well, it sounds ominous indeed, does it not?
the prospect of 30,000 drones flying over and through the skies of the united states, keeping track of all of us and what we do. and, perhaps some if not all of them very similar to the predator drones that fly in afghanistan and elsewhere, the kind capable of putting a hellfire missile up your exhaust pipe, when you'd least expect it. from the "drudge report," http://www.drudge.com/news/153281/drones-over-us-get-ok-congress . and, this report from the washington times by shaun waterman, (from which the drudge report is drawn, quoting the opening lines from the times) "drones over u.s. get o.k. get o.k. by congress" which article uses the figure of 30,000 drones in u.s. skies by the year 2020, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/ .
well, just how does this all work out? does it work out at all?
or, is this headline simply amount to boast, bombast, and in the final analysis pure unadulterated bullshit?
well, the facts, just the facts suggest that this simply isn't going to happen on the scale suggested or worried about by matt drudge and the washington times.
while i for one don't relish the prospect of dueling with a predator drone, armed or unarmed, i don't think that it is quite the time to get all our collective shorts in a knot over the prospect of this occurring. why do i say this? well, the facts, just the facts suggest that this simply isn't going to happen on the scale suggested or worried about by matt drudge and the washington times.
for one, no one in congress has moved to appropriate money to construct drones in this number, nor are they likely to. and, for seconds, the washington times articles discusses the matter solely within the context of federal aviation agency issuance of permits to allow the flight and use of such craft over u.s. air space.
but, let's look to other more compelling reasons why the initial reaction to this borders a bit upon the irrational.
1. cost. i think a good place to start is this fact sheet on the mq-1b predator issued by the united states air force, which ought to know what it is talking about. http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=122
as noted in this article the drones come in packages of four, at $20 million dollars for the package, including ground control station and a satellite link. that's roughly $5 million a pop. now, $5.0 million a pop times 30,000 starts generating some fairly healthy figures, in the neighbor hood of $150,000 millions of u.s. dollars, or $150 trillion dollars.
so, nobody is going to authorize $150 trillions to build drones. kapish?
2. logistics. drones don't have pilots on board. nothing so simple as that. they are connected to a command and personnel structure which is just very elaborate.
and, did i happen to mention very large, involving tremendous amounts of personnel to do any number of highly sophisticated things, and to service the drone. and, you have to put fuel in the things, from time to time, and have techs and mechanics who can keep the things "service."
this passage, from the los angeles times, dated 12.29.2011, authored by david s. cloud and entitled "civilian contractors playing significant role in u.s. drone operations," suggests the magnitude of the problem, here:
"america's growing drone operations rely on hundreds of civilian contractors, including some — such as the s.a.i.c. employee — who work in the so-called kill chain before hellfire missiles are launched, according to current and former military officers, company employees and internal government documents.
relying on private contractors has brought corporations that operate for profit into some of america's most sensitive military and intelligence operations. and using civilians makes some in the military uneasy.
at least a dozen defense contractors that supply personnel to help the air force, special operations units and the c.i.a. fly their drones are filling a void. it takes more people to operate unmanned aircraft than it does to fly traditional warplanes that have a pilot and crew.
the air force is short of ground-based pilots and crews to fly the drones, intelligence analysts to scrutinize nonstop video and surveillance feeds, and technicians and mechanics to maintain the heavily used aircraft.
"our no. 1 manning problem in the air force is manning our unmanned platforms," said gen. philip m. breedlove, air force vice chief of staff. without civilian contractors, u.s. drone operations would grind to a halt.
about 168 people are needed to keep a single predator aloft for 24 hours, according to the air force. the larger global hawk surveillance drone requires 300 people. in contrast, an f-16 fighter aircraft needs fewer than 100 people per mission.
with a fleet of about 230 predators, reapers and global hawks, the air force flies more than 50 drones around the clock over afghanistan and other target areas. the pentagon plans to add 730 medium and large drones in the next decade, requiring thousands more personnel.
the air force is rushing to meet the demand. under a new program, drone pilots get 44 hours of cockpit training before they are sent to a squadron to be certified and allowed to command missions. that compares with a minimum of 200 hours' training for pilots flying traditional warplanes."
the u.s. air force has a fleet of about 230 drones, and with its resources can keep about 50 of them airborne of afghanistan at any one time. did you catch that? the air force can afford about 230 of the things right now, and it might add another 730 or so in the next decade, along with "thousands" more personnel to fly them.
that means the u.s. air force cannot afford 30,000 of them, let alone the people to service, run and administer & fly the missions. does that mean anything to you?
3. "sensory overload: the information glut." i, for one, am pretty certain that the spooks, cops and obama's minions are not going to get very much sensational information by looking in my bed room window from 25,000 no matter how long a drone might stay on loiter.
they want to find out anything, they can simply read it here.
but, here is the problem for the guys that want to curtail our civil rights, and potentially suppress our ability to rise up and resist government intrusion into our lives and our liberties. and, it is a classic paradox with regard to knowledge, ... , the more you know, the less you can do with it.
if, for instance the obama administration had 30,000 predators in the sky right now, what could they do with it? ponder over the fact that a good deal of the populace detests the man, and wants him out of office? target drudge or beck for "liquidation?" me? i should be so lucky, as to be granted significance by being rubbed out by a hellfire missile. laughing.
the fact is, the information gathered by a high flying drone is available to our oppressors right now, and all they have to do is read. and, as far as a weapons system goes, a predator drone with a hellfire missile is about as effective a weapon to use on me as an m-1 abrams tank. sure, you could whack me with an abrams but what good would it do you? a guy in a trench coat armed with a .32 auto pistol could do so well.
the fact is, the big drones have almost no utility against civilians in any practical sense, unless they want to target me driving down the road in my s-10. and, how do they know it is me?
eh?
answer me that.
on the other end of the scale, say that a drone overflew glenn beck's little demonstration in washington d.c., low enough to gather pictures of everyone there, and make them capable of recognition by facial recognition software.
so what? what are they gonna do with it? you want to shoot infrared outlines of guys carrying rifles, fine. you want to shoot pot bellied guys with floppy hats and going to tea party rallies? not so much utility there, no matter how many pictures you gather.
so, big drones are kinda worthless, within the context of our concerns here.
4. a. what kinda drones we gonna see? well, first off, we are gonna see drones that the f.a.a. deems flight worthy and safe in civilian air space, and that have safeguards against running into other air craft and things to prevent them from falling on people's heads.
witness:
"while the idea of drones proliferating on the home front may seem like an unsettling future for some, the scenario isn’t quite imminent yet. the f.a.a. holds tight regulations over uav's [drones] in the national airspace, primarily because it deems current uav models lacking in “adequate ‘detect, sense and avoid’ technology” that would prevent collision with other aircraft. the manufacturer of the dragonflyer x6 noted that its approval in mesa county came “after a year or more of in-depth aircraft flight experience, safety practices, program development, use by the agency and the proven solid commitment by the sheriff’s office to adhere to the f.a.a. practices and policies.” however, as the idea of using drones domestically begins to appeal to more and more local authorities, the f.a.a. is looking to change its current regulations to accommodate the technology in u.s. airspace." http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/drones/12659/ .
previous articles that i have read on this topic are replete with anecdotal evidence regarding the issue of loss of control over drones when they loose radio contact with their handlers. when that happens, the drone goes into a "default" flight mode, and simply flies around in circles, or whatever, until it runs out of fuel or its handler regains control.
this sort of thing is frowned upon by federal regulators, who want to keep things up. well, who doesn't?
this suggests a physical limitation on the use of drones against civilian populations, and also provides a metaphor on the subject matter generally.
4. b. what kinda drones we gonna see? well, in response to this i suspect most of you are harboring privacy or political concerns, if you've got this far.
the short answer to this question is, certainly not the big weapons carrying or data/photo gathering drones of the military. hell, the military cannot afford them.
the next short answer is, we will see little drones deployed against us, if they are deployed against us for surveillance or political or privacy issues. little tiny ones.
the below paragraph suggests the real concern, and illustrates just how easy it may be for those curious about our affairs to monitor private conversations or conduct. but, they are gonna have identified you as a target of concern, a long, long time before they unleash a drone on you. what, are they "going fishing" by driving drones into the airspace over 330,000,000 americans, just to see what is going on? no, that is patently ridiculous. update, 02.10.2012. this is where your concern should lie, small remote controlled planes with sensitive hearing (though how they beat the noise of the plane is beyond me) and equipped with very good cameras (which problem is obviously solved.) i bring you, crazy horst. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqziKe-wyUM&feature=related . watch it, it is pretty amazing. they don't need a $5 million drone. a slightly less expensive version will do, quite nicely. and, if you forget this post, just google "crazy horst." you'll find it. end update.
but, i will suggest to you something plausible, and something that may just be a hint of what the future may portend for some. you? me?--
i do worry in the slightest about getting smoked by a hellfire from a predator drone, nor this occurring to any of my firebrand friends. if that is someones purpose, to whack any of us, there are cheaper and more expedient, and efficient means, for doing so. hell, the government does me in, they don't want 168 of their personnel knowing about it, do they?
no, it is the following paragraph in which lurks the worrisome truth of the whole matter.--
"despite these concerns and the current debate over cutting the pentagon’s budget, developments in drone technology are moving ahead at full speed. uav's [drones] are being developed with improved flexibility, precision and endurance. the washington post reported earlier this year on military tests that are paving the way for completely automated drones that operate free of human control – although these types of uav's are not likely to be realities for quite a while. drones are also getting smaller, built down to the size of birds and insects. these micro air vehicles, or m.a.v.'s, are a booming sector in drone development, and in some cases the pentagon has been looking to add on bug-like features like compound eyes and tiny cilia to assist with flight." http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/drones/12659/ .
i will conclude by this observation.--
you wanna get your nose in a twist over the issues of privacy and political surveillance, don't worry about 30,000 weapons drones in the air. it ain't gonna happen. there are trillions and trillions of reasons why.
if you wanna get your nose in a twist, worry about things that go buzz in the night, just like little tiny mosquitoes. you just may very well die with a buzzing in your ears in the not too distant future, as someone in langley, virginia drives a potion laden little bug up your ear lobe, towards your ear drum.
think of that!! ain't technology wonderful? i suggest a couple good strong ceiling fans, set on "high."
well, it's cheaper than building our own fighter planes to go up and knock predators down, now, isn't it? laughing.
john jay @ 02.08.2011
Most excellent analysis and posted.
Posted by: BrockTownsend | February 08, 2012 at 05:27 PM
brock:
thank you, and thank you very much.
john
Posted by: john jay | February 08, 2012 at 05:39 PM