Comments on: The Robot Plane Lives

By: joseph mercieca

joseph mercieca — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:31:47 +0000

I am a layman,and pardon my ignorance, but can a robot aircraft abort or delay a mission when something below is not right and robot cameras or sensors cannot “reason” it out or radio back to base telling somebody about it?

By: padmassun

padmassun — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:41:51 +0000

send me a book of robotics

By: ryan

ryan — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:12:41 +0000

this plane is awsome

By: ramjet75

ramjet75 — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:34:17 +0000

Someone mentioned making the drone a throw away deleivery mechanism so we don’t have to worry about it skipping a wire or two on the flight deck and killing someone. I like that idea but let’s take it a step further, Let’s make it a vertical take off and landing vechicle where we would save gas and lives. Plus if this was a throw-away, what price would the American taxpayer pay for a desposible aircraft? 26 million versus 50 million? I’d like some resuse out of it. And if we did make it a throw away, have it do a kamikaze into an enemy base?

By: techmanmacho

techmanmacho — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:36:31 +0000

Here is something even more basic to consider: For strike missions why are we even considering aircraft, robotic or otherwise, when a more sophisticated version of the Tomahawk will do the job just as good.
The idea of using unmanned aircraft has the “cool” factor, but why stop there? Take it to the next level and develop completely autonomous vehicles that can deliver payloads to targets and then “expire”? You can effectively double the range of your weapon and not have to worry about what it will to do to your flight deck or personnel if it decides to skip across the wires.
Sure it is not as simplistic as that, there are mission variables to think about, but considering the fact that we still have to bringing an aircraft back home doesn’t really solve the problem of limited force projection and the pilot’s relationship to the aircraft. UCAVs would improve that but why not take it to the next level?
Use unmanned, fire and forget missles that can be built to carry various payloads. I think the Army is experimenting (or maybe even using) THAD right now to do that. Why not use it for all applications?
It makes me wonder what the real reason was for the cancellation of the Arsenal ship program? Because it would have made conventional carriers obsolete.
The Navy does use aerial tankers. Currently Hornets outfitted with extra tanks and refueling probes are sent on station to refuel other Hornets. I believe Vikings and Greyhounds are capable of that as well but I am not sure. currently

By: demophilus

demophilus — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:16:04 +0000

A little history for the board, JIC you’re not familiar with it. USN has dabbled in surveillance and attack drones for a long time. If you’re interested, google terms like DASH or QH-50, Project Option, Special Task Air Group (aka, STAG-) 1, or TDR-1.
The USS Boxer launched drone attack missions during Korea using drone Hellcats. JFK’s brother Joe Jr. was killed piloting a drone Navy Liberator to cruise altitude during an attack program called Project APHRODITE.
Of course, those programs were one-way, attack programs: basically, guided missiles. Now we’re talking round trips. That’s very different.
Still, some of this has been a long time coming. Those interested in lessons learned (if only in the previous bureaucratic and funding squabbles) should take a look.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:10:08 +0000

The point about pilot attrition is most valid. It takes years to assemble a continuum of pilots in the pipeline and many dollars as well. We used to have a saying: “RPV (later UAV) pilots never made a landing we couldn’t walk away from”.
The cost/risk to pilots must be balanced by the cost of overhead and infrastructure to project force remotely. Predator and Global Hawk missions are child’s play compared to an integrated global strike mission or air campaign. It will be an interesting future.
Here’s some UAV controller trivia. The Human Factors folks at Brooks AFB did a study a couple of years ago that found ‘pilots’ were the most likely to crash a UAV compared to any other group tested. I think there were some apples and oranges compared in the mix, but it reinforced my anecdotal experience. Our group’s trainer used to tell candidates he took them “six mistakes high” on their first flight before turning the controls over to them. If the candidate was already a pilot he would take them “12 mistakes high” because they could do 6 stupid things before he could resume control.
Of course, that was for a system where the controller actually controlled the aircraft instead of hitting a button and waving bye-bye.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:08:51 +0000

Ah military culture. This quote is particularly striking:
“[T]he Navy

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:47:08 +0000

Couple of factoids to add to the mix.

By: cenobyte40k

cenobyte40k — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:24:02 +0000

The Navy really does need to get over itself on this one. I know that we need to test out carrier specific issues first, to do otherwise would be putting the cart before the horse. But these problems are mostly software, not hardware. You can start designing and building the aircraft you want to fly and ones you get the software issues figured out you can start rolling out the airwings.
The world we live in now is a lot faster than it was even 15 years ago, the DOD (And the govt as a whole) needs to start thinking of working much more quickly than it had.