis ball on my foot?

Robot drones

seems legit

Much of what went into drones might very well be civilian technology being put to military purpose.

String brings up a good point, we've had radio-controlled models for--- seems like forever. Digital proportional control goes back to when I was a boy, at least, and we've had a lot of improvement since then. How hard would it really be for someone in a lab to take already-existing civilian hardware and improve it to the point it can be relied on to take out an enemy?

Add modern computer controls, cameras which James Bond would have given a week of his life to have way back in the late 60s when the Bond movies first started coming out, modern materials which can absorb radar so you don't send a signal back, and-- there you go. A military application of civilian hardware.

While I'm thinking on it-- something I don't propose doing for long, by the way because it's not worth it:

Belfrager, you got a Katsung47 medal because of the paranoia in your posts. You remember that Kat has a tendency to believe that the Fed is out to get him, and that they choose the most difficult, least likely to work schemes that they can come up with to accomplish this task. Wile E Coyote is more likely to succeed with all that stuff he buys from Acme than the Feds are likely to have much luck killing Katsung with tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and I don't know what all else.

So-- taking your example of the government deciding that I am an enemy in need of elimination, what would they do? They could send a missile-equipped drone to target my van-- I suppose that would work. Furiously expensive but it would work. Or, they could send a sharpshooter with a rifle. I don't wear armor, not expecting it, reasonably soft target- one bullet well placed should do the job. Why waste time with drones, or using HAARP to make a tornado hit a town in Oklahoma, or putting poison in the food at the supermarket when the whole issue can be settled by a man hiding behind the neighbor's garage with a rifle? I said before that the technology to kill has existed before I was born-- and so it has. You don't need high tech when low tech will get the job done.

The problem isn't the drones. They're just the latest toy in the arsenal. The issue is who we put in power in our government, and what kind of men these people are. Obama turns out not to be so good in this department-- he's carrying out some of Bush's worst ideas and improving on them-- but we can have hope that the next election nets a better result.

I'm wondering about drones in a toy or hobby mood as recently I have a recollection that some government agency in the USA was planning to make people have alicence or control over toy flying planes and helicopters??

I'm wondering about drones in a toy or hobby mood as recently I have a recollection that some government agency in the USA was planning to make people have alicence or control over toy flying planes and helicopters??

When I first got started in R/C models, you had to have a license issued by the FCC to operate a transmitter. My licence back then was KVB7000. That lasted for a couple of years, then the FCC changed the rules so you no longer needed a license to operate in the CB radio frequencies. Most flying fields will have you become a member of the big national clubs for insurance purposes-- once you become a paid member you have liability insurance to cover "what if" when you're operating your models. I operate model boats, so-- in order to operate on those lakes where model boats are allowed, I have to maintain membership in the IMPBA-- again, mainly for insurance purposes.

Model planes, helicopters, boats and cars all have their potential dangers, so I could see where having to have training and a license proving you've had that training could be a reasonable idea.

Belfrager, you got a Katsung47 medal because of the paranoia in your posts.

Therein lies the problem, but it's based on paranoia on what "might happen" and assumes not only a hostile Government (a creation beloved of a certain group who shall be nameless) but also a lack of awareness of the checks and balances that exist and which are still needed.

The fallacy in paranoia thinking is simply this:

If you had a government that was prepared to act as aggressively as you fear against "its" citizens, then no amount of moaning would prevent it from acquiring the tools to do so. The solution is not in the moaning, it's in the need to make sure you don't vote in that sort of government in the first place.

Any government that you are authorized to vote for is "that sort of government."
That's were the fallacy is, not at my reasoning, dear string.

Now for the "paranoia" you both evaluates being so evident in my words.

If there's any paranoia here, it would be about defending our freedom, mine and yours. I never felt menaced by such kind of "paranoia" and there's something very strange happening when people do feel menaced by.

I'll try a final analogy.
You can keep on believing that you're being taken for having a shower... many believed so at Auschwitz.

Bel, can you explain why, exactly, you might not side with Smileyfaze on the gun-control debate? One reason he has for wanting to be heavily armed is to stop the very type of government shenanigans you're day-nightmareing about. Given your reasoning here, we should all arm ourselves with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to defend ourselves against the government.

Oh, wait, that's right. If the citizens arm themselves against the government, that's paranoia because of course your benevolent government would never-- EVER-- take away your rights (except to own your own guns, of course). But, let the government get a drone and equip it with a camera and maybe a missile and all of a sudden it's only moments until they strip us all of even the right to life and ship us wholesale to the gas-chambers. Problem: You can't shoot the thing down because you gave up your rights to arm yourself. That could be a problem.

I don't know what you've been drinking, but you really need to stop.

Bel, can you explain why, exactly, you might not side with Smileyfaze on the gun-control debate?

I do. I just have a different style.
Besides, SmileyFaze has to worry with his American prairies I have to worry about my Iberian terroir.
Different places, different people, different techniques. Same fight.

Given your reasoning here, we should all arm ourselves with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to defend ourselves against the government.

In the first place, even before start shooting, we do have a responsibility with the next generations, never forget that.
I don't want them to say that their grand fathers did nothing to defend them.
Ours did, we also have to do it.

The siege on individual freedom don't stop growing. That happens all over so called developed world. I see a pattern on that.
I see a menace on that.

About the "pathetic" that resistance can seem to you, I tell you the biggest truth of all - No one can go to war sure that he's going to win.
Don't worry with victory, just fight for what's just, for what are your rights, for your freedom, for your descendants to have a future.
Do what you have to do.

We belong to the generations that lived the biggest and fastest change in the world.
You, as well as many others, don't still believe that the dark dystopian literary fiction, that we read about at our youth, it's already the reality that we are living.

People don't deal well with change, they refuse to see what's in front of them.
That our first weakness. Don't let it to be your last one, wake up.

Interesting answer to my query there mjsmsprt40.  Considering how long this hobby has been going on it did seem a little over the top. Not sure of there have been a spate of things to bring this action about.

For fans of drone hardware - there are a few snippets here.

There are one or two interesting videos linked into the sites you'll visit when looking at the drones, probably some of them worth threads in their own "right"..

......But, let the government get a drone and equip it with a camera and maybe a missile and all of a sudden it's only moments until they strip us all of even the right to life and ship us wholesale to the gas-chambers. Problem: You can't shoot the thing down because you gave up your rights to arm yourself. That could be a problem.

My problem is with the way the government could, & by recent NSA activity, would use drones to pry into a citizens private affairs without just cause, which is expressly forbidden by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Otherwise, I don't have problems with drones per se, if they are used strictly in the form as an innocent, unobtrusive 'hobby', just as long as they respect my 'space'.

I have personally shot down 2 drones over my property a fair while back, & to date I haven't been dragged to court by their owners for doing so.

Who were the owners??

For the record, the parts I recovered, & took to the authorities (personal friends in law enforcement) gave no clues as to ownership. I also had private security professionals inspect them, with the same results.

The cameras were low-grade, & their transmitters & receivers were also commonly available -- to any hobbyist.

Your guess is as good as any, but I would have to assume whomever owned them didn't want it known publicly, or for their own sake, known to me.

Since then I haven't had any dealings with pesky drones, either they have stopped, or they've gotten stealthier.  I think they probably have just stopped, but............

Just to put your mind at rest I would state that it wasn't me that sent them.......

TED droning on for fifteen years, and five gifs.

A portable bar - how wonderful; this will convince evereyone. rjh - think Irm Bru!

The colibri drone is sweet, how cute...
If they show you a little bird it's because they already have a malaria/ebola/whatever infectious mosquito drone. By the millions.

Military technology is how much advanced regarding commercial one? twenty years? thirty years? just imagine what they already have ready to be used against populations.

I'd love a drone and take it to Lisbon on holiday and see if i could dropsome good spiritual  leaflets on the place.....

Worst than Jehovah Witnesses.