Drone Refuels US Navy Fighter Jet In Midair For the First Time (cbsnews.com) 122
An unmanned aircraft successfully refueled a U.S. fighter jet in midair for the first time, officials said Monday. CBS News reports: A Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet and a Boeing-made drone were briefly connected by a hose as the drone transferred jet fuel to the aircraft in the skies over the Midwest during Friday's test flight. During the flight, the Super Hornet approached the drone, known as a MQ-25 Stingray, from behind and were as close as 20 feet from each other, Boeing said. The hose extended from the drone, and the Super Hornet connected with the drogue at the end of the hose to receive the fuel. The Navy posted video of the test flight to Twitter.
What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Informative)
The most important part of this wasn't even in the article or even in the link. The important part is that the drone can be CARRIER BASED.
What this allows is for Navy fighters, operating from a carrier, to be refueled by drones that are presumably also operating from the same carrier. This means that the Navy isn't tied to some complex logistics chain involving the Air Force and its (admittedly much higher capacity) KC-135 tankers. So now the carriers can operate as completely(?) independent strike forces that are capable of projecting power far beyond the normal range of its fighter aircraft.
Why this is important is because their principle feared adversaries are now the "Carrier killer" missiles launched from the Chinese mainland. If this development allows the carriers to operate outside of the missiles' range then it's going to cause an expensive rethink for the Chinese on how to keep the carrier groups from being able to strike the Chinese mainland (or defend Taiwan). In addition, the extended range gives the Chinese a much larger area of ocean to have to FIND the carrier strike group in the first place; millions of square miles of additional ocean shrouded by clouds and bad weather. (I assume that Chinese submarines are not yet up to the task of tailing the carrier groups due to their marked inferiority to U.S. hunter killer subs honed after many decades of Cold War operations.)
What to me is amazing is the fact that they have drones that I guess are capable of landing on the heaving deck of an aircraft carrier! That, to me, shows that A.I. or whatever is really getting pretty good. Top Gun eat your heart out. Also I wonder if the ONLY way the Navy could have done this was by using unmanned drones, perhaps a carrier launchable manned aerial tanker would waste too much space and payload for the pilot(s) to carry enough tanker fuel.
So this is great news as it keeps the carrier fleet a little further from being obsolete in the 21st century!
By the way, in the CNN video the drone is shown refueling the fighter while in a turn. Is this normal? Is it advisable? I thought that kind of maneuver would be very hazardous!
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose in a turn has some advantages to come to mind (although I'm by no means an expert):
* When a SAM targets the drone, the fighter yet might in a turn survive the blast?
* When something goes wrong, while in a turn it might be more easy to evade the failing drone?
What I wonder is how well the drone will detect and evade SAMs. If not at all then I guess it will in a real conflict be taken out quickly by SAMs launched from for example submarines.
Re: (Score:1)
I hate to be so crass here, but if your enemy is close enough for you to target the fueling drone, why in the hell would you not just simply target the actual threat?
This is like disabling a violent drug dealer by shooting the bags of drugs.
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Funny)
that sir, would be drug abuse :O
Re: (Score:3)
Gives new meaning to the term "pot shot".
Re: (Score:2)
:O gold. high5 good sir
Re: (Score:3)
The actual threat has far superior manuverability and is outfitted with a plethora of counter measures. The tanker drone, not so much.
Also, by taking out the tanker, you've reduced the threat to yourself since the fighters/bombers can't go after you because they have to go elsewhere to get refueled which takes time, time which isn't being used to attack you.
To use a bad example, it's better to wound your enemy than kill him.
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Informative)
* When a SAM targets the drone ...
The drone will be hundreds of miles from where SAMs are a threat.
An F-18 has a range of over 2000 miles, so there is no reason for the refueler to get close to the target area.
SAMs launched from for example submarines.
Those don't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
These days the more likely danger would be a long range torpedo, basically an underwater drone. Very fast, very hard to stop. The Russians have nuclear armed ones with thousands of kilometres of range.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"An F-18 has a range of over 2000 miles, so there is no reason for the refueler to get close to the target area.
SAMs launched from for example submarines.
Those don't exist."
They have the submarine-launched JL-1 missile and the DF-1, perfectly capable to sink a carrier from 1000km away.
Re: What's important wasn't in the article (Score:2)
Still not a surface to air missile
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy Crazy Ivan: sub positions vertically and launches torpedo.
Re: (Score:3)
SAMs launched from for example submarines.
Those don't exist
The IDAS is admittedly still under development, as is the Mistral-based system (A3SM) the French are working on, the Russians installed a SAM system in the sail of a .940 (NATO codename Typhoon) submarine, and are believed to have an operational SAM system for their Kilo-class submarines, and both the Royal Navy and Israeli Navy tested Blowpipe SAM launchers on submarines. And several navies have issued MANPAD (Man Portable Air Defense) SAMs to submarines, but they have limited utility.
Re: (Score:2)
An effective SAM is only as effective as the radar and fire control system. It is hard to put a big radar antenna on a submarine. SAM systems on submarine would need assistance from other systems.
Re: (Score:2)
SAMs launched from for example submarines.
Those don't exist.
Ofc, they do. They are just not called SAMs - as in Surface To Air Missile.
Basically every European submarine is equipped with underwater launch able anti aircraft missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a missile would be, and would be called, a SAM.
And launching underwater means no guidance what so ever. Such a missile will not be a threat to anyone or anything flying ahead. Guidance is the hard part of SAM launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you want to read up on under water anti aircraft missiles.
This would be a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But google. is your friend. (*facepalm*)
Re: (Score:1)
A missile which would be the first of its kind, and which is currently under development, and not in deployment.
How does that support that submarines have access to SAM missiles, and more than that, how does it support that they work well? Submarines do not have huge radar dishes, for one, so how will they even lock on to the target aircraft?
Re: (Score:2)
No idea about what you want to argue.
Google is your friend.
All European submarines are equipped with anti aircraft missiles, fired from under water.
Since decades
Easy to google. Obviously they do not use ship based radar ... so I assume the first pick up is infra red and they use on board radar (like every modern radar guided missile is doing).
Re: (Score:1)
Not arguing anything. Just making the observation that there are no anti aircraft missiles that can be launched from underwater submarines and take out tanker aircraft, since they would need radar lock before launching, or not be able to hit the tanker. There aren't even any that can accomplish that task when launched from a surfaced submarine. A basic understanding of missile technology will explain why.
Your description (IR first) is how no missile in the world works. Because IR has such short range, by th
Re: (Score:2)
Just making the observation that there are no anti aircraft missiles that can be launched from underwater submarines and take out tanker aircraft
Then you are wrong, and google is your friend.
Plus, IR does not have that wide a search area either - even if it would be able to pick up an aircraft at altitude. Which it wouldn't.
And why would it not? Sorry, there are only two IR sources "at altitude", the sun, and he plane you are firing at.
I think you have a very strange idea how IR and radar works.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ, you certainly revel in being wrong. None of these are surface-to-air [wikipedia.org], much less surface-to-air that are launched when a submarine is underwater.
But what should we expect from someone who cannot even Google how a sonic boom works.
Something about the seeker having a field of view of substantially less than 180 degrees [researchgate.net] and the sky being m
Re: (Score:2)
I do not need to "google how a sonic boom works".
Perhaps you should?
Hint: if a super sonic aircraft would cause a "boom" it would not be called a "boom" as it would be a continuous sound. How can a continuous sound be a boom?
Ah? You are getting on it?
Oh, and why do I not need to google? I grew up with 3 american air bases around me, we had sonic booms 100 times a day: idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you really need to. Or to just read any of the articles that I've provided.
It is called a boom, and it is continuously generated. Your inability to understand how shock waves operate is not going to be validated by playing with definitions.
It's fun how you believe that all of those aircraft just happened to be
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry,
if you want to be an idiot up to you.
I know how sonic booms work, as I grew up with them.
And actually it is a no brainer.
As your misinformation causes no one any harm, up to you to stay stupid.
It's fun how you believe that all of those aircraft just happened to be crossing the speed of sound near your home.
Near is relative, after a distance of roughly 10km (which also equals a hight of about 30,000 feet) you do not hear any boom anyway.
Hint: there is some thing we call eye ear coordination ... you mig
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously do not. "The boom is generated continuously as long as the aircraft is supersonic. A narrow path on the ground is generated along the flight path of the aircraft, known as 'boom carpet." [interestin...eering.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The ones that won't be deployed for at least three more years [defbrief.com]?
Something about counting chickens before they're hatched comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
no, we were talking about the once we have in service since > 10 years.
Which was pretty clear from the links provided ...
So, why jump into a discussion, you did not even follow? Out of habit?
Re: (Score:2)
Which don't exist.
The one that said "IDAS (Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines) is a medium-range missile currently being developed for the Type 209 and Type 212A submarine class of the German Navy," and is the very same one identified in the article saying that it won't be deployed until 2024?
I've d
Re: (Score:2)
Yes,
"IDAS (Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines) is a medium-range missile currently being developed for the Type 209 and Type 212A submarine class of the German Navy," and is the very same one identified in the article saying that it won't be deployed until 2024?
Correct. That is the German version. In service since ages. "Deployed" in military speak means: installed on all units, or most units.
And there is the frensh version, in service since about 10 years.
And there is the swedish version,
Re: (Score:2)
"In service" and "deployed" are the same thing. However, "expected to be delivered" [defbrief.com] means not in service and "new" doesn't mean 10 years old:
"A new missile that will allow submarines to engage airborne threats, such as anti-submarine warfare helicopters, is expected to be delivered to the German Navy by 2024."
Yes, you're amazin
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Interesting)
"SAMs launched from for example submarines."
A blue water submarine whose location is known (even roughly i.e. in this square kilometer) is basically a mission kill.
While the top speed of submarines is quite good compared to a "working" carrier task force - i.e. one that is doing air operations, its noise level is absolutely immense.
Launching a SAM would put its position on map, and make it the target of air-based anti-submarine surveillance, hunter-killer surface groups and - most dangerously of all - another attack submarine.
Even if a successful prosecution of a known submarine (i.e. a submarine launched a SAM 10 minutes ago from this area) might be impossible, that said submarine would find it impossible to get closer to the carrier task force.
(and most SAMs would need some kind of targeting data, which can be obtained by radar or visual spotting - which would put a "shoot me now" target on the position of the submarine.
Re: (Score:2)
Two things.
1) top speed of submarines is "in excess of 20 knots", and has been so since before most of us were born. How much in excess is one of those things the Navy doesn't like to talk about.
2) when a carrier task force is doing the airstrike thing, it will also have a top speed "in excess of 20 knots". You generally use the carri
Re: (Score:2)
I partially agree. However,
" top speed of submarines is "in excess of 20 knots", and has been so since before most of us were born."
Based on Wikipedia, Akula class submarines have a speed of "28–35 knots (52–65 km/h; 32–40 mph) submerged".
And while the carrier task force will do "in excess of 20 knots", it will generally steam against the wind - which is not necessarily the direction away from the submarine.
(I know Wikipedia is not the "be all, know all" of things - however, Encyclopedia B
Re: (Score:2)
Most SAMs simply use IR.
They do not need any targeting data or lock.
Also a missile is so small, if it is fired behind the horizon, you would not pick up its heat trail from the launch. And you you only see it on radar when it is pretty late. So no real chance to pinpoint the launching submarine with any precision.
Americans can not even defend against a modern European sub which they KNOW that is in the middle of the carrier group.
Imagine 3 or 4 of them 100 miles away and snipering launched planes from the c
Re: (Score:2)
The only SAMs that use IR are manpads for very low altitude anti aircraft use, and some SAMs intended for very low altitude intercepts. Anything at high altitude, like a tanker aircraft, will require a radar locked SAM to take out. An IR missile will be no threat at all to it, unless launched by an enemy aircraft very close by. An IR missile launched from the surface will be no threat at all.
And there are zero BVR missiles which rely on IR. Not a single one. That would be an impossible task. All BVR missile
Re: (Score:2)
And there are zero BVR missiles which rely on IR. Not a single one. That would be an impossible task. All BVR missiles are radar guided.
That is not impossible but impractical, as the missile would "lock" on a random target when it is close enough, which could/would be a friendly.
The question if a targeting/tracking system is IR or radar bases has nothing to do with altitude. Altitude equals flight range. Obviously a missile with only 20 km range has a problem reaching a plane flying qt 12km height and is 20
Re: (Score:1)
So you're trying to claim all sensor systems have the same range, and thus the range to the target does not affect the choice of sensor.
Right.
And you explain why BVR missiles can not be IR. The whole point of a missile is it hits the designated target, and not a random target.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're trying to claim all sensor systems have the same range,
No I don't,
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people keep talking about turn rate advantage? The human on-board is not the only limitation. It is also structure. Higher instantaneous turn rate would require a stronger, and therefore heavier airframe, which would cut into payload. Higher sustained turn rate would require lower wing loading, or more engine power. Lower wing loading would adversely affect speed and more power would mean a bigger, heavier engine. It should be a hint to everyone all fielded drones so far are less maneuverable than ma
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but right now the human is weaker than the airframe structure by a lot. Structural failure isn't the limiting factor unless the airplane is badly designed. The other thing is that the military can take bigger risks because airplanes can be replaced unlike humans. They can reduce the safety factor of the airplane to save on costs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The drones are mass producible, relatively cheap (compared to the fighter planes and pilots) and don't need sustenance. I expect you can keep almost as many of them stacked in a pile on an aircraft carrier as you can support fighters. If one gets shot down, you just launch the next one a bit sooner. It just won't be a big problem to lose one which means they really won't be such worthwhile targets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:4, Informative)
The F-35 has autoland for carriers as well. Having computers land a plane on carriers isn't hard. They a big, heavy things - their movements are easy to predict and that makes it a great job for computers to do.
Re:Maneuvers while refuelling (Score:2)
By the way, in the CNN video the drone is shown refueling the fighter while in a turn. Is this normal? Is it advisable? I thought that kind of maneuver would be very hazardous!
Turns during refuelling are normal. Tankers frequently fly in big loops allowing multiple aircraft to refuel in the same area.
A more interesting question is how long before we have drone-to-drone refuelling. Depending on range a Stingray could refuel about three Predator drones allowing even more loiter time.
Re: (Score:2)
I presume there's already a larger tanker in the pipeline, most probably with funding contingent on this proof of concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Carrier based tankers already exist (the F18 can be configured as a tanker to think of the most obvious one). Without carrier based tankers there would be a lot of loses in rough weather when it takes a few attempt to land.
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Informative)
Navy wasn't tied to Air Force tankers before. It uses the F/A-18E/F as a tanker by strapping it with special fuel tanks (ARS). That's actually one of the biggest functional differences between earlier C/D Hornet models and E/F models that are colloquially known as Super Hornet.
This thing isn't a replacement for air force tankers. It's a replacement for having to use some of your naval aircraft as tankers, which currently accounts for about a fifth of typical missions of carrier based Super Hornets and known to stress airframe significantly more (expending it's useful life time faster).
It's also pretty much an open secret that MQ-25 is a "foot in the door" for Boeing to show US Navy that it can replace all of its carrier based strike aircraft with drones. Which is why MQ-25 is in fact set up to have two underwing hardpoints for weapons testing.
So in reality, it's a replacement for F/A-18E/F as a carrier based tanker aircraft and a test vehicle for future replacement of F-35C as a carrier based strike aircraft.
P.S. Let's not talk about Fat Amy being a fighter. The less is said about that hopeless money sink and air to air combat, the better.
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Funny)
P.S. Let's not talk about Fat Amy being a fighter. The less is said about that hopeless money sink and air to air combat, the better.
"Hey, you know what they say about stuff designed by a committee? I've got an idea about that. What if we designed a plane, not by a committee, but by three committees!"
Re: (Score:2)
Fat Amy couldn't beat a Battle Penguin.
Re: (Score:2)
They wanted an aircraft that would replace F-16 for air to air combat, A-10 for CAS.
They got an aircraft that replaces F-16 for CAS and A-10 for air to air combat.
Ok, that's a half lie. F-16 is way better at CAS than Fat Amy. It can actually bring more than a couple of missiles/bombs and its gun can actually hit what it's aimed at.
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Allies won the second world war, not in the Pacific Ocean, nor in the European theater. They won it in the factories of USA. Sadly, if there is a prolonged war, these drones, fighters and carrier groups might be grounded because of parts shortage or tools shortage.
Factories win the war, and in that front China is way ahead of USA.
Re: What's important wasn't in the article (Score:3)
There is an open question of what the US is capable of if they mobilize industry. Their currently economy underutilizes capacity because of a profit calculation. I don't think we'll know for sure unless it happens.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:4, Interesting)
China too has its own notions of its natural boundaries, that includes Tibet and some western parts that claim they are independent. Some small parts on the Indian border. Other than that China does not seem to be interested in colonizing or ruling other countries.
India has border disputes with neighbors, but beyond that it too does not harbor big colonizing aspirations. So nobody really want to conquer and rule other lands/people.
But, control of strategic materials, all hands are in and all are playing that game.
Oil monopoly is going away. China thinks its got an advantage in rare-earth minerals. But when we can find alternatives to oil, and create diamonds in the lab, there is not going to be any monopoly of strategic resources. Saudi Arabia just announced its desalination plants can produce lithium as a byproduct.
So the steady state is going to be instead of a monopolar geopolitics totally dominated by USA, we may have to settle for a bi/tri/quadri polar geopolitics and economy.
Once the big wigs come to some understanding, "China boogeyman" "Great Satan America" "neo-Imperialism of America" etc will come serve as useful tools in the hands of politicians to win elections. Hopefully thats where it ends up. Not mutually assured destruction of warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you don't want to mention Taiwan? Also, China needs more arable land. Soft control only works so well. Eventually they are going to have to kick some people off prime agricultural land, or make of them indentured servants. Either that or they are going to have to start reconditioning their own lands poisoned by heavy metals while also increasing output.
Re: (Score:2)
Israel and Palestine too have their contested land claims. But neither want to really conquer Nigeria fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right of course, in a PROLONGED conflict the nation state(s) that have the strongest industrial base will likely win (see the book "Brute Force").
However I think the strategy the U.S. has for Taiwan is just to prevent a walkover by the Chinese. If China were to conquer Taiwan in a few days, I think most people would say "that's too bad, let's slap China with some sanctions and forget about it". However if the fighting lasted a month then there would be worldwide protests as images of the inevi
Re: (Score:2)
"then it's going to cause an expensive rethink for the Chinese on how to keep the carrier groups from being able to strike the Chinese mainland "
China will just use tanker-drones to fill-up their carrier-busting kamikaze-drones or just build slightly bigger ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I wonder if the ONLY way the Navy could have done this was by using unmanned drones, perhaps a carrier launchable manned aerial tanker would waste too much space and payload for the pilot(s) to carry enough tanker fuel.
The Navy uses buddy stores [amazonaws.com] that one fighter (like an F-18) to fuel another. It's been around for a long time but it's not as effective as having a dedicated tanker aircraft.
Re: What's important wasn't in the article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't fully comprehend the power of the sea. Note the heaving. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The ocean is huge. HYUGE. It makes a skyscraper look like a toothpick.
Carriers heave.
Re: (Score:2)
"What this allows is for Navy fighters, operating from a carrier, to be refueled by drones that are presumably also operating from the same carrier."
US Navy combat aircraft (and Marines) have been refueling from carrier launched tankers for over 50 years.
They used to use a modified A6 Intruder.
Re: (Score:3)
The USN already has midair refueling aircraft flying from carriers. This is just a job that won't need human judgement in the future, not a game changer. In the past the Navy used the KA-6D for this, and they currently use fuel transfers between properly equipped F/A-18E/F aircraft. This is used to extend range and as a way to carry a heavier load of ordinance during carrier operations.
C-130 aircraft have landed and launched from carriers as well but I'm unaware of any of the KC variants actually being used
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Navy has had their own air to air refuelling capabilities, and likely still does. When they still had the F4 phantom, it had a buddy refuelling system, so they would have one or two loiter near the carrier loaded with tanks and the refuelling pod to tank up attack aircraft. They have a similar setup with the F18s.
Re: (Score:2)
the extended range gives the Chinese a much larger area of ocean to have to FIND the carrier strike group in the first place
Rest assured that every developed and developing nation on the planet knows exactly where every carrier of any other nation is. In a range of perhaps 5 - 10 miles.
You see them from orbit ... either visually or with IR. And basically every carrier group, if you want to call the single carriers of UK, France, Itally, Spain, China a "carrier group" is tracked by opposing submarines and un
Re:"The most important part...." (Score:2)
Re: "The most important part of this wasn't even in the article or even in the link."
Because the parent is yet another DELIBERATELY shitty post from a non-military source the poster couldn't be arsed to spend a few seconds to find.
Try this instead:
https://news.usni.org/2021/06/... [usni.org]
This passive-aggressive trashposting remains a deliberate strategy to make Slashdot suck. I hope both those responsible die in a fire and that's not a joke. Enough! They should cease defecating these shit-tier general news site pos
Re: (Score:2)
The most important part of this wasn't even in the article or even in the link. The important part is that the drone can be CARRIER BASED
"The MQ-25 is that first step towards a future where the carrier-based fleet is augmented by unmanned systems." [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What to me is amazing is how much the coupling drogue bounced around in the slipstream, and the human pilot was able to nail that. Upcoming challenge: drone to tanker drone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most combat aircraft will be drones in the not too distant future.
Re: (Score:2)
The important part is that the drone can be CARRIER BASED.
Not merely can be but in reality MQ-25 is designed to be carrier based. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be based on smaller carrier type ships such as LHD and LHA to provide refueling for their aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
First off that doesn't help regarding proxy wars. This tech could be sold to protect allies for example. For example to help Ukraine. War against smaller militias and countries that a nuke would be overkill for.
Re:What's important wasn't in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Well done I suppose, I doubt I could have put together a better post to demonstrate exactly what the parent poster was claiming. Traditional Republicans are being pushed out of the party because they aren't willing to undermine the Democratic system. There are plenty of examples, but you only need to look as far as Mike Pence to see someone who stook by everything Trump did as President yet when they refused to support an anti-democratic attempt to hold onto power became public enemy #1. You can literally leave Democrats out of the discussion and look at how the Republican party is ejecting its own representatives if they won't publically support the false narrative that the election was crooked; the only way to claim this isn't evidence that the Republican party no longer believes in democracy is to claim that hundreds of long standing republican in important positions conspired to hide that Democrats stole the election, and if you're buying that as remotely plausible then you need help.
Re: (Score:2)
"The next presidential election will have some radical leftist in it competing for votes with some middle of the road Democrat. Kinda of like how Bernie got trump elected. "
Wasn't that the last election with Bernie and Biden? Remind me, how did that turn out?
Fragmentation [Re: What's important wasn't...] (Score:2)
"The next presidential election will have some radical leftist in it competing for votes with some middle of the road Democrat. Kinda of like how Bernie got trump elected. "
Wasn't that the last election with Bernie and Biden? Remind me, how did that turn out?
No, the parent post was about the 2016 election, and it went badly for the Democrats partly (but not entirely) because the far left had too many people saying "if the guy I like isn't on the ballot, I'm not voting."
In 2020, following the way the far left failed to go all-in on the 2016 election, the radical left made a coalition to support the mainstream Democrats for the 2020 election.
Will that coalition continue to hold? Hard to say. The leftists I listen to seem to be absolutely unable to understand th
Re: (Score:2)
Username checks out.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives used to believe in Democracy. But now the majority of Republicans think Trump is still President [google.com] Conservative doesn't mean what it used to mean. Or the old people are becoming radicalized by the media...
The left is hell bent on destroying the US,
Possibly we could say that both extremes are hell bent on destroying the US?
But that wasn't the point. The point was the the majority of Republicans are now committed to a strategy that says "if we don't like the result of an election, we will claim it was fraudulent."
This is absolutely corrosive to democracy. It is the strategy that dictators use to stay in power.
(And... by the way, no, the election wasn't fraudulent. [forbes.com])
...(Not your ordinary leftists but the ones who believe that deliberately creating chaos on the boarder is good and Trump is to blame anyway.)
OK, I will at least give you one bonus point for not believing that everybody left
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Drone strikes... (Score:2)
Not sure why the post specified "Obama/Biden". It could equally well have added "Bush and Trump". It's been overall American strategy in the "War on Terror" (announced by president George W. Bush) since 2002.
The first known U.S. drone strike was done in Yemen on November 3, 2002 (killing al-Qaeda operative Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi.)
Re: (Score:2)
No reports of police departments equipping their drones with 'non lethal' weapons .... yet.
This sounds retarded. (Score:2)
Missing pronoun (Score:1)
The Stingray is just POC (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
XQ-58 Valkyrie does sound cool. But also shows some interesting hints toward our eventual drone war fighter future. Currently pegged at $2-3 million cost , though it's military procurement so that will change, ~2.5 years from contract to first test flight. Even doubled or tripled it's a bargain compared to the person operated multi-role fighters.
Question is that once these are so affordable what other nations will start buying them. Right now the lower tier countries end up with cast-off fighters from
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent news! We are now one step closer... (Score:2)
...to fully autonomous sexbots. I stand ready to worship our hose-extending, drogue-bearing, fluid-delivering masters. Or mistresses. Probably both.