Slashdot Mirror
Unmanned Combat Aircraft
An AC sent in a link to a Jane's article about unmanned fighter aircraft, including some designed for carrier operations. (See older story.) Funny, everyone always thought it would be the tanks that were unmanned.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
However, I'm sure that the designers of UCAV will use techniques designed to mitigate any attempt to jam the control signals for the UCAV.
The only really effective way to stop UCAV's other than a lucky shot by ground-based rapid-fire cannon is to detonate a low-yield (around 1 to 4 kT) nuclear warhead at very high altitude (e.g. around 25 km altitude). The EMP from the nuclear blast will effectively jam all communications between the ground controller and the UCAV, though the EMP effects would also jam the communications for the defenders, too.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Reasons why the government continues to build weapons:
If a potential enemy knows that it's going to get its ass whipped, what are the chances of it picking a fight? Better weapons increase the chances of this perception taking root. Better weapons are therefore good. Myself, I prefer fewer conflicts over more anyday.
At the most extreme level, consider the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: it may sound grim, but it's also kept the world's trigger fingers away from the nukes for the last 40 years.
More lethality, increased standoff ranges, decreased response times, more integration, etc. are reasons why the armed forces wants the newest and latest toys. These reasons are important because, bottom line, the more advantages our soldiers have, the more soldiers will be alive after the next conflict (e.g. the Gulf War).
Take the M-16 rifle. US infantrymen were still learning the ins and outs of using and taking care of the new M-16 rifle while they were fighting in Vietnam. Result: hundreds of soldiers KIA from having a jammed weapon at exactly the wrong time. Introducing and learning how to use the newest and latest wonder hardware before we get into a fight will save lives.
Some weapons systems take way too long to procure and build to wait until we're near another conflict. The Navy's surface combatants and carriers take years to build, not to mention the time spent in their development phases. Start building Seawolf and Virginia class attack submarines now, and in 15 years we won't be stuck with obsolescent Los Angeles class SSNs when China finally gets around to taking military action against Taiwan.
So for those who don't know the scoop, all the planes that will be replaced by newer ones such as these go up for sale to countries that we have "erratic" ties to like Afghanistan.
More likely, they'll end up going to allies like Taiwan or Egypt, who could use the upgrades for their decaying militaries and we have no problems with selling to. Osama bin Laden's weapons came from the Soviet Afghanistan War, when the mujahedeen were our nominal allies then. Ditto for Iraq in the 1980s against Iran, who had fired on US ships and taken US diplomats hostage.
All these new toys for warfare when people are starving, and our economy slowing tanking. Thanks alot Dumbya.
Okay, you obviously missed A) the economic news that the US economy just grew by 2% and B) that the Fed is cutting interest rates like crazy. I'm not exactly sure how you think the few million dollars could be better spent to help the economy anyways. Monetary policy has been shown to be far superior in prodding the economy along than meager government spending changes.
And pardon me for sounding like a cold-hearted fascist conservative, but throwing money at poor people does not, in the long run, make them any better off! You'd think, after 3+ decades of the welfare state, that people would reconsider using big government as a solution to social and moral ills. Apparently bad ideas, like bad bosses, never go away.
If you were talking about foreign aid (especially to help starving people, a la Ethiopia and Somalia), it's notoriously bad for getting hijacked, commandeered by local warlords, and pocketed by corrupt bureaucrats. Also, consider this: the defense budget is a pittance to what the US government spends in entitlements, corporate subsidies, entitlements, interest towards the national debt, and entitlements. Did I mention entitlements? Sacred Cow programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are using up two-thirds of government expenditures. I wouldn't be worrying about the millions we spend developing UCAVs.
To paraphrase: don't be worrying about our President's education until you check your own noggin.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
UCAV is old news -- a 40-year-old dream finally being realized. Now Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are a more recent and much more interesting dream that is also being realized.
If you think I'm joking take a peek at the following.
geek
new
UMich
And my favorite, check out his Darpa funding: Quinn
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Although the article primarily focuses on new UCAVs been developed for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Precision Strike missions, the Air Force is currently working on a plan to convert their existing fleet of Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from a reconnaissance to an anti-tank mission
In Febuary, the Predator successfully acquired, launched, and "destroyed" a target using a Hellfire-C anti-tank missile. Phase II, when approved, will contain further challenges for the Predator, to include firing at a higher operational altitude and moving targets.
The Predator has already proved itself a valuable assest in its primary role in locations such as Bosnia, it will be interesting to see how well the Predator can adapt to a more lethal mode.
More information can be found here: Predator missile launch test totally successful
"To travel the paths of human imagination you have to be willing to unlearn all you know"
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
won't EMP kill the onboard control systems too? if defenders switch to hardened cables, or line of sight lasers for comm, this could be an effective counter to the whole concept...
-- taiji technologies, making ch'i quarks for the new age chalanged
Will these be able to perform sharper turns without a pilot? My dad, who is a radar specialist, says that missiles can pull 27Gs because they have no pilot to pass out. How about flight time, or reflexes in dodging fire and choosing a target?
We'll have toys fighting toys - He who dies with the most wins! So we have unmanned tanks being shot at by unmanned AV's, being shot at by automated SAM sites, which is fine, until someone runs out of toys. Then a human shoots back at the UAV, and then what?? Right back into conventional war as soon as the toys are gone. Better living through technology. But there's always the possibility that war breaks out and no one shows up...
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
The Laws of Robotics:
1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Ok.... that frist one would make this whole "bomb people" objective pretty difficult. I'm sure this is revisable. "A Robot may not injure a United States citizen or ally, or through inaction allow such a person to come to harm. Unless of course we tell it to, or it compelling circumstance as defined by the United States Government, constituent bodies of such government, or the random whims of the vice chair of the senate committee on national defence.... other circumstace may be defined...."
Sigh.... "open the bomb bay doors Hal..."
This has been another useless post from....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.