News Its the start of Skynet

[RisingFury]

It should have a tag "ACME" somewhere.

Association of Cruise Missile Enthusiasts?

 

[Urwumpe]

To remove this from the equation:

Is already removed there - the X-45/X-47B program is already running for some years. I just looked (quickly), there was a short news article in a magazine about it in 2002. I am sure I can find even more news in magazines, if I just look closer at them.

 

[Turbinator]

Here is another interesting bit regarding the UCAS program:

The USAF has envisioned an operational UCAV as being stored in broken-down form inside a container that can be airlifted, with the UCAV having a specified "shelf life" of 20 years. It would be removed from the container every few years for inspections and could be checked with an electronic test system. The Air Force would also like to use an operational UCAV as the basis of a "penetrating jammer" platform that would penetrate enemy airspace to blind hostile radars. It would replace the Grumman EA-6B Prowler manned electronic warfare aircraft in this role.

Can you imagine a fleet of these stored at strategic locations all around the world, in standard shipping containers. Ready to be unleashed in a matter of minutes. Once the mission critical data has been downloaded it would be on it's own. Scary thought.

 

[T.Neo]

The main difference between the already deployed UCAV vehicles and the future UCAS such as the Northrop Grumman's X-47B is the tactical areal unmanned combat ability. Dogfight capability, and complete automation. The new generation of unmanned combat air vehicles are going to be able to take on a human piloted aircraft and win. They are going to be able to operate completely independent of human input. Imagine a UCAS that lifts off, refuels mid-air, performs CAS, takes down enemy contacts, provides close air support, and returns to base. All without a human at the helm. That is the ultimate goal of the UCAS program and the X-47B.

That sounds like an absolutely horrible idea to me. It isn't comparable to anything like a cruise missile or something like that. All those weapons carry out their operation at human authority, even if their actual operation is automated.

A weapon should not be given its own authority to perform decisions in a combat situation. Not only does it take what should at least be considered a "backup system" out of the equation, it dehumanises warfare, and that is a slippery slope because war is fought against humans and between humans. That gritty reality can and should be force for reducing tendencies to commit to unecessary conflict.

Well... that's what I think. Unless they have some seriously valid reasons for pursuing this particular approach. Why would human oversight be such a bad idea?

 

[RS-232]

There was also a French model from the interwar period, that had some similarities, also Alexander Lippisch did much more designs. His P.11 was the opponent to the Ho 229

Indeed. Lippisch was another great German pioneer ahead of his time like most German scientists and or aerodynamics/physicists of the day.

 

[JEL]

Though, if you want to get technical, you could make the argument that IEDs operate by remote control with no risk to the operator.

I suppose our equivalent to IED's are land-mines. Not remote-controlled, but certainly fully automatic. And destructive.

Anyway, there's also these:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2020966/Its-robo-drone-Tiny-policing-helicopter-used-hunt-pirates-fires-stun-gun-baton-rounds.html

and

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/02/london-police-nab-car-thief-with-drone-quadricopter-video.html

 

[Evil_Onyx]

I'm beginning to think UCAV's are a really bad idea, even if the technical challenges are fascinating.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm beginning to think UCAV's are a really bad idea, even if the technical challenges are fascinating.

Maybe I see it too much like a soldier there... why should only the bad guys have the cool toys?

Still, there is a difference between "Using UCAVs in combat" and "Using UCAVs for killing people in other countries that you don't like."

I would really like to see UCAVs keep the sky clear of hostile aircraft... and not for close air support, where you need a really smart and capable brain in the plane.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

I'm an ex-soldier, and i think that taking the risk to your pilots life, out of the picture. Will ultimately mean riskier missions will be flown. Resulting in larger casualties in the long run.

I would really like to see UCAVs keep the sky clear of hostile aircraft... and not for close air support, where you need a really smart and capable brain in the plane.

That is a good idea, but that is never going to happen. Air to ground is where the most risk to pilot and aircraft are, and it is where commanders will want to deploy UCAV's.

What is worrying me most is the tendency to take humans out of the final decision with antonymous combat equipment. A human can see a "bigger picture"* than any "intelligent weapon"**.


* Situational awareness and other senses

** Smart Weapon Systems, that can Detect, Identify and Engage, targets independently.

 

[Urwumpe]

I agree. Also the most successful commanders had been leading from the field and not from the command center 5000 km away.

And especially for the risky CAS work, you need humans who can think for themselves and not just follow instructions to the letter. Because often, the own tanks are where they should not be. and then enemy tanks as well. And then you need to think fast and in the worst case decide to attack another day. And not follow orders.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Yep. The A-10 still has it's work cut out for it, and always will.

 

[Keatah]

Well not all drones are bad..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2320246/Beer-drones-set-parachute-drink-orders-festival-goers-summer.html?ico=sciencetech^headlines

 

[RisingFury]

Well not all drones are bad..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2320246/Beer-drones-set-parachute-drink-orders-festival-goers-summer.html?ico=sciencetech^headlines

Well, that's beyond stupid.

Octocopters throwing beer cans into a crowd of people. And you say "not all drones are bad"...

Multicopters don't react well to wind or mechanical failure. You want a safe platform, get a 3 m wingspan plane. Multiple servos for each air control surface, double battery for electronics, double receiver / electronics. Large fuel tank and a 100 ccm engine. Glides well if the engine fails, flies well even in turbulence and in clear air can fly as slowly as 30 km/h. Even if all goes to hell, you still have enough control to crash it in a safe place.

Multi-copters have ZERO tolerance for failure. They just tumble out of the sky.

 

[Ghostrider]

I'm an ex-soldier, and i think that taking the risk to your pilots life, out of the picture. Will ultimately mean riskier missions will be flown. Resulting in larger casualties in the long run.

Ultimately it will result in the conflict not being restricted to the warzone. If you're engaging the enemy on the field with drones controlled from your homeland, then the enemy will target your homeland and will be perfectly justified in doing so. All of a sudden the target is not your soldiers and forward bases near the enemy's territory but your centers of communications, your factories, and the personnel controlling your UCAVs. Not all future enemies are low-tech guerrillas, some do have the means of reaching out and touching your assets in very unpleasant ways.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

Well not all drones are bad..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2320246/Beer-drones-set-parachute-drink-orders-festival-goers-summer.html?ico=sciencetech^headlines

I'm not against unmanned aerial vehicle's (UAV) in general there are lots of valid uses, Mapping and Scientific uses are numerous, or even for surveillance. I draw the line when it can start shooting by its self.

Multicopters don't react well to wind or mechanical failure. You want a safe platform, get a 3 m wingspan plane. Multiple servos for each air control surface, double battery for electronics, double receiver / electronics. Large fuel tank and a 100 ccm engine. Glides well if the engine fails, flies well even in turbulence and in clear air can fly as slowly as 30 km/h. Even if all goes to hell, you still have enough control to crash it in a safe place.

Multi-copters have ZERO tolerance for failure. They just tumble out of the sky.

The bigger the craft the the safer it is, in general. that said, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QinetiQ_Zephyr"]Qinetiq Zephyr[/ame] has a Wingspan of 22.5 m and could be easily damaged.

 

[Pipcard]

I remember this Star Trek: TNG Voyager episode that I saw several years ago involving two alien races that fought a proxy war with robots. The two races had died out (because the races had declared an end to the war, but the robots, still programmed to engage in warfare, killed their makers) by the time the Enterprise Voyager encountered the robots, and they were still fighting.

 

[Urwumpe]

I remember this Star Trek: TNG episode that I saw several years ago involving two alien races that fought a proxy war with robots. The two races had died out by the time the Enterprise encountered the robots, but they were still fighting.

Sounds like a bad case of "It ain't over till the fat lady sings"

 

[Pipcard]

I remember now, it wasn't a TNG episode, but a Voyager episode.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

As for the the title...

 

[Scav]

This is going afield, but I wanted to affirm there was a TNG episode like that in Season 1. Title was The Arsenal of Freedom.

 

[Furet]

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/unmanned-stealt.php

completely autonomous aircraft? time to man the Armageddon shelters! :goodnight:

An interesting sequence at 19:00. Do not miss the conclusion at 21:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C4IJXAVXgIo