Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

X-45 Makes Debut Flight 550

Posted by Hemos from the let's-go-fly-a-kite dept.
jonerik writes "The Associated Press (by way of MSNBC) reports the debut flight on Wednesday of Boeing's X-45A, the first unmanned aircraft designed from the start to carry weapons. According to the article, the X-45 - one of two being tested - flew for 14 minutes and will be able to carry 3,000 pounds of guided bombs. If eventually purchased by the Pentagon, expect to see it in service sometime between 2007 and 2010. The plane's relatively cheap cost ($10-15 million per aircraft), ease of maintenance, and lack of an onboard pilot will likely make it a staple of future U.S. war plans."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X-45 Makes Debut Flight More

X-45 Makes Debut Flight

Comments Filter:

  • Perfect (Score:2, Funny)

    by Robert Hayden ( 58313 )
    Perfect for today's nintendo generation of twitch-reflex script kiddies.

  • In a related story... (Score:5, Funny)

    by slackergod ( 37906 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:32PM (#3575618) Homepage Journal
    The Pentagon announced their new "Skynet" project.

  • X45 (Score:2, Funny)

    by 10 Speed ( 519184 )
    is the x45 a flying version of the x10 camera?

    • Re:X45 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Wakko Warner ( 324 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:40PM (#3575683) Homepage Journal
      Yes. In fact, I believe the article is wrong. This plane is designed not to destroy, but to bring hope to the hopeless.

      Large-breasted, scantily clad women are the bomb, and, at about 100 pounds each, this plane will be able to carry 30 of them. The payload will be dropped as a form of humanitarian aid at enemy Star Trek conventions, Linux User Group meetings, Magic: The Gathering marathons, and other places which haven't a hope of seeing the fairer species any other way.

      Let's hope this does the trick. (They say mass-sterilization efforts are the next and last resort, but I say it'd be a moot point.)

      - A.P.
  • I can see it now. Other countries are going to start screaming about how unfair it is that we don't have to risk pilots to bomb stuff. It would be nice, however, if the pilots actually had a cockpit wherever they were stationed to control the drone. Controlling a drone with a small joystick and a few flight controls in front of a B&W television is just annoying. Besides, it would take the fun out of warfare.
    • Controlling a drone with a small joystick and a few flight controls in front of a B&W television is just annoying.
      I hear you. Every time I have to launch the space shuttle from a command line, I'm also very annoyed :-) Seriously, though, from the article:
      Its pilot -- who may fly several planes at once -- would remain on the ground, out of harm's way.
      I don't know how they plan to control several planes at once (KVM switch?), even though they're semi-autonomous. Whatever setup they use, it can't be a full cockpit; a pilot can't move from cockpit to cockpit in the time required for battle situations. Just unstrapping the seatbelt would take a lot of time :-)

      Drones (and this really is an enhancement of a drone, though a big enhancement) have been flying for a while, so I imagine the Air Force has got this worked out.

    • Re:Cheaters. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Malc ( 1751 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:53PM (#3575765)
      Fool: when was warfare supposed to be fun? It's all about imposing your will on somebody else, probably at the expense of pain and suffering to them, or even both of you.
    • It would be nice, however, if the pilots actually had a cockpit wherever they were stationed to control the drone. Controlling a drone with a small joystick and a few flight controls in front of a B&W television is just annoying.


      Note that this is a robot, not a mindless drone. Remembering some of the military systems in use a few years ago (when I was stationed on-board a ship) I would guess that the controls to this plane would be more along the lines of "turn left to 030, increase altitude, attack this target, return home, land", and much less like a sim that you may be used to.

      Over the last few years, the US has become allergic to ANY casualties, and therfore has made more use of cruise missles to destroy targets in dangerous situations. The 9/11 events have changed that view somewhat, but the military would still like to avoid loss of life (at least on OUR side), and the resulting bad press that a downed pilot can bring. Remember that cruise missles are preprogrammed to fly autonomously to a location and strike a target. This may be thought of as a cheaper alternative.
  • ...where's Isamu Dyson when you need him?

  • I think it was best said on The Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)

    by decipher_saint ( 72686 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:35PM (#3575641)
    "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you."
    -- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"

  • No cockpit? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SirKron ( 112214 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:35PM (#3575642)
    Since there is no cockpit maybe they should paint one on the tail end to confuse our enemies' pilots. It works for fish with "eyes" on their tails.

    • Re:No cockpit? (Score:3, Funny)

      by danro ( 544913 )
      Yeah, I can see that...
      Ground control, we have a have a bogey dooing mach 1 in reverse!
      Hmm... don't think that would fool anyone.

  • I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by antirename ( 556799 )
    If it has any stealth features? Or if "partially autonomous" means automatic fire avoidance or flying map of the earth? Hopefully that's all it is. If, on the other hand, that means that it can pick it's own targets if it needs to, it had better not run on windows... that would be a blue screen to remember.

  • Automated Planes. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by codeguy007 ( 179016 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:36PM (#3575657)
    Hey with these things they will be able to continue to nuke the planet after everyone is dead.

  • Crackers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:37PM (#3575658)
    Unlike the crewed planes it may replace, the X-45 would be partially autonomous. Its pilot ? who may fly several planes at once ? would remain on the ground, out of harm?s way.

    I wonder what is to stop someone from cracking the communications protocol and effectivly hijacking the plane. It seems like similar less advanced spy planes are already being used in Afghanistan but if these become standard I could very well see an enemy putting a significant amount of resources into cracking the encryption. Does anyone know enough about the system to know whether there is a significant risk of a 3rd party taking over one of these planes during a flight?

    • Re:Crackers? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oroborus ( 131587 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:45PM (#3575715)
      I'd be more worried about someone jamming the communications between the pilot and the plane.

      Modern warplanes are hardened against electronic attack, but it's virtually impossible to overcome signal jamming. So the only real countermeasure is to include enough autonomic control to the plane to allow it to complete a mission without direction.

      But it's highly unlikely that such a control system would be allowed to select and attack targets without human verification. Would you want to be a ground soldier in combat with loose-cannon planes flying overhead? I sure wouldn't. (And before anyone jumps in and says the allies will all have some sort of signal to prevent them from being blown to smithereens, remember this is in combat with full-force electronic jamming in play)

      Jamming a signal is simple, compared to intercepting it. And as the US military becomes increasingly reliant on its advanced communication network to wage war, it will become a simple way of levelling the playing field for the bad guys.

      • Re:Crackers? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ryepup ( 522994 )
        Unless they are complete morons, the thing will be programmed to head home if it ever loses it's connection.

        Even if all the targets are pre-programmed, and the thing needs no guidance, there needs to be a way to at least call it back. Everyone has hopefully seen Dr. Strangelove

        That would be a security hole in itself, because if someone could tap into the communications and give the callback signal, then the things would be useless anyway.

        Maybe the military has some quantum computing up thier sleeve...
      • Yup, the enemy will just install RF lighting in all their parking lots causing signal loss to the planes causing them to only strike French and Chinese embassies.
      • Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a "home-on-jam" mission. Our current HARM (High speed Anti-Radiation Missle) missle homes in on radar emissions, but can also be set to home in on jammers. The jammer then has two options: stop the jamming or run away very, very fast. Cruise missles can be similarly equipped, and with a cluster munitions dispenser even a widely disperse array of jammers could be easily, cheaply, and (most importantly) safely taken out.

        Even turning off the jammer (or radar) would be somewhat pointless, as nearly all of our anti-radiation missles store the location of the last known emitter and home in on it anyway. A little less accurate, perhaps, but with a 500kg warhead you can miss by quite a bit and still take out your target.

        Wish we'd had these when I was in the Marines.
      • Jamming a signal is simple, compared to intercepting it. And as the US military becomes increasingly reliant on its advanced communication network to wage war, it will become a simple way of levelling the playing field for the bad guys.

        I was thinking about jamming too, but the real furball usually starts with knocking out the SAM sites -- the guys still flying F-4's with HARM missles. Turn on your radar/jammer, eat a missle. Things quite down after a bit of hunting with those. Unmanned patrol craft set to paste anyone who tries to target it with a SAM... or even tries to see what is flying about with the radar...
      • I'll say this though: one way some terrorist could potentially render a UCAV useless is to detonate what's known as an electro-magnetic pulse bomb (a bomb that spreads a big cloud of energized carbon filaments). Such a bomb could render all electronics virtually useless since electromagnetic field caused by such an explosion will render all electronics useless in a very localized version of a EMP effects from a nuclear detonation.

        Mind you, I'm sure the designers of UCAV's have built the plane so they are not affected by EMP blasts caused by such a device.

      • Re:Crackers? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by canadian_right ( 410687 )
        The article also mentioned "line of sight" control systems. This would imply some sort of narrow beam (laser?) system that would be much harder to crack or jam.
    • The NSA has probably developed algorithms as good as what's in PGP. The military is no stranger to doing key management.

      Far easier than taking over, and almost as effective, would be jamming the communications link. The X-45 would be of questionable value in a major war with a sophisticated opponent.

      • I wonder how effective jamming would be if they took advantage of ultra wide-band/spread spectrum techniques, along with satellite linkages. Seems as though it would be hard to jam that stuff.. all the plane needs to do is look up and use a few gHz of frequencies, and you'd be hard pressed to block that.

        • I wonder how effective jamming would be if they took advantage of ultra wide-band/spread spectrum techniques, along with satellite linkages. Seems as though it would be hard to jam that stuff.. all the plane needs to do is look up and use a few gHz of frequencies, and you'd be hard pressed to block that.

          Depends on how much effort you're willing to put in the jamming.

          Jamming is just sending enough radio noise at the target to make the noise in the desired part of signal space louder than the signal.

          For a kid's walkie-talkie, that means dumping noise into a narrow region of spectrum. For frequency-hopping radio, that means dumping noise into many regions of spectrum at once (unless your spies have retrieved the hopping algorithm). For impulse-based UWB, you dump a lot of randomly-timed impulses out (easier if your spies or observations give you approximate timings). For scrambled spread-spectrum radio, you either dump an ungodly amount of noise into the band used to raise the noise floor enough that even coding and correlation don't save you (do-able), or you get your spies to find the family of scrambling codes used and pattern your noise into that band of signal space.

          In summary, jamming will always work, either through espionage or through brute force and ignorance.
          • As pointed our above, you are going to need one hell of a large emitter to make this work. Home-on-jam makes being a large emitter a dangerous (if not fatal) proposition. Your choice then becomes one of jam and die, or don't jam and somebody else dies. The real question is can you produce enough jammers to handle the second or third wave of these things and are the jammers cheaper than the remotes?

    • Re:Crackers? (Score:4, Informative)

      by alen ( 225700 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:00PM (#3575803)
      First the encryption the military uses is way advanced of anything in PGP or the civilian sector. Second this will most likely use frequency hopping radio technology. The US Army has had frequency hopping radios with encryption since the 80's. Any crypto the military uses first has to be approved by the NSA. And I haven't heard of anyone hacking into the NSA's classified systems yet.
      • ..it is sure to not have happened. Only tin foil crackpots could suspect that NSA would be secretive about such a thing!

      • Re:Crackers? (Score:3, Informative)

        by sql*kitten ( 1359 )
        First the encryption the military uses is way advanced of anything in PGP or the civilian sector.

        I'd be very suprised if that was true. Would the military trust something that hadn't been reviewed by the academic sector, published in journals, etc? Trying to keep the algorithm secret simply doesn't stand up to modern cryptanalysis, if that algorithm isn't rock-solid to start with. You can download the source code and documentation to the new AES [kuleuven.ac.be], which is the Federal standard for data encryption.

        If the NSA are keeping anything secret, it will be that they have algorithmic attacks on popular techniques (and/or computing techniques and power to brute-force them), not new techniques of their own.
    • I think you're reading too much into "fly". The communications between the ground and aircraft are likely to be minimal, with a "pilot" only keeping an eye on the aircraft's progress and sending an update to the program loaded on the ground if it proves necessary. The "pilot" certainly couldn't "fly several planes at once" if it were just a glorified RC plane.

      Jamming relies on their being a signal to jam, and I'm sure this was factored into the design.
    • The cryptographical protocol would almost certainly rely on symmetric key crytography technology on which there is so much theory about block ciphers and cipher modes, the NSA is sure to make an uncrackable code.

      The reason I can say this with such confidence is that when you get to implant both crypto hardware at both ends of the communications line, you are in a much better state compared to software encryption of your email with key exchange problems etc. etc.

      Heck, who's to say they can't store a pair of one time pads at both controller and plane that has enough data to encrypt comms for a flight. After the flight, the one time pad is changed. That's uncrackable crypto
    • Does anyone know enough about the system to know whether there is a significant risk of a 3rd party taking over one of these planes during a flight?

      Who's to say there is a pilot at all? Perhaps the system will be pre-programmed before flight and use onboard GPS to take off, accomplish the mission, and land. I guarantee you that autonomous flight is being looked at, mostly likely in conjunction with flying via remote pilot.

    • These planes will be largely automatic and will not require a remote pilot. There may be a requirement for a last-minute "fire or not" decision but a lot of the work over the last few years has been in the autonomy arena. We've been building and flying drones for years - nothing new there. The QF-4 could easily be loaded with bombs - the F-4 was quite capable of that. The NEW part of all this is the ability to tell the plane "Go here and destroy this" and expect it to happen by itself.

      In case you didn't read the article, here's the essential quote:
      In a typical mission scenario, multiple UCAVs will be equipped with preprogrammed objectives and preliminary targeting information from ground-based mission planners. Operations can then be carried out autonomously, but can also be managed interactively or revised en route by UCAV controllers should new objectives or targeting information dictate.

    • This is a U.S. Department of Defense Computer System. [navy.mil]

      This computer system, including all related equipment, networks and network devices (specifically including Internet access), are provided only for authorized U.S. Government use. DoD computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, including to ensure that their use is authorized, for management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures, survivability and operational security. Monitoring includes active attacks by authorized DoD entities to test or verify the security of this system. During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied and used for authorized purposes. All information, including personal information, placed on or sent over this system may be monitored. Use of this DoD computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. Unauthorized use may subject you to criminal prosecution. Evidence of unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal or adverse action. Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring for these purposes.

      Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, prevent or limit access, or otherwise violate the intended purpose of this web site are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

      This notice is embedded into X-45 and all UCAV ROMs. All X-45s are distributed with three platoons of lawyers. This and the DMCA should do.
  • Wham. Another terrorist bites the dust. Who scored the kill? Was it:
    1. The Ender'esque kiddie controlling the plane,
    2. the coders on the control system for the plane,
    3. the engineers who built the plane,
    4. the engineers who built the bomb,
    5. or the taxpayer who paid for the whole shebang.

    Not really funny if you think that 50 cents of your last tax payment may have gone to an actual, honest-to-goodness kill "in the field".

    Extremely not funny if you think of any "accidents" that might happen.

    What's that line about swords into ploughshares again?
    • Funny you should mention plowshares, this unmanned vehicle will spawn civilian uses, have no doubt of that. Aerial traffic control, weather monitoring, agricultural use, land surveys, apartment hunting, you name it. As always, it will be a number of years before any real products appear.
  • Ah, the bravery of being out of range.

    Nevertheless, I can't imagine real pilots having the same positive impression of these devices. Human judgement counts for something.

    Will these things end up making less of these "mistaken target bombings" or is that all just garbage-in-garbage-out intelligence snafus?
  • An unmanned plane with weapons. Call me paranoid, but I'm not sure I trust it. Anybody who has worked with computers and electronics knows how crazy the machines can go with little action taken. Processors can have rounding errors that cost countless civilian lives. With smartbombs as screwey as they are, should we trust these things?

    Give me a human pilot, with proper training they can make error judgement calls better and can use instinct and other senses to make better decisions. Plus you can yell at them and get results, yell at autopilot and it won't do a damn thing.

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by realdpk ( 116490 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:48PM (#3575735) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, civilian lives matter a whole lot to our military. [bbc.co.uk] (For those that don't want to click, it's more than died in the "9/11" attack.)

      • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zulux ( 112259 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:21PM (#3575910) Homepage Journal
        If you're implying that the US and her allies intedded to kill civilians, than you're an idiot. There would be millions dead if that were the case.

        • By millions, are you trying to imply that the US military is _that_ competent? Because, if they were, they could have avoided killing 3000+ innocent civilians.

          • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

            by elefantstn ( 195873 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @08:09PM (#3576149)
            By millions, are you trying to imply that the US military is _that_ competent? Because, if they were, they could have avoided killing 3000+ innocent civilians.


            You think it takes a lot of competence to push the launch button on a ICBM? If the US really just wanted to kill civilians, it could do it pretty quickly and easily.

      • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

        by neocon ( 580579 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:37PM (#3575995) Homepage Journal

        Those numbers have been discredited a long time ago. See the section on civilian casualties at the end of this article [spectator.co.uk] for details.

        More importantly, this is beside the point. In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?

        • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

          by elefantstn ( 195873 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @08:05PM (#3576133)
          You don't see a difference?


          No, he doesn't, because he's motivated by ideology instead of reason.

          Not only that, but none of the dipshit kneejerkers reading this article has realized that this technology will actually reduce civilian casualties in the event of a war. Most of the misses by bombs and missiles from the US Air Force are due to the crews flying high enough to avoid antiaircraft fire. With unmanned drones, that's no longer a concern, identification is easier, and the uninted casualties are lower.

          But this is Slashdot, what do you expect?

        • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

          by RobinH ( 124750 )
          In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?

          Ok, Rah Rah U-S-A and all that... go America.

          However, it bothers me that you seem to think that the civilians on the ground in Afghanistan are supporters of the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden. They did not vote the Taliban into power, and they did not invite Al Qaida (sp?) to their country. As a matter of fact, I believe that the people of Afghanistan (and their army, the Northern Alliance) were already fighting against Taliban rule LONG before the US or its allies ever got involved.

          Therefore, when you say that the US is doing its "utmost to avoid civilian casualties", I fail to see why America should be canonized [dictionary.com] for this. The 9/11 attackers targeted civilians because they are terrorists, and they see American civilians as their enemies. The Afghan people are not your enemies, they are your allies! It makes sense to avoid shooting your own allies, but I guess Americans don't get that [cbc.ca].

          • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

            by smallpaul ( 65919 )

            However, it bothers me that you seem to think that the civilians on the ground in Afghanistan are supporters of the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden.

            I re-read the post you are responding to and it said nothing remotely like that. What are you talking about?

            Therefore, when you say that the US is doing its "utmost to avoid civilian casualties", I fail to see why America should be canonized [dictionary.com] for this.

            He didn't say they should be canonized. He said that they should not be equated with terrorists. Are you replying to text in the post that is marked with an invisible tag?

            It makes sense to avoid shooting your own allies, but I guess Americans don't get that [cbc.ca].

            I'm a Canadian too. Way to use the deaths of honorable men to score cheap shots against an American that you seem not even to have a legitimate disagreement with. Its a new low for Slashdot. (but only for today)

  • X-45 (Score:4, Funny)

    by thanjee ( 263266 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:38PM (#3575670) Journal
    So how long until the game X-45 comes out? 2011?

    *features realistic graphics and bombs of mass destruction
    *feels like you are in an actual cockpit
    *comes in a special PS5 package with foot, hand and thought controllers

    *need 24/7 wireless broadband internet access and a deep bunker - not included

    And you thought you were just playing a pretend flight sim :)
  • This is like seeing the hot babe in a horror movie hearing a creepy noise outside her house, then silence, and deciding to unlock the door to investigate, all by herself. You think, "C'mon. Noone could be this stupid in real life."

    How many SF plots revolve around the military/police/corporation making robots/superweapons/supersoldiers that are a) autonomous and b) armed to the teeth, and the super-weapons end up threatening all of humanity?

    I mean, how many, really? Just a quick review of schlocky SF movies gives:

    Terminator I,II, etc.

    Robocop

    Blade Runner

    numerous bad Jean Claude van Damme movies
    etc.

    There's also well-written fiction on this subject--Stanislaw Lem wrote much on this. And Asimov's Laws of Robotics are designed to fight this.

    Now you know why these stories get written--the military really is dumb enough to make flying killer robots just to save money (yes, lots of money) in the goal of maximizing lethality.

    Let's just hope Microsoft isn't writing the software.

    • Well there were a scad of movies in the 50's/60's about radiation from nuclear testing turning insects into twenty foot bad actor killing machines and last I heard, not a single bad actor has been killed by a 15' ant in the last several years. Just becaues there are a bunch of sci fi flicks about it don't mean squat. I don't see one of these x45's developing a sense of self and either turning against it's human creators or squirreling off to the islands with a Predator that it's fallen in love with any time soon.

  • UCAV Research (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anzha ( 138288 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:44PM (#3575711) Homepage Journal
    Along similar lines, Northrop Grumman [northgrum.com] is working on a naval uninhabitted combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) of their own. Take a look at their 'Pegasus' here [northgrum.com].

    The idea is that these things could be placed in storage and then pulled out only for when combat is imminent: pilots would be unable to tell the difference between simulator and real combat. Obviously, some random testing of the equipment is needed, but expensive training gets a whole lot easier and cheaper.

    Finally, keep in mind, at this point they are going to be used for SEAD (supression of enemy air defenses) and precision strike, not air-to-air combat. That will be another 20 years off. Bandwidth is a killer in that application.

  • Saving cost (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:48PM (#3575729)
    Basically these are cruise missles that return the returnable parts instead of destroying them. Think of these things as the space shuttle vs just big rockets.

    (only of course for the analogy to hold, you'd need to make the space shuttle carry 10x what it currently can)

  • pure water (Score:3, Funny)

    by thanjee ( 263266 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:48PM (#3575732) Journal
    All we need is one general with a weird obsession about pure water and the unmanned bombers will go out causing mass destruction and risking world war three unless we can guess his recall code.

    Then again, if it is unmanned who will be there to manually unstick and release the bomb and ride it down? Maybe this is a good idea for real-life afterall, just not very exciting for a movie end sequence.
  • While I believe that the costs will be cheaper than conventional warcraft, lines like this, from the X-45 page, get me:

    Because of their small size, lack of pilot interfaces and training requirements, reusability and long-term storage capability, UCAVs are projected to cost up to 65 percent less to produce than future manned fighter aircraft, and up to 75 percent less to operate and maintain than current systems.

    I believe there will most certainly still be training costs - someone still has to fly the planes, regardless of where the person is in reference to the plane. Granted, it will be cheaper to train, since the person can do more in a simulator and does not have to worry about airtime, but training costs are still definitely there.

    The other thing is transmitters and the actual "cockpit" (where the "pilot" would be stationed). Moving all of the controls of numerous planes to an off-plane location will require incredible amounts of technology and construction. That is also a recurring cost, as more and more remote controls would have to be built.

    I also wonder if they include things like replacement parts and ground crews in their figure that it will cost "75 percent less to operate and maintain." I think that parts and labor are going to be constant, event with new planes. Pilots are obviously an expensive part of military aircraft, but I have to wonder if simply moving the pilot to the ground is going to save 75%.
    • Note the word AUTONOMOUS.

      This thing won't require a pilot for every little detail of its flight. If you change your mind about something, you tell the computer, LAND AT HOME BASE. Push the "Commit" button. Wait half an hour, and the thing lands and parks itself at the ramp.

      If you think this is a pipe dream, they've already done it - repeatably, and reliably, with the Global Hawk - which has seen combat in Afghanistan. The plane is preprogrammed (by an engineer, NOT a pilot), and taxis out, takes off, flies its mission, returns to base, and taxis back to the ramp - without a single additional real-time command. (GPS is a wonderful thing...)

      The only difference here is that this thing will be also able to drop bombs.

      So, YES, it will save pilot training costs. Hugely. One person would be able to command many of these things - even at the same time. If the computer cannot handle the problem by itself, it probably cannot be handled by a real-time pilot either.

  • I saw the name and thought it was a flying version of the x-10 wireless camera...

    Now I'd pay for that!

    I'd even probably look at the pop-up ads.

    • I saw the name and thought it was a flying version of the x-10 wireless camera...

      No, you would see pop-under missiles and visions of pretty women posing for your attention for perhaps just a second before the bright flash of light. Just like those invasive X10 cameras, live video would be taken just up until this bright flash for others to see your reaction on CNN.

  • The real questions... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @06:54PM (#3575769)
    Will they be hooking these planes up to video games for kids, and will Robin Williams be able to save us in time?

  • PKD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by legLess ( 127550 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:07PM (#3575845) Journal
    Ok, I'm going to ramble a bit, but I think this is a good point. In 1976 Philip K Dick wrote this about his story Service Call:
    When this story appeared many fans objected to it because of the negative attitude I expressed in it. But I was already beginning to suppose in my head the growing domination of machines over man, especially the machines we voluntarily surround ourselves with, which should, by logic, be the most harmless. I never assumed that some huge clanking monster would stride down Fifth Avenue, devouring New York; I always feared that my own TV set or iron or toaster would, in the privacy of my apartment, when no one else was around to help me, announce to me that they had taken over, and here was a list of rules I was to obey. I never like the idea of doing what a machine says. I hate having to salute something built in a factory.
    Much of PKD's work was about the way machines sneak into our lives, slowly become necessary, then resist our best efforts to get rid of them. One of his stories (name escapes me) centers on a group of people, sole survivors of the last world war. All the natural resources of the planet are being consumed by two warring "autofacs" ("automatic factory" I think is the derivation), neither of which is smart enough to realize that the war is over. The humans are struggling to destroy the factories so they can regain control. Being a PKD story, of course they fail.

    On the one hand, a pilotless bomber is a great idea - why risk a human life if a machine can do the job? On the other hand it's more than a little scary - when your wars are fought by machines, human beings are in the way.

    For nearly all of history, some people have thought they have a license or right to kill other people. Its one of the primary activities of humans - kill other humans. To become more efficient at this, we keep making human-killing technology better and better. Now we're talking about giving that license to machines.

    The biggest difference between the movie Blade Runner (which I love) and PKD's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep on which the movie was based (which I also love, for different reasons) is that in Dick's world androids have no compassion, no caritas. They have no inate regard for human life, or any life for that matter.

    The Nuremburg trials established that "I was following orders" is not a valid excuse for committing atrocities during wartime. That only works for humans, though, since machines have no moral compass. We're talking about giving a license to kill humans to a machine with no soul, no regard for life, and no accountability. All in the name of efficiency.
  • We're one step closer to the 'dog and pilot' flight crew:

    A pilot in case of an emergency and a dog to bite the pilot if he touches the controls.

  • Space-age tech, cave-man goals. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by surfcow ( 169572 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:13PM (#3575875) Homepage
    Technology has come a long way; we have not. We build better weapons to kill people with more efficiency. We focus on winning the conflict, but not preventing it.

    No doubt, it is a very cool piece of technology. I can't imaging the engineering that went into it. I wish this energy went into exploring other planets, instead of "fighting for peace".

    Once upon a time, you had to look into someone's eyes to kill them. Then you could do the job from 20 yards away, 100 yards away, from 2 miles in the air, from another nation, another continent.

    Doesn't something change when you take human conscience out of the equation? The dot on the screen is a village with many homes, families, adults and children. We can unleash hell without ever seeing our victims. To them, we are a faceless empire, worse than Rome's wildest dreams.

    We use space-age technology to accomplish cave-man goals. We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.

    =brian
    • We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.

      As has already been affirmed this is correct. I agree anyway. The thing is what do you do between now and when these better people arrive? You can decide to be a non combatant as many others have done in the past. Personally I don't have a problem w/that. But many others, myself included, would rather be proactive.

      Peace and harmony I would like to see. In fact I think I will see it but not on this side of life. It is a fallen world full of bad people. Our government and many of us as individuals are a part of the process of finding ways of protecting what we hold dear.

    • We use space-age technology to accomplish cave-man goals. We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people

      No, we need a global gaming treaty.

      Let's face it, although some argue that computer war games are becoming increasingly realistic the real truth is that real war is becoming increasingly computer game-like.

      Let's hope that eventually everyone will wake up and realize that instead of wasting billions of dollars on *real* weapons, nations can resolve their problems far more cheaply by simply firing up their PS4 and shooting at each other that way.

      After all -- is there really any difference?

      In both cases (UAVs/RPVs and computer games) nobody gets hurt.

      In both cases the outcome is based on pressing buttons and strategic actions/reactions.

      In both cases the outcome is a winner and a loser.

      If we simply moved all these conflicts onto the Playstation then war could actually become fashionable -- a recreation that the whole family could enjoy.

      Who would have guessed that computer games might become the planet's last hope for global peace?
      • We use space-age technology to accomplish cave-man goals. We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.

      Your suggestions on how we get these "better people" are welcome.

      In the meantime, we have to have the better weapons in order to survive. If we don't survive, then all of our other sentiments, no matter how lofty, are useless.

      You had better believe that those who currently enslave their own populations, those who do not share our values of freedom of thought and association are working toward having the best weapons possible. We need to get there first.

      Admittedly, we have to also make sure not to lose sight of the fact that our goal is to protect freedoms, not just defeat enemies.

    • Re:Space-age tech, cave-man goals. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by e_n_d_o ( 150968 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:54PM (#3576081)
      I'd much rather see our money spent exploring Mars instead of building weapons too, were it not for the fact that there are more than a few nations out there whose number one priority is to exterminate us. If you think that we are safe simply because the USSR isn't such a threat anymore, I suggest you take a closer look at the history of the world. Were we being invaded right now, I'm sure you would be quite happy to not have to meet your enemy face to face.

    • Don't be naive. You have mortal enemies. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @09:46PM (#3576501)
      This is cute, but in case you hadn't noticed, there are individuals in the US and elsewhere right now who would like nothing better than to roast you and your family alive.

      No, unmanned fighters won't stop terrorists. Thats obvious. But unmanned surveillance drones that will collect massive amounts of data and never need to come back for a pee break, just might.

      Peace is won through strength. Somehow that simple fact escaped you in history class, but your bashful pleas for peace love and happiness are completely out of line with what we know about human nature and human history. If you value your culture, you defend it.

    • Doesn't something change when you take human conscience out of the equation? The dot on the screen is a village with many homes, families, adults and children. We can unleash hell without ever seeing our victims. To them, we are a faceless empire, worse than Rome's wildest dreams.

      It's a little late to worry about that now. 18th Century artillerymen (with a 3-mile range) could drop shells over a hill and kill people they couldn't see. By 1914, most artillery shells were fired at unseen targets, and more casualties were inflicted by artillery than with any other weapon. By 1942, bomber fleets could destroy an entire city from 25,000 feet, never seeing anything as small as a human being below. By the early 60's, two men in a Minuteman silo in North Dakota could turn their keys and vaporize a million people on another continent... A remote control airplane flying low enough for the camera to actually see people and firing off one precision weapon at a time is a welcome step back from the remote-killing capabilities we already have.

      But finally, even when killing someone meant getting up close with sword or axe and getting splashed with their blood, armies could still slaughter entire civilian populations. It just took more work and some training to kill.
  • In the past, non-nuclear EMP weaponry has been a fantasy, but there are some valid ideas on how to implement such a weapon.

    Who thinks that developments such as these unmanned drones are going to lead to an increase in efforts to develop a non-nuclear EMP weapon?

    In the end, could it result in warfare going backwards? (EMP renders electronic warfare and computer-controlled weaponry much more difficult to use, resulting in a return to more old-fashioned technologies?)
  • OK, first one to hack into these babies and have them looping-the-loop on demand officially has the best kung-fu.
  • We already have plenty of technology in the battle field, such as electronic beacons etc. The only Allied casualties in the Gulf War were when the Americans blew up and killed British troops. So called "friendly fire". The only Allied casualties so far in the Afghan war was when the Americans bombed and killed Canadian troops. More so called "friendly fire". And now you want to put American firepower under the finger of someone even *further* removed from the responsibility of his actions? Sorry but the American military has a lot of trust to regain before we let the US military bring new toys to the party.

    Phillip.
    • Since this plane is autonomous, and flies a preprogrammed mission based on intelligence and satellite data, the chances are actually much lower of a real-time mistake. Most of the friendly fire deaths in recent combat have been caused by a pilot error in the heat of combat - "Gee, that looks like an Iraqi tank." Forget it - this won't happen in a preprogrammed mission.

      Sure, you will always have bad targeting, but you're largely reducing the ability of ONE person's incorrect decision to make someone's day really, really bad. Instead, you've got quite a few eyes looking at the targeting data, along with plenty of direct access to information about where your troops actually are.

      So in my opinion, this thing will end up killing FEWER friendly troops than ever before.
    • "friendly fire"
      American military has a lot of trust to regain before we let the US military bring new toys to the party.

      Insightful my ass.
      The friendly fire incidents got a lot of press because they were damn-near the only losses on our side. If it weren't for all the "new toys the American military brought to the party" there would have been a hell of a lot more losses due to unfriendly fire.

      The US isn't perfect, but that post was nothing but blind bias.

      -
    • That's not true. Americans also killed other Americans. Sometimes due in part to lack of sleep [af.mil].

  • Flying X-10s? (Score:4, Funny)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:29PM (#3575955) Journal
    Great, so those X-10 webcams featured in those annoying pop-up ads can fly now? Is there no end to the invasion of our privacy?

  • Terrorists and others can play too (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @07:40PM (#3576010)
    The really worrying thing about the way that technology has advanced at an ever-increasing pace is the fact that it now places some similar powerful offensive capabilities well within the grasp of terrorists and smaller countries.

    UAVs, RPVs and cruise missiles are a perfect example of a technology that is well within the reach of such foes of the USA.

    The ready availability of low-cost GPS units with computer interfaces, small and efficient low cost high powered computers, advanced composites such as kevlar and carbon-fiber, solid-state gyros, high-power servos and cheap but powerful jet engines (such as this [aardvark.co.nz] or maybe this [aardvark.co.nz]) has lowered the barrier to entry significantly.

    Up until now the might and technical superiority of the US defense arsenal has proved a mighty deterrent and (when used) a mighty effective tool in battle.

    The only response that terrorists and small factions have had to the US's superiority has been to offer suicide bombings and attacks such as those of September 11.

    However, now that just about anyone (or group) with access to some readily available knowledge and equipment can produce their own cruise missile , RPV or AUV, things could begin to change -- for the worse.

    Imagine the effect that such a craft would have if it were programmed to fly over NYC and dispense a payload of anthrax or other bio-agent over a wide area as it went?

    Such a remotely piloted or autonomous vehicle could be built for as little as US$10,000 and could be launched from the roof of a van or SUV at a location which might be several hundred miles from the intended target.

    The use of a fairly small airframe built from composites would mean a low radar profile and the onboard computer operating in concert with an onboard GPS receiver and small radar distancing system would allow a low-altitude pre-programmed flight path to be followed with relative ease.

    That good numbers of these machines could be built using "off the shelf" materials and components that would not ring any bells in the way that the training of Al Qaeda pilots did, is worrying.

    Imagine the effect of 20 or 30 of these missiles being launched simultaneously at NYC or LA on a warm summer's day when plenty of people are outdoors enjoying the sun.

    Just as the X-45, Tomahawk and other remotely piloted or automomous weapons can impersonalize a war for the USA, we should be aware that the same may now be true for the USA's foes. Suicide bombing may become redundant real soon now.
  • How soon until they start monitoring and weeding out young children, and put them in front of this new 'video game'?

    :)

  • Googling "ucav x-45" brought up the usual tons of hits. One of the more interesting was from the Federation of American Scientists' Miliraty Analysis Network [fas.org].

    An interesting feature, besides all of the usual high-tech stuff people talk about here, is the storage aspect. This is mentioned in several articles, but what this means is that the planes do not have to be designed with the same mission life that manned aircraft do. This is because about 80% of a military aircraft's life is training missions. The UCAV doesn't have this- the training is done in simulators, that aren't really any different from real life.

    This is a big step toward reducing the costs.

    Jason

  • The professionals (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbrower ( 114953 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @08:33PM (#3576238) Journal
    call things 'prudent' and 'effective' that amateurs and romantics call 'cowardly' If you come at a professional with a knife, he wants to shoot you with a gun, at a distance; if you have a gun, he wants a morter. If you have a morter, he wants artillery; if you have artillery, he wants air support. It's about making some other dumb son of a bitch die for his country. A misaimed UAV isn't much worse than a short round from a 155mm gun. Stop hand wringing-- once you decide to be in a shooting war, it's ugly. The stick and rudder guys in the pointy planes may not like UAVs, but they understand the motivations. They probably don't want to be flying a lot of the missions that they are (or will be) assigned to perform. When I was in school, a teacher once said to the class, "if we're at war, I want killers on my side." That's the job, if it comes to that. The military people I know don't want to fight, but they'll do it for us when required. It's nearly memorial day. Go hug a serviceman, servicewoman, or vetern you know. -dB

  • When the rest of the world cannot fight back... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marm ( 144733 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @08:36PM (#3576249)

    ...through conventional means, then the rest of the world must play dirty.

    Increasing automation of weaponry, and now, total remote control has led and will lead to fewer and fewer deaths of American servicemen and women. This, in turn, removes the single biggest reason for the American political establishment to hold back from launching into war; if there are no body bags flying home, who is going to bother voting these politicians out of office? If a victory can be gained quickly and the opposing side forced to follow the American Way, generating a tidy profit in the process for those American companies that will help them see the light, it is entirely good political karma. Where once a diplomatic solution would have been applied, politicans will be all too keen to apply military solutions instead. No risk, all gain.

    America cannot expect those in the world who do not share her views to sit idly by whilst this happens. When people are fighting for what they believe to be their country or their way of life, they will continue to fight back no matter what the military imbalance may be against them. This can be seen, for instance, in the current Israel/Palestine conflict, where despite being massively outgunned and confined to very limited areas, the Palestinians continue to get back up off the floor and keep fighting.

    Notice how the Palestinians fight back. They do not have a conventional army, so they must choose other means. Currently, their method of choice seems to be the suicide bomb, and they are called terrorists by the Israelis. The Palestinians, of course, who believe that they are fighting to regain their homeland, call them martyrs.

    This is what lies in store for America should she choose to go down this path. Without fear of being voted out of office thanks to the technology, American politicians will throw the country into many wars, and no doubt she will win them in spectacular fashion. However, the opposition will fight back, not through conventional means but through 'terrorism'. It is easy to infiltrate a country as proud of its freedoms as America. What lies in store then? Suicide bombs? Information warfare? Or worse?

    We have already seen this scenario once, with September 11th. I am firmly of the belief that the key driving force behind Bin Laden is that he feels his homeland, Saudi Arabia, is being 'occupied' by American forces stationed there since the Gulf War. Of course there is much more to it than that, but it is all too convenient that his anti-American rage became prominent only in the years following the Gulf War.

    When this starts to happen, how do you stop it? The obvious way is to restrict those very freedoms that allow the enemy to infiltrate and perpetrate this 'terrorism'. Then what happened to the 'American Way', the very thing that the war was meant to be protecting in the first place?

    It's time we started thinking about some of the consequences of the great superiority in American military technology, before those consequences come back to haunt us.

  • Quit your whinin and look at the world (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @08:41PM (#3576269) Homepage Journal
    All of you who think this is somehow a bad thing to send machines off to do war. You pompous asses. I have a teenage son. His are the only eyes I have to look into. And anything that will keep us from sending children off to fight wars is a GOOD thing.

  • Way Too Expensive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @09:53PM (#3576536) Journal

    Get the guys from Junkyard Wars (aka Scrapheap Challenge for those in the UK) to "bodge" together a motorcycle engine, a propellor, 100kg of C4, a GPS receiver and some control circuitry. Brand new and in quantity these could probably go for about $10,000.

    Let's see... for the price of one of these drones (assume $20 million for the drone), we could launch 2000 of our expendable smart bombs.

    Now, now, I know theirs will probably be supersonic, but let's face it: most of the enemies can't hit the broad side of a barn, and if we send 5 or 6 of these things on target at least one will get through.

    That's the big problem with the US military: too much money spent on big showpiece weapons. They've forgotten what won WWII. It was massive industrial output. We no longer have the ability to flood the battlefield with thousands of cheap weapons. God forbid somebody gets lucky and shoots down a B-2. That's what... a billion dollars? Yikes!

    Yeah, I know, we're doing great now, but when it comes to military stuff "now" is yesterday. The future won't look all that bright if we keep buying our weapons from Gucci.

  • Unpiloted Planes are a BAD IDEA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DG ( 989 ) on Thursday May 23, 2002 @10:45PM (#3576750) Homepage Journal
    Time for a rant:

    One of the defining strategies of the American armed forces since the Gulf War is a near pathelogical reluctance to accept friendly casulties.

    Now there's nothing wrong with wanting to keep your own guys alive, but this obsession with not accepting casulties is subordinating other aspects of the military mission. There is a deliberate movement to reduce the effectiveness of weapon systems if it means less risk for American troops.

    Don't confuse "effectiveness" with "lethality" - weapons systems are only getting MORE lethal with time. What I am talking about is identifying and killing military targets AND ONLY military targets.

    The most effective means of knowing for sure if what you are shooting at is a legitimate target is to be in actual contact with it - that normally means troops on the ground. If you think there's baddies in that building, you go send some soldiers to have a look.

    But that exposes those soldiers to risk, and risk isn't allowed in the American battle manual any more. Instead, the new modus operendi is to drop a bomb - preferably many bombs - on anything you figure may have a target in it. Then you take satellite pictures of the crater to see what you hit.

    The side effect is to inflict a much higher percentage of civillian and friendly casulties than would be otherwise done. Yes, you hit the bad guys, but you also hit hospitals, orphanages, and other non-legitimate targets LIKE YOUR OWN PEOPLE.

    But as bad as this is, at least in a modern fighter/bomber you have a set of eyeballs attached to a decision-making process that can choose not to attack if they actually clue in that the target is non-legitimate. The record of those eyeballs is not great - witness the British Warriors taken out in the Gulf by American A10s, and the latest moron National Guardsman who saw fit to bomb a Canadian training exercise - but at least they were there. They were given the opportunity to not screw up.

    With a remotely-piloted plane, no matter how good the sensors are on the user interface, they will not be as good as the current eyeballs in the plane are. If eyeballs in a plane have a crappy record, then the record of the RPVs is going to be even worse.

    Less risk to the guys behind the weapon systems, but MORE risk for the guys on the ground - enemy, friendly, and neutral!

    Somebody needs to get a grip on the guys in charge of the American Air Force. They need to be reminded that they cannot win battles on their own, that their ultimate mission is support of the troops on the ground, and that the risk of loss of life to those troops is part of the tradeoff for doing the job right. Indiscriminate bombing is NOT acceptable.

    And for the kiddies who may think that you can videogame your way through everything, I have 10 years experience in the Army as a Armoured Recce soldier, so I actually DO know what I am talking about. Nothing in the Real World is as hated and feared as the American Air Force, because they are just as likely to bomb you or a crowd of civillians as they are the bad guys.

    DG

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close