Article

2005-03-04 Home Front: Tech

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 (=Cobra=) 2005-03-04 3:10:37 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Infidel answer to Moslem self-guided dumb bombs.

Posted by gromgorru 2005-03-04 10:01:00 AM|| 2005-03-04 10:01:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Worst news for F-22.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-04 10:12:12 AM|| 2005-03-04 10:12:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 10:18:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Saw that preview, Frank. As a friend said, "Johnny #5! NOOOO!!!"

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-03-04 10:23:41 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-03-04 10:23:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The way I see it, this fighter is vulnerable to jamming.

Posted by badanov 2005-03-04 10:23:51 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2005-03-04 10:23:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 10:29:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 How's the Skynet program coming along?

Posted by Steve White 2005-03-04 10:49:40 AM|| 2005-03-04 10:49:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 10:52:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-03-04 11:19:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 11:41:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 2:30:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 2:48:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 3:36:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-03-04 4:11:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Put this in classics. Thanks.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-04 4:38:06 PM|| 2005-03-04 4:38:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 That's the one Jackal.

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-04 8:00:54 PM|| 2005-03-04 8:00:54 PM|| Front Page Top

04:14 Iwillrapeyourmother
00:01 Sobiesky
23:59 CrazyFool
23:52 DMFD
23:45 Alaska Paul
23:40 Alaska Paul
23:36 Phil Fraering
23:36 BH
23:34 BH
23:23 Zhang Fei
23:10 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:07 Bomb-a-rama
22:58 JP
22:58 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:46 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:44 CrazyFool
22:42 Sobiesky
22:33 Classical_Liberal
22:13 CrazyFool
22:11 CrazyFool
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:02 Sheik Abu Bin Ali Al-Yahood
21:58 Bomb-a-rama
21:49 JosephMendiola