HOME | DD
Emigepa — MQ1 Predator UAV
Published: 2012-11-20 14:43:10 +0000 UTC; Views: 9100; Favourites: 126; Downloads: 280
Redirect to original
Description
The General Atomics MQ-1 Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used primarily by the United States Air Force (USAF) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Initially conceived in the early 1990s for reconnaissance and forward observation roles, the Predator carries cameras and other sensors but has been modified and upgraded to carry and fire two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles or other munitions. The aircraft, in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. (BLENDER 3D)Technical details, more pictures and sale of model in:
[link]
Related content
Comments: 16
Fantasticly done. Also happy new year to yeah.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Technology is neutral, but can be used for good or bad. This aircraft could be used to spot and contain forest fires. Unfortunately the Predator is a warplane.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well said. Also happy new year by the way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the reply, sorry I'm a bit late in responding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Killing innocent civilians in Somalia, Yemen. Pakistan and around the world.... If the United States Government really wanted to end terror they´d just have to put the top terrorists into a fair trial. If it was possible to encounter Osama Bin Laden alive, they could capture other top terrorists. Instead of that the U.S. Governments just spreads terror.
But nice modelling workl, I think Blender is a difficult program to get used to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Do not think this is the right place to discuss these issues. I only care about the technical and aesthetic of what I publish.
Thanks for your comment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
@Emigepa: Technical and aesthetic follows function. Technology always has a purpose, it´s value is defined by the terms it´s usage, for what purpose it´s used under which conditions and by whom. If you model a terror weapon and post it, it will arouse those reactions at people with a political concsiousness.
Though it doesn´t change anything discussing those issues here, it gives a viewpoint what these weapons stand for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's your own point of view.
I see it as a marvelous piece of technology.
You see it as a weapon, I see it as art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A rocket is build and fired to kill people. If you can show me a Predator drone that feeds people in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan instead of killing "rerrorism suspects" and their wifes and children, THEN we can discuss about it being art in the sense of positive meaning.
Furthermore the image just shows the drone (or "marvellous piece of technology" for whatever reason you may believe it is) in weaponed condition without any progressive message or contextualization against war or executions without trial.
Art for me is unthinkable without the social context it is produced in and contextualized with. That´s (not only) my point of view, but I never said that it´s the only possible one. I just tried to explain why I have this point of view about this kind of "art". Maybe try to understand it, it can enrich your life.
I see yours, but I cannot follow it.
As long as technology is used for bad purpose, especially those who find it "marvellous" should be outraged the most, when a whole segment of technology is considered now as a thread, just because a government is preferring to use it as a terror and surveillance weapon instead of humanitarian purpose. There´s a very old quote about this kind of behaviour:
"We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; We are opposed to violence. Yet we get into spasm of joy
over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. (...) Such is the logic of patriotism."
Emma Goldman "Anarchism and other Essays" 1917
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There a a million pictures of swords on this website but do you get all constipated about those? Swords have contributed to more civilian deaths than any unmanned system. Unmanned systems actually help reduce the number of civilian casualties and collateral damage by giving the operator time to loiter on the target and observe them to make certain they are identified accurately and then, if a strike is to be made, it is done when there is the lowest possible risk of collateral damage. That kind of observation and verification is impossible with manned aircraft systems.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The lowest possible risk for collateral damage is to bring members of a criminal organisation - that´s what Al-Quaida is - in front of a court. The case of Osama Bin Laden shows that it is possible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
instead of spending dollars to fund a new vietnam bush should have sent special forces to capture usama bin laden and put him on trial
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
