Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Página 2 de 23. Precedente  1, 2, 3 ... 12 ... 23  Siguiente

Ver el tema anterior Ver el tema siguiente Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Andrés Eduardo González el Lun Ago 27, 2012 3:51 pm

Son nuevos de paquete y son Block 50/52...

Por eso el costo de esos F-16...

Pero claro, hay que ver que en esos US$ 1.400 millones no es sólo 18 aviones, seguramente ahí van otras cosas: mantenimiento, servicio, capacitación, armamento...
avatar
Andrés Eduardo González

Mensajes : 1511
Fecha de inscripción : 31/07/2012
Edad : 40
Localización : Bogotá, Colombia

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Marou el Miér Ago 29, 2012 9:31 pm

Es que el helo es muy curpulento... Aqui les mando otra fotico donde me retire bastante y aun asi no cupo... lol

No tuve tiempo de subirla a UNFFMM ya que tristemente cerro, pero aqui tienen...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
avatar
Marou

Mensajes : 38
Fecha de inscripción : 20/08/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Marou el Miér Ago 29, 2012 9:38 pm

Y no podia faltar este....





Saludos desde el norte.
avatar
Marou

Mensajes : 38
Fecha de inscripción : 20/08/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por F15 el Miér Ago 29, 2012 9:56 pm

Marou escribió:Y no podia faltar este....





Saludos desde el norte.
Yo no se... pero ese aparatico es por decirlo estéticamente el homologo del cisne blanco Ruso ._. Twisted Evil

F15

Mensajes : 473
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por tavoohio el Lun Sep 03, 2012 12:44 am


Seúl, 29 ago (EFE).- EEUU ha autorizado a Corea del Sur a efectuar vuelos de persecución y utilizar sistemas de telemetría para probar los F-35A de Lockheed Martin, modelo que aspira a convertirse en el nuevo caza de las Fuerzas Aéreas del país asiático.

Lockheed Martin compite con el también estadounidense Boeing y con el grupo europeo dedefensa EADS en el concurso para renovar con 60 cazas las Fuerzas Aéreas surcoreanas para el año 2021, en una operación que se estima en unos 7.300 millones de dólares, según la agencia Yonhap.

Con vistas a la adquisición, las Fuerzas Aéreas de Corea del Sur habían solicitado a los fabricantes autorización para que sus pilotos utilizasen sistemas de telemetría y aviones de persecución para comprobar las funciones de cada modelo.

Boeing y EADS habían dado el visto bueno a los pilotos surcoreanos para hacer este tipo de pruebas, pero Lockheed Martin se había mostrado reticente hasta ahora.

La autorización, recogida en una carta del Departamento de Defensa de EEUU, para utilizar estos métodos supone que los pilotos surcoreanos podrán efectuar pruebas a principios de septiembre en territorio estadounidense para comprobar las funciones de los F-35, detalló Yonhap.

El equipo surcoreano que examina los aparatos completó recientemente dos semanas de pruebas sobre los F-15 de Boeing en EEUU, mientras que los test sobre el Eurofighter de EADS están programados para el mes que viene.

Está previsto que Seúl elija cuál será el nuevo modelo de sus Fuerzas Aéreas a finales de este año, aunque los expertos no descartan que la decisión se pueda retrasar hasta después de las elecciones presidenciales, programadas para diciembre.

Desde 2002 Corea del Sur ha adquirido 60 cazas F-15 de Boeing como parte del primer tramo de su programa de modernización de las Fuerzas Aéreas
http://noticias.lainformacion.com
avatar
tavoohio

Mensajes : 772
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por tavoohio el Lun Sep 03, 2012 12:46 am

Marou escribió:Esta fue en el Rockford Air Show este anho. Luego subo mas..


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Mauro te invito a montar tus fotos del Airshow en el tema que abrí para esos eventos. http://webinfomil.forosweb.net/t104-ferias-y-museos-militares-del-mundo
avatar
tavoohio

Mensajes : 772
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

El nuevo E-2D Advanced Hawkeye comienza sus pruebas en el USS Harry S. Truman

Mensaje por PillanFAH el Mar Sep 04, 2012 12:49 pm



Según informa Northrop Grumman; el primer ejemplar de E-2D Advance Hawkeye, denominado "Delta One", última versión del venerable avión naval AEW&C (airborne early warning and command and control), fue asignado al Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 20 (VX-20). Tomando contacto con la cubierta del USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), para dar inicio a seis jornadas de pruebas de idoneidad. Así lograr, al termino de este período, la calificación de conformidad en ambiente operativo.
Con el 99 por ciento de las pruebas de testeo del radar completado, el propósito de esta fase de ensayos tiene por odjeto, evaluar la eficacia de la aeronave en el entorno operativo. Mientras que a bordo del Truman, se abordarán todos los aspectos de aviación e integración al buque, incluyendo logística, mano de obra, interoperabilidad, así como ensayos estructurales por catapultajes y detenidas de aterrizajes.
"Es un salto de dos generaciones en la capacidad de vigilancia, y será un punto de inflexión para el dominio de la información de la Armada de EE.UU.", dijo el Jefe de Operaciones Navales, almirante Gary Roughead.



El primer lanzamiento del "Delta One" fue en 2007 y se llevó a cabo en Patuxent River Naval Air Station, bajo la supervisión de técnicos de Northrop Grumman y de la US Navy. Aunque por fuera el Advance Hawkeye es similar a su predecesor, el nuevo E-2D dispone de electrónica de avanzada y nuevas capacidades. La base del sistema es el nuevo radar AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) AN/APY-9 de Lockheed Martin es capaz de detectar objetos más pequeños a mayores distancias. El nuevo radomo desarrollado por L3 Communications permite un rango de exploración continua de 360 grados y la posibilidad de focalizar un área específica de interés, con la posibilidad de detener la rotación del plato sin sacrificar la visión periférica .También se presentarán nuevas estaciones de trabajo, glass cockpit y sistemas integrados de comunicaciones por satélite para aumentar el conocimiento situacional de la aeronave.




Posteo original tomado y recopilado de: Interdefensa Militar Argentina
avatar
PillanFAH

Mensajes : 162
Fecha de inscripción : 24/08/2012
Edad : 36
Localización : Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

http://pillanfah.blogspot.com/

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Alextdea el Mar Sep 04, 2012 1:51 pm

Esa ultima fotografía esta excelente... de muy buena calidad... Shocked
avatar
Alextdea

Mensajes : 1468
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Blackhawk el Mar Sep 04, 2012 7:59 pm

Necesitamos unos cuatro de esos.... como mínimo.

saludos
avatar
Blackhawk

Mensajes : 1823
Fecha de inscripción : 25/07/2012
Edad : 91

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Marou el Jue Sep 06, 2012 7:31 pm

tavoohio escribió:
Marou escribió:Esta fue en el Rockford Air Show este anho. Luego subo mas..


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Mauro te invito a montar tus fotos del Airshow en el tema que abrí para esos eventos. http://webinfomil.forosweb.net/t104-ferias-y-museos-militares-del-mundo

Listo! las otras estan full bacanas!
avatar
Marou

Mensajes : 38
Fecha de inscripción : 20/08/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por tavoohio el Lun Sep 17, 2012 11:17 am



USS Ross (DDG-71) Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer. On 12 November 2009, the Missile Defense Agency announced that Ross would be upgraded during fiscal 2012 to RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) capability in order to function as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Wikipedia.




_________________
‎"Ye Gods, Mardonius, what men have you brought us to fight against? Men that fight not for gold, but for glory."
Tigranes, a Persian general.
avatar
tavoohio

Mensajes : 772
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por tavoohio el Lun Sep 17, 2012 12:59 pm



USNS Medgar Evers (T-AKE-13) and USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) at norfolk

_________________
‎"Ye Gods, Mardonius, what men have you brought us to fight against? Men that fight not for gold, but for glory."
Tigranes, a Persian general.
avatar
tavoohio

Mensajes : 772
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por tavoohio el Miér Sep 19, 2012 11:57 pm

Algunos datos del LPD-19 Mesa Verde National Park.

Class and type: San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock
Displacement: 24,433 tons (full)
Length: 208.4 meters (684 ft) overall,
201.4 meters (661 ft) waterline
Beam: 32 meters (105 ft) extreme,
29.5 meters (97 ft) waterline
Draft: 7 meters (23 ft)
Propulsion: Four Colt-Pielstick diesel engines, two shafts,
40,000 hp (30 MW)
Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h)
Boats and landing
craft carried: Two LCACs (air cushion) or one LCU (conventional)
Capacity: 699 (66 officers, 633 enlisted); surge to 800 total.
Complement: 28 officers, 332 enlisted, and 3 Marines
Armament: 1 × 16 cell MK 41 VLS(capable, but not currently installed),
2 × RIM-116 RAM launchers for air defense;
2 × 30 mm Bushmaster II cannons, for surface threat defense;
2 × .50 cal. machine guns for close protection
Aircraft carried: Four CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters or two MV-22 tilt rotor aircraft may be launched or recovered simultaneously... Wikipedia

El buque esta en el video que esta en el otro post.







_________________
‎"Ye Gods, Mardonius, what men have you brought us to fight against? Men that fight not for gold, but for glory."
Tigranes, a Persian general.
avatar
tavoohio

Mensajes : 772
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por tavoohio el Jue Sep 20, 2012 12:14 am





Class and type: Los Angeles-class submarine
Displacement: 5,808 long tons (5,901 t) light
6,203 long tons (6,303 t) full
395 long tons (401 t) dead
Length: 110.3 m (361 ft 11 in)
Beam: 10 m (32 ft 10 in)
Draft: 9.4 m (30 ft 10 in)
Propulsion: S6G nuclear reactor
Complement: 12 officers; 98 enlisted
Armament: 4 × 21 in (533 mm) bow tubes, 10 Mk48 ADCAP torpedo reloads, Tomahawk land attack missile block 3 SLCM range 1,700 nautical miles (3,100 km), Harpoon anti–surface ship missile range 70 nautical miles (130 km), mine laying Mk67 mobile Mk60 captor mines....Wikipedia

_________________
‎"Ye Gods, Mardonius, what men have you brought us to fight against? Men that fight not for gold, but for glory."
Tigranes, a Persian general.
avatar
tavoohio

Mensajes : 772
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Berserk el Miér Sep 26, 2012 2:50 pm

F-35 Program's Relationship With Lockheed 'Worst I've Ever Seen,' Says Gen. Bogdan



UPDATED: Lockheed offers official reply to Gen. Bogdan. (8 a.m. Tuesday)

NATIONAL HARBOR: The likely new leader of the Joint Strike Fighter program opened what looks to be a new era -- at least rhetorically -- today offering large dollops of what he called "straight talk" about both in Lockheed Martin's performance and the government's.

Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan made his very pointed and detailed remarks at the Air Force Association's annual conference here, speaking to an audience of several hundred, including representatives of foreign partners, allies, industry representatives, and blue suiters.

(Remember that we are talking about the biggest conventional weapons program in American history. How big? The latest official government estimate puts the program at $1.5 trillion over its 50 year life, although few experts believe that number is a great more deal more than a guess.)

"Here comes a little bit of straight talk," he said at the top of his early afternoon remarks at AFA.

The hottest lines:

"Today, I am going to manage this program as if there is no more time and no more money."

The Joint Program Office will "have to fundamentally change the way we do business with Lockheed Martin."

"Lockheed Martin is showing some improvements in producing this aircraft. Is it coming fast enough for us? No."

"Would we expect them to be a little ahead of the learning curve on their fifth lot of aircraft? Yes.
Are costs coming down as fast as we want them to? No."

"We have an awful lot of software on this program. It scares me."

"You cannot go to war unless you have a helmet that works... Today we have a helmet that works in a rudimentary way."

Concurrency "makes it [program management] so much harder than it needs to be."

"What I would tell you is, just because you have a lot of actual costs [data] about how much it costs to produce the airplane, that doesn't mean that's how much you want to pay for the airplane."

Boil all of this together and you get a new program leader eager to tell Lockheed, Capitol Hill (especially JSF arch-critic Sen. John McCain), the Pentagon leadership, and the hundreds of subcontractors and suppliers who keep the Joint Strike Fighter program rolling along that there's a new sheriff in town, one who believes in "transparency" and who will describe in clear and unremitting terms what is happening to America's biggest conventional weapons program and why.

If you want to focus on what Bogdan thinks are probably the two weakest links in the program -- aside from the rotten relationship between the Pentagon and Lockheed -- they would clearly be the pilot's helmet and the 10 million lines of software.

"You don't fly this aircraft without a helmet," Bogdan said. And the Marines, who he said want to declare Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015, may be hard-pressed to fly with the current helmet. "In the long term, I think we're going to get there on the helmet," he said, but made clear the Marines may face difficulties flying with the current one. BAE is working on a backup helmet. "We are still evaluating how quickly we can get the backup helmet," he said, adding they would have an answer in the next 90 to 120 days.

On development of the Block 2 software, Bogdan said this: "Here's what I can tell you. Although we are doing OK in developing Block 2 we are doing only OK." The effort, he estimated, is 90 to 120 days behind schedule.

I pressed Bogdan on the production improvements after his speech, since Lockheed has been pressing hard to ramp up the production line so they can achieve economies of scale and bring down the plane's unit costs. He saw what he characterized as "glimmers of hope."

While he has "not been to the production line yet," he does see the JPO's weekly and monthly reviews of the production process.

"Some of the span time for doings things like putting the wings on the fuselage are coming down very nicely. So, from one airplane to the next you can see that Lockheed is getting better," the general told me.

There's been a "dramatic decrease in the number of hours it takes to get each airplane out of production and onto the flight line and gone. That's really good. Their suppliers are doing really well when it comes to scrap and rework and waste." But it is the suppliers who are doing well on this -- not Lockheed. Bogdan said he wants to see quality of the product coming down the line improving and the time on the line improving.

In a very clear signal to Lockheed, the general said negotiations on the fifth lot of production "shouldn't take 10 to 11 months."

"In general when you are on your fifth lot of production you know an awful lot about how the airplane is being produced and how much it costs," he added.

In a clear signal to his own people and Lockheed, Bogdan said, "we are always behind on the contracting process. I don't like that at all." He wants to "streamline the process on both sides."

Lockheed sent a reply early last evening. They were tight-lipped immediately after the general's comments. Judge for yourself how they reacted in Bethesda and Fort Worth when you read this:

"We agree with Maj. Gen. Bogdan that it takes everyone to be fully engaged to be successful. Lockheed Martin will continue to work with the F-35 Joint Program Office team to successfully deliver the F-35's 5th Generation fighter capabilities to the war fighter. We remain committed to continuing our work to solve program challenges and build on the momentum and success we've achieved during the past couple of years" Michael Rein, F-35 spokesman, said in an email statement.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/17/f-35-programs-relationship-with-lockheed-worst-ive-ever-seen/
avatar
Berserk

Mensajes : 1013
Fecha de inscripción : 06/08/2012
Localización : Al otro lado del Estigio

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Berserk el Miér Sep 26, 2012 3:01 pm

Air Force Seeks Quick Fixes To Combat Chinese Electronic Attacks

September 18, 2012

NATIONAL HARBOR: As the US shifts its focus from low-tech Taliban "cavemen" to an aggressively modernizing China, the Air Force has launched an urgent effort to find near-term countermeasures against a foe that can jam sensors, hack networks, disrupt communications, and shut down GPS.

"Mostly we're looking at the next three to five years," said Randall Walden, the director of information dominance programs under the service's assistant secretary for acquisition. On that schedule, he said, "you're not talking about a brand new system. You're not even talking about cutting a hole in a current plane [to modify it]. You're talking about pods and concepts."

Whatever industry offers, "we need to be able to integrate that into a legacy fleet," Walden said, "[and] if it breaks the bank, it's not going to help us very much."

The Air Force wants industry to offer affordable "adjuncts" to existing systems, not to spend a decade developing replacements, Walden emphasized repeatedly to a contractor-heavy audience at the in Air Force Association's annual conference here. His topic: a new Air Force study of "Effective Warfighting In Contested Environments" -- inevitably acronymized as EWICE -- which kicked off in July and will issue its final (probably classified) report in February. New technology and gadgetry from industry are welcome, Walden said, but such "materiel solutions" will be secondary to changes in Air Force operations, tactics, and training.

The study project is really looking at "changing the ways the Air Force operates," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. in Robert Elder, a senior adviser on EWICE.

y sigue bastante ...................

http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/18/air-force-seeks-quick-fixes-to-combat-chinese-electronic-attacks/?icid=related1
avatar
Berserk

Mensajes : 1013
Fecha de inscripción : 06/08/2012
Localización : Al otro lado del Estigio

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Berserk el Jue Sep 27, 2012 11:58 am

La verdad no me gustaria ser el CEO de Lockheet en este momento

China’s ‘Stealth Attack’ on the F-35

Chinese lookalikes are big news these days. Last month, at the murder trial of Gu Kailai, the wife of purged Politburo member Bo Xilai, the Chinese web was abuzz with speculation that the person on the stand was not Gu at all, but a body double masquerading as the defendant. The woman in court, there’s no denying, looked at best like a plump half-cousin of the Gu we knew.

This week, China produced another lookalike – only this time the resemblance was far more convincing. The name of China’s new stealth fighter may have sounded unfamiliar (it’s called the J-21 or the J-31, depending on your sources), but this was a plane we’d all seen many times before. It looks like an F-22 from some angles, and an F-35 from others; but there seemed to be no mistaking that this was essentially an American stealth fighter with Chinese paintwork.

China has, of course, been in trouble for intellectual property infringements before. We await Washington and Lockheed Martin’s submission to the World Trade Organization with interest.

But of all the setbacks to have beset Lockheed’s F-35 program, this has to be one of the most galling. Overpriced, overdue, and underperforming, the F-35 was already a plane under extreme political pressure. Earlier this month one of the U.S. Air Force generals in charge of the program made it sound as if the government and Lockheed’s relationship had practically broken down over the stealth jet’s persistent failings. Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has echoed these concerns. Other influential voices have called simply for the thing to be scrapped before its ruins American defense.

Yet all these perfectly good reasons to sell the F-35 prototypes on eBay to plane enthusiasts have so far been trumped by the aircraft’s one great quality: that it was the strongest competitor in a field of one. Because of this ace characteristic, a number of countries – besides the program partners – have already begun ordering the pricey and totally unproven jet. The South Koreans are currently thinking about buying it even though Lockheed has denied them the opportunity to fly one before making their decision. Chances are they’ll sign up anyway.

Only now a knock-off F-35 appears to be coming to market. Strangely enough, the possibility now exists that the F-35 will have to compete for export sales with a Chinese copy of itself. It’s hard to pin down the unit price of an F-35, but it’s at least in the $200 million range (and possibly a lot more). Ten years from now, you’ll be able to find one for much less than that at the Chinese fake market, especially if you know how to haggle.

In all seriousness there are real economic implications, given that the F-35 needs to secure export orders well into the 2030s and beyond in order to recoup some of its crazy costs. The security implications are also serious. What if the J-21/31 undercuts the F-35 in cost terms while matching it in capability terms? What if, [u]as The Australian newspaper reckons, China has extracted the full F-35 blueprints from BAE Systems’ computers?
What if, armed with that knowledge, the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation succeeds where Lockheed has so far failed and builds a Fake-35 that actually works?

Speculation aside, the reality is that the F-35 program is presently slated to cost $395.7 billion. China has probably spent less than 0.1% of that developing the Fake-35. Ladies and gentlemen, you’re looking at the biggest free ride in the history of national security.

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/09/27/the-fake-35-chinas-new-stealth-fighter/
avatar
Berserk

Mensajes : 1013
Fecha de inscripción : 06/08/2012
Localización : Al otro lado del Estigio

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Loneagle el Jue Sep 27, 2012 12:07 pm

Not today como diria Syrio Forel de Game of Trhones




De todas maneras casi se lo bajan por osado.. .
avatar
Loneagle

Mensajes : 1039
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012
Localización : Medellín

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Berserk el Lun Oct 01, 2012 1:34 pm

Skynet is near tongue tongue

When Drones Decide to Kill on Their Own

It’s almost impossible nowadays to attend a law-enforcement or defense show that does not feature unmanned vehicles, from aerial surveillance drones to bomb disposal robots, as the main attraction. This is part of a trend that has developed over the years where tasks that were traditionally handled in situ are now operated remotely, thus minimizing the risks of casualties while extending the length of operations.

While military forces, police/intelligence agencies and interior ministries have set their sights on drones for missions spanning the full spectrum from terrain mapping to targeted killings, today’s unmanned vehicles remain reliant on human controllers who are often based hundreds, and sometimes thousands of kilometers away from the theater of operations. Consequently, although the use of drones substantially increases operational effectiveness — and, in the case of targeted killings, adds to the emotional distance between perpetrator and target — they remain primarily an extension of, and are regulated by, human decisionmaking.

All that could be about to change, with reports that the U.S. military (and presumably others) have been making steady progress developing drones that operate with little, if any, human oversight. For the time being, developers in the U.S. military insist that when it comes to lethal operations, the new generation of drones will remain under human supervision. Nevertheless, unmanned vehicles will no longer be the “dumb” drones in use today; instead, they will have the ability to “reason” and will be far more autonomous, with humans acting more as supervisors than controllers.

Scientists and military officers are already envisaging scenarios in which a manned combat platform is accompanied by a number of “sentient” drones conducting tasks ranging from radar jamming to target acquisition and damage assessment, with humans retaining the prerogative of launching bombs and missiles.

It’s only a matter of time, however, before the defense industry starts arguing that autonomous drones should be given the “right” to use deadly force without human intervention. In fact, Ronald Arkin of Georgia Tech contends that such an evolution is inevitable. In his view, sentient drones could act more ethically and humanely, without their judgment being clouded by human emotion (though he concedes that unmanned systems will never be perfectly ethical). Arkin is not alone in thinking that “automated killing” has a future, if the guidelines established in the U.S. Air Force’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047 are any indication.

In an age where printers and copy machines continue to jam, the idea that drones could start making life-and-death decisions should be cause for concern. Once that door is opened, the risk that we are on a slippery ethical slope with potentially devastating results seems all too real. One need not envision the nightmares scenario of an out-of-control Skynet from Terminator movie fame to see where things could go wrong.

In this day and age, battlefield scenarios are less and less the meeting of two conventional forces in open terrain, and instead increasingly takes the form of combatants engaging in close quarter firefights in dense urban areas. This is especially true of conflicts pitting modern military forces — the very same forces that are most likely to deploy sentient drones — against a weaker opponent, such as NATO in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq, or Israel in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Israeli counterterrorism probably provides the best examples of the ethical problems that would arise from the use of sentient drones with a license to kill. While it is true that domestic politics and the thirst for vengeance are both factors in the decision to attack a “terrorist” target, in general the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must continually use proportionality and weigh the operational benefits of launching an attack in an urban area against the costs of attendant civilian collateral. The IDF has faced severe criticism over the years for what human rights organizations and others have called “disproportionate” attacks against Palestinians and Lebanese. In many instances, such criticism was justified.

That said, what often goes unreported are the occasions when the Israeli government didn’t launch an attack because of the high risks of collateral damage, or because a target’s family was present in the building when the attack was to take place. As Daniel Byman writes in a recent book on Israeli counterterrorism, “Israel spends an average of ten hours planning the operation and twenty seconds on the question of whether to kill or not.”

Those twenty seconds make all the difference, and it’s difficult to imagine how a robot could make such a call. Unarguably, there will be times when hatred will exacerbate pressures to use deadly violence (e.g., the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre that was carried out while the IDF looked on). But equally there are times when human compassion, or the ability to think strategically, imposes restraints on the desirability of using force. Unless artificial intelligence reaches a point where it can replicate, if not transcend, human cognition and emotion, machines will not be able to act under ethical considerations or to imagine the consequences of action in strategic terms.

How, for example, would a drone decide whether to attack a Hezbollah rocket launch site or depot in Southern Lebanon located near a hospital or with schools in the vicinity? How, without human intelligence, will it be able to determine whether civilians remain in the building, or recognize that schoolchildren are about to leave the classroom and play in the yard? Although humans were ultimately responsible, the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 by the U.S. Navy is nevertheless proof that only humans still have the ability to avoid certain types of disaster. The A300 civilian aircraft, with 290 people on board, was shot down by the U.S. Navy’s USS Vincennes after operators mistook it for an Iranian F-14 aircraft and warnings to change course were unheeded. Without doubt, today’s more advanced technology would have ensured the Vincennes made visual contact with the airliner, which wasn’t the case back in 1988. Had such contact been made, U.S. naval officers would very likely have called off the attack. Absent human agency, whether a fully independent drone would make a similar call would be contingent on the quality of its software — a not so comforting thought.

And the problems don’t just end there. It’s already become clear that states regard the use of unmanned vehicle as somewhat more acceptable than human intrusions. From Chinese UAVs conducting surveillance near the border with India to U.S. drones launching Hellfire missiles at suspected terrorists in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Yemen, states regard such activity as less intrusive than, say, U.S. special forces taking offensive action on their soil. Once drones start acting on their own and become commonplace, the level of acceptability will likely increase, further deresponsibilizing their users.

Finally, by removing human agency altogether from the act of killing, the restraints on the use of force risk being further weakened. Technological advances over the centuries have consistently increased the physical and emotional distance between an attacker and his target, resulting in ever-higher levels of destructiveness. Already back during the Gulf War of 1991, critics were arguing that the “videogame” and “electronic narrative” aspect of fixing a target in the crosshairs of an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet before dropping a precision-guided bomb had made killing easier, at least for the perpetrator and the public. Things were taken to a greater extreme with the introduction of attack drones, with U.S. Air Force pilots not even having to be in Afghanistan to launch attacks against extremist groups there, drawing accusations that the U.S. conducts an “antiseptic” war.

Still, at some point, a human has to make a decision whether to kill or not. It’s hard to imagine that we could ever be confident enough to allow technology to cross that thin red line.

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/10/01/why-killing-should-remain-a-human-enterprise/
avatar
Berserk

Mensajes : 1013
Fecha de inscripción : 06/08/2012
Localización : Al otro lado del Estigio

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por dragoncanada el Mar Oct 02, 2012 10:57 pm

Navy Combat Ship Earns High Marks on Maiden Voyage

Story by John KruzelSmall

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A month into a maiden voyage that has seen a trio of drug-smuggling attempts thwarted, the commander aboard the Navy's first littoral combat ship today, March 22, described the vessel's performance to date as "exceptional."

Now floating off the coast of Colombia, the USS Freedom received high marks from Navy Cmdr. Randy Gardner, who delivered an assessment to reporters today from aboard the ship via telephone.

"The performance of the ship so far has been exceptional," he said of the Freedom, which set sail Feb. 16 from Mayport, Fla. "We are learning a lot about what Freedom can do well."

Freedom and its crew grabbed headlines in recent weeks after interdicting three vessels transporting illicit drugs through the western Caribbean. Military officials say the ship's speed, which at roughly 46 miles per hour is significantly faster than U.S. frigates that max out just below 30 miles per hour, is responsible for much of its counternarcotics success.

In its most recent interdiction, the Freedom disrupted a high-speed ship known as a "go-fast" vessel and recovered more than 2 tons of cocaine that officials said was bound for the United States.

After detecting the suspected drug vessel March 11, the Freedom launched a high-speed pursuit and deployed a separate team of sailors and Coast Guardsmen aboard rigid inflatable boats to intercept it. Smugglers aboard the fleeing vessel began dumping its cargo into the southern Caribbean Sea.

The Navy-Coast Guard response team recovered 72 bales of cocaine weighing a total of 4,680 pounds from the water after being jettisoned from the vessel that was on a "stereotypical route" pursued by drug traffickers with U.S.-bound narcotics, Gardner said.

During its first two successful drug seizures in the Caribbean -- on Feb. 22 and March 3 -- Freedom seized one "go-fast" vessel, five suspects and more than 3,700 pounds of cocaine.

In addition to counternarcotics operations, the Freedom made its first shore leave in Cartagena, Colombia, Gardner said. The Freedom also played host to top defense officials from Colombia who toured the ship while it was docked in Cartagena.

The Freedom, which is deploying about two and a half years before the first littoral combat ship was expected to be operational, is bound for Panama and Mexico before it's set to return to its home port in San Diego in late April. After undergoing about a month of routine maintenance, the ship then will carry out operations in Canada, followed by an exercise in the Pacific Ocean, military officials said.

The Freedom, along with the USS Independence, is at the vanguard of a Navy littoral combat ship fleet that is expected to grow to about 55 vessels by 2035, officials said.

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/47033/navy-combat-ship-earns-high-marks-maiden-voyage
avatar
dragoncanada

Mensajes : 1330
Fecha de inscripción : 17/08/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por ISLANDER el Miér Oct 03, 2012 9:44 pm



DASH 7
avatar
ISLANDER

Mensajes : 314
Fecha de inscripción : 05/08/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Juan David el Vie Oct 05, 2012 12:00 pm

Un nuevo juguetico!! Twisted Evil



Saludos.
avatar
Juan David

Mensajes : 734
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por edo23 el Vie Oct 05, 2012 12:08 pm

Es interesante la historia del nombre de ese destructor.....
Se rompe la tradicion de nombrar a los buques de guerra con nombres de presidentes o ciudades.
Michael Murphy fue uno de los tres primeros muertos norteamericanos en Afghanistan. Era un Marine y se le dio el nombre al buque para honrar al soldado comun que dio la vida por su pais.
O por lo menos eso fue lo que lei.
avatar
edo23

Mensajes : 2401
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012
Localización : Bogotá

http://www.mievolucion.blogspot.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Juan David el Vie Oct 05, 2012 12:31 pm

edo23 escribió:Es interesante la historia del nombre de ese destructor.....
Se rompe la tradicion de nombrar a los buques de guerra con nombres de presidentes o ciudades.
Michael Murphy fue uno de los tres primeros muertos norteamericanos en Afghanistan. Era un Marine y se le dio el nombre al buque para honrar al soldado comun que dio la vida por su pais.
O por lo menos eso fue lo que lei.

Buen dato Edo.

Saludos.
avatar
Juan David

Mensajes : 734
Fecha de inscripción : 26/07/2012

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Berserk el Miér Oct 24, 2012 5:31 pm

Boeing Non-kinetic Missile Records 1st Operational Test Flight



CHAMP high-powered microwaves degrade or destroy electronic targets without collateral damage

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah, Oct. 22, 2012 -- A recent weapons flight test in the Utah desert may change future warfare after the missile successfully defeated electronic targets with little to no collateral damage.

Boeing [NYSE: BA] and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., successfully tested the Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) during a flight over the Utah Test and Training Range that was monitored from Hill Air Force Base.

CHAMP, which renders electronic targets useless, is a non-kinetic alternative to traditional explosive weapons that use the energy of motion to defeat a target.

During the test, the CHAMP missile navigated a pre-programmed flight plan and emitted bursts of high-powered energy, effectively knocking out the target's data and electronic subsystems. CHAMP allows for selective high-frequency radio wave strikes against numerous targets during a single mission.

"This technology marks a new era in modern-day warfare," said Keith Coleman, CHAMP program manager for Boeing Phantom Works. "In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy’s electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive."

CHAMP is a multiyear, joint capability technology demonstration that includes ground and flight tests.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 61,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2454
avatar
Berserk

Mensajes : 1013
Fecha de inscripción : 06/08/2012
Localización : Al otro lado del Estigio

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Fuerzas Armadas de EE.UU.

Mensaje por Contenido patrocinado


Contenido patrocinado


Volver arriba Ir abajo

Página 2 de 23. Precedente  1, 2, 3 ... 12 ... 23  Siguiente

Ver el tema anterior Ver el tema siguiente Volver arriba

- Temas similares

 
Permisos de este foro:
No puedes responder a temas en este foro.