Comments on: Micro Drones’ Killer Intent

By: MikeinRolla

MikeinRolla — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:47:16 +0000

This is interesting but there is a similar example from WWII that should be considered. During the war, The Army Chemical Service proposed using bats as a transport vehicle for incendiary devices. The idea was that the bats would fly into the attics of old buildings in Europe and rub they legs together, igniting small incendiary devices.The was a pretty good theory but during tests the bats flew into hangers unnoticed and burned the aircraft hangers down. There was also a problem with high altitude delivery. The bats would freeze and bounce rather than fly. So…low altitude delivery was required. That was much more dangerous. Finally the entire idea was dropped.

By: flyff penya

flyff penya — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:17:02 +0000

the lingering shadow of shaking in my face, in order to play this game I spend money to buy the flyff penya, the BB again left me at the same time, same situation when I hard to get it, my angry can not use the words describe

By: ragnarok zeny

ragnarok zeny — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:16:59 +0000

I tried to point the mouse in front of the open spaced, magic happened, in my eyes is a wearing armor riding a bird in the above figures. RO I became the most incredible world in my eyes. I first arrived in RO, I did not know anything. Wave played on the four with me. First time I knew that the world of RF was also can sit aircraft, fight monster, and earn ragnarok zeny. I always behind with the wave, sometimes clearly in front of him, I would be with the people lost, and then he will be very angry to say that he did not play with me, behind with people also can lost. There almost every time we went out to play, I would be very unfortunate to kill the monster, related to the wave also was killed. Every such times, he would very angry and said he did not play with me, played with me always die.

By: David hambling

David hambling — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:37:50 +0000

Yes, I thought of mentioning the bats, as they have something in common: the small size of the warhead is offset by the precision of delivery.
With WWII technology you need many tons of bombs to hit a building. Later that came down to a single guided bomb and these days you can put a Hellfire missile through a specified window. MAVs would increase the precision beyond that, and a pound of MAVs will (one day) be able to take out a target with extreme accuracy and zero
collateral damage.
Consider the sort of mission currently carried out by Hellfire-armed Predators. if instead of firing a missile, the Predator unleashed a swarm of MAVs, they could get close enough to the target to get a positive ID and kill the specified target without endangering bystanders. Crawling MAVs could even pick up DNA samples to confirm identity, and all the unused MAVs could rendezvous back with the Predator ready for the next mission.
Such an MAV swarm could also carry out searches over a large area for an individual or go sniffing out explosive. Or they could perch near a vehicle/safe house and lie in wait.
These capabilities are far in excess of anything currently out there.

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:17:17 +0000

In response to Solomon: One answer is survivability. Take a bat to a football flying at your face; now take a bat to swarm of wasps flying at your face.
You’ll likley render the ball harmless and hit it to the ground, you’ll also likley wack a wasp or 2… 50 others wasps will soon be biting your face and neck.
Of course there are counter-measures to swarms. Weapons such as water-canons, HEMP, and nukes.

By: JRP

JRP — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:25:53 +0000

UAVs have a special kind of precision that smart bombs don’t — they get the same CEP as a smart weapon but they can arrive slowly, perhaps even stopping on or near the target, and then execute complex or articulated actions when they arrive. Imagine a UAV trained to land on a metallic ventilation grille and then open a small canister of laughing gas / nerve gas / fluorescent taggants into the intake. You could either kill or track everyone in the facility. As above, imagine sending a group of UAVs to drop thermite on the same spot, in sequence, so that a near-vertical opening was created leading into a deeply-buried facility. A special forces team or a very high precision bomb could put a fuel-air explosive down the shaft and make it a very unfriendly place.
The precision arrival along with the possibility for departure (or onsite BDA, or onsite intel collection, or-or-or…) makes them either (a) the next step in UAVs or (b) the next step in smart bombs, or both. Calling it a step backwards isn’t giving the innovations the credit they deserve, but calling it “revolutionary” (vice “evolutionary”) overstates the case until we see some innovative doctrines employed.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:04:18 +0000

Very good piece, but I wonder…
When you start talking about swarms of micro UAV’s being dispatched to takeout a particular target, aren’t you in essence resetting the UAV to a previous stage? Sounds to me (and I know this is simplistic thinking) like you’re really talking about a form of smart bomb and nothing more. To start to send UAV’s on these one way missions (swarms or not) is to make a smart bomb and nothing more. If this is true then where is the utility? If I can send a swarm of micro UAV’s after a target then why not a cruise missile or SLAM-ER?? Please explain.