Robotics & Warfare Part 1: The Skies

Hello readers!!!

Today, I bring you the first of three sections for my special post on robotics. This first section will discuss how robots are making a difference in the air.

What is a UAV

Today in the news, we hear comments about "UAVs" and "Predators" and "drones" conducting strikes in Pakistan. Now, what are these? Believe it or not, UAVs are commonly mistaken to be missiles, or some government top secret project.

UAV is the acronym for 'unmanned aerial vehicle.' It is a very broad area of robotics because it literally consists of all robotic airplanes that can fly without a human on board. Believe it or not, the UAVs have been around since the 1950s, and a couple were used during the Vietnam War. They were very inefficient, and their plans for development were scrapped because few politicians believed that they would be achievable. However, they were wrong, because now the UAV has been widely used during the War On Terror.

UAVs can be used for a variety of functions in the military. They can be used for surveillance, transportation, unit coordination, and combat. The "Predators" and "Reapers" that are seen in the news being used in Afghanistan in Iraq tend to carry out surveillance and combat roles. The video below shows a Predator UAV carrying out both roles (for those eager for action, the combat is at the very end).



"Light" UAVs like the Predator and Reaper will become very popular in the future with the US military. This is because of several reasons. First, they are very efficient intelligence gatherers. They are mounted with infrared, and near infrared cameras that can zoom and detect almost anything. This can range from the license plate of a car, to a hidden weapon in an insurgent during a VIP visit. UAVs have the ability to fly high, and far away from their targets. In fact, some have flown at 65,000 feet. With the ability to fly so far away and get so much detailed information, this reason alone is almost enough to justify the development for UAVs. Today's current US Border Patrol uses UAVs for intelligence.

The second reason why Light UAVs will become popular is because of their ability to operate in a 'tactical strike' role. Light UAVs like the Predator can be armed with two Stinger air-to-air aircraft missiles, and four hellfire air-to-ground missiles. This gives the Predator the ability to strike light air targets (helicopters and slow aircraft) and almost any enemy ground target. The hellfire missile could easily wipe out several soldiers, and could even penetrate the armor of a tank. When you combine the surveillance and tactical strike capabilities, you get a UAV that can make quick, accurate, successful attacks.

The third reason why Light UAVs will become popular is because of how cost efficient they are. Currently, the US has a wide range of fighters. Older fighters like the F-15 Eagle cost approximately $30 million USD, while more advanced fighters cost $139 million USD. Keep in mind, you have to add in the $1.1 million USD cost for training the pilot.

Light UAVs like the MQ-1 Predator are much cheaper. One UAV Predator system costs $30 million USD. This includes four Predators, their ground control stations, and their own satellite link. However, you could add a limited amount of addition Predators to that system for around $4.9 million USD. Also, keep in mind that it costs much less and takes less time to train a UAV pilot. So, think of what's easier to lose in a mission. A F-22 Raptor, or a MQ-1 Predator UAV. It would definitley be the Predator.

So, to sum it up, Light UAVs will become popular because of their surveillance capabilities, their combat capabilities and their cost efficiency. Light UAVs are becoming advanced enough to fill more combat roles, and can stand in as a more cost efficient solution.

UAVs in the Future

Brace yourself, here comes another acronym: UCAV. UCAV stands for 'unmanned combat aerial vehicle.' These are the future of UAVs. Now you may be thinking, "I thought UAVs were combat capable." Yes, but UCAVs will blow you away.



UCAVs are combat oriented aircraft. Unlike Light UAVs which were built to have basic aircraft capabilities, UCAVs are being designed to have advanced capabilities. They are also being designed to have full autonomous ability.

UCAVs are still in early development, so not much is known about them. However, one particular UCAV, the Boeing X-45 has displayed some impressive feats of what UCAVs will be able to do. In wargames, they've been able to take out targets, autonomously fly and achieve missions, autonomously react to unknown and incoming missiles; all while flying at intense speeds at high altitudes.

Being able to fly at intense speeds and take out targets is a great capability, but doing it autonomously (without human control) is another thing. One pilot was even able to control two X-45s at once because they could operate independently. If these robots are able to accomplish tasks without human guidance, then they are definitley appear in the future. This is because it will allow armies to expand their size and striking capacity greatly, without having to increase the amount of human lives being sent into battle. Also, UCAVs may be able to defeat human controlled planes because they won't be limited by g-forces.

UCAVs are so interesting because they seem to be so science fiction. It's hard to believe that they can really function like this, and harder to think that they will likely be in service by 2015, but it's true. This video below shows the X-45 taking off, flying, and attacking a target autonomously. The only human interaction it encounters is when it receives its objectives.



Network Centric Warfare: The Combination of Systems

Now, this last subtopic isn't about a specific robot, but about a system called "network centric warfare."

Network Centric Warfare (NCW) is a system in which there are different forces that use information technology to share their situation. The US Air Force characterizes NCW "by the ability of geographically dispersed forces to attain a high level of shared battlespace awareness that is exploited to achieve strategic, operational, and tactical objectives in accordance with the commander’s intent. This linking of people, platforms, weapons, sensors, and decision aids into a single network creates a whole that is clearly greater than the sum of its parts." If neither of these make sense, check out the Northdrop Gruman advertisement.


NCWs can be discussed entirely as their own topic, but they can play a large role in the future of robotics in warfare. In the future, when UCAVs are created, they could create a massive, effective fighting force. Hundreds of UCAVs could be launched, and remember they don't require human pilots) with the objective to strike a target. These UCAVs would be 'linked' together so that they would constantly engage data with each other. This data that is exchanged enhances their situational awareness as a whole, which allows them to act, and react differently, which increases their effectiveness.



In George Friedmen's The Next 100 Years, he predicts that a large role of future warfare will evolve around NCW supersonic UCAVs. I support his view. Autonomous UCAVs are great, but creating a NCW for them to operate, will allow them to operate on their own. They will constantly be processing the information, and the more information they receive, the more actions they will make.

The idea of NCW and UCAVs fascinates me and is one of my favorite subjects.

Wrap Up
This wraps up the first of the three sections for my special feature on Robotics & Warfare. The next section will discuss ground units, and the third section will be a surprise. If you have any questions, email me at student_view_blog@yahoo.com.

Now, what do you think? Leave a comment.

Works Cited (for sources that couldn't be linked)
-Wired for War by P.W. Singer
-The Nesxt 100 Years: A Forecast of the 21st Centuryby George Friedman
-http://robocat.users.btopenworld.com/Images/x-45c-1.jpg (photo credit)
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3s65RbvugQ&feature=fvw (video credit)
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRYBEzTB6E8 (photo credit)
-http://lyle.smu.edu/emis/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/network_centric-warfare.jpg (photo credit)

A Quick Update: A New Logo and a Special Feature

Hello readers!

Things have been getting exciting with the blog lately. The comments that I've seen have been great, and thought provoking. These kind of things encourage me to continue blogging.

First off, I am proud to announce that I have a new, special, unique logo. This was obviously not designed by me, but by my good friend Cygne. I wish that I was as talented as her with graphic design. Let's all thank Cygne.



Second, as you may have noticed, I have made some minor website changes. I added a slideshow in on the side, and am currently playing around with new templates. Some of these new templates look very cool, but they have a few issues that need to be ironed out. Feel free to send me ideas at student_view_blog@yahoo.com

Third, I would have usually updated with a new article by now, but I have something even better coming out. My next series of posts plans to be a feature three section article discussing robotics and warfare. Initially, this was planned to be a small blurb, but there is so much fascinating stuff to cover. I plan to conduct interviews for this, and am very excited. Besides, what's cooler than robots?

I hope to release this shortly, but wanted to keep everyone in the loop. Let me know if you have any ideas

Obama's Scrapping of the Missile Shield: Was it the Right Call? UPDATE

Hello readers,

I am once again to say that I'm back with my fingers on the keyboard discussing more interesting current events. I was inspired to come back so soon after seeing headlines discussing Kanye West's outburst, Michael Moore with Wolf Blitz, and a headline regarding babysitting. I am also a victim of being trapped in these entertaining articles, but there are other issues that need to be addressed. As of September 17, President Obama canceled the USA's plan to construct Ground-Based-Interceptors (GBI) in Poland. This article will be different because I will spend time on both sides discussing the pros and cons, and will reveal my opinion in the end.

Background

On August 20, 2008, the Bush Administration signed a security agreement with the Polish government. In this agreement, it was declared that the US would have ten missile silos constructed in Poland, along with its radar system in the Czech Republic.

First off, it is important to understand the strategy. In the Czech Republic, a large X-Band Omnidirectional Radar facility would be constructed. When the radar detects an incoming threat, it would alert the US military. If the US military decides to respond by shooting down the missile, a message would be sent to the GBI base in Poland. Then GBIs (Exoatmospheric Missiles manufactured by Raytheon) would be launched to intercept the incoming threat. When the GBI would reach the incoming missile in the atmosphere, it would use kinetic energy to shoot down the missile. Sounds easy, doesn't it? However, according to a special report, only approximately 66% (8/12) of the tests have succeeded (it should be noted that many tests were cancelled because of issues).

66% isn't a bad number, but when you have budgeted to spend $30.7 billion USD since 1998, it is disappointing to get these results. $30.7 billion a very large amount when compared to other defense programs. Unfortunately, the costs will continue to rise because in the Defense Department's FY10 report requests around $500 million USD to construct the Eastern European missile facilities. $500 million USD for ten silos in a program that has been heavily researched and yields only a 66% test rate, for those not familiar with defense expenditures, I believe that this is not worth it.

Obama's Plan

Throughout Obama's campaign, the President constantly said that he would not fund programs that didn't work. As discussed above, the return of the investment in the GBI program is lower than what is expected. However, this isn't the main reason why President Obama scrapped the program.

The second main reason why President Obama scrapped the program was because of the alertnative options that the President has available to him. According to Defensenews, the President has not given up on missile defense. Instead, he plans on arming more Aegis Destroyers with the SM-3 missile, which is also capable of ballistic missile defense.

The SM-3 missile is deployed on upgraded Aegis destroyers. It's range is shorter, and radar weaker, but it can also shoot down ballistic missiles and atmospheric objects. 3 years ago, an SM-3 missile was used to shoot down a falling satellite, and it succeeded hitting the fuel tank. It is cheaper in the long term than the GBI because the cost for development has been a little under $2 billion USD. Also, by mounting the SM-3 on ships, the US can control a mobile missile shield that can be placed all around the world. Simply, the SM-3 is a cheaper, more efficient choice that the President is using.

The third reason why Obama has scrapped the missile plans is because he wants to decrease tensions between the US and Russia. Russ and the US have been constantly debating with issues relating to the economy, foreign policy, and other issues. One issue that has been debated is the construction of the missile shield in Eastern Europe. Russia felt threatened, and had the right to be because the omni-directional radar has the ability to track objects near the Ural Mountains in Russia, thus allowing the missiles the ability to strike in Russia territory. Russia was furious, and as stated before, many believe that the shield caused Russia to interfere with US interests. With the plan scrapped, Obama hopes for Russia to cease many of its activities that frustrated the US.

Why GBIs Should Remain:

There are not many reasons why the GBI's should remain, but a few important reasons remain.

First, the missile shield expands the US presence in Eastern Europe which will help the US in the long run. Russia's rising influence is not in the US's best interest, and having a presence in Eastern Europe enables the US to counter this. Russia is eager to reestablish its influence over former Soviet Sattelites, whether they like it or not. Tha's why both Poland and Czech Republic want the US missile base. It's not that they're afraid of getting hit by nukes, but they want to be under a shield held by the US.

Secondly, having this base would allow the US to put pressure on Russia. Russia has been committing controversial actions including arms sales to Iran, Venezuela, and by cutting off gas to Western Europe as they did earlier this year.

Third, the GBIs have a very large radar system (due to copyright issues, I cannot post any images or charts, but check out the sales pamphlet for the system). With a system this large, that can reach into so many more places, the US would be able to counter more threats in the European theater. A system this sophisticated would increase the limits of US power.

Fourth, the Europe needs a ballistic missile shield. None currently exist, and with more powers obtaining ballistic missiles, it is imperative for one to be developed. Whether the threat is from the Middle East, or Eastern Europe, a shield is necessary.

Simply, as you can see, most of the reasons on why the GBI system should remain are related to foreign policy and international relations topics.

Conclusion & My Opinion

The main difference between the two arguments are international relations arguments and defense efficiency. Initially, I believed that the US should build the base to stay in Russia's way, but now that I have thought of the efficiency and defense objects, and the purpose of the program, I support Obama's decision.
so I will be checking this email daily).






Recent News: UPDATE

Even though it's been almost a month since Obama's decision, this decision has been quite active recently. A couple of weeks after the decision was made, a senior State Department official suggested the creation of Patriot Defense System in Poland. The Patriot system, the same system that was used in the Persian Gulf War, is a less capable system. It is 'older', and less successful than any of the proposed modern systems, but is more mobile and inexpensive. This system would be better than nothing in Poland, but would be relatively ineffective.

The other idea that was announced recently caught my eye. The same State Department official that suggested the Patriot System announced that the US and Poland have been in the talks of constructing an SM-3 missile system. As you read earlier, the SM-3 missile is a much more effective system than the proposed GBI system. If this idea was put in motion, I would back it with full support because of a couple of reasons. First, this system actually works, and isn't ridiculously expensive. Second, it would be a great way for the US to establish a presence in Eastern Europe. The previous system had much controversy because it's low success rates. The SM-3 is a much better system, and would enable the US to have a firm presence. It'll be interesting how this proposal ends up.

Comment with your options. What do you think? Email any questions to student_view_blog@yahoo.com

Darfur: A Possible Solution

Hello readers,

I apologize for my long absence. Today, I have decided that I will write about a serious crisis: Darfur. Darfur is an interesting situation. This situation is extremely catastrophic, and sad. Thousands of lives have been lost in the genocide in Sudan. It has gathered much attention, but unfortunately, there has been if any, little response by the US, and other leading countries. In this article, I will do my best to explain why these countries haven't responded, and will examine a possible response for them. To take in and fully understand this article, I suggest that you read some background of the conflict in Darfur.

A Brief Overview

The conflict in Darfur has been devasting. With over 400,000 people dead, and at least three times as much displaced, it is obvious that many people of Sudan have had their human rights violated by the government supported Janjawid militia. In 2004, the African Union responded and deployed 150 Rwandan troops. After reealizing that this wasn't enough, 150 Nigerian troops were deployed. These still were not enough, and eventually, approximately 7,000 AU troops were deployed. The poorly equipped AU peacekeepers ran into numerous obstacles, and in 2007, the UN decided to create a hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping force that amounted to around 26,000 soldiers. The current situation in Darfur is still a severe crisis, even with the UN peacekeeping force.

Why the UN Force Hasn't Succeeded

The current joint UN-AU mission in Darfur (UNAMID) consists of approximately 16,000 peacekeepers, 175 military observers, 3,000 police officers, and 3,500 civilian staff.

Around 80% of the peacekeepers (military observers tend to be from successful countries like Italy, France & Britain) come from 2nd-3rd world countries. Make no mistake, I am not trying to trash these peacekeepers, but as history as shown, 2nd-3rd world armies tend to be less equipped, less trained, less disciplined, and less motivated to fight. Also, many 'blue helmets' are deployed on their mission without choice, and are fighting for a country that they didn't enlist to fight for. All of this information concludes that the UNAMID could be ineffective in many aspects.

Another important figure to consider is the budget for this mission. UNAMID has a budget of $1,596.6 million USD for the period between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2009. This is approximately $106.3 million USD spent every month. For the UN, this is one of the largest and most expensive missions.

Lastly, I had a very interesting discussion with an experienced UN staff member. We were discussing the problems with UNAMID, and MONUC (the UN's mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo), and he told me that the UN does a great job at peacekeeping but not peacemaking. This official explained that the UN becomes unpopular because they do not successfully make peace always. This is because, in similar phrasing as him, when a 21 year old Pakistani soldier is deployed halfway across the world (the first time he has ever been out of his country) and deployed as a UN peacekeeper in an unfamiliar territory that has complex issues, there are going to be issues.

So, three main points were outlined. First, the majority of the UN force in Darfur is ineffective. Second, this force is one of the most expensive missions for the UN. Third, the UN are peacekeeprs, not peacemakers. Put these two points together, and we get the idea that the UN force needs to be organized, or possibly even replaced. Read more to find out what should happen.

Why the USA, Britain, or Any Large EU Countries Are Leading a Mission

With the crisis in Darfur, people have been constantly pleading for the the USA, or any other powerful western countries to intervene on some scale. The USA has done nothing, except support the ICC's case against Sudan, and publicly denounce Sudan's actions. However, a recent FP article suggests that some European countries (Beligum, Ukraine), and UNSC members (China, Russia) have even sold weapons to these countries. This shows that as we have sometimes seen in history, a country will always follow its interests. This is why few countries have gotten involved in Sudan. Simply, the USA gains nothing out of this conflict for sacrificing some US (or British, French, etc) soldiers lives. Yes, the US believes that these acts are imoral, but they do not believe that they are worth American lives. It is unfortanate that things have to happen this way, but logical.



The Solution

In international relations, there are several 'actor's that influence the usage of power. These are states, non government organizations, etc. One of these actors are private military institutions, or private military corporations (PMCs). Some examples of PMCs are Triple Canopy, Aegis Security and Dyncorp.

I believe that the UNSC, with heavy support from the US, and European Countries, could contract numerous PMCs to provide approximately 8,000-10,000 military contractors, along with contracting firms for aviation, and logistical services. In exchange, the UNSC would reduce UNAMID's budget, and would reduce it's force to approximatley 4,000 personal, with 2,000 being peacekeeprs. This new joint AU-UN-PMC force would fulfill the UN mandate issued.



Now many of you may be thinking of the Blackwater civilian shootings, KBR overbilling the government, etc. That is ok, but keep in mind, those are special unusual events. PMCs have performed a numerous amount of successfull actions (enough for me to write a thesis supporting them) and have fulfilled thousands of successfull contracts. Simply, they are reliable situations.

For those of you that are still unsure, you can relax, because there is a solution to this. These companies would sign a contract with the US saying that they fulfill the mandate for X amount of money. In this contract, we can put down specific things. For example, we can order the company to respect the Geneva Conventions, avoid having its contractors rape, etc. If they break any of these rules, they break the contract and won't get paid. Since these companies are driven to earn, and with a saturated market in Iraq, they would take the contract very seriously, and would go the extra mile to make sure every required piece is fulfilled. As a result, the US and other states can keep them in place.

Now to explain why we higher these contractors. First, it allows the USA to be in Sudan indirectly. Second, PMCs are more cost efficient than 'blue helmets.' Third, these PMCs possess high end equipment that would enable them to have a successful logistics system.

When I mean that using PMCs as indirect foreign policy, I am trying to explain that PMCs are a third and 'invisible' arm for the US. For those that understand this, simply, politicans are going to be more worried if US soldiers are dying, rather than PMCs. Second, if PMCs mess up, they will be the ones with the fingers pointed at them.

PMCs are more cost efficient than blue helmets, and standing militaries. Below is a quote from my report that explains this.

"The one main reason that exists on why the US, UN and NATO should contract missions and assigntments to PMCs is because PMCs work more cost efficiently than a standing military force. PMCs operate tremendously cheaper than a standing military. A standing military costs billions of dollars because of the numerous expenses required for upkeep (Schumacher 200). Let us compare the expenses of maintaining a US Army soldier and a PMC contractor.

The US Army requires recruits to go through extensive military training. The US makes expensive payments to train each soldier and maintain their state of the art training facilities. After a soldier graduates training, the soldier will earn approximately $25,000-$35,000 USD every year, even though the Army may not deploy them. If a war occurs during a soldier’s lifetime, the Army will deploy him/her to the battlefield. On the battlefield, the soldier will fight and his/her training would pay off. However, it takes only one bullet, grenade, or bomb that could injure the soldier and cause lifelong consequences, for example, losing a limb. Without a limb, the Army would discharge the soldier, have his/her health expenses paid for by the US government, and for the rest of the soldier’s life, he/she would receive pensions from the Army. The Army would not likely deploy the soldier again, if he/she recovers (Schumacher 165).

A PMC conducts cheaper operations. PMCs earn approximately $2,000 USD per week (Fainaru 136). US Army soldiers earn less, but keep in mind; organizations tend to contract PMCs for short periods of time. Also, PMC employees tend to have previous military experience, so PMCs do not require costly expenses to train their employees. Lastly, PMCs do not have pensions or insurance funds for medical injuries (Pelton 257).

This comparison explains why PMCs operate cheaper than a standing military. Keep in mind that PMCs provide their own weapons and equipment, and that the government does not need to provide any equipment for them. For example, Blackwater Worldwide designed a sophisticated armored personal carrier (APC) called the Grizzly APC. Blackwater Worldwide built the Grizzly to survive small arms fire and multiple improvised explosive devices (IED). The Grizzly shows how PMCs use sophisticated equipment for operations (Pelton 198).

This analysis shows why and how PMCs run with cost efficiency for temporary and short missions. If a long mission occurred, a country’s standing military might operate more cost effectively. However, in shorter missions and contracts, PMCs function more cost efficient than a standing army and have the same firepower and skills as many parts of a standing army (Schumacher 175). Simply, the US would save more money by hiring PMCs rather than building up an army, especially for short operations."

© Copyright 2009 by Bret Perry

The third reason why PMCs are very efficient is because of their high end equipment and well designed logistical systems. For example, Blackwater (now Xe) developed and deployed the MRAP (Mine Reistant Ambush Protected) Grizzly, Raytheon can provide UAV services and Dyncorp could provide detailed logistic services. Even during my visit with the Director of the UN Information Centre in Washington DC, he told me that during his visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo, he flew with Ukrainians all the time because helicopters are hard for the UN to obtain. I'm trying to show you that PMCs can provide sophisticated solutions with these examples.

This new AU-UN-PMC force would be very effective. With PMCs providing air logistics and combat services, infantry fighting services, vehicles, assisting with strategy, and intelligence, they would successfully neutralize any threats and make peace so that the UN & AU can help provide more humanitarian relief.

As you may have seen earlier, I have had the opportunity to converse with UN staff. During our conversation, I asked a question on why the UN isn't contracting PMCs. He said that it is the more efficient solution, and that they try to do it to an extent, but if they would contract PMCs for combat, this would be interpreted as if the UN had its own army ran by the Secretariat. Not surprisingly, this would scare some people, which is why it isn't done.

Conclusion

So, in this article, we discussed the flaws with the current UN mission in Darfur, and how PMCs could be contracted to provide cost efficient sophisticated solutions to this conflict. Hopefully, they can succeed and help solve this crisis.

Thanks, and please comment.

A Quick Update

Hello readers!!!

I apologize about not posting any articles recently. I've been quite busy. However, I plan to write about either North Korea, Gate's decision with the defense budget, or the hostage crisis in Somalia.

Stay tuned and have a happy Easter.