Article

2006-03-04 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by phil_b 2006-03-04 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A more detailed article.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-03-04 00:49|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-04 00:49|| Front Page Top

#2 even novices can pilot the craft with relative ease

There goes flight pay.

Posted by Visitor 2006-03-04 07:52|| 2006-03-04 07:52|| Front Page Top

#3 I have this mental image of a hunter sitting at home directing this mini-chopper over forest in search of Deer.
Then sending a remote-controlled four-wheeler with a winch to pick up the kill and carry it to a local butcher.
(Disclaimer, I don't hunt, but have nothing against those who do, But I do indeed love Science Fiction, if it's a possible scenario)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-03-04 08:53|| 2006-03-04 08:53|| Front Page Top

#4 Definitely first generation. The first thing I would add would be microprocessor stabilization control, both for flight guidance and for targetting. That would really improve the critical 'arrival on scene to effective firing' time, when the enemy is trying to shoot back. This could also have a 'bug-out' feature so that after the target has been engaged, the copter would automatically go into an evasive maneuver mode, along with withdrawing a bit to make it less of a target.

Then you could use three small ranging cameras, preset at long, medium and short range, that would auto-select once the target was acquired at long range.

These two things would not contribute much to weight, would use off the shelf technology, and would increase survivability.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-04 09:17|| 2006-03-04 09:17|| Front Page Top

#5 Lose the shotgun, add this.

Posted by DMFD 2006-03-04 09:39|| 2006-03-04 09:39|| Front Page Top

#6 Ignore my previous posting - DUMB idea.

Posted by DMFD 2006-03-04 09:51|| 2006-03-04 09:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Prithee it is said "A sawyer always wins the pot"

Posted by 6 2006-03-04 12:27|| 2006-03-04 12:27|| Front Page Top

#8 The first thing I would add would be microprocessor stabilization control, both for flight guidance and for targetting

'moose, a neural net is an intelligent software program that learns from feedback. This mini-copter already has what you want ... See how quickly Neural Robotics updated their design to meet your spec? :-)

Posted by lotp 2006-03-04 13:11|| 2006-03-04 13:11|| Front Page Top

#9 lotp: Isn't it bizarre how quick this stuff gets around? But if they're going to go that route, I wonder if they will use swarm AI and use these helicopters in squadrons?

With a larger model with bigger weapons systems, I could imagine them deployed like helicopter armored cav is today. Essentially like a 3D light cavalry deployments as they used them back in Napoleonic times.

Such light cav units just play hell on infantry, make for good reconnaisance in force, screening maneuvers and flank attacks.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-04 16:28|| 2006-03-04 16:28|| Front Page Top

#10 lotp: Isn't it bizarre how quick this stuff gets around? But if they're going to go that route, I wonder if they will use swarm AI and use these helicopters in squadrons?

Maybe at some point, but I don't think it's a priority right now. There are several projects well along for swarms of mini-missiles, however. The swarm AI has them constantly recomputing who is best positioned to take out the designated targets at any given time, so that when some are lost the others don't lose mission focus.

But as far as I know, gunships will continue to be remote controlled for firing.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-04 16:35|| 2006-03-04 16:35|| Front Page Top

#11 At $50,000 a copy {mass-production price}, that means that you could have 10,000 of them for $500 million or the cost of 125 Strykers. You could blacken the sky in an area with them, and with a psyops broadcast plane playing Flight of the Valkeries at full volume, you could really screw with people's heads --- just before removing them with a blast of buckshot.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-03-04 16:38|| 2006-03-04 16:38|| Front Page Top

#12 Its the autonomous aspect thats interesting. You could use it to search an area for hostiles without tying up an operator (or one operator could control several). When it found someone, a red light would start flashing back at where ever its controlled from and the operator makes a decision on what to do.

BTW, my research said small helicopters are inherently unstable in turbulent air. Although I suspect the problem is solvable in software.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-03-04 16:38|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-04 16:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Geeks and Buck Rogers be damned. In the end it still takes, boots on the ground, a man with a rifle and the will to kill the enemy. If a fraction of the hundreds of millions of USD DARPA spends each year on cyber systems went to SOF and the infantry, we might have run out of targets long ago.

Posted by Ebbish Unomong4222 2006-03-04 16:47|| 2006-03-04 16:47|| Front Page Top

#14 Costs a lot to train and equip one SOF member, EU. And suitable candidates aren't exactly commonplace - the range and depth of skills needed are substantial. But then I know you know that ... ;-)

Equipment can be mass-produced once it is designed and tested. Also, there are a lot of things that it's desireable to have equipment do instead of people - I didn't hear anyone complain that the robots that went into the Afghan caves were putting soldiers out of work ...

Boots on the ground are the center of our Army and will be on into the future. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't put the most sophisticated, capable systems at that soldier's disposal. AARs make it pretty clear that our SOF were pleased to be backed up with Predators carrying Hellfires in Afghanistan, along with other gizmos they had with them personally. And it won't be long before we'll be seeding areas with micro-sensors that give tactical recon a whole new dimension.

It's not for nothing that the SOF guy who was my colleague recently - a short R&R type assignment between field operations - also has a graduate degree in computer science.

But your main point about the soldier being central is and will be absolutely correct IMO. SOF and all who serve, especially in the combat branches, have my deepest respect, admiration and gratitude.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-04 17:15|| 2006-03-04 17:15|| Front Page Top

#15 Don't forget these devices are inherently disposable, unlike the lives of real soldiers.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-03-04 17:50|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-04 17:50|| Front Page Top

#16 Shieldwolf: I think you are *so* right with the "vast numbers" concept for the future of war. There are so many combat systems that if mass-produced cheaply could have an overwhelming impact on land, at sea, and in the air.

Imagine something cheap and cheerful, a pair of wings and an engine that could be clamped onto a 250-lb iron bomb. With a simple GPS guidance to get them to where you want them to be. And then you launch 10,000 such flying bombs at once.

Once in the air, even if you took out their GPS guidance satellite, they could "best guess" to their target based on some reliable algorithyms.

They already have something like this, that is, winged bombs that can glide a long distance to their targets with GPS; but only when dropped from an aircraft.

The difference is expense. If you want 10,000, you want them as cheap as can be. To be satisfied with their just doing their job, not be an expensive perfectionist about it.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-04 18:18|| 2006-03-04 18:18|| Front Page Top

#17 Volume buys not only low cost, but, for a small incremental cost, simplicity of design, high quality and reliability. The learnign curve is a wonderful ride.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-04 18:26|| 2006-03-04 18:26|| Front Page Top

#18 nanos as far as mine eye can seee!! »:-)

Posted by RD 2006-03-04 18:29|| 2006-03-04 18:29|| Front Page Top

#19 LOL, SW - beautiful visual, lol.

Posted by .com 2006-03-04 18:30|| 2006-03-04 18:30|| Front Page Top

00:00 Skidmark
23:51 Rafael
23:30 Alaska Paul
23:28 Frank G
23:16 Alaska Paul
23:12 Frank G
23:12 newc
23:11 anymouse
23:09 Alaska Paul
22:54 Captain America
22:46 .com
22:40 Anonymoose
22:29 Lone Ranger
22:24 Frank G
22:00 JosephMendiola
21:53 .com
21:50 gromgoru
21:47 gromgoru
21:46 gromgoru
21:40 JosephMendiola
21:39 gromgoru
21:37 .com
21:24 Jinegum Flaish2343
21:21 gromgoru