UCAV if you want to
The following video is a promotional movie produced to demontstrate the future capabilities of Boeing\'s experimental UCAV. This is a clear indication of the use of UAV technology for war fighting purposes in the future and it is now clearly time to ask the Welsh Assembly Government to clearly state it\'s position on this new strategic weaponry and whether or not they took this into account before launching the new project in Parc Aberporth. Take a look at this video and draw your own conclusions.
See what I mean?
posted by Harriboy @ 1:49 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
UAVs at Aberporth
Dear Editor
I strongly supported the creation of Parc Aberporth, and as a fellow pilot have friendly relations with West Wales airport staff.
As ever the holiday season will shortly end, and the need for local jobs remains acute.
I retain hope for the success of Parc Aberporth and West Wales airport, but development of UAVs fills me with dismay.
Unmanned aerial vehicles come in various sizes, from hand launched models, to full sized airliners. However the UAVs seen at Aberporth closely resemble those used with murderous effect by the Israelis in Lebanon and Palestine. These machines are controlled from the ground, and have an autopilot which avoids obstacles. They use a very high definition TV camera, which in Lebanon can detect fear and hatred on the faces of women & children about to be targeted by the Israelis. Such weapons can carry bombs and missiles, and are used by Israelis to assassinate people in the Palestinian occupied territories as well as in Lebanon. When not carrying out the killing, UAVs can survey areas (such as the streets of Beirut) for suitable targets, which will then be “taken-out” by Israeli F16 fighter aircraft.
It may well be the case that at Aberporth “swords are being turned into ploughshares” and UAVs are being civilianised for peaceful work. This may be the intention behind the air-corridor between Aberporth and the army range at Sennybridge. If UAVs are to avoid hitting other aeroplanes in the crowded UK sky, then their obstacle avoidance capability must be developed further. However this would also increase their military effectiveness.
Inevitably, developments here in Wales will be taken up in Israel, and the question for all of us is do we want such activities to continue in our own back yard? Also since this project is being supported by Welsh Assembly Government, do our assembly members really know what they are supporting?
As stated above I wish all success to Parc Aberporth, but not for the development of murder weapons.
Sincerely
Mike Godsell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreifa Mills, CwmMorgan, Newcastle-Emlyn, SA38 9LZ
Tel / Fax: 01239 698 314
Mr Godsell, have you any evidence of the broad and sweeping statements made in that comment? While I won’t bring up the technical inaccuracies (such as all UAVs being remotely piloted), I do have a few other points that I would like to bring up for you to respond to.
[quote]However the UAVs seen at Aberporth closely resemble those used with murderous effect by the Israelis in Lebanon and Palestine.[/quote]
Can you tell me what you mean by UAVs seen at Aberporth? The site holds an annual UAV air show that is attended by a great many UAV manufacturers so there is little doubt that Israeli UAV manufacturers would be there. Perhaps you meant those being developed in which case I would ask you again which UAVs are being developed at Aberporth? I am very well aware of the goings on within the UK UAV industry and I have no knowledge of Aberporth hosting the development of any UAV system at the moment.
However even if there were any, there resemblance to Israeli UAVs has no bearing on the issue of should they be being developed at all; as I have said in previous comments there is no inherent evilness in unmanned vehicles but it is how they are used that can be determined to be morally good or bad.
[quote]They use a very high definition TV camera, which in Lebanon can detect fear and hatred on the faces of women & children about to be targeted by the Israelis.[/quote]
That is clearly not a balanced statement, the same high definition TV cameras can be used to find a drowning child or detect a forest fire before it destroys thousands of people’s homes. Because Israeli uses disproportionate force does not mean that Aberporth should not be supported in its UAV endeavours but rather that Israel should be lobbied against committing such acts. Do you really think that if you got rid of UAVs then Israel would never harm another soul?
[quote]If UAVs are to avoid hitting other aeroplanes in the crowded UK sky, then their obstacle avoidance capability must be developed further. However this would also increase their military effectiveness.[/quote]
Absolutely, sense and avoid capabilities are an essential part getting UAVs into civilian use and that is the aim of ASTRAEA which is in part being carried out at Aberporth.
You’re also correct in saying that this will likely increase there military effectiveness but can I ask what is wrong with increasing there military effectiveness? Again as I have said before the armed forces are an essential part of a nations defence, whether you like it or not wars still happen and cultures still clash. It is a sad fact that there are threats in this world and as long as they exist the UK must maintain a strong armed forces with which defend ourselves and allies, the UK must also maintain a strong ability to supply our forces with the resources they need to do there job as safely and efficiently as possible. What should be your focus is stopping the British government (and others) from taking up/supporting unjust wars or using our capability to do/support unjust acts; it should not be your focus to stop the UK from developing technology for our armed forces so that our soldiers have a harder time on the ground. That helps no one.
Once more as I asked Mr Rogers in another comment I have posted here, would you have denied British armed forces any advantage over Argentina during the Falklands war and thus risk more lives including those of innocent civilians and perhaps condemn the population of the islands to either being evicted from there homes and businesses or being forced to live a life living under occupation?
[quote]Inevitably, developments here in Wales will be taken up in Israel[/quote]
Israel has one of the healthiest UAV industries in the world, can you provide evidence that Aberporth is directly supporting the Israeli industry or better yet there actions in Lebanon or Palestine?
Even if it were the case why do you not think the better response would be call for an arms embargo against Israel and to include any technology related to unmanned systems? It has far more chance of happening than the shutting down of the British UAV industry.
Mike A.
Point 1. All UAVs can be remotely piloted.
Point2. Aberporth is prime developement site for UAVs in UK. [See Boeing advert]
Point3. An AK47 could be used to kill rabbits, but it was designed to kill people. - same for UAVs.
Point4. Wars don't "happen". Insane leaders lie to their people in order to start them. "Cultures" don't clash, it's people who kill people.
You write as an educated person, so think on this. The mission statement of the UN is: "To Remove the Scourge of War from the peoples of the World". War is NOT normal, war is an obscenity, and aggression is the ulimate crime from which all other crimes against humanity, genocide, and oppression spring.
We in the west have no inate superiority of ideas to justify our control of the Worlds resources. What we have is organised violence on a huge scale, with which we terrorise and oppress non westerners.
[quote]Point 1. All UAVs can be remotely piloted.[/quote]
That is not true, with many UAVs there is no human involved in the direct control of flight. I can give you some examples, BAE HERTI, Qinetiq Zephyr, Tasuma Hawkeye, and Cranfield Aerospace Observer. There are many others. The direct control of unmanned aircraft will most likely be seen less and less as the market demands more autonomy and “point and click” operation.
[quote]Point2. Aberporth is prime developement site for UAVs in UK.[/quote]
It’s a potential centre of excellence for UAV development but this is dependant on companies moving in. At the minute BAE’s UAV activities are centred at Warton, Cyberflight in Derbyshire, Nitrohawk in Herefordshire, Skycell in York etc etc. You said that the UAVs seen at Aberporth resemble those used to kill Lebanese civilians or words to that effect; so what UAVs at Aberporth are you referring to? It’s a valid question since your statement gave the impression that ParcAberporth is devoted to producing killing machines which is untrue, that kind of talk only clouds the issue in my opinion.
[quote]Point3. An AK47 could be used to kill rabbits, but it was designed to kill people. - same for UAVs.[/quote]
Again that is not true, the first point of course is that there has been no UAV built in the UK that was designed to kill anyone; in fact there are few UAVs world wide that were designed to kill anyone including among those designed for military purposes. The most prolific role is surveillance and reconnaissance, not strike.
The main point however is that the idea that all potential civilian uses of UAVs are secondary to military uses is wholly wrong. As I said before Skycell’s UAVs are primarily intended for indoor photography and filming, the design of these aircraft probably wouldn’t stand up to a high wind let alone war conditions. Qinetiq’s Zephyr was originally designed to film the company’s record ballooning attempt and has since found roles such as mapping Europe as part of the Pegasus project, civilian. Tasuma’s CSV-30 was designed to for geological surveys, yet again a civilian role.
And don’t forget that these UAVs are being used for civilian roles in a time when civilian airspace is closed to the vast majority of UAVs; imagine when efforts like ASTRAEA pay off and airspace is opened up and UAVs are even safer. The benefits are massive as is the potential market.
On point 4;
I agree, war is a result of the break down of logic, be it in the mind of a singular leader, a government or a collective (hence the cultures do clash comment). However as long as these people exist there is a need for us to have an effective response. You might say that the UK government is out to control the world resources through military conquest (I disagree but that’s another point) but you must also accept that there are those outside the control of the UK government that would threaten us regardless of whether they are threatened. There is no sign of these mad leaders that will start wars going away, we need to retain the ability to defend ourselves and allies otherwise these madmen will be given free reign to do as they please. Aggression in offence is bad but aggression in defence is a necessity.
The answer to war isn’t to eradicate the military capability; it is to eradicate the need for that military capability.
If we start to draw down our military capability and don’t do everything we can to equip our forces with the best equipment we can then what happens next time an insane leader decides to attack us or one of our allies? What happens if another military junta comes to power in Argentina and decides that the Falklands are theirs? What happens if another situation like that in the Balkans occurs?
But regardless of the military aspects you cannot dismiss UAVs simply because they have military uses; it’s no different with 90% of other technologies around from jet engines to solar energy. Why can you not be lobby for the military aspects of UAV development to be stopped (I’m not for that by the way but at least it wouldn’t hurt the whole industry!).
For a discussion on some of the technical problems of UAVs/drones see:
pfa.org.uk Click on BULLETIN BOARD then HANGAR CHAT then MODE S thread.
[Mode S is a very expensive bit of electronics that all aircraft are required to fit by 2007]
I had a look through that thread and I’m not sure what exactly it is you wanted to direct me to. Some of the things said were incorrect for example that the tasks proposed for UAVs are already done by satellites and that there use goes against people’s privacy (I have a number of police aircraft regularly fly around my general area, whether they have a pilot in them or not doesn’t matter in that regard). There’s also someone who posted a link to video of a UAV being caught in another aircraft’s slipstream but didn’t say that this happened in Afghanistan and under very different condition than those that UAV in the UK are and will be operated under.
The main thrust of what is being said seems to be that there is worry about UAVs not being required to have transponders but most on the forum are missing the crucial point that there is no regulation of UAV use in the UK, they’re simply not allowed to fly unless they’re in restricted airspace or I believe they stay within direct line of site of the operator and below a certain altitude; in other words they’re no more a threat than any model aircraft. This has just been pointed out by one of the forum’s members.
It is ASTRAEA that in part is meant to help the CAA regulate UAV use and develop the technologies to allow this to be done safely. For example BAE is currently looking at methods ranging from RF to EO based systems to allow UAVs to sense and avoid as well as communicate with other aircraft. Suggestions of providing for a voice recognition capability in some classes of UAVs has been mooted which would allow more natural communication between a manned aircraft and a UAV. By the time UAVs are used in non segregated airspace you may very well be able to communicate with them and them with you in the same manner manned aircraft do today.
So I can understand the concern shown by some on that forum but it’s a little premature since there has been absolutely no decisions made and they won’t be made for at least three years.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
http://www.ibwales.com/server.php?show=nav.6700 HARRY GET IN TOUCH PLEASE
http://harriboy.blogspot.com/2006/09/ucav-if-you-want-to.html
Hi DBA send me an email on harry@wildwestwales.com
Cheers
Post a Comment
<< Home