Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Robot Plane Makes Unaided U.S.-Australia Crossing 70

Posted by timothy from the faked-just-like-the-moon-landings dept.
PenguinRadio writes: "Yahoo Australia is reporting an unmanned U.S. aircraft recently flew from the US to Australia, smashing an endurance record for remotely controlled aircraft. The Global Hawk reconnaissance jet arrived in Adelaide 14 minutes ahead of schedule after a non-stop flight of more than 23 hours. The Air Force has some pictures and more news on their site as well." Update: 04/24 7:26 AM by michael : This is a follow-up to our story a few days ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robot Plane Makes Unaided U.S.-Australia Crossing More

Robot Plane Makes Unaided U.S.-Australia Crossing

Comments Filter:

  • man (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    fuckin a

  • I suppose I'm a pedant, but "endurance" means time aloft, not distance flown. This plane set a record for distance flown by a robotic plane, not the record for time aloft.

    I can't see how less than 24 hours en route qualifies for an endurance record, since a small (10 foot wingspan) robotic propeller-driven plane called an "Aerosonde" crossed the atlantic in August 1998, taking about 26 hours 45 minutes [aerosonde.com]. In fact, I seem to remember that /. carried that story, though I don't find it in a quick search.

    I did find a few other stories from that time, though, at ABC [go.com] and EXN [www.exn.ca], and you can always visit Aerosonde Robotic Aircraft [aerosonde.com] if you are interested.

    I think, but do not know, that there have been robotic flights longer in duration than that, but I don't have time to look for them now. :-)

  • Honestly, just flying unrefueled is fairly trivial, and as for guidance, does the term "cruise missile" ring a bell?

    I wonder how it's programmed to respond to other aircraft in the same airspace?

    Jon Acheson
  • With a name like Tandem Thrust, you'd think this was part of a raunchy 80's metal band, not a military operation. What's the follow-on to this, Turgid Probe?

    --
  • Now United, Quantas et al will want these to fly us to the land of Oz.
  • What's interesting is that Global Hawk represents the fulfillment of the original goal of the old Teledyne Ryan Compass Cope project from the 1960's: a very high-altitude unmanned reconnaissance drone.

    However, with access to GPS signals plus a real-time satellite link, Global Hawk can precisely controlled to fly over areas of military interest, unlike the Compass Cope drone, which was flown on a pre-programmed route.
  • Actually, Global Hawk has a built-in satellite communications antenna, which does allow for real-time monitoring and adjustment of flight route.

    This makes it much more flexible than the old Teledyne Ryan Compass Cope RPV from the 1960's, which was designed for a fairly similar mission to Global Hawk but flew on a pre-programmed profile. Also, the nice thing about Global Hawk is that you don't need a dedicated launch aircraft like what the Compass Cope RPV's required, which saves a lot on operational costs.
  • However, no public source has published what is the radar cross section (RCS) of Global Hawk.

    If Global Hawk's shape has been tuned for low RCS with a combination of designing the shape to be naturally low in RCS and the plane's skin uses radar-absorbent materials, then even that new Chinese SAM will have great difficulty trying to shoot it down, especially when you fly it at over 65,000 feet altitude.

  • The US military discovered that a Japanese fishing trawler was located offshore of Townsville. For unknown reasons, the flight was mysteriously diverted to Edinburgh...

    Do you miss the good 'ole times when it used to be russian trawlers the yanks were weary of???


    --

  • Fascinating read.. correct link is here [jefraskin.com] too btw (one above had a space in it, that I didn't notice immediately).

    It certainly is a reminder of the holes in the world's defense systems. Once you think you've handled a particular threat, another one you never even thought of comes to be your biggest problem.

    --
    Delphis
  • Didn't the Condor do this sort of thing ten years ago?

    The condor is the giant black aircraft in the photo on the left. [hiller.org]

    It's now in the Hiller [hiller.org] museum in San Carlos. Sorry, no better linkage...

    -Zandr

  • Far better than last time... (Score:4)

    by KFury ( 19522 ) on Tuesday April 24, 2001 @12:00AM (#269461) Homepage
    You know the earlier attempt is still sitting in a hangar, waiting for its compliment of lemon-soaked napkins...

    Kevin Fox
    --
  • Yeah, but it doesn't have to not hit anything, does it?
  • I guess our future Chinese surveillance flights won't have hostage situations anymore...

    "Aiight Wang Wei, you wanna play Chicken? I'm flying this plane 5000 miles away, sitting on an Aeron chair and sipping Mountain Dew. Let's show you who's gonna be Chicken now!"

  • Also, the instrument package being used has been developed at DSTO.

    Edinburgh is also home to RAAF's squadron of P3-C Orions, who do a significant proportion of the current coastal surveillance, and may have some knowledge of Australia's requirements for a surveillance platform.

  • Remotely controlled? (Score:3)

    by cyberdonny ( 46462 ) on Tuesday April 24, 2001 @12:25AM (#269465)
    Not. As mentioned in numerous comments in the previous article about this plane, it is not remote controlled, but robotic, i.e. it has an onboard computer controlling the plane. The radio link is only used to update the mission plan, or to send back data, but not to fly the plane.

    Remote controlled planes have already existed for a long time (called drones), but have the disadvantage of not being radio-silent (have to permantently transmit back instruments reading, camera view, etc) to the base station, which makes them unfortunately easy to detect...

  • 1. Blow the boat people out of the water.
    2. Upload frag tally and video replay to the Australian Immigration dept website.
    3. Kamikaze into the nearest Indonesia fishing boat when it's out of fuel.

    On another note: The sad thing is that it made /. and the local news said 2 words and didn't even show any footage! That's Oz 4 u!

    More info at :
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sci_tech/story_11867. as p
  • Your are moron... what are you using for your "local news" sources, channel 7,9,10... what the hell are you doing here then, go back to msnine. If you want REAL news, then feel free to check channel 2 or sbs every now and again, where they have lots of info about it.

  • smashing an endurance record for remotely controlled aircraft

    I guess this does say aircraft, but I would think that Voyager (or V'ger) would have to hold the endurance record for a remotely controlled anything.

  • Try the ABC [abc.net.au]instead. Even as I'm typing this they're talking about it and noting it would remove the hostage issue from the recent happenings. There's bucket loads about it. You're just not looking in the right places. What are 9 showing? I Desparately Want To Be Rich?
  • Check out Jef Raskin's website for what he describes as the 'Piper Cub Offense', arguing that GPS-guided drones make missile defense systems obsolete, indeed nonsensical. http://www.jefraskin.com/forjef/jefweb-compiled/un published/piper_cub_offense.html
  • Check out Jef Raskin's website for what he describes as the 'Piper Cub Offense', arguing that GPS-guided drones make missile defense systems obsolete, indeed nonsensical.

    http://www.jefraskin.com/forjef/jefweb-compiled/un published/piper_cub_offense.html

  • but what I wonder is: Why do they need 23 (22?) people on that plane, including Chinese-speaking Analysts, when all the data collected are send back to base in real time anyway. Just what exactly are they doing?

    Chances are that the raw data are NOT being sent anywhere in real time. This is mostly conjecture, but I have some experience with a related weapons system. Some data may get processed and sent out over a tactical or theater datalink, but most of it is analyzed right on the platform. So the mission crew is analyzing the sensor data and providing that digested information to the theater commanders. This includes voice comm intercepts, radar analysis, etc. So the guys on the EP-3 can tell the commander "we have x many aircraft of y type at location z, and we just heard the flight leader say 'foo', so we know what their intentions are."

    Keep in mind that the variety of sensors on an EP-3 probably greatly exceeds that on the Global Hawk. The EP-3 has all manner of RADAR and radio intercept gear. Trying to push all of that data off the aircraft in realtime would likely overwhelm the available satellite bandwidth - your average satellite channel has less throughput than a modem, remember.

    Long term the goal is to replace a lot of the surveillance/airborne C2 assets (E-3, EP-3, RC-135, etc) with UAVs, but the bandwidth availability is going to have to improve before that becomes possible.

    Neutron

  • _However_ the story on Slashdot [slashdot.org] when this thing was going to take off also said that they've kept it aloft for >30 hours. (From the original article - Since its maiden flight in 1998, the Global Hawk has made flights of 30 hours and more. . Which makes it high on endurance (as in time) as well as endurance (as in distance).
  • Nope, they're showing the latest piece of reality TV - "When Spy Planes Go Bad"
  • Here I am holding my new x-10 palm remote, and for some reasons, I just feel inadequite. Maybe it's because I don't even have batteries.
  • "I guess our future Chinese surveillance flights won't have hostage situations anymore"

    On the other hand, when locals send up a fighter and tip it into the sea, there are no witnesses either. In peacetime situations, sometimes having people on board increases the stakes enough to keep both sides honest. With robot vehicles, the penalty for pushing the line is less severe.

    In the event of actual conflict, it is very handy to have robot vehicles. The X43a is a recent example of something that will probably have more unmanned military development than piffle about 40 minute trans-Atlantic passenger flight.

    -dB

  • This GlobalHawk gadget reminds me of the opening scences of Teminator 2. I was shocked to discover SKYNET is also the name of the British military satellite system since 1967. All we need now is Vernor Vinge's singularity.
  • As I understand it, it's immediately going back with special US cargo. The $1M winner of course takes their own private jet.

  • Could be that's why they called it that in the movie?
  • All you need to do, given that it works well enough, is to convince Joe Public that it's safe enough to fly in a plane without someone driving, and Fred's your second cousin.

    How long could that take?

  • Since Vietnam, it seems that the primary political barrier blocking the military from entering the war of it's choice is the threat of loss of lives.

    It's my (unproven) theory that with each military invention that allows the military to strike without reduced risk of loss of life, there is a proportional increase in the willingness to go to war. "Go to war? Why not? All we have to do is hit this button here and an army of robot tanks and planes will raze country foo to the ground. Unless someone trips on carpet and bangs thier head on the sharp metal corner of the control panel, thus dying from a serious head injury, the risk of loss of life is zero." Doesn't that sound like something Congress would be more willing to do than, "We can have a hundred thousand men on thier shores in less than 24 hours. Our analysists guess that the foo counter-strike will cause about a 10% level of casulties for our side, somewhere around ten thousand casulties. Shall we attack?"

  • "apologized" ?

    I think the joke was that the Australia spelling is "apologised". I know, it's not very funny.

  • Now you can safely fly drugs across Chile without fear of losing a valuble pilot.
  • The Washington Post has what little there is to tell on this page [washingtonpost.com]

    A killer whale looking thing flying at 65,000 feet. I cannot wait to hear what the UFO watchers have to say about this

    DanH
    Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
  • http://www.iss.northgrum.com/products/usaf_product s/global_hawk/global_hawk.html
  • This [af.mil] shows that the 23 hour flight wasn't the longest. The Global Hawk has flown at least one other longer - 31.5 hours.
  • I'm shocked this wasnt mentioned earlier in the thread. Clancy's books tend to become reality a year or so after they come out.
  • but you don't have marauding laser-packing cylon warriors to fend off in the earth's atmosphere either. i think that deep-space specific threat balances out terrestrial contingencies rather nicely.
  • I don't know if I should be impressed or not. We've been able to fly remote craft halfway across the solar system, land them on alien planets, and deploy ground vehicles successfully from them in the past.

    It's a cool achievement and all...it just seems a little low-key compared to the other interplanetary adventures that remote-piloted machines have these days.

  • So it can go from US to Australia in 23 hours, but can it:

    drop bombs to kill friendly troops (without consequence)?

    sink the occassional fishing vessel (without consequence)?

    piss off Chinese fighter pilots (with the consequence of a slight delay in travel plans)?

    guide foreign military powers in their endeavors to shoot down those obnoxious missionary planes (no admission = no consequence)?

    Maybe our galoots in green should spend more time working with their human capital than with these nifty machines. Or maybe these robo-planes will be just as good at mistaken-maiming once they've gotten Uncle Sam's healthy dose of "kill 'em all and let the tradewinds sort 'em out" training.

  • Does anyone know why the USAF would fly it to RAAF Edinburgh in Adelaide, rather than RAAF Townsville or RAAF Williamtowm? Since it's being deployed in Queensland, it would make more sense flying it closer to where it's going to be used...
  • >Does anyone know why the USAF would fly it to RAAF Edinburgh
    >in Adelaide, rather than RAAF Townsville or RAAF Williamtowm?

    The US military discovered that a Japanese fishing trawler was located offshore of Townsville. For unknown reasons, the flight was mysteriously diverted to Edinburgh...

    Shaun
  • ...until a civilian starts piloting it...

    Japanese glider pilots will shiver in fear.
  • I believe the reference was the U.S. incident with China. I doubt that with the spelling problems on /., we'd worry about the differences between U.S. and Contential spelling.
  • Even regular civilian planes don't need that much in-flight operation on transatlantic routes. Is it a coincidence that this record was published right after the spy plane incident in China? Might the U.S. be showing off to the Chinese, essentially saying: See, you won't have any hostages next time?
  • Oddly enough, the robotic pilot demanded 3 quarts of alcohol for... "fuel" before it would make the flight.
    ---
  • If there are robots out there that can fly a plane, why do I still have to drive my car manually?

    "// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"

  • Shouldn't be too difficult. I just did a quick search on Janes [janes.com] for "high altitude SAM" and found an article about a Surface to Air Missile China has been working on.

    The missile has also been improved by upgrading the dual thrust solid-propellant motor and it now has a maximum stated range of up to 50km and a maximum effective altitude of 88,560ft. It is not known whether the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the missile with its radio-frequency proximity fuze has been improved.

    As you can see, that missile goes well beyond the necessary 65,000 feet. The article is here [janes.com].

    "// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"

  • Edinburgh is co-located with a large lab of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation [defence.gov.au] which influences whether Australia will buy the birds.
  • It was
    monitored, but not controlled, by ground crews in the US and at Adelaide's RAAF Base Edinburgh, as it followed a pre-programmed route without incident.

    Several posters think this has something to do with the recent spy plane incident, but what I wonder is: Why do they need 23 (22?) people on that plane, including Chinese-speaking Analysts, when all the data collected are send back to base in real time anyway. Just what exactly are they doing?

    The news on this several years old robotic plane could be a "I told you so" from the more pro-machine group within Air Force/CIA/Whatever to the more old school people.

    Update: by Codeala: This is a "follow-up" to my post [slashdot.org] a few days ago. ;-)

    ====

  • Pretty impressive at first glance,
    but when you consider what it costs
    and the gazillions of dollars the USAF have thrown at it's development,
    (and the fact that it's wingspan is around that of a 737), it starts looking
    somewhat less impressive.

    For some contrast, check out These guys [aerosonde.com]

  • Yeah, point taken, but I wasn't really comparing their missions,
    just the technical and fiscal environments in which they were developed,

    btw. If you *really* want something that will blow your mind (UAV related), try and
    find some info on a little (!) DARPA project (long ago cancelled) called 'Q'.
  • An idea thrown around is to arm unmanned planes with long wings, solar panels, and have them fly across to upper atmosphere for months at a time, acting more like a satelite than a plane...
  • As a strong American nationalist, I think it's the next coolest thing we could have done besides going in and rescuing the pilot from under their noses. I was thinking the exact same thing... coincidence? I think not. :) Hoo-ah
  • The actual news says: It (the aircraft) was monitored, but not controlled, by ground crews in the US and at Adelaide's RAAF Base Edinburgh, as it followed a pre-programmed route without incident.

    As the plane flies at almost 20 km, it allows monitoring countries with less developed anti-aircraft systems. As the Air Force lets the world know they have this, they propably have already something better under development.

    Nice to notice that Yahoo has more details on this than the Air Force site.

  • That 10 kg plane is really impressive.

    And I agree with you that the military gets research money too easily.

    But I think you are comparing apples to oranges:

    The Air Force plane was at 20 km where you need a lot more wings than at normal altitudes, so this is a different thing.

    I think the Air Force is not interested in making the smallest plane that crosses the Pacific. They need to have some equipment on board, and propably the more the better.

    A good spying plane needs loads of electronics and some cameras to actually get the information. Remember, the plane that was on headlines a few days ago had more than 20 people operating the electronics.

    Of course these high-altude planes have less equipment, but propably still hundreds of kilos.

    The information gathered should be stored on board or send out in short bursts. Civilian planes can send out at constant bitrate, as they are not generally afraid of being detected.

    All that stuff on board needs electricity, so it must be either generated on board or stored at batteries before take-off.

  • Ehh, bleah. I bow to your superior brainpan and vow to never eat turnips again.

    Or at least stop going from memory.

    Or at least start reading the sites that I link to.
    Brant
  • They actually do..

    There was a robot, name of Dante II [nodak.edu], which was tested in the Redoubt, Spurr and Erebus volcanoes, which are near Anchorage, AK.


    Brant
  • Nice theory, but I don't know about that. Considering what these automated planes cost, and knowing that there's no one on board, there's no incentive *not* to shoot at them. I don't know enough about the Chinese military (or any military, frankly) to know how difficult it'd be to hit the thing when it's cruising around at 65,000 feet but it doesn't strike me as terribly practical.
  • Thank you Goat Police.

  • Hrm.. (Score:3)

    by Liquid-Gecka ( 319494 ) on Tuesday April 24, 2001 @12:03AM (#269511)
    I wonder if Austrailia is going to refuse to give the plane back until we apologize for landing it in there country?
  • No no no, what the Chinese are doing is a sign of respect and honor for our EP-3's incredible dog-fighting ability, taking out one of their jet fighters with only a propellor. I don't think the UAV's accomplishment can compare. :)
  • ... that the US will supplement its ICBMs with inter-continental cruise missiles? These would have the advantage of flying in under the radar, so to speak...
  • Both robots were tethered. They certainly weren't left to operate on their own for months without repair.
    --
  • What I wonder is why space-robot designers don't practice by sending autonomous probes to mountain tops, into deserts, to the bottom of the sea, etc.

    The specifics are all different, but the principle is the same: this thing has to work on its own, outside the lab, for long periods of time with nobody to replace the battery or change the oil. You could easily build 50 earth-exploring robots for every space-explorer.

    So much experience to be gained... it just seems a waste to send up these amateurish space probes with millions worth of rocket and fuel.
    --
  • I saw on sky news Austraila that it might stay there for the coast guard. Austraila would buy it of course.
  • The reason for the large wingspan is, in all likelyhood, to increase the wing's aspect ratio (span squared divided by wing area). For any given wing area, a higher aspect ratio results in a more efficient lifting surface or less drag for a given amount of lift. Sailplanes are designed with this in mind. In this case, it would improve the fuel economy.
  • Rescue the pilot, leave the crew members who keep the recon equipment working (scanners et al) there? Interesting... Very interesting. I recall the crew was about two dozen people? that's not an easy group to rescue, especially if they are divided and kept over a larger area. The amount of manpower you would have had to send to rescue them would have meant just casualties, on BOTH sides, and then a very fast escalation on the situation. Rescuing people from POW or other military capture isn't even close to as easy as rescuing hostages from terrorists. And even THAT isn't easy as baking pie. Just my 0.02EUR
  • Maybe they ought to call it 'Monica' if it goes that far....!!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close