posted
Hi. Today, in modern combat, unmanned vehicles (UAVs) are the first into a combat zone. These can be from reconnaisance UAVs like the Predator that flys above, snaps photos or uses radar, and sends the information back to the army. Then, there is the Darkstar which is a recon plane as well, but it can also be armed with a couple of bombs.
The most common UAV today, in the U.S. Arsenal would be the Tomahawk GLCM (ground launched cruise missile). We've seen these missiles fly into Iraq and destroy targets with good accuracy.
My question is this: Why aren't their Star Fleet UAVs? I do remember in BoBW the little rounded missiles that flew towards the Borg Cube and were destroyed, but other than that, nothing else. Wouldn't it be more wise to make a ship, a smaller ship with no life support (which would save like 50% of the ship's room) that is more expendable, since there are no lives. These ships could be extremly powerful with massive weaponry for enemies like the Borg or Dominion. Why do we only see large "capital ships" with all the major Alpha Quadrant superpowers?
One more thing, I would think that the Borg would definantly see quite an advantage in a vehicle with no drones. After all, the ships are linked to the collective. These ships could be scouts and defensive ships.
------------------ I can't remember my old signature file.
posted
Hmmm... I'm embarrassed to admit that once I'd come up witn the SARPEV (Semi-Autonomous Remotely-Piloted Expendable Vehicle), I didn't develop it much farther. No larger models with better range, etc., I should say.
Now I think of it, I did several different models and derivatives, but I won't take over this thread to display them. I suppose I'll just shuffle on over to the artwork section & post links to them all.
Diabolical, aren't I?
(Well, "unbearable" would be an oxymoron, don't you think?)
------------------ The hyperhamster is alive and well.
[This message was edited by Baloo on March 15, 1999.]
But I do have a few thoughts. First, regarding the Borg, drones are an integral part of their technology. Cybernetic systems have a much greater reaction time then organic minds or computers seperately. And they are expendable.
We have seen autonomous vehicles once or twice. The Cardassian "dreadnought" for instance. And we know that the Federation has a whole host of probes and the like. It's just not something that's very exciting to see onscreen, for the most part. Though we have seen them. The orbital defense systems in "Tears of the Prophets" for instance. Sure, an attack with automated units would have been less costly in terms of life, but could such units have come up with the solution that sentient beings did? And if you made the computers sentient, as the UFP certainly appears capable of doing, it gets pretty sticky morally to use them as cannon fodder.
------------------ "I'll be the sky above the Ganges I'll be the vast and stormy sea. I'll be the lights that guide you inward. I'll be the visions you will see." -- R.E.M.
posted
Not to mention how advanced the AI has to be in order to think as a sentient being. What kind of ethics do you give it? Can it take human or alien life? The difficulties are endless.
------------------ Risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about....that's why we're aboard her!"
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
I'm thinking that automated vehicles are used on shuttle runs such as those between Earth, Mars, Starbases, Spacedocks, Shipyards, the Moon, etc. Specialized runs such as the Jovian run (between Jupiter and Saturn, ST:TNG "Chain of Command") would require human pilots for various reasons.
------------------ I can resist anything....... Except Temptation
posted
I thought I would pass this info along. The Darkstar UAV has been cancelled due to higher than expected costs and the military is currently rethinking and revising its requirements for UAV's. Technically, a Tomahawk isn't a GLCM because Ground Launched Cruise Missiles were banned by one of the SALT or START treaties (not sure which one). Tomahawks are called TLAM for Tomahawk Land Attack Missile and are either ship-launched, sub-launched, or air launched. Just thought I would pass these corrections along.
As for Starfleet's use of UAV's, they do employ several different types of probes which are most commonly used when the crew is looking for something or wanting to keep tabs on an enemy (or potential enemy for that matter). Even the photon torpedos are a type of UAV because they are autonomous once they are launched and can be programmed to fly probably just about any type of flight profile to its target.
Back to the present, UAV's could effectively be employed today, even with current technological standards; its just that people (corporations, military) aren't convinced enough to put down the big $$$$ necessary to field such equipment. The point is that there is no doubt that Starfleet tech. would be capable of producing effective UAV systems.....no need for complicated AI, just tell them where the targets are and which ones are friendly.
posted
Ever hear of "the fog of war"? I think that's why you seldom hear unequivocal enthusiasm for UAVs. The main problems I can think of are (in no particular order):
If you remotely control them, your telemetry might possibly be jammed.
If you aren't jammed, the telemetry could possibly give away vital intelligence, such as where you're launching from.
If the UAV flies according to a program, without outside telemetry, how sure can you be that the target that you detected an hour ago hasn't pulled up stakes and moved elsewhere? How can you tell if it was a decoy?
I like the idea of UAVs, but as an electronics technician, it's too easy for me to imagine something going wrong with any of several vital systems. And besides, even with crewed vehicles, remember how many "friendly fire" incidents there were during Desert Storm? It's very, very hard to tell friend from foe, especially when people are shooting at you.
--Baloo
------------------ Friendly fire isn't.
[This message was edited by Baloo on March 17, 1999.]
posted
Shipbuilder, I would think that they would have been banned in the SALT treaties. When was the Darkstar cancelled?
I think that if Starfleet can send encoded messages that no one can break between DS9 and Earth, I am sure they could control a ship. But, they wouldn't need to do that. Data is the perfect example. Sorta. A ship that has a specific objective but can make it's own decisions would be good. But, of course, that is on the verge of AI and whether it should be treated like a human and whatnot. It's a grand idea, but I don't think it will work too well.... =(
------------------ There's a lady who knows, all that glitters is gold...and she's buying a stairway to heaven.
posted
Well, I'm not sure where I heard that DarkStar was cancelled, must have been something on the news. I went back and tried to search for an article and the most recent one involved the expected delivery of DarkStar number 4 in mid-Feb. As of yet, this delivery has not occurred. There has been no more press releases on testing results (non-classified of course) since Jan. and Boeing and Lockheed Martin tend to make public there results rather soon after they occur to bolster support for the program. As I remember it said something about funds were being diverted to the Global Hawk program instead. If I find it, I'll let you know.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well in regard to Star Trek by itself. Star Trek is (or is trying) to be a dramatic and emotional show. I doubt scenes like the "graveyard" scene at Wolf359 would have worked as well if we knew there were not real people inside, just machines. We need people, or at least aliens that act like people to relate to and sympathize with.
In a Starfleet context, didn't Bruce Maddox(spelling?) try to create copies of Data for combat and long range exploration?
posted
Star Trek is faithful to the battle scenarios of today. An actually battle of the twenty-fourth century would be incompresible to us and, most likely, uneventful to our perceptions. The battle would occur in minute movements and judged not by hours or minutes, but by seconds.
IP: Logged
posted
Exactly. If the time a battle is fought can be measured in seconds, then a computer must be running the battle. I wouldn't trust a computer to properly run my military, would you? That way lies shades of the Terminator movies. A crazed computer hell bent on destruction. I'd much rather have a human running things.
------------------ Risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about....that's why we're aboard her!"
posted
Warfare has progressed from large armies and navies that fought titantic clashes for days and maybe months for the last three hundred years. Now, we have weapons that can end conflict within hours. In the 1990's, a war is defined as a short term event which employs weapons of mass destruction in a quick and decisive stroke. The current strikes against Iraq were called a "war". The Americans didn't employ troops into the soil of the enemy nation nor conquered land. Instead, they aimed to destabilize the nation of Iraq. Natural progression of warfare is that the precedent set by the Americans will become the norm. This is not the first time. Our nation has set the norm for many kinds of warfare from the 1860's to today. So, let's project. In the 24th century, the UFP-Klingon Alliance is at war with the Cardassian-Dominion Alliance. Using strategies learned from previous conflicts, both sides (without mobilizing troops except in special circumstances to bring the weapons closer to the enemies territory) employ ships with the capacity to strike an enemies territory from a distance.
*Federation Missile Ship \ \ \ path of missile using a warp conduit \ \ \ *C-D target
The goal of any nation is to minimize the loss of life in war. An ability to strike your enemy by a distance can save lives. An example-the federation starship USS Bellona-a missile frigate-is given the orders to launch a strike against an outpost controlled by Cardassian -Dominion forces. So using warp conduits, the USS Bellona launches a swarm of missiles which pass through the conduit and strike the target. The personnel on the outpost have only seconds or minutes to respond before being hit. And, capital warships on both sides attacking each other is a rare event. Even in our times, capital warships rarely get into battle. The last great battles between capital warships occured in World War I-the Battle of Jutland. With the advent of carrier warfare in World War II, a nation could strike an enemy's forces without engaging giant ships in battle. For television dramatic purposes, this kind of warfare can be very unengaging. How can an audience member feel for the crew of a ship if they are safe from harm and not in the midst of battle where lives are at stake? Note: Computers will used for targeting and scanning the enemy territory. And the strategies used by both sides will evolve from their war histories. And that is where the incompresibility figutes in. Without knowning the history or emotional context of a nation, we cann't understand why they fight as they do. In history class, I learn of one such example. During the battles between the American Indians and the Europeans, the Indians would race up to the Europeans and "tag" them without killing them. This form of "craziness" was viewed as an act of courage by the Indians. The more Europeans an Indian touched, the greater the courage of the Indian. The producers do their very best; however, they do not have the means to create a society and give it a richness of texture and meaning. This can only happen with the individuals of a society. Without knowing and understanding this complexity, a society is an enigma to outsiders. I hope this explains my position.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
