# First Autonomous UH-60A Black Hawk Flight. Leaves the tarmac on its first fully unmanned flight. Fort Campbell, KY Feb 8, 2022



## dimsum (8 Feb 2022)




----------



## Good2Golf (9 Feb 2022)

Darned smooth hover!


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

Which raises the inevitable question:

In which would you rather be a passenger?  A helicopter with no pilot?  Or a helicopter with a British private as a pilot?


----------



## dimsum (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Which raises the inevitable question:
> 
> In which would you rather be a passenger?  A helicopter with no pilot?  Or a helicopter with a British private as a pilot?


There is a pilot/crew though - see 0:35.  They just weren't in the aircraft.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

Was that a pilot?  Or was that a Vehicle Commander?  The emphasis was on autonomy as I read it.    The "crew" monitored the autonomously functioning craft.  No?


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Was that a pilot?  Or was that a Vehicle Commander?  The emphasis was on autonomy as I read it.    The "crew" monitored the autonomously functioning craft.  No?


The Pilot ship already sailed, the RCAF Codified it with RPAS.
 Aircraft - manned or unmanned have a Pilot - regardless if the Pilot is in the craft or not.
*I think it should be called Virtual Pilot 

 Vehicles - manned or unmanned have a Driver - they may also have a gunner, and perhaps a Vehicle Commander too.

Ships - I guess we shall see what happens with the remote sea going things - but I am guessing we shall see Virtual Captains now too...


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> The Pilot ship already sailed, the RCAF Codified it with RPAS.
> Aircraft - manned or unmanned have a Pilot - regardless if the Pilot is in the craft or not.
> *I think it should be called Virtual Pilot
> 
> ...


Ships are already in pretty far stages of development, with IMO drafting legislation for it. Will have some kind of remote monitoring, but they will likely have some AI as well for a backup in case there are comms issues so they can do basic avoidance of other ships, and not run aground.

I think kongsberg and Royals Royce have done testing, and a few navies have remotely operated ships in testing as well. On a smaller scale unmanned underwater vehicles have been a thing for a while, and they can be set to do an autonomous survey of a set route and other similar items. They are pretty wee though so not really a collision issue for ships, and far enough below the surface to not impact smaller boats.

Autonomous shipping


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> The Pilot ship already sailed, the RCAF Codified it with RPAS.
> Aircraft - manned or unmanned have a Pilot - regardless if the Pilot is in the craft or not.
> *I think it should be called Virtual Pilot
> 
> ...



Vehicles - I guess that is why this design never flew.

A tank, with two 120mm 6-shot recoilless revolvers on tracks, and one Driver/Gunner/VC combined.  In the 1960s.  In Britain.



But what will the Union think?


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Ships are already in pretty far stages of development, with IMO drafting legislation for it. Will have some kind of remote monitoring, but they will likely have some AI as well for a backup in case there are comms issues so they can do basic avoidance of other ships, and not run aground.
> 
> I think kongsberg and Royals Royce have done testing, and a few navies have remotely operated ships in testing as well. On a smaller scale unmanned underwater vehicles have been a thing for a while, and they can be set to do an autonomous survey of a set route and other similar items. They are pretty wee though so not really a collision issue for ships, and far enough below the surface to not impact smaller boats.
> 
> Autonomous shipping


Roger -- I was more trying to poke fun at the naming conventions that some have adopted.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> There is a pilot/crew though - see 0:35.  They just weren't in the aircraft.



Rethinking.  Pilot? Or Air Traffic Controller?


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Vehicles - I guess that is why this design never flew.
> 
> A tank, with two 120mm 6-shot recoilless revolvers on tracks, and one Driver/Gunner/VC combined.  In the 1960s.  In Britain.
> 
> ...


Looks a little like the M50 Ontos (it had 6 106mm recoilless)


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> Looks a little like the M50 Ontos (it had 6 106mm recoilless)


Same era.

But it had a proper crew: Driver.  Gunner.  Loader.   Three bodies.  Not one.


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Same era.
> 
> But it had a proper crew: Driver.  Gunner.  Loader.   Three bodies.  Not one.


I think your on to something with the Union


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

So, does a RPAS Pilot get flight pay?


----------



## dimsum (9 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> So, does a RPAS Pilot get flight pay?


Yup.



Kirkhill said:


> Rethinking.  Pilot? Or Air Traffic Controller?


Air Traffic Controllers control aircraft for a given area.  I don't think that's the right term. 

If you control the aircraft, you're a Pilot.


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yup.


sweet gig, and thus precedent set for Sea pay for Navy folks running a ship that way too, but the Army will need to figure out how to get Jump Pay via remote


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Feb 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Ships are already in pretty far stages of development, with IMO drafting legislation for it. Will have some kind of remote monitoring, but they will likely have some AI as well for a backup in case there are comms issues so they can do basic avoidance of other ships, and not run aground.
> 
> I think kongsberg and Royals Royce have done testing, and a few navies have remotely operated ships in testing as well. On a smaller scale unmanned underwater vehicles have been a thing for a while, and they can be set to do an autonomous survey of a set route and other similar items. They are pretty wee though so not really a collision issue for ships, and far enough below the surface to not impact smaller boats.
> 
> Autonomous shipping


Will be interesting to see how those Ships fare in the Wild Wild East 😁


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Feb 2022)

Or even just in normal areas with any kind of recreational boating; remember some bellend in Vancouver taking their paddleboard into a shipping lane and almost getting killed, because no one on the bridge could see him over the bow.

Lots of questions, especially with all the boats that don't show up on radar, but for some of these dedicated runs in specific is doable. Still seems more expensive to have land based crews than a few people on a bridge, but who knows. Maybe all the savings for not having hotel services onboard balances out, especially if you have maintenance crews on each end, but that means you can't do maintenance while sailing🤷‍♂️

I think it will go okay until the first accident and then insurance concerns will require crews again.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> Air Traffic Controllers control aircraft for a given area.  I don't think that's the right term.
> ...



But if you control the Swarm you're an Air Traffic Controller?

If Privates are Pilots what rank controls the Swarm?


----------



## dimsum (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> But if you control the Swarm you're an Air Traffic Controller?
> 
> If Privates are Pilots what rank controls the Swarm?



I guess?  I don't even think military folks have seriously debated that terminology.

Personal opinion:  If you have a swarm scenario, you won't also have individual RPAS pilots.  It's kind of one or the other - the whole idea of the swarm is that they're all acting as one...uh...swarm.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> I guess?  I don't even think military folks have seriously debated that terminology.
> 
> Personal opinion:  If you have a swarm scenario, you won't also have individual RPAS pilots.  It's kind of one or the other - the whole idea of the swarm is that they're all acting as one...uh...swarm.




So an RPAS has a pilot.

An RPAS swarm has no pilots?


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> But if you control the Swarm you're an Air Traffic Controller?


How so?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

blacktriangle said:


> How so?



Just advancing the thought from Dimsum's comment. 

A pilot commands/controls a craft - singular (air or sea).

An Air Traffic Controller controls a geographical space and the activity within it.  The ATC indirectly controls the craft through the intervention of the pilots.  But if there is no human in the loop between the ATC and the craft, and the ATC is directly commanding the craft, individually or as an entity .... is the ATC a pilot, a controller or a commander?  For sure the ATC isn't a leader.


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> So an RPAS has a pilot.
> 
> An RPAS swarm has no pilots?


If a swarm consisted of multiple RPAS, then there would be multiple pilots. If a swarm is AI enabled and truly autonomous, then there would be no pilots. Right? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

blacktriangle said:


> If a swarm consisted of multiple RPAS, then there would be multiple pilots. If a swarm is AI enabled and truly autonomous, then there would be no pilots. Right? Am I missing something here?




No. You're right.  By definition a Remotely Piloted Aircraf System has a pilot.  So an RPAS is a UAS but a UAS is not necessarily an RPAS.

A swarm?  It could be made up of aircraft with onboard crew, remotely crewed aircraft, optionally crewed aircraft or AI aircraft.  But what is the Swarm Master?   Leader, commander or controller?  Or just supervisor/inspector?


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Just advancing the thought from Dimsum's comment.
> 
> A pilot commands/controls a craft - singular (air or sea).
> 
> An Air Traffic Controller controls a geographical space and the activity within it.  The ATC indirectly controls the craft through the intervention of the pilots.  But if there is no human in the loop between the ATC and the craft, and the ATC is directly commanding the craft, individually or as an entity .... is the ATC a pilot, a controller or a commander?  For sure the ATC isn't a leader.


I think I see what you're getting at. I don't see it as fundamentally that different. The ATC would simply be in communication with AI instead of a human pilot. If everything checked out, the AI would then complete the necessary intervention. You could even have an ATC AI interacting with the AI of the aerial craft via M2M datalink. That's a whole another can of worms, though.

And I'm in no way advocating for the replacement of pilots or human controllers. I wouldn't board an aircraft without a pilot present onboard, and human ATC in the loop.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

blacktriangle said:


> I think I see what you're getting at. I don't see it as fundamentally that different. The ATC would simply be in communication with AI instead of a human pilot. If everything checked out, the AI would then complete the necessary intervention. You could even have an ATC AI interacting with the AI of the aerial craft via M2M datalink. That's a whole another can of worms, though.
> 
> And I'm in no way advocating for the replacement of pilots or human controllers. I wouldn't board an aircraft without a pilot present onboard, and human ATC in the loop.



I'm inclined to agree with you.  Although I have used SkyTrain in Vancouver.

As to Swarm Technology I am wondering what happens if, for example, swarm technology were applied to a bucket full of 70 mm rockets?

Swarms can be big or small.


----------



## dimsum (9 Feb 2022)

I was going to jump in but I agree with @blacktriangle 's examples.

I think terminology is the problem here - an ATC doesn't directly control anything, as in they don't physically make the aircraft do it.  They give instructions to the pilot, which as the Aircraft Commander (the pilot, that is) can totally refuse.  Of course, they have to have a good reason to do that.

As for what to call a person directly controlling a swarm of RPAS or UAS - probably "operator" is the best term.  By that point, presumably you're not directly controlling how they physically fly but where to go and what to do.



Kirkhill said:


> As to Swarm Technology I am wondering what happens if, for example, swarm technology were applied to a bucket full of 70 mm rockets?


Coordinated simultaneous attacks from different vectors, probably.  I give it 5 years before it's a reality.  Maybe less.


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> I guess?  I don't even think military folks have seriously debated that terminology.
> 
> Personal opinion:  If you have a swarm scenario, you won't also have individual RPAS pilots.  It's kind of one or the other - the whole idea of the swarm is that they're all acting as one...uh...swarm.


Union rules: There will be a Higher rank along with the RPAS Pilot...


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> I was going to jump in but I agree with @blacktriangle 's examples.
> 
> I think terminology is the problem here - an ATC doesn't directly control anything, as in they don't physically make the aircraft do it.  They give instructions to the pilot, which as the Aircraft Commander (the pilot, that is) can totally refuse.  Of course, they have to have a good reason to do that.
> 
> As for what to call a person directly controlling a swarm of RPAS or UAS - probably "operator" is the best term.  By that point, presumably you're not directly controlling how they physically fly but where to go and what to do.






dimsum said:


> Coordinated simultaneous attacks from different vectors, probably.  I give it 5 years before it's a reality.  Maybe less.



Glad I'm in my armchair.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2022)

Update on the autonomous Blackhawk









						Pilotless UH-60 Black Hawk Trialed In Recent U.S. Army Test
					

The pilotless UH-60 showed how the Army can perform autonomous resupply and that's just a taste of how it could be used in the future.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Update on the autonomous Blackhawk
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was it programmed to tell everyone else how awesome it is, once it landed?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2022)

At least they wouldn’t have to worry about autonomous callsign review boards coming up with tone-deafeningly inappropriate call signs. 😉


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> At least they wouldn’t have to worry about autonomous callsign review boards coming up with tone-deafeningly inappropriate call signs. 😉


So far as you know…


----------



## dimsum (21 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> At least they wouldn’t have to worry about autonomous callsign review boards coming up with tone-deafeningly inappropriate call signs. 😉


...yet.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2022)

Is it wrong to place more trust in artificial intelligence behaving properly than human intelligence? 😉


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Is it wrong to place more trust in artificial intelligence behaving properly than human intelligence? 😉


Nope.


----------

