Future of Military Aviation -- Robots?

welsh

Junkmaster
avi0705ucav_385x238.jpg

Boeing’s X-45As were the first UCAVs to fly. The two that were built have conducted 50 missions and demonstrated that unmanned aircraft can locate and attack targets autonomously.

Here's an interesting bit that follows up on what we posted earlier about robot soldiers. This from Popular Science-

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1068356,00.html

For 65 years, the Mojave Desert has spawned the fastest, highest-flying and most agile airplanes in the world. This vast expanse of scrub and Joshua tree forests encompasses the U.S. Air Force’s deadly-secret Area 51 in Nevada, Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works in Palmdale, California, and, at Mojave airfield itself, Burt Rutan’s sci-fi enclave, Scaled Composites. At the heart of it all is the flight-test center at Edwards Air Force Base—and here is where a very nontraditional confrontation over the future of air combat is beginning to play out.

In one corner of the base resides the USAF’s current star project, the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor. The Raptor is fast, cruising at speeds other fighters can attain only in short sprints. It’s also agile, heavily armed, and stealthy. In tests last year, the pilots of older F-15s that engaged the Raptors in simulated combat never saw the airplane that “hit” them.

But this competition is not with those aging F-15s, nor even with any new enemy fighters being developed by the Chinese or the Russians. No, the adversary that the mighty Raptor is staring down today takes the form of a tiny airplane, with no cockpit, that stands barely higher than the F/A-22’s belly. Stingray 1 and 2, the Boeing X-45A prototypes, are slow, not particularly maneuverable, and pack just one small bomb apiece. But they’re first drafts, primitive unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), future versions of which could ignite sweeping changes in air combat tactics. They could fly many of the missions flown by manned vehicles—as well as some their piloted counterparts can’t—for longer durations and at substantially lower cost. A number of experts believe that it’s these airplanes, and not the Raptor, that represent the future of air warfare—a shocking potential shift for a military discipline that’s been dominated by fighter pilots since bombs and guns were first mounted on airplanes in World War I.

At Edwards, a sprawling, sun-blasted base with a seven-mile-long runway etched onto a bone-dry lakebed, the Raptor roars off into the mountains for supersonic tests, and the X-45A prototypes snap smartly onto the runway centerline after attacks on simulated mobile missile launchers. Although the two programs are not yet competing for dollars, they are certainly jockeying for position as military planners grapple with the ever changing nature of armed conflict. If recent wars in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan—all bombing-intensive campaigns that saw minimal air combat—are any indication of what the future holds, then powerhouses like the F/A-22 will see little of the type of action they excel at, their highly trained pilots never engaging in tricky close-range combat. Rather, less expensive vehicles that can loiter above battlefields for hours, armed with a menu of instantly deployable bombs, will serve commanders much more effectively.

On the other hand, if future adversaries include the likes of China or some remnant of the former Soviet Union—countries with potential access to modern fighter jets—the UCAVs will have to prove their effectiveness against these sophisticated weapons. Robotic fighters still have a long way to go. After all, designers have only a few years’ experience with their more basic predecessors, unmanned aerial vehicles such as the remotely controlled Predator and the fully autonomous Global Hawk, which focus on the far simpler tasks of surveillance and reconnaissance.

Still, autonomous robots such as the Stingrays are beginning to proliferate worldwide, like so many tiny furry mammals scampering among the clawed feet of the dinosaurs.

Sounds like Cyberdine has competition.

For more of the story and details, check out the web page and the next three pages.
 
Cool. American manpower against China would cease to be an issue. We could wage war in crappy countries with an absolute minimum of allied casualties.
 
Thus opening up a war in which the society pays no real costs except in dollars and sense, opening up new opportunities for both imperialism, expansion and arms racing.

Kind of reminds me of that question from Star Wars- "who really created a clone army and why?"
 
:rofl:

Thats great Ratty. It makes me wonder though...would the Windows problem be that it would constantly crash or that it would be under Bill Gates control and one day he could just override their protocols and have his own military?

So...this now who knows? Cyberdine? North Central Positronics?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Not true, the majority of our pilots rock.... their are a few out there though that piss me off. But thats another story...

As for the Unmanned airplanes, We already use UAV's, and it would be nice to be able to bomb a country without having to worry about the limitations of crew rest, duty day, and pilots not being able to follow a course line.
 
Elissar said:
Not true, the majority of our pilots rock.... their are a few out there though that piss me off. But thats another story...

As for the Unmanned airplanes, We already use UAV's, and it would be nice to be able to bomb a country without having to worry about the limitations of crew rest, duty day, and pilots not being able to follow a course line.

Isn't that why Clinton used cruise missiles?
 
welsh said:
Elissar said:
Not true, the majority of our pilots rock.... their are a few out there though that piss me off. But thats another story...

As for the Unmanned airplanes, We already use UAV's, and it would be nice to be able to bomb a country without having to worry about the limitations of crew rest, duty day, and pilots not being able to follow a course line.

Isn't that why Clinton used cruise missiles?
Yeah, I think it is why Clinton used crusiemissles, but using unmanned fighters is more cost effective in the long run. Normal missles are cheaper than crusie missiles, so the thought is, that instead of paying $600,000-$1,000,000 on every crusie missle, you can have an unmanned drone shell out like $50,000 per missile. Eventually you save more than $500,000 per target hit, thus *eventually* the plane pays for itself and you 'save' money. Or, I think that's the thought.
 
John Uskglass said:
Jebus said:
The_Vault_Dweller said:
would the Windows problem be that it would constantly crash

Couldn't be worse than their present chopper pilots, tho' :wink:
Dude, you can be a HUGE asshole sometimes. Must be all that practice with Wooz.
Hehehe. Buttsecks! :roll:

Really though, how much do each of these cost? Are these much more expensive than modern aircraft (between F22 and F35) or cheaper?
Without having to accomidate a pilot, they could pull much greater turns, right? I'm assuming that the biggest limitation in manueverability is the pilot, since even WWII pilots blacked out, but I'm no aviation expert...
Are these larger or smaller than new fighters? Is stealth affected by the overall size of the aircraft to a great degree? If it is, then couldn't a set of small, unmanned, stealthy aircrraft easily evade and even shoot down enemy manned fighters? And if their cheaper, couldn't we simply outnumber the enemy with these, perhaps having manned fighters backing them up..

Also how would they prevent it from killing civilians, friendlys? Will a human have to okay weapons usage?
 
KillaKilla said:
Really though, how much do each of these cost? Are these much more expensive than modern aircraft (between F22 and F35) or cheaper?

They should theoretically be cheaper than manned planes because they're smaller, burn less fuel, and don't need any life support systems onboard. Of course, developing them and then the flight control systems (essentially uprated RC model stuff) might offset that by quite a bit especially by maintenance.

Without having to accomidate a pilot, they could pull much greater turns, right? I'm assuming that the biggest limitation in manueverability is the pilot, since even WWII pilots blacked out, but I'm no aviation expert...

Yes, yes they should be able to pull greater Gs than a human pilot. We now have G-suits that allow pilots to withstand greater forces and those are advancing all of the time. Eventually it will end up being some sort of full enclosure for the pilot with no normal canopy. Think of a pod.

Are these larger or smaller than new fighters? Is stealth affected by the overall size of the aircraft to a great degree? If it is, then couldn't a set of small, unmanned, stealthy aircrraft easily evade and even shoot down enemy manned fighters?

These current ones are smaller but future UCAVs will probably be a bit bigger but if they try to make them equal in capability to a manned fighter, they'll probably end up costing more... So you'll probably see them stay just a bit smaller than normal fighters so the proponents can claim they're still cheaper. :P

Stealth is affected by size to a pretty large degree. It's harder to hide a giant bomber than it is a fighter. One of the main points of radar reflection on a fighter is the cockpit because the radar goes straight through the plexiglass and can bounce off of all of the nice surfaces within. That's why you'll probably see the emergence of pod systems rather than clear cockpit.

And if their cheaper, couldn't we simply outnumber the enemy with these, perhaps having manned fighters backing them up..

That's one of the ideas. Swarm the enemy fighters (almost undoubtedly manned) with smaller and more maneuverable vehicles and if a few get blown out of the air, so what? One thing that you might see appear to help counter this is something like an airborne (and much smaller) version of the Phalanx automatic gun system installed on naval vessels.

Also how would they prevent it from killing civilians, friendlys? Will a human have to okay weapons usage?

We're not talking about totally autonomous UCAVs here with the AI from your favorite game. They are working on ones that can go on bombing missions by themselves and strike a designated target as a sort of bomb ferrier. Even then, they would be watched by a human operator with the ability to abort. Most UCAVs will simply be remotely controlled vehicles with operators on the ground. Humans have always had to ok weapons release and I highly doubt that will change any time soon.

What we'll probably see happening is the further development of UCAVs to the point where they can start replacing some manned fighters but also the development of manned fighters that can keep pace with the robots and very skilled pilots. One pilot in a manned vehicle controlling a flight, say 12, in a flying wedge formation. Four groups of three. Not only would this help to protect the pilot (and the other vehicles) but once combat was engaged the three groups could break apart to counter the enemy and then break even more with the computers on the ground and in the manned fighter directing to attack. What looks like one large and vulnerable bomber could suddenly break into many parts driving a tactical computer mad while dropping flares/chafe and firing missiles.

It's unlikely that you'll see full cannons on UCAVs due to the weight restrictions on such a small craft and the cost factor. Manned fighters will probably retain their cannons for the same reason that the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam needed them. When you're facing an enemy that has more, cheaper, and less important vehicles than you, one missile to take out something that cost half of what it did is a huge waste of materials and money. - Colt
 
Wonder how far Metal Storm are with their UCAV project, they have been testing some of their 40mm platforms on UGVs for quite a while now, there are many video clips of their live firing tests on this page.
ucav_film.jpg

Metal Storm UCAV, 48Mb High Res Mpeg
Metal Storm UCAV, 5.5Mb Real Video

ucav007.jpg

Apaches Reconnoiter the Target Area
ucav021.jpg

UCAVs are Called In
ucav022.jpg

Two UCAVs Respond
ucav024.jpg

Depiction of Pods on UCAV
ucav030.jpg

Operator Sends Coordinates to UCAVs
ucav032.jpg

UCAVs Fire With Precision
ucav039.jpg

Operation is over in Seconds
 
Interestnig idea. I'd forgotten about Metal Storm... could be one way to arm UCAVs with some sort of cannon. Their idea though is kind of odd... The recoil on that would be enourmous.
 
Well, the recoil definitely would be a problem for a UCAV; especially considering the rates of fire these pods can achieve, though its firing rates are fully programmable and could be adjusted to a level within the parameters the UCAV can tolerate.

For the UGVs this seems to be less of a problem; you can see some of their UGV firing tests where heavy weight rounds were used to test high levels of recoil.
Talon%202%20-%20March%202005%20demo.jpg

may4A2_firing.jpg

http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4A2_live_firing_1.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4A2_live_firing_2.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4A2_live_firing_3.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4A3_live_firing_5.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4A3_live_firing_6.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4A3_live_firing_7.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4A3_live_firing_8.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4B3_live_firing_3_side_s.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4B3_live_firing_4_side_s.zip
http://www.metalstorm.com/videos/may4B3_live_firing_7.zip

Enjoy.. :mrgreen:
 
I'm a bit mroe curious about the possibility of corporations being able to field their own militaries effectively.


Most soldiers wouldn't necessarily die for Microsoft (I hope not anyways...) yet what about Microsoft fielding its own corporate army staffed mostly by tech support and drones?
 
You still need fighter pilots even if you're going to make them autonomous. The computer has to learn from somewhere and it's doubtful that'll be from the tech guys programming it.

Metal Storm is a good concept with neat applications (AA, opening doors, sentry guns, etc.) but they won't ever replace normal firearms. If it does jam, you are screwed. You'd need to take it back to the factory to get the barrel to fire again or just eject it and lose quite a bit of your firepower. It's not a wonder weapon that a lot of people seem to think it will be. - Colt
 
Well, there have been a lot of improvements to their designs, now the barrels use a cylindrical charger which can be reloaded easily as you can see in this clip.

It looks like they are also going to employ this method on the VLE pistol. The VLE is a great concept but I am also still not convinced about the ballistics of their 9mm small arms compared to conventional rounds like 9mm parabellum; still its high rates of fire would compensate with greater fire volume.
IMO it has more potential in variable munitions delivery systems where it would prove to be a great advancement, especially in the role of area denial systems.
 
Hmm... The reloading system is a good thing, didn't know about that. Still, for an unmanned vehicle, it won't work very well since there won't be somewhere there to do that for it (and an automatic system would be more complex than just a normal gun).

The VLE is pretty impressive but even though they were touting it as a super pistol, it still clearly showed that it's going to be a specialized weapon for police forces and their like. I think in the end for Metal Storm, it's going to come down to being used in situations where it would kick total ass but it's very unlikely to replace standard firearms technology unless they come up with something simply extraordinary.

I still don't think they can overcome the problem of a shorter barrel being less accurate and less power. If they simply put more powder behind the first slugs, that will only cause more muzzleflash and no more energy. - Colt
 
Yeah, the barrel problem is another reason why I am not fully convinced of the effectiveness of this design for small arms applications; for heavy weapon, crewed and vehicle mounted systems however this becomes less of a problem as longer barrels could be employed.

As to the UCAV, I don't think an auto-loading system would be really necessary considering the number of pods that would carry an impressive amount of munitions already in place and ready to fire.

There is another interesting project I read about a while ago known as the DREAD, this is basically a centrifuge gun that propels metal balls of .308 or .50 caliber at speeds of 2440m/s; it offers the advantage of no recoil or muzzle flash and can deliver its payload at rates of 120,000rpm in the latest prototype.
vid_dread-2.jpg

vid_dread-3.jpg

There is a demo video clip available for download (18Mb, quicktime mov format) from defense review and fileplanet (need fileplanet registration to d/l). Unfortunately its all CGI, does not show you a working prototype until the end, and there you only see the projectiles striking the target. :(
 
Back
Top