"New Drone Carries 16 Hellfires" Topic

General Atomics is secretly flying a new, heavily armed drone…

Military: link

Skynet gets closer and closer.

In a few years "leaders" might start to think they can fight wars without people dying on their side if everything is remotely controlled.

In the not too distant future there will be wars fought by brigade sized forces that can call upon a wide range of drones, satellite (maybe even orbital bombardment) resources, distant artillery, etc. These wars will be swift and brutal, with probably low casualty counts, but far reaching global implications for the loser. I recently watched a video on a recent U.S. exercise which focused on electronic/intelligence assets and the picture that a ground commander can now get is pretty impressive and it's extremely easy to integrate a wide range of off map assets to the battlefield.

Can't say it's "secretly flying" now.

+1 Oddball. With the last decades of drone strikes I feel they're already thinking that way.

These wars will be swift and brutal, with probably low casualty counts,

Or they'll figure out they can kill much more with a lot less effort and finally get rid of problems permanently.

I wonder if EMP was factored into that? And if the low casualty count includes collateral civilian damage?

I'm a pessimist that this will all work as advertised. This almost all relies on satellites and any war with a US peer competitor involve anti satellite weapons. Lose the satellites, lose the capability.

Lose the satellites, lose the capability.

Yes today orbital assets are & will be priority targets …

Regardless … any drone that can pack 16 Hellfires is a good thing, IMO.

These wars will be swift and brutal,

The US Army still believes as U.S. Grant did … Or at least they did ? Not sure now ? That that was the way to fight a war. The longer the war the larger lose in blood & treasure. Modern Hi-tech limits the "blood" aspects in many cases at least to friendly forces. And increase enemy losses generally.

aegis +1 Yes, tech replaces some of the warfighters. Making the smaller Bde level forces more deadly if need be.

I wonder if EMP was factored into that?

I don't doubt that and other tech considerations are factored in.

And if the low casualty count includes collateral civilian damage?

The only way to end CD is not to use firepower. The USA generally seriously takes CD into consideration. Even deny support requests from troops on the ground. As I repeatedly say, so some may "get it".
If CD was not a concern there would be places on the planet that would look like the dark side of the Moon without using WMDs. Just old fashioned HE …

However, we saw the "prefect storm" recently in A'stan. When when leadership at the top level seems to have a rush job and political considerations, etc., take priority, etc. A demonstration on how not to do things. That will be studied by the military & historians for decades to come.

I've never understood the concerns over EMP as the only two large scale tests by the Russians and the U.S. produced widely varying results. Basically, if you attack a country with an EMP weapon (most likely a nuke) you're going to escalate to a strategic nuclear response in no time at all. Also, if you're thinking about using an EMP weapon (exploding it high in the atmosphere), why wouldn't you just use a nuke and positively take out the target? There's a good chance you explode the EMP weapon and it burns out some power sub stations, cell towers, etc., along with some odds and ends, but most of that is fixed within a week.

On the topic of EMP, has there been any good studies of the effects on a modern society (say from 2000+)? Without any insider info I would think even minor electrical problems in a large urban area (LA,NY, Miami, Chicago, etc) could cause some real societal issues, enough push to stay out of a conflict or stop more involvement? How hardened are companies & govt considering most people don't feel nukes would ever be used vs a time like the 1950/60s?

"… any drone that can pack 16 Hellfires is a good thing"

I wonder how many a B-52 drone could carry…?

Excellent news.

Will the USA respond with a nuclear attack to a single, double, or even triple high altitude EMP attack?

The jury IS definitely out on that, since doing so might result in a full-on nuclear war. An EMP attack WILL be bad, and no doubt, if long-term, tens of millions WILL die, but that's less than 100 – 200+ million in a full-on nuke war.

Sadly, our electrical grid hasn't been hardened to help deal with this, AND we don't have the replacement hardware or large-scale manufacturing capability to quickly replace widespread outages, so loss of power to large portions of the USA could last years, and not just a week.

Most of our government "leaders" are NOT interested in dealing with this, and I suspect that there isn't on thin dime approved to help deal with this in the recently approved "infrastructure bill", or in the follow on to that now being pushed for passage, but there ARE BILLIONS of dollars for numerous wasteful programs.

Some things never change.

Without fresh water, sanitation, food distribution, ATMs, and banking/commerce, tens of millions of people are expected to die from such an attack.

I wonder how many a B-52 drone could carry…?

Well IIRC a BUFF can carry 20 cruise type missiles. Which again sounds pretty good.