Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Unmanned Combat Aircraft 88

Posted by michael from the point-and-click dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unmanned Combat Aircraft More

Unmanned Combat Aircraft

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, but you have to be careful and make sure no pop star computers take over control of your aircraft.

    Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
  • That is a major reason to go unmanned. A very good pilot can reach 10 G. An unmanned vehicle should be able to turn at the maximum design strength of the airframe, without liquifying the pilot. :)

  • Re:Someone will be able to fool it. (Score:3)

    by RayChuang ( 10181 ) on Saturday May 05, 2001 @05:36AM (#244034)
    However, I'm sure that the designers of UCAV will use techniques designed to mitigate any attempt to jam the control signals for the UCAV.

    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.

  • 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.

  • The russians have developed the next generation to follow the su-27.
    The Su-35? It's been operational for about 10 years now. But the Russians have hardly built any because they're low on cash.
    It is capable of doing the equivalent of stopping in mid air, and turning around in little space.
    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-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.
    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.
  • 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.
    What are you smoking? The Harrier is one of the most complex, high maintenance aircraft in our inventory. They had lots of probems keeping them flying in the gulf war. And, the F-16 - while flying the most sorties of any type of aircraft - was the least effective.

    Time & time again, dedicated single (or perhaps dual) purpose aircraft have proven much more capable at their mission than any multirole aircraft.

    The F-22 is an interceptor and air-superiority fighter first, and anything else second.
    True, but it can carry JDAM precision guided munitions, which will make it a very formidable strike platform.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
  • I am surprised that it has not already been mentioned. There has to be some method of communication and control. Yes, there is the AI, but that only goes so far. There has to be a method of calling back a system, etc.As they say in security, it is not a matter of "if", it is just a matter of "when". Obviously, they will not tell the public how they or going to make their systems secure (security by obscurity), so there will be little outside testing (except by those with very good spies).
  • there was this chevy chase movie in the 80's about an unmanned fighter like this one, as I recall the movie was pretty funny.
  • The driver is most definitely a bottleneck in a standard F1 car.

    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 :) As I recall, that sort of thing was part of why they dropped the old turbo engines - truly insane acceleration. In the name of reducing cornering speeds, tyres have been narrowed then forcibly grooved. Why bother reducing cornering speeds? Driver safety - after the spate of accidents in '94, it became clear they needed to make the cars safer at the dangerous points - the corners.

    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.
  • The other problem which occurred to me:

    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 :-)
  • The balance between chassis, engine and driver WRT which is the most significant factor moves pretty much constantly. There have certainly been times when the driver was the least significant component in the package's overall performance.

    This would simply be one of them, for racing cars.
  • Sounds like were nearly at the beginning of a Philip K. Dick novel.
  • 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.

    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.
  • In combat situations, your friends send out an "I am your friend" signal in response to the correct query.

    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"...
  • > When this thing gets hit, it just goes down whereever [sic] it wants to.

    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
  • EMP will destroy most electronics equiment in a large area. A nuclear blast over a city would destroy every electronic item in the city, regardless of whether it's got power or not. It creates a large EM field that induces a large current that fries everything.

    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)

    by Stickerboy ( 61554 ) on Saturday May 05, 2001 @11:21AM (#244048) Homepage
    Sure I see the need for a military but its not like we're at war, yet the government continues to build weapons.

    Reasons why the government continues to build weapons:
    • Military strength equals less wars fought.

      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.

    • A better generation of weapons will allow our military to accomplish their missions with less risk to the men and women in uniform.

      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).

    • Better weapons now means that we don't have to develop and learn how to use them while we're busy fighting the next 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.
  • Also noteable:

    QUANTICO, Va., April 19 (UPI) -- The Marines are developing small robotic flying machines that can fit into a soldier's backpack and, when called on, fly across battlefields, sending back to him or her video images of enemy positions.

    "UAVs have typically provided the upper echelon of military commanders with sensitive reconnaissance but Dragon Eye is intended to empower the foot soldier," said Jim McMains of the Office of Naval Research in Arlington, VA.


    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

  • Yes, indeed MAV:s are very cool. But use the right kind of tool for the job.. kinda hard to carry a 1000lbs bomb with one of them 6-inch MAV:s...:)
  • It'd be unbelievably stupid to wait for a war before weapons development. These things take time to research, manufacture, include in training, and deploy. Hell, even the Desert Shield buildup -- which was performed in a vaguely friendly host country, under good conditions -- took several months if memory serves.
  • Self-destruction also makes sense from an intel point of view, if there's anything that an enemy could gain from analyzing it... and it's safer than having a self-destruct capability in a manned craft, since if it goes off by mistake, well, you didn't lose a crew. Sounds like it'd be a relatively sane thing to include.
  • An interesting issue that goes along with a more automated (or, more remote-control... either way) military is whether this decreases the political cost of a war (since it reduces the probability of human casualties), and whether or not this is dangerous. Some vague thoughts --

    * 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?
  • Nonsense. The EMP might fry unprotected equipment (which is not what will be involved) but after that, the only radio communications it will affect would be HF. Not a problem for the UCAV.
  • Well, they better remember to make sure the plane is waterproof [imdb.com]!
  • I'll settle for an unmanned lawn mower.
  • UCAV is old news -- a 40-year-old dream finally being realized. Now Micro Air Vehicles [darpa.mil] (MAVs) are a more recent and much more interesting dream that is also being realized.
  • You work for the NYPD?

    --

  • Hehehe... Robowars for the guys with the brains and the *big* money... :)

    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
  • We caught a plane of yours spying off our coast.

    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?
  • The key advantage of unmanned combat aircraft over tanks or F1 racers is that the pilot is the biggest performance bottleneck. The pilot places a limit on how tightly the aircraft can turn, and out-turning your opponent is the key to winning dogfights (or evading missiles.) If you remove the pilot, the dynamic performance of the aircraft is limited only by the airframe. In tanks and F1 racers the crew/driver isn't the bottleneck, but you may get some improvements because unmanned versions could be made smaller, lighter (less armour) or more aerodynamic.

  • 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!

  • Didn't you ever see the movie Small Soldiers ?
    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!
  • jam the control signals for the UCAV

    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.

  • Here's what I don't understand. Why were there 24 people on the plane? We don't have 24 people in our company.

    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.

  • When will be the first time one of these shoots down a passenger plane? Crash into a house? Usually pilots will try to avoid civilian structures if their plane is going down. When this thing gets hit, it just goes down whereever it wants to.

    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 with implants in their brains. Here are some advantages:
    • The birds would be cheaper. About $5 a pop at the strip mall near my house.
    • The radars would ignore them. They're just birds.
    • They could blend in with the local birds and never be detected by the enemy's intelligence.
    • They could perch outside the enemy's head-quarters and easily eavesdrop on conversations and send back video footage.
    • If they crash on a city no one gets hurt (except perhaps the bird).
    • See this link [edgeinnovations.com] for more details on how this could be done.

    --
    Milk, it does a body good.

  • Here is another cheap strategy for spying.

    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.

  • So that's where all those PS2s are going to. They're using them for robotic planes!


    --------------------------------------

  • 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.

    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.

  • The Zeroth Law is not a true law. It was an extrapolation of the scales of the original Three Laws made by one robot in particular. IIRC, it was after the robot took the actions that Asimov's robot psychologist (it's been a few years and I forget her name) figured out what happened and defined the law.
  • It makes a lot of sense that high-speed fighter planes should be unmanned.

    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

  • * How much automation technology will make its way into civillian craft?

    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.
  • which brings an interesting point to mind. if there is no crew, who will destroy the tapes and equipment when the plane is going down?

    and let's just assume the computers are down, wise guy.
  • but then what the hell is the point of the car?
  • After working with ALOT of diferent AI systems they keypoint does come down, all you need t odo is find a bug, a blind stop in the AI systems, and even if they are the learning/neural net type your gonna get to blow alot of these out of the sky b4 its fixed, hope it dosen't run windows or you'll have to restart to fix a bug ;)
  • First of all, you can create a much nastier EMP detonation iwthout using a nuke mon ami, try an electromagnet and a capacitor.
  • yes but this is unmanned COMBAT aicraft. Ifyou manage to strap a 30mm chaingun to a sparrow, e-mail me!
  • ...will these planes get stuck trying to manuver around doors? What if enemies are hiding behind walls?
  • DARPA is working on EMP weapons without a nuclear element to do exactly what you were talking about.

    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.
  • OK, so someone is finally getting around to it.

    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.

  • Hm.. i just wonder... If we let machines fight for us.. and make them intelligent (uhm..?)... what if the are smart enought o realize there's no good in fighting ? ;)

    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 ? ;)

  • I think that the Unmanned tanks are going to require a substantial advance in AI. The best research along the line of computer controlled vehicles is probably covered in this Slash article [slashdot.org] about the Man vs Machine Challenge Web Site [man-v-machine.com], where the research challeng is to have an trully independent AI controlled Formula One Race Car win a Formula One Race. That is something that is going to be difficult on any day. But the research of learning to handle such a turbulent environment would be usefull for things like tanks that are linked to terrain.

    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

  • 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 :)

    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

  • If you remove the pilot, the dynamic performance of the aircraft is limited only by the airframe.

    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

  • 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.

    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



    • They could poop on the enemy's cars. While they're waiting in line at the carwash, we send in the big guns!
  • The M-247 Sgt. York was not unmanned. It did carry a crew. It was built by taking the radar and fire control system from an F-16 and mating it with a M-48 chassis and an anti-aircraft gun. Yes, it didn't work very well. Too bad they named such a turkey for a very great man.
  • ..manuver around doors? What if enemies are hiding behind walls?

    No problem. They will use the flank() and destroy_wall() functions when encountering these exceptions.

  • I think we'd get better results with building many smaller robots instead of one big one. Sure the roboplane can out manouver a missile in ways a human piloted plane can't but it's still only one shot away from oblivion and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should build an army of robot insects to scurry under our enemies radar. Imagine thousands of little cockroaches each with a gram of HMX going off at once. I wouldn't want to clean that up.

    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]

  • 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)

    by A_Mythago ( 204246 ) on Saturday May 05, 2001 @05:34AM (#244093) Journal

    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]

  • Billion dollar boondogle of the 1980's ... Pictures of the SGT York unmanned tank at http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/8757/SGTY .html [geocities.com]

    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 ~~
  • The tank may have been manned (I stand corrected), but if memory serves, the gun was not. There was an AI component that was supposed to identify helicopters and shoot them down. The problem was that the algorithm was rather crude --- if there was a regular blocking of light at the frequency range that a helicopter blade would produce it would shoot. This is not enough on which to base a firing decision. There was an anecdote of the Sgt York prototype blowing the h*ll out of a latrine because the dim lightbulb inside was flickering.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
  • Most unmanned vehicles? This reminds me of the excellent scifi series "Lord of the Diamonds" by Jack L. Chalker. In the series the human government fights aliens from another galaxy using an array of unmanned remotely controlled war machines - great stuff!
  • Funny, everyone always thought it would be the tanks that were unmanned. Don't worry, they will be as well.
  • Of course hitler rose to power, because the masses were kept stupid and didnt know about what was going on behind the scenes, much like the way the liberals spread their agenda and propaganda to keep the stupid people happy...
    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)

    by zencode ( 234108 ) on Saturday May 05, 2001 @05:08AM (#244099) Homepage
    If these things are as bright as the AI I normally run up against, all Iraq will have to do is hide behind a box and hold down the "shoot" button while repeatedly jumping. =)

    My .02,

  • Or.. what if someone hack's them
    You have used the term of hacking instead of cracking. This saddens me. Comparing the art of getting the best out of a computer program to causing harm to a computer program is a very harsh thying to say, so I hope you won't speaking about hacking that way.

    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.
  • I agree,

    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)

    by taotek ( 247376 ) on Saturday May 05, 2001 @10:13AM (#244102)
    won't EMP kill the onboard control systems too? if defenders switch to hardened cables, or line of sight lasers for comm, this could be an effective counter to the whole concept...
  • We've been the heroes of war ever since the atomic bomb. Know why? Once we invented it, we got just as much opportunity as the soldiers to die during war!
  • Will these be able to perform sharper turns without a pilot? My dad, who is a radar specialist, says that missiles can pull 27Gs because they have no pilot to pass out. How about flight time, or reflexes in dodging fire and choosing a target?
  • Theoretically they will make sharper turns, but this will need a strengthened structure, a much larger wing to create the necessary lift forces, and most of all, a much bigger engine. In normal operation, these wings and engines are ridiculously inefficient, though, and will cut the range and endurance roughly by half. Also, since the air-to-air missiles take much less time to develop than airplanes, this advantage will only last a few years, after which you will be stuck with an inefficient and ineffective UCAV.

  • Oh, Great... (Score:3)

    by Mister Transistor ( 259842 ) on Saturday May 05, 2001 @07:10AM (#244106) Journal
    We'll have toys fighting toys - He who dies with the most wins! So we have unmanned tanks being shot at by unmanned AV's, being shot at by automated SAM sites, which is fine, until someone runs out of toys. Then a human shoots back at the UAV, and then what?? Right back into conventional war as soon as the toys are gone. Better living through technology. But there's always the possibility that war breaks out and no one shows up...
  • I fear that unmanned combat vehicles is going to further lead to the dehumanizing of war. The Vietnam war ended because even though we were winning by any rational measure, our people were on the ground getting shot up and experiencing firsthand the death and destruction that they were causing.

    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.

  • And the topic wanders further astray....

    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)

    by TGK ( 262438 ) on Saturday May 05, 2001 @08:17AM (#244109) Homepage Journal
    The Laws of Robotics:
    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....
  • ... Any world leaders up for a Q3 match?! The best AI wins the war.

  • There are those who say this has already happened.

    --Blair

    P.S. If you think the sysadmins at your ISP aren't giggling and pointing at your emails, you're wrong.
  • At the bottom of the Jane's article [janes.com], there are some pictures.

    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
  • Now the U.S. can skip the whole getting-the-crew-home part and get on with the getting-the-top-secret-plane-home part.

    --------------------------------
  • There's still plenty of room for human error, instaed of a pilot there's all the fancy software and hardware as well as the controller back at the control center.
  • Instructions on making top secret unmanned aircraft: 1. Take 1 8.5 x 11 Sheet or Paper 2. Fold in half lengthwise 3. Fold wings 4. Throw And it's only 1/1000000000th the cost! -underdog
  • How do you identity civilians, etc? Not to mention Chinese embassies!
  • It just doesn't come back. But it isn't that big of a jump to guide a missile to a target, deploy whatever weapons it has, then fly it back.
  • This thing must have some sort of radar, whether it be infrared or whatever (it might have been in the article? I don't know.) and I'm sure someone will come up with some sort of stealth technology to fool the machine. (Unless, of course, there's a camera on it)
  • It's too bad that nobody important in the US has ever seen Gundam: Wing, it deals with issues like unmanned war machines. No country is going to submit to defeat just because you've killed all of their little toys, humans just aren't that smart. As soon as they've run out of unmanned weaponry they'll send live troops in. Even if the US is the only country that gets the technology for this (not gonna happen) this is still a bad development. The risk of our own boys dying in battle is the only setback (from a general's point of view anyhow) to war. If we don't have any reason to not use violence to solve a conflict with another country we'll start using it far too often and I don't relish the thought of having something my tax dollars paid for slaughtering other people just because they pissed us off. From a military point of view I don't see how this concept is viable either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are ways for the enemy to scramble or block basically any signal being sent from a jet back to a command center. I would think that would render the idea useless. (If they want to port the plane's AI over to an air combat game I'd have no problem with that though :D )

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close