Military Technology for Domestic Use?

[dominatr]

I know the concept of Military Technology for Domestic Use is nothing new these days, but i guess we have such a MAJOR TERRORIST THREAT (<-- sarcasm) on our own soil that we have to use military technology such as spy drones to help the police catch "terrorists" and whatnot. Take a look.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/11/9360170-report-us-drones-helping-local-police-agencies

Look, i know this is MSN, no the most neutral information source, but i came upon this because MSN is my home page (not sure why). I found it quite shocking and wanted to share so let me know your opinion on this matter. Thanks.

 

[squadbroken]

Bah. Shocking? The militarization of the police has been going on for a long time, this is just another step down that road.

 

[Silurian]

Well we should really stop the police using the wheel.

Or what about helicopters.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Just as planned...

 

[Silurian]

What is the difference between a UAV and a helicopter

 

[Bugfatty300]

What is the difference between a UAV and a helicopter

Millions of dollars of tax payers' money.

 

[plarq]

What is the difference between a UAV and a helicopter

UAV doesn't kill?

 

[Silurian]

Millions of dollars of tax payers' money.

A car is more expensive than getting the police to walk.

It depends what they are using it for.

Using a UAV may be more cost effective than a helicopter for patrolling the border in a remote area. There should be a cost benefit analysis of the various options.

The only thing that would concern me is are they getting it as a toy or is it the cheapest option.

 

[The_J]

What you should be more worried about:

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office in Conroe, Texas, has purchased a ShadowHawk unmanned helicopter, built by Vanguard Defense Industries, using $300,000 in Homeland Security grant money

[...]

A weaponized ShadowHawk could be outfitted with a machinegun or a grenade launcher to aid troops in hunting down and eliminating insurgents in remote areas such as Afghanistan.

Robocop is not that far away.

 

[Bugfatty300]

A car is more expensive than getting the police to walk.

It depends what they are using it for.

Using a UAV may be more cost effective than a helicopter for patrolling the border in a remote area. There should be a cost benefit analysis of the various options.

The only thing that would concern me is are they getting it as a toy or is it the cheapest option.

USAF MQ-1 Predator drones are cost effective when compared to things like B2 stealth bombers and modern fighter jets. Compared to a commercial dime a dozen helicopter with a FLIR bolted on the side? Forget about it.

 

[Silurian]

USAF MQ-1 Predator drones are cost effective when compared to things like B2 stealth bombers and modern fighter jets. Compared to a commercial dime a dozen helicopter with a FLIR bolted on the side? Forget about it.

A Predator is not the most cost effective in all circumstances.

A helicopter with a FLIR and other imaging equipment may not the most cost effective in all circumstances.

As I said above they may be getting the UAV because they want to be big boys with big toys or a UAV may be the best thing for some jobs.

The economics of the proposed missions needs to be evaluated.

Also I would assume that a police UAV would be cheaper than a military one since it would not requre some features.

 

[wilycoyote]

Police departments have budgets. If a drone isn't the best economic choice, then that department will pay for it out of their budget. The police, contrary to what this board seems to think, can't tax anyone. One way or another the cops will spend their budget.

 

[Bugfatty300]

A Predator is not the most cost effective in all circumstances.

A helicopter with a FLIR and other imaging equipment may not the most cost effective in all circumstances.

As I said above they may be getting the UAV because they want to be big boys with big toys or a UAV may be the best thing for some jobs.

The economics of the proposed missions needs to be evaluated.

Also I would assume that a police UAV would be cheaper than a military one since it would not requre some features.

I'm talking about the OP here. Under no circumstances would I think deploying USAF aircraft on 24 sorties to look at three bumpkins holed up on a farm in North Dakota a cost effective measure.

In this case, I'd say the difference between using traditional police helicopters and fixed wing craft (which I find hard to believe they didn't have access to) and USAF predators is millions of dollars. But that's just a guess.

 

[Silurian]

I'm talking about the OP here. Under no circumstances would I think deploying USAF aircraft on 24 sorties to look at three bumpkins holed up on a farm in North Dakota a cost effective measure.

In this case, I'd say the difference between using traditional police helicopters and fixed wing craft (which I find hard to believe they didn't have access to) and USAF predators is millions of dollars. But that's just a guess.

I would be surprised if they paid the USAF for the cost of using the UAVs so I would think this was quite cost effective for the police.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I would be surprised if they paid the USAF for the cost of using the UAVs so I would think this was quite cost effective for the police.

But not for the American tax payer.

 

[Silurian]

But not for the American tax payer.

Why does the USAF have the Predator's there anyway.

Where do they train people to fly and use them?

The USAF may have used it for training.

It could well have produced better training and so possibly a net saving to the US tax payer.

 

[Patroklos]

USAF MQ-1 Predator drones are cost effective when compared to things like B2 stealth bombers and modern fighter jets. Compared to a commercial dime a dozen helicopter with a FLIR bolted on the side? Forget about it.

Your run of the mill predator casts $4M. Of course a local police force would have no need for a Predator, but rather something on the scale of a ScanEagle (still overkill), which costs $72K.

The price tag for an EC-135, a common European police copter? $4.5M.

So yes, UAVs are cost effective.

There is nothing controversial about the police using UAVs, its just them taking advantage of new technology to do what they already do better and cheaper.

 

[squall78]

Anytime you can command an aerial unit without the pilot actually being in there is a great cost saver. Pilots require so much vigorous training and time to get rated it's a significant investment money-wise.

 

[emzie]

I'm talking about the OP here. Under no circumstances would I think deploying USAF aircraft on 24 sorties to look at three bumpkins holed up on a farm in North Dakota a cost effective measure.

In this case, I'd say the difference between using traditional police helicopters and fixed wing craft (which I find hard to believe they didn't have access to) and USAF predators is millions of dollars. But that's just a guess.

Of course not. All you need to find a farm house in North Dakota is a ladder and a pair of binoculars.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Not to mention that the UAV can orbit an area far longer while consuming less fuel, which means more monitoring that could catch smugglers.