Boeing, BAE Systems Show Off New Unmanned Planes 157
gilgsn writes The hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system, a demonstrator that will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days, was unveiled by Boeing today. 'Phantom Eye is powered by two 2.3-liter, four-cylinder engines that provide 150 horsepower each. It has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots and can carry up to a 450-pound payload.' Across the pond, BAE Systems showed off Taranis, a UAV that will test the possibility of developing the first ever autonomous, stealth Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle that would ultimately be capable of precisely striking targets at long range — even in another continent."
Cost? (Score:2)
And the cost will be what? $5 billion a piece?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Dailymail [dailymail.co.uk], it should be around £143 million ($214 million for those too lazy to google it yourself).
If you read the article (and others), you will also see that this was a technology demonstrator, and £143 million was the cost to build it. If it went into production it would likely cost significantly less, certainly less than a $191 million JSF [wikipedia.org]. Getting the pilot out of there cuts down a hell of a lot on the cost, as all of a sudden you can replace all sorts of expensive weight, volume, and logistics with relatively cheap computers (theoretically, anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
on the surface this would seem to cut cost - in fact its probably a wash or slightly more expensive to build a UAV than a manned aircraft - while you can get rid of a lot of systems (pressurization, ejections seats, etc..) you now need at least 2 and most of the time 3 or 4 computers to fly the thing plus redundant air data sensors, really good data links, etc... it really adds up - in fact the computers and data links can be a large majority of the cost of the basic green aircraft
Re: (Score:2)
you now need at least 2 and most of the time 3 or 4 computers to fly the thing plus redundant air data sensors, really good data links, etc... it really adds up
Modern aircraft (particularly combat aircraft) already have redundant computers to move the control surfaces (and the computer is required to make the plane even remotely flyable), multiple sensors are already used because it's equally bad for a pilot to lose sensors, and high quality data links are standard in this age of electronic warfare. The only difference is one additional redundant computer to fly the plane in place of a pilot. Development cost will be higher due to the extra hardware and software
Re: (Score:2)
And you're ignoring all of the work it takes to keep a pilot alive and at least reasonably comfortable. A UAV doesn't need a pressurized cockpit, comfortable air temperatures, a complicated and expensive ejection system (comprising not only explosives, rocket motors, and parachutes, but also survival and rescue gear such as flares, food and water, dye packs, and smoke grenades), or for that matter even seats. Nor does it need any of the input / output devices that a human pilot needs in order to actually
Re: (Score:2)
I am assuming that R&D costs for automated flight control computers will be more expensive than that of pilot controls and comforts, as the latter are more common.
Regardless of R&D costs, operational costs will certainly be less.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because, unlike you, they aren't homophonic.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't christen it with a homophone for tyrant, they christened it with the name of the Norse god of thunder. I guess they wanted the name to be a little more sophisticated than "Thor".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fairly ridiculous price, but given that there are no other products that can stay aloft that long, it'd probably be acceptable. I wonder if there are any jets out there that could take enough fuel in extra internal tanks to stay aloft for 4 days... Wikipedia doesn't have enough details to tell, say, how far a 787-8 would fly if all wet weight were to be fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Such long flights wouldn't work very well for manned aircraft anyway - and we do have an idea, there's air refueling after all.
One of the things which killed nuclear-powered aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Italians flew some World War 2 bombing missions (with civilian crafts) that spent about 25 hours in the air. There was an around the world flight without refueling, so the technology is certainly there.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaper than launching a bunch of satellites, and hopefully competitive with a fleet of airships.
Re: (Score:2)
and unless you launch a geo-sat pr nation, can be hovered over a specific trouble spot as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking the price of any military purpose automatically makes you a traitor and an America-hater. Please turn yourself in at your local FBI office. We have no place in this country for people who question the economics, ethics, or efficacy, of any part of the military-industrial complex.
Um.... This thing is British. You can't use this as an excuse to hate America, although I don't think you really need facts for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Britain, Arizona, Texas... they're all parts of America, you know.
SAMs? (Score:2)
it has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots...
...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and the natives don't have radar.
Re:SAMs? (Score:4, Insightful)
The B2 has a 170ish foot wingspan and the radar cross section of a ball bearing, so size is not necessarily a stealth disqualifier.
Re:SAMs? (Score:5, Insightful)
it has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots...
...and will only be deployed in places where Surface to Air Missiles are unavailable and the natives don't have radar.
So, pretty much all of the conflicts the U.S. and allies are currently embroiled in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And in doing so reviels where the SAM is. Mr. Sam meet the stealth UCAV with a HARM tasked with SEAD.
Re: (Score:2)
heh, didnt the israeli use early UAVs with radar decoys that made them look like high priority bombers to trick SAM sites into revealing themselves?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"The Boeing Company [NYSE: (BA)] today unveiled the hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system, a demonstrator that will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days."
Not alot of SAMs reach that high, it'll have a low radar cross section, small IR signature, so even the SAMs that go up there will have a hard time acquiring it.
So even if it's used in a place like Iran or I don't know, the Sudan or Venezuela in a future conflict, the good SAMs will have been taken out in the first few days of the
Re: (Score:2)
So, certainly not "all the good SAMs will have been used in the first few days of the war on F-16s, F-18G"?...
Re: (Score:2)
NATO? They aren't so readily convinced into Iraq-style interventions.
And yeah, sure, the launchers and radars will be simply killed off...
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Balkans certainly wasn't an Iraq-style intervention - NATO actually stood behind the former!
Ans by saying constantly "US/NATO" you just illustrate part of the reasons why it probably won't be NATA in Iraq-style interventions anywhere (it is more about geopolitical reality also regarding practical stuff you mention; heck, some places not belonging to its structures are far closer to what you would consider as a "model" implementation than many NATO members)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So all US combat zones?
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. As a sibling points out, the B-2 is larger, yet manages to maintain a very small radar cross-section. Actually, being unmanned allows this aircraft to have a much smaller radar signature than a manned plane of similar size, as things like engine air intakes and control surfaces can be placed in a more optimal fashion when the front portion of the aircraft doesn't need to be reserved for the cockpit.
I wouldn't be surprised if this plane managed to pack more ordinance than a B-2, despite be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can eyeball a plane going 150 mph at 60,000 feet without sensors?
Re: (Score:1)
You can eyeball a plane going 150 mph at 60,000 feet without sensors?
You can see satellites orbiting the Earth with the naked eye if you know what you're looking for...
Re: (Score:2)
Only when it's dark and they reflect the sun. You can't see them at all during the day or when they're in the Earth's shadow.
And even if you could, and I gave you a magic missile that could reach them, could you aim it accurately with nothing more than a mechanical scope?
Re: (Score:2)
It takes an unusual amount of hand-eye-co-ordination to throw Surface-to-Air missiles at things that far away though. Most natives would need years of training to do it even when they are not legally blind.
UAV ? ICBM (Score:5, Interesting)
UAV capable of reaching inter-continental target - check
UAV payload nuclear - check
UAV 'hard to hit' and/or find - check
Ladies and Gentleman; let me present to you your new ICBM replacement (and don't worry about treaties with the Russians, these qualify as airplanes not missles, so we are clear to rebuild our stockpiles!)
Re:UAV ? ICBM (Score:5, Insightful)
So how exactly do these replace THAT capability? Also, the big threat of nuclear weapons is speed and stealth. Not having some frigen UAV flying around that any MIG built in the last 40 years could shoot down with ease.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, the big threat of nuclear weapons is speed and stealth.
UAVs have that. Sure, a MiG can shoot down a UAV with ease. However, in order to shoot down the UAV, it first has to find the UAV. Given that UAVs don't need pilots, control surfaces and intakes (the two most radar reflective portions of any aircraft) can be positioned in a way to minimize radar cross section in a way that even ultra-stealth aircraft like the B-2 cannot do. Combined with the ability of a UAV to fly a computer controlled course at very low altitude (just like cruise missiles), the ultra-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As noted in other articles, the project was previously named HALE (high altitude long endurance) and is a rapid prototype for a larger craft.
The new dorky name is probably a nod to "Phantom Works", Boeing's "Skunkworks", and hopefully not as much due to stealthy / nefarious connotations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Protip: Learn what you're talking about before posting - airplanes are limited by treaty as well, as are warhead counts.
Re: (Score:2)
"Protip: Learn what you're talking about before posting - airplanes are limited by treaty as well, as are warhead counts."
Protip: Doing that interferes with delectable nuke fear where everything that could possibly contain a warhead, Snoopy's dog house included, is seen as a first-strike weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
(and don't worry about treaties with the Russians, these qualify as airplanes, not missiles...
If I understand correctly, the arms control treaties we have apply to deployed warheads, not delivery systems. By that accounting, a warhead deployed on a UAV is the same as a warhead deployed on a missile, so I don't see how either the US or Russia could squirrel out of an arms control treaty by using UAVs rather than ICBMs.
Re:UAV ? ICBM (Score:4, Insightful)
The military has been moving to precision instead of magnitude, I'm sure there are plenty of warheads that could be loaded on this.
After all, the suitcase nuke is a real weapon. A nuke does not have to weigh tons to do tons of damage.
Re: (Score:2)
A nuke does not have to weigh tons to do tons of damage.
Yeah, but only because the "tons" in "tons of damage" refers to equivalent tons of TNT. Which is unfair to TNT in my opinion; it has to weight tons to do tons of damage by definition! TNT wouldn't have to weigh tons to do tons of damage if we measure damage in terms of, say, tons of coke + mentos.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. 450 lbs is more than enough payload for a 100kt+ nuke.
Nukes weighing several tons went out in the 1950s/1960s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No they don't. 450 lbs is more than enough payload for a 100kt+ nuke.
Nukes weighing several tons went out in the 1950s/1960s
And we wouldn't even need to drop it. There's no pilot in these things so if you can afford to lose the plane, just set off the nuke while it's still in the bomb bay.
Re: (Score:2)
And we could call it a cruise missile.
It is true that if you are using them to drop nukes that last thing you will really worry about is getting it back.
Of course you could drop the weapon and then use the UAV as a decoy. Or you could fit multiable weapons in the UAV but at that point it is all just terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
And we could call it a cruise missile.
It is true that if you are using them to drop nukes that last thing you will really worry about is getting it back.
Of course you could drop the weapon and then use the UAV as a decoy. Or you could fit multiable weapons in the UAV but at that point it is all just terrible.
Kind of. It's more like a stealth cruise missile without the hot rocket flash on launch. The first the enemy knows about it is the bright flash and bang over the target. With cruise missiles and ICBM's, there is a return address. These don't have one. It's truly a sneak attack. With enough of these, you could literally obliterate your enemy on the first strike, even before the enemy knows it's at war.
Re: (Score:2)
Still a cruise missile. Not all cruise missiles have an SRB to launch them. Some are air launched. A cruise missile is just a one way UAV with a warhead
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a cute, decorative nuke of the 4th of July sort.
If you want to crack enemy missile silos and hard targets, bigger warhead + ground burst = way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Except a large suitcase nuke [wikipedia.org] would more than suffice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The B61 is a variable yield bomb designed for carriage by high-speed aircraft. It has a streamlined casing capable of withstanding supersonic flight speeds. The weapon is 11 ft 8 in (3.58 m) long, with a diameter of about 13 in (33 cm). Basic weight is about 700 lb (320 kg), although the weights of individual weapons may vary depending on version and fuze/retardation configuration."
So there is your airdropped nuclear weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb [wikipedia.org]
"The W80 is physically quite small, the
Cue Terminator Theme... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cue Terminator Theme... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, we have a copy of Norton we can load on to Skynet's computers when the day comes. That should delay things.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't we just teach it to download Pr0n and watch as it consumes all its resources? (see? the internet isn't a disgusting pile of filth, its a "first line of defense" against the rising A.I. menace!)
Hydrogen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hydrogen (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it's probably more likely that making it hydrogen-based qualifies it for earmarked expenditures in Congressional appropriations.
Hydrogen for Long Endurance Flight? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It gives a lot of energy per weight, but not per density; which is a problem / a matter of trade-offs in an aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
It also imposes a huge penalty in the form of the massive tanks required to hold a reasonable quantity.
Yeah, after all there won't be a ground handling and maintenance crew, and the fuel won't have to be shipped or handled either. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
It also imposes a huge penalty in the form of the massive tanks required to hold a reasonable quantity.
That was my original assumption too. However we have a high endurance aircraft that can remain aloft for 4 days. I'm having to reevaluate that assumption given the facts. FWIW, the engine is from Ford and a car using a similar engine has a range of 130 miles so the tanks can't be too large. Also the aircraft seems to be using more exotic materials. Some article referred to a composite layer so it may use less metal than the consumer tanks, or maybe the reinforcement allows for greater internal pressure
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I doubt that spectrographic analysis is too useful. Simply put, there's a lot of air over any specific point of earth. In comparison with that total volume of air, the exhaust trail of even a thousand jets is probably still beneath the threshold of detection.
I'd argue that the purpose of the hydrogen is to 1) earn subsidies from the alternative energy lobby in Congress and 2) increase the endurance of the aircraft. Given that the UAV is designed for visual and electronic intelligence gathering, loi
Re: (Score:2)
Why hydrogen indeed. One reason comes to mind:
You can make it on today's nuclear-powered warships. [hydrogencarsnow.com]
This has nothing to do with civilian spinoffs and everything to do with being able to park off Unhappy Country X's coast and proceed to make them even more unhappy without dragging that pesky petroleum supply chain.
Now you can do it with UAVs and nukes too.
Everyone wins!
Not much payload (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the far smaller Predator can carry up to 750 pounds and stay aloft for at least 40 hours. Though I guess you could still throw in a bunch of Spikes [designation-systems.net] and still have a nice Macross Missile Massacre. [tvtropes.org]
Fantastic... (Score:5, Insightful)
We constantly find new and amazing ways to kill each other more easily. Too bad this much effort doesn't go in other directions which are more beneficial to mankind, and are aimed at saving lives rather than taking them.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Fuck off commie!
Re: (Score:1)
There are some who think culling the population a bit is beneficial to mankind..
Re: (Score:1)
There are some who think culling the population a bit is beneficial to mankind..
If that were the case, then the areas of the World with the least conflict would have the highest population growth. There doesn't seem to be a relationship between wars and population reduction - unless you get into outright genocide; such as in Rwanda. As misanthropic as I am, I don't see that as a very efficient solution.
Economic development seems to be the best way to reduce population growth - see Europe.
Now, all we need to do is stop these entitlement programs that are based upon pyramid schemes tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest they go first.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You make it sound like its not beneficial to mankind to kill off some of its less co-operative members.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you probably couldn't. As the largest (in dollars) importer of global exports, it is very probable that without the US, dozens of developing nations would simply disappear off the map. Parent post is just as naively chauvinistic as the grandparent.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since you stressed "in dollars"... ;p
(but seriously, US of course trades primarily with very much developed economies; everything would probably find similar equilibrium fairly quickly, and long-term it might actually end up fine, considering the overblown levels of resource consumption per capita at the place [wikipedia.org] (X axis), nearly the farthest from what this rock can actually provide)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of our exports go to developed countries that, in the long run, probably don't need us. Then can import from someone else. That's because we don't have an export economy (except for agriculture; another point in favor of not nuking the US quite yet).
It's the developing countries whose economies are built on supplying our "overblown levels of resource consumption" that would be hardest, and possibly irrevocably, hit. We're talking about countries that export pure luxury goods like cocoa, coffee, exotic
Re: (Score:2)
Those goods, when imported, are a quite small part of such high levels of consumption though. And since they seem to all revolve around products of agriculture...this field is so messed up we can't be certain what the outcome would be (considering how, say, the developed world, and among it US to a large degree, exports also agricultural products to developing places, which is certainly not universally seen as a good thing; all the while agricultural production in developed world is quite unsustainable, gre
Re: (Score:2)
Since when was "American" a race?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We already have exceptionally convenient ways to kill EVERYONE. Every weapon developed after thr 1960s is actually designed to make it easier to SELECTIVELY kill people. In other words, less collateral damage.
And making it HARD to kill people isn't a good thing. Go back through antiquity, and you'll find that, though it was difficult, more people were being killed then, than now. Better weapons reduce the body count, as the war is wo
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Without the huge effort put into the Manhattan Project, we wouldn't have access to one of the cheapest, cleanest, and (currently) most sustainable power supplies out there. Now if we could get rid of the spectre of that war and start using it in North America (and the rest of the world), we could start seeing some serious payoff.
This doesn't even mention all the other wonderful side effects of nuclear research, much of which has been based on military or security desires.
Re: (Score:2)
While the body count isn't anywhere near as high both World Wars were convincingly won much quicker than the two we are currently embroiled in.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The "war" part of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts lasted all of a couple weeks. All standing military forces were defeated, and the capitols were occupied almost immediate.
GE 999 (Score:2)
“The program is moving quickly, and it’s exciting to be part of such a unique aircraft,” said Drew Mallow, Phantom Eye program manager for Boeing.
He sounds like a bolt.
No to worry! (Score:2, Insightful)
Should such systems enter into service, they will at all times be under the control of highly trained military crews on the ground.
how comforting, so if it does kill anyone at least we know they meant to.
Some things the government does better (Score:2)
And this ain't one of them. Technological design from the Senate? Give me a break!
I understand the technological need for a "Big Dumb Booster" project- but one that uses *solid fuel propellant*, and then cutting out all the possible uses for it from the budget, is just plain madness. Must really be just an attempt to funnel taxpayer money to investment in Utah
More unmanned weapons? Egh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Egh...
Re: (Score:2)
"The extent to which we've removed humans from the battlefield is really starting to disturb me."
Then you don't know much about war, or have the idea it should be "sporting" for some reason. If you favor casualty parity, do volunteer to be one. :)
Pilots were already in lofty isolation from much of the battlefield in World War 1, as were long-range artillerists. A tiny number of remote operators doesn't isolate the tens of thousands of infantry needed for modern warfare.
B-52 (Score:3, Interesting)
So has Taranis flown yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
There was an interesting conspiracy theory [theregister.co.uk] put about a while back that Taranis was only incidentally a scary UAV project - that its real purpose was technology laundering. BAE have had access to American stealth technology through the JSF project; Taranis is a stealth aircraft supposedly developed independently. So if ten years from now BAE start selling stealth drones to every sheikh with a few billion quid in his trousers, they'll say 'oh, this technology is derived from the Taranis project. Nothing to do with the American secrets we were shown while working on the F-35, no, not at all...'
Re: (Score:1)
Iraq and Serbia had radar systems. Iran, Syria, North Korea all have good radar networks, other future threats will too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. I don't remember any of those countries attacking the United States, but I do remember the United States attacking them. I guess you meant "future threats to our empire."
I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard
Re: (Score:2)
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html [evergreen.edu]
(I added a little here and there from memory)
Korea - 1904 - Marines land in Russo-Japanese War
Yugoslavia - 1919 - fought serbs in Dalmatia
Korean War - 1951-1953
Iran - 1953 - Overthrew democratic Iranian government
Iraq - 1963 - Supported Ba'ath coup
Iran - 1980s - material support for Saddam Hussein against Iran
Iraq - 1990-1991 - Gulf War
Iraq - 1990s - airstrikes, embargoes
Yugoslavia - 1992-1994 - Naval blockade of Serbia, airstrikes
Yugoslavia - 1999
Re: (Score:2)
I was just pointing out how irrational the threat perception was. Basically, this is preparing our military for the eventuality of someone fighting back. Perhaps if we would stop arming and invading the world, we could spend less money arming ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The United States did that, it was called the 1920s and '30s.
The United States occupied Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, and had active military in Russia, Turkey, China, and Yugoslavia during those years. Not to mention we were selling weapons to the Nazis throughout the thirties. You'll remember, I hope, that Standard Oil was caught selling aviation fuel to the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese as late as 1941.
Were the United States to retreat back into a isolationist doctrine, the People's Republic, Russian Federation or Pan Islamic nationalism would quickly rise up and do terrible things.
That's more like it. If we don't rule the world with terroristic threats of violence, invasions, mass murder (or collateral da
Re: (Score:2)
So isolationism means our imperialism is isolated to the Western Hemisphere? I think I can partially agree to that.
Hezbollah is not the only support system for Lebanon, far from it, it's a disruptive military and political entity only focused on Islamic militarism. Lebanon isn't an Islamic state you know, but Hezbollah would sure like them to become one. The United States entered Lebanon in the 1980s because there was a UN mandate, we went there with the French if you'll recall.
I find no resolutions that support your argument on this page. [alhewar.com] For the most part, the resolutions condemn Israel and demand that it withdraw from Lebanese territory. The US and France were supposed to be a multinational force that kept the peace after Israel invaded Lebanon and destroyed Beirut in retaliation for supporting the PLO, but were never seen as neutral in the Lebanese Civil War. As f
Re: (Score:2)
"threats"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Passenger airliners routinely land without pilots touching direct control inputs. UAVs supposedly not doing it is not exactly a case of technological obstacles, more procedural / etc. ones.
Spotting wreckage is not that far off, too...it might be just as well a specific way of using various sensors.
"classical AI"?
Re: (Score:2)
Ehh...they are doing it for few decades (granted, US was / perhaps is a bit late with bringing those systems to any notable number of airports, but...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_categories [wikipedia.org] - CAT IIIb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNtlS_HUKU [youtube.com]
(also, searching CAT IIIb or autoland brings generally lots of results; I have no idea how could you miss it)
How does the code moving the flaps, etc. influence
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course UAVs can land autonomously. Heck, the autopilot and control system I built in college for a few grand can land a 200lb helicopter fully autonomously, no pilot in the loop. Military UAVs can land autonomously as well (AAI Shadow), though some don't have to (the AeroVironment Raven just falls and you go pick it up).
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much every passenger plane and UAV in the last decade or two has been able to automatically land itself.
Techniques do also exist to automatically spot certain things see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-optical_MASINT#Applications [wikipedia.org]
In the example of mass-graves, this has been used to automatically detect mass graves in the nations that were former Yugoslaiva (Serbia, Bosnia etc.). Whilst this technology hasn't been fitted onto autonomous UAVs yet there's a simple reason for that and it's certa