General Atomics gets $51.5 million Predator contract
By Gary Robbins
Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.
The Defense Department has awarded General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in Poway $51.5 million for spare parts, deployment readiness packages and ground support equipment for the MQ-9 Reaper, an unmanned aerial vehicle that’s also known as the Predator B drone. The company designs and develops the Reaper at its plants in Poway and Sabre Springs. The drone is heavily used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The new contract will be carried out behalf of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.
It’s unclear whether the contract will affect General Atomic’s workforce, which now stands at 4,500 in San Diego County. But the company is in the midst of a hiring spree due to steady growth in the UAV market.
Showing posts with label General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. Show all posts
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Some history on General Atomics and its Predator drone
A little background on brothers Neil and Linden Blue, owners and operators of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and manufacturers of the majority of predator drones. Keen emphasis on the Blues' friendship throughout the '80s with Nicaraguan then-president Anastasio Somoza, who brought you the Contra in Iran-Contra scandal and crack cocaine in Los Angeles (see Dark Alliance, a prize-winning book of journalism by the late Gary Webb). Today's piece is compelling, and adds a curious chapter to a story told in Cover-up, a documentary detailing the subterfuge beneath the story of the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings in 1987.
From Death and Taxes
Predator Drones: The All-Seeing Eye
By DJ Pangburn Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Excerpt-
While the Predator drones are generally considered a success by the Blues, General Atomics, other defense contractors and the U.S. government, their missile-strike record is horrific. According to the Brookings Institution’s Daniel Byman:
“Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.”
From Death and Taxes
Predator Drones: The All-Seeing Eye
By DJ Pangburn Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Excerpt-
While the Predator drones are generally considered a success by the Blues, General Atomics, other defense contractors and the U.S. government, their missile-strike record is horrific. According to the Brookings Institution’s Daniel Byman:
“Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.”
Monday, August 9, 2010
Excellent blog post on ABC News tribute to the murderous glory of UAV drones
Nice work from whoever is behind http://www.spider-topihitam.com
This excerpt cuts to the core of the issue (at this point I wish there was one):
"In the particular instance highlighted in Tuesday’s report, the drone spots a number of individuals carrying heavy objects. Weir, somewhat disappointed that the suspicious Afghans are not immediately blown to bits, comments on the military’s remarkable 'restraint.' They turn out to be four boys and a girl collecting firewood. They were fortunate on this occasion. how many have not been?"
By David Walsh
14 January 2010
American television news becomes more and more unwatchable, especially in its reports on the expanding wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Perfectly coiffed, interchangeable news and anchor people repeat White House and Pentagon lies. “In-depth” reports provide nothing in the way of meaningful commentary or analysis. In general, everything is done to hide the truth from the American people.
Diane Sawyer, promoted to hosting ABC’s prime time evening news program a few weeks ago, and the rest of that network’s news personalities are in the forefront of the government’s disinformation campaign. it is worth noting that Sawyer, who began her television career doing the weather in Louisville, Kentucky, went to work for the Nixon administration in 1970 in the midst of the Vietnam War and stayed with the disgraced former president through his forced resignation, helping him write his memoirs.
US drone in flight On Tuesday night’s evening news, Sawyer and two colleagues, David Muir and bill Weir, spent six or seven minutes extolling the merits of the US Air Force’s Predator drones and their deadly attacks in Afghanistan. The Predators, according to Pakistani government and media sources, murdered some 700 civilians in that country in 2009, but the CIA-US military program of killings by drone attack on that side of the border is “covert,” without the official sanction of the Islamabad regime (emphasis ExEd).
Thus, Sawyer and company had to be satisfied with covering the US military’s increased use of drones in Afghanistan. According to a companion piece by Weir on its web site, ABC News was “granted exclusive access to the ground control station at the California [Air Force] base, one of six in the country where the planes are flown.” In other words, the broadcast report was a component part of the military’s official propaganda effort, prepared and vetted with the collaboration of Pentagon officials. A drone control station Sawyer introduced the story from Kabul, alerting her viewers to “the war you do not see, the skyrocketing use of drones.”
She went on to explain in Orwellian fashion that the “potentially lethal” drones were “another new strategy against the rising tide of violence in this country.” Yesterday, Sawyer told her audience, “drones assisted in taking out 16 of the enemy.” she noted that airmen 8,000 miles from Afghanistan were pushing the buttons, sending 500-pound bombs or Hellfire missiles hurtling to the ground. The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the drone program, notes ABC, to “400 hours a day, a 300 percent increase.” From 100 three years ago, the number of drones in use has jumped to 1,200.
Muir writes on the ABC web site: “On this one California base alone, over the last six months, not one hour has gone by when Air Force pilots haven’t been watching over Afghanistan through the eyes of a at least one Predator drone. the technology has been such a game-changer that over the next year, the Air Force will now train more drone pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined.”
Sawyer proudly tells us that the drone is a “high-tech symbol of American might.”
About one minute of the segment is devoted to the moral issues involved in bombing people from halfway around the world. it raises, the ABC anchorwoman notes, “new questions about what’s right and wrong,” before she quickly passes on to the “exclusive” footage shot in the California control center. Here, Muir explains, “Each drone is controlled by a two-man team, seated in front of a video screen clutching a joystick. On the screens, the men see live video from the drones in Afghanistan, picking out armed enemies on the ground who have no idea they’re being watched. The pilot can launch a missile simply by pulling a trigger. “The drones send back images in the blink of an eye—it takes just 1.7 seconds for the imagery to travel through 12 time zones. The video travels from the drone to a satellite and then down to a classified location in Europe. From there, it flows through a fiber optic nerve across the Atlantic Ocean to reach the California base. But it’s not finished—the signal then branches out to other bases, the Pentagon, and right back to the ground commander in Afghanistan.” He goes on: “We watched as a pilot monitored insurgents planting an IED [improvised explosive device] in northern Afghanistan. It made a good target, and with the punch of a button, a Hellfire missile launched, taking the insurgents out.”
As the WSWS has noted on more than one occasion in recent years, US government officials and media personalities have had no difficulty in adopting the lingo of the Mafia. ABC’s Weir reports on efforts by the American military team on the ground to determine whether a given group of Afghans seems an appropriate target to be wiped out. In the particular instance highlighted in Tuesday’s report, the drone spots a number of individuals carrying heavy objects. Weir, somewhat disappointed that the suspicious Afghans are not immediately blown to bits, comments on the military’s remarkable “restraint.” They turn out to be four boys and a girl collecting firewood. They were fortunate on this occasion. how many have not been?
As a final comment, Weir declares, “Even if he could have proven it [the potential slaughter of the children] was an honest mistake, the captain tells me that killing these five children would have undone months of work winning over local elders, and that has become the key battle in this war.”
What can one say? This is the moral state of the American media: the murder of poverty-stricken children by missiles or bombs might, after all, be no more than an “honest mistake” (and therefore pardonable), but, on the downside, it could prove an inconvenience to US war aims (and therefore should be avoided, if possible).
Bill Weir’s résumé indicates that he is well suited to deal with life-and-death questions in Central Asia. A graduate of Pepperdine University in Malibu, California (where a typical student, according to one commentator, “tends to be devoutly Christian, right-wing, Republican,” and wealthy), Weir began his career as a weekend sportscaster at a radio station in Austin, Minnesota. He worked his way up to sports anchor at KABC-TV in Los Angeles from 1998 to 2002, where he hosted a weekly program that aired after Monday Night Football. He has also written and developed three television pilots for the USA and FX networks.
On the ABC web site, Muir concludes that “the drone pilots know their work is important. Every minute in the cockpit helps defend their military colleagues on the battlefield and improve their chances of getting home alive.” The entire “news report” Tuesday was nothing more nor less than a defense of neo-colonial warfare and mass murder by well-paid hirelings of the American establishment.
This excerpt cuts to the core of the issue (at this point I wish there was one):
"In the particular instance highlighted in Tuesday’s report, the drone spots a number of individuals carrying heavy objects. Weir, somewhat disappointed that the suspicious Afghans are not immediately blown to bits, comments on the military’s remarkable 'restraint.' They turn out to be four boys and a girl collecting firewood. They were fortunate on this occasion. how many have not been?"
By David Walsh
14 January 2010
American television news becomes more and more unwatchable, especially in its reports on the expanding wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Perfectly coiffed, interchangeable news and anchor people repeat White House and Pentagon lies. “In-depth” reports provide nothing in the way of meaningful commentary or analysis. In general, everything is done to hide the truth from the American people.
Diane Sawyer, promoted to hosting ABC’s prime time evening news program a few weeks ago, and the rest of that network’s news personalities are in the forefront of the government’s disinformation campaign. it is worth noting that Sawyer, who began her television career doing the weather in Louisville, Kentucky, went to work for the Nixon administration in 1970 in the midst of the Vietnam War and stayed with the disgraced former president through his forced resignation, helping him write his memoirs.
US drone in flight On Tuesday night’s evening news, Sawyer and two colleagues, David Muir and bill Weir, spent six or seven minutes extolling the merits of the US Air Force’s Predator drones and their deadly attacks in Afghanistan. The Predators, according to Pakistani government and media sources, murdered some 700 civilians in that country in 2009, but the CIA-US military program of killings by drone attack on that side of the border is “covert,” without the official sanction of the Islamabad regime (emphasis ExEd).
Thus, Sawyer and company had to be satisfied with covering the US military’s increased use of drones in Afghanistan. According to a companion piece by Weir on its web site, ABC News was “granted exclusive access to the ground control station at the California [Air Force] base, one of six in the country where the planes are flown.” In other words, the broadcast report was a component part of the military’s official propaganda effort, prepared and vetted with the collaboration of Pentagon officials. A drone control station Sawyer introduced the story from Kabul, alerting her viewers to “the war you do not see, the skyrocketing use of drones.”
She went on to explain in Orwellian fashion that the “potentially lethal” drones were “another new strategy against the rising tide of violence in this country.” Yesterday, Sawyer told her audience, “drones assisted in taking out 16 of the enemy.” she noted that airmen 8,000 miles from Afghanistan were pushing the buttons, sending 500-pound bombs or Hellfire missiles hurtling to the ground. The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the drone program, notes ABC, to “400 hours a day, a 300 percent increase.” From 100 three years ago, the number of drones in use has jumped to 1,200.
Muir writes on the ABC web site: “On this one California base alone, over the last six months, not one hour has gone by when Air Force pilots haven’t been watching over Afghanistan through the eyes of a at least one Predator drone. the technology has been such a game-changer that over the next year, the Air Force will now train more drone pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined.”
Sawyer proudly tells us that the drone is a “high-tech symbol of American might.”
About one minute of the segment is devoted to the moral issues involved in bombing people from halfway around the world. it raises, the ABC anchorwoman notes, “new questions about what’s right and wrong,” before she quickly passes on to the “exclusive” footage shot in the California control center. Here, Muir explains, “Each drone is controlled by a two-man team, seated in front of a video screen clutching a joystick. On the screens, the men see live video from the drones in Afghanistan, picking out armed enemies on the ground who have no idea they’re being watched. The pilot can launch a missile simply by pulling a trigger. “The drones send back images in the blink of an eye—it takes just 1.7 seconds for the imagery to travel through 12 time zones. The video travels from the drone to a satellite and then down to a classified location in Europe. From there, it flows through a fiber optic nerve across the Atlantic Ocean to reach the California base. But it’s not finished—the signal then branches out to other bases, the Pentagon, and right back to the ground commander in Afghanistan.” He goes on: “We watched as a pilot monitored insurgents planting an IED [improvised explosive device] in northern Afghanistan. It made a good target, and with the punch of a button, a Hellfire missile launched, taking the insurgents out.”
As the WSWS has noted on more than one occasion in recent years, US government officials and media personalities have had no difficulty in adopting the lingo of the Mafia. ABC’s Weir reports on efforts by the American military team on the ground to determine whether a given group of Afghans seems an appropriate target to be wiped out. In the particular instance highlighted in Tuesday’s report, the drone spots a number of individuals carrying heavy objects. Weir, somewhat disappointed that the suspicious Afghans are not immediately blown to bits, comments on the military’s remarkable “restraint.” They turn out to be four boys and a girl collecting firewood. They were fortunate on this occasion. how many have not been?
As a final comment, Weir declares, “Even if he could have proven it [the potential slaughter of the children] was an honest mistake, the captain tells me that killing these five children would have undone months of work winning over local elders, and that has become the key battle in this war.”
What can one say? This is the moral state of the American media: the murder of poverty-stricken children by missiles or bombs might, after all, be no more than an “honest mistake” (and therefore pardonable), but, on the downside, it could prove an inconvenience to US war aims (and therefore should be avoided, if possible).
Bill Weir’s résumé indicates that he is well suited to deal with life-and-death questions in Central Asia. A graduate of Pepperdine University in Malibu, California (where a typical student, according to one commentator, “tends to be devoutly Christian, right-wing, Republican,” and wealthy), Weir began his career as a weekend sportscaster at a radio station in Austin, Minnesota. He worked his way up to sports anchor at KABC-TV in Los Angeles from 1998 to 2002, where he hosted a weekly program that aired after Monday Night Football. He has also written and developed three television pilots for the USA and FX networks.
On the ABC web site, Muir concludes that “the drone pilots know their work is important. Every minute in the cockpit helps defend their military colleagues on the battlefield and improve their chances of getting home alive.” The entire “news report” Tuesday was nothing more nor less than a defense of neo-colonial warfare and mass murder by well-paid hirelings of the American establishment.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Competition from Lockheed Martin in UAV arms race
As evidenced by a photo of the prototype named Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin may be getting into the drone business with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Northrup Grumman.
With so many hands working to assemble (not to mention market) these devices, it's going to take enormous public outcry to even raise questions about the ethics of using these craft and producing more of them.
Dug up industry story on drone manufacture
The following story is a business story, meaning ...
NO ETHICAL ANALYSIS SO LONG AS THE NUMBERS LOOK GOOD--YEAAAAAA!!!
Please keep in mind while you read that there are some potentially negative effects to filling the sky with unmanned drones with electronic eyes and radio signal receiver/transmitters on board. How bout a world where 90 percent of the population starves and 10 percent live to get more robots onto the battlefield so they can be on the side of the conflict with the most robots that haven't been destroyed? Personally, I'd like to see that kind of reality safely assigned to science fiction.
The following San Diego Union-Tribune story contains some indispensable facts about unmanned aerial vehicles and the weapons contractors General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Northrup Grumman.
Prowling for profit
As demand rises for unmanned surveillance drones, Poway’s General Atomics Aeronautical among companies positioned to benefit
By Mike Freeman, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Every minute of every day, about 40 Predator-series unmanned aircraft are flying worldwide, providing “constant stare” surveillance over everything from war zones to U.S. borders to piracy-plagued shipping lanes.
With the U.S. military preparing to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year, the number of Predator-family aircraft flying at any given moment is likely to increase. Air Force officials said last week that more drones will be added in Afghanistan as part of the troop buildup. The Army is also fast-tracking its schedule for deploying unmanned vehicles.
All of which has focused a spotlight on Poway-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the maker of the Predator and its more advanced siblings, the Reaper, Sky Warrior and Avenger.
Three years ago, the Predator group had logged 80,000 total flight hours since the first one flew in the mid-1990s.
Today, these aircraft have flown close to 1 million hours — a good portion of that over Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the process, the drones have helped change the battlefield by giving service members — even small groups in isolated areas — their own spy plane. Not only do these aircraft provide surveillance for miles in every direction, they also can pick up enemy communications and transmit video feeds to soldiers’ handheld devices on the ground as well as to operations centers halfway around the world.
“The Predator may be the single most popular new military product introduced in this generation,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Lexington Institute, a military think tank. “The versatility and transformational nature of the Predator allows war-fighting ideas that just weren’t feasible in the past.”
Drones have changed the battlefield to the point that insurgents in Iraq have been hacking into video feeds to see what the Predators are monitoring, according to Wall Street Journal reports last week. But U.S. officials said there’s no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights.
Although General Atomics is getting the most attention, it’s not the only one in the drone business operating in San Diego.
Northrop Grumman has a significant unmanned-aircraft division in Rancho Bernardo. Although its aircraft are assembled elsewhere, the company’s San Diego unit provides software, systems integration, business development and other functions for the high-altitude Global Hawk, the Fire Scout unmanned helicopter, a Navy version of the Global Hawk called BAMS and the stealthy, early-stage drone designed to land on aircraft carriers called the X-47 UCAS, among others.
These two companies have put San Diego near the center of a sea change in military aviation with the rise of ever-more-capable drones.
“They are the two largest by far” in the unmanned-aircraft industry, said Phil Finnegan, director for corporate analysis for The Teal Group, a defense industry research firm.
Teal estimates that the market for drone aircraft will double in the next decade, reaching $8.7 billion in annual sales worldwide. That’s just for the planes. It doesn’t include sensor systems, which often increase costs significantly.
Neither Northrop Grumman nor General Atomics provides specific revenue figures.
The companies control different market segments. Northrop Grumman’s larger, more capable and more expensive Global Hawk dominates the high-altitude, long-endurance segment. It can fly at 60,000 feet for more than 36 hours. No drone competes with it, analysts say.
Northrop Grumman has made roughly 25 of the planes to date, and they’ve flown hundreds of missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air Force eventually plans to buy 54. The company won’t reveal the cost of the Global Hawk, but a Government Accountability Office report in 2006 said the drones cost more than $100 million each, including ground equipment, support, testing and spare parts. Northrop Grumman says that estimate is too high.
General Atomics’ Predator series dominates the medium-altitude, long-endurance market segment. The company has made more than 380 of the planes, mostly for the Pentagon. But they also are being used by the Department of Homeland Security to patrol borders, by NASA for research and by foreign military customers.
“It comes down to this: If I was trying to cover the world with an unmanned surveillance drone, I would definitely pick the Global Hawk,” said Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “But if I was trying to cover the northwest corner of Afghanistan, I would probably pick the Predator.”
Drone aircraft are less expensive to operate than manned aircraft. They also keep pilots out of harm’s way by performing some of the dull but dangerous work on the battlefield.
Some drones, such as the Predator family, can be fitted with missiles and circle a potential target for more than day. Most, though, are used only for surveillance.
Inside its San Diego-area factory, General Atomics builds Predator-series planes from scratch. Frank Belknap, director of composite manufacturing, said local workers who lost their aerospace industry jobs in the early-’90s recession — many of whom found work making composite golf shafts and tennis rackets — are now returning to aerospace to build Predators.
In 1999, Belknap was the 16th employee of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, an affiliate of privately held General Atomics. Today, the company employs more than 4,000 workers.
Over the past decade, Pentagon procurement spending on unmanned aerial vehicles has surged from $500 million to $3.5 billion. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he wants more drones in the field. He told the military to move faster to get those systems deployed, even if they have only 75 percent or 80 percent of their expected features ready for action, military officials said.
General Atomics got into the drone business after acquiring a small company out of bankruptcy in the early 1990s that had been working on the aircraft. By the mid-’90s, it had perfected the technology enough to build prototype planes.
Thomas Cassidy Jr., a retired admiral who heads General Atomics Aeronautical, went ahead without waiting for the Pentagon to come out with specifications for what it wanted. That’s unusual in the defense business, analysts say.
“Tom picked absolutely the sweetest spot in the technology,” said Dave Fulghum of Aviation Week, an aerospace industry magazine. “He essentially made a platform that you can stick almost anything into. That has been the perfect answer, and it’s the cheapest of the high-performance platforms that are out there.”
Predators, Reapers and Sky Warriors — the Army’s version of the aircraft — generally cost $4 million to $12 million each. Sometimes costs are higher, depending on sensors, communications and weapons payloads.
General Atomics makes money not only on building the planes, ground stations and some radar systems, but also gets paid for maintaining the drones.
That has become a lucrative business as use of the aircraft soared in Iraq and Afghanistan, analysts say.
“They understood the importance of the life-cycle part of the business,” said Lindsay Voss, an industry analyst with Frost & Sullivan. “These aircraft are being used at such a high rate and in such extreme environments. General Atomics can make a killing on the back end by supporting it and providing the services that are required to keep these aircraft going.”
The company is repeating the blueprint that worked in the Predator for the next generation of drone. This year, it flew the Avenger for the first time — even though it doesn’t have a customer.
The Avenger has a jet engine, a first for the Predator family, It also has other features for better performance in more contested airspace.
“General Atomics is trying to continue its ‘first mover’ advantage,” said Ryan Peoples, an associate principal with Charles River Associates, a defense industry research firm. “With the Predator, they did all this development on their own dime, so they were best positioned to capture (the Air Force contract) when it came along. And they’re just continuing that trend with the Avenger.”
The Air Force hasn’t set a firm time frame for seeking proposals for the next generation of medium-altitude drone. When it does, however, the Avenger is likely to have competition, analysts say. For example, a previously unknown stealth drone recently was spotted in Afghanistan. It has been declassified as a Lockheed Martin “Skunk Works”-designed plane. Others such as AAI Corp. and Northrop Grumman also could compete, analysts say.
“That program will be really important in the way the future of UAVs is shaped,” said Voss of Frost & Sullivan. “They could really mix it up if they choose a vendor other than General Atomics. It’s pretty unlikely, but it’s something everybody is going to be talking about.”
Mike Freeman: (760) 476-8209; mike.freeman@uniontrib.com
NO ETHICAL ANALYSIS SO LONG AS THE NUMBERS LOOK GOOD--YEAAAAAA!!!
Please keep in mind while you read that there are some potentially negative effects to filling the sky with unmanned drones with electronic eyes and radio signal receiver/transmitters on board. How bout a world where 90 percent of the population starves and 10 percent live to get more robots onto the battlefield so they can be on the side of the conflict with the most robots that haven't been destroyed? Personally, I'd like to see that kind of reality safely assigned to science fiction.
The following San Diego Union-Tribune story contains some indispensable facts about unmanned aerial vehicles and the weapons contractors General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Northrup Grumman.
Prowling for profit
As demand rises for unmanned surveillance drones, Poway’s General Atomics Aeronautical among companies positioned to benefit
By Mike Freeman, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Every minute of every day, about 40 Predator-series unmanned aircraft are flying worldwide, providing “constant stare” surveillance over everything from war zones to U.S. borders to piracy-plagued shipping lanes.
With the U.S. military preparing to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year, the number of Predator-family aircraft flying at any given moment is likely to increase. Air Force officials said last week that more drones will be added in Afghanistan as part of the troop buildup. The Army is also fast-tracking its schedule for deploying unmanned vehicles.
All of which has focused a spotlight on Poway-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the maker of the Predator and its more advanced siblings, the Reaper, Sky Warrior and Avenger.
Three years ago, the Predator group had logged 80,000 total flight hours since the first one flew in the mid-1990s.
Today, these aircraft have flown close to 1 million hours — a good portion of that over Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the process, the drones have helped change the battlefield by giving service members — even small groups in isolated areas — their own spy plane. Not only do these aircraft provide surveillance for miles in every direction, they also can pick up enemy communications and transmit video feeds to soldiers’ handheld devices on the ground as well as to operations centers halfway around the world.
“The Predator may be the single most popular new military product introduced in this generation,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer with the Lexington Institute, a military think tank. “The versatility and transformational nature of the Predator allows war-fighting ideas that just weren’t feasible in the past.”
Drones have changed the battlefield to the point that insurgents in Iraq have been hacking into video feeds to see what the Predators are monitoring, according to Wall Street Journal reports last week. But U.S. officials said there’s no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights.
Although General Atomics is getting the most attention, it’s not the only one in the drone business operating in San Diego.
Northrop Grumman has a significant unmanned-aircraft division in Rancho Bernardo. Although its aircraft are assembled elsewhere, the company’s San Diego unit provides software, systems integration, business development and other functions for the high-altitude Global Hawk, the Fire Scout unmanned helicopter, a Navy version of the Global Hawk called BAMS and the stealthy, early-stage drone designed to land on aircraft carriers called the X-47 UCAS, among others.
These two companies have put San Diego near the center of a sea change in military aviation with the rise of ever-more-capable drones.
“They are the two largest by far” in the unmanned-aircraft industry, said Phil Finnegan, director for corporate analysis for The Teal Group, a defense industry research firm.
Teal estimates that the market for drone aircraft will double in the next decade, reaching $8.7 billion in annual sales worldwide. That’s just for the planes. It doesn’t include sensor systems, which often increase costs significantly.
Neither Northrop Grumman nor General Atomics provides specific revenue figures.
The companies control different market segments. Northrop Grumman’s larger, more capable and more expensive Global Hawk dominates the high-altitude, long-endurance segment. It can fly at 60,000 feet for more than 36 hours. No drone competes with it, analysts say.
Northrop Grumman has made roughly 25 of the planes to date, and they’ve flown hundreds of missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air Force eventually plans to buy 54. The company won’t reveal the cost of the Global Hawk, but a Government Accountability Office report in 2006 said the drones cost more than $100 million each, including ground equipment, support, testing and spare parts. Northrop Grumman says that estimate is too high.
General Atomics’ Predator series dominates the medium-altitude, long-endurance market segment. The company has made more than 380 of the planes, mostly for the Pentagon. But they also are being used by the Department of Homeland Security to patrol borders, by NASA for research and by foreign military customers.
“It comes down to this: If I was trying to cover the world with an unmanned surveillance drone, I would definitely pick the Global Hawk,” said Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “But if I was trying to cover the northwest corner of Afghanistan, I would probably pick the Predator.”
Drone aircraft are less expensive to operate than manned aircraft. They also keep pilots out of harm’s way by performing some of the dull but dangerous work on the battlefield.
Some drones, such as the Predator family, can be fitted with missiles and circle a potential target for more than day. Most, though, are used only for surveillance.
Inside its San Diego-area factory, General Atomics builds Predator-series planes from scratch. Frank Belknap, director of composite manufacturing, said local workers who lost their aerospace industry jobs in the early-’90s recession — many of whom found work making composite golf shafts and tennis rackets — are now returning to aerospace to build Predators.
In 1999, Belknap was the 16th employee of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, an affiliate of privately held General Atomics. Today, the company employs more than 4,000 workers.
Over the past decade, Pentagon procurement spending on unmanned aerial vehicles has surged from $500 million to $3.5 billion. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he wants more drones in the field. He told the military to move faster to get those systems deployed, even if they have only 75 percent or 80 percent of their expected features ready for action, military officials said.
General Atomics got into the drone business after acquiring a small company out of bankruptcy in the early 1990s that had been working on the aircraft. By the mid-’90s, it had perfected the technology enough to build prototype planes.
Thomas Cassidy Jr., a retired admiral who heads General Atomics Aeronautical, went ahead without waiting for the Pentagon to come out with specifications for what it wanted. That’s unusual in the defense business, analysts say.
“Tom picked absolutely the sweetest spot in the technology,” said Dave Fulghum of Aviation Week, an aerospace industry magazine. “He essentially made a platform that you can stick almost anything into. That has been the perfect answer, and it’s the cheapest of the high-performance platforms that are out there.”
Predators, Reapers and Sky Warriors — the Army’s version of the aircraft — generally cost $4 million to $12 million each. Sometimes costs are higher, depending on sensors, communications and weapons payloads.
General Atomics makes money not only on building the planes, ground stations and some radar systems, but also gets paid for maintaining the drones.
That has become a lucrative business as use of the aircraft soared in Iraq and Afghanistan, analysts say.
“They understood the importance of the life-cycle part of the business,” said Lindsay Voss, an industry analyst with Frost & Sullivan. “These aircraft are being used at such a high rate and in such extreme environments. General Atomics can make a killing on the back end by supporting it and providing the services that are required to keep these aircraft going.”
The company is repeating the blueprint that worked in the Predator for the next generation of drone. This year, it flew the Avenger for the first time — even though it doesn’t have a customer.
The Avenger has a jet engine, a first for the Predator family, It also has other features for better performance in more contested airspace.
“General Atomics is trying to continue its ‘first mover’ advantage,” said Ryan Peoples, an associate principal with Charles River Associates, a defense industry research firm. “With the Predator, they did all this development on their own dime, so they were best positioned to capture (the Air Force contract) when it came along. And they’re just continuing that trend with the Avenger.”
The Air Force hasn’t set a firm time frame for seeking proposals for the next generation of medium-altitude drone. When it does, however, the Avenger is likely to have competition, analysts say. For example, a previously unknown stealth drone recently was spotted in Afghanistan. It has been declassified as a Lockheed Martin “Skunk Works”-designed plane. Others such as AAI Corp. and Northrop Grumman also could compete, analysts say.
“That program will be really important in the way the future of UAVs is shaped,” said Voss of Frost & Sullivan. “They could really mix it up if they choose a vendor other than General Atomics. It’s pretty unlikely, but it’s something everybody is going to be talking about.”
Mike Freeman: (760) 476-8209; mike.freeman@uniontrib.com
Laura Flanders on The Nation June 23: Drone Attacks to Stimulate Economy?
Flanders writes, "No mention there—or anywhere—of what peace activist Kathy Kelly described on GRITtv. Namely, the charred flesh of children killed by accident, by remote—or, for that matter, Peter Singer's studies showing that drone pilots suffer PTSD at the same or greater rates as other soldiers
Perhaps the lack of concern is because drones are already flying the Canadian border and Americans are already getting used to them. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson recently told The Hill, 'We are working hard to make round-the-clock aerial surveillance the standard for all 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border,' too.
Or it could be the impact of all those Northrop Grumman ads on TV. Or maybe it's just the economy. At $4.5 million apiece, the drone program's great for Grumman. Almost everywhere its being sold as good news in a troubled economy."
Perhaps the lack of concern is because drones are already flying the Canadian border and Americans are already getting used to them. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson recently told The Hill, 'We are working hard to make round-the-clock aerial surveillance the standard for all 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border,' too.
Or it could be the impact of all those Northrop Grumman ads on TV. Or maybe it's just the economy. At $4.5 million apiece, the drone program's great for Grumman. Almost everywhere its being sold as good news in a troubled economy."
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Drones at home: FAA approves Predator drone to monitor Texas border
Dallas Morning News AirlineBiz blog
12:53 PM Wed, Jun 23, 2010
by Dave Michaels
Quick note: If we get drones in domestic operation, why would any of us think they wouldn't be used to hunt US: on a bad license plate number in a search for a fugitive or any other number of police operations conducted on poorly gathered intelligence, clerical errors and the like. Blackhawk helicopters are used to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border now, which I have seen with my own eyes east of San Diego. That doesn't mean those helicopters aren't used for other domestic purposes directed at civilians. For the details of my view on drones, do a quick search on this site ... or watch the Terminator movies again. Every action has an equal an opposite reaction. Your government is hunting foreigners with machines. I don't want to be hunted with machines, do you?
Full text ...
We reported earlier today that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, had held up the nomination of the FAA's #2 official over aerial surveillance of Texas border. It seems that hold is now moot: the FAA today approved an unmanned aircraft to monitor 1,200 miles of the border, from El Paso to Brownsville, according to Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.
"Today marks a critical next step in securing the Texas-Mexico border. By permanently positioning this aircraft in Texas, CBP can further combat illegal activity along our southern border," Cuellar said in a statement. "For five years, other southern border states have benefited from this technology and this will ensure Texas has the same tools in the box to combat the spectrum of threats we face."
Cuellar's press release says the plane will be based in Corpus Christi. Read on for more from the congressman about the FAA's decision:
Earlier this month, CBP began flying a remotely-piloted aircraft based in Arizona over a portion of West Texas. FAA's most recent approval will allow CBP to fly over the remainder of the Texas-Mexico border between El Paso and Brownsville along the Rio Grande.
In addition, CBP will patrol the state's coastline along the Gulf of Mexico. The remotely-piloted aircraft, known as a Predator B, can fly for up to 20 hours and provide to CBP real-time critical intelligence information from attached cameras, sensors and radar systems.
"Increasingly these aircraft will become a familiar means for providing homeland security," said Congressman Cuellar. "By putting eyes in the sky, we can provide real-time information to our law enforcement on the ground. This combination of technology and manpower keeps our law enforcement a cut above the challenges they face."
According to CBP, since 2005 Predator Bs have flown more than 1,500 hours in support of border security missions and have assisted in the apprehension of more than 4,000 illegal aliens, in addition to the seizure of more than 15,000 pounds of marijuana.
For more information on the CBP UAV program, visit cbp.gov
12:53 PM Wed, Jun 23, 2010
by Dave Michaels
Quick note: If we get drones in domestic operation, why would any of us think they wouldn't be used to hunt US: on a bad license plate number in a search for a fugitive or any other number of police operations conducted on poorly gathered intelligence, clerical errors and the like. Blackhawk helicopters are used to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border now, which I have seen with my own eyes east of San Diego. That doesn't mean those helicopters aren't used for other domestic purposes directed at civilians. For the details of my view on drones, do a quick search on this site ... or watch the Terminator movies again. Every action has an equal an opposite reaction. Your government is hunting foreigners with machines. I don't want to be hunted with machines, do you?
Full text ...
We reported earlier today that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, had held up the nomination of the FAA's #2 official over aerial surveillance of Texas border. It seems that hold is now moot: the FAA today approved an unmanned aircraft to monitor 1,200 miles of the border, from El Paso to Brownsville, according to Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.
"Today marks a critical next step in securing the Texas-Mexico border. By permanently positioning this aircraft in Texas, CBP can further combat illegal activity along our southern border," Cuellar said in a statement. "For five years, other southern border states have benefited from this technology and this will ensure Texas has the same tools in the box to combat the spectrum of threats we face."
Cuellar's press release says the plane will be based in Corpus Christi. Read on for more from the congressman about the FAA's decision:
Earlier this month, CBP began flying a remotely-piloted aircraft based in Arizona over a portion of West Texas. FAA's most recent approval will allow CBP to fly over the remainder of the Texas-Mexico border between El Paso and Brownsville along the Rio Grande.
In addition, CBP will patrol the state's coastline along the Gulf of Mexico. The remotely-piloted aircraft, known as a Predator B, can fly for up to 20 hours and provide to CBP real-time critical intelligence information from attached cameras, sensors and radar systems.
"Increasingly these aircraft will become a familiar means for providing homeland security," said Congressman Cuellar. "By putting eyes in the sky, we can provide real-time information to our law enforcement on the ground. This combination of technology and manpower keeps our law enforcement a cut above the challenges they face."
According to CBP, since 2005 Predator Bs have flown more than 1,500 hours in support of border security missions and have assisted in the apprehension of more than 4,000 illegal aliens, in addition to the seizure of more than 15,000 pounds of marijuana.
For more information on the CBP UAV program, visit cbp.gov
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Whiteman AFB near Columbia, MO is thrilled about the Predator
"Whiteman Lands Drone Assignment" is the title of T.J. Greaney's piece in the Columbia Daily Tribune. An excerpt of excellent reporting on the details of drone operation appears below.
"The MQ-1 Predator is known as a system, not an aircraft. The system consists of four aircraft with sensors, a ground control station and a Predator Primary Satellite Link, along with operations and maintenance crews deployed for 24-hour operations. Each system is valued at about $20 million.
The basic crew for the Predator includes a pilot, sensor operator and mission intelligence coordinator. The aircraft is equipped with a color nose camera used by the pilot for flight control, a high-resolution TV camera, an infrared camera and other sensors.
Capt. Matthew Reese, public affairs officer for Air Combat Command in Langley, Va., said the team involved in missions is a unique blend of mechanics, pilots and intelligence analysts working in war zones and in the U.S.
'The pilot and sensor operator are only one piece of the puzzle,' Reese said. 'The big picture is that it takes maintainers downrange to keep these in the air, the people who are keeping the mechanical aspects of the birds flying are all downrange.'"
"The MQ-1 Predator is known as a system, not an aircraft. The system consists of four aircraft with sensors, a ground control station and a Predator Primary Satellite Link, along with operations and maintenance crews deployed for 24-hour operations. Each system is valued at about $20 million.
The basic crew for the Predator includes a pilot, sensor operator and mission intelligence coordinator. The aircraft is equipped with a color nose camera used by the pilot for flight control, a high-resolution TV camera, an infrared camera and other sensors.
Capt. Matthew Reese, public affairs officer for Air Combat Command in Langley, Va., said the team involved in missions is a unique blend of mechanics, pilots and intelligence analysts working in war zones and in the U.S.
'The pilot and sensor operator are only one piece of the puzzle,' Reese said. 'The big picture is that it takes maintainers downrange to keep these in the air, the people who are keeping the mechanical aspects of the birds flying are all downrange.'"
Sunday, June 6, 2010
A discussion between two people regarding U.S. drone strikes.
The individual who tipped ExEd off to the Newsy.com drone ethics debate video had this to say in referencing said video ...
"I agree with questioning the ethics in the use of UAV's. Drones are used to kill "the enemy," while the flyers of the drones are clear and out of any danger. It creates an unfair fight to be "hunted by robots," as you say. No longer is this man against man, but man against machine. It doesn't seem fair for the civilians that lose their lives to this kind of sneak-attack warfare ..."
"The video debates the recent drone attacks in Pakistan. It debates the effectiveness of the drones in finding the enemy, and whether they working to resolve conflicts or just create more anger and hate. The failed Time Square bombing by Faisal Shahzad obviously answers this question. The drone attacks in Pakistan directly influenced his decision to bomb Time Square. He certainly cannot be the only example of this, as I am sure similar images of hate is simmering in the minds of other people who have lost family members to US attacks."
These thoughtful and concerned comments prompted my response, which after writing, I thought worthwhile to share with everyone else here--
"You raise a notion I don't think gets any play at all in the media. You hear an argument that goes, "Attacking civilians in regions where terrorists lives inevitably gives rise to recruitment of more terrorists and attacks like Times Square and the Detroit Christmas attempt." This one sort of fades into the din of "We must stop the terrorists at all costs, never letting up at any point in the day," which is more like what our servicemen and women get to hear all the time.
What you do not hear is a theory or line of reasoning that goes, 'Terrorists [those who use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims--Oxford English Dictionary] use their precious resources to strike where they can, when they can based on the support they have from populations outside their group dependent on public opinion and recent developments. They cannot strike anywhere they want whenever they want.' What happens when that public support dwindles to a whisper and their resources dry up too far for them to raise airfare for one person beyond 500 miles? These ideas you do not see in the media much of anywhere.
The drone ethics debate, as you've seen, is highly marginalized at present. Why is the debate relegated to blips on the horizon of mainstream media coverage and deep fringes of internet fora? There are reasons. Typical reasons but not necessarily good ones. Military actions are subsidized by taxpayer and citizen support, but they are not beholden to it. Most military actions are classified, and discussing troop movements publicly is speech unprotected by the First Amendment under the definition of sedition. But drone missions come with a special controversy: they are moved further and further from public purview. From U.S. military operations in Afghanistan away to JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command at the forward operating base in Bagram. From JSOC to the CIA. And we are told CIA agents have a different exposure to U.S. law than U.S. soldiers. And finally from the CIA, who administers the flights into Pakistan, to private contractors like Blackwater/Xe and similar companies, some of Pakistani and Afghan origin.
The way I see it, the push for accountability to the public on killing civilians in the hunt for terrorists whose "high value" is actually quite disputable, profiles of the victims doled out to the media on a need-to-know basis, has to come from the public.
If the public says, 'Drones kill bad guys, our soldiers don't come into harm's way,' then that's the world we live in now. I think it sounds like the last Terminator movie for reasons not rooted in science fiction. But that's my piece.
If the public says, 'I really don't want more women and children killed by unmanned missile strikes, no matter who you're targeting, because I wouldn't want that to happen to me or to my children,' then enough public outcry could actually get the drone program decommissioned and put a stop to some of this Fox News type spin with might-makes-right, the Empire will emerge victorious, the ends justify the means always and we're mandated by our God to win in the Middle East mindless silliness that keeps us damning the torpedoes and lodging U.S. presence further into central Asia and the Middle East with no end in sight."
I welcome readers to this discussion. If you feel moved to post a comment, please help continue the thread and thank you.
"I agree with questioning the ethics in the use of UAV's. Drones are used to kill "the enemy," while the flyers of the drones are clear and out of any danger. It creates an unfair fight to be "hunted by robots," as you say. No longer is this man against man, but man against machine. It doesn't seem fair for the civilians that lose their lives to this kind of sneak-attack warfare ..."
"The video debates the recent drone attacks in Pakistan. It debates the effectiveness of the drones in finding the enemy, and whether they working to resolve conflicts or just create more anger and hate. The failed Time Square bombing by Faisal Shahzad obviously answers this question. The drone attacks in Pakistan directly influenced his decision to bomb Time Square. He certainly cannot be the only example of this, as I am sure similar images of hate is simmering in the minds of other people who have lost family members to US attacks."
These thoughtful and concerned comments prompted my response, which after writing, I thought worthwhile to share with everyone else here--
"You raise a notion I don't think gets any play at all in the media. You hear an argument that goes, "Attacking civilians in regions where terrorists lives inevitably gives rise to recruitment of more terrorists and attacks like Times Square and the Detroit Christmas attempt." This one sort of fades into the din of "We must stop the terrorists at all costs, never letting up at any point in the day," which is more like what our servicemen and women get to hear all the time.
What you do not hear is a theory or line of reasoning that goes, 'Terrorists [those who use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims--Oxford English Dictionary] use their precious resources to strike where they can, when they can based on the support they have from populations outside their group dependent on public opinion and recent developments. They cannot strike anywhere they want whenever they want.' What happens when that public support dwindles to a whisper and their resources dry up too far for them to raise airfare for one person beyond 500 miles? These ideas you do not see in the media much of anywhere.
The drone ethics debate, as you've seen, is highly marginalized at present. Why is the debate relegated to blips on the horizon of mainstream media coverage and deep fringes of internet fora? There are reasons. Typical reasons but not necessarily good ones. Military actions are subsidized by taxpayer and citizen support, but they are not beholden to it. Most military actions are classified, and discussing troop movements publicly is speech unprotected by the First Amendment under the definition of sedition. But drone missions come with a special controversy: they are moved further and further from public purview. From U.S. military operations in Afghanistan away to JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command at the forward operating base in Bagram. From JSOC to the CIA. And we are told CIA agents have a different exposure to U.S. law than U.S. soldiers. And finally from the CIA, who administers the flights into Pakistan, to private contractors like Blackwater/Xe and similar companies, some of Pakistani and Afghan origin.
The way I see it, the push for accountability to the public on killing civilians in the hunt for terrorists whose "high value" is actually quite disputable, profiles of the victims doled out to the media on a need-to-know basis, has to come from the public.
If the public says, 'Drones kill bad guys, our soldiers don't come into harm's way,' then that's the world we live in now. I think it sounds like the last Terminator movie for reasons not rooted in science fiction. But that's my piece.
If the public says, 'I really don't want more women and children killed by unmanned missile strikes, no matter who you're targeting, because I wouldn't want that to happen to me or to my children,' then enough public outcry could actually get the drone program decommissioned and put a stop to some of this Fox News type spin with might-makes-right, the Empire will emerge victorious, the ends justify the means always and we're mandated by our God to win in the Middle East mindless silliness that keeps us damning the torpedoes and lodging U.S. presence further into central Asia and the Middle East with no end in sight."
I welcome readers to this discussion. If you feel moved to post a comment, please help continue the thread and thank you.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
U.N. Official To Call For End Of CIA Drone Strikes
NPR report by Corey Flintoff
An excerpt appears below.
A soon-to-be-released United Nations report will call into question the use of unmanned aircraft for targeted killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. intelligence agencies.
The report, to be released next week by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, will call on the United States to stop allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out drone attacks on suspected militants.
The special rapporteur, New York University law professor Philip Alston, told The New York Times that the CIA does not have the public accountability that's required of the U.S. military. Alston says the use of the drones and their firepower should be restricted to the armed forces.
"They have no legal authority to be killing anyone. They have committed the crime of murder under Pakistan's law."
- David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School, on the CIA's risk of criminal prosecution in the use of drones to target suspected militants.
Alston told The Associated Press that he sees "no legal prohibition on CIA agents" piloting the remotely controlled aircraft, but that the practice is undesirable because the C.I.A. doesn't comply with "any of the requirements as to transparency and accountability which are central to international humanitarian law."
An excerpt appears below.
A soon-to-be-released United Nations report will call into question the use of unmanned aircraft for targeted killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. intelligence agencies.
The report, to be released next week by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, will call on the United States to stop allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out drone attacks on suspected militants.
The special rapporteur, New York University law professor Philip Alston, told The New York Times that the CIA does not have the public accountability that's required of the U.S. military. Alston says the use of the drones and their firepower should be restricted to the armed forces.
"They have no legal authority to be killing anyone. They have committed the crime of murder under Pakistan's law."
- David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School, on the CIA's risk of criminal prosecution in the use of drones to target suspected militants.
Alston told The Associated Press that he sees "no legal prohibition on CIA agents" piloting the remotely controlled aircraft, but that the practice is undesirable because the C.I.A. doesn't comply with "any of the requirements as to transparency and accountability which are central to international humanitarian law."
Monday, May 24, 2010
Drones and Democracy
Story on Truthout.org Sunday, May 23, 2010 by Kathy Kelly and Joshua Brollier
A particularly brutal excerpt ...
"The social worker recalled arriving at a home that was hit, in Miranshah, at about 9:00 PM, close to one year ago. The house was beside a matchbox factory, near the degree college. The drone strike had killed three people. Their bodies, carbonized, were fully burned. They could only be identified by their legs and hands. One body was still on fire when he reached there. Then he learned that the charred and mutilated corpses were relatives of his who lived in his village, two men and a boy aged seven or eight. They couldn't pick up the charred parts in one piece. Finding scraps of plastic, they transported the body parts away from the site. Three to four others joined in to help cover the bodies in plastic and carry them to the morgue.
But these volunteers and nearby onlookers were attacked by another drone strike, 15 minutes after the initial one. Six more people died. One of them was the brother of the man killed in the initial strike.
The social worker said that people are now afraid to help when a drone strike occurs because they fear a similar fate from a second attack. People will wait several hours after an attack just to be sure. Meanwhile, some lives will be lost that possibly could have been saved."
A particularly brutal excerpt ...
"The social worker recalled arriving at a home that was hit, in Miranshah, at about 9:00 PM, close to one year ago. The house was beside a matchbox factory, near the degree college. The drone strike had killed three people. Their bodies, carbonized, were fully burned. They could only be identified by their legs and hands. One body was still on fire when he reached there. Then he learned that the charred and mutilated corpses were relatives of his who lived in his village, two men and a boy aged seven or eight. They couldn't pick up the charred parts in one piece. Finding scraps of plastic, they transported the body parts away from the site. Three to four others joined in to help cover the bodies in plastic and carry them to the morgue.
But these volunteers and nearby onlookers were attacked by another drone strike, 15 minutes after the initial one. Six more people died. One of them was the brother of the man killed in the initial strike.
The social worker said that people are now afraid to help when a drone strike occurs because they fear a similar fate from a second attack. People will wait several hours after an attack just to be sure. Meanwhile, some lives will be lost that possibly could have been saved."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Backyard Predator Drones
"Each Predator and Reaper costs American taxpayers $4 million to $12 million and each Hellfire missile some $70,000, and the drones are causing anti-American sentiment to spread, especially in the Muslim world."
by Chen Weihua
China Daily 05/18/2010
chenweihua@chinadaily.com.cn
I never realized I was so close to the war zone in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border until I went to Syracuse in upstate New York a week ago.
The Hancock Field there has been turned into a base for drones that fly over Pakistan and Afghanistan for bombing missions. This means that someone sitting in the control room is playing a computer game that is killing real people thousands of miles away.
The strikes may have achieved the goals of assassinating some Taliban leaders and militants; yet, high collateral damage has been reported by both Pakistani and US sources. Pakistani authorities reported that in 2009 alone, some 700 civilians died during the drone attacks.
The high casualties - of innocent people - should be a grave concern for "anti-war" President Barack Obama, who authorized more drone strikes in his first year as president than his predecessor George W. Bush did in his last four years in office.
Civilian deaths are clearly a problem. A CNN report last week quoted Tadd Scholtis, spokesman for General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, as saying US and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan could someday win medals for restraint that prevents civilian casualties in combat.
This proposal under consideration simply means that too many innocents are being killed, and that the army has not exercised enough restraint.
Unfortunately, many Americans are unaware of the nature of the drone attacks launched from an air force base near their home, despite numerous protests across the country against the drones.
Just a few days before my trip to Syracuse, peace activists from upstate New York gathered outside the Hancock Air Force base to oppose the unmanned aircraft attacks.
On May 18-19, protesters from across California and some from Nevada will hold a rally in San Diego outside the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, which builds the Predator and Reaper drones.
Cindy Sheehan, who held a prolonged anti-war protest in 2005 outside George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, led a rally near the CIA headquarters in Virginia early this year, calling the CIA-operated drone bombing "immoral" and "terrorism with a big budget."
Demonstrations were also witnessed last year outside the Creech Air Force Base, only 35 miles from Las Vegas, resulting in the arrests of a number of peace activists.
In contrast to the anti-war activists, mainstream US media and scholars have been relatively quiet on the issue. Most have been talking endlessly about Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad's ties to the Taliban and whether his legal rights and citizenship should be deprived.
They have largely ignored the rising anger among Pakistanis about the drone Hellfire missile attacks. Shahzad also reportedly claimed that his intention was to retaliate for the drones, which he saw in Waziristan, in northwest Pakistan.
A Gallup poll last August showed that only 9 percent of Pakistanis support the drone attacks, while 67 percent oppose them. The majority saw the US as a bigger threat than the Taliban.
A recent Newsweek report quotes local villagers as saying that every family there has one male member in the Taliban force.
In the war on terror, many Americans seem to be worried that criticizing the US government and military would make them look unpatriotic or un-American.
Each Predator and Reaper costs American taxpayers $4 million to $12 million and each Hellfire missile some $70,000, and the drones are causing anti-American sentiment to spread, especially in the Muslim world.
If that money is used to build schools there to reflect the US' soft power, it will win more hearts and minds and make Americans safer.
Stopping the drones launched from American citizens' backyards is no less urgent than finding the true connection of Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad.
by Chen Weihua
China Daily 05/18/2010
chenweihua@chinadaily.com.cn
I never realized I was so close to the war zone in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border until I went to Syracuse in upstate New York a week ago.
The Hancock Field there has been turned into a base for drones that fly over Pakistan and Afghanistan for bombing missions. This means that someone sitting in the control room is playing a computer game that is killing real people thousands of miles away.
The strikes may have achieved the goals of assassinating some Taliban leaders and militants; yet, high collateral damage has been reported by both Pakistani and US sources. Pakistani authorities reported that in 2009 alone, some 700 civilians died during the drone attacks.
The high casualties - of innocent people - should be a grave concern for "anti-war" President Barack Obama, who authorized more drone strikes in his first year as president than his predecessor George W. Bush did in his last four years in office.
Civilian deaths are clearly a problem. A CNN report last week quoted Tadd Scholtis, spokesman for General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, as saying US and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan could someday win medals for restraint that prevents civilian casualties in combat.
This proposal under consideration simply means that too many innocents are being killed, and that the army has not exercised enough restraint.
Unfortunately, many Americans are unaware of the nature of the drone attacks launched from an air force base near their home, despite numerous protests across the country against the drones.
Just a few days before my trip to Syracuse, peace activists from upstate New York gathered outside the Hancock Air Force base to oppose the unmanned aircraft attacks.
On May 18-19, protesters from across California and some from Nevada will hold a rally in San Diego outside the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, which builds the Predator and Reaper drones.
Cindy Sheehan, who held a prolonged anti-war protest in 2005 outside George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, led a rally near the CIA headquarters in Virginia early this year, calling the CIA-operated drone bombing "immoral" and "terrorism with a big budget."
Demonstrations were also witnessed last year outside the Creech Air Force Base, only 35 miles from Las Vegas, resulting in the arrests of a number of peace activists.
In contrast to the anti-war activists, mainstream US media and scholars have been relatively quiet on the issue. Most have been talking endlessly about Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad's ties to the Taliban and whether his legal rights and citizenship should be deprived.
They have largely ignored the rising anger among Pakistanis about the drone Hellfire missile attacks. Shahzad also reportedly claimed that his intention was to retaliate for the drones, which he saw in Waziristan, in northwest Pakistan.
A Gallup poll last August showed that only 9 percent of Pakistanis support the drone attacks, while 67 percent oppose them. The majority saw the US as a bigger threat than the Taliban.
A recent Newsweek report quotes local villagers as saying that every family there has one male member in the Taliban force.
In the war on terror, many Americans seem to be worried that criticizing the US government and military would make them look unpatriotic or un-American.
Each Predator and Reaper costs American taxpayers $4 million to $12 million and each Hellfire missile some $70,000, and the drones are causing anti-American sentiment to spread, especially in the Muslim world.
If that money is used to build schools there to reflect the US' soft power, it will win more hearts and minds and make Americans safer.
Stopping the drones launched from American citizens' backyards is no less urgent than finding the true connection of Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Decide for yourself: Predator drones on YouTube
"I'd say the thing I enjoy most about the job is knowing what's going to be in the paper the next day, and, when I read about it, knowing I was involved." Major Clayton Marshall, Predator pilot
"I guess the most rewarding is when I was able to assist with actually employing hellfire weapons."
Major James Ackerman, Predator pilot
"I guess the most rewarding is when I was able to assist with actually employing hellfire weapons."
Major James Ackerman, Predator pilot
Drones at home: UAVs and the border patrol
The eye in the sky comes home from the battlefields. An El Paso Times story by Maggie Ybara.
"The Federal Aviation Administration announced Friday that it authorized a drone to fly back and forth between Fort Huachuca, an Army installation near Sierra Vista, Ariz., and Big Bend National Park beginning June 1, said Vincent Perez, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas."
"The Federal Aviation Administration announced Friday that it authorized a drone to fly back and forth between Fort Huachuca, an Army installation near Sierra Vista, Ariz., and Big Bend National Park beginning June 1, said Vincent Perez, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas."
Thursday, May 6, 2010
A brief history of the unmanned aerial vehicle
An illuminating article appears on the Nebraskans for Peace web site about drone warfare and the history of UAV's.
StratCom: The Fulcrum for Drone Warfare by Loring Wirbel, Citizens for Peace in Space Colorado Springs, Colorado
Excerpt— "In the early years of the ‘War on Terror,’ missions involving Unpiloted Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) could be divided into those sponsored directly by regional combat commands in the Pentagon, and the more covert missions planned and executed by the CIA—both of which were supported by space and intelligence assets. The Pentagon-conducted missions tended to adhere to stricter rules of military engagement, which meant that if a drone directly targeted an individual al-Qaida suspect, chances were good that the mission was clandestine and run by the CIA.
In recent months, however, a third level of management has emerged, raising even greater questions of responsibility and accountability. According to journalist Jeremy Scahill and several other sources, the Pentagon’s secretive 'Joint Special Operations Command' (JSOC) manages unacknowledged armed UAV missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. These missions are run directly by Blackwater/Xe and several of its subsidiaries. Yet, because the ultimate authority for the missions goes back to JSOC, Strategic Command in Omaha (particularly its ‘Global Strike’ component) plays a more direct role in these even more deeply covert UAV strikes, than it does in CIA missions.
Demonstrators who went to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia January 16 to protest the Agency’s drone attacks provided a rare and needed public face to these UAV missions which have become so commonplace in the past several years. Yet the protests only scratch the surface. The passing of armed-UAV authority among official combat commands, quasi-official CIA bases, and deniable JSOC/Blackwater missions allows the Pentagon to play a shell game that keeps activists from understanding who does what. And the central player shuffling the shells is Strategic Command."
StratCom: The Fulcrum for Drone Warfare by Loring Wirbel, Citizens for Peace in Space Colorado Springs, Colorado
Excerpt— "In the early years of the ‘War on Terror,’ missions involving Unpiloted Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) could be divided into those sponsored directly by regional combat commands in the Pentagon, and the more covert missions planned and executed by the CIA—both of which were supported by space and intelligence assets. The Pentagon-conducted missions tended to adhere to stricter rules of military engagement, which meant that if a drone directly targeted an individual al-Qaida suspect, chances were good that the mission was clandestine and run by the CIA.
In recent months, however, a third level of management has emerged, raising even greater questions of responsibility and accountability. According to journalist Jeremy Scahill and several other sources, the Pentagon’s secretive 'Joint Special Operations Command' (JSOC) manages unacknowledged armed UAV missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. These missions are run directly by Blackwater/Xe and several of its subsidiaries. Yet, because the ultimate authority for the missions goes back to JSOC, Strategic Command in Omaha (particularly its ‘Global Strike’ component) plays a more direct role in these even more deeply covert UAV strikes, than it does in CIA missions.
Demonstrators who went to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia January 16 to protest the Agency’s drone attacks provided a rare and needed public face to these UAV missions which have become so commonplace in the past several years. Yet the protests only scratch the surface. The passing of armed-UAV authority among official combat commands, quasi-official CIA bases, and deniable JSOC/Blackwater missions allows the Pentagon to play a shell game that keeps activists from understanding who does what. And the central player shuffling the shells is Strategic Command."
You can't even keep your job in the military: plans for new drones to help cut Navy budget
More drones, smaller Navy
S.D. County firms plan new unmanned aircraft
By Gary Robbins, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 12:02 a.m.
Excerpt— Two San Diego County defense contractors are hustling to develop a new generation of comparatively inexpensive, unmanned aerial vehicles in the wake of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ call for a less costly naval arsenal.
Speaking in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Gates said the military needs to re-examine whether it can afford so many aircraft carriers and submarines when more money is needed to underwrite the Army and Marine Corps.
Those two branches of the military are leading the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Navy is playing a supporting role. The Navy, whose second-largest home base is San Diego, also has long-term plans to slightly downsize its fleet.
***
Highlight— Live from Poway, California, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems wants a piece of the action ...
Northrop Grumman could face competition from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems of Poway, which says it will develop the Sea Avenger, a derivative of its well-known Predator C drone.
A Predator C costs $12 million to $15 million, making it far less costly than the estimated $41 million F/A-18 Hornet jet fighter that is widely used by the Navy and Marines.
Kimberly Kasitz, a spokeswoman for General Atomics, said the company does not envision hiring more engineering help in Poway because the Sea Avenger is a derivative of an existing aircraft. But that could change if the company is awarded a large production contract.
S.D. County firms plan new unmanned aircraft
By Gary Robbins, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 12:02 a.m.
Excerpt— Two San Diego County defense contractors are hustling to develop a new generation of comparatively inexpensive, unmanned aerial vehicles in the wake of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ call for a less costly naval arsenal.
Speaking in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Gates said the military needs to re-examine whether it can afford so many aircraft carriers and submarines when more money is needed to underwrite the Army and Marine Corps.
Those two branches of the military are leading the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Navy is playing a supporting role. The Navy, whose second-largest home base is San Diego, also has long-term plans to slightly downsize its fleet.
***
Highlight— Live from Poway, California, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems wants a piece of the action ...
Northrop Grumman could face competition from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems of Poway, which says it will develop the Sea Avenger, a derivative of its well-known Predator C drone.
A Predator C costs $12 million to $15 million, making it far less costly than the estimated $41 million F/A-18 Hornet jet fighter that is widely used by the Navy and Marines.
Kimberly Kasitz, a spokeswoman for General Atomics, said the company does not envision hiring more engineering help in Poway because the Sea Avenger is a derivative of an existing aircraft. But that could change if the company is awarded a large production contract.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Meet General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Incorporated
Extraordinary Edition piece by Collin on the First of May, 2010
It is the first of May, International Workers' Day, and I am trying to get my head around the U.S. situation in Pakistan. Which renders IWD of little difference from other days on the calendar where my preoccupations are concerned. Yet, aside from being overwhelmed as usual and unsure where to start, I do have something new to share with you which won't make much sense at first and probably hasn't much to do with the significance of May 1, International Workers' Day except that I have to leave for work and probably should have made a bid to get the day off so I could more clearly elaborate in these pages.
My question today is this. Who is General Atomics Aeronautical Systems?
And I mean aside from being a U.S. corporation led up by a charmain and CEO decorated in the business community, Neal Blue. His Vice Chairman is Linden S. Blue, which might give the impression General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is a family business of sorts. This notion is easier to gather than what's meant by, "Leading the Situational Awareness Revolution," which is boasted on the GA-ASI company web site.
The following are two defense industry accolades proudly listed on the company site:
LEAD San Diego 2009 Visionary Awards, Economic Opportunity, presented to Neal Blue, Chairman & CEO of GA-ASI, and Linden S. Blue, Vice Chairman of General Atomics
CONNECT Entrepreneur 2009 Hall of Fame Inductee, presented to Neal Blue, Chairman & CEO of GA-ASI, and Linden S. Blue, Vice Chairman of General Atomics
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems makes its home at an airfield situated between Palmdale and Lancaster, California, in a desert setting outside San Diego.
If you don't know already, GA-ASI is the patent-holder manufacturer of the unmanned aerial vehicles General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, or Predator B, and the MQ-1 Predator. The US Air Force classifies these aerial weapons, armed with optics, camera, transmitter for the video signal and oftentimes missles or bombs, as Medium Altitude Long Endurance or MALE.
These accounts, previously linked or listed in these pages, show some of the recent reports of the capabilities and applications of the proud fleet produced and distributed by the good people of San Diego, Palmdale and Lancaster.
"I was in Damadola when the drones came. They killed more than 80 teenagers – all students – and, yes they were learning the Koran, and the madrasah, the Islamic school, was run by a Taliban commander. But 80! Many of them came from Bajaur, which would be attacked later. Their parents came afterwards, all their mothers were there, but the bodies were in pieces. There were so many children, some as young as 12. We didn't know how to fit them together." This statement was taken by British journalist Robert Fisk from a Pakistani journalist who was forced to speak under condition of anonymity because he, like so many in Pakistan living in dangerous surroundings, has no immediate plan to change occupations.
Alex Rodriguez and David Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times wrote May 2 from Pakistan, "Their whir is unmistakable, a buzzing hum that prompts the tribespeople of Waziristan to refer to the fleet of armed U.S. drone aircraft hovering overhead as machay, or wasps. The Khan family never heard it. They had been sleeping for an hour when a Hellfire missile pierced their mud hut on an August night in 2008. Black smoke and dust choked villagers as they dug through the rubble. Four-year-old Zeerak's legs were severed. His sister Maria, 3, was badly scorched. Both were dead. When their cousin Irfan, 16, saw them, he gently curled them into his arms, squeezed the rumpled bodies to his chest, lightly kissed their faces, and slid into a stupor."
In his piece, Fisk learns the drone operator technique of returning to the scene to attack rescuers, a tactic reminiscent of the horrific fire bombing of Dresden by Allied planes in WWII. "They killed 14 men in just one night last month, at Datta Khel in north Waziristan. The drones come in flocks, and five of them settled over the village, firing a missile each at a pick-up truck, splitting it in two and dismembering six men aboard. When local residents as well as Taliban arrived to help the wounded, the drones attacked again, killing all eight of them. The drones usually return to shoot at the rescuers. It's a policy started by the Israeli air force over Beirut during the 1982 siege: bomb now, come back 12 minutes later for a second shot. Now Waziristan villagers wait up to half an hour – listening to the shrieks and howls of the dying – before they try to help the wounded."
Fisk praises journalist Amir Mir for his work in Pakistan. Mir reported April 10 for Pakistani news site The International News, "Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians."
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a law suit merely to provide an inquiry into the numbers and details involving civilian casualties. Democracy Now reported March 17, "The lawsuit seeks details under the Freedom of Information Act on the circumstances under which drone attacks are authorized as well as the number and rate of civilian casualties. The ACLU first filed its request in January but says the government simply refused to respond. Jonathan Manes of the ACLU’s National Security Project said: 'The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country’s interests and values.'
In short, I think people who live in the United States should be asking themselves who exactly General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is and what it does. Who are its friends? What kinds of tax subsidy does GA-ASI receive? Who holds its corporate charter and can it be revoked? Does GA-ASI have any records of what's happened in the reports above and do its officers and shareholders ever think about these issues? Can the issue of civilian deaths be more important than job creation, successful business ventures and relationships with powerful people in industry and government?
By answering these questions, we stand to learn a great deal. I have to leave for work now.
It is the first of May, International Workers' Day, and I am trying to get my head around the U.S. situation in Pakistan. Which renders IWD of little difference from other days on the calendar where my preoccupations are concerned. Yet, aside from being overwhelmed as usual and unsure where to start, I do have something new to share with you which won't make much sense at first and probably hasn't much to do with the significance of May 1, International Workers' Day except that I have to leave for work and probably should have made a bid to get the day off so I could more clearly elaborate in these pages.
My question today is this. Who is General Atomics Aeronautical Systems?
And I mean aside from being a U.S. corporation led up by a charmain and CEO decorated in the business community, Neal Blue. His Vice Chairman is Linden S. Blue, which might give the impression General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is a family business of sorts. This notion is easier to gather than what's meant by, "Leading the Situational Awareness Revolution," which is boasted on the GA-ASI company web site.
The following are two defense industry accolades proudly listed on the company site:
LEAD San Diego 2009 Visionary Awards, Economic Opportunity, presented to Neal Blue, Chairman & CEO of GA-ASI, and Linden S. Blue, Vice Chairman of General Atomics
CONNECT Entrepreneur 2009 Hall of Fame Inductee, presented to Neal Blue, Chairman & CEO of GA-ASI, and Linden S. Blue, Vice Chairman of General Atomics
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems makes its home at an airfield situated between Palmdale and Lancaster, California, in a desert setting outside San Diego.
If you don't know already, GA-ASI is the patent-holder manufacturer of the unmanned aerial vehicles General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, or Predator B, and the MQ-1 Predator. The US Air Force classifies these aerial weapons, armed with optics, camera, transmitter for the video signal and oftentimes missles or bombs, as Medium Altitude Long Endurance or MALE.
These accounts, previously linked or listed in these pages, show some of the recent reports of the capabilities and applications of the proud fleet produced and distributed by the good people of San Diego, Palmdale and Lancaster.
"I was in Damadola when the drones came. They killed more than 80 teenagers – all students – and, yes they were learning the Koran, and the madrasah, the Islamic school, was run by a Taliban commander. But 80! Many of them came from Bajaur, which would be attacked later. Their parents came afterwards, all their mothers were there, but the bodies were in pieces. There were so many children, some as young as 12. We didn't know how to fit them together." This statement was taken by British journalist Robert Fisk from a Pakistani journalist who was forced to speak under condition of anonymity because he, like so many in Pakistan living in dangerous surroundings, has no immediate plan to change occupations.
Alex Rodriguez and David Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times wrote May 2 from Pakistan, "Their whir is unmistakable, a buzzing hum that prompts the tribespeople of Waziristan to refer to the fleet of armed U.S. drone aircraft hovering overhead as machay, or wasps. The Khan family never heard it. They had been sleeping for an hour when a Hellfire missile pierced their mud hut on an August night in 2008. Black smoke and dust choked villagers as they dug through the rubble. Four-year-old Zeerak's legs were severed. His sister Maria, 3, was badly scorched. Both were dead. When their cousin Irfan, 16, saw them, he gently curled them into his arms, squeezed the rumpled bodies to his chest, lightly kissed their faces, and slid into a stupor."
In his piece, Fisk learns the drone operator technique of returning to the scene to attack rescuers, a tactic reminiscent of the horrific fire bombing of Dresden by Allied planes in WWII. "They killed 14 men in just one night last month, at Datta Khel in north Waziristan. The drones come in flocks, and five of them settled over the village, firing a missile each at a pick-up truck, splitting it in two and dismembering six men aboard. When local residents as well as Taliban arrived to help the wounded, the drones attacked again, killing all eight of them. The drones usually return to shoot at the rescuers. It's a policy started by the Israeli air force over Beirut during the 1982 siege: bomb now, come back 12 minutes later for a second shot. Now Waziristan villagers wait up to half an hour – listening to the shrieks and howls of the dying – before they try to help the wounded."
Fisk praises journalist Amir Mir for his work in Pakistan. Mir reported April 10 for Pakistani news site The International News, "Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians."
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a law suit merely to provide an inquiry into the numbers and details involving civilian casualties. Democracy Now reported March 17, "The lawsuit seeks details under the Freedom of Information Act on the circumstances under which drone attacks are authorized as well as the number and rate of civilian casualties. The ACLU first filed its request in January but says the government simply refused to respond. Jonathan Manes of the ACLU’s National Security Project said: 'The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country’s interests and values.'
In short, I think people who live in the United States should be asking themselves who exactly General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is and what it does. Who are its friends? What kinds of tax subsidy does GA-ASI receive? Who holds its corporate charter and can it be revoked? Does GA-ASI have any records of what's happened in the reports above and do its officers and shareholders ever think about these issues? Can the issue of civilian deaths be more important than job creation, successful business ventures and relationships with powerful people in industry and government?
By answering these questions, we stand to learn a great deal. I have to leave for work now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)