$10M For Unmanned Aircraft That Can Perch Like a Bird

coondoggie writes "Unmanned aircraft maker AeroVironment got an additional $5.4 million to further develop a diminutive aircraft that can fly into tight spaces undetected, perch and send live surveillance information to its handlers. Last Fall, AeroVironment, got $4.6 million initial funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the Stealthy, Persistent, Perch and Stare Air Vehicle System (SP2S), which is being built on the company's one-pound, 29-inch wingspan battery-powered Wasp unmanned system."

Comments

I can see it now..

[illumastorm]

Deploy: Lazorbeak. Mission: Scout Terrorists.

Transformers did it first

[Haoie]

And their robot bird could turn into a cassette tape too. For easy playback, no less.

How awesome was that?

Re:Transformers did it first

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but where is the Army going to get a Cassette Player these days?

Quoth the SP2S

[physburn]

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter, In there stepped a stealthy spy plane of the sci-fi days of yore. Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he; But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door - Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door - Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Quoth the SP2S, "nevermore" and nothing more.

Ummm...

[QuantumG]

at what point does the US military stop looking like a human defense force and start looking looking like alien invaders from a robot planet?

Re:Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

at what point does the US military stop looking like a... defense force and start looking looking like... invaders... ?

Surely they still teach history in schools.

Re:Ummm...

[Abreu]

at what point does the US military stop looking like a human defense force and start looking looking like alien invaderst?

Around the 1840s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

How lifelike

[syousef]

Will it drop bird poop on your surveillance target? I mean how suspicious would a bird be if it didn't do that?

Re:How lifelike

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That actually has the potential to be a rather awkward issue, in the mid to long term, with small drones of this and similar flavors.

Sooner or later, we'll want these things to do more than watch and report. Trouble is, ordinary kinetic weapons don't scale down all that well to applications where size and weight are at a real premium(gun small enough to fit in your pocket, sure, gun small enough to fit in a one pound aircraft with reasonable endurance, not so much). The only mechanisms that do scale down are toxins and pathogens, which are what pretty much all dangerous animals of that scale and smaller use.

This is, of course, a problem; because chemical and biological weapons are almost certainly not a road we want to go down(even if you don't see using them as a problem, not disturbing the general norm of not using them is likely a good idea if only for your own sake); but they'll be the only thing that fits onboard, so it'll be that or nothing. I'm not overly confident that we'll choose wisely.

Re:How lifelike

[Molochi]

To expand on this, recoiless weapons like the jeep mounted ones scale down even further. A gyrojet round would work very well on a lightweight stealthbot and give it the lethal force of an infantryman with a rifle.

Re:How lifelike

[Hognoxious]

White phosphorus powder mixed into some inert aqueous gel would make delayed action incediary bird turds. I can't think of anything awesomer.

[verb] like a [animal]

[Anonymous Coward]

Upon reading the title, my first reaction was that there was a meeting that went something like

• ... just send our spy planes to perch somewhere nearby and watch the terrorists.
• Uh, sir, spy planes don't "perch".
• Oh? Well, why not? I expect my spy planes to be able to perch. Like a bird. Somebody get on that.
• Err... yes, sir!

In the future I expect robots that can

• slither like a snake
• prowl like a lion
• fly like an eagle

Re:10 million? Cheap

[timeOday]

Twenty times 10 million is 200 million. A new F22 is 137 million. I don't think there are any $200 million missiles, unless they are nuclear.

Re:Power lines?

[Jarjarthejedi]

It's not voltage that kills things, it's current. How you do you suppose non-cybernetic birds survive the experience?

Uh, by not carrying the current at all? Touch one powerline while not grounded or connected to any potential place for the charge on it to flow and nothing will happen, touch one while grounded and you're dead. Birds don't experience any current because there's no place for the current to flow.

You're right that it's the current that kills, but in this case the birds experience neither current nor voltage, so it's an irrelevant answer.

Re:Bad idea

[georgenh16]

I don't know about you, but if I see some robotic thingy land on my roof, I'm going to shoot it whether it's from my own government or a foreign one.

Oh please

[fiannaFailMan]

This is the sort of thing that Wyat Cenack (sp?), senior military analyst on The Daily Show, described as RFC projects. "Really F***ing Cool."

Yes, this is all cool and impressive and all, but hang on a second. Why does the US still put so much faith in technology to fix all the world's problems?

I remember reading an article in The Economist years ago about an American-developed mine clearing system. It was a huge, expensively developed, bulldozer. Er, yes, a bulldozer. It had a few bells and whistles and looked like something dropped out of an Imperial Star Destroyer, but trust me, it was just a bulldozer. Well they found that it was less effective than the tried and tested British method of a trained guy with a metal detector and a big stick poking into the ground. I'll let you guess which was cheaper and more effective.

If the British had adopted in Northern Ireland the same tactics that the USA is adopting now in different parts of the world, the troubles in Northern Ireland would still be going strong, we'd have gone as far as full on civil war, and the Brits would be looking to the UN for support because they'd have pissed off so many Irish Republicans that bomb alerts in London would be a daily occurrence.

Air strikes in residential areas? Sending in troops to act as policemen when they can't even speak the local language? What the hell are they thinking? Do they seriously think that the battle for the hearts and minds of muslims is going to be won by UAVs, robotic birds, satellites, tanks, and legions of soldiers occupying other peoples' countries as if their sovereignty counts for nothing? Do they think the reaction will be any different than their own reaction would be if Iranian troops were occupying San Diego, bursting into peoples' homes in search of militants, and calling in air strikes to wedding receptions?

They need to learn a few lessons from the British. An insurgency and a poisonous militant mindset is not defeated by a standing army. It's defeated behind the scenes by the intelligence services, by infiltration, away from the prying eyes of the media and it's done for the purpose of getting the job done, not in public for the purpose of winning votes. The only thing done in public is consistent repudiation of violence as a means of achieving political aims, education about the futility of violence and how it achieves nothing but heartbreak for all involved (viewer discretion advised), and providing a peaceful political alternative to the physical force method. It's less glamorous and the boys don't get to play with their toys, but it's a lot more effective.