ryoder 1,590 #126 April 16, 2009 Quote Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. I don't know the ratio legitimate Somali fishermen to pirates, suspect there are A LOT more fisherman than pirates. That is one common modus operandi the priates have used, however. Armed autonomous UAVs & USVs - bad idea. Are you talking about devices that would make their own fire/no-fire decisions???"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #127 April 16, 2009 Quote Quote Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. I don't know the ratio legitimate Somali fishermen to pirates, suspect there are A LOT more fisherman than pirates. That is one common modus operandi the priates have used, however. Armed autonomous UAVs & USVs - bad idea. Are you talking about devices that would make their own fire/no-fire decisions??? Some - Yes. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #128 April 16, 2009 Quote Are you talking about devices that would make their own fire/no-fire decisions??? Some - Yes. /Marg Oh, for chrissake! People like that need to be removed from any positions of authority."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #129 April 16, 2009 Quote Quote The prirate problem won't go away until you take their base of operations away. As long as Somalia is in pretty much total anarchy, the pirates will have a base to operate from. Well here is a novel approach; Ron Paul is advocating bringing back privateers, with a couple changes: - They would be required to turn over anything they captured. - The would be paid bounties on the pirates. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090415/pl_politico/21245 Quote Hey I could use the income!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #130 April 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis seems like more of a job for a UAV. I know they have the endurance, but less sure about their range they can be staged from. Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. I don't know the ratio legitimate Somali fishermen to pirates, suspect there are A LOT more fisherman than pirates. That is one common modus operandi the priates have used, however. Armed autonomous UAVs & USVs - bad idea. The suggestion was made by the President of Robotic Technology Inc, who’s currently working on a DARPA-funded project to develop a robot that obtains energy by foraging in the natural world (EATR). /Marg I am aware of one project to power a small UAV by energy harvested from turbulence in the atmosphere.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #131 April 16, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. I don't know the ratio legitimate Somali fishermen to pirates, suspect there are A LOT more fisherman than pirates. That is one common modus operandi the priates have used, however. Armed autonomous UAVs & USVs - bad idea. Are you talking about devices that would make their own fire/no-fire decisions??? Some - Yes. /Marg This sounds like some R&D guy's wet dream - a live experiment where the collateral damage of the fire/no fire logic will be ignored. And tens of thousands? That was the wet dream of the CFO. I envisioned coupling a number of UAVs rotating about that would be manned by someone anywhere in the world, with the hope that as soon as a commercial captain thinks there is a problem, they can quickly enter the scene before the pirates can board. Details are important- how big a coverage area is needed, and how quickly can the UAVs engage given their number and territory? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #132 April 16, 2009 Quote Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. Ah, but recall Terminator. Or the Cylons. Today you deploy them. Tomorrow they deploy you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #133 April 16, 2009 QuoteQuote Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. Ah, but recall Terminator. Or the Cylons. Today you deploy them. Tomorrow they deploy you. I was more thinking Home is the Hangman.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #134 April 16, 2009 QuoteI envisioned coupling a number of UAVs rotating about that would be manned by someone anywhere in the world, with the hope that as soon as a commercial captain thinks there is a problem, they can quickly enter the scene before the pirates can board. Details are important- how big a coverage area is needed, and how quickly can the UAVs engage given their number and territory? The rules of engagement would get pretty complicated. Is the controller supposed to take the civilian captain's word that he is under attack? You've just put US military might (and foreign policy) into the hands of an untrained civilian. Having military spotters on each US flagged vessel would solve that problem, but could be logistically difficult. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #135 April 16, 2009 Quote The rules of engagement would get pretty complicated. Is the controller supposed to take the civilian captain's word that he is under attack? You've just put US military might (and foreign policy) into the hands of an untrained civilian. No. The captain asks for help, the UAV controller flies over and assesses the situation. He has video. BTW, how much training does a civilian need to identify a pirate? Is there any reason to believe he'd start sending hit orders in on random fishermen? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #136 April 16, 2009 QuoteIs there any reason to believe he'd start sending hit orders in on random fishermen? Nope. But damn, the first time it happened talk about a stink. In fact, what if he sent in a hit order on that zodiac full of armed men--who turned out to be French commandos on an anti-piracy mission?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #137 April 16, 2009 Tom pretty much covered it. ROE are in place to prevent killing the wrong people for the wrong reasons. I've seen highly trained soldiers open fire at something they thought was a bad guy but wasn't. Civilian shipping captains are unlikely to display more fire discipline. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #138 April 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs there any reason to believe he'd start sending hit orders in on random fishermen? Nope. But damn, the first time it happened talk about a stink. In fact, what if he sent in a hit order on that zodiac full of armed men--who turned out to be French commandos on an anti-piracy mission? Unfortunate consequences of being in a war zone. Not the first friendly fire death, not the last. Fishermen need to stay the fuck away from the shipping lanes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #139 April 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs there any reason to believe he'd start sending hit orders in on random fishermen? Nope. But damn, the first time it happened talk about a stink. In fact, what if he sent in a hit order on that zodiac full of armed men--who turned out to be French commandos on an anti-piracy mission? Medals all around! Come on - if we implement UAVs, we're going to announce it, partly for deterrence value, and actions taken by others should be coordinated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #140 April 16, 2009 Where would the UAV's take off from? There is a huge amount of sea lane and ocean out there that would require many hours of flight time. Those things tend to crash also._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #141 April 16, 2009 QuoteWhere would the UAV's take off from? There is a huge amount of sea lane and ocean out there that would require many hours of flight time. Those things tend to crash also. I asked those questions. Obviously important. But easier to get these there then full time F18s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #142 April 16, 2009 I think that they can be air launched. The overhead a/c (AWACS) could be on-scene faster than any surface vessel too. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #143 April 16, 2009 >Fishermen need to stay the fuck away from the shipping lanes. Feeding people is more important than cheaper sneakers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #144 April 16, 2009 QuoteI asked those questions. Obviously important. Oops, I saw that post now. It is definitely too expensive to deploy a battle group (carrier and her escorts) to protect the lanes. I would have to agree now that UAV's would make it cheaper, but logistical nightmare. They definitely would have to be launched from a warship. That would mean a whole team of UAV guys to keep them at alert status, comms with the pilots who would more than likely be somewhere else and a hell of a lot of coordination between units and armed services. It would be a practice in communication._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #145 April 16, 2009 Quote>Fishermen need to stay the fuck away from the shipping lanes. Feeding people is more important than cheaper sneakers. and you do realize the ship that was boarded, and the one right behind it were carrying tons of food and relief items to the region... the ocean is a biiiiig place, i'm sure the fisherman can find some gilled meals out there.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #146 April 17, 2009 Quotethe ocean is a biiiiig place, And the area in which the pirates operate is huge. They have been constantly moving to new areas, as soon as navy ships from various nations arrive. The pirates are operating in an area of ocean over half the size of the contiguous US. Multiple navies are operating in the area trying to protect the shipping routes. It is impossible to cover an area of that size on a continuous basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #147 April 17, 2009 I wouldn't say impossible, but i also never said it was cost effective or completely feasible. My point was that staying outside a certain radius of a major shipping lane OR a certain distance from the ships themselves is absolutely doable to insure handouts to your starving people can get through, without inhibiting the fishing grounds. Already boaters have to stay something like 1000 feet from U.S. navy and coastguard ships... havent heard any major fishing protests from that.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #148 April 17, 2009 >and you do realize the ship that was boarded, and the one right behind it >were carrying tons of food and relief items to the region. That's great! Better that they do it themselves, of course. >the ocean is a biiiiig place, i'm sure the fisherman can find some gilled >meals out there. And I'm sure those freighters can alter course a tenth of a degree to avoid fishermen. There's plenty of room for both out there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #149 April 17, 2009 fine, have em change course a bit, it'll cost millions of dollars, but sure... ultimately you arrive at the same solution since they'll still be hit by pirates- just stay the f*ck away from big ships!So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #150 April 18, 2009 Quote Quote Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. I don't know the ratio legitimate Somali fishermen to pirates, suspect there are A LOT more fisherman than pirates. That is one common modus operandi the priates have used, however. Armed autonomous UAVs & USVs - bad idea. This sounds like some R&D guy's wet dream - a live experiment where the collateral damage of the fire/no fire logic will be ignored. And tens of thousands? That was the wet dream of the CFO. It is, e.g., see the attributes of the proposer that I mentioned in my response. Thanks for calling that out for those who might not realize the current technical challenges of such a scenario. From a first order analysis – without even considering the strategic implications – simple autonomous behavior (i.e., shoot/don’t shoot when certain set of physical criteria are met) is a lower technical hurdle than some other technical ones (e.g., for UUVs: generating movement, sensor ranges are limited [And at the same time, it is also a direction toward which technology is moving, whether the technologists are or are not considering the strategic security or other consequences. E.g., see some of the examples I cited here in 2007 or PW Singer’s latest, Wired for War, Daily Show appearance for the aurally- or Jon Stewart-inclined. Again, at the same time, from my perspective the purely technical issues – while the S&T challenges are real – are much less interesting, less provocative, and less challenging than the grander strategic and operational consequences. For me, reconciling the disconnect between (1) the strategic and operational potential, and (2) the technological, particularly w/r/t developments in technology for offensive or defensive uses, is fascinating. As I noted, Dr. Finkelstein’s company is currently funded by DARPA, which under Dr. Tether’s leadership [longest in DARPA’s 51 year history] shifted toward an operational rather than “blue sky” emphasis, a strategic decision with which I disagree strongly. [ARO, ONR, and AFRL have appropriate operational emphases, imo.] Robotic Technology, Inc is charged with developing vehicles that independently forage/scavenge for materials to enable power generation in a ground environment. Not completely autonomous. It is a significant milestone, however, on the way to autonomous ground vehicles. Autonomous UAVs, UGVs, and surface sea vehicles are a lot more technically viable in the near term than many other scenarios that get more press, e.g., terrorists using genetically engineered weapons or EMPS. I’d wager we’ll see autonomous UAVs and UGVs before DPRK has a rocket that can reach the Continental US. Any takers on the wager? I got dinner out of the last wager I made via on an SC issue. Another proposal on how to address the issues of piracy was presented by the SecDef on Thursday afternoon. Dr. Finkelstein offered a technical, material solution; my favorite PhD historian offered a non-material solution. The SecDef observed the response to address piracy in Straits of Malacca, which a couple years ago was as much, if not more a problem, then Somalia … and the links to radical Islamists were real. Rather than a technological or kinetic solution, which Americans love, as technology enabled superiority throughout much of the 20th Century … and I am just a guilty in that regard, he offered a non-kinetic solution. W/r/t piracy in southeast Asia with “established governments with real capabilities,” the US helped those governments develop surveillance and control capabilities with help from us. “Help” – not us doing it either kinetically or non-kinetically. "I think ultimately the solution has to come from the landward side, but the truth of the matter is the poverty is so great and the reward so tremendous and the future prospects for most of these young men so bleak that even if a fair number of them are killed or captured, I think the incentives for them to keep trying will continue to be there. "And so it's a question of how you raise the cost so high that perhaps it begins to diminish their enthusiasm, but at the same time see if we can't get some greater sense of order on land. But there's no question about it, it's a challenging problem." The underlying strategic issue is can the pirates be deterred (maybe? maybe not?), contained (logistics nightmare?), and how can the cost of piracy be raised so high that it loses incentive? SecDef Gates asserted that the underlying need that must be addressed is “more order on land.” It’s an issue of bread – the lack of it and the lack of security to enable growing crops and an economy – and it is not an issue of kinetic circuses. To invoke Sun Tzu: tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
