Iraq's Drones

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0313/p06s01-woiq.html

With all of this kind of evidence that the USA keeps producing, I dont' understand why other countries aren't on our side.:rolleyes:

[Crossbow]

I saw that craft last night on the news and it did not look that big of deal to me. Also, since it is the only one they have it is not a threat worthy of going to war over.

The article that was linked to says as much:

The primitive craft - its wings held together with tin foil and duct tape, and two wooden propellers bolted to engines far smaller than those of a lawn mower - looked more like a high-school science project than the "smoking gun" that could spark a war.

[Segnosaur]

The drone was discussed in this thread as well:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15521

An analysis was done by Aerocontrols, showing the potential problems that such a vehicle could cause. (A drone may look flimsy, but it can easily be broken down, transported to other locations/countries, and could have a payload of several pounds of chem/bio weapons. Plus, the fact that it can fly low enough to evade radar makes it a danger.)

And Crossbow... Iraq likes to hid things... They have one that we know of. Can you guarantee that they don't have more hidden in the desert?

[richardm]

it did not look that big of deal to me. Also, since it is the only one they have it is not a threat worthy of going to war over

By itself, perhaps not. But it's something else that Iraq is not supposed to have; something else they're supposed to have declared "immediately and in full".

And it's something else that the weapons inspectors have found by pure luck; stumbling over it, no doubt to a background of cries (in Arabic) of "Goodness me, who left that drone over there? I thought we'd got rid of all of those, forget me own head one of these days".

How many things do we have to accidentally find before we decide that Iraq has failed to immediately declare everything it's got that it shouldn't, and muscle our way in for a proper look?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
...

And Crossbow... Iraq likes to hid things... They have one that we know of. Can you guarantee that they don't have more hidden in the desert?


To: Segnosaur

No, I cannot gaurentee such a thing. And I am unable to gaurentee that terrorists are working with Iraq, and I am unable to gaurentee that Iraq will provide the PLO with nukes, and ... (well you get the point).

However, it is the pro-war camp that keeps making such assertions and as such it is up to them to provide the positive data as opposed to using the lack of negative proof as a justification.

[Reginald]

it's not quite as cut and dried as that gents......


(This thread does kind of wander a bit at the end but theres some good stuff in it)

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15521

Also this is not the only Drone program that Iraq have been trying for....

(and this one was a tad more sophisticated)

Do a search for "Iraqi L29 drone"

Its a Czech Trainer that they were having some success with.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-397407,00.html

Iraq had carried out trials of a helicopter-borne insecticide sprayer which could have been used for biological attacks. Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, wrote in a report in June that Iraq had continued to convert its Czech-built L29 Delphin jet trainer aircraft into unpiloted drones, possibly for delivering biological warfare agents.

Could be that he trotted out his worst one, maybe not...hmmm

Edited to add "Sorry Steg you posted while I was linking!"

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Crossbow


To: Segnosaur

No, I cannot gaurentee such a thing. And I am unable to gaurentee that terrorists are working with Iraq, and I am unable to gaurentee that Iraq will provide the PLO with nukes, and ... (well you get the point).

However, it is the pro-war camp that keeps making such assertions and as such it is up to them to provide the positive data as opposed to using the lack of negative proof as a justification.

That is incorrect. The inspectors are not there to search for weapons, they are there to confirm the "immediate and full" declaration that Iraq submitted (somehow with a straight face) last year.

It is not their responsibility to assess the realistic potential of those weapons, nor is it incumbent on the US or the UN "prove" anything. The declaration was explicitly supposed to be a full accounting, and the inspectors have shown over and over again that it was inaccurate, and indeed rife with lies and deceptions.

Iraq is in material breach. Just because some people *cough*France*cough* have decided that those breaches don't live up to some subjective standard of real and present danger doesn't change the fact that they are violations.

The only objective measurement is Iraq's own declaration and it has been proven to be a compendium of lies.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Crossbow

However, it is the pro-war camp that keeps making such assertions and as such it is up to them to provide the positive data as opposed to using the lack of negative proof as a justification.
As a skeptic, I know that it is not really possible to prove a negative. (i.e. that Iraq DOESN'T have banned items.) But, I do think its reasonable to assume that if they claimed to have nothing, but banned items are found, there is a strong possibility that other banned items exist.

In the thread I linked to, I used the anology of a father who finds a page to a Playboy magazine on the floor of his Son's bedroom (after being told not to have any, and the son claims tht they are gone). Now, if a single page is found, its reasonable to assume that the complete magazine (or even other copies of Playboy) probably exist somewhere in his room.

This 'drone' is Iraq's 'playboy'. They were prohibited from having undeclared drones by Resolution 1441. The linked article at the start of the thread said that Iraq did declare it, but gave the wrong wing span (I guess drones of a certain size were allowed), and only admitted to the correct wing span after it was measured by inspectors.

[Crossbow]

To: Segnosaur

Thanks much! I think we are essentially thinking along the same lines.

[thaiboxerken]

I think that Bush has decided that Iraq is guilty already and will do anything it takes, including fabrication, to ensure that evidence is found. I don't see Iraq as a threat to the USA at all. Of course the Israelis see them as a threat, and that 's probably the real reason we are over there.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jocko


That is incorrect. The inspectors are not there to search for weapons, they are there to confirm the "immediate and full" declaration that Iraq submitted (somehow with a straight face) last year.

It is not their responsibility to assess the realistic potential of those weapons, nor is it incumbent on the US or the UN "prove" anything. The declaration was explicitly supposed to be a full accounting, and the inspectors have shown over and over again that it was inaccurate, and indeed rife with lies and deceptions.

Iraq is in material breach. Just because some people *cough*France*cough* have decided that those breaches don't live up to some subjective standard of real and present danger doesn't change the fact that they are violations.

The only objective measurement is Iraq's own declaration and it has been proven to be a compendium of lies.

To: Jocko

Excuse me, but I would like to point out that I not talking about what the inspectors are supposed to in Iraq, instead I was talking about the justifications the Bush Administration is using to go to war with Iraq.

I do believe that your assessment is correct.

That, Iraq was supposed to provide a complete inventory of their WMD, but they have not.
Then, Iraq has promised to destroy their WMD with the inspectors validating the said destruction.
The inspectors are not supposed to look under every rock, tree, and bush in Iraq looking for these weapons. Instead, Iraq has promised to deliver an accurate inventory and they have commited to actually destroying these weapons with the inspectors as witnesses.
Instead, Iraq has dragged its feet, lied repeatedly, and only actually does anything when under pressure.

Again, I agree with all of these statements.

Where we disagree is how best to proceed when faced with these facts.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Crossbow



Again, I agree with all of these statements.

Where we disagree is how best to proceed when faced with these facts.

Then isn't your point of dissent with the UN, rather than the US? Althought the demand for full declaration was in a US-sponsored resolution, it was unanimously agreed upon and passed by all members of the UNSC.

No one could argue in good faith that Iraq hasn't failed to deliver what the UN demanded. The US position that the failure has triggered the "serious consequences" (which amnesiac Frenchmen have suddenly forgotten the meaning of, and apparently don't even remember passing) is carrying out the will of the UNSC as stated in 1441.

Just because you see other members of the UNSC turning tail, it doesn't mean that 1441 is invalid because they've decided not to put their money where their mouth is.

I find it highly ironic that enforcing the will of the UN is being compared with operating outside of the UN, and the insistence of the French on vetoing ANY resolution put forth makes it painfully obvious that they would like to turn this into an issue of America, and not an issue of Iraq.

What to do when one nation puts up an irrational and arbitrary wall to the passage of ANY action at all? If anyone is in violation of the spirit of the UN, it's France for putting a diplomatic filibuster on the security council.

In civilian terms, we'd call that obstruction of justice.

[Crossbow]

My problem is with the US and not the UN.

Granted, the 1441 does say "serious consequences", however it does not stipulate just what those consequences should entail. Also, please remember that the "serious consequences" phrase was approved by the Bush Administration because they originally wanted to put in verbage regarding "military action", however it quickly became obvious that such language would not win passage so the deal was that the phrase "serious consequences" would be put in instead and the exact details of those consequense would be worked out later.

Well, now it is later.

The Bush Adminstration has made it clear that it wants "serious consequences" to be defined as military action, while many other countries want "serious consequences" to be defined differently.

As far as France goes, that is there right. The US has used its Veto power to block/stall/water-down UN actions that would undermine its interests as well, so if it such a practice is good for the US, then one cannot be surprised when other countries do the same thing.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Crossbow
My problem is with the US and not the UN.

Granted, the 1441 does say "serious consequences", however it does not stipulate just what those consequences should entail. Also, please remember that the "serious consequences" phrase was approved by the Bush Administration because they originally wanted to put in verbage regarding "military action", however it quickly became obvious that such language would not win passage so the deal was that the phrase "serious consequences" would be put in instead and the exact details of those consequense would be worked out later.

That is disingenuous at best. It was very clear what "serious consequences" meant, and the fact that there is this sudden rash of doubt, voiced in French accents, goes to prove that no good deed goes unpunished. We offered them cover, and they've turned on us. Fine, they will have to live with those consequences.

Well, now it is later.

Later than they think, I'll wager.

The Bush Adminstration has made it clear that it wants "serious consequences" to be defined as military action, while many other countries want "serious consequences" to be defined differently.

No, other countries define "serious consquences" as "status quo" (the ones who are actually offering alternatives and not simply grandstanding in an effort to steal back some kind of long-lost global significance).

As far as France goes, that is there right. The US has used its Veto power to block/stall/water-down UN actions that would undermine its interests as well, so if it such a practice is good for the US, then one cannot be surprised when other countries do the same thing.

I take strong exception to that comparison. Find me an example of America ever vowing to "veto no matter what it says" a proposed resolution from another country. This goes straight to the heart of my point- this bickering and contrarian French ******** has nothing to do with Iraq any more.

No, the new game is "punish America." The French have said repeatedly that they will veto ANY RESOLUTION. Is that what you call a right under the UN? I call it grounds for dismissal.

Honestly, find me an example of America making an "example" of a third party when debating an issue before the UNSC. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's damned unlikely.... at least it USED to be- let's just say I wouldn't want to be French for the next twenty years or so.

[Segnosaur]

You know, this thread has gotten WAY WAY off topic.

But anyways:

Originally posted by Jocko

No one could argue in good faith that Iraq hasn't failed to deliver what the UN demanded.
Most people who are anti-war usually don't bother with the letter of the resoluton. (Many probably don't even know what it says.) They use the argument that "they are more cooperative than before, even though the resolution says they had to cooperate fully from day 1. Or they say they should be allowed to have those weapons because Israel or the U.S. has them, which means they haven't broken the resolution.

And then there are people like ImpyTimpy, who thinks they are in full compliance because even though they have breeched the resolution by hiding stuff, destroying stuff magically removes the breech. :rolleyes:

(See posts by Impytimpy in this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15331&pagenumber=3 )

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
You know, this thread has gotten WAY WAY off topic.

But anyways:


Most people who are anti-war usually don't bother with the letter of the resoluton. (Many probably don't even know what it says.) They use the argument that "they are more cooperative than before, even though the resolution says they had to cooperate fully from day 1. Or they say they should be allowed to have those weapons because Israel or the U.S. has them, which means they haven't broken the resolution.

And then there are people like ImpyTimpy, who thinks they are in full compliance because even though they have breeched the resolution by hiding stuff, destroying stuff magically removes the breech. :rolleyes:

(See posts by Impytimpy in this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15331&pagenumber=3 )

Yes, this is precisely what had me puzzled about Crossbow's ire with the US when it's the UN resolution that's being routinely violated. I guess the US is the bad guy because, unlike some of our "allies," we actually meant what we said when we passed 1441. The games with semantics and "Serious consequences" plays straight into the hands of some hair-splitting prevaricator like Saddam, does it not?

For once, I'd like to see a spade called a spade and the apologies and rationalizations for Iraq called to task.

You don't consider drones a threat to the US? Fine. But that's not what 1441 is about.

You think 50% cooperation from Saddam is good enough? Fine. But that's not what 1441 is about.

You think serious consequences means, "you will comply at once, or face the consequnces of being given more time on top of the last 12 years" muttered in a French accent? Fine. But anyone with half a brain knows that's NOT WHAT 1441 IS ABOUT.

I see French intransigence dragging this thing out and making it worse in the long run, and I don't for a minute think it has anythign to do with French "principles." I think it has to do with French irrelevance.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Jocko

For once, I'd like to see a spade called a spade and the apologies and rationalizations for Iraq called to task.

You don't consider drones a threat to the US? Fine. But that's not what 1441 is about.

Fine with me.

You think 50% cooperation from Saddam is good enough? Fine. But that's not what 1441 is about.

Just what I think...

You think serious consequences means, "you will comply at once, or face the consequnces of being given more time on top of the last 12 years" muttered in a French accent? Fine. But anyone with half a brain knows that's NOT WHAT 1441 IS ABOUT.


that's where you loose your point. "Serious consequences " means exactly that what the UNSC has yet to decide. It's the hour for the diplomats now not yet the hour of the generals. As I said over in the other drone thread, the current quality of debate in the UNSC is a sad act and all parties have their fair share in it. They obviously need to chill out a bit ...


I see French intransigence dragging this thing out and making it worse in the long run, and I don't for a minute think it has anythign to do with French "principles." I think it has to do with French irrelevance.

Just don't get the whole irrelevance discussion started again. If any of the UNSC members were irrelevant, why is the US still debating? Hopefully because they are more patient than you.

Zee

[scotth]

A comment on the drone by someone that actually knows drones. (me)

All poo pooing by the talking heads on the news that haven't a clue aside, that thing is plenty big enough to do the job of spreading bio or chem weapons.

Drones are not expensive and don't have to look very sophisticated to be effective.

If there is any type hopper that appears to be designed to carry anything other than fuel, it is almost certainly a prototype weapon.

As I have stated in another thread, I have an aircraft in my garage that is quite a bit smaller than this and I have no doubt could be easily outfitted to carry 10kg of payload. 20kgs would be pretty reasonable. It is not nearly the size of the Iraqi plane.

These things are made of wood and fiberglass typically and don't show up on radar. They fly low, make little noise, are fairly unnoticable if you aren't looking for them. How much damage could be done with 20kg of bio agent?

A 50 kg payload is quite feasible with a bird that size. Even as high as triple that is not out of the question.

[Baggle]

If I am not mistaken, the US/UK/Spain now want to author a second resolution; not saying that they are going to go to war with Iraq, but a very short resolution simply stating that Iraq has not complied with 1441. That is the wholeness of the resolution. However, France/Germany/Russia have threatened to veto this resolution if it ever is so much as proposed. It seems to me that if any nation opposed to war in Iraq, that has a better idea of what "serious consequences" are, a third resolution after the ones the Americans/British/Spain would be perfect for setting forth those consequences, whatever they may be. However, no anti-war nation that I've heard of is interested in doing this at all. I believe this is because those nations never intended on issuing any serious consequences in case of material breach of the resoutlion, and therefore never planned for anything....except for the Americans/British, who planned military action. C'mon Crossbow, it's not like there is a massive debate in the UNSC chambers about the best way to instill serious consequences because Iraq is in material breach. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no debate about it, and many nations are very keen on looking the other direction about Iraq's violations.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Zee, the problem is that France and friends will never admit that Iraq is in material breach of 1441 in order to move on to the next stage of, "What now?" If they were to do as much, it would sure surprise the hell out of me, and I think just about everybody else. They refuse to get past this point, although it seems clear to most of us on this board, pro and anti war alike. Why is that?

-Baggle

[John Bryce]

Some links:

Iraqi Air Force Capability To Deliver Chemical Weapons (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/an_nasiriyah_sw/an_nasiriyah_sw_refs/n18en002/iraqiaf.htm)

Iraqi Army Chemical Weapons Doctrine (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/961102/61884_01.htm)

How easy would it be for terrorists to disperse a chemical agent effectively? (http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?SN=CB2001121259)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


that's where you loose your point. "Serious consequences " means exactly that what the UNSC has yet to decide. It's the hour for the diplomats now not yet the hour of the generals. As I said over in the other drone thread, the current quality of debate in the UNSC is a sad act and all parties have their fair share in it. They obviously need to chill out a bit ...

They've been chilling since January, and no one has offered any kind of alternative thae even RESEMBLES a consequence, serious or otherwise. The US, Brits and Canada have all floated ideas, to be summarily rebuked by the bullheaded arrogance of an irrelevant country.

If the Europeans want to argue what to do about the BLATANT violations, fine. Start arguing and dispense with the pouty silent treatment. France's inaction makes US action all the more necessary, as Blair said today.


Just don't get the whole irrelevance discussion started again. If any of the UNSC members were irrelevant, why is the US still debating? Hopefully because they are more patient than you.

I will certainly not drop the question of France's relevance on the UNSC, the UN itself, and indeed the world. Their seat on the UNSC was a gift from other nations following WWII, and their platform has become a bully pulpit. I heartily recommend taking away their keys and giving their seat to a much more deserving (not to mention less socialist) nation like India.

The French are not being patient. The French are being intransigent. I appreciate patience, but cannot abide intransigence, foot-dragging and pouting that puts American lives at risk, and by extension, Iraqi lives at well.

I do not accept French rationalizations for Iraq's behavior, and I do not accept your rationalizations for France's behavior.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by scotth

All poo pooing by the talking heads on the news that haven't a clue aside, that thing is plenty big enough to do the job of spreading bio or chem weapons.

Yea, but so is a 8" wingspan model plane. Heck, I can carry bio or chem weapons on a paper airplane. The question is, how much and is it really a threat?


Drones are not expensive and don't have to look very sophisticated to be effective.

Depends on what job you want the drone to do, I don't think this little balsa plane could do the same jobs that our drones do.


If there is any type hopper that appears to be designed to carry anything other than fuel, it is almost certainly a prototype weapon.

So the model blimps i've seen at toy stores are certainly prototype weapons? I mean, they do drop candy and such.


As I have stated in another thread, I have an aircraft in my garage that is quite a bit smaller than this and I have no doubt could be easily outfitted to carry 10kg of payload. 20kgs would be pretty reasonable. It is not nearly the size of the Iraqi plane.

Maybe you should turn yourself in for having a prototype weapon of mass destruction.


These things are made of wood and fiberglass typically and don't show up on radar. They fly low, make little noise, are fairly unnoticable if you aren't looking for them. How much damage could be done with 20kg of bio agent?

That is the question as well as what range could this "drone" be effective to? Is this really a prototype weapon or one of the military general's after-work toy?


A 50 kg payload is quite feasible with a bird that size. Even as high as triple that is not out of the question. [/B]

[Baggle]

Again, it does not matter what kind of damage the drone or the Al Samoud(sp?) missle or any other banned material can do. What matters is that Iraq claimed that they had none of these banned weapons/delievery systems and now we find that they do. In the case of this drone, Iraq even lied about its dimensions in their reports to the UN. How many times does Iraq need to exhibit that it is not fully cooperating with the UN and indeed is lying to them before the international(and domestic) community realizes that they will never be in compliance while Saddam is in power? These are the issues here. It's not whether banned weapon X in Iraq can do whatever amount of damage, but whether weapon X is banned at all, while Iraq claims that it has no such weapon. This point has been addressed at least 3 or 4 times in this thread alone, so why is it so hard to comprehend?

-Baggle

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Baggle
so why is it so hard to comprehend?

I think the challenge isn't so much 'to comprehend' as it is 'to acknowledge'.

[Baggle]

Much better word choice, aero.

I am starting to get sort of frustrated on this issue. If it were just about any other issue, people would never willingly ignore such facts. Sort of strange how some issues can change the way some people think. I suppose it is because some people feel intimately connected with the issue in some way, and that connection somehow blurs the rational boundary in the same way, if you'll excuse the comparison, a mother or father might be convinced that Jesus saved their baby with a miracle, even if doctors were working full time with the single goal of keeping said baby alive. It seems that sometimes emotion can overrule reason, especially on issues like war.

Now, before I get flamed, let me just say that I do not mean that anti-war people are delusional because they have a different point of view or opinion on something than I do. I am simply stating that certain anti-war folks(like Chirac, for instance) refuse to acknowledge(thanks, aero) that Iraq is indeed in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441. If people are not willing to even go this far, then there is no way that a real pro/anti war debate can ever really take place, because everybody will be on a different level of thinking.

.02
-Baggle

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by scotth
A comment on the drone by someone that actually knows drones. (me)

All poo pooing by the talking heads on the news that haven't a clue aside, that thing is plenty big enough to do the job of spreading bio or chem weapons.

Drones are not expensive and don't have to look very sophisticated to be effective.

If there is any type hopper that appears to be designed to carry anything other than fuel, it is almost certainly a prototype weapon.

As I have stated in another thread, I have an aircraft in my garage that is quite a bit smaller than this and I have no doubt could be easily outfitted to carry 10kg of payload. 20kgs would be pretty reasonable. It is not nearly the size of the Iraqi plane.

These things are made of wood and fiberglass typically and don't show up on radar. They fly low, make little noise, are fairly unnoticable if you aren't looking for them. How much damage could be done with 20kg of bio agent?

A 50 kg payload is quite feasible with a bird that size. Even as high as triple that is not out of the question.

To: scotth

Are you serious?

That Iraqi POS drone with two small engines and duct taped wings can carry a 150 kg (330 pounds) of payload!

Now that is something I would like to see. I have a Cessna 150 and with full fuel it can carry 384 pounds, and it is an airplane not a drone!

I would really like to see some facts to backup your claim.

Thanks much!

[scotth]

Originally posted by Crossbow


To: scotth

Are you serious?

That Iraqi POS drone with two small engines and duct taped wings can carry a 150 kg (330 pounds) of payload!

Now that is something I would like to see. I have a Cessna 150 and with full fuel it can carry 384 pounds, and it is an airplane not a drone!

I would really like to see some facts to backup your claim.

Thanks much!
150kg is the far end of reasonable, but plausible. I would say 80-100kg would be easily achieved by a plane that size.

I don't know that that specific plane could do it. But it is quite conceivable that a drone of those dimensions could certainly do it.

I have a "small" engine that makes 11hp. They run two of them. That does not prove that their engines make that much power, I am just saying they could. It is pretty tough to tell without having a chance to examine them. I can easily order 16hp engines built just for model planes right off the web. http://www.desertaircraft.com/engines.html

Those are 25 foot high lift wings. Duct tape keeps coming up like those wings or parts of the plane are made of it. I don't see that this is the case at all. It certainly doesn't appear that it is used in any significant structural way by the pictures I have seen. If you slap a piece of duct tape on your Cessna to secure a piece of trim or something minor, does it suddenly imply that it is put together shoddily? The characterizations in the media of this plane appear to be completely baseless as far as I can tell. It doesn't appear that any of them have had the chance to have the plane directly examined by someone who knows what can be done with this type of technology.

I flew the Pioneer UAV (RPV) for them USMC for several year. Its wingspan was only 21 feet. It only had about 20 hp worth of engine. Its flight weight exceeded 400 lbs and it flew quite well. It also had a useful out and back range of better than 150 miles. That is, it could go out 150 miles and loiter and have fuel to return. That makes for a 300-400 one way trip pretty straightforward, ignoring the fact that our low power microwave (line of sight) control station would have trouble operating at the range.

I know I could build a plane of these dimensions that could carry in excess of 100kg with readily available hobby equipment and techniques. Why would I conclude that Iraq could not do the same. Why would I conclude that this plane that doesn't have any obvious design problems that I can detect just by looking at the photos isn't capable of doing just that either.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Now that is something I would like to see. I have a Cessna 150 and with full fuel it can carry 384 pounds, and it is an airplane not a drone!

I would really like to see some facts to backup your claim.


I believe he is closer to the truth than you are, Crossbow.

How much do the seats in your Cessna weigh? How much does all that fuselage material weigh? How much do the landing gear assemblies weigh? Lets remove the entire pilot interface, shall we? How much do all the redundant safety systems weigh? If no pilot, we can chuck all of those, too...

MattJ

[Crossbow]

I still think you guys are still really overstating the capabilities of that Iraq drone.

I was asked for some data about the 150 I have here you go:

Gross Weight: 1600 lbs
Seats: Two (about 10 lbs each)
Redundant Systems: None
Carpeting: 2 lbs

If you are really going to fly something like this by remote control you will still need landing gear and the avionics to operate the servo driven pilot controls to work the control surfaces and throttle as well as the fusalage to support these items. If you want to fly it well by remote control, then you will also need telemetry to provide the needed real-time data. So just ridding of the human interface will not really save that much weight.

By the way, the point was raised about using duct tape to correct the trim. I have never seen that done nor even heard of it being done; I would think that the plane would be far too heavy for such a minor correction to be of any value. It may work on a drone or model plane that is much lighter, but I cannot see such a thing being done on a small passenger plane.

Anyway, in regards to the drone, judging from the photos and data that has been provided, I would say that it already weighs at least 100 lbs, and then you say it should be able to carry about 200 lbs of payload. So, this drone a gross weight of 300 lbs.

Do these sound like reasonable figures?

If so, then I would really like to see it work because judging from the small engines (they only look about 5 hp) I cannot see how it would. I am sure the engines are large enough to make it fly without the 200 lbs of payload, but I cannot understand how anyone could make such a thing fly that is at least 300 lbs.

[Baggle]

The fact still remains...it does not matter how much damage this aircraft can do. It is against the rules for the Iraqis to develop aircraft like this, and they did it anyway, while lying about what it really was. That is the issue that is at hand. Why will nobody that is anti-war address it? Is it just because I am a new poster on this forum and I am not taken very seriously? Or is there just no debating the issue, and nobody wants to concede defeat? Is it just that nobody has had the time? Or is it something else? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall, repeating the same thing over and over, all the while hoping for a response, and it makes posting to threads like this pretty unrewarding, so what's the deal?

-Baggle

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Baggle
The fact still remains...it does not matter how much damage this aircraft can do. It is against the rules for the Iraqis to develop aircraft like this, and they did it anyway, while lying about what it really was. That is the issue that is at hand. Why will nobody that is anti-war address it? Or it just because I am a new poster on this forum and I am not taken very seriously? Or is there just no debating the issue, and nobody wants to concede defeat? Is it just that nobody has had the time? Or is it something else? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall, repeating the same thing over and over, all the while hoping for a response, and it makes posting to threads like this pretty unrewarding, so what's the deal?

-Baggle

You'll never get anywhere with the anti-war crowd with all these nonsense facts. If you don't have a slogan to chant and a sign to carry, they can't be bothered.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I still think you guys are still really overstating the capabilities of that Iraq drone.

I was asked for some data about the 150 I have here you go:

Gross Weight: 1600 lbs
Seats: Two (about 10 lbs each)
Redundant Systems: None
Carpeting: 2 lbs

If you are really going to fly something like this by remote control you will still need landing gear and the avionics to operate the servo driven pilot controls to work the control surfaces and throttle as well as the fusalage to support these items. If you want to fly it well by remote control, then you will also need telemetry to provide the needed real-time data. So just ridding of the human interface will not really save that much weight.

By the way, the point was raised about using duct tape to correct the trim. I have never seen that done nor even heard of it being done; I would think that the plane would be far too heavy for such a minor correction to be of any value. It may work on a drone or model plane that is much lighter, but I cannot see such a thing being done on a small passenger plane.

Anyway, in regards to the drone, judging from the photos and data that has been provided, I would say that it already weighs at least 100 lbs, and then you say it should be able to carry about 200 lbs of payload. So, this drone a gross weight of 300 lbs.

Do these sound like reasonable figures?

If so, then I would really like to see it work because judging from the small engines (they only look about 5 hp) I cannot see how it would. I am sure the engines are large enough to make it fly without the 200 lbs of payload, but I cannot understand how anyone could make such a thing fly that is at least 300 lbs.


One by one, the facts:
1) For a one way trip, landing gear would not be needed. In fact, it would be desirable to delete them. Lack of landing gear is also a strong clue they meant to send these on a one way trip.
2) The radio, battery, and servos to control this plane would weigh less than 2 pounds.
3) Telemetry could be a simple nose camara downlink. Less than 2 pounds.
4) I can't tell ya how many 200+mph NASCARS I have seen with duct tape holding the body together/on after a crash.
5) There is no reason a 25 foot wing couldn't carry 300 lbs. Like I said before, the Pioneer UAV has a 21 foot wing and weighs 400+ lbs with a night camera and full of fuel.
6) How the hell can you say they only look like 5 hp from the picture? Let me send you pictures of aircraft right here in my house... you tell me how much HP they have by looking. Do you know a damn thing about current model aircraft engine? I do, I OWN them. You can get engines of similar size approaching 20 hp. I provided a link above to a pair of engines for sale. 16 and 11 hp respectively.

Look, I fly competitive planes today. I flew military drones for a living. I am familiar with the equipment available and construction techniques.

Wanna see some video taken by a plane I helped build? The guy who owns this is one of my best friends. We designed and built this plane from scratch, it wasn't difficult at all. He does aerial videography with it professionally. Look here:http://www.photographybyjeff.com/Virtual%20Golfscapes/samples.html
This plane has downlink video, we use it to direct flight from the ground.

I could build a drone using off the shelf stuff that could carry 200lbs of powdered material and deliver it 100 miles or more away. I could do it by myself in a couple of months with no help. Why couldn't Iraq do it?

And, I never stated the capabilities. I pointed out what reasonable capabilities could be with an aircraft of this size and shape. Does it have the abilities I mention? I don't know. Can I rule it out with examining the plane? Certainly not.

I am quite familiar with the 150 btw... I have flown them many times.

[Crossbow]

To: scotth

Please calm down a moment. I thought the idea was to discuss the Iraq drone and not those made by the US.

First of all, yes I am familiar with model airplanes. I was not into it as seriously as you, but yes I am familiar with them all the same.

Second, it is not valid to compare what the US Military does with its drone aircraft with that of Iraq. After all, the US Miltary probably spends more money in one week than the Iraqi military does in an entire year. Also, there are many technical resources that are readily available in the US that are impossible to obtain in Iraq.

Third, please take a look at the below photo. The engines you discussed are two cylinder models, this is a one cylinder. Do you really think you can get more than a few horsepower out of a bore that narrow?

Fourth, I did intend for my previous post to be looked by someone besides you (aerocontrols) so please do not get riled if you saw something that was not directed to you.

Thanks much!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Fourth, I did intend for my previous post to be looked by someone besides you (aerocontrols) so please do not get riled if you saw something that was not directed to you.

I stand by my original (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15521) evaluation. This weapons program is dangerous. "Cheap" is not an indicator that it is less dangerous. It is an indicator that this program may be a serious attempt yield numerous drones, or to yield a 'recipe' that can be copied by agents overseas. Quite frankly, UAVs as a method of WMD delivery are much more worrisome to me than ballistic missiles.

I stand by my statement that removing a pilot and the accompanying aircraft components (seats, pilot interface, fuselage material necessary to hold the pilot's weight and encase his body, etc...) and the landing gear gives a significant weight advantage.

I continue to maintain that this drone could likely carry a payload between your estimates and scott's, and that his estimates are probably closer to the truth than yours. Would you perhaps agree that if your engine size speculations are correct, that this aircraft is most likely capable of being fitted with larger engines? Engines that the Iraqis may in fact possess, and may have actually tested on this aircraft?

All of this is, however, skirting the issue:

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;

MattJ

[scotth]

I was trying to compare what I could do to what Iraq might be able to do.

But, that engine appears to be about the equivilent of a Quadra 75 or 100. They are 8 and 9.5 hp respectively. There is an SS version of the Quadra 75 (racing version) that is in the 12 hp range. It has the same outer dimensions.

If I could get a scale on the prop, that would tell me alot. Does 24 inches sound fair on that prop for total length? That would be about right for 7 or 8 hp. I swing a 28 or 30 inch prop on my plane.

I would say it could quite possibly be a magneto version of the Q75B. http://www.quadraaerrow.com/page4.html That is an 8hp engine.

It is suitable for a highly (unlimited vertical or nearly so) aerobatic plane of up to 40lbs. Obviously, for a plane meant to only fly more or less level, it would work with much more weight.

[scotth]

Some interesting info for comparison.

The original Wright Flyer:
605 lbs + pilot
12 hp.

For the sake of arguement, lets say those are Q75 engines. Between them they would generate 16 hp. Figuring in much more effient airfoils, much less drag everywhere, far better propeller design. Getting 1000lbs into the air seems pretty conservative for the engines that could look like what are pictured.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Baggle
This point has been addressed at least 3 or 4 times in this thread alone, so why is it so hard to comprehend?

-Baggle

Does the UN resolution include balsa-wood, model-airplanes as being banned?

Hey, I think we should hurry up and get this Iraq war over with. Bush has made up his mind that Saddam is to be taken out.

I really doubt that this war is about the UN resolution at all, after all... it's been 10 years and Iraq has been very quiet.

[thaiboxerken]

This weapons program is dangerous.

Model-airplane hobbyists should all go to jail? I mean, can it be proven that this model-airplane is anything more than a toy?

"Cheap" is not an indicator that it is less dangerous. It is an indicator that this program may be a serious attempt yield numerous drones, or to yield a 'recipe' that can be copied by agents overseas.

They would not need to build a model-airplane to tell people that one could simply be used to transport chemical weapons. I mean, come on, I think you are really reaching for something here and it's not happening.

Quite frankly, UAVs as a method of WMD delivery are much more worrisome to me than ballistic missiles.

Do all RC toys scare you, or just the planes?

I stand by my statement that removing a pilot and the accompanying aircraft components (seats, pilot interface, fuselage material necessary to hold the pilot's weight and encase his body, etc...) and the landing gear gives a significant weight advantage.

True, it has less weight so one fly it for a longer time. This particular plane is just a toy. They might have even bought it from a toy-store.

I continue to maintain that this drone could likely carry a payload between your estimates and scott's, and that his estimates are probably closer to the truth than yours. Would you perhaps agree that if your engine size speculations are correct, that this aircraft is most likely capable of being fitted with larger engines? Engines that the Iraqis may in fact possess, and may have actually tested on this aircraft?

How much weight do you think balsa wood can carry before it breaks from stress?



All of this is, however, skirting the issue:

Hey, I think we need to get Iraq as well. I'm not one to use false evidence to try and convince the world to our side though. Hey, we found real weapons that they shouldn't have there. Why must we fabricate stories about model-airplanes being weapons as well?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by scotth
Some interesting info for comparison.

The original Wright Flyer:
605 lbs + pilot
12 hp.

For the sake of arguement, lets say those are Q75 engines. Between them they would generate 16 hp. Figuring in much more effient airfoils, much less drag everywhere, far better propeller design. Getting 1000lbs into the air seems pretty conservative for the engines that could look like what are pictured.

What would the range be on a toy plane that carried 1000lbs be? I doubt that one could get much enjoyment out of flying a RC plane for only a couple minutes.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Model-airplane hobbyists should all go to jail?

Is this the level at which you argue? I generally expect better at this MB.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I mean, can it be proven that this model-airplane is anything more than a toy?

It can be almost certainly be proven one way or the other, yes, but not by you or me, at least without seeing it first-hand. (I note that you're not much interested in informed opinions presented here that don't agree with your assessment that it's a toy.) As someone who knows a little about this sort of thing, I tend towards the belief that this is a weapons development program. Even the Iraqis don't think we're stupid enough to believe it's a toy. They claim it's for "reconnaissance, jamming, and aerial photography." Why do you insist on claiming an even more innocent purpose than the Iraqis themselves? Why should anyone take you seriously if you do?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
They would not need to build a model-airplane to tell people that one could simply be used to transport chemical weapons. I mean, come on, I think you are really reaching for something here and it's not happening.

You can tell people that ballistic missiles can carry chem weapons, but it will do little good if they don't know how to build them. If you want people to be able to build UAVs, they have to be trained. The challenge, as I have said before, isn't building the shell, it is developing the autonomous flight algorithms and avionics package for autonomous flight. Once that is done, you have a cruise missile that can be assembled and launched (fire-and-forget) in any western country, as you say, from parts available at hobby shops.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Do all RC toys scare you, or just the planes?

Just the planes, as I said. However, if it is and remains "RC", then it doesn't have a 100 mile range, does it? It only has a range out to the edge of the "RC" transmission. It is autonomous flight that worries me. However, because an aircraft that is "RC" today can be equipped to be autonomous tommorow, therefore (rightly) the restrictions on Iraq's weapons programs make no such distinctions between RC and autonomous.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
True, it has less weight so one fly it for a longer time. This particular plane is just a toy. They might have even bought it from a toy-store.

Please support your claim that this plane is a 'toy'.

They may have bought some components from RC hobby suppliers. We here at Georgia Tech work on UAVs for military purposes and get many of our components there. Reciting the mantra "just a toy" may make you feel better, but it does not comfort me.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
How much weight do you think balsa wood can carry before it breaks from stress?

Please. You only expose your ignorance, here. Balsa is an excellent construction material, being used extensively in many aircraft. Terrorists, for example, will not have an autoclave where they can make artificial composite parts.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hey, I think we need to get Iraq as well. I'm not one to use false evidence to try and convince the world to our side though. Hey, we found real weapons that they shouldn't have there. Why must we fabricate stories about model-airplanes being weapons as well?

Using false evidence vs. confidently pronouncing a likely weapons program as a harmless 'toy': which one do you think I believe is going on?

This UAV is either a weapon or a weapons development program, (testbed) and is in any case prohibited. Iraq didn't lie about its wingspan because they agree with you. They knew it was important to try to keep this program hidden, and that's what they tried to do.

MattJ

[Baggle]

I am not even going to bother posting a reply to the ridiculous things you posted, TBK. You addressed none of the issues at hand and answered none of the questions at hand. You're as rapid and foaming at the mouth against any possibly military action as the most implusive and violent warmonger is for it. It would appear that there is no talking sense to you on this issue, much the same as there is no talking sense to any given woowoo for any given belief. They will simply ignore the facts at hand and repeat themselves over and over, as appears to be happening here.

I am supportive of this effort by the US, but I am not rapidly or unquestioningly so. If you could bring a rational debate to the table, as I was requesting, I think we'd make much more progress on the issue. However, I doubt that will happen at all, since you apparently aren't interested in anything except your own world view being correct. It seems like this is happening more and more on this board lately. That is, people are ignoring relevent facts and only repeating the answers and questions that make them feel more justified in their opinion. It's ridiculous for this kind of thing to be going on in a supposedly logical and rational debate forum and it frustrates me to no end.

If you want to have a real discussion on it, I will be watching this thread. Just address the issues at hand in a rational way and I will attempt to rebut them at the best of my ability. Until then, I think I'll save myself some frustration and not even respond to replies in this thread that are posed in such a manner after this at all.

By the way, because I figure the response to this post will be, "What did I do?! It's true!!," I'll outline what I am I referring to.

I am referring to the fact that instead of acknowledging certain issues that have been raised and either refuting or agreeing with them, you make no mention of them at all. Examples of this include me referring to resolution 1441 about what is and what is not legal for Iraq to have. There is a range limit in the resolution on the distance that a missle or drone can fly. There is a wing span limit on drones. Iraq lied about the wingspan on this one. It does not matter what material the weapon is made of. If it violates the rules, it violates the rules. Iraq obviously knew it was against the rules since they lied about the wingspan of this drone. It was not a lucky guess or an honest mistake that just happened to be within the rule set of the UN. So yes, the resolution does include balsa wood planes. If there will missles made of balsa wood that violated the range limit, they'd be illegal too. If does not matter one bit if they are terribly designed and couldn't hurt a fly. What matters is that the intention was there, and the rules were violated. Period.

Can we please get this thread onto a rational track, please? If I want pro/anti war drama and emotion, I'll turn on the TV and watch the WWP march on San Francisco. I come here for rational and logical debate, as this forum is known far and wide for. Let's keep up that reputation, please.

-Baggle

[scotth]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Does the UN resolution include balsa-wood, model-airplanes as being banned?

Hey, I think we should hurry up and get this Iraq war over with. Bush has made up his mind that Saddam is to be taken out.

I really doubt that this war is about the UN resolution at all, after all... it's been 10 years and Iraq has been very quiet.

Why would its construction material matter at all. Capability should be the judging criteria.

[scotth]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


What would the range be on a toy plane that carried 1000lbs be? I doubt that one could get much enjoyment out of flying a RC plane for only a couple minutes.

1 gallon of fuel per engine would get a couple hours of flight.

On 1/3 gallon, I get about 45 minutes of flight time on my 100cc gas twin on my big comp plane.

[scotth]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Just the planes, as I said. However, if it is and remains "RC", then it doesn't have a 100 mile range, does it? It only has a range out to the edge of the "RC" transmission. It is autonomous flight that worries me. However, because an aircraft that is "RC" today can be equipped to be autonomous tommorow, therefore (rightly) the restrictions on Iraq's weapons programs make no such distinctions between RC and autonomous.


Pretty good overall post, but this needs addressing.

With a moderately good directional antenna and a couple hundred watt amplifier, ranges of over 100 miles are easy.

For an effective bio weapons delivery platform on a budget, I would skip the effort of building a sophisticated autopilot system.

For a couple pounds you can add downlink of a nose camera and keep the flying intelligence in a pilot's head. Much simpler. Also, it is perfectly doable with off the shelf hobby parts.

Light weight camera's with the RF video transmitter are already available for hobbiest. There are several that run in the ham band. Add an amplifier to extend the range (and ham band amps are pretty easy to come by) and you are ready to do long range missions.

[Crossbow]

Wow! I sure do feel vindicated!

A few people participating in this thread have insisted that those Iraqi drones that they showed before the war started several months ago were actually to be used to deliver weapons.

I disagreed and was soundly pounced upon by some in the pro-war camp.

But now, after the war has been somewhat concluded, hundreds of billions of dollars has been spent, thousands of Iraqis killed, and hundreds of Americans have been killed there is finally an objective and accurate assessment of just what those drones were to be used for as opposed to what quite a few people wanted to think that they knew what they would be used for.

Yet another pro-war argument bites the dust!

Air Force Analysts Feel Vindicated on Iraqi Drones

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2013-2003Sep25.html

...

Discovery of such remnants of Iraq's drone program since U.S. forces seized Baghdad in April has left Air Force officials feeling vindicated. They argued before the Iraq war that the drones were never meant to spread toxins but to fly unarmed reconnaissance missions.

The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and other government intelligence groups disagreed with that assessment. They contended the drones, known in military jargon as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), were intended to carry biological or chemical agents and therefore posed a particular threat to Iraq's neighbors and to U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region. They also warned that if Iraq managed to find a way to launch the UAVs from some place near the United States, the aircraft could threaten American communities.

...


The disclosure has added to the debate over the administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs before the war, when the president and his senior advisers often cited intelligence assessments that supported their argument for invading Iraq without reference to opposing points of view.

...

Iraq had been suspected of trying to develop remotely piloted aircraft for more than a decade, starting with attempts to convert Soviet-made MiG-21 fighter planes. When that failed, Iraqi authorities began experimenting in the mid-1990s with transforming the Czech L-29, a trainer jet, into a UAV. That effort also went nowhere, ending in 2001, Boyd said.

...

At the same time, CIA and DIA analysts were citing other reports from Iraqi expatriates and defectors claiming the UAVs were designed as delivery systems. But Air Force analysts dismissed these accounts as either outdated or not credible, Boyd said.

...

"Everything we discovered strengthened our conviction that the UAVs were to be used for reconnaissance," Boyd said. Interviews with a number of Iraqis who had been involved in the UAV program have supported this view, he added.

The CIA and DIA, however, are sticking with their prewar assessments, according to spokesmen. A defense official said some of the information that has surfaced since the war supports the argument that the UAVs were intended as delivery systems. He cited a classified report from a captive former member of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's "inner circle," who has told interrogators that shortly before the war, Hussein ordered production of UAVs sped up for attack missions.

Boyd declined to comment on this report, saying simply, "It comes down to how you weigh the evidence you have."

P.S. to Kodiak: If you are reading this posting, then I suggest that you pay attention to that third paragraph as it relates to how Iraqi intelligence was generated prior to the start of the war.