On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:51:48 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:06:41 -0700, mike Williamson
williamsonONETHIRTY@earthlinkdotnet wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:58:22 GMT, Jack wrote in
::


The Cessna can't match the capabilities of the
UAV, nor is there a reasonable chance that it can be modified to do so.

The vast capabilities of a UAV (including Hellfire missiles) are
unnecessary for the domestic border patrol mission.

And is Hellfire part of the RFP, or are you just trying to make it
sound foolish?

nor capable of employing the sensors and equipment callled for in
this instance.

In your opinion, what equipment capability IS "called for" in this
instance?

Comms relay for agents on the ground, IR and TV sensors. Capability to
realtime the data to units in the field (i.e. send the picture to a
ground unit so they can see exactly where the border runners are
hiding. Night operational capability.

So surveilling the border to enforce existing border control laws
are a violation of PRIVACY now?

Employing UAVs, when conventional aircraft would suffice, betrays the
Bush administration's agenda for further domestic spying.

Border patrol is domestic spying?

Domestic
UAV operation sets a dangerous precedent. Surely, you are not naive
enough to believe, that if the Bush administration is successful in
deploying UAVs domestically, border patrol will be their sole mission.
Domestically deploying UAVs will open the skies for hoards of unmanned
aircraft operated by people located SAFELY ON THE GROUND. These UAVs
will likely be operated by military personnel. The military has time
and again demonstrated its complete lack of accountability in
military/civil mishaps.*

You aren't going to like it if people die at the hands of UAV
operators. What incentive do the ground-based personnel operating
UAVs have to act as prudent and responsibly as a pilot actually aboard
his aircraft? Where are the UAV operators' accountability? How can
the estates of those who fall victim to domestic UAV operations know
who is responsible for the deaths caused by unmanned aircraft?

What has any of this to do with domestic spying? Whether military
pilots (on the ground or otherwise) are responsible is a rather
different issue then whether Bush's Eveel sekrit agents are watching
you.

Cost is only an advantage if the lower priced alternative can
actually meet the requirement. If not, then it isn't a viable
alternative and the cost isn't a factor at all.

Of course.

What do you guess/know the requirements you mention to be?

Because video camera equipped model aircraft have successfully
demonstrated, that high-tech solutions are unnecessary in border
patrol missions, I find UAVs inappropriate for this mission. They are
much too costly and dangerous to be deployed domestically.
*
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

A model aircraft may indeed work for very localised situations (i.e. a
mile or so of border) in excellent visibility. It's not going to work
along the whole border, nor at night.

And adding an accident report from a manned in flight collision to an
argument about how unsafe UAVs are is pure sophistry.


--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"