Drone Improvements

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it so hard for people to believe that most Russians actually do support Putin? That the reason he keeps winning elections with such a large majority *is because the majority of people actually do vote for him*, rather than ballot stuffing?

Re. Scotland, I don't recall a UK wide referendum to set up the Scottish parliament. Surely, if self determination is vested in "the UK as a whole", they would have needed such?

Do you oppose Catalan independence, then, since you're using the exact same arguments that the Spanish government used to oppose their referendum (that decisions about secession must be made by the agreement of Spain as a whole)? Besides, why should you need the secede on the terms of the people you're seceding from?

@Jacoby we are probably not going to agree on everything.

You asked the question should NATO get in involved? My gut feeling is no, not directly in the area of fighting. I think NATO priority should be securing up Poland, Romania and the Baltic States.

I think for Ukraine's force's are better off focusing on a containment strategy. This problem isn't going way, and they need to protect Central Ukraine. Ukraine's membership to NATO will likely happen, but it is not an immediate process, so it will be some years.

Even so I don't think there will be much change. Instead we should be clear on our red lines namely Central Ukraine, Poland, Baltic States, etc.

I think the current sanctions, will have have an effect long term. They don't even have to ramped up that much. Then there should be a focus on talks to see what can be done.

I think the TV the statements directed to Putin, are pointless, instead just actions.

It is not a question of belief it is a question of choice and alternative. If most of the parties on the ballot paper essentially front parties, and genuine opposition party have been prevented from running that is an issue.

One the key factor that show that democracy is working is there are changes of government over the decades. That means there is at least some scrutiny.

It is not just about elections, it about having people who can question thing like budgeting, corruption, etc.

The other issue in Russia is the lack of Judicial independence.

I don't see how a build up of forces in eastern Europe would help anything, Ukraine was a unique situation under a unique set of circumstances that are unlikely to repeat themselves anywhere else. I think escalating things like that would make things less safe, I suppose you support the proposed missile shield eastern Europe? The Baltics while having a large Russian minority are AFAIK fairly stable and about the size all together of Donbass so relativey small in terms of population and area. Are there Russian enclaves and extreme anti-Russian sentiment in these countries? I think being provocative in these countries gives Russia more of an incentive to meddle in them.

Ukraine is unique given its size and the literal geographic divide between the Ukrainian and Russified populations, how do you define central Ukraine? West of the Dnieper River? The eastern banks of the Dnieper seem like the further possible that these rebels could make but even that seems pretty unlikely given where they are now. I wouldn't bet on Ukraine ever being a stable country, there are cracks everywhere and the policies of their government are setting them on the path to ruin. Transcarpethia and Odessa are not particularly enthusiastic about this new government in Kiev, I would imagine even the people in Kiev will grow tired of this war and poverty as well. I would not surprise me to see another revolution or some form of unrest outside the eastern war zone, as mentioned they're drafting men up to 60 years old now in multiple waves of conscription and people will grow tired of that anywhere especially if they are losing ground and have no end in sight. How will the nationalist gangs like Right Sector react to a pullback, how will they operate outside of the war zone? It all seems like a pretty combustible situation, I really doubt EU membership is a possibility anymore and NATO membership wouldn't be very smart given their instability. We don't want to start WWIII over Ukraine. Hopefully this ceasefire sticks and Kiev takes heed of Frozen's advice "let it go", unfortunately I don't think either side here is ready to stop fighting so I have my doubts.

Sanctions to me are ineffective and are a tool of war, look at history and see what precipitates these great wars and you'll see the economic war more often than not leads to shooting war. I don't think these sanctions are really in the interest of Europe either to be honest, this is for America's benefit. I mean what is really suppose to be the intended effect? To destabilize Russia? It just doesn't seem like a good idea. I think we should have honest diplomacy with the Russians and try to find common ground on issues we can work together on. You said you wanted to open up relations with Iran which I am 100% for but I think maintaining good relations with the Russians will go a long way in reaching the Iranians on any issue we have with them and the opposite is true the more we move to isolate Russia the more we'll see it come out the other end with the Iranians. The Russians could just gift Iran nuclear weapons if they truly wanted so I think it is all our interests to try to create a working relationship. Russia has been forging closer relations with Turkey as well who has been drifting out of the western sphere for some time now.

My father worked behind the Iron curtain in Hungary in the 1960s. He has said thing have never been this volatile. In fact the USSR, you sort of knew what to expect with the soviet. He also has some knowledge of Russian thinking.

Your assessment of Urkane merely being an isolated problem I don't agree, not for Putin. He see this in terms of a broader show of strength. Putin does try to test the waters see how far he can push, so the idea of doing nothing doesn't make sense. I'm going on Putin own idea of Russian nationalism, Russian and Soviet history, and his nostalgia for that.

Putin started out, more liberal, and has become more an more autocratic, to the point he doesn't tolerate any criticism from nationals.

Sanction are a tool that are sometime applicable sometimes not, and if think it is preferable for the time being.

Iran is talking to us partly becuase the sanctions were effective.

I have advocated withdrawing of all the foreign mediators and envoys in Israel/Palestine, implore them to meet regularly but come up with their own solution rather than relying on the world. If there is failure to do so I advocate sanctions, on the leadership. This is about creating an incentive. When Kerry naively tried to create peace plan, both Abbas and Netanyahu did everything the could to kill this, because neither asked for it or wanted it. This becuase their whole careers are based on their entrenched positions. So naturally there no incentive on these leaders.

I was born in South Africa. Apartheid was defeated becuase the the incentive was created. Although the US was initially clueless. The combination of the South African campaigners, end exiles, the influence that had on Europe interest eventually spreading to the US, and crucially sanctions, made it happen. Do not underestimate US sanctions on the South African government for creating the incentive for change. I'm not saying he US had the moral high ground or even knew what they were doing, I'm saying that US sanction were a major factor in that resolution, that is often overlooked.

Yes the sanction were crude, and often could have been more refined and targeted, but in the end it did work.

I just don't think the best solution to a volatile situation is to escalate it further, we want peace not confrontation right? If the point is to destabilize Russia and put economic hurt on it, then what is the more likely reaction from them? To capitulate our demands or to harden their opposition to the west? Putin's approval ratings are higher than ever right now, I'm not sure it is true that Putin is more autocratic now than he was before or that he's worse than Yeltsin in this regard(who if you remember correctly actually shelled the Russian parliament with tanks) but what is the desired result here? If the worry is this alleged growing nationalism and autocracy in Russia, wouldn't sanctions and isolation just intensify this? A wounded Russia seems much more dangerous than the current one if that is truly the worry.

You see this as I one sided affair, I do not. I take Putin as he comes from his whole career. I think Putin has a plan for the whole for eastern Ukraine including the north. It need to be held where it is, becuase like or not it not all one homogenous group, not even the Cossacks are one homogeneous group or Russian speakers. The Russian strategy has always been to test the water, to see with how far they can go. Like I said the sanction at the moment are sufficient, they don't need to be ramped up. If talks are successfully sanctions are reduced or eliminated.

I would take it that you take someone like Aleksandr Dugin very seriously but I think his ideas as pretty fringe worthy and not some guiding principle in Russia, I think Russia's interest and even alleged involvement in Ukraine are pretty rational and straight forward rather than some quest to recreate the Russian Empire or USSR. I see it as more reactive to a unique set of circumstances than some power play testing how far they can push. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, I dunno. I think the more you punish and isolate Russia tho the more popular fringe ideas like those of Dugin will become tho. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, I will eat my shoe if Russia starts seriously meddling in the Baltics or especially Poland. Perhaps a good response in these countries would be to make overtures to their Russian minority and make assurances that their rights will be protected in order to curb any potential Russian argument they could make about the persecution of their diaspora.

No I see it purely in terms of Putin's popularity, and need to stay in power. After all his popularity was waning.

I don't see Putin himself as a nationalist, but knowing the power of nationalism.

Getting back to the drones, I was just binge-reading some wiki stuff on gunships and close in air support, and how that role is projected to be performed by drones soon due to the increasing firepower of man portable anti-aircraft weapons and the vulnerability of lumbering cargo aircraft retrofitted with Gatling guns, which seems close to what I'm thinking with a gun based system rather than missiles. For something designed for close in work in a support role, I'm thinking along the lines of a copter design with a flechette weapon, as the light weight and recoil would be ideal on a small drone, and the deflection problem of the flechettes wouldn't be a problem at the range it would be used within.

Honestly, I'm surprised there aren't sniper drones equipped with .50 caliber single shot rifles to take out a single person without the collateral damage. I've been in favor of drones armed with M134 miniguns for a very long time. However, it's about time they develop electromagnetic railguns that can fire small arm rounds for increased accuracy and greater range(since the bullet has greater muzzle velocity it has greater momentum and is less likely to drift due to air currents).

Eh, the mini is heavy and has prodigious recoil, it would have to be mounted to a very large drone that couldn't really maneuver at the relatively close range where it would be effective, and I don't really see drones as a suppressing fire weapon anyway, which is what 6000rpm is all about. The Bullet Storm weapon might be a more viable choice for that role on a drone.



I think you're over-complicating it, the guided bullets I mentioned earlier in the thread only require a stabilized laser designator to follow in, and that's easily accomplished with Steadicam type technology. If you really want the high velocity sub caliber stuff, conventional APFSDS rounds, such as fired by the Steyr AMR would do the trick without the hassle of inventing a railgun small enough to put in a drone, or if you really want to get fancy, maybe a light gas gun, but I still think that's pushing it.

Incidentally, the AMR ought to look very familiar to HALO players...

I have a new idea that could drastically cut down on the collateral damage that is incurred when evil doers are brought to justice. Everyone on earth, when they get vaccinated, could be injected with a device with the capacity to cause instant death. The device would remain dormant until a person poses a threat, then law enforcement could activate the kill mechanism with the press of a button. The way I imagine it is that on your personal profile somewhere there would be a kill button linked to the device. Imagine if someone is about to commit a criminal act, and law enforcement didn't have to put any lives at risk. They could just push a button and rectify the issue with a minimum of fuss and no collateral damage.

The main issue with my idea is that currently not everyone gets vaccinated, so there would need to be incentives in place to ensure that even the anti vaxers get implanted with the mechanism. A deadly epidemic could potentially be a good motivatior for them, especially if the symptoms were dramatic. Technology is at the point where viruses can be tailor made with specific symptoms. I know anti vaxers whose paranoia or laziness concerning vaccinations could predominate if the threat is undramatic, but would become staunch vaccination advocates if the disease in question caused body parts to spontaneously amputate or something. It's a chance for psychologists to come together with bio weapons experts to create the right motivations for different psychologies. I know that the bio weapons field gets a lot of bad press, but this is a chance for them to do something with a humanitarian basis.

I know that there are technologies that can induce certain thought patterns. What I don't understand is why something like that isn't deployed in every city. We can promote our objectives in the media all day long, but it's never going to be as effective as any of the invasive behaviour modification options. Too many deviant people are falling through the cracks despite everything that is being done to pacify them. It's time to seal those cracks.

Because many people in the west have this blind faith in democracy and stubbornly cling the idyllic notion that freedom and equality can coexist with each other(this notion is the staple of the American left FYI). Remember Bejamin Franklin's famous quote:



Most Americans believe that to be true without question. But the historical record shows otherwise. The loss of economic security that followed the collapse of communism in the former USSR during the ruinous reign of Boris Yeltsin(and other leaders with the exception of the dictators of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) also lead to increased personal freedom.....But the citizens of Russia were dissatisfied. Putin came to power in late 1999 when the Russian military, which Yeltsin deliberately underfunded, threatened a coup to depose Yeltsin and remove him from power unless he voluntarily resigned and chose a successor. That's how Mr Putin came to power. The reason the coup of 1991 by hardline communists failed is because the Soviet military remained loyal to Gorbachev(a decision that many ex-Soviet commanders later regretted).

The drawback to electromagnetic railguns is they require a Marx generator, which needs a huge capacitor bank. Not to mention there is the problem of resistive heating and the stress on the rails due to repulsion by the 2 parallel currents flowing in the same direction. A better alternative to be investigated and tested is the Coil Gun(which also requires a large amount of power). To power such a device, an additional turbine thruster coupled to a DC generator could be added for larger drones to provide the electric power needed for a mounted coil gun.

As for the Minigun, rotary cannons have been standard features on combat aircraft for decades. Any machine gun is going to produce a lot of recoil so the gun would be housed in a self-contained pod and utilize recoil adapters(kinda like the A-10 warthog has for the tremendous recoil produced by its GAU-8 Avenger cannon). Machine guns in war are used for 2 main purposes: Suppressive fire AND ambush. The problem with the metal storm gun is that is not easy to reload; unlike a Gatling gun.

The Soviet/Russian GShG-7.62 Gatling gun is self-powered and has a similar rate of fire although it has only 4 barrels. I've often wondered about the Fokker-Leimberger which was also self-powered but very little information about it exists and its claims of up to 7000RPM haven't been verified. Nevertheless, it *is* possible to design and build a self-powered Gatling gun that could be mounted on an attack drone and be used to take out designated enemies.

Then again, if you think about the objective, which I assume is combating militancy, that can be achieved through medical means instead of military means. Mass lobotomisation of some form could avoid the need for bloodshed entirely. In fact, this and other techniques of soft coercion could also be used domestically to more harmoniously enable our transition into a slave economy. I feel that modifying the hardware of the mind is superior to utilising drones and other means. Shock tactics will only go so far.