The smoking gun - er - drone [Archive]

aerocontrols

12th March 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Iraq never made any bones about its drone programme, even displaying them at an arms fair last year.

Interesting, then, that they didn't declare this thing as required.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
It's ridiculous to say this is the smoking gun, and could be used for chemical warfare. How much chemical could you fit into it?

With all due respect, I disagree. Considering the size of the wings and apparent lack of weight anywhere else, I would say you could load it with quite a bit of liquid.

No, not 'in' the fuselage, but in attached tanks.

However, this looks like a weapons program, not a final product. To me, this looks like an avionics testbed program.

MattJ

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

However, this looks like a weapons program, not a final product. To me, this looks like an avionics testbed program.

MattJ
So is Iraq sanctioned from having an "avionics testbed program" ?
I honestly don't know and I'm too lazy to look for the answer myself :)

The thing looks like something I could build and that really means something. You put some 5 to 10 KG of payload on it and I guess it well be really slooooooow. Not exactly the thing one could attack th US with.

Zee

Baggle

12th March 2003, 12:41 PM

From what I've heard, Iraq is prohibited(specifically? Not sure...) from having unmanned drones, or at least unmanned drones that can travel farther than allowed by UN rules, which this aircraft can. All of these things considered, who cares if it's a crappy implementation(which I am not sure it is)? The point is, Iraq violated the rules....again. The reactions to this remind me of the reactions people had to the Al Samoud(sp?) missles. "Ya, they break the rules, but only by x km!" Who cares how much in violation of the rules the drones, or the missles, or the chemicals are. They are still in violation of the rules. By the way, it may fly slowly, which I am not sure about, but, from what I've read, it can fly low enough to evade radar, which would mean that it wouldn't matter how slow it flies, since it would be difficult to stop it anyway(without loose Iraqi lips contributing). Also, the fact that Hans Blix left it out of his report concerns me deeply, no matter how much or how little the aircraft is in violation. What else has he not reported in order to serve his own personal goals?

As always, I am perfectly fine with being corrected if I said anything in error.
-Baggle

aerocontrols

12th March 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

So is Iraq sanctioned from having an "avionics testbed program" ?
I honestly don't know and I'm too lazy to look for the answer myself :)

No, they're prohibited from having or developing weapons that fly beyond a certain distance, including drones. Resolution 1441 specifically demanded that they declare all such programs. They did not declare this drone.

Resolution 1441

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
The thing looks like something I could build and that really means something. You put some 5 to 10 KG of payload on it and I guess it well be really slooooooow. Not exactly the thing one could attack th US with.

Zee

"Attack the US" is a strawman. Hussein is forbidden from having UAVs and Ballistic Missiles with large ranges to keep him from threatening his neigbors. In any case, this is exactly the kind of aircraft he needs to build if he wants to attack the US with a chemical weapons from the air.

It may look to you as if this aircraft is not a threat, but that's probably because you don't know much about aerospace engineering. Like many of the UAVs made here in our department, this one looks like it breaks down to make it easier to move. (We put ours in a van in order to drive them to competitions) Note that the fuselage is 'encased' by a box to which the wings attach. The fuselage looks like it could be removed. The Tail-boom configuration is a popular one for people who want an aircraft that can be dissassembled. The struts under the wings are likely for strength because the wings break down as well, possibly also because the wings are meant to carry fuel or liquid munition tanks. The entire aircraft is modular.

If that thing goes where it's aimed (the avionics part), then it scares the crap out of me. That thing would be very easy to smuggle into just about any country on the planet.

5-10 kilograms is not a significant load for an aircraft with wings like that.

MattJ

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

No, they're prohibited from having or developing weapons that fly beyond a certain distance, including drones. Resolution 1441 specifically demanded that they declare all such programs. They did not declare this drone.

"Attack the US" is a strawman.
MattJ

Thanx for the info. As to the strawman, I admittedly was teasing a little considering the propable outcome of the current situation with the US attacking Iraq no matter what the UN says. Then it can't be about violating UN resolutions anymore but will be declared "self defense".

Zee

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 01:17 PM

Just curious... You started this thread, probably with the intention of showing that Iraq's plane shouldn't be considered a serious threat.

Now, my question: Is it the fact that the plane looks so flimsy/primative that you question the seriousness of them having it, or is it the fact that unmanned drones are banned at all? (i.e. do you think all unmanned planes should be allowed.)

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

As to the strawman, I admittedly was teasing a little considering the propable outcome of the current situation with the US attacking Iraq no matter what the UN says.

Sorry if some of us overreact... it wasn't quite evident that you were teasing. Some of the anti-war people here have said some really dumb things (which haven't been jokes).

(Yeah, I know, not all the pro-war people are all that bright either.)

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Just curious... You started this thread, probably with the intention of showing that Iraq's plane shouldn't be considered a serious threat.

Now, my question: Is it the fact that the plane looks so flimsy/primative that you question the seriousness of them having it, or is it the fact that unmanned drones are banned at all? (i.e. do you think all unmanned planes should be allowed.)

Honestly, there wasn't much of an intention at all. I saw the picture and my first reaction was " You gotta be kidding..."

As Aerocontrols pointed out, I don't know much about avionics and if his info is correct the thing is quite certainly in breach with UN resolutions. Somebody drop a heavy object on it.
The question is, is this the point where the UN should say "let's drop a bomb on it, and while we're at it let's drop some more bombs over the whole place".

I think not - yet.

Zee

Reginald

12th March 2003, 01:36 PM

Wierd things these drones, I looked and thought "erm surely not!" however.....MattJ has made some good points, do an image search on UAVs and drones and this thing dosn't look half as "silly" as it could at first glance, it seems as advanced as lots.

Its worth remembering that one of the most used and sucessful UAVs cost only the equivalent of about $2500 (at todays prices) used low grade fuel, had a simple gyro/barometric guidance system., had a range of 240 km and could carry a 830kg payload.
Using 50+ year old technology, I refer to the V-1.

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

The question is, is this the point where the UN should say "let's drop a bomb on it, and while we're at it let's drop some more bombs over the whole place".

Hey, the U.S. has to calibrate its targeting systems some how :p

Seriously, the problem is, Resolution 1441 was never meant to be a path to find and destroy Iraqi weapons, and the weapons inspectors were never meant to be detectives. The point of 1441 is that Iraq was to give us all the information on their weapons systems, and the inspectors were to veryify that they had been destroyed. (Remember, Iraq had declared that they had no banned material.)

The problem is, if they find 1 thing that they had hidden, its reasonable to assume they have more banned things that they shouldn't have that have just been hidden better. (For example, if you were a father, and found the cover off a playboy magazine in your son's room, you may assume that the rest of the magazine, or even other magazines are hidden. This assumes you don't allow your son to have playboys.)

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Sorry if some of us overreact... it wasn't quite evident that you were teasing. Some of the anti-war people here have said some really dumb things (which haven't been jokes).

(Yeah, I know, not all the pro-war people are all that bright either.)
Uno Momento,

You will have a hard time finding a post of mine that identifies me as one of the "anti-war peolple" (stupid tree huggers :D ). I'm just a skeptic and I do argue against stupid statements of guys like rik or JK - sometimes.

Zee

aerocontrols

12th March 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Somebody drop a heavy object on it.

The problem with that approach is that what you see in the picture isn't the problem.

The evidence we have is that they flew 500 miles in a 'race-track' pattern. Obviously, the reason to fly 500 miles is to demonstrate (for themselves) that the aircraft could fly that far. The reason they flew in a race-track pattern may be because they have not yet completely overcome the problem of autonomous flight. That is, they were controlling the aircraft by remote from the ground, rather than letting the aircraft fly on its own, and could not fly it out of range of their transmitter. This is the heart of the UAV problem - turning a computer into a pilot. [edit: I don't know why I didn't think of this: The reason they flew in a race-track pattern may also be the reason that we don't fly out of remote range... losing an aircraft because it was out of range to be saved by the safety pilot is a really stupid reason for a research setback. In the picture below, you can see our safety pilot and a radio operator standing in a field while our UAV flies above, much closer to the camera.]

http://controls.ae.gatech.edu/pictures/f021108_darpa/DSC00013.JPG

You can smash the airplane all you want, the hull of that airplane isn't the big deal. (There are thousands of people who can make an airplane like that single-handedly - I know several myself.) The avionics and integration for unmanned flight is the big deal. It's the development program that has to be ended. The records must be seized and the Iraqi regime has to be serious about not building any more.

Achieving this goal requires Saddam's complete cooperation or his removal.

MattJ

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Reginald

Using 50+ year old technology, I refer to the V-1.
Would the V-1 really be considered a UAV? I assumed it would be classified as a primative 'cruise missle'.

Is there a particular dividing line between cruise missles and unmanned planes? (To me, the possibility of the plane returning to base, while the missle has a one way trip, is one difference between them, but I'm not an avation expert.)

I do have a friend who is into avation, and according to him, some of the planes have a very long range. He mentioned an experimental drone which was able to fly from the U.S. to Australia, take place in maneuvers there, and fly back. Anyone know if this is true?

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The problem is, if they find 1 thing that they had hidden, its reasonable to assume they have more banned things that they shouldn't have that have just been hidden better. (For example, if you were a father, and found the cover off a playboy magazine in your son's room, you may assume that the rest of the magazine, or even other magazines are hidden. This assumes you don't allow your son to have playboys.)

I AM a father (of two daughters though) and I have no problem with the playboy at all [only if I can't get it :)]. But to stick with your analogy... Sure I assume he has more of the stuff hidden. Now what, do I perform a complete and thorough search of his room and take away what I find or do I burn it down so I can be sure that everything forbidden is burned as well?

Zee

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

Uno Momento,

You will have a hard time finding a post of mine that identifies me as one of the "anti-war peolple" (stupid tree huggers :D ). I'm just a skeptic and I do argue against stupid statements of guys like rik or JK - sometimes.

Zee

I'm skeptical of your claims....

Seriously, there have been stupid statements by people on both sides (and it gets hard to support Bush with some of the dumb things he does).

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

Now what, do I perform a complete and thorough search of his room and take away what I find or do I burn it down so I can be sure that everything forbidden is burned as well?

Nope, you sell him for medical experiments, and get a new son.

Actually, my anology wasn't really meant to cover what to do when stuff is found, just the fact that discovering some items (a page of Playboy) indicates that other stuff (more Playboys) are likely available.

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I'm skeptical of your claims....

This is a confessional or what? You put me in one corner with peace protestors and you do me wrong is all I'm saying.

Zee

Baggle

12th March 2003, 02:08 PM

Sticking to the analogy....

I guess it all depends. Did you have a formal agreement with your son(who has a history of arrest records for violence) that he come clean with all of the Playboys he had or he would be in serious trouble? Did he know that if he lied to you, he would be spanked badly? Did he then tell you that he had no other Playboys, although you knew he had very many of them, and agree to let you search his room, only for him to rush in before each search, lock the door, and rummage around for 30 seconds before letting you enter? When you entered the room, did you then find scraps of the magazines, but not a complete issue? Were you only allowed to search his dresser, and not under his mattress? And on and on and on....when do you finally bend him over your knee and make good on the promises? Does it really matter that his aunt is screaming at you to take it easy on him? How much longer will your son take you seriously?

I think you get the idea...this is how I see the Iraq issue.

-Baggle

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

This is a confessional or what? You put me in one corner with peace protestors and you do me wrong is all I'm saying.

Zee
Sorry, it was a bad joke. Skeptical of the skeptic.

No offence intended.

I'll use more smilies next time.

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Baggle
Sticking to the analogy....

I guess it all depends. Did you have a formal agreement with your son(who has a history of arrest records for violence) that he come clean with all of the Playboys he had or he would be in serious trouble? Did he know that if he lied to you, he would be spanked badly? Did he then tell you that he had no other Playboys, although you knew he had very many of them, and agree to let you search his room, only for him to rush in before each search, lock the door, and rummage around for 30 seconds before letting you enter? When you entered the room, did you then find scraps of the magazines, but not a complete issue? Were you only allowed to search his dresser, and not under his mattress? And on and on and on....when do you finally bend him over your knee and make good on the promises? Does it really matter that his aunt is screaming at you to take it easy on him? How much longer will your son take you seriously?

I think you get the idea...this is how I see the Iraq issue.

-Baggle

Ok, to make a long story short I quote myself from
here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14144). That's still my POV

Finally someone asked...

In MY opinion:

Extend inspections with backup of armed forces (troops under UN mandate, backed by a UN resolution)
Use as many inspectors as it takes get a coherent picture, i.e. control all factories and transport routes.

This basically means that Saddam has to agree to a certain loss of souvereignty. Any violent obstruction of these inspections will be considered as an attack against the UN -> then the hammer falls.

This way, it would be Saddam to start armed aggression and I think the support for an invasion will be much broader.

Just my five pence

Zee

ZeeGerman

12th March 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Sorry, it was a bad joke. Skeptical of the skeptic.

No offence intended.

I'll use more smilies next time.

No hard feelings man, sometimes I'm having difficulties with knowing a joke when I see one :) Specially in a foreign language.

Zee

Segnosaur

12th March 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

Ok, to make a long story short I quote myself from
here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14144). That's still my POV

Finally someone asked...

In MY opinion:

Extend inspections with backup of armed forces (troops under UN mandate, backed by a UN resolution)
Use as many inspectors as it takes get a coherent picture, i.e. control all factories and transport routes.

This basically means that Saddam has to agree to a certain loss of souvereignty. Any violent obstruction of these inspections will be considered as an attack against the UN -> then the hammer falls.

This way, it would be Saddam to start armed aggression and I think the support for an invasion will be much broader.

Just my five pence

I don't think it would work from a practical point of view. First of all, you have the 2 egos... Saddam would have to agree to give up soverignty (which I doubt he'd do), and countries like France would have to agree to the use of armed forces. (They said they'd veto anything in the current round.)

Secondly, you are talking about controlling an entire country, composed of millions of people. How many inspectors/armed forces would you need to control that much territory (and all their factories)? You would have to have the country blanketed constantly (since many 'banned' items can be moved.) Think of how many police you have in your city, and imagine scaling that up to a country with the population of Iraq.

Thirdly, Iraq is a BIG country. Even if you inspected all the cities, there could be banned materials out in the desert that could go undetected.

Fourthly, you assume that people would agree when to 'drop the hammer'. People are very wishy-washy on this. Look at Blix... Even though Iraq has violated 1441, he always says things like "they are increasing cooperation", when they were supposed to be 100% cooperative from the first day. There will always be people willing to 'forgive' Iraq its transgressions, regardless of how bad they are.

ZeeGerman

13th March 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I don't think it would work from a practical point of view. First of all, you have the 2 egos... Saddam would have to agree to give up soverignty (which I doubt he'd do), and countries like France would have to agree to the use of armed forces. (They said they'd veto anything in the current round.)

This is clearly an argument for more effort in diplomacy in the UN. I see that the whole discussion in the security council has gone south and there are all parties to blame for that:

Germany (Schröder that is) basically refused everything which involved violence prematurely before they were even asked.

Chirac fears for his ego and the role of France as a global player and sits in the pouting corner "vetoing everything"

Bush and Rumsfeld paint the world in black and white and are as diplomatic as a concrete pillar. Especially Don Rumsfeld rather looses a good friend than a good punch line.

A sad act indeed.

Nevertheless, I think diplomacy should be given more chances to get the SC to issue an ultimatum. It will take more time but it's worth it. The day the US starts the war without agreement of the UN will be a sad day for this planet.

Secondly, you are talking about controlling an entire country, composed of millions of people. How many inspectors/armed forces would you need to control that much territory (and all their factories)? You would have to have the country blanketed constantly (since many 'banned' items can be moved.) Think of how many police you have in your city, and imagine scaling that up to a country with the population of Iraq.

Sure, logistics will be tricky but so will be disarming Iraq by means of war without killing too many civillians or bombing the already heavily damaged country back to the stone age. But Iraq is not something like my city upscaled to the size of Iraq or a population of 22 Million. Density of traffic infrastructure and number of factories is much lower in that comparison.

Fourthly, you assume that people would agree when to 'drop the hammer'. People are very wishy-washy on this. Look at Blix... Even though Iraq has violated 1441, he always says things like "they are increasing cooperation", when they were supposed to be 100% cooperative from the first day. There will always be people willing to 'forgive' Iraq its transgressions, regardless of how bad they are.

I don't agree. If the UN managed to get a joint international force to enforce the peacful disarming and Iraq starts killing members of that force the people would not be wishy-washy anymore. It's like shooting a police officer, it's unacceptable.

I know that the odds for this scenario are low and it depresses me but it's still something I hope for.

Zee

Drooper

13th March 2003, 02:06 AM

Zee, I would like to ask you a question a little off topic.

What, in your opinion, has caused Germany and France to make such a dramatic change in their position since they signed voted for and signed UNSC resolution 1441?

I am referring to the clause that specificy "serious consequence" in the event of non-compliance - given that Blix has reported that Iraq have not been complying, but the French and German positon now seems to be that force should never be used. The solution should entail more inspectors, possibly peace keepers etc. but definitely no "serious consequences" under any circumstances.

Whatever criticism you may level at the US or UK, they have been acting in accordance with the resolution, in that they have been persuring a consultative approach within the UNSC.

ZeeGerman

13th March 2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
Zee, I would like to ask you a question a little off topic.

What, in your opinion, has caused Germany and France to make such a dramatic change in their position since they signed voted for and signed UNSC resolution 1441?

I am referring to the clause that specificy "serious consequence" in the event of non-compliance - given that Blix has reported that Iraq have not been complying, but the French and German positon now seems to be that force should never be used. The solution should entail more inspectors, possibly peace keepers etc. but definitely no "serious consequences" under any circumstances.

Whatever criticism you may level at the US or UK, they have been acting in accordance with the resolution, in that they have been persuring a consultative approach within the UNSC.

I can't really speak for France, I guess Chirac is surfing on a current wave of anti-americanism in France. I completely disagree with his current stance, beacause it jeopardizes a diplomatic solution.

Schröder used the "we will have no part in a war and will reject any resolution sanctioning war against Iraq" simply because he wanted to be reelected. Typical for a politician, stupid and something I completely disagree with. He barely managed to soften the damage of his stance by the EU bulletin that states that violence as a ultimate means cannot be ruled out.

As to my criticism against US, I know that they are still formally acting in accordance with the resolution. Yet, it's not only what you do but also how you do it and our politicians are currently acting like pubescent boys fighting in the school yard. Declaring that the UN are irrelevant if they won't let the US have their way was certainly getting some people upset.
Anyway, my main concern is what happens to the fragile international order if the US starts a war against UNSC decisions? Is it worth taking the risk? I think not but I'm just an irrelevant old European with too many ideals.

Zee

Drooper

13th March 2003, 03:06 AM

Zee, you didn't answer the core of the question.

Why have Germany done an about face? Why, if they objected to the substance of 1441 did they sign it in the first place?

they signed up to:

Iraqi cooperation in disarmament,
"serious consequences" if this was not coming.
no requirement for any further vote from the UNSC, just an appraisal of the inspectors report.

ZeeGerman

13th March 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
Zee, you didn't answer the core of the question.

Why have Germany done an about face? Why, if they objected to the substance of 1441 did they sign it in the first place?

they signed up to:

Iraqi cooperation in disarmament,
"serious consequences" if this was not coming.
no requirement for any further vote from the UNSC, just an appraisal of the inspectors report.

Drooper, you're one insisting guy :)

What part of my answer don't you understand. They agreed to it mainly because they agreed to it, and because "serious consequences" is a term that leaves a lot of room for interpretations. Too much in my POV.
The "about face" ( I had to look that one up, my English failed me there) was mainly to catch votes, as I said. And it did get him the votes and the public opinion in Germany is still against war. The reason for this is a bit special for Germany imo. It's not anti americanism it's more a common "discomfort" with the idea of german involvement in a war given the recent history of Germany and wars. Especially since Iraq has definitely done nothing so far to threaten Germany. Again, that's my opinion on the current public opinion here, not an argument in our current discussion here.

At the bottom line we still have to answer the question what "serious consequences" means.

Zee