DreamHammer Wants To Corner the Drone OS Market

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DreamHammer Wants To Corner the Drone OS Market

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 17, 2012 @04:11AM from the special-interests-with-guns dept.

nonprofiteer writes "The Pentagon is increasingly transforming the military into an unmanned force, taking soldiers out of harm's way and replacing them with drones and robots. In 2011, it spent $6 billion on unmanned systems. The problem is that the unmanned systems don't work well together thanks to contractors building proprietary control systems (to lock government into exclusive relationships and to make extra money). A company called DreamHammer plans to have a solution to this — a universal remote control that could integrate all robots and drones into one control system. It would save money and allow anyone to build apps for drones. 'DreamHammer CTO Chris Diebner compares it with a smartphone OS — on which drones and features for those drones can be run like apps. Of course, Ballista is doing something on a much larger scale. It means that it takes fewer people to fly more drones and that new features can be rolled out without the need to develop and build a new version of a Predator, for example.'"

80 of 125 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It would save money... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-05-17 04:15 · Score: 1

That's un-possible!

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
1. Re:It would save money... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-05-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Control all kinds of war robots from one single, easy-to-use terminal?
  What could possibly go wrong!
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
So when Iran captures the next one... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-17 04:16 · Score: 1

... they'll be able to hack all the rest.
See! That is the kind of convenience that smart businesses know how to provide to their customers!
1. Re:So when Iran captures the next one... by autocannon · 2012-05-17 04:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly. Making each unmanned system have its own interface and potentially communication protocols is another layer of security. This is the military, manpower cost is nil. Having an all powerful remote control system just screams single point of failure!
2. Re:So when Iran captures the next one... by fnj · 2012-05-17 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  This is the military, manpower cost is nil.
  What are you, trapped in World War II? Manpower cost is anything but "nil". It is probably about half, or even more, of all military spending.
  2011 US military spending, $ billion:
  Military personnel 162
  Veterans benefits and services 127
  Military construction[1] 20
  Family housing 3
  Operation and maintenance[1] 291
  All other military spending[2] 230
  TOTAL 833
  [1] Some large part of this is obviously connected with manpower.
  [2] Everything else includes procurement, r&d/test/eval, "atomic energy defense activities", and "defense-related activities" - the portion
3. Re:So when Iran captures the next one... by destructifier · 2012-05-17 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  securing technology with complexity doesn't work... that's what encryption is for.
4. Re:So when Iran captures the next one... by autocannon · 2012-05-17 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  You don't follow me. I'm not referring to the training costs. Nor the housing, nor the benefits. I'm referring to the costs of actually putting troops in place to do something. If you have a squad of 20 people who operate the drones, those 20 people are paid for the position, not the hours of work. Making all 20 run the drones for days on end costs the same as 1 who can operate all drones by himself.
  Now I know you're saying, "look there's cost savings in getting rid of those 19 guys". Except, this isn't a corporation where they get rid of people whose jobs are eliminated. This is the military, those people remain in the military.
  Don't obsess over the numbers. The biggest flaw of this concept is the single point of failure. The military will always attempt to avoid any systems that include a single point of failure if it can be avoided.
The prophecy of the Simpsons. by jellomizer · 2012-05-17 04:17 · Score: 5, Funny

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of
Lisa Simpson"

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1. Re:The prophecy of the Simpsons. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-17 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, they will be fought at home when the the military industrial complex have removed all the troops with their pesky weaknesses like having a conscience when firing on fellow countrymen.
2. Re:The prophecy of the Simpsons. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Why waste time on all this. Battle Mechs will not only utterly destroy the enemy but make then scream and run like children.
  All we would need is 3 MadKat Mark II's and 3 pilots and a single small support base.
  http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mad_Cat_Mk_II
  IF we could as a country make that technology work, Just one can take out a column of modern tanks all on it's own.
3. Re:The prophecy of the Simpsons. by NoobixCube · 2012-05-17 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Also worth noting, Gundam Wing and Gundam 00 both made it plain how positively evil an unmanned army can be. Gundam Wing with the Mobile Dolls, unmanned mobile suits with one guy at the button, and Gundam 00 with the Automatons, little hyper-aggressive R2D2 like things, loaded up with guns, they seem to have two modes, exterminate, and off. They get dropped on civilian and military targets alike, one guy pushes a button, nobody feels anything when thousands die.
  People are fond of the phrase, here "1984 was not an instruction manual", I personally favour saying "The bad guys in Gundam are not a positive role model for governments!"
  
  --
  Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
4. Re:The prophecy of the Simpsons. by Phusion · 2012-05-17 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you sir, I know a great deal of slashdotters know the first 10 seasons of The Simpsons as well as I do, but so rarely do they regurgitate these wonderful quotes. That's a great episode.
  
  --
  640k ought to be enough for anyone.
Dreamhammer's Wants by necro81 · 2012-05-17 04:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh sure, but what about my wants. Who's to say that my wants aren't going to corner the drone OS market instead?
1. Re:Dreamhammer's Wants by Joce640k · 2012-05-17 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  ...and me without any mod point's.
  
  --
  No sig today...
Solve the problem by Dunbal · 2012-05-17 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's solve the problem of government being locked into exclusive relationships with other vendors by - locking them into an exclusive relationship with us! But our dog and pony show is more elaborate than theirs.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:Solve the problem by jeffmeden · 2012-05-17 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Let's solve the problem of government being locked into exclusive relationships with other vendors by - locking them into an exclusive relationship with us! But our dog and pony show is more elaborate than theirs.
  More like, Our show has dogs AND ponies! Plus you can reuse the old dogs and ponies from all the other shows you bought (with a minimal "rework" fee)... In the long run, you will save money with us, as we are pouring money into R&D to perfect the hybrid dog/pony that will be future proof!
2. Re:Solve the problem by rtb61 · 2012-05-17 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  Ours is 'fully' automated, just define the general region and the drone will target groups of more than five and less than twenty and then do a return strike on rescuers. Immediately after that, it will automatically generate an excuse 'er' reason for the attack, scan a list names of the reported deceased and claim one of them as a terrorist leaders and the rest as terrorist. It will automatically create social links between the random targets in one location and the random targets in another location, thus providing fabricated proof of the success of attacks and ensuring there are no provable innocent bystanders.
  Our system is the one for the twenty first century, killing anyone, anywhere and automatically creating legal justification for it in writing. Obama and the CIA are just totally wallowing in the bullshit now, not even bothering with believable lies any more, we murdered them here's our bullshit, we know you know it's bullshit, so what are you going to do about it.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Dreamhammer's what? by Mr+Z · 2012-05-17 04:18 · Score: 1

Dreamhammer's what wants to corner the drone OS market? Don't leave me hanging here...

--
Program Intellivision!
1. Re:Dreamhammer's what? by Mr+Z · 2012-05-17 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  The panda's eats, shoots and leaves.
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
2. Re:Dreamhammer's what? by xevioso · 2012-05-17 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Because of the apostrophe in the word "panda's", this sentence makes no sense.
3. Re:Dreamhammer's what? by Mr+Z · 2012-05-17 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  And it made no sense in the original headline (which appears to have been corrected). It originally read "DreamHammer's Wants To Corner the Drone OS Market."
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
4. Re:Dreamhammer's what? by Hognoxious · 2012-05-17 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Eats" can be a noun. It means food. It is rather archaic and possibly slang, but I've heard old people us it that way, i.e. "shall we go fix us some eats".
  Having said that, it would then lack a finite verb.
  On the third hand, it would be a valid and true answer to "What's in your van?" if you were engaged in transporting victuals (which rhymes with "skittles" in case you didn't know), embryonic plants and flat photosynthesising elements that belonged to a black and white bear-like creature.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by s.petry · 2012-05-17 04:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, there is a reason that some Army guy has a different method of access to his unmanned recon tracked vehicle than an Air Force guy has to a Predator with Hellfire missiles, who has different methods of access than a weather drone pilot in the Navy. That separation creates very large walls that make it difficult to make mistakes.
Should the Pentagon have requirements for how a User Interface should look and feel? Hell yes they should. There should not ever be a simplified method of access across platforms. It's extremely dangerous.
On the other hand, I'm sure someone in the Pentagon has a friend or relative that needed cash so put out a bid on something like this despite the extremely obvious dangers.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
1. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-05-17 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  a universal remote for war toys? what could possibly go wrong? it's not like anyone's abused a universal remote for something else. and these exclusive relationships we're locked into... what happens when the honeymoon's over? are we on a subscription? do they just hand the remote over to north korea if they pay more? do they have a backdoor override on everything?
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
2. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by s.petry · 2012-05-17 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  I guess you lack any knowledge regarding how the Government communicates over TCP/IP. Encryption hardware is not shared between sites. Access is takes multiple parties to configure. Everyone knows how TCP/IP is unsecured by itself, which is why we have encryption that sits over the top.
  Do you need me to Google encryption for you coward?
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
3. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by s.petry · 2012-05-17 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Um, yes it was intentional. The Army itself did not want the Navy to have access to it's UMV systems, the Air Force did not want the Army to have access to their UAV systems, etc.. This is working as designed. There are very good reasons why General Dynamics works on Army products completely isolated form Navy products. Boeing does the same with Air Force/Navy/Marines projects, as does BAE with Marines/Army. Separation is required by all branch standards.
  There is a separate project and program for battlefield command and communications which is a joint effort and designed to be available to all branches.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
4. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by devilsdean · 2012-05-17 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you lack any knowledge regarding how the Government communicates over TCP/IP. Encryption hardware is not shared between sites. Access is takes multiple parties to configure. Everyone knows how TCP/IP is unsecured by itself, which is why we have encryption that sits over the top.
  Do you need me to Google encryption for you coward?
  Th problem isn't the encryption, it is the implementation of encryption and the control of the keys. Sure end to end TACLANEs are awesome, it is a guaranteed end to end, software independent, solution. Encryption was available and "implemented on the predators, however it was not implemented the proper way leaving the video feed vulnerable to a $15 piece of software that could run on portable monitors. Had that vulnerability in the implementation not been discovered sooner, the control channels could have been interacted with as well. Shall I google bad implementation of encryption for you, or did you feel like just being a smartass?
5. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by s.petry · 2012-05-17 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  You appear to be trolling so far OT and from my point I'm wondering if it'll be worth the response.
  If anything, the lack of a proper cypher configuration on the Predator is a prime example of why we don't want a Universal controller for all of the DOD UMV systems. We let enemies see the GPS tracking signals at best, and C&C instructions at worst. Now ask yourself why it was not enabled and configured?
  Money. Politicians and Military Leadership wanted to save a few bucks so released and launched them early. Do you think that money is any different of a motivator for a universal access system so that a single interface can access any and all UMVs?
  You think there is no security risk in doing this? or that TCP/IP in general terms is the same amount of risk? You are making an apples to shit eating whale comparison.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
6. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by DerekLyons · 2012-05-17 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Look, there is a reason that some Army guy has a different method of access to his unmanned recon tracked vehicle than an Air Force guy has to a Predator with Hellfire missiles, who has different methods of access than a weather drone pilot in the Navy. That separation creates very large walls that make it difficult to make mistakes.
  It makes it difficult for who to make mistakes? Of what kind? With what consequences?
  
  Should the Pentagon have requirements for how a User Interface should look and feel? Hell yes they should. There should not ever be a simplified method of access across platforms. It's extremely dangerous.
  Extremely dangerous to who? In what manner? (And you must answer this without making the mistake of conflating "simplified" with "insecure".)
  
  On top of which, though it may not be obvious to those who don't follow military matters (which is roughly 99.999999% of Slashdot), we're slowly but surely moving towards a 'purple' force rather than four separate forces. Joint operations and interoperability are the watchword today, and for the foreseeable future. Insisting on paywalls just makes that harder without actually providing any benefits.
7. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by s.petry · 2012-05-17 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  A unified interface requires knowledge of all current, separate, and secured networks. When those walls come down, the same person controlling weather UAVs for the coast guard is using a device that can access a predator with 2 Hellfires flying over Packistan. Now, obviously there has to be a breach for the control to be gained. At the same time, currently there is no possibility of such a breach because of those walls.
  All forces have lost equipment. The impact of those losses has alway been minimized by the fact that there is physical separation. Currently, battlefield C&C is communicated with, but can not take actions. This proposition breaks that.
  To measure impact, simply look at the current nightmare that is Utilities infrastucture. This should not be on the goals list for the military.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
8. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by DerekLyons · 2012-05-17 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  A unified interface requires knowledge of all current, separate, and secured networks.
  No it doesn't. All it needs is knowledge of the network(s) it's intended to operate on. You've confused "unified interface" with "universal access".
  
  When those walls come down, the same person controlling weather UAVs for the coast guard is using a device that can access a predator with 2 Hellfires flying over Packistan. Now, obviously there has to be a breach for the control to be gained. At the same time, currently there is no possibility of such a breach because of those walls.
  Yet, the potential damage of such a breach is trivially fixed - by using something as simple as passwords, or public key cryptography, or tethering a controller to a drone, or firewalls between networks, or... well, you get the idea. There's a whole laundry list of bog standard methods for preventing such access.
  
  Currently, battlefield C&C is communicated with, but can not take actions.
  You're a couple of millenia behind on battlefield C&C technology - which is intended to issue commands and initiate actions by it's very nature. That's precisely why the designers of such systems have gone to such great lengths to prevent spoofing and other forms of interference.
9. Re:Works as intended, DreamHammer is dangerous! by s.petry · 2012-05-18 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  You're a couple of millenia behind on battlefield C&C technology - which is intended to issue commands and initiate actions by it's very nature. That's precisely why the designers of such systems have gone to such great lengths to prevent spoofing and other forms of interference.
  I believe you are confused. A "unified interface" would be fine as I initially stated. That does not require some new technology to connect all of the UMV systems. A Unified interface would simply require the sharing of an API and required conformance to said API.
  The trend to want to set up a C&C infrastructure infrastructure that can control all components of everything is new, and dangerous. As mentioned, currently the battlefield C&C can only see what the parts do. They can't take control of the components. The jets can see where the soldiers are, and see where there is fighting, but the grunt on the ground has to request air support. Chains of command then asses and take action.
  Another quick point, is that this is another step needed to have push button totalitarianism in the US. Who needs due process, warrants, or congressional approval when some ass in the White House can just fly a spy drone over your house or fly a drone to where ever they want to take someone out?
  You have an assumption that the branches of the Military were not designed separated intentionally, and maintain separation to prevent a single person from being able to act outside of the Constitution.
  No, a password does not fix the problem. The problem is that you consolidate all of the power into a single interface. Remember the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". It is very important here.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Unintended consequence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-17 04:19 · Score: 1

Hack one system, own all the drones.
1. Re:Unintended consequence by Sponge+Bath · 2012-05-17 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hack one system, own all the drones.
  ...then target the telemarketers who keep calling my mobile phone.
2. Re:Unintended consequence by Lumpy · 2012-05-17 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nuke them from orbit, the collateral damage is worth it.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Imagine... by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-05-17 04:19 · Score: 1

A beowulf cluster of those!

Sorry... just making the mandatory beowulf-comment. :-D

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
Insane by Galestar · 2012-05-17 04:19 · Score: 1

That the US military doesn't own the rights to the technology they are paying to have developed. If they did they could implement their own control systems, or take future development to another contractor.

--
AccountKiller
1. Re:Insane by Scarred+Intellect · 2012-05-17 04:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I haven't laughed that hard in a long time!
  Do you realize the technical ineptitude in the military?
  Our Network guys didn't even know what a routing loop was, or how I could take down the network in this one relatively unguarded room (that happened to house the routers).
  We were lining up a satellite for our network access and it had to point x degrees; my lieutenant (college grad, because all officers are required to have Bachelor's degree in {INSERT RANDOM FIELD HERE}) requested I ask the guy if this azimuth had to be shot from the base, and if so if it was along the side or from the center.
  I was the only non-officer in my company that could keep a generator running; if it died, no one knew how to start it, despite the instructions being written fairly clearly.
  A sergeant fulled said generator with oil until it was full (full being to the top of the fill-tube). Then we had a geyser of oil coming out of the exhaust. A Marine was moving our front end loader and rounded a left hand corner that had a bank sloping down to the right...with the bucket up. Of course it tipped over.
  These are but a few examples I've seen. The Army's SOP (standard operating procedure) for the Raven B UAV system is to stall it at 100-150 feet (I think) and let it fall to the ground to land. We were taught that $1000 in damages for 5 flights was acceptable/expected. The Marine's SOP was to do the same but at 50-75 feet to minimize damage.
  I was a Marine. I'm proud of my service, but I'm not proud of the Marine Corps. It's full of a bunch of coddled stupid pussies. But the military should NOT be in charge of their own control systems for technical devices, not without a lot more technical education for those serving in the technical fields, which isn't going to happen with 4 years of service then treating everyone like shit so the majority leave.
2. Re:Insane by Immerman · 2012-05-17 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps they shouldn't control/develop it themselves, but they should own it. Just like a man may own a ship but hire someone better qualified to act as captain or mechanic. As it stands now if the military decides they want feature X that their contractor doesn't want to add or, god forbid, discovers their contractor is selling back-door access, then they're SOL and have to start from scratch. If they owned the tech (i.e. have the source code and the right to have someone else develop it) then they can just find another contractor to do the work.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
3. Re:Insane by Lumpy · 2012-05-17 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I made a Army Comms Major shit himself when I showed him how easy it was to find a satelite in the sky.
  I grabbed my iphone, fired up dish pointer pro, lifted the phone and said, "Right there is USA-207. Isnt that the bird you guys use for Comms for the middle east?"
  He just stared at me mouth open and then asked where did I get that program. as it was far more advanced than anything the US military has.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
4. Re:Insane by drerwk · 2012-05-17 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  It is a little more complicated. The services tend not to build from scratch each time they buy something, and they want to pay as little as possible. So they might buy a tank from Big D Contracting, and Big D say we have this motor that would work great in your tank, but we designed it on our dime, so we will build them for you and service them, but we own the design and maybe some patents on the motor it is so great. It is much cheaper to buy a tank with the Big D motor that than to pay for a new motor design.
  
  Now consider cheep and quick turn around software, and maybe a custom drone. Sure you could add requirements that the drone interface with other drone systems, but that jacks up your dev, test, and integration test costs and pushes your schedule back. The services rarely want to pay in cost or schedule for interoperability and it does not come for free - ask any SW dev.
5. Re:Insane by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2012-05-17 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I was a Marine.
  Do you mean you were a technician in the marines, or you were a marine, marine? Aren't armies supposed to have technical staff to do all the technical things?
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
6. Re:Insane by Scarred+Intellect · 2012-05-17 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  I was an infantry machinegunner.
  That doesn't mean that I don't know anything. I've been building computers since before I was in high school. Taught myself C and C++. Went to Digipen Institute of Technology, worked for my school district as a network admin while still a student...that was all before the military.
  We did have technical staff (MOS code 06xx) to do such things, but every one I met knew less about computers and networks than I did. They guy that taught my UAV course knew less about flying the aircraft than I did (due in part to experience flying R/C airplanes, and an understanding of the fundamentals of aerodynamics). The guy that taught me the GBOSS system knew less about the system by the time he got there than I did (I took the time to investigate and figured the entire system out, there were some things I taught him).
  Is my case unique? Most definitely. But the point is, the military's technical aptitude falls short. I group them all because I've used some Army systems as well and found them to be lacking obvious features.
Insist on a common standard by hey · 2012-05-17 04:20 · Score: 2

The govt can just insist on a common standard. They have the power here.
1. Re:Insist on a common standard by mallgood · 2012-05-17 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  They already do. It's called STANAG.
2. Re:Insist on a common standard by redneckmother · 2012-05-17 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  They already do. It's called STANAG.
  Huh? I thought it was SNAFU!
3. Re:Insist on a common standard by neonv · 2012-05-17 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I work in the drone industry and I'm involved in the communication systems they use. Hence, I know that the government has standards for interoperability of drones. Not only that, but NATO has standards for drones (e.g. STANAG 4586). There are companies that make ground stations for use with all military drones (DreamHammer is one of many), only possible because of the standards. The standards keep chaos at bay when dealing with the large numbers of drones. Contrary to popular belief on Slashdot, the military does a good job with standards across contractors.
4. Re:Insist on a common standard by Bigby · 2012-05-17 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  They "can" and they "should", but when was the last time that happened?
5. Re:Insist on a common standard by oursland · 2012-05-17 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  STANAG 4586 provides guidelines for both a communications protocol (albeit, fixed-wing centric) and recommendations for the GCS UI. You seem to have ignored the STANAG 4586 protocol portion.
6. Re:Insist on a common standard by oursland · 2012-05-17 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  STANAG 4586 only addresses UAVs, and caters to the fixed-wing variety. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) have adopted a standard architecture for command and control of robots known as AS-4, formerly Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems JAUS. This standard protocol addresses the needs of a wide variety of robotic and autonomous systems including UGVs, UAVs, and UUVs.
  
  Learn more at: http://www.sae.org/servlets/works/committeeHome.do?comtID=TEAAS4
Nonexistent problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-17 04:21 · Score: 1

Yeah. Not going to happen. There are already protocols and standards (STANAG 4586, etc) that take care of this. Not to mention the billions already spent by the government on developing these standards. So this sounds like a solution to a nonexistent problem.
MOD PARENT UP by BenEnglishAtHome · 2012-05-17 04:24 · Score: 1

Militaries should outright own the tools with which they fight. Renting stuff, like, say, hiring mercenaries to do your dirty work always comes back to bite you in the ass and we're smart enough to avoid mistakes like that.
Oh, wait...
Surprising... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-05-17 04:25 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought Cyberdyne Systems was the leader in this area.
1. Re:Surprising... by jheath314 · 2012-05-17 04:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Want to exterminate humanity? There's an app for that!
  
  --
  Procrastination Man strikes again!
2. Re:Surprising... by RedDeadThumb · 2012-05-17 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I thought Cyberdyne Systems was the leader in this area.
  That was in the other timeline!
3. Re:Surprising... by dkleinsc · 2012-05-17 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Their obvious competitor, at least for land-based units rather than airborne, is Omni Consumer Products.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Really? by PortHaven · 2012-05-17 04:35 · Score: 1

Thought we already had this...it's callled SkyNet
HammerTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-17 04:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Didn't Tony Stark warn us about the use of HammerTech in military applications?
soon by P-niiice · 2012-05-17 04:41 · Score: 1

we'll have plugins required for drones that will allow you more features. And drone app walled gardens that work very well and look nice, but don't allow you to use that drone for anything outside its intended purpose. And drones that search real well but want to serve you ads for maintaining the hardness of your drone's armor during missions.
Re:testing by P-niiice · 2012-05-17 04:43 · Score: 1

meet exciting real drones ready RIGHT NOW **shoot HERE****
Let me paraphrase LOTR by Paracelcus · 2012-05-17 04:47 · Score: 1

One system to rule them, one hack to control them all!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
You mean? by ArhcAngel · 2012-05-17 04:48 · Score: 1

You mean they don't all use MATLAB like this guy?

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I for one by thomasw_lrd · 2012-05-17 05:06 · Score: 1

Welcome our new DreamHammer overlords with a private army of drones that were bought and paid for by the US Taxpayer.

--
21st Century Renaissance Man
Hmmm by GReaToaK_2000 · 2012-05-17 05:15 · Score: 1

Doesn't Nelson Paez look kinda evil in his picture? Not that that matters or anything but it certainly wouldn't make me feel his company should be trusted with this project.
fiction:
Baltar was weak and look what his system did.
just random thoughts while coding the day away...
Bad Idea by glorybe · 2012-05-17 05:16 · Score: 1

When different OSs power these drones it provides a form of security. If an enemy found a way corrupt or control a universal drone OS it could provide an enormous tactical advantage. It could either cause your drone forces to be non functional or at the very worst perhaps turn those forces against you.
Just got back from Afghanistan... by IDtheTarget · 2012-05-17 05:17 · Score: 1

And while our control links to our UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are encrypted, the video feeds are NOT. And we *know* that the bad guys are tapping into the video feeds when we have UAVs overhead. Which just goes to show that contractors can do some silly things.
Not sure I like the idea of having ALL of our UAVs and various robots using a single OS. Because unless it's VERY secure, I can forsee a time when the bad guys hack the OS and our drones/UAVs/robots/etc are used by them against us...
Re:Oh the possibilities by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-05-17 05:20 · Score: 2

DreamHammer - terrifying name.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Capitalism in decay equals imperialist barbaris by couchslug · 2012-05-17 05:23 · Score: 1

That worked SO WELL the first time.....

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Monoculture by big+dumb+dog · 2012-05-17 05:25 · Score: 1

So the Pentagon is intentionally considering a technical monoculture for the operating systems of military drones?
Who is going to make the anti-virus software – Haliburton?

--
"Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
1. Re:Monoculture by gtall · 2012-05-17 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  The Pentagon isn't considering this, intentionally or otherwise. It is merely the wet dream of some wannebe defense contractor.
2. Re:Monoculture by trizzle · 2012-05-17 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  Pentagon not considering it? http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2011/07/cots-and-open-standards.html
Re:Maginot Line by fnj · 2012-05-17 06:01 · Score: 2

The WW II era fortified line known in the west as the Siegfried Line and known to the Reich as the West Wall was a separate line to the Maginot Line. It was built by the Germans in the 1930s. They were two separate things.
Proprietary Sensors by devilsdean · 2012-05-17 06:12 · Score: 1

I think this has all of the makings of a waste of taxpayers dollars. They "might" be able to integrate all of the controls into one single point of failure. However, most of the sensors are proprietary government COTS solutions that are just slapped inside an airborne platform. The chances of this company being able to write code to work on all of the commercial closed source intelligence sensors are slim to none.
Of course the name should be ... iDrone by wisebabo · 2012-05-17 06:26 · Score: 1

Too bad the name is already taken by a company making a drone control system that runs on iPhones and iPads!
Thus making it easier for the Chinese to hack by Lynchenstein · 2012-05-17 06:45 · Score: 1

Only one target OS. Is it fair to say that the US android arsenal is "fragmented"?
Best Evil Company Name Ever by chris7crows · 2012-05-17 07:03 · Score: 1

"DreamHammer, crushing your hopes and fantasies since 2003."
Skynet by T.E.D. · 2012-05-17 07:03 · Score: 1

A botnet of these things is not a pleasent thought at all. There are good reasons a lot of critical military hardware runs on sysems specced out with redundant hardware running different CPUs and OSes.
It's all buzzwords and clip art. by Animats · 2012-05-17 07:59 · Score: 2

Check out the DreamHammer site. It's all buzzwords and clip art. "DreamHammer is comprised of the most brilliant minds in the world." Yeah, right. There's absolutely no detail on what this is, or how it works, or what it interfaces to. Does it talk to ROS,or JAUS, or any of the other autonomous vehicle packages. They don't say.
The addresses don't check out, either. The one in Santa Monica (nice location, three blocks from the beach) appears to be a law firm. The address in Virginia is something called "International Research and Development Solutions, LLC". The location in Hawaii (nice location, three blocks from the cruise ship docks) is in an office building mostly full of lawyers.
Robots dont complain... by FriendlyLurker · 2012-05-17 09:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Robots don't complain, require psychiatric counselling or go running to the press when you order them to kill whole wedding parties children and all, funerals, villages, or anything that moves really...
Soo... by godglike · 2012-05-17 12:36 · Score: 1

Let me get this right:
Because they had lots of outside contractors working on the control systems they have lots of disparate control systems, and they are going to solve this by getting an outside contractor to write a new control system?
Does anyone else see the inherent flaw in this plan?