| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| The Ascent of the Robotic Attack Jet |
| 2005-03-04 |
Compared to many aeronautical curiosities that have taken wing at NASAs Dryden Flight Research Center at Californias Edwards Air Force Base over the years, the latest military test stunts did not appear very remarkable. Last April, a low-slung aircraft, about the size of a sport utility vehicle but with batlike wings similar to those of the B-2 stealth bomber, took off, flew at 10,500 meters and then dropped a 110-kilogram inert precision bomb while zipping along at 700 kilometers per hour. Four months later, a pair of the aircraft took off and flew together. These were modest stunts, to be sure, except for this fact: the jets have no pilots. They are the future of warfare, the first working models of networked autonomous attack jets, and the U.S. Department of Defense would like to start building them by 2010. Eventually such planes will be military mainstays. Of this, most observers are sure; it is simply a lot less expensiveand saferto send machines into battle than to send people, who require food, sleep, training, and pay. Humans can only tolerate so much G-force and are prone to error; unmanned aircraft have the potential to be more dependable. Already, lone unmanned planeswith humans at the remote controlsare widely used for surveillance. But the next crop of planes will fly in coordinated groups, with more autonomy. Theyll tackle jobs such as attacking enemy air defenses, identifying new targets, and releasing precision bombs. The long-range vision is that the president will wake up some day and decide he doesnt like the cut of someones jib and send thither infinite numbers of myrmidonsrobotic warriorsand that we could wage a war in which we wouldnt put at risk our precious skins is how John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a leading defense policy website, puts it. . . . . In recent years, unmanned planes have proven themselves in war. For example, the Predator, a medium-altitude surveillance plane made by General Atomics, debuted in Bosnia and then served in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Global Hawk, made by Northrop Grumman, has been flying high-altitude reconnaissance missions for years. Meanwhile, Northrop has built and flown another unmanned prototype, called Pegasus, and shown that it could land on an aircraft carrier. But the Pentagons massive push for robotic attack planes began in earnest in 2003. Thats when the Pentagon set up the NorthropBoeing competition and established a seven-year timetable to develop versions suitable for the air force and navy. Boeings version is called X-45; a scaled-down prototype is what dropped the inert bomb last year, and a full-size model is under construction. Northrops version is called X-47; it builds on the Pegasus, and the next generation model is still under development. The X-45 is geared more to high-speed air force attacks, and the X-47 to naval reconnaissance and carrier landings. In both cases, the largest prototypes* are supposed to take their first test flights within two years. (Amid the current budgetary uncertainty, DARPA declined to make its researchers available for comment. Comments from DARPA officials in this story come from agency transcripts of presentations the officials made last year.) Its not yet clear how many of which version the Pentagon might eventually want to buy. In that important way, this effort differs from the intense, winner-take-all competition to build the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, widely seen as the last manned fighter jet. Boeing lost the F-35 competition to Lockheed Martin in 2001. It caused [Boeing] to skip a whole generation of fighter aircraft, after being the foremost fighter aircraft supplier, says Paul Nisbet, an aerospace industry watcher at JSA Research in Newport, RI. Boeings initial pair of scaled-down X-45s have already proved themselves in several initial demonstrations. In 2003, BoeÂÂing passed one milestone, showing how the planes ground controllers could coordinate flight plans with conventional air-traffic controllers and modify the X-45s flight plan as needed. Then, in 2004, Boeings X-45s demonstrated a few more tricksdeploying inert bombs and, critically, demonstrating that its ground controllers could hand off the wireless yoke to another station nearly 1,400 kilometers away while the plane was in the air. Finally, Boeing showed that a single ground controller could control two X-45s. And Boeing has anotherperhaps more importantace in the hole. The Pentagon already considers Boeing its lead systems integrator for a development project called Future Combat Systems. This megaÂÂproject is supposed to yield 18 kinds of sensor-riddled combat vehicles and the adÂÂvanced communications technologies to link soldiers with vehicles, planes, robots, and each other. This program is also likely to get scaled back as part of a new round of Pentagon cuts; the new emphasis will be on adding technology to existing vehicles. Still, both of these programs are talking about putting robots on the battlefield, says Pike. Boeing has looked at it and basically said, Its the future. They are the lead company for robots on the ground battlefield, and theyve staked out a pretty tall position for aerial robots. But Boeing and Northrop recognize that the current program isnt about who can build the best plane. Before, we were looking at building the best platform, says William Body, a Boeing manager for business development at the companys R&D outpost, Phantom Works, based in Saint Louis, MO. Now we are looking at creating the system-of-systems. Well have unmanned planes, well have core technologies. But the endgame here is a network-centric endgame. Scary! I imagine 100+ killer robots swooping over the battlefield, providing air support and intel! Nice to have but I hope it never gets in the wrong hands. I think Humans would still dominate in Jungle,Mountain,and urban warefare, atleast longer. |
| Posted by:(=Cobra=) |
| #16 That's the one Jackal. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-03-04 8:00:54 PM |
| #15 Put this in classics. Thanks. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-04 4:38:06 PM |
| #14 And the total world market for computers is 50 machines (original estimate by IBM I think). While software (and to a lesser extent electronics) is incredibly expensive to develop, its free to replicate. So any software driven system scales really easily. You have to think in terms of a lot of them. Tie this is with long duration flight and you launch a 100 autonomous vehicles, the first one flies to its target, gets shot down, fried, whatever, then the next one flies to target, and the next, until target is destroyed. Remaining vehicles then repeat on next target on list. Warfare is no longer about mass and overwhelming force. Its about selectively destroying things over time until your opponent gives up. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-03-04 4:11:36 PM |
| #13 More and more in robotics, I try to remind myself to "think outside the box". So far, when you think robotic aircraft, people typically think of only three kinds: reconnaisance, bomber, and fighter. But there are a lot more aircraft missions than this. Ideas A rescue helicopter that can carry people, but doesn't need a pilot, only a transponder signal. A cargo fixed wing or helicopter that can transport huge amounts of material 24/7, for air drop (a robotic guided parachute just came out) or ground landing. Unmanned robotic balloons that give high altitude surveillance over a wide area. Radar jamming drones and inexpensive decoy aircraft that are just an engine, fuel tank and shell. And what about very small aircraft? One idea is called a "crateful of bees". Carpenter bee-sized robots that fly in a "swarm" to attack enemy in a cave, in defenses or out in the open. A pencil-eraser sized piece of C-5 plastique is about as strong as a half stick of dynamite. A few hundred of such "bees" could take out as many enemy as a B-52 strike. DARPA is working on such things. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-03-04 3:36:52 PM |
| #12 Badanov,I'm w/you. The Us has a tremendous lead in the field,and it is a new technology. Soon,someone is going to build a way to stop them(Russia,French,whoever.) The weakness that will be exploited is their need to constantly communicate w/remote pilots. Big Ed spoke of them as being reusable cruise missiles-true for preplanned missions. But if they were tasked to ground support,someone is going to have to communicate where friendlies are and where hostiles are,and they are going to want confirmation that the RPV has the proper understanding of who's where. After the Patriots mistakenly fired upon and often locked up coalition a/c in recent war,I don't know too many people who are going to allow SEAD missions to be carried out by RPVs that can fire whenever the RPV detects a threat,w/out having a remote human approving target-again need for com.(The first time an RPV returning from mission gets lit up by friendly radar,decides it is threatened and fires off a Harm is going to put a human back in loop.) No matter how fast the message is sent,there will be delay while human "reads",makes decision and responds,providing 2 datum points,enough to launch a SAM w/electronic emission sensors for getting into area,and possib infrared for final tracking of target.There will be jamming from multiple ground installations w/multiple transmitters. And let's not imagine someone inventing an EMP rocket.(If you have a low tech country-say Iran-and you knew that a wave of US cruise missiles and RPVs was heading your way-from observers in fishing boats,electronic monitoring,CNN-wouldn't it make sense to detonate an EMP in your border regions and hopefully fry the brains of US strike.) For the near future and in low-threat enviroments,RPVs are fine. But I don't want to put all my eggs in one basket. Too often airpower enthusiasts promise far more than can be delivered.(Anyone remember the pre-WW2 mantra,the bomber will always get thru? The self-defending heavy bomber? Bomber Harris stating that if he had enough Lancasters,the Germans would surrender and the only thing the Army would have to do was accept that surrender? The Army Air Corps telling everyone that there would be no need for invasion of Europe,because strategic bombing would knock Germany out of the war? How first jets,then missiles were going to make dogfights obsolete? How nuclear bombs were going to end wars betwen nations? The computer studies that showed 1 F-15 could shoot down some 700+ Migs,leading one General to say we'd only need 3,1 in Europe,1 in Pacific and one to train on? RPVs will become increasingly expensive-esp.since mostly software driven-and the performance benefits from not having to carry humans may be found wanting in the flexability humans crews bring,esp.the many times thru aerial warfare a pilot saw something that looked "funny",attacked and discovered some unknown major target. Until such time there are optical sensors and processors that can match the incredible ability of the human eye/brain combo in seeing and proceessing info,PRVs will depend on seeing by emitting and thus be vulnerable. (BTW,that was not a shot at F-15s,it was at theory being used to ignore reality. I fully realize actual F-15 combat performance in air-to air is better,@80+kills for NO losses. And the one intense day or so of combat resulted in 40-0. Altho,smaller,cheaper F-16 had 44-0 score during that same intense day :) |
| Posted by: Stephen 2005-03-04 2:48:29 PM |
| #11 It should have a slit on the front with a red light slowly going back and forth... |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-03-04 2:30:07 PM |
| #10 robotic jet goes AWOL and starts attacking US targets (CVN's, Wash DC monuments, etc. I first read this as attacking CNN rather than CVN and thought "so what's the problem?" As much as I enjoy berserk robot scenarios, SteveS' First Law of Robotics states that all machines must have an off switch. Puts an end to these Terminator-like episodes. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-03-04 11:41:42 AM |
| #9 Shipman: I believe you are thinking of the [spit] Lockheed D-21 Tagboard. Is anyone using Firefox able to get the little buttons to work? I really hate having to type the "a href=" stuff by paw. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-03-04 11:19:27 AM |
| #8 Whicher was the one that the SR-71 used to fly to the edge of Red China and cut loose... the black bat looking thing? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-03-04 10:52:39 AM |
| #7 How's the Skynet program coming along? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-03-04 10:49:40 AM |
| #6 It's not a fighter, more of a stealth attack jet. The mission criteria is pre-programmed and does not need to be controlled from afar. The only problem is that if it is spotted, it doesn't have the sensors or intelligence to evade. Think of it as a reusable cruise missile. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-03-04 10:29:39 AM |
| #5 The way I see it, this fighter is vulnerable to jamming. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-03-04 10:23:51 AM |
| #4 Saw that preview, Frank. As a friend said, "Johnny #5! NOOOO!!!" |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-03-04 10:23:41 AM |
| #3 saw a preview for some dumb movie coming out this summer(?) where a robotic jet goes AWOL and starts attacking US targets (CVN's, Wash DC monuments, etc.) and human pilots have to go try and bring it down. I guess they never thought about quitting refueling/rearming it....duh.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-04 10:18:53 AM |
| #2 Worst news for F-22. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-04 10:12:12 AM |
| #1 Infidel answer to Moslem self-guided dumb bombs. |
| Posted by: gromgorru 2005-03-04 10:01:00 AM |