Flying robot attack "unstoppable": experts

[Michael OLeary]

I guess then, my point is there needs to be some new air defense system to counter UAV attacks.

Please provide the risk vs. cost analysis for a system to watch over every potential target for incoming flying objects with the radar cross-section of a sparrow and the ability to shoot them down without releasing the suspected bio-chemical munition.

 

[aesop081]

(1)I took from the article that this was just a matter of time and technology, not that it was a "romote possibilty".  The problem I've had with some of the responses is that, although the posters are obviously informed, they don't take into account the original article (2) which declares that these things CANNOT be seen on radar. So any "solutions" based on what we now have just won't work. I guess then, my point is there needs to be some (3) new air defense system to counter UAV attacks.

1) You are not freinds with "armymatters" are you ?

2) I'm a radar operator.  The people who  wrote the article are not..........Catch my drift about their ability to declare anything ?

3) So you are an air defence expert now too ?

 

[Trinity]

Well actually, aside from your own, most of the responses have been thoughtful and informed.

Oh, but I did answer you with informed answers, pointing out exactly why I thought you were
a troll. Answering and using YOUR post as a specific example for questions.  Sorry if that's
not thoughtful and detailed enough. 

Now Informed???  The only person who's not informed here is you.  We have radar
techs and other people with loads of training on this. You have a magazine article
that you're using like a bible.  Plus, then discrediting them and insulting them by
saying they are "mis informed"

I really hope you don't think you've been responding in a thoughtful and informed mannor.

Just because I think you're a twit, doesn't mean I'm not being thoughtful and informed.

 

[_TheSaint_]

your quote...

Plus, then discrediting them and insulting them by
saying they are "mis informed"

my quote...

although the posters are obviously informed

Can you see the difference?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Can you see the difference?

You shouldn't take yourself out of context:

I took from the article that this was just a matter of time and technology, not that it was a "romote possibilty".  The problem I've had with some of the responses is that, although the posters are obviously informed, they don't take into account the original article which declares that these things CANNOT be seen on radar. So any "solutions" based on what we now have just won't work. I guess then, my point is there needs to be some new air defense system to counter UAV attacks.

So, they aren't misinformed, they're just not listening to you and slavishly adhering to the original article?

 

[Trinity]

your quote...

my quote...

Can you see the difference?

I stand corrected...  on that point.  I obviously read that one wrong.  But that doesn't negate
the many issues that I have brought up with your posting.



You have to admit, you come to this site, out of the blue, no profile, no idea who you are.
Start a topic, ignore some good advice, and cause friction with MANY of the posters (not just me),
difference is, I'm calling it as I see it.  I stopped arguing with trolls (or perceived trolls) because
they don't listen.

You really haven't budged on your position.  We still don't know who you are. I have personally
witnessed this more than a few times in the last few months that I'm getting tired of people coming
here, spewing crap they know nothing about and then picking fights with our serving members.

Can you see where I'm coming from. 

Its bed time for this little camper.  So, don't wait up for a response.  I'll let my brethern here
either support me or chastize me as they will in my opinions of the situation and the post.

 

[_TheSaint_]

You shouldn't take yourself out of context:

So, they aren't misinformed, they're just not listening to you and slavishly adhering to the original article?

I just don't understand all the hostility I'm seeing here. Why are people attacking me personally for my opinions? They are free to have their 'more informed' opinions and think whatever they wish of mine. In fact, they can go to another thread and talk about something else with other "informed" people, since they clearly believe this is not an important issue. Not everyone on this site is an expert in radar signatures, so telling me that everyone here is more informed than me is pushing it. If these individuals are not happy with the discussion here I humbly submit that they can go to another thread and debate with the more informed, subjects of greater importance to their own personal biases...
There they can bask in the glory of the informed and share with each other unusually informed opinions smiling happily as they walk off into the sunset holding hands and informing each other....

 

[aesop081]

I just don't understand all the hostility I'm seeing here. Why are people attacking me personally for my opinions? They are free to have their 'more informed' opinions and think whatever they wish of mine. In fact, they can go to another thread and talk about something else with other "informed" people, since they clearly believe this is not an important issue. Not everyone on this site is an expert in radar signatures, so telling me that everyone here is more informed than me is pushing it. If these individuals are not happy with the discussion here I humbly submit that they can go to another thread and debate with the more informed, subjects of greater importance to their own personal biases...
There they can bask in the glory of the informed and share with each other unusually informed opinions smiling happily as they walk off into the sunset holding hands and informing each other....

Your sarcasm realy doesnt improve your already precarious position here.  Like Trinity, i beleive you to be a troll, either a new one or a re-incarnation of a previous troll that was banned

 

[Centurian1985]

Ive had enough fun for one night.

Can a moderator lock this thread up for the night?  No-one is learning anything new...    :blotto:

 

[Michael OLeary]

We're waiting for the point.

4 pages, 49 replies, and all we have is:

a.  little commercial off the shelf UAVs exist, (fact)

b.  they have very small radar cross sections (fact)

c.  no-one has published a counter-measure (as if they would)

And no novel solution from you. You identified the problem by posting the article. Fine.  We're not about to panic because we do not see that there is a credible enough threat to worry at this time.

Should we?
Realistically?
Please provide proof other than the article.

It's journalism!

Journalism = a few facts + some conjecture + some sensationalism.

Perhaps we have a slight mistrust of journalistic integrity - It still doesn't make it a worthy concern just because someone cobbled together an article that some editor liked enough to fill some column inches.  One guy blew up a building in Oklahoma using a truck - we still don't track and examine every truck everywhere just to try and stop the next one.  Perfectly feasible, low tech, anyone could pull it off - but not worth the degree of effort and cost to attempt to neutralize the threat.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Just because it's possible doesn't make the risk level high enough to stop everything and start scaning the skies for tiny airplanes.

 

[_TheSaint_]

Ive had enough fun for one night.

Can a moderator lock this thread up for the night?  No-one is learning anything new...    :blotto:

If that's possible I say do it, do it now! What was once interesting has become an argument for no apparent reason.  ???

 

[Michael OLeary]

That's all for tonight folks.

If you have something truly worthwhile to add, approach a Mod tomorrow duriung daylight hours and the thread may be reopened.