Unwelcome visitors
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok roadster but if you strip someone for that reason in any civilised country it's you who will end up behind bars and rightly so.
If the argument against drones is taken to its logical conclusion we will be back at pikes and swords within months!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very clever. Soaking and humiliating old ladies makes our country safer, PB?
Let's be clear, no one is asking or expecting RPAS to be un-invented. On the contrary. Clearly you are OK with the current mission of UK and US drones; would you still feel the same if a foreign government was using the to kill people in this country?
Let's be clear, no one is asking or expecting RPAS to be un-invented. On the contrary. Clearly you are OK with the current mission of UK and US drones; would you still feel the same if a foreign government was using the to kill people in this country?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think you are missing the point ShotOne.
It is as simple as this: the security of a military establishment has been compromised, while that establishment is engaged in operations. Who did it, and what their motivations were, are irrelevant.
Just like when Cpl X orders SAC Y to carry out a duty and he fails to do so. It's a breach of discipline.
In both cases, it cannot be allowed to stand, or be subject to justification, nor a debating point.
Secure the camp and charge SAC Y. Once that's done, you can talk all you like. It's not the Girl Guides.
It is as simple as this: the security of a military establishment has been compromised, while that establishment is engaged in operations. Who did it, and what their motivations were, are irrelevant.
Just like when Cpl X orders SAC Y to carry out a duty and he fails to do so. It's a breach of discipline.
In both cases, it cannot be allowed to stand, or be subject to justification, nor a debating point.
Secure the camp and charge SAC Y. Once that's done, you can talk all you like. It's not the Girl Guides.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very clever. Soaking and humiliating old ladies makes our country safer, PB?
They are not all little old ladies either, remember Greenham Common?
As far as the UK or Australia being threatened by drones, I would like to think that the respective air defences will have taken care of the drones long before they are in a position to fire - as an airborne weapons system they are unlikely to be very effective against a sophisticated enemy.
Roadster280
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello 4ROCK, I thought I set you a reasonably sensible "question" earlier http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8100025 but either you are too clever to bother or I'm too thick too have noticed. Yer man's really an OK bloke?
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 15th Oct 2013 at 23:42. Reason: Finger Trouble
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its you who's missing the point. If it were to secure the station that may be justified but that wasn't the situation given. I would maintain the Waddington case was handled in an appropriate and effective way. If we're dealing with a serious terror or SF attack it becomes silly as well as illegal since they are hardly going to be neutralised by a sprinkling.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think I understood most of that so that answers the question then; I'm too thick to have noticed.
So Judges who make political statements in the course of their job "rule OK". Glad we've cleared that up.
So Judges who make political statements in the course of their job "rule OK". Glad we've cleared that up.
So Judges who make political statements in the course of their job "rule OK". Glad we've cleared that up.
I'm with you. IMHO, this judge should face censure for his political comments and his lenient sentencing.
The judge is reported as saying:
I'm not a lawyer, but is the judge saying that if any of the defendants had said they were related in some way to Afghan nationals currently living in that country, then their actions would have been justified and they would have been found not guilty?
If so, that opens one great big door.
I find, and not without some hesitation, that the lack of proximity or relationship between the defendants and those in Afghanistan who may be either targeted or hit accidentally by these drones is insufficient. I therefore, with a very heavy heart, find all the defendants guilty."
If so, that opens one great big door.
Nope. Drone usage has been proliferating for about the past decade. Sales are up, needless to say, and R & D is alive and well.
For example, Turkey ...
Source = Forecast International 25 September 2013
For example, Turkey ...
The number of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) development projects continues to increase. Turkey is already working on the Anka Medium-Altitude, Long-Endurance (MALE) system, but also wants to develop a more capable UAV. Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization is encouraging the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) to develop a draft requirement for a new unmanned aircraft similar in capability to the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk, reports the Zaman, a Turkish daily newspaper. Turkey is looking for a new UAV capable of remaining on station for an extended period and carrying a payload weighing as much as 500 kilograms. The Global Hawk can fly for up to 35 hours and carry payloads up to 1,360 kilograms.
The Anka MALE UAV project has been underway since 2004. This UAV can carry a payload of 200-plus kilograms.
The Anka MALE UAV project has been underway since 2004. This UAV can carry a payload of 200-plus kilograms.
Source = Forecast International 25 September 2013
Trim
"I'm all for using drones for reconnaissance - but not for remote
killing."
"I'm all for using drones for reconnaissance - but not for remote
killing."
Brown Bess wept.
I think 4Rock is asking if we are the only country that uses drones as strike assets, as opposed to just developing and fieldiing them. If so, then yes, the UK, the US, and Israel are the only countries that employ UAVs in this way.
Last edited by melmothtw; 16th Oct 2013 at 14:27.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by uffington sb
At least they were wearing Hi-Vis vests.
I once saw a tv documentary where crooks drove up to somebodies driveway in a low loader truck, got out in hi-vis vests and towed some guys expensive sports car away. All his neighbours thought it was legit. I've heard high-vis vest wearing crooks have done the same thing walking into Dixons / Curry's with a trolly and walked out carrying a television.
It amazes me when I've gone to sporting events, as soon as the marshals put on the hi-vis vest, you can see their power trip. There was no hazard for them to wear a hi-viz vest, it just makes the marshal feel important and think they are Robocop.
Last edited by gr4techie; 16th Oct 2013 at 14:39.
RPAS is a perfectly acceptable and accurate weapon of war.
"no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. " Yes, I know Patton didn't say that but he should have!
"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
"You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked."
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
"no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. " Yes, I know Patton didn't say that but he should have!
"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
"You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked."
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
There's nothing cowardly about operating RPAS; it's a matter of efficiency, nothing to do with protecting the crew.
Your entire force is deployable every day for every mission, while still living at home. No-one needs IPDT, operational kitting, flying to theatre etc etc. The hassle of rolling in a new GR4 squadron every 4 months is certainly large; but the entire Reaper fleet is available for HERRICK ops every single day.
Plus, if the crew get tired, you replace them. If they need a toilet break, you can let them have one. If a mission becomes more difficult, you can put in a more experienced crew. It's all about effectiveness, not hiding from the Taliban's advanced IADS!
People also need to stop confusing US and UK drone use. What the CIA may do with RPAS in Pakistan is one thing, but the UK purely uses Reapers in the same roles as something like a GR4; just a more efficient GR4 with a better weapons fit (in some cases), a better camera, and more SA.
Your entire force is deployable every day for every mission, while still living at home. No-one needs IPDT, operational kitting, flying to theatre etc etc. The hassle of rolling in a new GR4 squadron every 4 months is certainly large; but the entire Reaper fleet is available for HERRICK ops every single day.
Plus, if the crew get tired, you replace them. If they need a toilet break, you can let them have one. If a mission becomes more difficult, you can put in a more experienced crew. It's all about effectiveness, not hiding from the Taliban's advanced IADS!
People also need to stop confusing US and UK drone use. What the CIA may do with RPAS in Pakistan is one thing, but the UK purely uses Reapers in the same roles as something like a GR4; just a more efficient GR4 with a better weapons fit (in some cases), a better camera, and more SA.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points...
They broke in, simple as. It really doesnt matter if it was Granny and the local Wi Commando or some teatowel wearing wannabe from one of our own inner city Bagdads....
They are ALL as capable as each other of pinning up a poster, sticking a ban the naughty nasty plane sticker on a door or leaving a nice surprise with a mercury switch and a mobile phone/parkway timer in the initiation train and a few kilo of bang at the end of it. Physically, if granny can hump a bag of potato's from the co-op to home then she can hump a device onto a base. The only question really is one of desire.
Monday morning when it goes bang is not the time to find out they werent just putting up posters.
How do we deal with it? Easy, robustly, very. Armed sentries on an irregular patrol plot with an army guard dog tagging along (not a nancy RAFP mutt) and working to a robust ROE. A firm, clear loud challenge and if they don't comply let the dog go or if appropriate rounds (or both). We did it during the 'troubles' so can do it again.
When caught, they go to court, get jail time and then dragged through the civil courts for damages until bankrupt.
As for operating RPAS in an offensive role, I'm all for it. If someone wants to do bad on us (the UK) to the extent that they willing to kill UK citizens then I for one would prefer them neutralised first. How they end up in that condition I really don't mind but would prefer it if the means does not put any more UK lives at risk than necessary.
And breath......
They broke in, simple as. It really doesnt matter if it was Granny and the local Wi Commando or some teatowel wearing wannabe from one of our own inner city Bagdads....
They are ALL as capable as each other of pinning up a poster, sticking a ban the naughty nasty plane sticker on a door or leaving a nice surprise with a mercury switch and a mobile phone/parkway timer in the initiation train and a few kilo of bang at the end of it. Physically, if granny can hump a bag of potato's from the co-op to home then she can hump a device onto a base. The only question really is one of desire.
Monday morning when it goes bang is not the time to find out they werent just putting up posters.
How do we deal with it? Easy, robustly, very. Armed sentries on an irregular patrol plot with an army guard dog tagging along (not a nancy RAFP mutt) and working to a robust ROE. A firm, clear loud challenge and if they don't comply let the dog go or if appropriate rounds (or both). We did it during the 'troubles' so can do it again.
When caught, they go to court, get jail time and then dragged through the civil courts for damages until bankrupt.
As for operating RPAS in an offensive role, I'm all for it. If someone wants to do bad on us (the UK) to the extent that they willing to kill UK citizens then I for one would prefer them neutralised first. How they end up in that condition I really don't mind but would prefer it if the means does not put any more UK lives at risk than necessary.
And breath......
Last edited by Always a Sapper; 19th Oct 2013 at 22:50.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If people are going to get upset about the use of drones to kill what are they going to think of the F22 and F35, aircraft that don't have to see their target to hit it and are never seen by their target?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, PB and feel the debate has gone down a blind alley by focusing on the vulnerability or otherwise of the operator. An archer would have appeared unchivalrous, cowardly even, to a swordsman.
The issue isn't the weapon but what it's used for. Would anyone travel to Pakistan to kill someone, terror suspect or not, with a gun -or a spear come to that -and expect it not to raise legal issues?
The issue isn't the weapon but what it's used for. Would anyone travel to Pakistan to kill someone, terror suspect or not, with a gun -or a spear come to that -and expect it not to raise legal issues?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A while back I was listening to a debate about RPAS / drones on the radio, the journalist made an interesting question...
If country U can use drones in country P to target individuals living there. Then where do we legally stand to stop others doing it to our nation? What happens if you were driving down the M1 motorway and as you passed Milton Keynes the car in front blows up because its being targeted by a RPAS flown from another country?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
. . . robustly, very. Armed sentries on an irregular patrol plot with an army guard dog tagging along (not a nancy RAFP mutt) and working to a robust ROE. A firm, clear loud challenge and if they don't comply let the dog go or if appropriate rounds (or both). We did it during the 'troubles' so can do it again.
Apart from missing I don't know if there were any repercussions.