Register | Help | Store Account | FliteTest Dashboard
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Posted a thousand or more times
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    2,669

    Anti quadcopter missile

    Sheesh... a bit like using a jackhammer on a thumb tack.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39277940

    I could see the point if the quad was used as an inexpensive target drone to test the capabilities of the system.
    KC1CHR

  2. #2
    Moderator Balu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Münster, Germany
    Posts
    2,862
    Blog Entries
    3
    "That quadcopter that cost 200 bucks from Amazon.com did not stand a chance against a [$3m] Patriot," he said.

    :-D

  3. #3
    Brilliant use of taxpayers cash...

  4. #4
    Fly Angry PsyBorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    2,592
    Well at least they know the Patriot has great "vision" and a high degree of accuracy. Better then having a system that is more like shooting a box of rubber bands at Godzilla.
    BILLS LAW: Bils Law specifically states that it covers ANYTHING that Murphy may have forgot, omitted, or plain didn't know in the first place. There fore if it can happen it WILL happen to ME.

    Psyborg FPV You Tube channel.. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC88...L6-KC9qTa2LgVA

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectriSean View Post
    Brilliant use of taxpayers cash...
    "The strike was made by a US ally", so at least isn't our tax dollars.. Complete overkill for sure.

  6. #6
    What did they actually achieve by this?

    (Sheesh I hope we are not that "US ally"!!!)
    God bless you'se.

  7. #7
    Site Moderator JimCR120's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Central Maine
    Posts
    1,426
    Blog Entries
    1

    Exclamation

    First I would point out that national defense in general is not about shooting stuff but rather defending a nation and its interests. Firefighters, when asked what their job is, many people will respond with, "fighting fires." Ask a fire fighter and he will respond with, "saving lives."

    Whether we are squirting water from expensive trucks at a rapidly depreciating building or shooting expensive missiles at inexpensive drones the end result should be the same, preserve human life (the most precious thing on the planet).

    When there is a real potential for injury to human life our first concern shouldn't be how much it costs to preserve life but rather ensure it can be done, then afterward seek to do it safely, effectively, and efficiently. Perhaps they could have done it more efficiently. How to do that would be a good discussion indeed. Whether they should put a dollar value on whether to save lives is another thing.

    Since both evil exists and accidents happen we will forever be spending money and even risking lives in the pursuit of preserving life, and it is right to do so.
    Truths in life:
    1) Everything that happens happens for a reason. Luck does not exist.
    2) In this existence we are part of the problem or part of the solution. The choice is ours.
    3) We aren't defined by our circumstances but by our reactions to them. Crisis reveals character.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •