IT SEEMS INEVITABLE THAT DRONES WILL TAKE OVER---WHAT? PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING!
COULD THE MARK 1 EYEBALL IN A MANNED AIRCRAFT STILL BE SUPERIOR?
A recent report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is scathing about the value and effectiveness of drones in relation to border security.
The IG audit report, Customs and Border Protection's Unmanned Aircraft System Program Does Not Achieve Intended Results or Recognize All Costs of Operations, is the IG's second audit of the program since 2012, and "found the effort by CBP's Office of Air and Marine (OAM) still has no reliable method of measuring its performance and that its impact in stemming illegal immigration has been minimal."
The report concludes that "CBP has invested significant funds in a program that has not achieved the expected results, and it cannot demonstrate how much the program has improved border security. The $443 million CBP plans to spend on program expansion could be put to better use by investing in alternatives."
To cut to the chase, an analysis by the mega-department responsible for US border drones has concluded that they are basically a colossally expensive failure at achieving their dubious mission.
"Notwithstanding the significant investment, we see no evidence that the drones contribute to a more secure border, and there is no reason to invest additional taxpayer funds at this time," Inspector General John Roth said in Homeland Security Today.
My interest is primarily in the military side of things—where drones are being used more and more—but it really makes you think.
Where the Army is concerned, I believe ground and air need to integrated as intimately as a pair of mating octopi—but should the someone-to-watch-over-you be manned or otherwise?
I need data on this.
Who said a writer’s life was simple!
VOR words c.100.