Pilotless drones eyed to replace CF-18s

[Batrakio]

Has everyone ever saw the movie Stealth?
UCAVs may have advantages, but I would stick to a pilot.

 

[Loachman]

Have you noticed that Hollywood and reality have absolutely nothing in common?

And if you're going to stick to a pilot, don't stick to me.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Have you noticed that Hollywod and reality have absolutely nothing in common?

And if you're going to stick to a pilot, don't stick to me.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.  :rofl:

 

[foo32]

I expect that in the short term pilotless drones can't completely replace human pilots, but the writing is certainly on the wall.  IMHO, it won't be too long before it will be suicide for a human try to engage in aerial combat (Hollywood may look ridiculous now, but if anything they are probably giving humans too much credit). Even a silly combat flight sim computer game like IL-2 Sturmovik (which they tell me is rather realistic ... the hour I've spent as airline passenger doesn't qualify me to judge) is adequate to at least show the potential of computer-as-fighter pilot.

The really scary thing is, I expect true AI (machines with human-like intelligence) probably isn't *that* far off (perhaps decades, maybe generations, but either way we are not even talking a blink if you think in terms of evolutionary time.)  And of course right on the heel of human-like intelligence is super-human intelligence. It would all seem like nutty apocalyptic stuff 25 years ago ... but now it seems just too damn plausible.  The twilight of humanity anyone? :crybaby:

 

[George Wallace]

I expect that in the short term pilotless drones can't completely replace human pilots, ...................

Of course they can't.  There is no one piloting them, not even by remote control.  They have their flight paths programmed prior to launch and then they are on their way, with no further control from any outside means.  They can not be jammed.  They can not have their flight plans changed.  They are essentially incommunicado with the outside world until they land, and their collected data downloaded.  That is what drones are.

 

[foo32]

...  That is what drones are.

Perhaps my terminology is wrong ... I mean an autonomous, computer-controlled aircraft. Whatever that would be called in military linguo (?)

 

[Good2Golf]

A drone is a very simple, "go out and do what you're told/programmed to do" piece of gear.  An autonomous system, be it a UAV or remote operating ground or maritime system, or even a weapon system for that matter (see the BAT), is another. 

If you extend your argument, there would be autonomous tanks, trucks, ships, etc...  and the manned vehicle/craft would not be required.  The unmanned system, be it airborne, terrestrial or maritime, will fill a niche, but it will likely remain just that, a niche, and not a complete replacement of manned systems.

G2G

 

[foo32]

A drone is a very simple, "go out and do what you're told/programmed to do" piece of gear.

G2G

Ah..thanks for the clarification.  Yes, I do expect autonomous vehicles and ships could happen too, but I think dealing with the situation on the ground is a tougher problem (for a computer) than something like air-to-air combat.  In the air a computer would not have to deal so much with complications like civilians, nearby and not-easily-identified friendlies and other things like obstacles, IEDs, etc.. The kind of stuff even humans can have problems with. 

Ground attack is a sticky problem though.  Perhaps it isn't the super-human intelligent machines we need worry about so much as the first few generations of autonomous vehicles that don't actually work right  ;D

 

[KevinB]

uhm -- civilian airliners and friendly forces don't count in your tally  ???

Judging AI actions from a computer simulation is skewed in favour of the IA - since the computer that is running the AI is also running the sim - thus it cant removie any unknowns that are factors in REAL life.

  I'm not a pilot nore do I play one on TV - but I do hitch rides on AC in combat environments -- I'm quite happy with a live body thanks.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

DID article:

Raven UAVs Winning Gold in Afghanistan's "Commando Olympics"
12-Sep-2007 17:00

Back on Feb 24, 2005, DID covered the success the RQ-11 Raven mini-UAV was enjoying in Iraq. In November 2005, StrategyPage reported that the RQ-11 Raven was also turning heads in what it calls "the commando Olympics" of Afghanistan: "In addition to all the cooperation, there's also a lot comparing notes. One thing everyone has noted is the large number of useful gadgets American Special Forces troops have. The most envied item is the American Raven UAV."

Or at least, mini-UAVS like the Raven. This Spotlight article looks at mini-UAV buys from a number of countries, spurred by requests from troops in theater. Now Denmark has added itself to the list…

Drawing Raves

The Raven is a 4.2-pound, backpackable, hand-launched sensor platform that provides day and night, real-time video imagery for "over the hill" and "around the corner" reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition.  The same reasons behind the Raven's Iraqi success also apply in CENTCOM's first theater of war:

    * Useful at the battalion level, but so simple to operate that one of the best pilots in the Iraqi theater was a cook.
    * Ideal for quick peeks to see what's on the other side of obstructed terrain – like a city block in Iraq, or Afghanistan's hills and mountains.
    * Switch-in IR cameras that some called better than an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter's (presumably the one in TADS/PVNS, not the updated Arrowhead).
    * Small and unobtrusive (wingspan just over 4 feet, weight just over 4 pounds), with low noise signature relative to larger UAVs.
    * So small, in fact, that it can easily be carried by Special Forces scouts and squads.
    * No letters to write if the aircraft goes down.

While some Ravens have been shot down, StrategyPage says the most common cause of loss is losing the communications link or a software/hardware failure on the aircraft. It also reports that troops in Afghanistan have taken to putting a translated label on each Raven, noting that a reward will be given to anyone who returns them to the Americans. Several lost Ravens have actually been recovered this way.

More ... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raven-uavs-winning-gold-in-afghanistans-commando-olympics-01432/

 

[McG]

With things like Reaper, we are getting to where remote aircraft will start to take more & more of the CAS role.  I don't think we will see a complete switch to such systems in the near future, but they will be more common.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,113925,00.html
I like that US general emphasises capabilities (like persistence).  It is a contrast to the Canadian thought on page 1 which emphasises keeping people away from danger.

 

[GAP]

That link also gives a good look at who is buying what in UAV's

 

[foo32]

uhm -- civilian airliners and friendly forces don't count in your tally  ???

Judging AI actions from a computer simulation is skewed in favour of the IA - since the computer that is running the AI is also running the sim - thus it cant removie any unknowns that are factors in REAL life.

Of course civilian airlines and friendly forces counted in my tally! All I was saying was that it would be at least possible to program a computer to recognise friendlies and civilian aircraft.  I can't even conceive of a computer program that could deal with anything but the most idealised ground warfare at the present time.

Sure, a computer simulation is not a perfect way to evaluate how AI will perform in real life, but it doesn't have to be meaningless -- we use simulations to help train real pilots after all!  I only intended to imply current simulations at least revealed potential for some air-combat scenarios (assuming a significantly more complex AI). We have taken significant steps towards such systems already: We already have fly-by-wire systems and complex targeting systems, and friend-or-foe systems (imperfect as they may be).  Discussions of the future have a tendency to sound pie-in-the-sky silly, but at least this one is plausible.  In any case, we aren't going to see such a system *tommorrow*.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

That link also gives a good look at who is buying what in UAV's

Yeah, I find DID is pretty good fof the 'global picture' stuff ... 8)