Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Air Force Commits to Micro Air Vehicle

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the expensive-toy-planes dept.

Looks like the Air Force is committing to full scale production of their new "Wasp III" mini-UAV. "Weighing in at a mere 1 pound, the plane's diminutive 29-inch wingspan can still loft a variety of hefty payloads in addition to its infrared cameras that stream video directly to ground control. The Wasp is launched by hand and can be operated either manually or programmed for auto-pilot with autonomous GPS navigation, according to AeroVironment. The Wasp III is part of Air Force's Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle program (BATMAV), which will allow troops to scan enemy targets from 5 kilometers away for up to 45 minutes at a time, according to the company."

44 comments

  1. They are priced at.. by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 1

    $49.99 at your local Radio Shack.

    1. Re:They are priced at.. by no_pets · · Score: 3, Funny

      USAF will be paying $49,990 for them.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    2. Re:They are priced at.. by Fry-kun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they will get the source code and lifetime warranty, for that price.

      --
      Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
  2. Fitting quote.... by DaTFooLCaSS · · Score: 0

    ...from the bottom of the page You are not dead yet. But watch for further reports.

  3. Small soldiers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    These micro vehicles will be driven by tiny soldiers I presume.

    1. Re:Small soldiers. by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The reason modern military aircraft are so large, is so they can fit the pilots ego.

    2. Re:Small soldiers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what do you think Hasbro and DARPA have been doing with G.I. Joe all these years?

  4. they failed it by zogger · · Score: 1

    So close, but no cigar. Vehicle should have been Nanovehicle.

    1. Re:they failed it by m4ximusprim3 · · Score: 1

      Na na na na na na na na, Na na na na na na na na!

  5. Forget sharks with lasers by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

    small toy airplanes with rocket launchers and bombs!

  6. Peh Article by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    >"Weighing in at a mere 1 pound, the plane's diminutive 29-inch wingspan can still loft a variety of hefty payloads..."

    No, it can't. For example, it won't have the capacity to carry weapons or even a very good video camera. It won't have a long-range transmitter. Because it's lightweight.

    Like the article...

    --
    You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
    1. Re:Peh Article by Entropius · · Score: 1

      You can make a pretty good lightweight video camera, especially if you mainly want to use it outdoors.

  7. Who Wouldn't Want One? by mthomp16 · · Score: 1

    I mean, having your own little spy plane? Find out what's going on in traffic, see what the neighbors are doing, and so much more. I wish I could get one.

    1. Re:Who Wouldn't Want One? by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      If you seriously want to pay the price, you might consider the Draganflyer V Ti PRO RC Gyro Stabilized Electric Helicopter With High Res Color Video Camera System

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Who Wouldn't Want One? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Civilian UAVs will be getting a lot more common soon. This is just one early example.

  8. batteries by primadd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've looked into the idea of building one of the micro copters demonstrated at the chaos computer club camp in 2007.
    (see: http://microdrones.de/) But I have been unable to find any kind of power source that would allow me to fly for 45 minutes. About 15-20 minutes is the maximum with good batteries if you want carry a small camera as well. Looked into solar (not enough. each motor takes up to 15 amps @ ~20v iirc) and fuel cell (far too heavy and expensive).

    What kind of power source could you use besides fuel, which is far too loud for inner city usage.

    --
    free customizable social bookmarking widget for your site!
    at the moment there are 7 different styles and 2 GPL'ed plugins available
    account creation optional, feedback more than welcome

    1. Re:batteries by primadd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is a demonstration video

    2. Re:batteries by witte · · Score: 1

      Interesting video.
      (Although I have to admit that when seeing those naked rotors, my first thought was "Manhacks!")

    3. Re:batteries by IdeaMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a very large difference in efficiency between helis and fixed wings. Try switching to a high glide ratio fixed wing aircraft and run power consumption calculations on that. There were several project that used solar, including a NASA one that was designed for indefinite solar powered flight.

      Another good candidate to get more range from a vehicle that small is Microwave power, although it's more oriented towards larger get up high and loiter type drones.

      I'd be more interested in what optics solution they're using to get decent intel out of a unit that small. They'd have to have some sort of image stabilization, and the engine better be mounted on a decent cushion to kill vibration. Are there any sensors that would fit in a package that small that can see through walls?

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    4. Re:batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you speak German this is the presentation http://chaosradio.ccc.de/23c3_m4v_1402.html cheers

  9. watch for them in skys above you by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

    Watch for them is the sky coming to your neighbourhood soon. this message brought to you by the dept. of Homeland security.

  10. Yeah, about that... by Nysem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These sound like nothing more than Airhogs (For those who even know what they are) with cameras and sensors, among other gadgets, attached to it. Personally...I'd like one.

  11. The enemies response..... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    So, the enemy lofts up their own(except they really DID go to radio shack!) with some C-4 and a hand full of BBs taped around it, flies close and detonates.

    Done deal.

    1. Re:The enemies response..... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      And they can even detonate using that extra channel usually used for the landing gear, since, presumably, landing gear will not be needed in the foreseeable future.

    2. Re:The enemies response..... by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

      Ya. Hobbyists beware. If a bunch of middle eastern guys show up and want you to teach them how to fly RC aircraft, but aren't interested in learning how to land the aircraft, best call the FBI.

      --
      Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
    3. Re:The enemies response..... by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      Right, cause those guys will stop spying on MLK on a dime and go check out real threats?

      yeah, like in what Universe?

      AIK

    4. Re:The enemies response..... by CompMD · · Score: 1

      You make it sound so easy, but clearly you have never tried to spot an airplane. At just a few hundred feet you will not see or hear an aircraft like this, even in a cloudless, sunny sky. I was trained in the operation of the AV Raven, and once that thing is 20 seconds away from you, you can't see or hear it.

    5. Re:The enemies response..... by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1

      So, the enemy lofts up their own...

      Eagles! Some crack troops trained in falconry, a good eagle breeding program and problem solved. It's probably not even necessary to mount lasers on them!

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
  12. Sweet! by planckscale · · Score: 1
    These are nice. I think as soon as the troops, especially in Afghanistan, receive contact from the enemy, they should launch these drones. There has to be a better way to locate enemy mortar teams and small arms fire. For example, if firebases can get even a good estimation of where mortar fire is coming from, launch a couple of these, track down the source and call in the air power! It would be great to have IR sensors on them as well to locate heat signatures as well.

    --
    Namaste
    1. Re:Sweet! by triso · · Score: 1

      ...It would be great to have IR sensors on them as well to locate heat signatures as well.

      Most modern digital video cameras are sensitive to IR. Flash your TV's remote control at your web-cam to see this.

  13. Gaming community called it by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    So I guess the GRAW series and Call of Duty 4 got it right by simulating the effect small UAV devices would have in combat.

    1. Re:Gaming community called it by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Those are games, not simulations. Even if they were simulations, they'd be cheesy COTS simulations. Strangely, an entire world exists outside video games, and if one's horizon is so limited as to only have video games in his life, he might be misled by his experience to think that video games have anything to do with weapons development.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Gaming community called it by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Those are games, not simulations. Even if they were simulations, they'd be cheesy COTS simulations.
      No shit! You say that games are commercial and off the shelf! Wow, what a revelation (rolls eyes)

      Strangely, an entire world exists outside video games, and if one's horizon is so limited as to only have video games in his life, he might be misled by his experience to think that video games have anything to do with weapons development.
      Assume much?! I was not implying that weapons were developed based on the video games. I was stating that video game developers seems to be in the loop way before the Slashdot community in knowing that Micro-UAVs would be the wave of the future in modern combat. As to your silly Ad Hominem attack, I do work and I did server in the military so you can just suck it!
  14. bam! biff! pow! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    nananananana BATMAV!

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  15. Planes? Satellites? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    What does this thing do that satellites and full-sized planes don't do better? Take into account that resolution of the camera is limited by size, weight and vibration. It may make sense to build a remotely controlled plane that is too small to carry people but large enough to be stable and useful for carrying equipment, or to make something so small, it can enter buildings and other structures, but this is literally a toy you can buy in a store now.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Planes? Satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small UAVs are for the front line soldiers to use and control when and how they choose. Full size planes and satellites are so the bureaucrats can sit safely at home and watch pred(ator) pr0n.

    2. Re:Planes? Satellites? by lgw · · Score: 1

      It can be where the soldier needs it when the soldier needs it, rather than a resource that has to be scheduled and approved ahead of time.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Planes? Satellites? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Even if that thing was five meters long, it would be in a completely different class without becoming a large, expensive monstrosity.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:Planes? Satellites? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Full-size acft are not always loitering waiting for a call, and satellites can't see horizontally at near-ground level. A portable RC plane could be deployed and used to call in artillery or mortar strikes, with no full-size aviation involvement.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Planes? Satellites? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      ...given that it will actually accomplish anything. What is not likely to happen considering how little it can carry while still being perfectly visible and vulnerable.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  16. Howd you quote the article, and still not read it? by deft · · Score: 1

    "its infrared cameras that stream video directly to ground control...which will allow troops to scan enemy targets from 5 kilometers away for up to 45 minutes at a time".

    Yeah, it sounds like that camera sucks.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  17. Re:Howd you quote the article, and still not read by lxw56 · · Score: 1

    Small cameras can be pretty good, but I read that "5 km" to mean how far the plane can fly from launch.