Drones and UAVs in T2K

[Raellus]

When T2K was first released, UAVs were still nascent tech. I don't recall every seeing mention of drones/UAVs in any published T2k adventure modules or source-books.

AFAIK, the Israelis were pioneers (pun intended) in UAV tech and operational application. Their use of drones as decoys c. 1982 to trick Syrian SAM crews in the Bekaa Valley into targeting themselves for HARM strikes by turning on their radars was brilliant.

The USN used drones launched from their Wisconsin class battleships to act as unmanned artillery spotters during Desert Storm in '91.

So drones exist in the various T2k timelines, and would have seen battlefield use therein, but to what extent? Would any UAVs be left by mid-2000?

Today, all manner of UAVs- from Hellfire-carrying Predators to off-the-shelf quadcopters, have become a prominent feature of pretty much every conflict zone on the planet. The tech is not limited to national militaries. In fact, insurgent and terrorist groups have pioneering drone tactics on various third world battlefields for the last few years.

On a side note, it seems to me that drone detection and countermeasures are lagging behind drone tech and tactics.

In a brief T2030 campaign that I ran, small drones came into play. The PCs had a couple fixed wing UAVs, which they used to great effect for reconnaissance and battlefield surveillance. They are huge force multiplier when used against an adversary lacking the same capability. Unfortunately, the campaign ended before the player party encountered an enemy with drones of their own (plans for such an encounter were afoot).

Have drones/UAVs featured in your campaign? Tell us about it.

This is the place for drone discussion so have at it.

-

[Ewan]

I reckon they would be attached to artillery units and possibly brigade or higher HQs especially after you start to lose the reconnaissance data from satellites.
Also depending on spare parts and maintenance I see them only used when really necessary and only when the data is worth the risk of losing them.
As for arming them probably not but you might see the odd field modification.
https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8096831/bae-systems-phoenix-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-with-o

[Olefin]

Definitely would still be drones around by mid-2000. There probably would have been a huge surge of production of them in 96-97, especially after attacks started on satellite recon systems and recon plane losses started to mount. Even the much less capable systems of the 90's would have been invaluable for artillery spotting and recon. And with all the planes and helos sitting around at various airfields that are down for lack of parts or fuel you could see drones being kept going using salvaged parts.

[swaghauler]

The following three types of recon drones are used by my players.

Parrot Jumping Drone: This 2-wheeled ground bot is capable of jumping up to 0.6m vertically and is controlled by an AP downloaded to a smartphone. It can move up to 50m from its controller and is controlled by a BlueTooth connection which can be jammed. It has a runtime of 20 minutes per charge and a maximum speed of 3m per second. Its digital camera has a 4GB storage and LEDs for lighting in dark environments. This commercially made toy is made of plastic and not very durable.
Cost: $99 vehicle, $99 AP (which works for multiple devices). Availability: C/C. Wt: 0.2kg. Bulk: 0.75

https://youtu.be/-_8MtJ6WujI

Recon ThrowBot: A much better tactical device than the Parrot, the ThrowBot is used by SWAT teams everywhere and would be available during the Twilight War. It is very quiet (20DcBl) and has a run-time of 1 hour. The hand-held controller has 3 channels (allowing for the use of 3 bots) and can connect digitally to most laptops or command stations. The robot has a built-in IR camera and will switch automatically based on the light available. The device can be thrown 36m horizontally, and 9m vertically and moves at up to 10m per second. It can clear a 4"/10cm obstacle on its own. It is also resistant to jamming (light ECM).
Cost: $5K bot, $2k Controller. Availability S/S (both bot and controller).
Weight: 0.54kg (bot), 0.4kg (controller). Bulk: 1.1 (bot), 2 (controller).

https://youtu.be/U9DR4OpSKvY

FQM-151 Raven man-portable UAV: This man-portable UAV is thrown into the air to get it flying and can be caught or just allowed to crash to land. It can be disassembled and placed into a backpack. The first generation (listed here) has a fixed camera while later versions had a camera in a rotating mount. It can be flown from a lap-top controller or preprogrammed to fly a GPS-waypoints path. It is resistant to moderate ECM and possesses both IR and daylight digital imaging to X25 power. The UAV has a flight endurance of 1 hour, a 300m maximum altitude, and a flight speed of 20m per second.
Cost: UAV $40K, Controller $6K. Avaliabiliy: R/R (both). Weight: 4kg (UAV), 1kg (Controller). Bulk (stored): 12 (uav & controller).

https://youtu.be/8RMB9WMdG6g

As always, use what you want and ignore the rest...

Swag

[swaghauler]

Boeing's ScanEagle would also be available as the prototypes were flying in the mid-'90s even though the Navy didn't officially adopt it until the year 2002.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think the biggest issue is not whether drone technology was available (it was, for example, the Ryan Firebee target drone was in service in 1952) but if the military recognizes the potential that drone tech represents.

[Vespers War]

Lightning Bugs would probably return to use. Ryan Firebees were modified and used in the 60s and 70s with cameras to provide aerial recon, with Lightning Bug being their designation. In the late 90s, Teledyne Ryan converted a pair of Firebees to an updated Lightning Bug standard providing real-time imagery for Green Flag exercises in Nevada. Firebees are still in use today, so they'd be available for conversion.

Predator entered service in 1995, so the early RQ (unarmed) versions of it would likely exist in small numbers in the Twilight era. The CIA would have its predecessor, the GNAT 750.

The RQ-2 Pioneer drones launched from Iowa-class battleships during the Gulf War remained in service until 2007, so they'd still be around.

The FQM-151 Pointer is the "first generation Raven" that swaghauler mentioned in his Raven entry. They were first acquired in 1990 and still in use in the early 2000s (not sure if they're all retired yet). It's a 9 pound drone with an hour of flight time and a fixed-forward camera.

Slightly larger is the BQM-147 Exdrone (Expendable Drone). It served in Desert Storm and is still in use. It's around 90 pounds with 2.5 hours of endurance.

S-TEC (now DRS Unmanned Systems) started building their Sentry in the mid-80s. It's a 240 pound drone with 8 hours of endurance and a 60 pound payload.

[Legbreaker]

Would drones be in use in a parallel/alternate world such as T2k?
Possibly.
Would they have seen widespread use?
Very doubtful given the technical limitations of the mid 90's.
Would many/any have survived nearly half a decade of warfare without adequate replacement parts, servicing, fuel/battery replacements, etc, etc, etc?
Almost certainly not.

UAVs/drones typically operate at relatively low altitudes (except for the big hellfire carrying ones of course, but they're more like unmanned aircraft). Given those fairly low altitudes, it's almost a certainty they're going to attract small arms fire, or even get caught in explosions (grenades, mortars, etc) for the more tactical level ones.

The larger ones operating at higher altitudes are sure to be targets for SAMS, AAA guns and other aircraft too, and to my knowledge, generally lack the ability to effectively fight back (yes, I know some have defensive systems which is why I said "effectively").

So, to make things really simple, there's no need to include them in a normal T2k game EXCEPT on very rare occasions as a macguffin or in the hands of the opposition. Their frequency of appearance should be about the same as just about any other type of aircraft and for more or less the exact same reasons.

[Olefin]

Sorry Leg but drones will be around and not as rare as you think - if you can build ultralights you can build drones - and there will be a hell of a lot of junked airplanes and other places for parts for drones - hell just find a good model airplane shop and you have parts you can use to build a drone - they may be lower tech but they will be around.

[Fallenkezef]

Drones where recce platforms in the late 90's right? When where the first armed UAVs deployed?

[Olefin]

I suspect any that would be armed would be more like kamikazes than launching platforms - especially later in the war when they got more jury rigged for replacement parts

[Legbreaker]

Sorry Leg but drones will be around and not as rare as you think - if you can build ultralights you can build drones - and there will be a hell of a lot of junked airplanes and other places for parts for drones - hell just find a good model airplane shop and you have parts you can use to build a drone - they may be lower tech but they will be around.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
However, drones require electronics to run them, radio receivers and transmitters, and all sorts of other electrically powered actuators, whereas an ultralight, with it's pilot sitting right there in the vehicle, avoids the need for all those near impossible to find, let alone produce, components.

If drones were so easy to produce in the later stages of the war, why aren't cruise missiles and other guided munitions more common then? Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

[Raellus]

I tend to agree that drones/UAVs would be quite rare c. 2000.

UAVs/drones typically operate at relatively low altitudes (except for the big hellfire carrying ones of course, but they're more like unmanned aircraft). Given those fairly low altitudes, it's almost a certainty they're going to attract small arms fire, or even get caught in explosions (grenades, mortars, etc) for the more tactical level ones.

I don't know about this. There's tons of footage out there of small drones loitering over OPFOR positions at relatively low altitude. Apparently, small, moving aerial targets are extremely difficult to hit with small arms fire. As a result, modern armies are developing all sorts of anti-drone weaponry, from lasers to microwave transmitters, to try to combat small drones.

The larger ones operating at higher altitudes are sure to be targets for SAMS, AAA guns and other aircraft too, and to my knowledge, generally lack the ability to effectively fight back (yes, I know some have defensive systems which is why I said "effectively").

True, the air over central Europe during the Twilight War would be fraught with dangers. I think tactical implementation is key here. If drones are used selectively, they might survive longer than one might think. Is a SAM crew going to risk painting itself for lurking Wild Weasels in order to target a lone drone (especially given the established tactic of using drones as decoys to unmask AA networks)?

That said, if SAMs and AAA don't get them, time likely will. As you pointed out, drone/UAV electronic components and power systems will likely fail without proper maintenance and/or the availability of spares, so non-combat attrition is almost inevitable.

So, to make things really simple, there's no need to include them in a normal T2k game EXCEPT on very rare occasions as a macguffin or in the hands of the opposition. Their frequency of appearance should be about the same as just about any other type of aircraft and for more or less the exact same reasons.

Agreed. The appearance of a drone in a campaign c.2000 should, IMHO, should be a really unique, special event.

-

[pansarskott]

Overview of UAVS from the 50's up to present day https://sites.google.com/site/uavuni/1990s-onwards (but the "peanut" is missing https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cl-327.htm)

[Vespers War]

Drones where recce platforms in the late 90's right? When where the first armed UAVs deployed?

Iran used armed UAVs in the Iran-Iraq War, so no later than that.

[Olefin]

It comes down to what kind of drone you are talking about - we arent talking about Predators here controlled remotely from hundreds of miles away - you can also make a drone using simple radio control technology that you can find at any model rocket/airplane store. Its not as capable for sure - but it can be done. And I agree - a fully functional pre-war or early war drone would be rare by mid-2000 except possibly in places like France or Japan (V1 Japan at least) that avoided being part of the war.

I am an aeronautical engineer - it can be and could be done guys. But they would be jury rigs and a lot less capable than the high tech drones you are probably thinking of. Best comparison would be they would be like Wojo Mines and Mortars compared to what was being made pre-war.

[Raellus]

I don't think it would be too difficult to build a simple UAV c.2000, but while it's one thing to construct a functional flying platform, it's entirely another to effectively militarize it. To give it recce/surveillance/spotting capability, you'd need to include live video feeds, imaging devices, and/or recording devices, etc.). Those sorts of electronics would be harder to find in the later years of the Twilight War than small engines and RC equipment, I would imagine. Without a proper bird's-eye view, it would be very difficult to turn an ad hoc drone into a weapons platform. You'd need LOS to target it effectively, and if you can see the target, it can probably see you too.

[Olefin]

I don't think it would be too difficult to build a simple UAV c.2000, but while it's one thing to construct a functional flying platform, it's entirely another to effectively militarize it. To give it recce/surveillance/spotting capability, you'd need to include live video feeds, imaging devices, and/or recording devices, etc.). Those sorts of electronics would be harder to find in the later years of the Twilight War than small engines and RC equipment, I would imagine. Without a proper bird's-eye view, it would be very difficult to turn an ad hoc drone into a weapons platform. You'd need LOS to target it effectively, and if you can see the target, it can probably see you too.

Keep in mind I am not talking about a weapons platform (unless you want to put an explosive on it and make it a kamikaze - thats easy to do) - I am talking about a simple drone with a video system or camera that you can trigger remotely and then retreive and get back the information by having it fly home. And there was a lot of home video equipment available in that in that time frame - again we are talking about jury rigs here vs fully functional military eqiupment.

Also keep in mind that the tech to make a functional cruise missile has been around since the 1940's - i.e. the V1. And they didnt need a lot of high tech to make it a very deadly weapon. Not an accurate one - i.e. they aimed it a London and a lot of them missed - but if you even have 1940's level tech still working you can make one.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In regards to trying to construct a drone, some problems I can see with it are: -
1. finding electronics that haven't been damaged by the war (fire, EMP, etc. etc.)
2. finding people with the skills to put put those electronics together to make the control system - it's not just a case of having the electronics skill, you would need someone who has at least minimal knowledge of how aircraft work.
3. finding people who have the knowledge to construct the drone to allow it to carry something like a camera etc. etc. - cameras and particularly video cameras of that era were typically bulky and heavy in comparison to what we're used to today, any drone would have to have the motor power to lift that and also fly with it, then you have to consider the power source...

It's not as simple as throwing a motor onto a frame, adding some axles and wheels, adding a driver's position and saying you can make ATVs

[Raellus]

Those are all valid points. I don't know about other parts of the world, but the RC aircraft hobby was pretty big here in the US in the '80s and '90s, so some of the skills you mentioned wouldn't be too hard to find.
-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Those are all valid points. I don't know about other parts of the world, but the RC aircraft hobby was pretty big here in the US in the '80s and '90s, so some of the skills you mentioned wouldn't be too hard to find.
-
No disagreement from me in that regard and with the size of the hobby in North America, the potential to find undamaged components is similarly increased.
However I am one of those people who sees this as a good opportunity to create an adventure rather than have them easy to acquire and thus reduce the potential impact in a game.

I regard the setting as being "technology deficient", tech is there but demand far outstrips supply, even to the point that there may not even be any supply. I have no problem with drones being in the game or even the ability to make drones but I hesitate to have them become part of the everyday experience - they should not be the norm, they should be something unusual, just like encountering a 100% fully functional MBT should be unusual.

[Raellus]

No disagreement from me in that regard and with the size of the hobby in North America, the potential to find undamaged components is similarly increased.
However I am one of those people who sees this as a good opportunity to create an adventure rather than have them easy to acquire and thus reduce the potential impact in a game.

I regard the setting as being "technology deficient", tech is there but demand far outstrips supply, even to the point that there may not even be any supply. I have no problem with drones being in the game or even the ability to make drones but I hesitate to have them become part of the everyday experience - they should not be the norm, they should be something unusual, just like encountering a 100% fully functional MBT should be unusual.

I agree wholeheartedly.

-

[Targan]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
However, drones require electronics to run them, radio receivers and transmitters, and all sorts of other electrically powered actuators, whereas an ultralight, with it's pilot sitting right there in the vehicle, avoids the need for all those near impossible to find, let alone produce, components.

Yes, drones are essentially fly-by-wire aircraft tech plus RC gear. Running a drone stored in perfect condition with all the required gear? You just need the setup and maintenance know-how and hopefully a competent operator. Keeping one running with some amount of available compatible spares? Not too hard, again particularly if you have personnel with the right skills sets. Trying to keep one operating with makeshift components? Bloody difficult by 2000 I reckon. Any unit with multiple drones would very quickly be cannibalising some to provide parts for a small number of best-condition drones.

Any suggestion that operational military drones would be anything other than very rare by 2000 is kind of farcical. But a great hook for an adventure, due to that rarity.

[Vespers War]

Keep in mind I am not talking about a weapons platform (unless you want to put an explosive on it and make it a kamikaze - thats easy to do) - I am talking about a simple drone with a video system or camera that you can trigger remotely and then retreive and get back the information by having it fly home. And there was a lot of home video equipment available in that in that time frame - again we are talking about jury rigs here vs fully functional military eqiupment.

Also keep in mind that the tech to make a functional cruise missile has been around since the 1940's - i.e. the V1. And they didnt need a lot of high tech to make it a very deadly weapon. Not an accurate one - i.e. they aimed it a London and a lot of them missed - but if you even have 1940's level tech still working you can make one.

You can make a functional cruise missile with earlier tech as long as you have enough resources to throw into testing. The United States produced 45 Kettering Aerial Torpedoes between 1918 and 1920, but they didn't see use because officials were (understandably) concerned about their reliability when launching over friendly troops. There was also the UK's Larynx in the 1920s and the USSR's GIRD-06 in the 1930s. None of them were successful in their era, but that was because of a lack of technical knowledge and development - aerodynamics were never fully worked out for the Aerial Torpedo, while the Larynx succeeded in tests in England but failed in Egypt because of vapor lock in the engine.

Even when the V-1 came around, of the first 19 launches at London, only 4 hit England, and only 1 of those in London. It took time to work the kinks out of the system. Once those kinks were worked out, 20% were immediate failures (detonating on the rail, crashing shortly after takeoff, or wandering randomly), while only 31.4% hit within 30 kilometers of the aiming point at 225 kilometer range or 15 km at 100 km range, which was the Luftwaffe's definition of success for the weapon.

With World War 2 tech, you can also get a drone with a TV camera controlled by the backseater in a multi-person aircraft, like the TDR drone torpedo bomber controlled by Avenger bombardiers. They were used against Japanese shipping with moderate success (about 2/3 success rate, with most of the failures being mechanical or TV failures, only around 6% being shot down).

[Legbreaker]

I believe these direct quotes from 1st and 2nd ed are very relevant to this topic:

4501

4502

4503

[bash]

If drones are all destroyed by magic T2K EMPs then so is everything else electronic. No vehicle built after the 70s is going to be functional because those magic EMPs have fused every ECM in all engines. The only rocket launchers that work are blank ignited types. There's no working NVG anywhere.

So either the Heavy Weapons and Vehicle guides are pointless or the magic EMP isn't quite so powerful as it's described. This doesn't means drones or other high tech gear has to be common but the EMP as described in the books is vastly overstated.

[Legbreaker]

If drones are all destroyed by magic T2K EMPs then so is everything else electronic.

You did actually read the section I posted right?

[bash]

Yes and the fact remains the magic T2K EMPs either worked as written or don't. If they work as written the logical conclusion is that everything electronic is toast. If control systems in factories (essentially giant Faraday cages) are fried then there's no way the ECMs in every HMMWV and M1 aren't also fried. So if you run the magic T2K EMP as written there's no need to ever crack open any of the Vehicle guides, the Last Sub adventure is pointless, half of the Heavy Weapons guide is useless, and the RDF guide is a waste of paper.

If instead you run the game where an EMP acts more like a real life EMP there's damage to power grids and some totally unshielded electronics but plenty of electronics survive. In that case there's no problem at all talking about drones and UAVs that existed in the timeline of the game and how they might be used at the table or in the co text of adventures.

I've never run games with the magic T2K EMPs because they don't make sense. I can concede magic Diesel engines that can run on alcohol but not the magic EMPs. That does not mean high tech devices are over abundant. In my games technology exists but is highly prized and often ends up the focus of adventures.

[pmulcahy11b]

Kind of reminds me of the car I had in college: "C'mon, start up...c'mon, radio work...c'mon, radiator don't have leaked too much fluid..."

[Spartan-117]

The most likely unit to have organic, fully integrated UAV support available in the Twilight 2000 timeline IMHO is...

...wait for it...

...The 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) in the RDF Theater... (you knew it would involve the RDF Sourcebook, didn't you?).

MERCURY GREEN

When the 9th ID became the High Technology Test Bed Division, it experiment with a lot of kewl stuff like FAVs, AGS, Pedestal-mount Stinger AA, Hellfire armed HMMWVs, and they really wanted UAVs.

But the technology didn't exist yet. So they used a stand-in manned system, called MERCURY GREEN. Which, from what I've found, was a Cessna, lol.

Had the 9th ID HTTD project continued past the fall of the USSR, it's highly likely they would have moved past using surrogate aircraft and would have had a mil-spec UAV platform available for combat operations.

It's all outlined here, especially Appendix D.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191026140044/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a370233.pdf

[Lurken]

If instead you run the game where an EMP acts more like a real life EMP there's damage to power grids and some totally unshielded electronics but plenty of electronics survive. In that case there's no problem at all talking about drones and UAVs that existed in the timeline of the game and how they might be used at the table or in the co text of adventures.


You forget the loss of lives, the loss of knowhow, the loss of production capabilities, the loss of spare parts. That is in the nuclear exchange only. Then add starvation, sickness, desperation, exposure to elements. As a final kicker, add a war that drags on for another 2-3 years, grinding even more spares and materiel.

At the start of the war, totally plausible. Directly after the nuclear exchange, just a little burnt but can still operate. After the ongoing chaos, destruction and war it will be quite rare to find high tech stuff. As specified on the books themselves. That high-tech stuff is lost and will not be replaced. Except for the RDF, where they can enjoy of local high tech support of the Israelies and Saudies, and the nuclear exchange was lesser there.

[Raellus]

Your arguments are quite logical, Lurken. I don't disagree with you per se, but consider the per capita amount of tech left by 2000. As more and more people die off due to nuclear warfare, starvation, disease, exposure, and/or conventional combat attrition, the ratio of tech to people might stay the same or even increase.

In other words, as the population decreases, there are fewer people making use of available tech. So, some tech might not get used up as quickly as it would if there were more people around to use it. This could apply to drones/UAVs, or the parts needed to jury rig one.

We tend to think that tech will get used up, and people killed, at roughly the same rate, but that isn't necessarily the case. I posit that the faster people die off, the more slowly that remaining available tech will get used up. Obviously, as modern manufacturing grinds to a halt, very little, if any, new tech will be produced, but for a time- one could argue that this period would occur around the year 2000- the rate by which tech would be used up by surviving people would be so slow that the amount of tech still left to use might last longer than one would think.

I know it's a video game, but one encounters this phenomenon in the Fallout series, where there are so few survivors left in some parts of the wasteland that an explorer will, from time to time, encounter pockets of forgotten, unused, viable tech.

-

[bash]

You forget the loss of lives, the loss of knowhow, the loss of production capabilities, the loss of spare parts. That is in the nuclear exchange only. Then add starvation, sickness, desperation, exposure to elements. As a final kicker, add a war that drags on for another 2-3 years, grinding even more spares and materiel.

For starters, the US is absolutely lousy with technology and has been for decades. It's got layers of technology in scrap yards, junk yards, and back yards. It's also lousy with cars, books, airplanes, boats, lawnmowers, guns, and schools. In addition it's got mandatory childhood education and a high literacy rate. This was just as true in the 90s as it is today.

That means even if you reduce the population by half (as per Howling Wilderness) you've still got a huge population of people and tons of technological knickknacks lying around. With half the population you've actually got more knickknacks per person and a smaller support load in terms of food, water, and shelter. Loss of production and spares doesn't mean as much because everyone is surrounded by spares.

With spares readily available the average community college would have the books needed to get a lot of small scale infrastructure up and running. Even if all the knowhow didn't already exist in that population. I also don't think it's right to assume that the US and other countries pre-TDM wouldn't start Civil Defense programs back up in earnest, even just free classes on stuff like first aid and survival skills.

The people still kicking in July 2000 are going to have gotten together to survive the three years after TDM. I don't see them not trying to rebuild some force multipliers using salvaged/scavenged technology and equipment. Anything that makes people's lives easier to helps more survive it going to be useful and a desirable use of resources.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So far, there's a lot of valid points on both sides of the argument.
I would add though, that it does not matter if the knowledge and tech are available, if said tech does not help people stay alive, those people will not give a shit about that tech.
If it doesn't get food for them, doesn't give them shelter, if it cannot be traded for something they need... then it is just so much extra junk lying around in the world.
Which does leave it available for those people who are interested in it.

But ultimately, it comes down to what you as a Referee and you as a Player want from the game.
I've declined invites to some games because they were too sci-fi for what I expected of T2k, I've quit other games because they were too damned harsh with an attrition rate of one dead PC every four or five sessions and the game was a grind and not an enjoyable hobby.
Everybody has their own take on what the game world could be like.

It's worth remembering that before we try to shove our own personal take on the game down someone else's throat

[swaghauler]

Your arguments are quite logical, Lurken. I don't disagree with you per se, but consider the per capita amount of tech left by 2000. As more and more people die off due to nuclear warfare, starvation, disease, exposure, and/or conventional combat attrition, the ratio of tech to people might stay the same or even increase.

In other words, as the population decreases, there are fewer people making use of available tech. So, some tech might not get used up as quickly as it would if there were more people around to use it. This could apply to drones/UAVs, or the parts needed to jury rig one.

We tend to think that tech will get used up, and people killed, at roughly the same rate, but that isn't necessarily the case. I posit that the faster people die off, the more slowly that remaining available tech will get used up. Obviously, as modern manufacturing grinds to a halt, very little, if any, new tech will be produced, but for a time- one could argue that this period would occur around the year 2000- the rate by which tech would be used up by surviving people would be so slow that the amount of tech still left to use might last longer than one would think.

I know it's a video game, but one encounters this phenomenon in the Fallout series, where there are so few survivors left in some parts of the wasteland that an explorer will, from time to time, encounter pockets of forgotten, unused, viable tech.

-

I agree with this and I could see RC toys being "weaponized" and used like a poor man's MCLOS missile, ala TREMORS II.

[Olefin]

In regards to trying to construct a drone, some problems I can see with it are: -
1. finding electronics that haven't been damaged by the war (fire, EMP, etc. etc.)
2. finding people with the skills to put put those electronics together to make the control system - it's not just a case of having the electronics skill, you would need someone who has at least minimal knowledge of how aircraft work.
3. finding people who have the knowledge to construct the drone to allow it to carry something like a camera etc. etc. - cameras and particularly video cameras of that era were typically bulky and heavy in comparison to what we're used to today, any drone would have to have the motor power to lift that and also fly with it, then you have to consider the power source...

It's not as simple as throwing a motor onto a frame, adding some axles and wheels, adding a driver's position and saying you can make ATVs

Keep in mind that you are talking to one such person who can do exactly what you are describing. Have been building model rockets and remote controlled model aircraft for literally decades - started doing so in college and continue to do so. Modified my son's drone to make it more efficient that he used for his weather forecasting service. So yes those people are out there. And have built a very serviceable remote controlled airplane in college using basically scraps and junk to do so.

Does that make them common - no obviously not. But plausible - heck yes.

Oh and Legbreaker - for the record - you can build a pretty damn good model airplane and or drone using very low tech items. You dont need what the creators of the game would have called high tech to do it.

FYI - its one reason I love the original Flight of the Phoenix movie - shows you exactly what could be done by a determined group of people who have an aeronautical engineer with them who knows about aerodynamics and how to build a very scaled up version of a model airplane.

As for why you would take the time to build a drone after the TDM - look at the Ozarks module and you get an idea what kind of advantages they would give you.

[Legbreaker]

ONE person.
How many left after 5 years of nuclear, chemical and biological war which in some parts of the planet have left a mere 3% of the population still breathing?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Keep in mind that you are talking to one such person who can do exactly what you are describing. Have been building model rockets and remote controlled model aircraft for literally decades - started doing so in college and continue to do so. Modified my son's drone to make it more efficient that he used for his weather forecasting service. So yes those people are out there. And have built a very serviceable remote controlled airplane in college using basically scraps and junk to do so.

Does that make them common - no obviously not. But plausible - heck yes.

Oh and Legbreaker - for the record - you can build a pretty damn good model airplane and or drone using very low tech items. You dont need what the creators of the game would have called high tech to do it.

FYI - its one reason I love the original Flight of the Phoenix movie - shows you exactly what could be done by a determined group of people how have an aeronautical engineer with them who knows about aerodynamics and how to build a very scaled up version of a model airplane.

As for why you would take the time to build a drone after the TDM - look at the Ozarks module and you get an idea what kind of advantages they would give you.
As far as I recall, nobody said it was not plausible.
What we did say is that while it's possible, it's not probable.
So you're one person who can do it. So what?
One person who might not have survived the war anyway.
Even if you did survive the war, so what?
You can't be in more than one place at once. So you make a drone or two for the military forces in the region you're in. So what?
It does not make drones a common item, it does not mean that drones will be found all over the place.
Your existence in T2k is not guaranteed and your ability to construct drones is not guaranteed, so where does that leave us?
Right back in the "there's definitely the possibility, but there's no certainty" area.

[Olefin]

FYI guys - the RC/model rocket club at RPI where I went had a lot of members - and I have met a lot more over the years. There is a lot of people out there who can do this. So no I am not the only person who can do this. I am pointing out that at least one member of the board has the skills and knowledge to do it.

Thus can it be done - yup. And would make a great adventure where you get sent out to gather up the necessary parts to be able to either put drones back into shape to fly or make jury rigged ones that would be able to be used for basic recon and possibly attack missions (with the emphasis there on attack meaning ram into something with an explosive charge not fire a weapon and return)

Or fun missions like being sent to search for rocket motors using an old copy of a magazine that shows the shop did exist at one time in order to make a bunch of unguided rockets to use for helping to either defend or attack a town. And running into various people who really dont like the group much on the way.

And yes you can put a warhead on a model rocket. We did it in college - rocket was supposed to go straight up and have the warhead (a bunch of M80's wrapped together) explode in mid-air. But instead it went off course and detonated in the middle of the football field instead (luckily with no one on it). Coach was just a little pissed.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

FYI guys - the RC/model rocket club at RPI where I went had a lot of members - and I have met a lot more over the years. There is a lot of people out there who can do this. So no I am not the only person who can do this. I am pointing out that at least one member of the board has the skills and knowledge to do it.

Thus can it be done - yup. And would make a great adventure where you get sent out to gather up the necessary parts to be able to either put drones back into shape to fly or make jury rigged ones that would be able to be used for basic recon and possibly attack missions (with the emphasis there on attack meaning ram into something with an explosive charge not fire a weapon and return)

Or fun missions like being sent to search for rocket motors using an old copy of a magazine that shows the shop did exist at one time in order to make a bunch of unguided rockets to use for helping to either defend or attack a town. And running into various people who really dont like the group much on the way.

And yes you can put a warhead on a model rocket. We did it in college - rocket was supposed to go straight up and have the warhead (a bunch of M80's wrapped together) explode in mid-air. But instead it went off course and detonated in the middle of the football field instead (luckily with no one on it). Coach was just a little pissed.

One nuke on that town and your entire club is... well, to be really blunt, totally irrelevant.

And even if they escape a nuke, there's the panic, the food shortages, the riots (with all the violence that can occur), the diseases, the radiation, the grind of daily survival in the hell of the post-apocalypse...
Really, what good is a drone when you're starving to death, you can't get enough fuel for your vehicles, you don't have enough ammunition to fend off even a half-arsed bunch of bandits and you don't have the medicine to deal with a minor infection?

What you did with a model rocket in college is completely irrelevant, it's T2k, the world as you knew it is so completely and totally fucked, your fun with rockets will not keep you alive.

I have no problem with a drone or two being available as a special encounter but to imply that every second American in the game will have access to the parts/skills to make one is really straining the suspension of disbelief.

[CDAT]

One nuke on that town and your entire club is... well, to be really blunt, totally irrelevant.

And even if they escape a nuke, there's the panic, the food shortages, the riots (with all the violence that can occur), the diseases, the radiation, the grind of daily survival in the hell of the post-apocalypse...
Really, what good is a drone when you're starving to death, you can't get enough fuel for your vehicles, you don't have enough ammunition to fend off even a half-arsed bunch of bandits and you don't have the medicine to deal with a minor infection?

What you did with a model rocket in college is completely irrelevant, it's T2k, the world as you knew it is so completely and totally fucked, your fun with rockets will not keep you alive.

I have no problem with a drone or two being available as a special encounter but to imply that every second American in the game will have access to the parts/skills to make one is really straining the suspension of disbelief.

I am not going to say it is super common, but I do not think it is as rare as you make it out to be. I know more people who can build a model rocket/simple RC plane than can do medical care, or grow food (not talking small garden). In my immediate group of about 10-15 people I know four who have built RC planes, three who have built computers from scratch (and yes I know this is different from build a drone, but skills are kind of the same). So yes it is not going to be a every man skill, but I do not think that the skill is going to be the big limiting factor. I think parts are going to be the bigger factor, but even there I am not sure that they will be as super rare as some are trying to make it out to be. Uncommon for sure, stuff of legend not even close. But that is just my two cents.

[Olefin]

One nuke on that town and your entire club is... well, to be really blunt, totally irrelevant.

And even if they escape a nuke, there's the panic, the food shortages, the riots (with all the violence that can occur), the diseases, the radiation, the grind of daily survival in the hell of the post-apocalypse...
Really, what good is a drone when you're starving to death, you can't get enough fuel for your vehicles, you don't have enough ammunition to fend off even a half-arsed bunch of bandits and you don't have the medicine to deal with a minor infection?

What you did with a model rocket in college is completely irrelevant, it's T2k, the world as you knew it is so completely and totally fucked, your fun with rockets will not keep you alive.

I have no problem with a drone or two being available as a special encounter but to imply that every second American in the game will have access to the parts/skills to make one is really straining the suspension of disbelief.

Stainless - please take a deep breath ok - no reason for this to get out of hand

One - I never said that every second American in the game has those skills - not once. So dont put words in my mouth and say I did. And the idea that just about every single person who has them is going to get killed is basically ridiculous.

Two - RPI (where I went from 83-87) was not nuked in the game - there wasnt a nuke anywhere near it - or for that matter a lot of Engineering schools that have similar people and skills (RIT and MIT come to mind right off the bat - neither of which were in nuke areas)

Three - you do realize that its not going to be a pack of starving animals everywhere in the US? That the country was hit hard but there are still army units functional as well as power being generated here and there. Thus in places like that people who have the skills will be in great demand to get the tech up and running again. And military units and organized communities would be where such people would probably be found.

Four - those who can do things like make a working drone or militarized model rockets will be doing it as part of defending their communities. Thats why people with tech skills would be high on the list of who gets into communities and who gets told to hit the road. To give those communities an advantage. Let alone for doing things like trying to get other equipment working.

[Raellus]

This thread seems to be on the verge of boiling over. Please, let cooler heads prevail, and Keep it Civil.

I think we can all more or less agree on the following, as a sort of base-line:

Drones in T2k, c.2000?

Possible, yes.

Probability of encountering said, low.

As always, if you ref, the decision regarding if/how/when/why to include drones/UAVs in your T2kU is up to you.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I was indeed being blunt, very blunt, there is no threat of boiling over.
Like many forums, we seem to have an obsession with going over the same ground again and again so all that's happening here is the same for and against arguments being pitched over and over again.

However I will go back to one of my comments and expand upon it
Who the hell cares about making a drone, when they are trying to survive in the ruins of WW3?
There's a limited number of people who would see a use for a drone and they are most likely going to be military/security/police groups.
For the average person from the average town, even if they were the engineering professor at the local college, they are more likely going to be using their skills to get farming back into action, or the water system or the electrical system.
Having a drone won't put food on the table, so it's unlikely that many people will see any need for one.

EDIT:
Just to make this explicitly clear - nobody is arguing that drones could not exist or that they could not be constructed. Everyone pretty much agreed that the knowledge and the tech existed, everyone pretty much agreed that people with skills to make use of the knowledge & tech would still be alive in sufficient numbers and everybody pretty much agreed that there's even a good likelihood that the parts needed could be found.
So people should not be thinking that I am arguing that drones could not exist in the game world.
What I am asking, the question that nobody has answered, is "Why?"
Outside of certain groups, why would anyone bother with making a drone? The lack of people needing drones would make drones a scarce item. Encountering a drone would be a rare event.

[CDAT]

While I was indeed being blunt, very blunt, there is no threat of boiling over.
Like many forums, we seem to have an obsession with going over the same ground again and again so all that's happening here is the same for and against arguments being pitched over and over again.

However I will go back to one of my comments and expand upon it
Who the hell cares about making a drone, when they are trying to survive in the ruins of WW3?
There's a limited number of people who would see a use for a drone and they are most likely going to be military/security/police groups.
For the average person from the average town, even if they were the engineering professor at the local college, they are more likely going to be using their skills to get farming back into action, or the water system or the electrical system.
Having a drone won't put food on the table, so it's unlikely that many people will see any need for one.

EDIT:
Just to make this explicitly clear - nobody is arguing that drones could not exist or that they could not be constructed. Everyone pretty much agreed that the knowledge and the tech existed, everyone pretty much agreed that people with skills to make use of the knowledge & tech would still be alive in sufficient numbers and everybody pretty much agreed that there's even a good likelihood that the parts needed could be found.
So people should not be thinking that I am arguing that drones could not exist in the game world.
What I am asking, the question that nobody has answered, is "Why?"
Outside of certain groups, why would anyone bother with making a drone? The lack of people needing drones would make drones a scarce item. Encountering a drone would be a rare event.

I can see several reason to use drones, now yes the ones that first come to mind are for the military/security/police type. If you come to an area that you have to move through to get to where you are going but it looks like it would be a great place to set up an ambush, do some recon with the drone. If you are defending a town/fort whatever you could do some recon of a larger area quicker than sending ground troops out, not as complete but quicker so you use the drones on the more open areas, and send ground troops out to the areas that can not be seen well from the drone. One is if you are moving mostly, the other if you are stationary but both will help you stay alive, and if your troops are alive and well the community is likely better off. Some other thoughts that I have for uses of drones, when resources are scares and sometimes hard to get, you can use the drone to do some of the searching for resources, or expand the area that you are looking for stuff. If it finds a likely spot you are able to look there instead of looking everywhere or spending more time out looking. I think that there are so many different ways that they can be used, that it is like any other piece of equipment, how useful is NVG's if you only do stuff during the day, or a surgical kit if the best first aid you have is basic.

[Spartan-117]

I don't think it would be too difficult to build a simple UAV c.2000, but while it's one thing to construct a functional flying platform, it's entirely another to effectively militarize it. To give it recce/surveillance/spotting capability, you'd need to include live video feeds, imaging devices, and/or recording devices, etc.). Those sorts of electronics would be harder to find in the later years of the Twilight War than small engines and RC equipment, I would imagine. Without a proper bird's-eye view, it would be very difficult to turn an ad hoc drone into a weapons platform. You'd need LOS to target it effectively, and if you can see the target, it can probably see you too.

As an IT professional, I'd like to circle back around to this:

As Rae said, getting the motors, servos, etc. for a small drone wouldn't be as hard as getting the other electronics in 2000. The RC hobby has been around a long time. But getting a usable video signal off an RC platform in this era, without very specialized and proprietary equipment would be difficult.

The commercial drones you see in use now are all built upon a platform of open protocols, codecs, and software that have evolved since the late 90's.

802.11 WiFi standard was released in 1997 and clarified in 99, but widespread adoption of 802.11 networks only occurred after the release of 802.11b in mid-99 to 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11_(legacy_mode)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11b-1999

So without an open signal standard and products that use that standard, you would need to roll your own video transmission system. I'm a Ham and I can tell you it's possible, but it's not a compact system, again, especially in the mid-90's timeline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_television

Now we are starting to need two skill sets: RC modeling and HAM radio Amateur TV expertise to kludge something that might be useful.

Most of your digital optics in the 90's were using CCDs and not CMOS and were still relatively bulky.

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/history/story08.html

Compact Storage/MMC cards came on to the scene in 95/97, so IMHO, that's your best option for video for a home-made drone at this point - drone goes up with video running the whole time, circles the target area, returns, then you pop the card, run it into a laptop (5.3 to 9 lbs back then), and watch the 12.1-inch SVGA TFT color LCD in 800x600 to see the drone video. Delayed video intel at best. But much easier than getting a video signal off the drone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiMediaCard

Military drones in this period, like the RQ-2A are using C-Band Line-Of-Sight microwave datalinks to transmit their data.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/pioneer-rq-2a-uav/nasm_A20000794000

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-04-155.pdf

https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/pioneer.htm

LOS Microwave means there's a microwave ground station, pointing a microwave dish at the UAV for the entire flight (or it's running over a UHF backup link with degraded video signal quality).

https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/avover1.jpg

So in summary, I think military UAV platforms are the only viable system for real-time intel in the 2000 timeline. Home-made UAVs will be hampered by the inability to transmit video in real time, and so could be useful for strategic (that cantonment is planting corn this year), but not tactical intelligence (here come 2 Gun Trucks!).

[Raellus]

So in summary, I think military UAV platforms are the only viable system for real-time intel in the 2000 timeline. Home-made UAVs will be hampered by the inability to transmit video in real time, and so could be useful for strategic (that cantonment is planting corn this year), but not tactical intelligence (here come 2 Gun Trucks!).

Excellent analysis and summary, Spartan. Thanks for sharing your expertise.

[bash]

So in summary, I think military UAV platforms are the only viable system for real-time intel in the 2000 timeline. Home-made UAVs will be hampered by the inability to transmit video in real time, and so could be useful for strategic (that cantonment is planting corn this year), but not tactical intelligence (here come 2 Gun Trucks!).

You've missed out entirely on analog video. CCTV cameras and compact 8mm camcorders have been around for a long time, and were readily available before TDM. A CCTV camera plugged into an RF modulator that's plugged into an amplifier would make for a pretty serviceable real-time video transmitter. It's literally all stuff you could source from a Radio Shack (you'd need to scratch build the amp). That all would also all fit in an MQ-2 or larger sized scratch built drone.

While you're still going to need a control station with LOS to the drone, you've still got a good tactical advantage with the high ground. Even if your drone's only got a few miles range that's still more intelligence than the opposition has on you.

[CDAT]

...

Compact Storage/MMC cards came on to the scene in 95/97, so IMHO, that's your best option for video for a home-made drone at this point - drone goes up with video running the whole time, circles the target area, returns, then you pop the card, run it into a laptop (5.3 to 9 lbs back then), and watch the 12.1-inch SVGA TFT color LCD in 800x600 to see the drone video. Delayed video intel at best. But much easier than getting a video signal off the drone.

...

This is what I am thinking when I am talking about a home made drone. A RC plane of some sort, with a digital camera attached. So no not real time, but will still give you decent intelligence, if it makes it back, and I see this as likely with the limited size of the plane, and lack of ammo (not likely to draw lots of fire, but this is very vearable).

[Southernap]

So everyone seems to be thinking about stuff like Pioneer or some variant of the the MQ-1 and MQ-9 series of drones.

Here are two more examples of drones that would have been in service during the Twilight War

1. BQM-34 Firebee (https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/BQM-34S) - is a ground or surface launched drone and can do a number of things depending on the mission packages installed. Some of the Firebees were later modified into what was called "Buffalo Hunter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Model_147#Ryan_Model_147S_Buffalo_Hunter)" and used in missions over North Vietnam and the PRC during the 1960s. One of the images captured by a Buffalo Hunter mission lead to the Son Tay Rescue Attempt (https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196019/rescue-attempt-the-son-tay-raid/).

So all that said there might still be Firebees in storage some where (Point Mugu, CA; White Sands, NM; Wallops Island, VA) and trying to recover a complete drone or two with the servicing equipment, the ZEL launcher, some JATO bottles, etc. Could be a good plot hook.

2. BQM-74 Chukar (https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/BQM-74E-CHUKAR) is another drone that although a targeting drone; might again form a plot hook for someone. Say NA and they want to bastardized them into a crude cruise missile. Flip side is the use of these by either MilGov or CivGov for similar reasons or even again highly modified to try and take pictures or obtain radar photography of an area.

3. Without going too far, there was also a slew of drone aircraft that probably would have survived in numerous regions around the US in the Twilight War. Think of QF-102s, QF-80s, QF-86s, etc. They all might still be around post 1997-1999 moments of survival. Again, a good plot hook might be someone trying to acquire enough of these and enough parts to build an air force of some type again. Hand wave away the utter lack of POL products and other stuff, that would make this work. Still the technology is there and someone might know how to reverse engineer them back into flyable planes or even give them more capabilities than what they were as drones.

If we are talking the civilian market. I don't know how many folks remember the Estes Rockets and there was one with a real simple camera with timer on it (https://www.ebay.com/itm/124188070750?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&campid=5338683863&customid=124188070750_220&toolid=11000) (the modern version has a digital camera with video (https://estesrockets.com/product/005325-astrocam-starter-set/)). It used Kodak 110 film (https://thedarkroom.com/film-formats/110-film/), I am sure that someone might find a way to fit one of these kits on to an R/C aircraft of some type or even say setup a bunch of these rocket kits around and use them as some form of aerial recon over their domain in some way. Granted the hard part would be to find the chemicals and ability to process the film, if not find more of this film some where. Still having photography back is important for those trying to claim domain over areas.

Just my .02 on the subject.

[Legbreaker]

Hand wave away the utter lack of POL products and other stuff, that would make this work.

And there we have another reason drones will be rare - almost all the decent sized ones require fuel. Fuel that itself is near impossible to acquire.
As for the electric ones, well, batteries don't last forever either. There is a limit on recharging them. Electronics are also quite likely to be be scarce anyway due to the EMP effects. Sure, there may well be components laying about unaffected, but it's unlikely there'll be anything worth scavenging from complete units given the basic foundation concept of T2k is "technology is gone".

[Spartan-117]

You've missed out entirely on analog video.

No, rolling your own video system with a rando CCTV camera plugged into an RF modulator and hand-built amp is exactly what I'm referring to when I say:

"So without an open signal standard and products that use that standard, you would need to roll your own video transmission system. I'm a Ham and I can tell you it's possible, but it's not a compact system, again, especially in the mid-90's timeline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_television

Now we are starting to need two skill sets: RC modeling and HAM radio Amateur TV expertise to kludge something that might be useful."

Again, I'm not saying you couldn't do this, but it's going to require much effort and a more specialized skillset (along with that nearby Radio Shack you mentioned) than slapping a running camera on a drone and retrieving the footage later.

I'll also point out that there's likely an opportunity cost if you do have the skills to pull this off and raid the Radio Shack for everything you need to do it. A working remote video system has numerous security uses. While it wouldn't eliminate the need to patrol, having a camera or two monitor the most likely route of enemy approach/your cantonment's main or secondary gates/high value stores (armory, food, ammo, etc.) could be highly useful. Also, miniaturization and weight would be much less of an issue with these uses, than with a drone. The UAV, which is likely used only a few hours each day, would need to offer a higher ROI for the use of the video subsystem, than could be obtained otherwise, especially given that the risk entailed in lofting that video system into the sky, as opposed to a static emplacement (where it's much less likely to suffer damage due to catastrophic deceleration - i.e. crashing).

A non-military, hand-built, UAV in the TW2K timeline capable of transmitting video would be very much a rare unicorn indeed for all the reasons cited in this thread (obtaining parts, fuel, EMP effects, expertise, etc.). However, if a Ref feels that having one of those flying around doesn't strain credibility to the breaking point and impact verisimilitude, I say go for it.

Personally, if I wanted an OPFOR or PC group to have a UAV with real-time intelligence capability in the classic TW2K timeline, I'd do it with a military drone, because I believe that's more believable and simpler than the alternative. If I wanted survivors of either NPC or PC persuasion to have access to non-real time intel via UAV, I'd likely do it via an RC airplane.

[Olefin]

FYI a lack of fuel will 100% not be the reason you cant build a workable drone.

Anyone who has ever built model aircraft knows that they dont need much fuel at all - especially compared to something like a Cessna. Thus you get recon capabilities and communication capabilities that use very little fuel - perfect for the fuel scarce world of 2000-2001.

And there is fuel even in North America - all you need to do is look at the Robinson refinery - 1% of capability still is one hell of a lot of fuel that is being made. Keep in mind that Ozarks module has fueled ultralights that are being used by New America. Also keep in mind that model aircraft fuel is mostly methanol - i.e. you dont need avgas for them

[swaghauler]

So everyone seems to be thinking about stuff like Pioneer or some variant of the the MQ-1 and MQ-9 series of drones.

Here are two more examples of drones that would have been in service during the Twilight War

1. BQM-34 Firebee (https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/BQM-34S) - is a ground or surface launched drone and can do a number of things depending on the mission packages installed. Some of the Firebees were later modified into what was called "Buffalo Hunter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Model_147#Ryan_Model_147S_Buffalo_Hunter)" and used in missions over North Vietnam and the PRC during the 1960s. One of the images captured by a Buffalo Hunter mission lead to the Son Tay Rescue Attempt (https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196019/rescue-attempt-the-son-tay-raid/).

So all that said there might still be Firebees in storage some where (Point Mugu, CA; White Sands, NM; Wallops Island, VA) and trying to recover a complete drone or two with the servicing equipment, the ZEL launcher, some JATO bottles, etc. Could be a good plot hook.

2. BQM-74 Chukar (https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/BQM-74E-CHUKAR) is another drone that although a targeting drone; might again form a plot hook for someone. Say NA and they want to bastardized them into a crude cruise missile. Flip side is the use of these by either MilGov or CivGov for similar reasons or even again highly modified to try and take pictures or obtain radar photography of an area.

3. Without going too far, there was also a slew of drone aircraft that probably would have survived in numerous regions around the US in the Twilight War. Think of QF-102s, QF-80s, QF-86s, etc. They all might still be around post 1997-1999 moments of survival. Again, a good plot hook might be someone trying to acquire enough of these and enough parts to build an air force of some type again. Hand wave away the utter lack of POL products and other stuff, that would make this work. Still the technology is there and someone might know how to reverse engineer them back into flyable planes or even give them more capabilities than what they were as drones.

If we are talking the civilian market. I don't know how many folks remember the Estes Rockets and there was one with a real simple camera with timer on it (https://www.ebay.com/itm/124188070750?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&campid=5338683863&customid=124188070750_220&toolid=11000) (the modern version has a digital camera with video (https://estesrockets.com/product/005325-astrocam-starter-set/)). It used Kodak 110 film (https://thedarkroom.com/film-formats/110-film/), I am sure that someone might find a way to fit one of these kits on to an R/C aircraft of some type or even say setup a bunch of these rocket kits around and use them as some form of aerial recon over their domain in some way. Granted the hard part would be to find the chemicals and ability to process the film, if not find more of this film some where. Still having photography back is important for those trying to claim domain over areas.

Just my .02 on the subject.

I had an Estes ASTROCAM 110 in the '80s. The only two issues I see with it was that you could only take a single photo per launch because the shutter was activated by a string connected to the parachute ejection system and it would only photograph a 100-meter square area with that photo (and the resolution was nothing to write home about either).

The rockets would be a Routine test of Chemistry to make and if a place like Krakow is making mortar rounds and small arms ammo, then they can make rocket motors. In Fact, I'd bet that Krakow would make RPG-7 rockets BEFORE it would make mortars. The RPG rounds are easier to make.

There were also a lot of RC aircraft capable of lifting a small camcorder but as CDAT already pointed out, you'd have to fly them and then watch the video after it landed. Some of the big RC bombers could fly for up to 30 minutes with such a payload. The big issue I see would be that most RC aircraft in the '90s would be using 3 channel FM or VHF control and this is VERY EASILY jammed by the most rudimentary ECM systems. In the absence of ECM, these model airplanes filled with explosives would make a good "poor man's" MCLOS Missile system.

The one thing I find funny about technology in Twilight2000 is the lack of appreciation for the complexity of certain technologies. I'm with Spartan 17 about using a "makeshift tele-feed" on a makeshift drone. The tech is too hard to make. But many players, even ones in this forum will simply "forgive" GDW when they introduce "tech" that seems basic on its face but in reality, requires a significant level of sophistication to produce. As an example, they ignore the idea that Krakow is making BICYCLES. I'm a pretty good "tinkerer," but I'm NOT SURE I could make a bike chain from scratch without any machining tools. Chains are COMPLEX DESIGNS that involve multiple PRECISION components like pins, links, and roller bearings, ALL OF WHICH must be made to exacting tolerances. Not to mention the hubs, chainrings, headset, and all the bearings a typical bike needs. Mess just one component up, and your new bike won't run.

This kind of reminds me of D&D where glass vials or iron flasks are cheap even though they require significant skill to make. And don't even get me started on mirrors.

[Olefin]

"This kind of reminds me of D&D where glass vials or iron flasks are cheap even though they require significant skill to make. And don't even get me started on mirrors."

Yup thats one thing I always wondered about as well - i.e. where the heck were they getting all these glass flasks for the burning oil

[Vespers War]

But many players, even ones in this forum will simply "forgive" GDW when they introduce "tech" that seems basic on its face but in reality, requires a significant level of sophistication to produce. As an example, they ignore the idea that Krakow is making BICYCLES. I'm a pretty good "tinkerer," but I'm NOT SURE I could make a bike chain from scratch without any machining tools. Chains are COMPLEX DESIGNS that involve multiple PRECISION components like pins, links, and roller bearings, ALL OF WHICH must be made to exacting tolerances. Not to mention the hubs, chainrings, headset, and all the bearings a typical bike needs. Mess just one component up, and your new bike won't run.

Primitive chain-driven bicycles are 1869 technology (https://www.bridgemanimages.co.uk/en/asset/184304/summary), which is when watchmaker Andre Romain Guilmet had a chain drive bicycle built by Edouard Meyer. They won't produce modern bushingless roller chains, but bar link chains would be within even most "primitive" (non-CNC) machine shops' capabilities (and not require roller bearings), while being able to make roller bearings would let them make a skip-link chain.

[Southernap]

FYI a lack of fuel will 100% not be the reason you cant build a workable drone.

Anyone who has ever built model aircraft knows that they dont need much fuel at all - especially compared to something like a Cessna. Thus you get recon capabilities and communication capabilities that use very little fuel - perfect for the fuel scarce world of 2000-2001.

And there is fuel even in North America - all you need to do is look at the Robinson refinery - 1% of capability still is one hell of a lot of fuel that is being made. Keep in mind that Ozarks module has fueled ultralights that are being used by New America. Also keep in mind that model aircraft fuel is mostly methanol - i.e. you dont need avgas for them


Yes, but you will need oil and hyd fluid and other lubricating portions of P.O.L acronym. Without them then you will have an issue in keeping the engine and bearings in the flight controls or even the wheels lubricated. Allowing for the use of what it already out there. Processing what crude that is still recoverable from the ground into a lubrication or an oil will be difficult without a good chemical industry.

[Spartan-117]

Fuel - IT IS A PROBLEM.

Not for the RC engine though. That won't use much.

It's all the driving around you'll need to do to find that un-looted Radio Shack.

[bash]

Fuel - IT IS A PROBLEM.

Not for the RC engine though. That won't use much.

It's all the driving around you'll need to do to find that un-looted Radio Shack.

There were thousands of Radio Shack stores alone. Add in all the other electronics retailers as well as schools and office parks with computers, printers (servos, gears, drive belts), and other electronics. But I get it, the magic EMP that allows Diesel engines to run on alcohol but destroyed all electronics makes the point moot.

How about we split the thread into two different ones. The group that is sure that all electronics in the universe are destroyed and impossible to build can have one thread. They can talk about walking back to the US from Poland or whatever. The other group can talk about the game impact of things like drones or maybe adventure ideas around them.

That way the "nothing works" crowd doesn't have to get all snarky and offended that other people aren't playing Twilight: 2000 BC.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

EMP won't kill a diesel engine. Diesel engines don't require the electrical system that petrol/gasoline engines need. While the EMP might very well destroy any electronic ignition, military vehicles in particular have shielding to protect these things from EMP.
Most civilian aircraft will be protected from EMP as they must be capable of handling the impact of lightning strikes while in flight.
There's nothing magical about vehicles surviving EMP

[Rainbow Six]

How about we split the thread into two different ones. The group that is sure that all electronics in the universe are destroyed and impossible to build can have one thread. They can talk about walking back to the US from Poland or whatever. The other group can talk about the game impact of things like drones or maybe adventure ideas around them.

That way the "nothing works" crowd doesn't have to get all snarky and offended that other people aren't playing Twilight: 2000 BC.

Better still, how about we all try to follow the forum guidelines?

T2K Forum Guidelines

Keep It Civil

We can all agree to disagree but let's make sure to do so respectfully. No name-calling, sarcasm, or other childishness is appropriate or welcome here.

Please don't attempt to incite internecine forum conflict with deliberately provocative and/or inflamatory posts. In interweb parlance, please don't be a troll.

[Legbreaker]

Of course the books specifically state EMP screwed up everything, INCLUDING items which were supposed to be shielded.

T2k is NOT the real world. The physics, while similar, are different. What we can expect to survive IRL did not in T2k. Again, this is stated in the game books!

The world is a mess. EVERYTHING is either destroyed, worn out or in very, very short supply. I really shouldn't have to be reminding people of this (again) as it's a core part of Twilight:2000!

[Olefin]

Better still, how about we all try to follow the forum guidelines?

I agree and second the motion!

[Olefin]

Of course the books specifically state EMP screwed up everything, INCLUDING items which were supposed to be shielded.

T2k is NOT the real world. The physics, while similar, are different. What we can expect to survive IRL did not in T2k. Again, this is stated in the game books!

The world is a mess. EVERYTHING is either destroyed, worn out or in very, very short supply. I really shouldn't have to be reminding people of this (again) as it's a core part of Twilight:2000!

No the books never said that. Sorry but there are working refineries and nuclear power stations and working military vehicles with electronics that are still working. As for short supply - the US is literally drowning in electronics and spare parts sitting in junk yards/repair yards/warehouses/etc. - a lot of which can be modified by the right people to either bring things back to life or jury rig it for other uses.

No that doesnt mean you can easily rewire the electronic village. Yes it does mean that you will see some interesting jury rigs/MacGyvers/A-Team "those idiots locked us up in a room with welding equipment" devices - for instance UAV's and drones - if you can get the right people and the spare parts they need together in the same place

FYI thats where Operation Reset comes from in Africa - i.e. there wont be any resupply from the US so they send out teams to find weapons, fuel, spare parts, electronics that could be used for other applications, etc. Obviously the same thing would be happening here in the US - I dont see the Colorado Springs govt or New America or CivGov just sitting on their butts and not sending out teams (i.e. the players) to get what is needed to keep their vehicles/planes/electronics/etc. going

and offers all kinds of ideas for salvage missions for GM's

[Olefin]

Yes, but you will need oil and hyd fluid and other lubricating portions of P.O.L acronym. Without them then you will have an issue in keeping the engine and bearings in the flight controls or even the wheels lubricated. Allowing for the use of what it already out there. Processing what crude that is still recoverable from the ground into a lubrication or an oil will be difficult without a good chemical industry.

FYI that is being done - that is one thing that is in the books that while there is oil still being refined a lot of it has to go for lubrication and oil - and where you have military units intact - especially around Colorado Springs - you will have refining going on - the Robinson refinery only recently in the game had an accident that reduced its refining capability - but until then it would have been producing POL and other fluids - and thats just one refinery - they never said 100% of the refining capability was destroyed

[CDAT]

Of course the books specifically state EMP screwed up everything, INCLUDING items which were supposed to be shielded.

T2k is NOT the real world. The physics, while similar, are different. What we can expect to survive IRL did not in T2k. Again, this is stated in the game books!

The world is a mess. EVERYTHING is either destroyed, worn out or in very, very short supply. I really shouldn't have to be reminding people of this (again) as it's a core part of Twilight:2000!

All I can say about this, is we read the books very different. I do not get that from any of the books that I have read. So as far as I am concerned, based on my reading of the books, it is not a core part of twilight 2000. Twilight 2000 is more about being cut off from the chain of command, and government than a total lack of supplies. The way that I read it, everything is still available, not in the numbers that we are used to, but then again there are not the number of people that we are used to. Production is limited (and yes somethings are not being made anymore) but it is not a new dark ages like it seams that you are suggesting (and maybe I am reading you wrong).

So I guess what I am getting to is that it looks like there are very different ways people look at the same source material, and that is fine.

[Legbreaker]

All I can say about this, is we read the books very different.
I refer you to post #25 of this very thread and the bit I copied direction from the book where it states Control circuitry and electronic components of all types (in every type of industrial facility) were fried by the EMP (electromagnetic pulses) of nuclear detonations thousands of miles away (prewar predictions of EMP proved to be underestimates, and even supposedly shielded equipment was damaged to some extent).
Seems pretty damn clear to me and leaves very little to interpretation. Electronics were FRIED.
This happened THOUSANDS OF MILES from detonations.
Even shielded equipment was damaged.

How much clearer do you need?

[bash]

EMP won't kill a diesel engine. Diesel engines don't require the electrical system that petrol/gasoline engines need. While the EMP might very well destroy any electronic ignition, military vehicles in particular have shielding to protect these things from EMP.
Most civilian aircraft will be protected from EMP as they must be capable of handling the impact of lightning strikes while in flight.
There's nothing magical about vehicles surviving EMP

I guess sarcasm doesn't translate to Australian. The magic EMP that destroys all electrical conductors and makes electronics impossible also allows Diesel engines to run on alcohol.

[CDAT]

I refer you to post #25 of this very thread and the bit I copied direction from the book where it states
Seems pretty damn clear to me and leaves very little to interpretation. Electronics were FRIED.
This happened THOUSANDS OF MILES from detonations.
Even shielded equipment was damaged.

How much clearer do you need?

And yet per the rule book, you can have refrigerators (unshielded), Night Vision (very unshielded), and many other things that if that was truly the case you could not have at the start of the game. So that makes it not as clear as you think, and very open to interpretation.

[Olefin]

Legbreaker wants to play Aftermath then he should play Aftermath. The rules state a lot of things - but they also state there are working vehicles that have electronic ignitions, working reactors (Colorado Springs, the USS Virginia), that there was power still being generated in the US in 1998 in places AFTER the TDM, that there are still jet aircraft flying (and that it was fuel and spare part issues not fried electrical systems that made the military park them), that there are missiles that still work, targeting systems, etc. that still work

In Germany - where there were a hell of a lot of nuke detonations - there is a reactor that is being put back online- which is pretty hard to do if all electronic systems were fried and gone for thousands of miles. Also France still has power as does Belgium - again very hard to do if all electrical systems for thousands of miles were fried.

And Great Britain managed to get power working again on their oil platforms to make them operational

And FYI Bash is right - the M88A1 and M88A2 - both vehicles that I was directly responsible for - have literally no electrical systems that can be fried by EMP except their radios. It would be the same with all kinds of older systems - i.e. that P-51 sitting at the airfield wouldnt be affected at all. Neither would that old Sherman tank. Or a car built before they used electronic ignitions. Or the systems that ran the power generators at Niagara Falls - all very old equipment that EMP would basically leave untouched.

[Raellus]

I guess sarcasm doesn't translate to Australian. The magic EMP that destroys all electrical conductors and makes electronics impossible also allows Diesel engines to run on alcohol. (emphasis added)

This is why sarcasm is mentioned in the Keep it Civil Forum guideline (already posted in this thread by a moderator). Sarcasm often doesn't come across the playful, good-natured reparte that the author may intend. Also, most people don't enjoy sarcasm directed towards a serious comment that they made. At worst, sarcasm is intended, yet deniable, rudeness. I will not make a public judgment about the intent of the quoted material, but I know it came across to me, a neutral.

There's been some really helpful information shared in this thread. A lot of the discussion here has been quite constructive. I really don't want to lock this thread, but a few posters are apparently growing quite agitated. Please take a deep breath and remember that we are talking about a game- one that involves liberal doses of make-believe and play acting- before posting a response to something that rankles. If a member insists on continuing to willfully ignore forum guidelines, then a ban will be in order.

Admin.

-

[wolffhound79]

The book says some extent, not total darkness like revolution. However every GM is responsible for there own world. In mine I choose to limit the extent that players can get ahold of certain objects like a nuclear warhead. I have US military friends that when we talk about the game they will bring up points like tobyhanna isnt just a facility in Pennsylvania but that they have large stockpiles around the world, along with ammo dumps etc. I have that there some areas that are sitting on large stocks.

For example a port facility with enough equipment to say outfit 5000 men with BDUs and basic load equipment. The problem was that the transportation network broke down. so here is a few hundred soldiers and sailors living there life surviving off these supplies of mres or whatever they have because no one has shown up to use these supplies to help out, or they have gone rouge and they are building there own empire, or they died of disease and the quarintine signs and skeletal remains have scared everyone away so it remains untouched.

I have limited access to advanced electronic, I use the book rules for availability, and if its a successful role for said item i determine by what the item is how much is available. For example prc77 radio. This vender in the market has said item, its a small market so 1d6 tells me how many he has. Buyer beware as he sold you 4 and only 2 work properly as you didnt check it out before you left the shop. crooks are crooks after all.

Again its your world do what you want.

[Southernap]

No the books never said that.

Actually Howling Wilderness does say that. See the attached pic from my scanned copy of said supplement.

And yet per the rule book, you can have refrigerators (unshielded), Night Vision (very unshielded), and many other things that if that was truly the case you could not have at the start of the game. So that makes it not as clear as you think, and very open to interpretation.
That is one of the major disconnects between what the rule books have said and what the supplements have followed up on with regards to what is and isn't there for the players and the GM to use. That is why some hand waving (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave) or going with some "Wizards did it (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" is required and it all depends on how hardcore you want to follow the rules and the canonical setting.

I mean most of my games, unless it was a major plot point in the campaign. We didn't think much about crunchier parts of the rule book about supplies or even survival since the rules crunching and book keeping can get complicated that way. Most of the TTRPGS that I have played, depending on the feel of the crowd and the attitude of the DM/GM, keep some or toss other rules unless it becomes a plot point to have dice thrown and the book keeping completed.

FYI that is being done - that is one thing that is in the books that while there is oil still being refined a lot of it has to go for lubrication and oil - and where you have military units intact - especially around Colorado Springs - you will have refining going on - the Robinson refinery only recently in the game had an accident that reduced its refining capability - but until then it would have been producing POL and other fluids - and thats just one refinery - they never said 100% of the refining capability was destroyed
Granted that, still 1% of that will be going MilGov unless the GM in your game decides to have the 194th mutiny and go either independent or go CivGov. Still the prioritization list will be fuel to the food and to the tech that works (i.e trucks, jeeps, and farm vehicles) that guarantee that unit food and survival. A fanciful idea of getting a drone to work may not pay off or even if it does, the weighing of what percentage of POL produced will go to that project versus what is actually usable on the field. Yet, what is interesting is that the US Army Vehicle Guide which was published two years before Howling Wilderness, doesn't make mention of the refinery being in possession of the 194th and that its in Cairo. See the attached Google Map showing the current distance using the Interstate 57 is about 283 miles, using the older US Highway 45 is a straighter shot of about 184 miles. That is still a bunch of miles to try and travel. Which source is correct and accurate? That sort of question leads me on a tangent about GDW and their inability to have a canon bible for their products. So you will have to decide which is accurate or that the core of the 194th is in Cairo holding the river junction, while an element is holding the refinery and deciding whether to mutiny or is it the core is at the refinery and only an element is in cantonment at Cairo, IL.

_______________________________

At this point the discussion really seems to be about the fact that if your GM and your party want to have a drone. It should be allowed with the applicable hand waving of how to get the parts, fuel, maintenance items around. Recognizing that the Tw2K world isn't the same one we saw in the real life. The Tw2K timeline has allowed for technology that was just on paper when it was written or was just starting to enter prototype, but didn't make it past that point to enter full service in real life. With the respect to drones, they weren't popular in the 1980s except for targets and selected recon efforts by three letter intelligence agencies. It wasn't until post Kosovo where drones and the talk of them being used and the advances in the technology as we see now in the current wars overseas.

[Olefin]

Well obviously GDW authors werent all talking to each other - i.e. if the EMP fried so much then why are there working vehicles that have electronic ignitions, working reactors (Colorado Springs, the USS Virginia), that there was power still being generated in the US in 1998 in places AFTER the TDM, that there are still jet aircraft flying (and that it was fuel and spare part issues not fried electrical systems that made the military park them), that there are missiles that still work, targeting systems, etc. that still work?

And the 194th isnt just at Cairo and Robinson - if you go by Challenge Magazine they are also sending in patrols deep into Ohio as well - and any EMP that fried communication systems would have probably fried the targeting systems on the M1 tanks.

Like I said GDW continuity errors between their various Twilight 2000 releases had enough plot holes to drive (literally) a Sherman tank thru (or Cromwell or Panther or T-34 for our friends in other countries) as a result.

However a nation almost devoid of working modern electrical devices - no that is definitely NOT what GDW describes - for one because several of their own releases contradict themselves on that. Not the least of which is Last Submarine - i.e. how did they refit her if most electronics were fried by EMP. The issues the sub had were with insufficient manning in the rest of the trilogy - not insufficient electronics to get her fitted out.

Oh and HW and I are not friends (shocker to those who have followed my posts) - Loren didnt really do a good job of explaining why no military unit in the US managed to grow in size when the only game in town to get fed in many areas is to join the army. Or where 41000 of the 43000 that got brought home from Europe went to. Or what happened to a hell of a lot of National Guard and Reservist units that would have definitely been mobilized long before. Or that fact that his timeline didnt work with at least two of released modules that preceded it - So I gave up a long time ago trying to apply logic to make sense of the multiple contradictions between HW and multiple previous releases. And then the 2nd edition came out and didnt mention New America or the HW/Kidnapped drought at all so not even sure for V2.2 if they even exist.

[bash]

It wasn't until post Kosovo where drones and the talk of them being used and the advances in the technology as we see now in the current wars overseas.

Drones were used extensively for SEAD and recon missions in Desert Shield/Storm and Bosnia was the first major deployment for the RQ-9. This is only the modern style drones. The older FireBee and Chukar drones have been in use since the Vietnam war, pointed out in this very thread. Drones were established technology and well utilized by the Twilight war.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I guess sarcasm doesn't translate to Australian. The magic EMP that destroys all electrical conductors and makes electronics impossible also allows Diesel engines to run on alcohol.
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong

Sarcasm doesn't translate to text very well, your ability to misunderstand that doesn't help your message.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think much of this discussion really needs to be a separate thread. It covers much greater ground than the original concept of "drones in T2k" and seems to be intent on exploring those larger issues.

[bash]

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong

Sarcasm doesn't translate to text very well, your ability to misunderstand that doesn't help your message.

:rolleyes:

[pmulcahy11b]

Carrier Pigeons

I would think that, at least for the SAR role, carrier pigeons would be replaced by UAVs, even in the T2K 2.2 timeline. A lot of the larger UAVs would have been shot down, but small reconnaissance drones would have survived into the 2000s.

[Ursus Maior]

Well, depending when your timeline deviates (1995 to 1997), UAVs were not in widespread use with most militaries. Besides target drones and artillery drones, which both ran pre-programed courses, there was basically just the RQ-2 Pioneer and the RQ-1 Predator (in order of appearance). The Russians/Soviets didn't even have that and use of these UAVs was basically limited to very few USAF squadrons.

[Olefin]

Well, depending when your timeline deviates (1995 to 1997), UAVs were not in widespread use with most militaries. Besides target drones and artillery drones, which both ran pre-programed courses, there was basically just the RQ-2 Pioneer and the RQ-1 Predator (in order of appearance). The Russians/Soviets didn't even have that and use of these UAVs was basically limited to very few USAF squadrons.

There were more UAV's out there than you think - Israel had the IAI Scout and the Tadiran Mastiff. And the US was using drones for recon as early as the Vietnam War - and they werent target or artillery drones.

[Ursus Maior]

There were more UAV's out there than you think - Israel had the IAI Scout and the Tadiran Mastiff. And the US was using drones for recon as early as the Vietnam War - and they werent target or artillery drones.

Were there more than I mentioned? Yes. Were they in widespread use? No, certainly not. You named the two prominent IDF examples, which played a role from the early 80s onwards. Yes, the Tadiran Mastiff was first flown in 1973, but that's not the same as an operational UAV that was fulfilling a defined role within the IDF.

With respect to the US: Were there non-artillery UAV in service with US armed forces before the RQ-1B predator? Certainly. Were they part of a unified strategy or available to battlefield commanders? Not so much. Yes, there were things like the QH-50 DASH, which aimed at naval ASW, but it performed significantly worse than contemporary helicopters and offered little in terms what we today think of as strength of UAVs, e. g. data links to other weapon systems of the (literal) mother ship, high endurance or range.

The DASH, while later equipped with TV-cameras, initially was a simpe radio controlled helicopter with a range of 71 nm and a cruising speed of just over 40 nm, that was used to lob two anemic Mk. 44 torpedoes into the vicinity of a detected 1960s submarine. While later a single Mk. 46 torpedo could be carried, its endurance of just one hour and missing sensors meant that it was nothing more than an instrument to bring a weapon into an area. Helicopters and ASROC missiles did and do the same. Other US drones before the RQ-2 were usually artillery drones or other reconnaissance drones, e. g. the Ryan Firebee or the D-21, which was a strategic recon drone and did not offer its capabilities to battlefield commanders. Also, drones of this age were not really featuring hardened electronics, so their use in post-nuclear warfare is uncertain.

Nothing of this arsenal would offer capabilities for SAR (i. e. 'search and rescue') to commanders in a T2K universe. Additionally, what SAR roles do we see in T2K at all? There are hardly pilots downed in that setting since airplanes are almost extinct and coordinated military actions are pretty much non-existent. So, what "small reconnaissance drones" would exist and for what purpose and who would (be able to) use them.

[Vespers War]

The RQ-2 (which entered service 9 years before the RQ-1) was common enough that during the first Gulf War at least one was in the air for the entirety of the war. It was originally a gunnery spotter, but evolved into reconnaissance and surveillance roles. With its IR camera it was used to patrol the border to locate troop concentrations, and it also collected map data for Tomahawks to use.

On the smaller end of Desert Storm-era drones were the Exdrone (now BQM-147 Dragon) and the FQM-151 Pointer, which was very short-ranged but also easily man-portable at just 9 pounds of weight. The Pointer would continue to see use up through the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

By the mid-90s, there were the handful of RQ-5 Hunters and the introduction of the Predator. 1998 saw the RQ-4 Global Hawk enter service, selected over the RQ-3 Dark Star because range and payload were picked over stealth.

For non-American drones, I know of a pair that were used in the first Gulf War - Canada's Canadair CL-89 (used as the Midge by the British) and France's Altec MART.

[Olefin]

The RQ-2 (which entered service 9 years before the RQ-1) was common enough that during the first Gulf War at least one was in the air for the entirety of the war. It was originally a gunnery spotter, but evolved into reconnaissance and surveillance roles. With its IR camera it was used to patrol the border to locate troop concentrations, and it also collected map data for Tomahawks to use.

On the smaller end of Desert Storm-era drones were the Exdrone (now BQM-147 Dragon) and the FQM-151 Pointer, which was very short-ranged but also easily man-portable at just 9 pounds of weight. The Pointer would continue to see use up through the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

By the mid-90s, there were the handful of RQ-5 Hunters and the introduction of the Predator. 1998 saw the RQ-4 Global Hawk enter service, selected over the RQ-3 Dark Star because range and payload were picked over stealth.

For non-American drones, I know of a pair that were used in the first Gulf War - Canada's Canadair CL-89 (used as the Midge by the British) and France's Altec MART.

And given the war start you can bet the Global Hawk would have had its development and deployment pushed forward - meaning it would have probably been in service in 1996-1997 before the TDM.

FYI if we are going to discuss drones they should be in a different thread.

[Ursus Maior]

By the mid-90s, there were the handful of [...]And that's exactly my point. Drones as we know them today were available as "handfulls", their electronics were not as hardened as that of jets and their use in combat after the nukes would have gone off are highly questionable, as is the ability of the US, Israel and comparable nations to further produce them, especially for the use of SAR. And that was the starting point of the discussion.

[Olefin]

And that's exactly my point. Drones as we know them today were available as "handfulls", their electronics were not as hardened as that of jets and their use in combat after the nukes would have gone off are highly questionable, as is the ability of the US, Israel and comparable nations to further produce them, especially for the use of SAR. And that was the starting point of the discussion.

I would say if anything the US and other countries would use their scarce resources even more to keep them going after the TDM - for one not all electronics are fried and there would be a lot you can salvage that would still be useable - and the drones and UAV's are a hell of a lot more attractive in a low fuel situation than manned jets are. Plus they can operate from places that most planes (sans the A-10 or Harrier) cant use

[Vespers War]

For the hand-launched Pointer, the number bought was small because it was quickly superseded by improved versions. The 50 Pointers (full production deliveries starting in 1990) were replaced by RQ-11 Ravens (originally an FQM-151 upgrade in 1999, officially introduced in 2003) and RQ-20 Pumas (2008), which had production numbers in the thousands (Puma) to tens of thousands (Raven). A timeline where that development was cut short by war would have seen resources diverted to production of what was available at the time (Pointer). Even a primitive drone like that would be useful for short-distance recon (the control station's range was ~5 miles), particularly since it could carry an infrared camera.

I also found a report from 2003 discussing all the American drones that had been deployed since 1991. By first use in a combat theater:
RQ-2 Pioneer - 1991
FQM-151 Pointer - 1991
RQ-1 Predator - 1995
RQ-5 Hunter - 1999
MQ-1 Predator - 2001
RQ-4 Global Hawk - 2001
RQ-14 Dragon Eye - 2003
Desert Hawk - 2003
RQ-7 Shadow - 2003

Depending on when one sets their Twilight War will help with figuring out which drones would be most available.

[Ursus Maior]

Hm, I admit, I did not have the Pointer on my radar (cheap pun, sorry for that). That I could see work in T2K fairly well. The rest remains rather unlikely to me. Even a Predator needs (remote) pilots and technicians. Once the armed forces start pulling all non-essential personnel into the combat troops, after those have been hemorrhaged by nukes, I don't see enough qualified personnel to keep drones of that size flying. Not to mention production of spare parts, training new personnel, replacing specialized tools etc.

A civilian sportsplane or a O-2 Skymaster (or similar) I see much more likely than UAVs as they are much easier to service, spare parts are ubiquitous or can be build in a electronic-free environment and comparable types of planes and thus capale pilots were widely available. Also, such aircraft are multi-mission capable: transport, CAS, recon, FAC, liason, all within body. Sure, range is less than with some UAV, but since there is hardly military left with reach and range beyond operational level, your regular civilian sports plane will more than suffice.

[Olefin]

Hm, I admit, I did not have the Pointer on my radar (cheap pun, sorry for that). That I could see work in T2K fairly well. The rest remains rather unlikely to me. Even a Predator needs (remote) pilots and technicians. Once the armed forces start pulling all non-essential personnel into the combat troops, after those have been hemorrhaged by nukes, I don't see enough qualified personnel to keep drones of that size flying. Not to mention production of spare parts, training new personnel, replacing specialized tools etc.

A civilian sportsplane or a O-2 Skymaster (or similar) I see much more likely than UAVs as they are much easier to service, spare parts are ubiquitous or can be build in a electronic-free environment and comparable types of planes and thus capale pilots were widely available. Also, such aircraft are multi-mission capable: transport, CAS, recon, FAC, liason, all within body. Sure, range is less than with some UAV, but since there is hardly military left with reach and range beyond operational level, your regular civilian sports plane will more than suffice.

Keep in mind that in certain places - Kenya, Korea and the Middle East - the US military is still very much a going concern - there is where you will probably find working drones and UAV's and the techs to keep them going

[lordroel]

Keep in mind that in certain places - Kenya, Korea and the Middle East - the US military is still very much a going concern - there is where you will probably find working drones and UAV's and the techs to keep them going

But drones and UAVs would not be of the kind we have in present time i asume.

[rcaf_777]

But drones and UAVs would not be of the kind we have in present time i asume.

I not sure these UAV's were made in 1960's and 1970's

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/heroic-failures/meet-the-cias-insectothopter

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/meet-catfish-charlie-the-cias-robotic-spy

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/consider-the-pigeon-a-surprisingly-capable-technology

[Silent Hunter UK]

You could have land drones i.e. remote control cars or bomb disposal robots.

[Vespers War]

Bringing this thread back to life and reorienting it slightly, does anyone have house rules for drones? The only GDW rules I can think of for them are from the Twilight Nightmares scenario "Warlord," with its GCUX series of ground UCVs functioning like vehicles with a fixed initiative of 3. They're either disabled on a radio hit (for the smaller drone) or have initiative get worse if the radio is destroyed and have crew hits disable the on-board computer (for the larger drones). They seem workable, but I'm curious what others may have come up with.

[LoneCollector1987]

We now see how drone warfare has changed the face of warfare.

Could drone warfare also be possible in the Twilight 2000 timeline?

By 1995 we had Linux, Apple and Windows PC, the first 64 bit chips were produced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computing_1990%E2%80%931999

So, would it be possible for some to even envision drone warfare and how would it evolve, till the EMP would shut them down?

And would a comeback later possible?

We also had the TOW and HOT missiles among others, so some drone control was already there.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

My father was stationed at White Sands, New Mexico from the mid to late 1950's as an Army Photographer and he remembers seeing and taking pictures of the drones they had back then, many were top secret at the time (he got his top secret clearance at the age of 17 when he joined up).

[Raellus]

We now see how drone warfare has changed the face of warfare.

Could drone warfare also be possible in the Twilight 2000 timeline?

So, would it be possible for some to even envision drone warfare and how would it evolve, till the EMP would shut them down?

And would a comeback later possible?

As we know it today, or even a couple of years ago, probably not. As of 1997, IRL, the technology wasn't nearly as mature as it was at the start of the Ukraine War in 2022. Some modern combat drones use cellular phone networks and wifi for navigation and control- although that tech existed in 1997, networks were much, much smaller. Civilian drones weren't really a thing (unless you include RC aircraft). FPV control was just barely starting to move beyond science fiction.

That said, I don't see why a lot of mid-1990s drone technology wouldn't still work. Radio control would still be possible. Military radio equipment is usually pretty well shielded against EMP. Reconnaissance drones could be programmed to follow a pre-determined flightpath.

We also had the TOW and HOT missiles among others, so some drone control was already there.

As in wire-guided drones? IIRC, both Russian and Ukrainian forces have used wire-guided drones in combat, but they aren't the preferred type. Wire-guidance certainly circumvents jamming, but such a control arrangement also severely limits the range of the drone, as it is essentially tethered to the operator's command unit by a length of copper wire. Also, the more strung-out the wire, the greater the chance it has to get snagged on things like trees, poles, buildings, etc. Once the wire is severed, the drone is essentially deaf, dumb, and blind. It probably crashes and, even if recovered, spare parts for repairs would be very scarce.

-

[Raellus]

This topic came up in another T2k discussion venue. A user encountered a Soviet drone in a Cold War-themed computer game (WARNO) that I'd never seen before. Another user ID'ed it as the Yakolev Pchela. Naturally, US drones are much more well known in the West, but Soviet drones could make good plot devices in T2k campaigns. So, here are a couple of Cold War-era Soviet drones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unmanned_aerial_vehicles_of_the_Soviet_Un ion

Soviet drones have been modded to act as ad hoc cruise missiles.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/hezbollah-converted-soviet-tu-143-jet-drone-into-cruise-missile-says-idf-just-like-ukraine

-

-

[ToughOmbres]

We now see how drone warfare has changed the face of warfare.

Could drone warfare also be possible in the Twilight 2000 timeline?

By 1995 we had Linux, Apple and Windows PC, the first 64 bit chips were produced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computing_1990%E2%80%931999

So, would it be possible for some to even envision drone warfare and how would it evolve, till the EMP would shut them down?

And would a comeback later possible?

We also had the TOW and HOT missiles among others, so some drone control was already there.

I could envision the same kind of drones used for spotting/Artillery observation such as those used in the First Gulf War-large, relatively clunky and were famously caught in a net when their mission was over.
By the time of the Twilight War, the drones might be a little smaller but still used for observation and spotting primarily. Then following the widespread use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons they would become progressively rarer.