Heating up the UAV debate again, a mid-April experiment demonstrated that a battle-damaged combat drone could deal with the simulated hit and land autonomously within a few feet of its intended touch-down point.
Defense Tech readers will remember the argument made by retired Air Force colonel Tom Ehrhard a couple weeks ago that the Navy should be concentrating more on developing combat UAVs in order to maintain the persistence over the battlefield that every ground commander is asking for.
Ironically, the flight test sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Agency and conducted at Aberdeen proving ground on April 19 used a scaled down version of an F/A-18. Engineers created the in-flight damage by ejecting an aileron from the drones wing. The navigation systems and in-flight controls adjusted, bringing the pilotless plane safely back to Earth.
A release from the flight control systems developer, Athena Technologies Inc., stated:
Damage tolerance is an enabling capability for increasing the mission reliability of UAVs and Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) operating in hazardous and high-threat environments. The technology provides for real-time autonomous accommodation of damage, followed by an adaptation process that alters the flight control system to compensate for the effects of the damage.
Watch the in-flight videos of the experiment HERE and HERE.
Admittedly, this is a small step with a limited impact on just one area of concern over the UCAV concept. But its steps like these that could bring aerial robot wars to our enemys skies sooner than one might imagine.
(Gouge: NC)
What a ridiculous experiment!
They could have done it in a simulator…the result was simple to predict.
By the way — battle damage is something else than simple loss of parts. The remaining parts are deformed, electrical and hydraulical lines disconnected and uncommon vibrations happen.
All I can say is, somebody has a fun hobby at work.
But regarding the second video, was the F-18 ‘Mini-me’ supposed to loose it’s right rear wheel during take-off? At least I think it came off, it’s a bit grainy.
.
Instead of developing the UCAV just build a bunch of these mini F-18, and drop them over bad guy territory to fly into stuff… I’m kidding, kidding… maybe?
Sven, this was a “proof of concept” sort of experiment, which couldn’t be reliably proven without a field test (external stimulus, actual physics to contend with). more than likely it had already run through a simulator. nobody shows off video games as a proof of concept.
with these experiments, one has to move in increments. you don’t send off the first test in an actual high-threat environment with more variables than you need. the method simply isn’t scientific. the next tests will probably include an embedded explosive or perhaps a nearby airburst.
I guess in someways it’s step one…
However.. more ‘structural’ air craft design is getting more complex. New air craft are becoming more reliant on ‘software’ to fly themselves due to complex structure design. They used an example with a ‘proven’ design (F-18?) which was designed ‘mechanical’ controls which are much more reliable in my opinion. Mechanical air craft have backups. Will UAV’s and ‘software’ jets have a 2nd ‘backup’ processor on board?
The F-22 Went y2k… I’d be very concerned if 1 chip gets blasted off in combat…
Recovery of UAV’s is very important in my opinion… if communication chips were recovered by the ‘enemy’ after shooting down a UAV, you could be handing over your wireless ‘access codes’ and lose control or be fed incorrect information.
I’d say this is very much a ‘proof of concept’ as it isn’t using any modern air frames, very little battle damage, and as someone pointed out.. no deformity of the craft.
True… you don’t want to send 1000 variables at a ‘proof of concept’ unless you already have a very solid idea and are trying to impress everyone!
Do modern systems have backup electronics? Yes, of course they do. Would we lose all COMSEC if one of them crashed in enemy hands? No. There’s simple reasons why. In that case, there are other issues anyways that are a factor — like inadvertent technology transfer.
One major added benefit of UAV’s is even once they become obsolete technology wise and are thrown in those dark warehouses or desert storage fields they will still be a viable weapon system fo the most dangerous missions we don’t want to splat our top notch stuff on.
Imagine 50yrs from now pics of those desert storage yards not as scrap parts and the occational target drone but high risk hard target strike platforms. Why sacrifise on top notch fighter attacking a hardened target when you could instead splat 5 or 10 40yr old obsolete drones?
One major added benefit of UAV’s is even once they become obsolete technology wise and are thrown in those dark warehouses or desert storage fields they will still be a viable weapon system fo the most dangerous missions we don’t want to splat our top notch stuff on.
Imagine 50yrs from now pics of those desert storage yards not as scrap parts and the occational target drone but high risk hard target strike platforms. Why sacrifice on top notch fighter attacking a hardened target when you could instead splat 5 or 10 40yr old obsolete drones?
I am not sure why or how I double posted only did the confirm number onces
Sorry thou.
Way to go! Its not hard to imagine that in the future., America won’t be sending any wetware into battle. All robots controlled from home.
Africamafia
I don’t think the US will or should go all robot army anytime soon or even I would dare for a very very long time. Electronics fail and or can be jammed, hacked, overall disrupted. Unmanned vehicles will bring alot of added benefit but to put all our abilities in one basket dependent on signals and communications wuould be very dangerous. A easy example would be a war with say China or Russia were we could very realistically lose half our Sats over theater including those all important communication and GPS sats that Unmanned Vehicles rely on.
Good Morning Folks,
From the sounds I’m hearing it appears that there is some doubt that UAV’s might not happen, wake up and smell the roses. Both the Navy and Air Force are LOSING PERSONAL and are training ground combat support units with there excess personal.
The X-47 was so successful for the Navy at Carriers TO’s and Traps that the software for this is being installed into ALL CARRIER FIXED WING AIRCRAFT, a successful first landing everytime. The results of Fire Fox are not yet conclusive but rotary wing pilots may be next along just for the ride.
The X-45 did so well in hands off refuling that this has become the standard procedure for pulling up to a tanker and getting fueled. It has reduced the apporach and hook up time by about 20%. Shorter pit stops equal more time on station.
Note for new officers don’t pick aviation as a carreer path, it may end before you do.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I’ve often thought that converting the F-117 to a drone. They’re keeping them sound in NM for a reason. Bought & paid for and we got ~60 of them.