Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works Is Cooking Up A Revolution In Drone Technology

originally posted by: Zaphod58

I've heard a few things they can not do with targeting lasers that made me wonder.

Targeting lasers have been on small UAVs for a good time now...nothing new.

Cameras keep getting better. I could show you footage of just 5 years ago of both EO and MWIR and what we have today and it is amazing.

a reply to: johnwick

Err...

You can go ahead with the space blanket to try and mask your thermal IR signature. Good luck with that. From my research polar bear hides are more efficient. Biologists find it impossible to spot them using thermal.

Heat loves to leak and absorb into things.

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: AlphaPred

I worked on a video compression project for the Australian DSTO which was to compress the feed from the Star Saffire III through a datalink to the guys on the ground.

Imagine the data required to send 3.21 gigs watts of live stream! On top of what folk on this thread are saying about UAV bandwith.

I wonder if a step change in data transfer is on the cards?

Also, with the compression project, we leaned heavily on essentially home brew computer programmers, at the time, H.264 and other compression tools were all open source, probably designed by file sharers to move large software over small pipes, the bleeding edge was not military. I wonder if mobile phone, Internet, media compiles, space companies or military are at the bleeding edge of data transfer?

Being a bit of a programmer maybe I can offer a guess. I would put it on media companies who are targeting mobile devices... movies and games. Both can involve large amounts of data transfer but some of the devices they target are relatively limited in data capacity. 3G service can technically be as low as 144kbps. That's roughly 1/100 of the speed of the slow wired connections such as the lowest pricing tier of internet service in fairly rural areas.

originally posted by: antar
I LOVE LockHeed Martin! They are the future of technology, if only they can use it for the good, and I believe that they can and will. There will be a turning point soon, you will see.

War is bad. But sometimes necessary.
War is Lockheed Martins business. Therefore they can not use their technology for good. There will be no "good" turning point.
Global stability is declining, and with more economic woes on the horizon, thing's will get even more unstable and unpredictable.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: grey580

Isn't there something really fast out there that Lockheed built that is rumored to be a drone? Very large and very, very fast, and very good at what it does? Hypothetically of course.

"....Hmm...a long and pointy thing? Been seen/based in Uzbekistan and other 'stans lately...?"

or that other one now in Diego Garcia...looks like a flying Dorito with turned up winglets?

.....

originally posted by: mortex

originally posted by: antar
I LOVE LockHeed Martin! They are the future of technology, if only they can use it for the good, and I believe that they can and will. There will be a turning point soon, you will see.

War is bad. But sometimes necessary.
War is Lockheed Martins business. Therefore they can not use their technology for good. There will be no "good" turning point.
Global stability is declining, and with more economic woes on the horizon, thing's will get even more unstable and unpredictable.

You telling me the creation of their new fusion reactors would bring no good? uh huuh.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: mortex

originally posted by: antar
I LOVE LockHeed Martin! They are the future of technology, if only they can use it for the good, and I believe that they can and will. There will be a turning point soon, you will see.

War is bad. But sometimes necessary.
War is Lockheed Martins business. Therefore they can not use their technology for good. There will be no "good" turning point.
Global stability is declining, and with more economic woes on the horizon, thing's will get even more unstable and unpredictable.

You telling me the creation of their new fusion reactors would bring no good? uh huuh.

Fusion reactors for what?
For more advanced weapons?

Or do you actually think that a corporation whose sole purpose and business is to create weapons for war, will actually create a technology that will benefit humanity?

a reply to: mortex

You really should do research on how many products invented for the military you are currently using every day. It's a lot.

a reply to: mortex

That is not my understanding. They can and will do great things to help the planet in the future.

a reply to: antar
After we slag it first.....



Honestly i think the Cold War tempered the use of Nukes to a point where the nations have seen the error of going down that road..As a weapon they are terribly messy and in a land grab not tactically sound.For extermination of lifeforms only the crazies will look towards it but I think the rest of the world will jump in before they are used.
I,m interested in these other platforms other than the X47,Rq170/Rq180 maybe Tarranis

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The thing about drones is they don't require the sacrifice of any soldiers or even the political approval of the country they operate for.

Actually, legally, morally, and ethically they DO require the political approval of the countries they operate both for and IN.

To operate drones without political approval is to wage war without an act of Congress or similar Government approval of the country operating them.

To operate drones in another country without THEIR approval is pretty much an act of war under any rule book, and certainly a violation of international sovereignty.

a reply to: babybunnies

Not according to OUR president...

a reply to: mortex

Thats just not true, they have technologies set to go worldwide that will yes be a huge $ maker for them, but also put them back on the radar for companies that help the planet.

a reply to: grey580

We as people spend way too much money on war machines.

Imagine all that money into medical or social programs.

We would be on the moon right now asking aliens to please move over.

What happened to Brilliant Pebbles/Lockheed Multiple Kill Vehicle?


I did a search on ATS and it's been mentioned a few times around 2007-2009 with Zaphod saying there was vid of it flying tethered in the late 80's.

Rotorcraft maneuverability has progressed rapidly from the 80's as seen with today's drones but I wasn't aware there was such fine control aerial maneuverability available via none rotor-craft 30+ years ago.

Given the options available of a hybrid system using jets/rotors I'd bet there is a system out there that is highly maneuverable, modular, VV LO and can turn its hand to a multitude of tasks.

a reply to: Jukiodone

They ran into issues and killed it around that time. To mount multiple kill vehicles they were so light they probably wouldn't kill anything even with a direct hit.

I'm curious how just about anything hitting another object at those speeds WOULDN'T destroy it..

a reply to: Ferros

They were so small and light that they'd at best damage the warhead, at worst the warhead would be so much heavier that it would just keep going.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jukiodone

They ran into issues and killed it around that time. To mount multiple kill vehicles they were so light they probably wouldn't kill anything even with a direct hit.

Was going to say make heavier ones but then the benefits of the scaled demonstrator are also lost.

Same thing would probably apply to quadcopters/rotorcraft- anything too big/heavy and all the fancy tricks demonstrated at the model stage are immediately cancelled out by limitations of materials and power sources etc when scaled.

Why launch smaller kill vehicles when a missile could do the same job?