Unmanned Combat Aircraft 88
An AC sent in a link to a Jane's article about unmanned fighter aircraft, including some designed for carrier operations. (See older story.) Funny, everyone always thought it would be the tanks that were unmanned.
Re:Size and Performance without Cocpit (Score:2)
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
Re:Size and Performance without Cockpit (Score:2)
Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:3)
The only really effective way to stop UCAV's other than a lucky shot by ground-based rapid-fire cannon is to detonate a low-yield (around 1 to 4 kT) nuclear warhead at very high altitude (e.g. around 25 km altitude). The EMP from the nuclear blast will effectively jam all communications between the ground controller and the UCAV, though the EMP effects would also jam the communications for the defenders, too.
Processing power (Score:2)
Sweet, one of those could take out Iraqi radar installations, destroy some of Saddam's surface to air missile batteries, and still crack a few zillion keys per second for distributed.net.
If you see "Team Colin Powell" in the top 100 on the RC/5 stats page, now you know why.
Re:Deterrence (among other things) for Dummies (Score:1)
It can do the cobra maneuver? So can the MiG-29 & Su-27. It's impressive at airshows, but not very useful in combat. It was invented to try to fool pulse-doppler radar used by some missiles (i.e. AIM-120 AMRAAM), but most modern fighters' radar (i.e. APG-63/65/70) can still track it, close in and make an easy IR missile or gun kill.
The 3 Su-35s outfitted with 3D thrust vectoring are pretty impressive though. And about the only technology they've got over us is their IRST (infrared scan & track) system that lets them fire IR missiles off-boresight (i.e. over the shoulder).
The F-22 will start replacing the F-15 by then, & nothing is a match for the F-22.
The JSF will eventually replace the F-16, older F/A-18s, and RAF Harriers. It wasn't completely unfunded, just put on the back burner for now. Personally, I think another cheap, single engine, throwaway jet like the F-16 is a mistake waiting to happen. We should skip the JSF & build more F-22s.
Re:Deterrence (among other things) for Dummies (Score:1)
Time & time again, dedicated single (or perhaps dual) purpose aircraft have proven much more capable at their mission than any multirole aircraft.
True, but it can carry JDAM precision guided munitions, which will make it a very formidable strike platform.
The Air Force doesn't do CAS for the Marines because that's not part of the Joint Doctrine. The Marines are designed to be a self sustaining force.
While CAS may not be the most glamorous AF job, they definitely have the best CAS platform in history: the A-10. It's a shame that some near-sighted generals want to have the F-16 try to take over its roles.
The UK is the only other country committed to purchasing the JSF. It'll probably end up being far over-budget & too expensive for anyone else to buy any.
Communications cracking (Score:1)
Ever see "Deal of the Century" (Score:1)
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
Various bits of design are purely there to protect the driver (which wouldn't be necessary in an autonomous vehicle) while some technologies have been banned to protect the driver.
Full ground effect underbodies were generating enough Gs in the corners to make the drivers begin to black out - 20 years ago. They banned them to avoid needing pressure suits for the driver's safety
Front wheels were moved to protect ankles when the suspension punctured the monocoque. X-wings were banned as they made it much harder to extract drivers in the event of an accident. They weren't so fond of how ugly the cars looked with them, but that wasn't the prime force.
The cars have to carry extinguishers and electrical cutout systems, both of which you can live without with no human on board.
Without trying one you can't say exactly what'd happen, but the autonomous vehicle could be a different shape. Aerodynamics on these things are critical, after all.
A car without a human driver could be substantially faster and certain developmental avenues wouldn't have been closed down.
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
There's no law there which prevents robots from building others not encumbered by the three laws. Which could be in the interests of robot society as a whole...
I propose the fourth law
Re:Unmanned cars (Score:2)
This would simply be one of them, for racing cars.
Re:Oh, Great... (Score:1)
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
Also far more things you have to identify for a tank amongst clutter which can render optical and RADAR ineffective
The combat problem with a tank involves far more as far as obstacles goes, plus the problem of identifying friend or foe in dealing with combatents. With aircraft this is dealt with by certain automated communications protocols. This is far harder to do on the ground. How do you identity civilians, etc?
Still a problem an enemy K10 tanker is a high value target it's worthwhile your UAV taking down by any means possible a civilian DC10 you don't want to even go near. They are more or less the same type of aircraft and you can't trust the enemy to send out an "I am your enemy" transponder signal.
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
A civilian aircraft is not going to respond to a military IFF query. But there is no reason to assume that a military aircraft will not respond with fully valid ATC transponder data.
Also you don't really want your UAV firing off IFF signals which turn out to be "I am a target for your anti radiation missiles"...
Re:Hooray.. umm not quite (Score:2)
Your comment has two plausible interpretations:
(a) You believe the plane will go "whereever [sic] it wants to." That is, wherever its computer decides is best. Presumably "best" is a place with no structures or people. Even a 1:25k topo map from the USGS shows houses.
Response:
This behavior is good but your phrasing seems to indicate that this behavior is bad. Your rhetorical device is misleading and awkward.
(b) The plane goes somewhere other than where its control system desires. Possibly due to damaged control surfaces, broken servos, or a malfunctioning control computer.
Response:
A control computer can be made stronger than the human body. A human pilot is subject to the same equipment failures as a computer control (servos, linkages, etc). A human pilot bails out; a control computer steers the plane until impact. Therefore, it is possible to construct a control system that maintains control longer than a human pilot in a crash scenario. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe a control system would be constructed such that the preceeding is untrue. You did not conduct this simple analysis before you posted.
As I have shown in my two interpretations and associated responses, you are either misleadingly inarticulate or intellectually lazy, respectively.
A note:
There exists no "flame" moderation category. I wonder why acerbic posts such as this one aren't deserving of their own category? I propose three new categories:
- flame, entertaining (+1)
- flame, annoying (-1)
- flame, principally spelling, grammar (-2)
The last may overlap Redundant (-1) when applied to posts flaming the editors.
Ryan
Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:1)
Of course, the military knows this and they shield much of their electronics. So while civilian VCRs, TVs, phones, cars, etc. would be history, military units (like the UCAV) would live.
Deterrence (among other things) for Dummies (Score:3)
Reasons why the government continues to build weapons:
If a potential enemy knows that it's going to get its ass whipped, what are the chances of it picking a fight? Better weapons increase the chances of this perception taking root. Better weapons are therefore good. Myself, I prefer fewer conflicts over more anyday.
At the most extreme level, consider the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: it may sound grim, but it's also kept the world's trigger fingers away from the nukes for the last 40 years.
More lethality, increased standoff ranges, decreased response times, more integration, etc. are reasons why the armed forces wants the newest and latest toys. These reasons are important because, bottom line, the more advantages our soldiers have, the more soldiers will be alive after the next conflict (e.g. the Gulf War).
Take the M-16 rifle. US infantrymen were still learning the ins and outs of using and taking care of the new M-16 rifle while they were fighting in Vietnam. Result: hundreds of soldiers KIA from having a jammed weapon at exactly the wrong time. Introducing and learning how to use the newest and latest wonder hardware before we get into a fight will save lives.
Some weapons systems take way too long to procure and build to wait until we're near another conflict. The Navy's surface combatants and carriers take years to build, not to mention the time spent in their development phases. Start building Seawolf and Virginia class attack submarines now, and in 15 years we won't be stuck with obsolescent Los Angeles class SSNs when China finally gets around to taking military action against Taiwan.
So for those who don't know the scoop, all the planes that will be replaced by newer ones such as these go up for sale to countries that we have "erratic" ties to like Afghanistan.
More likely, they'll end up going to allies like Taiwan or Egypt, who could use the upgrades for their decaying militaries and we have no problems with selling to. Osama bin Laden's weapons came from the Soviet Afghanistan War, when the mujahedeen were our nominal allies then. Ditto for Iraq in the 1980s against Iran, who had fired on US ships and taken US diplomats hostage.
All these new toys for warfare when people are starving, and our economy slowing tanking. Thanks alot Dumbya.
Okay, you obviously missed A) the economic news that the US economy just grew by 2% and B) that the Fed is cutting interest rates like crazy. I'm not exactly sure how you think the few million dollars could be better spent to help the economy anyways. Monetary policy has been shown to be far superior in prodding the economy along than meager government spending changes.
And pardon me for sounding like a cold-hearted fascist conservative, but throwing money at poor people does not, in the long run, make them any better off! You'd think, after 3+ decades of the welfare state, that people would reconsider using big government as a solution to social and moral ills. Apparently bad ideas, like bad bosses, never go away.
If you were talking about foreign aid (especially to help starving people, a la Ethiopia and Somalia), it's notoriously bad for getting hijacked, commandeered by local warlords, and pocketed by corrupt bureaucrats. Also, consider this: the defense budget is a pittance to what the US government spends in entitlements, corporate subsidies, entitlements, interest towards the national debt, and entitlements. Did I mention entitlements? Sacred Cow programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are using up two-thirds of government expenditures. I wouldn't be worrying about the millions we spend developing UCAVs.
To paraphrase: don't be worrying about our President's education until you check your own noggin.
Geek Warfare (Score:1)
Stop and think about this for a second if you will though. Sure these seem like great things, but take a look at the move to get the missle defense system in gear, then think about the purpose of these "toys" what exactly will they serve for?
Sure I see the need for a military but its not like we're at war, yet the government continues to build weapons.
So for those who don't know the scoop, all the planes that will be replaced by newer ones such as these go up for sale to countries that we have "erratic" ties to like Afghanistan. (I suggest may of you get familiar with the Center for Defense Information [cdi.org] which'll back my claims)
Ok that means in lay man terms...
Hey Osama, we just purchased some new jets so take these off our hands for $X Million dollars, and we can have a war.
All these new toys for warfare when people are starving, and our economy slowing tanking. Thanks alot Dumbya.
Bush: "First of all, Cinco de Mayo is not the independence day. That's dieciséis de Septiembre, and
"Matthews: "What's that in English?"
Bush: "Fifteenth of September." (Dieciséis de Septiembre = Sept. 16)-Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000
doh heres the link (Score:2)
Marines' Flying Foot Soldiers [vny.com]
Re:UCAV? Who cares. MAV -- that's cool (Score:1)
Re:Geek Warfare (Score:1)
Re:Hooray.. umm not quite (Score:1)
Re:Oh, Great... (Score:2)
* A reduced casualty rate frees the military to act more aggressively because it's the casualties that most riles up people (and Congressmen). "No hydraulic fluid for oil" doesn't quite have the same impact.
* Thus, they can act with less of a popular mandate, which is a double-edged sword; "unpopular" does not necessarily mean "wrong" from a moral perspective. I've read that isolationism was quite strong in the US before Pearl Harbor (and even *after* that attack, there was STILL a Congressman who voted against declaring war on Japan); but abandoning Europe to the Nazis and even denying, say, Lend-Lease would have been far less moral than going against the isolationists and helping out.
* Conversely, would an enemy, seeing that it may have greater difficulty striking at the people actually in the military, be more likely to resort to striking at people who *aren't* -- via terrorism, for instance?
* How much automation technology will make its way into civillian craft?
Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:2)
Uh oh... (Score:1)
I'll settle for... (Score:1)
UCAV? Who cares. MAV -- that's cool (Score:3)
Re:Oh no (Score:1)
--
Robowars? (Score:1)
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
Dear americans... (Score:1)
We deliberately rammed it with a robotic seabird that we make, and forced it to land on one of our airbases.
We are now holding the chips and resistors on board hostage. If you want them back, please issue an apology to the australian people, for spying on them.
Torture of these chip is proceeding well, we are running electric currents through them, and bending their little legs, with amazing results. You obviously don't prepare your components against torture. Some make squeaky little noises, others light up like a chrstmas tree. Bad move uncle sam, baaad...
And just on a side note, isn't it amazing how much money the USA has to spend defending themselves against their previous mistakes?
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
Poetic Justice... (Score:2)
Now, let me get this straight, the geek engineers are the heros behind the military now, while the jock hot-shot pilots are going to be sitting on the sidelines.
Let's see you make fun of my pocket protector now fly-boy!
Re:Oh, Great... (Score:1)
Electronic action figures run amok, one of the last scenes is Dennis Leary (as the CEO) telling the product managers to get in touch with the company's military division.
Very amusing flick!
Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:1)
What control signals? The article indicates they are intended to be as autonomous as possible, which may mean that a controller is only needed to change the priority of the targets in the list.
US Spy Plane In China (Score:1)
With about 10 people you could run a pretty decent IT department and still have programmer and operators left to spare.
--
Milk, it does a body good.
Re:Hooray.. umm not quite (Score:1)
Given that this will have no humans on it it should safely be able to explode into tiny little souvenirs before hitting the ground. Probably worse from a clean-up pollution point of view. But at least the worse things the little plane pieces will do is put a scratch on people's cars.
--
Milk, it does a body good.
How About Using Birds (Score:2)
--
Milk, it does a body good.
Low-Budget Spying (Score:2)
Create an internet spy portal -- www.spyportal.com. Offer free e-mail and webhosting to all spies, supported by banner ad revenues.
Read all their e-mail.
This could even turn profitable if the banner revenues don't plummet this year.
--
Milk, it does a body good.
on board computer (Score:1)
So that's where all those PS2s are going to. They're using them for robotic planes!
--------------------------------------
Re:Deterrence (among other things) for Dummies (Score:1)
Those inexpensive planes are incredibly useful in a combat zone. They tend to be low maintenance, require fewer parts per plane, and are much faster to get off the production lines. In addition, the Harrier concept is nearly 40 years old (going back to the pre-Harrier prototypes), and really needs to be replaced. The F-22 is an interceptor and air-superiority fighter first, and anything else second. The JSF will perform all the dirty close air support and rapid response for the Marines that the Air Force doesn't like to do. Add to that the economic incentive (hundreds of billions of dollars in sales to allies like Spain, Portugal, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Australia), and you have strong reasons for keeping the program going.
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:1)
makes sense (Score:1)
The planes are capable of higher speed maneuvers (higher G turns, etc) than the pilots are. So why not have the pilots be actually in a remote cockpit control room on a ship or somewhere else?
Cryptnotic
Re:Oh, Great... (Score:1)
let the military do what they want with AI, just so long as it eventually leads to my getting a Love Bot 2000 (i love saying '2000' to denote futuristic things). unless the AI goes berserk and becomes insanely jealous of the human woman who i become attracted to in the next 15 minutes of the movie, in which case that would be bad, mkay? however it's comforting to know that she'd be able to flee the crime scene in a flight path that would maximize her stealth capabilities.
Re:this will help... (Score:1)
and let's just assume the computers are down, wise guy.
Unmanned cars (Score:1)
AI limitations (Score:1)
Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:1)
Re:How About Using Birds (Score:1)
The real question is... (Score:2)
Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:1)
These weapons, combined with a ballistic missile shield over the US mainland are designed to provide us with the ability to take offensive action directly to the heartland of hostile nations. (eg China) Using EMP weaponry to stop an UAV attack would have more harmful affect than the actual attack, since it would disable all electronics within a large area.
Look behind the tech. (Score:1)
The technology for remotely piloted or fully autonomous operation has been around for years; after all hook up the FMC with ground sensing radar and missile approach warners and your half way there.
The problem has always been the lawyers.
"What if X happens, what if Y happens". "No, you can't use these in war - you might kill someone not originally specified as the objective, we could be sued". Couple that with the unwillingness of the fly boys to see their careers shot down and you have the current situation.
Take a look a LOCAAS, its much more the likely future of such things, small, cheap, autonomous and effective. Who needs to spend x million, the tech isn't that difficult.
And that is what really frightens the DoD guys.
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
Or.. what if someone hack's them... compare the amount of hacking done to .gov sites compared to the amount of breakins in .gov buildings :)
Wanna root a b52 ? ;)
Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
The combat problem of aircraft is actually a simpler problem in some regards, because generally everything can be better mapped to a certain degree. Long range sensors give an added edge as well.
The combat problem with a tank involves far more as far as obstacles goes, plus the problem of identifying friend or foe in dealing with combatents. With aircraft this is dealt with by certain automated communications protocols. This is far harder to do on the ground. How do you identity civilians, etc?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
Well you just need to make sure your wireless protocols are secure. Or else you could get haxored and become a target of your own equipment. It is much harder to haxor a human pilot.
This gets into the whole sticky situation of the ethics that you program into an AI. I can see lots of problems if you program in something like the "Survival of the fittest". Humans are sometimes not very fit. Suddenly some version of Asimovs Laws of Robotics, and other versions of Ethical systems become very relevant.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
Which points to the possibility that alleged performance of things like UFOs (if you believe in them) are explained by having an AI at the controls. Heck, you could have smaller sized robots (big enough to get enviromental samples and get about, but small enough to save weight)
Probably the next big cultural change is where AI is a fact of Life.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
In combat situations, your friends send out an "I am your friend" signal in response to the correct query. Enemies presumably do not have your protocols. In a combat zone, guess which ones you shoot?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
You forgot one... (Score:1)
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:1)
Re:The real question is... (Score:1)
No problem. They will use the flank() and destroy_wall() functions when encountering these exceptions.
Planes are nice but insects would be better (Score:3)
If you think I'm joking take a peek at the following.
geek [geek.com]
new [aol.com]
UMich [umich.edu]
And my favorite, check out his Darpa funding: Quinn [cwru.edu]
Re:The Predator UAV can already do this (Score:2)
I forgot to include this link as well for those who like to know more about these craft: Predator UAV Fact Sheet [af.mil]
The Predator UAV can already do this (Score:3)
Although the article primarily focuses on new UCAVs been developed for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Precision Strike missions, the Air Force is currently working on a plan to convert their existing fleet of Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from a reconnaissance to an anti-tank mission
In Febuary, the Predator successfully acquired, launched, and "destroyed" a target using a Hellfire-C anti-tank missile. Phase II, when approved, will contain further challenges for the Predator, to include firing at a higher operational altitude and moving targets.
The Predator has already proved itself a valuable assest in its primary role in locations such as Bosnia, it will be interesting to see how well the Predator can adapt to a more lethal mode.
More information can be found here: Predator missile launch test totally successful [af.mil]
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:1)
There's a little footnote about it at this site: http://www.pogo.org/mici/f22/f22raptor.htm [pogo.org]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:1)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Re:An end to war as we know it... (Score:2)
Don't worry (Score:1)
Re:Deterrence (among other things) for Dummies (Score:1)
How about some cold hard facts.
The russians have developed the next generation to follow the su-27. It is capable of doing the equivalent of stopping in mid air, and turning around in little space. Ive seen it on video. Guess who has some of these babies on order, china
The f-15 (our most superior fighter) will be obsolete in 5 years acording to the us air force. And guess what, our ex president turned down further funding for the Joint strike fighter...the next generation of aircraft.
it takes 15 years on average to develop a new aircraft (from conceptualization to flight testing to production). Then tack on a couple more years for fufilling all the production orders. So do the math. in 5 years, we'll be obsolete. how bad is it going to get 10 years after that. dumbass
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
Oh no (Score:4)
My .02,
rms (Score:1)
My point is that comparing hacking to cracking will convey a hostile meaning to your readers, except perhaps for a few geeks. Please do not compare hacking to cracking.
Re:UCAV? Who cares. MAV -- that's cool (Score:2)
But These are where to look:
Discovery Channel MUAV page [discovery.com]
Aerovironment's Black Widow [aerovironment.com]
Black Widow development (pdf) [aerovironment.com]
Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:3)
Nerd Heroes of War (Score:1)
Size and Performance without Cocpit (Score:3)
Re:Size and Performance without Cocpit (Score:1)
Oh, Great... (Score:3)
dehumanizing war (Score:2)
By the Gulf war, our soldiers weren't at risk, and we didn't have the firsthand accounts of the horrors of war. No one saw the bombs blowing people up. Without those things, there was a lot less resistance to the war.
With unmanned vehicles, the risk is even less, and the consequences are seen even less. No longer are pilots of attack aircraft at risk, and no longer do they even see the ground before firing, or the devestation left behind, even from a distance. The only people who see the casualties are the victims, and no one cares about them then. This is truly a horrible development.
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:2)
The laws of robotics are one of Asimov's better ideas. The basic premice is this, Robots are self aware critters. Essentialy they are as smart (smarter) than you or me.
Smart though they are, they are bounded by these three laws. Now these laws are so integral to their programing that Robots will go --way-- out of their way to make sure they are fufilled. Hell, all you have to do is check the order to see that a Robot will give its "life" for a human being.
So Robots won't breed like bunnies because they will realize that this could consume resources and thus harm the human race. This violates law 1, so it won't happen. Robots will make more robots, but they won't do it in such a way as to impinge on human beings.
But in relation to your forth law, there is a Zeroth law (Not pronounced Z-Roth, pronounced Zero-ith) law of Robotics. It states that a robot may not allow the Human Race to come to harm and that it may violate ANY of the three laws necessary to ensure the safty of humanity. Bizarre. But that's Asimov for you
Yea yea yea... off topic... I know...
This has been another useless post from....
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:3)
1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Ok.... that frist one would make this whole "bomb people" objective pretty difficult. I'm sure this is revisable. "A Robot may not injure a United States citizen or ally, or through inaction allow such a person to come to harm. Unless of course we tell it to, or it compelling circumstance as defined by the United States Government, constituent bodies of such government, or the random whims of the vice chair of the senate committee on national defence.... other circumstace may be defined...."
Sigh.... "open the bomb bay doors Hal..."
This has been another useless post from....
Well, it's all unmanned anyway... (Score:1)
Re:Low-Budget Spying (Score:2)
--Blair
P.S. If you think the sysadmins at your ISP aren't giggling and pointing at your emails, you're wrong.
Scroll slowly past the pictures (Score:2)
I scrolled through these using the down arrow, and what I saw immediately after the last one (the plane in the crate) was just the first line of the item that followed. It was not unamusing.
--Blair
this will help... (Score:2)
--------------------------------
Re:I wonder..... (Score:1)
I can make a Unmanned Aircraft too! (Score:2)
Re:Unmanned Tanks (Score:1)
Tomahawk Crusie missile is an UCAV (Score:1)
Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:1)
Oh come ON! (Score:1)