GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Unmanned border flights suspended despite Bush call for more

• 17321
  

  The Stemme S15 "Manned UAV" platform, designed for silent "glider-mode" flight, can be equipped with both a backup electric motor and Ballistic Reserve System, can be operated in either manned or UAV modes, and would be significantly cheaper to acquire and operate than a Predator. DHS should check out the S15 brochure at www.ShadowAir.com before buying another Predator!

  Jim MacDonald Posted June 13, 2006 3:51 PM
• 17318
  

  Good story, but the Predator crash in Arizona is lacking a couple of facts. According to the NTSB, the crash occurred because one operator forgot to turn over control to a second operator (http://borderreporter.com/blog/?p=70 ). I don't know why Border Patrol declined to reveal that information. Instead, they put the blame squarely on GA.

  Michael Marizco Posted June 13, 2006 11:45 AM
• 17292
  

  Remember the old phrase "pie in the sky"? Well, the chances of seeing that apparition are better than seeing a UAV over our southern border, according to this confused and confusing article. This expensive piece of equipment can't make arrests, talk to other agencies, shift manpower around quickly, or do any of a number of things that humans can do. Yet we as a society are so obsessed with these techno-toys that our money is being wasted on them, instead of hiring more BP agents! Tools merely support the human officer. They do not and never will (in my opinion) replace him/her.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 12, 2006 12:45 PM
• 17270
  

  You need to do a lot of follow up on this one. The content of the article just does not make any sense.

  "UAVs face major challenges in their conversion to a domestic surveillance role" Then how does it work in Iraq and Afghanistan? If it does not work, why are we continuing to spend millions of tax dollars on another bad weapon?

  If the designer and builder of the drone is also the operator wouldn't they have an incentive to wreck the drone so they could get contracts to build more? Why is the operator and the builder the same? This simply is bad contracting by the acquisition people and should be corrected immediately! If the National Guard and reserves are to be backup for the border patrol why don't they bring drones to use to watch the border? It makes no sense for me to pay more taxes to build new drones when the military is sitting on drones that are not being used! The drones belong to the United States, not the military! The military only has temporary custody of them until there is another use. Get the guard and reserves to supply drones for use on the border. If the drones do not work we should fine out before we rely on them in a war zone!

  If the builder wrecked the drone, why are they not supplying a replacement free?

  Taxpayer Posted June 12, 2006 7:05 AM