Faster, deadlier pilotless plane bound for Afghanistan(The Reaper)

[RamboLiberal]

Source: USA Today

The Air Force this fall will deploy a new generation of pilotless airplane with the bombing power of an F-16 to help stop the stubborn Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

The Reaper is an upgraded version of the Predator, which has become one of the military's most sought-after planes since it first appeared in Afghanistan in 2001. The Reaper can fly three times as fast as a Predator and carry eight times more weaponry, such as Hellfire missiles, the Air Force said.

The Reaper's greater range and speed make it better suited than the Predator to Afghanistan with its vast, rugged terrain. The Reaper will also be deployed to Iraq. Its speed and arms will let it track and kill moving targets able to elude a Predator, said Brig. Gen. James Poss, director of intelligence for Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va.

Air Force officials cite the June 2006 killing of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was tracked by a Predator but ultimately killed by bombs dropped by an F-16. The Reaper "is ideal for that type of target," said Lt. Col. Gregory Christ, director of staff at Creech.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-27-reaper-afghanistan_N.htm

---

[Tesha]

1. It's getting time to read "Ender's Game" again. :-( (NT)

[Spinzonner]

2. Oh, what a cute name

:sarcasm:

[tanyev]

3. They could make a killer promotional video with the Blue Oyster Cult tune.

[stillcool]

5. how appropriate...

Don't Fear The Reaper
~Blue Oyster Cult
Appears on: Agents of Fortune (Columbia)
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Seasons don't fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain. we can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Baby I'm your man...

[rinsd]

10. !!!

:spray:

[daleo]

4. A new way to kill won't help

The U.S. doesn't lack for firepower in Iraq or Afghanistan. Killing people by remote control won't inspire any love among the locals.

[jody]

6. "pilotless plane" is misleading. The Reaper is a remotely piloted aircraft. n/t

[xxqqqzme]

7. Wow - we have a new way of killing even more civilians

anonymously. We just can't stop being the recruitment poster image.

[alfredo]

9. Just like a video game but without the sound effects.

[Tyler Durden]

8. $69.1 MILLION????

JFC.

What won't we waste money on next?

[sofa king]

12. Believe it or not, that's a bargain by comparison.

I know exactly what you're saying, but take for example the Joint Strike Fighter, which has to be pushing $300 billion in projected development and production costs (since the dollar is worth a bucket of warm spit today and won't be able to buy the bucket next month).

In constant dollars, that would be enough to (under)fund NASA for seventeen years at current levels.

[Tyler Durden]

14. I still cannot figure out why we need either one.

Maybe it's just ME, but I don't think a species that spends most of its energy and treasure preparing to kill other members of the species is playing to win in the "Evolution Game."

[sofa king]

21. That's a really good point.

Clausewitz suggests that war is just politics with an admixture of "other means," but war also tends to follow closely on the heels of environmental and population pressures. Not always, but maybe most of the time.

If that's the case, war might be playing to win the "Malthusian Game." And that's really scary, considering how good we're all getting at it.

[Thothmes]

18. Not to mention the cost of the Pilot

[3waygeek]

11. 10 will get you 20 that the new plane

will see its first use against Iran.

[saigon68]

13. Bingo!!!!! You win the Prize

These thugs can't wait to waste a few islamics

[Thor_MN]

20. At 300 mph, with delayed reaction time, these are sitting ducks to a manned craft

Unless you buy into the "disposable" aspect, these are more for areas where you have air superiority, but there is a worry of anti-air capability. They well could be used in a first strike capacity against Iran, or as an "accidental" incursion to incite a reaction, but regular use while the opposing force has any craft and pilots isn't in the cards.

Against any fighter jet with a pilot, these would be toast. Granted, with remote control, they could potentially make more radical turns since you don't have to worry about G forces on the pilot. However, just from the outline, the reaper looks to be designed to maximize endurance at the cost of agility. Add in the delays due to remote control, and the reaper is a slug compared to manned craft.

[0007]

15. Egads!!

[Jacobin]

16. Why are military operations and weapons named by 8 year old

boys?

[cobalt1999]

17. Okay, I'm something of an aviation buff and...

I am totally impressed by the technology and I like the idea of not putting the pilot at risk. I also think it won't be many decades away when most military fighter/ground support aircraft will be remote-piloted. It makes a lot of sense.

[Nihil]

23. It depends on your priorities.

> I like the idea of not putting the pilot at risk.

I don't. I would much rather that any offensive action is *NOT* undertaken
in a risk-free environment for the person delivering the harm.

> I also think it won't be many decades away when most military
> fighter/ground support aircraft will be remote-piloted.
> It makes a lot of sense.

It only makes "sense" if you view such attacks as a way to transfer your
taxpayer funds to friends in the armaments industry, if you have no moral
concern whatsoever about the innocent people on the receiving end of these
toys and if your pilots of the future are to be recruited from gamezones.

This level of risk-free detachment from the "messy end" is frightening.

[cobalt1999]

24. You are against reducing the risk our military faces?

"I would much rather that any offensive action is *NOT* undertaken in a risk-free environment for the person delivering the harm."

These guys aren't ordering themselves into harmful environments like Iraq. They are sent there by politicians and generals who aren't facing any harm themselves.

As for the people they are attacking, how does it matter to them if a pilot pushes the button from a cockpit or a remote center? They are still pushing a button. That's not what you could classify as "messy".

[Nihil]

25. Effectively yes: I am against propagating destruction so I am against reducing that risk.

>> "I would much rather that any offensive action is *NOT* undertaken
>> in a risk-free environment for the person delivering the harm."
>
> These guys aren't ordering themselves into harmful environments like Iraq.
> They are sent there by politicians and generals who aren't facing any harm
> themselves.

I agree with you.

There will always be some gung-ho morons (Blackwater fodder) but I believe
that most of the troops over there - from whatever nationality - are not
in that mould.

Consider that again: "These guys aren't ordering themselves into harmful
environments like Iraq". Is this out of basic self-preservation?
Is this because they have some moral sense left (i.e., after training)?
Is this because that environment is dangerous (i.e., not risk-free)?

Do you think that any of these soldiers would change their mind and
"order themselves into environments like Iraq" if there was no harm,
if there was no risk, if there was no first-hand perception of what
their actions really entail?

If the politicians and generals were not conducting their murderous
activities in a risk-free environment, they would not be so quick to
order the death & destruction of other people. Being safe, they act
differently.

Now consider that a move like the OP toys will render the operator
able to deliver carnage upon whoever is unfortunate enough to be in
the area (whether or not that happens to be the 'correct' target area)
without any risk whatsoever to the operator.

Do you *really* think that removing even the slight risk that they're
currently under will encourage them to be careful, to reduce the chance
of blue-on-blue, to minimise "collateral damage"? Really?

> As for the people they are attacking, how does it matter to them if a pilot
> pushes the button from a cockpit or a remote center? They are still pushing
> a button. That's not what you could classify as "messy".

I agree. When you push a button from several miles away, you don't really
know what you are going to hit but you just follow orders and do it anyway.
When you have the added "moral insulation" of remote control added to
the "normal" range separation, you won't even question whether it is the
right thing to do, whether your orders are legal & moral, whether your
target looks "right" or not ... you will just press the button in safety
and complete immoral disregard for the end result.

I have been very critical of air-strikes and of artillery for years
(decades now) for that very reason: it dehumanises you even more than
the basic man-to-automaton training and makes the act of murder into
a fucking computer game.

[Bragi]

26. Cobalt1999 wrote...

These guys aren't ordering themselves into harmful environments like Iraq. They are sent there by politicians and generals who aren't facing any harm themselves.

Anyone who joined post-9/11 knew they were signing up for combat in Bush's wars of aggression.

Unlike the people killed every day by the US military machine, these soldiers are not innocent victims of politicians and generals.

- B

[Ezlivin]

19. This is exactly what Christ wants.

The Reaper "is ideal for that type of target," said Lt. Col. Gregory Christ.

Now we know which Christ they are thinking of when they build these killing machines.

[Bragi]

22. Maybe they'll rent out sessions...

They should consider a subscription service where you pay a fee, go to a secure website, and get to run your own remote Reaper attacks on villages and towns which have, for some reason, not yet seen the righteousness of the American cause, and who are therefore fair game.

Just imagine sitting in the comfort of your own home mounting remote attack missions in foreign lands where life is cheap, and oil plentiful. Friends could get together for joint killing missions that would both serve the empire, and be a heck of a lot of fun at the same time. How cool is that.

:woohoo: