The UAV's Are coming, & I'm not happy!

Forgive me if I seem to be ranting, but I'm sick of the Pentagon's UAV #! These idiots are begging for trouble and they're too stupid to see it. Humans aren't perfect and anything we make can fail. I have nothing wrong with UAV's being used to spy. However, if a spyplane goes on the fritz, NO ONE GETS BLOWN UP!

UAV's are computerized aircraft without pilots. They fly themselves and the computer makes decisions. I'm not saying humans are perfect, but if a human makes a mistake, you can hold him or her accountable for their actions. When the computer screws up, what do you do?

Now there talking about a heavy bomber! How crazy are they? What do you do if something goes wrong?

Sorry but I'm not excited about some wack-job computer on a fitz coming after my family and a buch of Idiots telling me: "sorry, but it wasn't supposed to do that"

They need to drop this idea before it bet's to the drawing board! Some Ideas are just BAD ideas, no matter who comes up with them!

Tim

the computers in the stealth fighters are supposed to be super computers. so these are not youre everything pentium 4's. i do not see a problem because military hardware is always far more advanced than the commerical versions, so expect them to be very advanced computers.

I think the only thing we can do, Ghost, is to cross our fingers and hope the dweebs with stars in their eyes at the Pentagon get this sort of thinking knocked out of them before this thing goes into production.

Give us a couple of links about this project, would you? It would be interesting to read up on.

Although computers can do an excellent job in a lot of conditions, I think, that at the current time, they shouldn't be trusted with guiding a lot of weapons a long distance.
Yeah, ICBMs and Tomahawks and all that, but I just think that an aircraft shouldn't yet be in that realm.

"Sorry. It wasn't supposed to do that."

[edit on 28/9/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

Sorry Tim, but I think you don't understand how UAVs work. There is still a human in the loop, they just happen to sit a long way away from where the platform is. There are plenty of failsafes, and the platform cannot autonomously consent to weapon release. It really isn't that much different, and the benefits offered by UAVs (persistence, signature, cost) are huge when compared to manned platforms. Flying fighters is great fun, but the future is unmanned. And the risks aren't that great.

Originally posted by ghost
I'm not saying humans are perfect, but if a human makes a mistake, you can hold him or her accountable for their actions. When the computer screws up, what do you do?

Build a more reliable computer, obviously. We can do that. Can you build a more reliable human being?

Modern jet airliners are flown by computers most of the time. The people in the cockpit are mostly there to make people like yourself feel more comfortable. Personally, I'd rather trust the computer.

The more we automate our transport, the safer it will be. This is particularly true of road transport. It doesn't happen because of instinct-driven prejudice, the same sort of thing that prevents buses and aeroplanes being built with their seats facing backwards instead of forwards, which would be much safer.

Personally, I'd much rather see no bombers at all, but if we must have them, it's probably better to have them flown by computers than by cowboys.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Yeah, ICBMs and Tomahawks and all that, but I just think that an aircraft shouldn't yet be in that realm.

And the difference is...?

No, really, what's the difference between a cruise missile (which is a UAV with a bomb aboard) and a UAV with a bomb aboard?

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Give us a couple of links about this project, would you? It would be interesting to read up on.
[edit on 28/9/2006 by watch_the_rocks]

Here you go:

www.strategypage.com...

This is the only link I have at the moment.

Tim

Astyanax, I really don't know what the difference is. It's just a line I don't want to see crossed. Almost undoubtedly, it already probably has been, but I just get the feeling that aircraft with multiple weapons on board could do a lot more damage that just a cruise missle.

Modern jet liners are flown on autopilot for pretty much all of the flight. Pilots are there to drink coffee, act as a back-up system in case the computers mulfunction, and scrwe the flight attendants.

But ghost, when you say a computer makes the decision, I thought you were talking about some new generation of aircraft, like the DARPA desert race where the vehicles control themselves, with not one human brain doing anything. In fact, this new generation will have pilots, it's just that they will be on the ground, not on the aircraft.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by ghost
I'm not saying humans are perfect, but if a human makes a mistake, you can hold him or her accountable for their actions. When the computer screws up, what do you do?

Build a more reliable computer, obviously. We can do that. Can you build a more reliable human being?

Personally, I'd much rather see no bombers at all, but if we must have them, it's probably better to have them flown by computers than by cowboys.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Astyanax]

I'll agree with you on preferring a world without bomber at all! However, to refer to pilots as "cowboys" is insualting. The men and women who fly for our military are professionals, who take their responsiblity seriously! They aren't a wild bunch who love throwing bombs around and making things go boom!

Now, what about targeting errors? Sure humans aren't perfect, but unlike machienes, WE THINK! Computers only process, there's a critical difference here.

Say, for example intel messes up and gives the right Target, but the WRONG coordinates. A UAV goes and bombs what ever is there. A well trained, alert pilot, onthe other hand, looks at his targeting scope and relizes that nothing in the area looks like his target (pilots carry target photos with them). Unable to confirm hios target, the human pilot can decide to abort and return home without dropping his bombs. In this example, an alert pilot can save the lives of innocent people.

Pilots are trained to abort if the target isn't confirmed. The more independently thinking minds you have in the loop, the more likly you are to catch an error before it becomes a Disaster!

B.T.W. Computers are designed and built by people, If you really think you can design something that is more reliable and "Perfect" then you are seriously mistaken.

Peace, without a need for weapons would be my FIRST Choice! Peace held by manned wepons, second. And war fought by manned aircraft a VERY, VERY distant Third!

Tim

I really don't see where is the problem. Tomahawks are doing this perhaps 20 years and what happened? Nothing. UCAVs like X-45 or X-47 will be just big reusable Tomahawk.
Also as already said it is the man who makes final decision. There difference between UCAV and fighter is that fighter pilot sits in cockpit and UCAV pilot sits in some room thousands km away.

Originally posted by longbow
I really don't see where is the problem. Tomahawks are doing this perhaps 20 years and what happened? Nothing. UCAVs like X-45 or X-47 will be just big reusable Tomahawk.
Also as already said it is the man who makes final decision.

Tomahawk is just a flying bomb that can follow a map! A Bomber is a different creature entirly. Not Only are they reuseable and carry lots of weapons, they flexable in their response. You can Use a bomber for deterrance, flying it over an area as a show of force. Bombers can be retasked or recalled at Any point before weapon release. They can also be assign multiple targets in one misssion. They can loiter and provide support to ground forces. Remember in desert storm when the B-52 was used to bomb Republican guard positions close to allied forces? Are you ready to trust a computer to dump 20 tons of bombs 10 yards from you?

Also, If a person makes the final decision, why not have him IN the Plane? You've heard of Electronic Warfare, haven't you? What do you do if your enemy figures out how to take control of the UAV with some kind of electronic equipment? Are you ready to have your own plane coming back to attack you? If your going to sit here and assume that you opponent is too dumb to counter you "technology" you may be walking into a trap. You put too much trust in UAV's and don't see the risks. With a manned aircraft, there is NO way to fly it from the outside.

I'm sorry, but I just DON'T want to See UAV bombers! Some Idea just are Not good! In my Oppinion the UAV bomber is an Example of a really BAD Idea.

Tim

Have you been watching THE TERMINATOR again.



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/29/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

No, but I work with REAL computers often enough to know they seem to crash at the worst times and they also malfunction!

Why do you assume I'm watching too much SciFi just because I don't like the idea of UAV bombers? Read my post again! I'm talking about another country figuring out how to Hijack a UAV and turn it against us. Read up on a WW2 system called Nicbine(not sure of the spelling). The Germans were using it to guide bombers to targets at night until the RAF hijacked the system and used it to send incorrect coordinated to the Luftwaffa!

Tim

Tomahawk is just a flying bomb that can follow a map! A Bomber is a different creature entirly. Not Only are they reuseable and carry lots of weapons, they flexable in their response. You can Use a bomber for deterrance, flying it over an area as a show of force. Bombers can be retasked or recalled at Any point before weapon release. They can also be assign multiple targets in one misssion. They can loiter and provide support to ground forces. Remember in desert storm when the B-52 was used to bomb Republican guard positions close to allied forces? Are you ready to trust a computer to dump 20 tons of bombs 10 yards from you?

so UCAVs will be able to do all this just as well, plus they will be able to withstand far more g's than any human could possibly imagine coping with.

Also, If a person makes the final decision, why not have him IN the Plane?

the plane can be smaller therefore lighter therefore faster, stealthier, more agile, longer endurance, the pilots never get shot down (therefore more experiance and no bad media)and the planes also become a lot simpler because they have no need to be ergonomically designed and dont need any human interface or life support inside the plane.

You've heard of Electronic Warfare, haven't you? What do you do if your enemy figures out how to take control of the UAV with some kind of electronic equipment?

program in a backup system. incase of ew jamming its tracker signal, make it return to base automatically, or preprogram its targets and have it bomb them automatically if it gets jammed. hell i aint no computer geek, but there are 2 possibilities, so getting jammed is very bad but not half as catastrophic as u seem to think.

Are you ready to have your own plane coming back to attack you? If your going to sit here and assume that you opponent is too dumb to counter you "technology" you may be walking into a trap. You put too much trust in UAV's and don't see the risks. With a manned aircraft, there is NO way to fly it from the outside.

im sure that the us government have thought of this and will put into place a few things to prevent suc occurences happening, but as far as i am concerned the benefits of ucav's far outweigh the risks.

justin

Sorry again Tim, but you really, really need to do some more research on this. Weapon release is consented by the UAV pilot who is located at the mission control area. For current UAVs, the weapon of choice is Hellfire, which relies on line of sight to the target (ie you need to have it visual), so targeting errors have the same risk as manned aircraft. As we install newer weapons, most will used GPS guidance. Again, you have the same risks as in a manned aircraft. If you are dropping through clouds, then you won't have VID of the target. For CAS, with new datalinking technologies, it will soon be as safe having a UCAV drop near own troops as it is now. And as instances in Afghanistan and Iraq have proved, human pilots make a lot of errors in this arena. I've seen this firsthand. And finally, as for manned aircraft not being flown from the outside, Russian aircraft have a datalink capability that allows GCI to control the aircraft, with the pilot taking over once the intercept is commenced. It was also an anti-defection tool.

You were also wrong about the bombing and booming. Pilots do love that. But every job needs it perks

Don't know if this will entertain anyone but I wrote it about 4 years ago. Much of the info is still valid and some has progressed farther.

ROBOTS

They are called RPVs for Remotely Piloted Vehicles. But now added monikers such as are UAVs for Unmanned Air Vehicles and UCAVs for Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles. The combat aspect interests us.

We used to think of robots as clunky mechanical men. Images from TV and cinema in the 1950s were finally eclipsed when Star Trek first aired in 1968 with a ship’s computer that could talk and even maneuver the vessel.

Today we are somewhere in between as far as our state of the art goes. What we called drones were used as flying targets in WW II with fairly simple technology of the 1930s. They offered gunnery students real planes to shoot at instead of a white sock towed by training planes. But the limitation was that the remote pilot had to actually see his ship to fly it by radio link. It’s only a little like “outside view” in a flight sim.

German technology created the Mistel, which converted Ju 88s into unmanned bombs packed with explosives and mounted a piloted Bf 109 or FW 190 on stilts above. Near the target the pilot in the fighter would cut his burden loose and steer it to the target by line of sight view.

The German technology incorporated television cameras in the nose of air-to-surface missiles like the Henschel Hs 293, which were actually used in combat. Things pretty much remained at that general state of technology until today.

The Air Force has many times piddled around with RPVs. The 1970s saw a resurgence of thought in that area but no substantial programs evolved. The new ingredient was the fledgling computer’s use. During Viet Nam the Lightning Bug recon drone successfully completed numerous missions. So after Viet Nam it became a fashionable idea to tone down human combat casualties and evolve machine that could “die” for us if need be.

These robot machines have successfully been used as reconnaissance gatherers. During Desert Storm a comparatively crude mini-drone recon ship with a ten-foot wingspan was the first to see Iraqi soldiers surrender to an RPV. As manned craft had to get higher and faster to observe enemy areas, like the U-2 and SR-71, cost per copy became obscene. A reverse thinking said a cheap, unmanned craft could fly low and slow and do some of the same work since satellites now commanded space with optics that can “see” at an astounding clarity.

Small RPVs could fly in and use their television cameras to see real time action from different angles and be steered around to zero in on desired objects. If they were destroyed, their pilots put their joysticks down and got a beer.

But what about combat? The Predator UAV became a UCAV when it unleashed Hellfire missiles on targets in Afghanistan. This was a first in some respects but ordnance release is still at the command of humans even though the craft does most of the flying and analyzing of input data on its own. Also flying is the Lockheed Darkstar, which can carry a 1,200 lb. payload, hit 50,000 feet and stay up for twelve hours. It could conceivably carry weapons too.

At the end of WW II German missilery was advanced to the stage where Telefunken engineers had the Einlenk and “r” computers to assist remote control operators. A further development in the BV 246 glider bomb used microwave beams to guide the device from the launch bomber but this was sophisticated for the time. Though these signals couldn’t be jammed as such the technology required the parent plane to remain in the general area to feed in course changes. The Bv 246 could make relatively large course maneuvers if need be.

All this STILL doesn’t describe fully robotic craft capable of thinking on their own without input from humans. This is where the Boeing X-45 comes in.

con't

All this STILL doesn’t describe fully robotic craft capable of thinking on their own without input from humans. This is where the Boeing X-45 comes in.

This is where all the previously extracted experience and technology is going. The X-45 will be a launch-and-forget weapon costing $10-15 million dollars per clone. This is one-third the projected cost of the manned JSF- Joint Strike Fighter. Economics is apparent when it is assumable to have more craft for the same money. Right now the X-45’s proposed mission will be suppression of air defenses in an air-to-surface role. That could evolve. It should be in service by 2008.

The X-45 has a fighter-sized 34-foot wingspan and is 26.5 feet long and weighing 15,000 lbs loaded. It is stealthy in contour and construction looking a bit like a mini-B-2 aft with an extended V-shaped nose protruding from the leading edge and a bloated, but stealth fuselage. It can top 40,000 feet and hit nearly Mach 1. It will ultimately extend its range by refueling in the air like manned planes we know today. The X-45 can tote 3,000 lbs. of ordnance and has a range of 375 miles.

While it is publicly stated that the plane “will compliment manned assets, not replace them,” the latest Rand study has concluded that that the F-35 will be the final manned US fighter. Defense analysts agree and the Pentagon plans that by 2020 one-third of America’s combat planes will be unmanned. Boeing has three craft in mind. Air-to-surface, like the initial X-45, high altitude recon, and tactical. That latter is the one that intrigues us. That’s a robot fighter.

It is relatively easy to program a UAV to fly high and take pictures and transmit sensor data home and even react to outside influences like making evasive maneuvers. The Global Hawk can do it and has topped 65,000 feet being able to stay aloft for 36 hours. If that’s not high or long enough the Helios solar powered flying wing can get up to 100,000 feet and literally hang around for months. The Predator has proven that it’s just a short step away to the X-45’s mission of automatically launching ordnance against foes on the ground.

The tactical fighter role will be the jewel in the crown. When, not if, they can achieve a system with computers sophisticated enough to truly instigate action and react to threats in an unpredictable repertoire of maneuvers it will spell the end for fighter pilots.

Look at a manned fighter. Much of the cost of its “guts” is equipment geared toward the life support, survival and complimentary actions of the human aboard. It’s larger and heavier to accommodate him. The pilot is limited to what he can physically withstand as to g-forces. The aircraft is not. A robot fighter can be built to withstand enormous g-force in the order of 15 Gs+ and not tear apart. The future X-fighter will not even need a control system, as we know it. A central CPU, if you will, will orchestrate control movement via electronic link to move the surfaces. What is most important is that with high G maneuverability it will be on a manned enemy’s tail in two turns faster than the cheating A.I. of a combat flight sim!

Vast computer power is on the horizon to accomplish the tasks autonomously. Yes, without human input. Motorola has recently developed a crystal-based (sci-fi writers have imagined this long ago- Babylon 5) integrated CPU capable of 70 gigahertz. And this is the prototype. If “normal” silicone-based chips have progressed in power in the past few years as they have, it is unpredictable what may be wrought from this new technology.

con't

So what type of weaponry will robotic fighters mount in 2050 when the last-last refurbishment of “old” JSFs is long done? Assuredly, they will be some form of laser weapon. Recently a CH-47 tested a combat laser mounted on a pallet package that produced a four-inch beam quite powerful enough to destroy. The system is too big now, but think how quickly all other technology has miniaturized.

Of course it makes sense that a small nuclear power source will be developed for charging the weapon and providing energy for onboard systems. This will leave the next generations of jet engines to work on providing thrust only. These power plants will not even need to be built to the exacting nth degree of reliability required in manned craft today though they will probably be better by default of techno-advances anyway.

Initially it is foreseen that the UCAVs will operate in concert with manned craft ingress to hostile territory. Certainly X-45-type ships will go in first and eradicate SAMs, radar stations and other defensive vehicles and equipment leaving the manned planes to…do what? UAVs have already reconned the area and relayed their findings in real time to HQ where military analysts and strategists have programmed the ground attack robots’ targets. The manned fighters will be available to what, engage enemy fighters? With fewer and fewer nations able to field and service today’s expensive and sophisticated planes, and fewer of them it may be a non-event.

If Allied pilots could romp through Iraq without a single casualty due to enemy air-to-air action, whom will we be contesting in the future? Only a few NATO nations are capable of the costly development of any future manned fighters. As the military has learned many flare ups around the globe need surgical actions of the police nature. It’s special ops teams on the ground and peace keeping forces. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union there will be little in the way of hordes of hot future fighters to deal with. It will be more of the age-old guerilla combat and that in urban surroundings. Any robot craft will need to distinguish between friend, foe and neutral civilians to accomplish its mission.

We can certainly see the possible need for robotic armor. The massive M-1 line is over. The Pentagon has decided that future manned armor will be lighter and less expensive so UA-Unmanned Armor- is a natural. A small, maneuverable mini-tank could probe both urban and other fields of action. The M-1 system, is already so advanced that none were lost to Iraqi armor during Desert Storm balanced by an outrageous number of kills, many made at ranges where the enemy couldn’t even detect them much less accurately shoot. And who is building any advanced armor beside NATO nations? So picture new tech on top of the M-1’s in a miniaturized, unmanned future tank.

To compliment UA units we will see UCARs- Uninhabited Combat Armed Rotorcraft. They are now undergoing the same developmental process that the X-45 is and we can expect them to patrol, seek and destroy in any environment using the successor to the Hellfire missile.

One UAV rotorcraft was in development for the Navy but has been cancelled in favor of craft with greater mission range. The Ryan-Schweizer RQ-8A “Firescout” was originally derived from a 3-man helicopter by Schweizer that traces its heritage to the Hughes 300. Its sensor pod had electro-optics, laser range finder and infrared cameras. It was to be controlled over a data link system that could be “piloted” from even Hum Vee.

Plying the oceans will still be manned ships, though many fewer than now. There will be robot craft beyond the radio controlled, explosive filled ones tested before. They will be stealth in configuration and be able to launch a variety of weapons too. Aircraft carriers are due to change too. Boeing is bidding on an unmanned aircraft system for the US Navy also. Pegasus is Northrop-Grumman’s X-47 diamond-shaped, sub-sonic UCAV that can carry a 500 lb. payload but can stay up twelve hours. It’s capable of STOVL- Short TakeOff Vertical Landing. Though smaller than the X-45 it can pull 6 Gs compared to the Boeing craft’s 3 Gs.

Quite logically, in the foreseeable future to 2050, there will actually be no niche for unmanned combat fighters as they’ll have little or nothing to mix it up with since their ground attack brethren will have taken out most of any possible existing enemy fighters. Picture the video we saw of F-117s’ ordnance cameras homing in on hardened fighter hangers in Iraq at night. Picture the X-45 doing the same thing. With goodly numbers of X-45s coming in there’d be nothing to put in the air by sunrise since we own the night.

We see Afghanistan. A number of decrepit MiG 21s sat in disarray. Even if they had pilots the runways were Swiss cheese. If they would have taken off the same fate awaited them as hotshot Iraqi pilots a decade ago anyway.

So realistically, I believe that UCAV fighters will not pan out as viable air-to-air weapons though I’m sure the Pentagon will ultimately put them in the budget and get them. Other UCAVs, UAs and UCARs will have a valid role in any future conflicts attacking ground targets.

Today most of the major and even not so major, aerospace companies are in development of UAVs with many contracts up for grabs. There exist today tiny insect-sized recon devices that can fly into a building via silent, sub-miniature electric motors and gather images with TV cameras the size of a fly’s eye. One is even powered by a “device that converts chemical energy into reciprocating motion through a direct non-combustion chemical reaction." It uses one propellant, has no flame or visible exhaust and can operate without oxygen. This is not sci-fi, it’s happening now. MAVs (Micro Aerial Vehicles) of larger size abound in number with weight measured in grams and size in the less than 6-inch range.

Other countries are actively involved in the development of UAVs and UCAVs. Silver Arrow, in Israel has the Sniper, which is a primary UAC just 342 lbs. with a 13-foot wingspan. A 38 HP piston engine propels it to maximums of 115 MPH and 5,000 feet altitude. It has a computer program to control it over its 6-hour recon missions but radio-control backup is available.

Canadair has two robots. The CL-289 is a missile-type recon craft with sensor systems, a Zeiss optical camera pack plus an infrared camera pack. Canada, France, and West Germany have used its CL-89 predecessor. In Germany Aerospatiale fabricates it by Dornier, and in France. It entered service with German forces in 1990 and with the French in 1992 with combat use in Kosovo in 1999. It’s nearly twelve feet long weighing 485 lbs. with a speed of 450 MPH maximum during is 40-minute, auto-piloted flight. It returns to earth via parachute deployment.

As a complete opposite in concept the CL-327 is a VTOL rotorcraft with 13-foot blades standing six feet tall while weighing 770 lbs. The craft can attain 98 MPH and reach 18,000 feet over its 6.25-hour mission as it surveys the terrain below. It pre-programmed autopilot is backed up with GPS and radio-control.

In France Sagem is at work on the Sperwer High Velocity (HV), which is an entirely new UAV that is powered by a Micro-turbo engine good for 460 MPH and 33,000 feet altitude with a 250-mile range. The 13.75-foot fuselage with its 7.9-foot forward swept wings will weigh about 890 lbs. and capable of a 110-pound internal payload of imaging equipment and sensors, a laser target designator with even radar jamming payloads considered for it 2005-06 debut.

Matra-Aerospatiale is doing long-endurance UAV. The "HALE Fregate" is turbofan-powered shaped somewhat like the Predator. It will have a takeoff weight of 33,300 lbs. and would be able to fly at altitudes of up to 60,000 feet for 30 hours.

Dassault has the sinister AVE, which stands for Air Vehicle Experimental translated from French. This black diamond has a retractable tricycle landing gear and is powered by two micro-turbo engines. Wingspan is equal to length at 7.9 feet. Loaded weight is 132 pounds with range about 93 miles and top speed of around 350 MPH. It is intended to evolve into UAV and UCAV platforms.

Across the Channel Britain's Cranfield University of Aeronautics is progressing on their “U-99” tailless delta design with tricycle landing gear with a span of 25.5 feet and length of 21.3 feet weighing 10,580 lbs. at takeoff. Two Ishikawajima Harima Heavy industries IHI-F3 turbofans of 3,680 lbs. thrust each give it an 860-mile range and the ability to carry 1,000 lbs of ordnance internally.

SAAB is working on a UCAV designated "SHARC" (Swedish Highly Advanced Research Configuration). It will have a 26.2-foot wingspan, a length of 32.8 feet, with a weight of about five 11,025 pounds. It will not be high performance in nature or very maneuverable. They project a 2020 in-service target.

Only rumors of Sukoi’s UCAV exist, so it is not known what Russia can or will field.

It’s a bit repugnant to imagine a world in 2065 where someone says; “UCAV fighter Z28v978-51 is now an ace having downed five enemy fighters in air-to-air combat.”

FOOTNOTE: There is plenty of info on the web regarding this topic. Just key in UCAV and check them out.