From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Wed Oct 24 10:46:20 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:15:03 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #35 skunk-works-digest Wednesday, October 24 2001 Volume 10 : Number 035 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: TEST MESSAGE Re: TEST MESSAGE (no subject) Re: (no subject) RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires RE: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires RE: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: (no subject) RE: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Taliban SAM ready to fire (jpg) Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:19:36 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: TEST MESSAGE SR71T@aol.com wrote: > > Its working, Hi george, have you been off the air? greg.. SR71T? Wonder what a "T" model is. :-) I thought this group went into stealth mode because of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Maybe people thought we were discussing things in too much detail. Or is that my usual paranoia showing again? Al ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:35:44 +0100 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Re: TEST MESSAGE SR71 Model T - any colour you like so long as it's Black! I thought this list was dead - I found a link to it from waaaay back, and signed up again just to see if was still active. Has there been any 'relevant' news lately that I might have missed? Adrian Mann, UK On 17/10/01 12:19 am, "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > SR71T@aol.com wrote: >> >> Its working, Hi george, have you been off the air? greg.. > > SR71T? Wonder what a "T" model is. :-) > > I thought this group went into stealth mode because > of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Maybe people thought > we were discussing things in too much detail. Or is > that my usual paranoia showing again? > Al ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:02:01 EDT From: SR71T@aol.com Subject: (no subject) T for Tiger , Okinawa , cheers........... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:27:55 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: (no subject) SR71T@aol.com wrote: > > T for Tiger , Okinawa , cheers........... Oh, I thought maybe it was a special version for use against the Taliban!! :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:39:43 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... Here is something of some tangential interest that I just learned (equipping Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponline121752_000.ht m Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:12:10 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Not sure on the 'technical' accuracy of the Post's article, but I saw tape on one of the networks that had a Predator, so equipped, firing a missle! I would have thought that would have been extremely sensitive stuff, but I guess not! Of course, I'm sure it was video of a test done over here, not 'live fire' on the battlefield.... It might even have been trumped up propaganda to make the Taliban afraid of unarmed drones, I suppose.... Greg W ps: Glad to see everyone's still out there... The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... Here is something of some tangential interest that I just learned (equipping Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponline121752_000.ht m Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:32:02 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires I seem to remember reading on Janes website that tests were done with live Hellfire missiles out in Australia. The reason being they were very interested in buying some. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Weigold, Greg > Sent: 18 October 2001 18:12 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires > > > Not sure on the 'technical' accuracy of the Post's > article, but I > saw tape on one of the networks that had a Predator, so > equipped, firing a > missle! I would have thought that would have been extremely > sensitive > stuff, but I guess not! > > Of course, I'm sure it was video of a test done over > here, not 'live > fire' on the battlefield.... It might even have been trumped > up propaganda > to make the Taliban afraid of unarmed drones, I suppose.... > > Greg W > > ps: Glad to see everyone's still out there... > > > The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... > > Here is something of some tangential interest that I > just learned > (equipping > Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponlin e121752_000.ht m Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:31:54 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires From: "Erik Hoel" > The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... > > Here is something of some tangential interest that I just learned (equipping > Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponline121752_000.ht > m > > Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather > skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. On 21 Feb this year, a GA Predator notched up the first known launch of a live missile from a the Nellis AFB weapons range. It lased the tank from 2000 feet and fired the Hellfire which blew off the tank's tread - thereby disabling it. The plan was to extend the range and altitude, but I don't recall if that's happened yet. The UCAV has arrived ! HTH David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:05:17 -0400 From: "Tom" Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Erik, Your link doesn't seem to work anymore!-habutom - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Hoel" To: "Skunk Works (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:39 PM Subject: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires > The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... > > Here is something of some tangential interest that I just learned (equipping > Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponline121752_000.ht > m > > Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather > skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. > > Erik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:26:24 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Tom [mailto:thomasdjoyce@netmcr.com] writes: > Your link doesn't seem to work anymore!-habutom The problem is the last character ("m") is on the next line - a little copy-pasting in your browser will fix this problem. Erik > > The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... > > > > Here is something of some tangential interest that I just learned > (equipping > > Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponlin > e121752_000.ht > > m > > > > Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather > > skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. > > > > Erik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:31:07 EDT From: SR71T@aol.com Subject: Re: (no subject) I like it!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:54:37 -0500 From: "Sam Wiltzius" Subject: RE: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Aviation Week has also posted an article on this with a small photo. http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_military.jsp?view=story&id=new s/muav1018.xml Not much in the article but still interesting. Sam Wiltzius Lawrence University Microcomputer Specialist Phone (920)-832-6803 Fax (920)-832-7693 - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Erik Hoel Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 11:40 AM To: Skunk Works (E-mail) Subject: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... Here is something of some tangential interest that I just learned (equipping Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponline121752_000.ht m Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:58:13 -0700 (PDT) From: CFA3@webtv.net (C.F.A.3) Subject: Taliban SAM ready to fire (jpg) I'm doing a lot of reasearch about this war on terrorism. I think it is always best to know your enemies capabilities C3 See ya in the desert The GROOM LAKE AUDUBON SOCIETY http://community.webtv.net/CFA3/GROOMLAKEAUDUBON http://dbromage.omni.com.au/SAM.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:40:54 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Erik Hoel wrote: > > The list has been frightfully quite for ages ... > > Here is something of some tangential interest that I just learned (equipping > Predator's with Hellfire antitank missiles): > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011018/aponline121752_000.ht > m > > Is this all baloney? Give it is in the Washington Post, I am rather > skeptical regarding technical accuracy, etc. > > Erik Not only is it true, but as the article said, one of the armed Predators during the early part of the war came upon Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar getting into one of his vehicles and driving off with his guards. He was positively identified. There were no civilians around. The seeker had a good lock. The General in command (why was a General involved?) said that the JAG (military speak for "lawyer") at the Command wasn't "comfortable" with killing him, so the order was to hold fire. Omar escaped and is still planning ways to kill more of us. "We have met the enemy and he is us". Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:59:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Art Hanley wrote: > Not only is it true, but as the article said, one of the armed > Predators during the early part of the war came upon Taliban leader > Mullah Mohammed Omar getting into one of his vehicles and driving off > with his guards. He was positively identified. There were no civilians > around. The seeker had a good lock. The General in command (why was a > General involved?) said that the JAG (military speak for "lawyer") at > the Command wasn't "comfortable" with killing him, so the order was to > hold fire. Omar escaped and is still planning ways to kill more of us. > > "We have met the enemy and he is us". I read from AW&ST that generals are in the loop from UCAV to make the decision of attacking or not in real-time. One of the reason I can think of not attacking the Taliban leader is that if he is dead, there are thousands of liutenants that can take over his job. Better know who is the leader and watch his movements. BTW, I visited what is left of the World Trade Center today... I can't find a word to describe it. A very strong burning smell is still all over lower Manhattan. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." Charles A. Lindbergh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:49:05 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires > Not only is it true, but as the article said, one of the armed >Predators during the early part of the war came upon Taliban leader >Mullah Mohammed Omar getting into one of his vehicles and driving off >with his guards. He was positively identified. There were no civilians >around. The seeker had a good lock. The General in command (why was a >General involved?) said that the JAG (military speak for "lawyer") at >the Command wasn't "comfortable" with killing him, so the order was to >hold fire. Omar escaped and is still planning ways to kill more of us. Personal opinion, we should have shot his *ss off. GEorge ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com/georgek Jackson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:49:19 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > I read from AW&ST that generals are in the loop from UCAV to make the > decision of attacking or not in real-time. One of the reason I can think > of not attacking the Taliban leader is that if he is dead, there are > thousands of liutenants that can take over his job. Better know who is > the leader and watch his movements. > > BTW, I visited what is left of the World Trade Center today... I can't > find a word to describe it. A very strong burning smell is still all over > lower Manhattan. > > May the Force be with you > > Wei-Jen Su > E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu > Wei-Jen: Some thoughts: If your hypothesis is true, then why are we expending so much ordnance over there? We're bombing the heck out of their strongholds and headquarters, but we sure hope we don't kill any of them? Sorry, doesn't track. We're in a war. We can't watch them all that well anyway, so if we kill enough of the leaders the lieutenants may decide that taking their place may not be the best thing to do. Much better than slagging a bunch of poor foot soldiers if it ends it quicker. Besides, the General who made the call said he did it on the recommendation of the lawyer. The Lawyer! As a follow-up, Rumsfield was mad as hell when he found out. My other question still applies. Why does a General have to be involved in a shoot decision. Are we going to have to put real-time video links in the cockpits of all fighters and bombers so that a General can make the decision (after consulting wt. the JAG, of course) whether or not to pull the trigger? ...They won't just hate us, they'll be laughing at us. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 02:06:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Art Hanley wrote: > Some thoughts: If your hypothesis is true, then why are we expending > so much ordnance over there? We're bombing the heck out of their > strongholds and headquarters, but we sure hope we don't kill any of > them? Sorry, doesn't track. We're in a war. We can't watch them all > that well anyway, so if we kill enough of the leaders the lieutenants > may decide that taking their place may not be the best thing to do. > Much better than slagging a bunch of poor foot soldiers if it ends it > quicker. Besides, the General who made the call said he did it on the ^^^^^^^^^^ Mr. Hanley, maybe you just answered your own question... Do you think that the General wants to keep the war as long as possible? Personally, I will shot the Taliban leader a** off also! I will even like to nuke them all since they are already using weapons of mass destruction (even a shorter war). I lost a very good friend in the World Trade Center (WTC) tragedy; he was New York's bravest (a fireman). I almost lost my life also since early this year I rejected a job that was located in the WTC. Something that it bothers me also is when Bill Clinton was President, he got a couple of opportunities to kill Bin Laden, but didn't do it since the politics back then felt sorry in killing him. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." Charles A. Lindbergh ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:41:54 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: RQ-1 Predator with Hellfires Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Art Hanley wrote: > > > S Besides, the General who made the call said he did it on the > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > Mr. Hanley, maybe you just answered your own question... Do you think that > the General wants to keep the war as long as possible? > Personally, I will shot the Taliban leader a** off also! I will even like > to nuke them all since they are already using weapons of mass destruction > (even a shorter war). I lost a very good friend in the World Trade Center > (WTC) tragedy; he was New York's bravest (a fireman). I almost lost my > life also since early this year I rejected a job that was located in the > WTC. > I'm going to attribute this response to your understandable grief about the loss of your friend, since it's one of the silliest things I've read on this list. It was the first or second night of the war. Even if you accept the highly dubious proposition that a General would want to extend a war, the first night is not when you do it. Even if you're willing to reject the integrity of our military leaders and reduce them to self-serving political opportunists like so many others in Washington this hypothesis falls flat: You don't advance by extending wars, you advance by winning them as quickly as possible and then taking as much credit as you can. It's far more likely that in our litigious society the worry about what the ambulance-chasers can do has reached even this level, and that's a very scary prospect. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:14:27 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Today Stratfor sent out a very interesting analysis of UCAVs that would provoke some interesting discussion here ("UCAVs: Afghan War Will Shape Future U.S. Military Structure"); hypersonics were even mentioned. My question is the following: can I post the analysis here? I believe that this has been done in the past (I do not recall whether or not it was frowned upon). At the bottom of the Stratfor analysis (distributed by email), it states: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SEND THIS TO A FRIEND! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you like this analysis? Then forward it to a friend! Got this from a friend? Get your own by becoming a member! http://www.stratfor.com/COMPANY/info.htm <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George (and others) - thumbs up or down? Erik BTW - I am a subscriber/member of Stratfor; nothing more. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:49:46 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis ehoel@esri.com wrote on 23/10/01: >Today Stratfor sent out a very interesting analysis of UCAVs that would >provoke some interesting discussion here ("UCAVs: Afghan War Will Shape >Future U.S. Military Structure"); hypersonics were even mentioned. >My question is the following: can I post the analysis here? I believe that >this has been done in the past (I do not recall whether or not it was >frowned upon). Post away. I joined this group to help keep up to date with military aerospace trends. This topic would make useful background information for stuff that Lockheed et. al. are already probably working on. We might even get into a spirited debate on the ethics of robots firing lethal weapons at human targets. Robin Hill, Hawk IPD Integration, BAE SYSTEMS, East Yorkshire. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:32:56 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis From: "Robin Hill" > ehoel@esri.com wrote on 23/10/01: > > >Today Stratfor sent out a very interesting analysis of UCAVs that would > >provoke some interesting discussion here ("UCAVs: Afghan War Will Shape > >Future U.S. Military Structure"); hypersonics were even mentioned. > > >My question is the following: can I post the analysis here? I believe that > >this has been done in the past (I do not recall whether or not it was > >frowned upon). > > Post away. I joined this group to help keep up to date with military > aerospace trends. This topic would make useful background information > for stuff that Lockheed et. al. are already probably working on. > > We might even get into a spirited debate on the ethics of robots firing > lethal weapons at human targets. As no one acknowledged or respondeds to the answer I sent regarding the question of whether Hellfires had been tested from the Predator, I'm not sure if my posts are getting through. In case this one does: We're a very long way from having robots firing lethal weapons on anything. For the foreseeable future, UCAVs will occupy a relatively small niche in aerial warfare. SEAD is the most often cited by military planners. If a UCAV acquires a radar tracking station AND the man-in-the-loop - confirms that target - he'll fire a HARM against it. The man - not the machine makes the decision. Why does it matter if the weapon delivery platform is unmanned or the finger that presses the fire button is remote from the a/c. The level of automation in warfare is increasing - that's natural - and it saves lives. Cruise missiles are like one-way UCAVs and few people have a problem with them. Laser and GPS guided munitions have a high level of electronic sophistication - any of which can go wrong or be programmed incorrectly - the Chinese embassy debacle for example. David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:42:46 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis > We might even get into a spirited debate on the ethics of robots firing > lethal weapons at human targets. Isn't it true that, at present, targeting and weapons launch are done by a human remote operator? Fully autonomous lethal robotic aircraft aren't here yet, AFAIK. I suppose you could count things like BATS and Strix, but that would be a stretch. Speaking of Strix (a guided 120 mm mortar round with an IR seeker), has anybody heard of GPS/inertial technology being applied to guided mortar shells? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:18:41 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis Perhaps some aeroexpert could comment on something that I've wondered about: The armed UCAV in question, the RQ-1 Predator, isn't all that big, and the Hellfire missile isn't all that small. http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/RQ_1_Predator_Unmanned_Aerial.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/response_12.html Hanging a missile on each wing of the Predator doesn't seem to be a trivial task from either the structure or control viewpoint. Did the original Predator design incorporate hardpoints, perhaps for extended-range fuel tanks? Or was the possibility of weaponizing it always in mind? Or is the modification just easier than it looks to me? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:04:32 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: UCAVs and Stratfor analysis David (win@dircon.co.uk) wrote: >We're a very long way from having robots firing lethal weapons on anything. >For the foreseeable future, UCAVs will occupy a relatively small niche in >aerial warfare. SEAD is the most often cited by military planners. If a UCAV >acquires a radar tracking station AND the man-in-the-loop - confirms that >target - he'll fire a HARM against it. The man - not the machine makes the >decision. Okay, so how does this work with "fire and forget" type devices? I agree that at one point in the weapon-firing event, a human pressed a trigger, but with highly automated devices there's still going to be some decision-making left to the brains-on-board. When does, say, the pre-programming of a target for a cruise missile get beyond the control of the human mission planner and into the realms of an artificially-intelligent weapon controller. For example, do we look at the possibility of building devices that can be left on the battlefield, or loiter in the air above it, waiting for a target of opportunity to come along (i.e. a "smart" land mine, for example, designed to only attack when "it" decides that it has detected a legitimate military target)? >Why does it matter if the weapon delivery platform is unmanned or the finger >that presses the fire button is remote from the a/c. Arguably, you "press the firing trigger" as soon as you arm an unmanned device. With a mine, for example, the firing trigger is effectively pressed at the moment it's buried. The fact that it's victim actually operates it is beside the point, all that has hapened is that there's been an indefinable delay between the trigger being pressed and the weapon firing. I understand that weapons systems like Phalanx can be programmed to monitor and react to detected threats that fulfil predetermined criteria (speed, direction of approach, and so on). Is there still a human operator on hand to press a safety switch or dead-man's handle to abort or confirm a live fire event? And even if there is, how soon would it be that this kind of human-in-the-loop delay would prove unacceptable to ensure a prompt response to an incoming threat? Even if you could accept the human error risks. I'm drawing a subtle line here between acquiring a target and loosing a weapon directly against it, and activating a weapon system on the off chance that *it* can detect a target for itself, without the need for human guidance. There is a moratorium on the laying of land mines, because they would fall into the second category (removing the human operator from the triggering of the weapon against a target). How close to this line do modern, or proposed, weapon systems get? The difference in lying in a hole in the ground waiting for something to step on it and stooging around with an array of sensors linked to a control system with set of valid target criteria looking for something to shoot at is only down to different points on a graph of sophistication. >The level of automation in warfare is increasing - that's natural - and it >saves lives. Cruise missiles are like one-way UCAVs and few people have a >problem with them. Laser and GPS guided munitions have a high level of >electronic sophistication - any of which can go wrong or be programmed >incorrectly - the Chinese embassy debacle for example. This goes back to the comment about having a target and launching a weapon directly against it. It's like throwing a very smart, self-propelled stone at a beer can on a rock. What happens if you make your stone able to discriminate between the beer can you originally wanted to hit, and a stack of beer cans hiding behind the rock, that the stone can only see after you've thrown it? Especially if the wind has blown your intended target over and the stone has been warned that it is a very valuable stone and mustn't waste itself by just hitting bare rocks. You might have the best of all intentions in targeting the original beer can, but if your weapon system has the ability to adapt unassisted to changing situations, the entire dynamic of the battlefield, indeed the whole war, changes greatly. The "level of automation in warfare is increasing" comment is very important, especially if you start using learning devices such as neural nets. How do we know whether or not we're still completely in control of these devices, especially if we start making them resistant to spoofing? Could we ever reach a situation where, for example, a control system starts destroying its own functioning, but damaged, units because they slow up the undamaged ones? And can you trust a robot warrior to know when the struggle is over and it can stop fighting and sue for peace? (Or at least unload its weapons and return to its barracks.) All this automation lets you distance yourself from the actual business of harming the enemy. If it gets too comfortable then what's to stop you treating it all as just a giant game? Just a thought. Robin Hill, Hawk IPD Integration, BAE SYSTEMS, Brough, East Yorkshire. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #35 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/ If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner