Home » Air » Thinking Through the Brave New World of Carrier-Based Drones

Thinking Through the Brave New World of Carrier-Based Drones

by Ward Carroll on February 18, 2013

Back in November the U.S. Navy craned an X-47B, officially labeled an “unmanned combat air system,” aboard the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) for the drone’s first carrier-based testing.

And nothing says “brave new world” like the thought of drone’s taxiing around the flight deck alongside manned aircraft during regular cyclic ops.  Keeping 25 airplanes from smashing into each other before launch is hard enough with pilots in the loop; what will the absence of them do to the Handler’s pucker factor?

Enter the Control Display Unit.  The CDU is the device that allows operators on the flight deck to control the X-47.  The CDU is a wireless handheld device that controls thrust, brakes, and nosewheel steering to maneuver the aircraft wherever it needs to go around the flight deck.

So if we consider how current generation manned aircraft make it from start up to the cat, we can get a sense of how an unmanned aircraft would do the same.

Once the X-47 is powered up and ready to taxi (let’s assume the squadron maintainers — the green shirts — perform that function) a taxi director — a yellow shirt — would wander over with CDU in hand.  So instead of directing a pilot at the controls using hand signals, the yellow shirt simply takes control of the drone and taxis it wherever he desires.

Once the X-47 is spotted on the catapult and ready for launch control would go to … the Air Boss in the tower? … the mission drone pilots located in a ready room? … guys with joysticks in the back of an airborne E-2D?

So somebody controls the drone for the duration of the mission, or several operators control the drone for the duration of a mission.  (You can imagine a “black op” where a regular Navy drone driver has to give control to a CIA drone driver for a bit, and once Bad Guy No. 1 is taken out, the regular Navy guy takes control back.) 

But does that same mission control guy land the X-47 back on the carrier?  Let’s assume he or she doesn’t.  And then once the drone successfully traps (will drone drivers hate flying at night as much as human ones do?) then control goes back to the yellow shirt again.  And once in the chocks, the green shirt shuts the unmanned bird down.

Whew.  That’s a lot of coordination.

And when you say “wireless” controller the first thing that comes to mind is electromagnetic interference, trons so strong and numerous that they have been known to inflate aviators’ life preservers while they were manning up.  What lessons will we learn the hard way when we crank up all the ship’s antennas and add a dozen more X-47s to the mix?

Brave new world, indeed.

Share |

{ 95 comments… read them below or add one }

JJ6000 February 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm

New challenges yes, but certainly not anything unachievable

Reply

shawn1999 February 19, 2013 at 9:07 am

Why do they need wireless controllers at all?
1) Replace the manual effort of taxiing with a algorithmic program that mixes "follow the line" programing (like the RC toys that follow the line your kid draws) with collision avoidance (like the RC vacuum that cleans your carpets, or the RC mop that cleans your floors).
2) Launch should go much easier as well- Catapult launch initiates a program which calculates heading/speed/etc and automatically launches the bird, gets it up to operation altitude and out of the way of flight ops then holds position while control is transferred to your drone pilot.Voila- No more Wireless issues on taxi/take off
3) Normal flight ops proceed
4) Ship-board ATC gives the bird the "all clear" for landing. Its on-board computers calculate heading/speed/etc. much as it did on take off and lands perfectly- rain or shine, day or night- the taxis off the area (much like it did to get to take off position).

As for the "human verse machine" debate, we must remember that for every machine that replaces a human's task, we have 2-3 humans which must now take care of the machine to keep it doing what it does (both logical programmers and physical maintenance)

Reply

LtKitty February 18, 2013 at 6:40 pm

Aye, brave new world. But worry not, Uncle Sam's finest have a knack for getting sh** done.

Reply

EW3 February 18, 2013 at 8:12 pm

"Keeping 25 airplanes from smashing into each other before launch is hard enough with pilots in the loop; what will the absence of them do to the Handler’s pucker factor?"

That's a funny way to look at things.
Having 25 human pilots who are some of the most A++ types on the planet and always know what is right is the hard part.
25 UAVs, which are predictable and don't have egos is easy by comparison. Suspect they will also have an on/off switch.

Reply

drone February 19, 2013 at 7:35 am

My thoughts exactly! We have smart bombs that can post themselves through a window and nobody is saying "that's great, but I would have preferred a highly trained human pilot performing the same mission with unguided bombs".

In countless other areas of our lives we have grown to accept the fact that we can create machines that can do some jobs thousands of times better than a human would. Who would argue today that a human switchboard operator would be more efficient than an automated system? We should hold on to the pride of being able to dream up and manufacturethese systems, but lose the conceit of imagining that we will always be more capable than our creations.

Reply

Seriously? February 19, 2013 at 10:27 am

So what happens when you run out of those types of bombs in an area of operations? I'm sure that EW3 can put the thing on the thing and walk away a war hero!

Reply

drone February 19, 2013 at 10:51 am

Surely a UCAV with target location, velocity, atmospheric and position inputs can calculate the exact release point for a dumb bomb much better than a human pilot can. Indeed they might one day get it so precise that guided bombs would not be needed for such operations where one did not need to stand-off the target.

Reply

blight_ February 19, 2013 at 12:34 pm

You can only enhance the CEP of a dumb bomb so much without GPS guidance and fins for self-correction…short of flying directly at the target and releasing at very close range (which is why Iron Hand missions failed so miserably in Vietnam?)

Seriously? February 19, 2013 at 12:39 pm

There are a lot of technical challenges for that to happen with great consistency, but could it happen one day…sure. Just not anytime soon. Also, how much are you willing to spend on each UCAV and how many are you willing to lose?

Lance February 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm

BAD idea!!!!!!!!!!

Drone cannot replace the manned fighter. They are not as fast in fighting or quick to think. They cannot be as reliable nor as fast to be recalled in a mission. While it may help in low intensity combat. For real war they cannot do the same as a manned F-18EF!!!!

Reply

drone February 19, 2013 at 7:38 am

The issues you raised are easily countered by using remotely piloted drones as opposed to autonomous ones (and the autonomous ones will soon be able to outperform humans anyway.)

As to your manned F-18EF, an small autonomous stealth drone with BVR capable missiles would shoot it down before the human pilots would even be aware of its existence.

Reply

Kole February 19, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Unless ECM cuts off any satellite signal the drone needs… aka RQ-170.

Reply

NathanS February 19, 2013 at 10:18 pm

Even with the best satellite technology, wireless communication over long distances = latency. Also UAV pilots generally have lower situational awareness due to bandwidth issues. For these reasons the current generation of UAVs (and probably the next) cannot compete with current best-of-breed manned fighter platforms.

They do have some advantages over older generation fighters:
- Stealth means that an opponent may not know the UAV is there
- With the agility of modern missile technology capable of high off-bore angle shots may soon make dog-fighting obsolete anyway
- Many modern air-engagements are now "beyond the horizon" anyway

For this reason even the current breed can be a threat to older fighter aircraft.

I disagree with Lance in one way; an unmanned platform potentially can have much faster reflexes and can calculate contingencies at a much faster rate than a human. Consider chess – a game with near infinite possibilities. Only a decade ago to challenge the grand-masters, IBM needed a specialized super-computer and software. Today your average computer with off-the-shelf software can match it with grand masters, and on average need much less time to calculate a move.

Reply

Kole February 20, 2013 at 2:50 pm

But that's only possible if the drone is autonomous. And, something that is autonomous is very vulnerable to ECM. It basically becomes AI, and something with AI is very much a headless chicken without some group of operators monitoring it. Anytime electricity is used for autonomous functions, the aircraft will rely on Inertial data from the past, unless it wants to tell the world where it is with a satellite. With this, all an adversary has to do is create an "ECM Cloud" to completely fry the drones systems. Several of our drones have been lost in Iran because they actually have a "cyber-squad." Even the Taliban can download an app that shows current drone feeds. Quite sad.

Reply

tiger February 21, 2013 at 1:35 pm

The F-22 are only carrying Aim 9's .Your long rang shot is off the table.

Reply

Kole February 21, 2013 at 2:50 pm

What long range shot? I said ECM, and it has downed our drones before.

DevilDogOIF1 February 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm

Correct, drones have a very diminished situational awareness. This aircraft has a different purpose than an F/A-18. The purpose of this drone is to loiter in contested airspace (read: the skies over China) and attack land targets. This platform is a hybrid between a Global Hawk and the Predator. Automated (it will land itself in the carrier) and capable of dropping ordinance on a target.

It will be very interesting to see how these platforms are integrated into the offensive mission. Go America!!

Reply

Bill Kude February 21, 2013 at 10:13 am

Just because the presant unmaned fighters are "not as fast in fighting or quick to think" don't assume that the situation will be that way forever more! As an engineer, we can fix that <grin>

Reply

tiger February 21, 2013 at 11:07 am

Sorry, but those points are false. Sensors & computers are as fast as a over worked human. Are more reliable ( they need no sleep, don't do drugs, & take more G's). Your Super Hornet is still a jack of all trades & Master of none fighter.

Reply

stephen russell February 18, 2013 at 8:43 pm

See 2005 movie Stealth since it shows manned & drones in combat.
Used mockup for carrier pics etc.
Good movie

Reply

NeoconBrony February 18, 2013 at 9:32 pm

No it wasn't, that movie sucked.

Reply

we chan February 18, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Wu Dang (2012)

good chinese movie you like I think mabye i anwser we make happy

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 19, 2013 at 2:18 am

"No it wasn't, that movie sucked".

Sucked? Whaddayamean "sucked"? That movie had (in no particular order):
- Jessica Biel
- Cool (albeit non-existent) aircraft
- The MP7
- Jessica Biel with an MP7

"Sucked"? I have no idea what you mean ( :-) ).

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

crackedlenses February 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm

It's a movie about futuristic Navy fighters, and half your post goes to the MP7?

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 20, 2013 at 2:55 am

Yep….and Jessica Biel.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Jenika February 20, 2013 at 10:08 am

The operant word here is "movie." That's not where you should be getting your info.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen February 20, 2013 at 1:17 pm

Oh, come on…Reality's a total gyp!

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Jenika February 23, 2013 at 11:43 am

All you have as a reply is a racist comment? Why bother "replying."

Reply

Matt February 26, 2013 at 12:34 am

How is that even remotely racist? Also, he just said he enjoyed Stealth not that he saw it as a documentary…

BlackOwl18E February 18, 2013 at 10:46 pm

Drone's will definitely have a place in the Navy, but it will be a long time before they can replace manned pilots. Skilled aviators with excellent warplanes like the Super Hornet are going to be the best for warfare. As for the difficulty of integrating drones into the carrier environment, I'm confident that there's nothing that the U.S. Navy can't handle.

Reply

Nadnerbus February 19, 2013 at 1:15 am

My thoughts are the same. If you need a bomb truck orbiting a battlefield to deliver a JDAM on command from ground forces, these things seem like a pretty good option. Longer loiter time, no pilots to get bored, have to pee. Plug in the GPS coordinates, and cut one loose.

If you need to go in to a access denial type area against a first world power on day one of a conflict, they might still have their place, stealthy and all. But I want lots of humans with lots of flying experience there too to make the on-the-fly decisions. It will be a while before drones can really replace that kind of expertise. I have a feeling they might not ever completely replace pilots in the c0ckpit.

Reply

drone February 19, 2013 at 7:46 am

I would be curious to hear what sort of on-the-fly decisions a manned pilot would be able to take vis a vis an autonomous system, especially one with the appropriate sensors to relay relevant information back to base and the ability to receive further commands.

Imagine a hijacked plane full of schoolchildren was flying towards the centre of New York, and a human pilot was ordered to shoot it down. He makes a decision not to follow orders, seeing the children in the windows, so the plane is allowed to fly into a skyscraper and kill thousands of innocents.

He might have made a moral choice, but it was not the choice of his superiors and caused much greater loss of life and damage than was inevitable. People are awesome, but they are also prone to errors of judgement or physical impairment. To assume that a properly configured robot would be unable to do the same job better lacks perspective.

Reply

blight_ February 19, 2013 at 9:36 am

If it's a teleoperated drone, there's still a human operator on the other side.

That said, the limits of human willingness to take life in an abstract way are well known to the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Air Force. The mission to launch ICBMs requires an abstract hand.

Reply

tiger February 21, 2013 at 1:43 pm

Fail safe, Dr. Strangelove, Crimson tide…………..

If I get the call, I'm putting on the cowboy hat & flying to the Primary.

we chan February 18, 2013 at 10:58 pm

We no buy many only 2 plus test model maybe use now more job later iran stealth fighter mo match this design ok i think now

Reply

whatever March 3, 2013 at 11:30 pm

do you even understand your own "sentence"???

you might want to write in your native language and then use Google's translator.

Reply

Roy Smith February 19, 2013 at 2:26 am

I thought that this UCAV would assume the job that was lost when we retired our A-6 Intruders. I thought that that was its only purpose.

Reply

Rob C February 20, 2013 at 3:41 pm

No its more than that. Its to keep human pilots out harms way. Also politicians have warmed to this because they don't have worry about hearing from their voters that they're putting US lives at risk.

Reply

tiger February 21, 2013 at 1:45 pm

They can do other missions. ASW & Tanker are huge mission needs.

Reply

Philip Solaris February 19, 2013 at 5:00 am

What some fail to understand is that the vast majority of the operations, from launch to landing, and most of what occurs in between, will be fully automated. This would include manoeuvrings on deck as well except for the fact that there are still manned craft present on the flight deck to contend with. Autonomous operations of vehicles in confined, difficult spaces has been done for some time in Australian shipping ports and New Zealand warehouses. Fully autonomous operations of UAS are also standard practice. Landing at night, in pitch darkness and foul weather, is far easier for an automated system with near instantaneous feedback of multiple sensors. The “pilot” is essentially there for when things go wrong in the vehicle and to oversea the operations when a human decision making process is required. The major issue with UAS, which has been identified for a very long time, is one of data link vulnerability. The US has already experienced this several times and are well aware of it. Hence the natural drive towards full autonomy of such systems. Its basic evolution.

Reply

Beno February 19, 2013 at 4:08 am

Absolutely agree that this point seems to have been slightly missed by the author. Additionally;

"Air Boss in the tower? … the mission drone pilots located in a ready room? … guys with joysticks in the back of an airborne E-2D? "

Why on earth do we think the pilots will be anywhere near the carrier? They will be on rotation in the continental US most likely. Particularly by the time we get to 40 UCAS flying long duration strike missions.

This is "proper brave new world" time. A whole new paradigm. It going to take a while for everyone to really get their heads round and see ALL the benefits I suggest.

Reply

Leroy February 19, 2013 at 6:23 am

Yep right up tot he point where some MIT drop out works out how to hack a secure datalink no one thought off, and having decide that isreal is bad , due all the discussions he has had on the NET , hijacks a drone and levels part of a city for Lutlz

Reply

NathanS February 19, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Right… and a pilot has never gone AWOL and defected?

Encryption technology is getting to the point where the hackers are clearly losing. To do a brute-force attack on common off-the-shelf encryption would take the worlds fastest super-computer a billion-billion years to do. It is true that there are some encryption algorithms where flaws have recently been found, but these have been quickly patched. Military encryption has codes that switch rapidly, so are near on impossible to hack. The weakest link when it comes to security is actually people.

And besides, in order to over-ride a UAVs control you would need to be in territory where you have the infrastructure to over-power the military signal. This is not easily done, and means having control of very powerful transmitters. This situation isn't going to occur in friendly territory.

Besides, look at it this way, if our military encryption is broken then UAVs will be the absolute least of our concerns.

Reply

pymfjoepfwl April 1, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Jenika February 20, 2013 at 10:26 am

Unforunately you are right. The drones, if anyone has been paying attention, are slowly replacing combat soldiers: Easier to kill, cheaper to use, no hue and cry about our rising American body count and blown off limbs (less expenditure by the VA hospitals), yes, a nice and tidy way to kil people with minimum PTSD. And the Drones are not just to kill, they are invading civilian's privacy on the home front. Eventually, drones will be ubiquitous over our cities and countryside – 1984 – 30 years later.

Reply

Phono February 19, 2013 at 7:36 am

wow, it just looks that awesome!
nice Picture

Reply

drone February 19, 2013 at 8:20 am

What about the brave new world of stealth sea-skimming anti-ship missiles that could send the entire ship and its complement of drones to the bottom? Whither then the superiority of human pilots over such a missile's basic brain?

Reply

Cane February 19, 2013 at 9:20 am

You have to get close enough to the ship for that to work first. MUCH easier said then done when dealing with layered defense.

Reply

drone February 19, 2013 at 9:50 am

In the same way defenses are evolving, so are the missiles themselves. It is much easier for an enemy to launch 30 autonomous drones to overwhelm the layered defense that to send a single manned aircraft with a proprly trained crew, and the latter would have very little chance of survival.

Reply

blight_ February 19, 2013 at 9:34 am

Brave new world of 100km ranged missiles, you mean?

Sounds like hell for those Littoral Combat Tin Cans.

I would worry more about Russian cruise missiles…the non-export ones.

Reply

drone February 19, 2013 at 9:45 am

You mean the Chinese ICBMs?

Reply

blight_ February 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Whoops. MTCR is geared towards BM's. Classes of /ballistic/ missiles are controlled by MTCR and INF. Export Iskander ballistic missiles are kept below MTCR regs. Russian military inventory Iskanders exceed the MTCR regs because they're not intended for proliferation.

I imagine MTCR/INF/other arms control treaties will be updated to mention cruise missiles and UAVs as potential WMD delivery devices. The other obvious reason for low anti-ship missile range is volume budget in a cruise missile container: a slow missile has long range, a fast missile has short range, and all to avoid eating into payload.

Reply

whatever March 3, 2013 at 11:39 pm

100km missiles are by definition not ICBMs. Those are just anti-ship cruise missiles. Those China has reportedly succeeded in developing both anti-ship ballistic missiles and long-range anti-ship cruise missiles.

Reply

EW3 February 19, 2013 at 11:39 pm

Having served on a 2000 ton DE in the north atlantic in the early 70s (trip to mumansk in 72) it was know we were toast.

We did it anyway.

Reply

blight_ February 20, 2013 at 12:41 am

True. A tin can is cheaper than losing a carrier; but we can't even produce tin cans.

Reply

tiger February 21, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Not at a billion a pop. Your right.

John February 19, 2013 at 10:11 am

But you forgot about the anti-missile lasers we'll have.

Reply

crackedlenses February 19, 2013 at 4:16 pm

But we have no money……

Reply

whatever March 3, 2013 at 11:50 pm

But Uncle Sam is the world's leading "expert" in stealing money (among many other things) from Americans and others around the globe, who are generally too dumb to realize it.

Reply

crackedlenses March 4, 2013 at 12:21 am

Tad February 19, 2013 at 9:54 am

No problem. Just replace the Handlers, Maintainers, Air Boss, etc…., all the way up to the captain of the ship with specialized handler, air boss and captain drones!

Reply

tiger February 21, 2013 at 1:51 pm

This is how the Cylons get started.

Reply

DC2 Jennings February 19, 2013 at 9:55 am

Don't worry Ward, I am sure they will make a compartment in the back to stick the RIO in……. And from what I read the landing is automatic, so no worries with night traps.

DC2

Reply

Tom February 19, 2013 at 10:00 am

I think the obvious solution is use manned equipment to move the aircraft while they are on the deck of the carrier, there is no reason they need to be autonomous while on the deck of the carrier. I would think a simple electric tug with a human operator controlling it with an attached controller (i.e, not a big tractor with the operator sitting in or on it, but rather, the operator standing beside it with an attached controller) would work fine, think the 'tugs' you see in the parking lots of grocery stores they use to move grocery carts.

Reply

fgghhbf February 19, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Drones are definitely faster and will think and process faster than any human. Drones can survive G forces that would turn a human into mush. Computers process information more precisely than humans they have to be programmed to do so. By the time a human thinks moves his hand to pilot a turn we are talking under a second. A drone or computer under a millisecond. Humans have to constantly train to achieve a level of performance than a drone can consistently attain day after day.

Reply

Jenika March 3, 2013 at 9:49 pm

The "new thing" is Drone Warfare. Curently, they cannot make them faster enough to keep up with supply. Drones are used exclusively in Waziristan and have killed more civilians than the "enemy." States-side they are being used for spying on the American public. Seattle has, or is trying, to ban them entirely. Texas too. They are a threat to the privacy of all of us.

Reply

Jenika March 3, 2013 at 9:53 pm

You may have also seen the footage of reporters and children being killed/maimed in Iraq by drones in the footage released to Wikileaks.
Deadly mistakes are made by drones.

Reply

crackedlenses March 4, 2013 at 12:12 am

Reporters who run around with openly armed terrorists have only themselves to blame if they get riddled with bullets.

Reply

blight_ March 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Being a war correspondent is a dangerous job. If you are in the field looking for the story, you accept the risk of getting killed.

Tribulationtime February 19, 2013 at 1:14 pm

Yes a human can disobey a wrong intruction and thus avoid accidents. A full new way to manage the deck is needed if you want to use drones. Maybe develop differents "windows" of launch given that current drone seems be usefull for attack waves only. I mean i don´t belive UCAVS doing CAPs, Interceptions, scrambles or emergecy "buddy-tanker" sortie. Maybe, Rebuffising decommised Tarawa class (or something like that) for UCAVS squadrons only. My opinion is that the money for drones would be used to "squeeze" F/A-18E/F performance.

Reply

tom February 19, 2013 at 6:42 pm
tom February 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm
torrance February 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm

The credibility of this site goes to hell when you use the word "drone" to describe a Remotely Piloted Vehicle or Unmanned Vehicle. I realize that's what the Hipsters (not) at Time et al are doing but this is supposed to be an Industry rag.

Reply

Jenika February 20, 2013 at 10:35 am

Instead of using the word "Drone," or its longer equivalent, we can simply call them KILLER MACHINES. You guys get lost in your "who can talk the most military jargon"
and forget that these are mass killing machines – mostly aimed at civilians to demoralize those "terrorists." They don't have names, kids, mothers, wives – they are "just the terrorists."

Reply

J. Fonda February 20, 2013 at 4:12 am

The worse thing that could happen is that one of these UAV's might launch a missle on deck, striking another aircraft, setting off a series of explosions that might almost sink an aircraft carrier….. On, no, wait…. that was John McCain!

Reply

Guest February 20, 2013 at 9:47 am

No the worst thing that could happen is some whiny stank would complain about our armed forces when they're ordered to work. Oh no, (as the smart aleck punk would say) …that's you.

Reply

whatever March 4, 2013 at 12:11 am

Why are you being so whiny about a totally legit and harmless post?

Are you always complaining about things like that?

Reply

whatever March 4, 2013 at 12:08 am

In defense of John McCain, he was never known for his intelligence. It's still true to this day. So whoever kept McCain as a pilot ought to share a big chunk of the responsibilities for McCain's mishaps.

Reply

Frankenator February 20, 2013 at 9:09 am

The author should really takes a little bit of time to understand how this aircraft operates, i.e., autonomous vs remotely piloted, before publishing an article like this. That is just plain irresponsible. This clueless author has published a citeable source that is full of inaccuracies. Most of the comments are absurd as well, based on absolute naivety of aircraft CONOPS, performance, mission requirements, and capabilities for either manned or unmanned aircraft.

Reply

Guest February 20, 2013 at 9:51 am

An unfortunate sign of the times Frank, everybody's a Jane Fonda these days.

Reply

Paul February 20, 2013 at 10:59 pm

How much longer will it be till the USAF modifies their global, high endurance drones for low orbit capability? Once achieved, a whole flock of drones could be assigned to numerous 'hot spots' & be 'on tap' in less time than carrier deployment. Does anyone recall the cost of operating a carrier in combat arenas? It's quite expensive daily. Positioning drones in low orbit globally would be a fraction of carrier deployment/operational cost. Who knows………such an eventuality may even antiquate the carrier.

Reply

Nickuru February 21, 2013 at 11:16 am

This technology might make sense to politicians and further the interests of corporate executive bonuses, but from a military point of view this is a useless waste of taxpayers's money

Reply

blight_ February 21, 2013 at 11:56 am

Bouncing communications from a carrier to a satellite (or some kind of relay UAV) to the drone will have less latency than using satellite relays from Creech to a drone on the other side of the planet.

I've not seen much details on how they intend to teleoperate. I assume it would be off the carrier, but…

Reply

Black shoe Bosun February 21, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Wow a seven or eight month cruise with no Nasal radiators sounds ok to me!

Reply

uncle bill February 21, 2013 at 3:06 pm

I just think that cockpit cockpit cockpit cockpit cockpit cockpit.

Reply

Joe February 21, 2013 at 12:34 am

You are an il-informed idiot!

Reply

Jenika February 28, 2013 at 10:41 am

He said "reality is a total gyp." That is putting down gypsies.

Reply

blight_ February 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm

I thought those folks identified themselves as Roma/Romani?

Reply

Jenika March 3, 2013 at 9:37 pm

True, they do but Nelson used the racist term "I got gypped".
This is referring to gypsies as "lying and thieving." This is similar to "I got jewed" (short changed). The Gypsies are a proud and unique people whose numbers were decimated by Hitler. I am sure Nelson didn't realize that "gypped" was a racist term.

Reply

whatever March 4, 2013 at 12:59 am

9-11 was an inside job. Do you ever read and think for yourself?

Don't just regurgitate everything the mainstream media jammed down your throat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFx1WaK54Vo

Reply

crackedlenses March 4, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Done by space aliens hired by the evil Dictator Bush, I shouldn't wonder. Do you also believe JFK is still alive? MSM sure tried hard to fool everyone on that one (and they killed off the murder to cover it up, too!).

Reply

whatever March 4, 2013 at 4:42 pm

did you overdose on some potent stuff?

your post is so incoherent and nonsensical that it reads like the confused babbling of a schizophrenic.

focus! one issue at a time. what makes you think the 9-11 was actually done by terrorists, apart from unsubstantiated and already debunked claims of the government and the MSM?

Reply

crackedlenses March 5, 2013 at 12:27 am

"did you overdose on some potent stuff?
your post is so incoherent and nonsensical that it reads like the confused babbling of a schizophrenic."

Just passing on some crazy stuff I've heard in a similar vein. (The misspells didn't help.)

"focus! one issue at a time. what makes you think the 9-11 was actually done by terrorists, apart from unsubstantiated and already debunked claims of the government and the MSM?"

1. Osama said he did it. Haven't found anything he has said that contradicts that fact.

2. Worldwide, Muslims celebrated it. Not a direct reason, but sure puts them in the suspect category. Not to mention the whole string of attacks leading up to 9/11.

3. The claims are hardly "debunked". I have seen some fierce debate on the topic, and am not convinced that the Towers went down as an inside job.

I think for myself. Still haven't seen any compelling proof it was Bush's or the CIA's fault. We'll have to disagree on this one.

Reply

jenika April 4, 2013 at 10:02 pm

The Brave New World is gonna stick US where the sun don't shine.

Reply

jenika April 4, 2013 at 10:06 pm

We have seen how the pilots who are there have no idea who they are gunning down.
I am referring to the Wikileaks expose of the camera men and children gunned down
by those "well meaning pilots."
More civilians have been killed in these mid-East wars than the so-called "enemy."

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: