Slashdot Mirror


Army Tests Autonomous Black Hawk Helicopter

An anonymous reader writes "A specially equipped Black Hawk was recently used to demonstrate the helicopter's ability to operate on its own. In the first such test of its type, the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research's Development and Engineering Center, based at Redstone Arsenal, flew the Black Hawk over Diablo Mountain Range in San Jose, Calif. Pilots were aboard the aircraft for the tests, but all flight maneuvers were conducted autonomously: obstacle field navigation, safe landing area determination, terrain sensing, statistical processing, risk assessment, threat avoidance, trajectory generation and autonomous flight control were performed in real-time. 'This was the first time terrain-aware autonomy has been achieved on a Black Hawk,' said Lt. Col. Carl Ott, chief of the Flight Projects Office at AMRDEC's Aeroflightdynamics Directorate and one of the test's pilots."

125 comments

  1. Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Skynet. That is all.

    1. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait 'til RoboCop finds out. Boy will he be jealous.

    2. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more worried about KARR.

      I heard it got together with Thunderhawk from M.A.S.K. to plot revenge.

    3. Re:Skynet by MacDork · · Score: 0, Troll

      Does it kill fewer innocent children and reporters than combat pilots?

    4. Re:Skynet by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait 'til RoboCop finds out. Boy will he be jealous.

      Don't worry, the Kiwis are preparing to get Snoopy on the case...

      "The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has teamed up with Mini Cooper in New Zealand to teach three dogs how to drive." http://mashable.com/2012/12/05/driving-dogs-campaign/

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    5. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send one of those for us to hack. With love, from Tehran!

      ~AnonymousIranianCoward

    6. Re:Skynet by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder if it will also see the same RPGs, weapons, and related items among a group of insurgents like that, right in the area where armed combat had been happening all day? Or are you wondering if the helicopter will autonomously edit video in order to make the military look bad? I wonder if the helicopter will somehow cause reporters to forget to tell the military where they are, and to hang out - without markings - with armed insurgents in a combat area? Autonomy is tricky! Just like autonomy among reporters who want to hang out with killer insurgents to get material they can sell for more money.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing it will have better specs on collateral damage then the Fajr-5's and 747's.

    8. Re:Skynet by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      Skynet. That is all.

      This story is just a fabrication by Skynet trying to scare us all. Skynet is really a fat nerd sitting in his mom's basement trying to 'score' with 'chicks'.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    9. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, the machines have reached "awareness".

    10. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The test flight of the HK MK.I was a sucsess.

    11. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it kill fewer innocent children and reporters than combat pilots?

      That depends on where you deploy it, and what your definition of an "innocent" is. Reports are neutral objects, they are to be treated just like a Referee on a Soccer (Football) field. You're not supposed to intentionally target them, but you're also not supposed to worry about hitting them on accident- it's their job to get out of the way.

    12. Re:Skynet by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 1

      Skynet? Am I the only one around here who watched Airwolf? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwolf

    13. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOPR

    14. Re:Skynet by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The most critical moment in the linked video is not the reporter (?) being killed, but the passerby in a van with his children inside that is attempting to rescue wounded people lying on the ground. He and his children are killed for his efforts. This is a war crime.

    15. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The children lived.

    16. Re:Skynet by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      The last I heard on this report was that both children were delivered to an Iraqi hospital, the girl with a severe belly wound, the boy with a severe wound to the head and torso. Their chances of survival sounded slim at best. Maybe you are right and they might actually have survived, I don't have the time to follow up on this at the moment. Even if they did survive, with wounds like that and the father gone, their chances in Iraqi society look dim. Their lives have been destroyed.

    17. Re:Skynet by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      Wait 'til RoboCop finds out. Boy will he be jealous.

      Don't worry, the Kiwis are preparing to get Snoopy on the case...

      "The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has teamed up with Mini Cooper in New Zealand to teach three dogs how to drive." http://mashable.com/2012/12/05/driving-dogs-campaign/

      Finally. When that catches on, it'll be a nice improvement over the people on the road during my commute.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    18. Re:Skynet by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      I remember watching it, but when I read this story, all I could think was "I for one welcome our new SkyNet overlords".

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    19. Re:Skynet by XeLiTuS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note to self... stay out of a warzone if you don't want to be injured or killed.

    20. Re:Skynet by Crosshair84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or perhaps you could just stop bombing good Samaritans and rescue workers. Stop blaming the victim for doing what any non-sociopath would do, help a fellow human in need.

    21. Re:Skynet by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      Nah, this is but one of a number of necessary steps before SkyNet can actually rule.

      All it can do now is launch missiles and such with various warheads.

      Work like this and the DARPA stuff with autonomous vehicles, drones, and such are all needed to be completed before SkyNet chooses to reveal its presence, power, and control.

      Almost there. Not quite yet, but getting close...

    22. Re:Skynet by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      bombing good Samaritans and rescue workers

      Which is your way of saying ... what? Stop using force to attempt to shut down insurgents who deliberately kill women and children because they are women and children? Or are you simply arguing for absolute perfection in every military action, ever? Oh, well, then. That's easy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    23. Re:Skynet by MacDork · · Score: 1

      bombing good Samaritans and rescue workers

      Which is your way of saying ... what? Stop using force to attempt to shut down insurgents who deliberately kill women and children because they are women and children?

      Yeah, those guys in the van were totally there to kill women and children. They pulled up and started to help injured people. They always do that before they start killing women and children.

      I'm sure the whole world is relieved that chopper pilot Beavis was there to FIRE FIRE, huh huh, FIRE!

    24. Re:Skynet by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      They pulled up and started to help injured people

      Right. They pulled up to help armed insurgents in an area where armed insurgents had been attacking all day long. You know, shooting at people. Killing them.

      The armed insurgents' support system (people bringing them more weapons, lunch, or a lift to some medical help) are part of the problem. When they deliberately get involved in supporting people who do what the insurgents do, they take on the risk of catching what the insurgents are inviting down on themselves. It's not exactly mysterious.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:Skynet by cusco · · Score: 1

      That's best done by not being born in an area where there are important natural resources.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    26. Re:Skynet by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Finally. When that catches on, it'll be a nice improvement over the people on the road during my commute.

      Indeed. At least dogs can count, the drivers in my city can't count up to 1.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    27. Re:Skynet by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Yea, is not like the dead were iraqis in their own country killed by soldiers of a foreign invading army.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  2. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great.

    CAPTCHA: bloodied

  3. Great! by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That means that when the US government sends them out on domestic civilian pacification/suppression/reconnaissance missions, the people can shoot them down without feeling bad about killing people. It's too bad the government does not share such reluctance.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Great! by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That means that when the US government sends them out on domestic civilian pacification/suppression/reconnaissance missions, the people can shoot them down without feeling bad about killing people

      You mean other than the people that the downed chopper crashes on?

    2. Re:Great! by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That means that when the US government sends them out on domestic civilian pacification/suppression/reconnaissance missions, the people can shoot them down without feeling bad about killing people

      You mean other than the people that the downed chopper crashes on?

      Oh, right. Better to let the chopper go ahead to it's heavily-populated target unmolested with that fuel-air bomb than risk the chopper crashing.

      My bad.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:Great! by wmac1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or it can be an Apache helicopter shooting at civilian people and no one can be criticized of killing them. The copter has malfunctioned.

    4. Re:Great! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you plan on shooting down a black hawk helicopter? I mean, what weapon will you use? Bird shot's not going to do it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This also means that the U.S. can go murder people (terr'ists) around the world without the fear of the american public screaming about the loss of american (the only ones worth something apparently) lives in case it gets shot down.

    6. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting view of how a domestic suppression mission would work in US - FAE for best ROI.

    7. Re:Great! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      And this is why automatic weapons are illegal. All you need is some intake hits.

      The best way to take down a helicopter? A quadcopter trailing steel cable with a weight on the end. You will lose the quadcopter, which is a small price to pay really.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Great! by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Well, there's another point of view to this...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

      Extract:

      "During the operation, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by RPGs and three others were damaged. Some of the wounded survivors were able to evacuate to the compound, but others remained near the crash sites and were isolated."

      Remember, this operation was UN-mandated, after civil war had led to an estimated 500 000 deaths.
      I don't agree with everything the US does, but in this was NOT the same as Iraq.

      Now, whether or not this new tech would have made the helicopters more or less vulnerable to unsophisticated weapons in an urban context, that's an interesting discussion point. At least less lives would have been put at risk.

    9. Re:Great! by tibman · · Score: 2

      hahah. Domestic pacification in the United States isn't a robot helicopter with weapons. It's television!

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    10. Re:Great! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol I'm not sure either of those would work, unless the automatic weapon is large enough caliber. The reason automatic weapons are illegal is because city slickers are afraid of them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Great! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you plan on shooting down a black hawk helicopter

      Well, even one of these would make life very stressful indeed for a hostile Blackhawk, especially if you can secure some AP ammo. With several fighters equipped with these, that Blackhawk may quickly be doing a Mogadishu re-enactment.

      http://www.gunsinternational.com/Browning-BAR-Grade-II-69-Belgium-30-06-Blond-Wood.cfm?gun_id=100304244

      My father carried the full-auto military version in WW2. He told me it would punch holes in German light-armor like half-tracks, armored cars, etc. Even with standard FMJ ammo it penetrates walls, tees, bricks, and concrete extremely well. It was also one of the favored weapons of Bonnie & Clyde and the Barrows gang.

      Of course, one of these could punch *big* holes in a Blackhawk or Apache and ruin their entire day.

      http://www.barrett.net/firearms/m107a1

      And it's legal to purchase and own in the US. And I know for a fact that .50BMG-AP rounds are readily available, even to the point they're not *that* much more expensive on the black market than legally-available surplus FMJ. Seems that since the US military has had so many different theaters of combat going lately that a lot of military weapons, ammo, and material has produced a bit of an overabundance of supply in the black markets around the world, including domestically in the US.

      But heck, even without AP ammo, if one were to put a .50BMG round through both the side-doors, passing through without actually striking anything, the shockwave alone from the .50BMG round would likely kill or incapacitate anyone within a few feet of the rounds' path.

      If a bunch of Jihadis in a 6th-century region can take out helos, depend on US citizens being able to take them down, even without Stingers or RPGs.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Great! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Interesting view of how a domestic suppression mission would work in US - FAE for best ROI.

      When the SHTF I don't expect the government will adhere to Marcus of Queensbury rules, Geneva Convention rules, or any rules at all, actually. Might be a good idea to also stock up on protective gear for chemical attacks, too.

      Unfortunately, not much besides crawling into a very deep, very reinforced and sealed hole in the ground will protect from a nuclear blast. And yes, if those in government think they may be losing the fight and are able, I fully expect they'd launch nukes at domestic targets and damn the consequences. Those currently in power are "dogs in the manger". If they can't be in charge of everything/everyone, they'll destroy everything/everyone first before that happens.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Great! by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      That didn't happen at the end of the Soviet Union and I doubt it would happen here. Intermittent use, perhaps, but I doubt widespread use.

    14. Re:Great! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      That didn't happen at the end of the Soviet Union and I doubt it would happen here.

      Apples and oranges. What happened in the former USSR is not the same as what's happening in the US. There was not a rebellion or civil war between the government and the population in the old Soviet Union. What may occur in the US would be more akin to the fall of the Czars and the rise of Socialism and the Soviet Union or the takeover by the Nazis in 1930s Germany. Probably even closer would be the uprising in Syria and the failed uprising in Iran.

      Intermittent use, perhaps, but I doubt widespread use.

      Of course, I doubt that they'd try to turn the continental US into a glassed-over radioactive wasteland. But, when it comes to nuclear weapons, even two is pretty "widespread". Just ask Japan.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    15. Re:Great! by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      But heck, even without AP ammo, if one were to put a .50BMG round through both the side-doors, passing through without actually striking anything, the shockwave alone from the .50BMG round would likely kill or incapacitate anyone within a few feet of the rounds' path.

      OK seriously, stop posting urban legends. There is no super deadly shockwave that comes off a 50 BMG round. It's a supersonic round and like anything supersonic it will produce a sonic boom sure, but the worst the sonic crack is gonna do is maybe make your ears ring if it passes close enough, as the noise level is around 120-140db.

    16. Re:Great! by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      No, it will be similar, you are going to have a currency/economic crisis when the bond bubble bursts and probably a largely peaceful partial breakup. The federal military is not gonna march very far when they aren't paid any more than the soviet military did. When Washington has no more money to give there's no more reason for the state governments to listen to them.

    17. Re:Great! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Come on man, pretty near any gun will go through a brick wall (not dirt/adobe).

      The Jihadis in Afghanistan are rarely able to take out helicopters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it's all fun and games until the pilot of the helicopter suffers a massive heart attack and acting on the assumption that the chopper is under attack the on-board Artificial Intelligence overrides the flight controls of other armed aircraft, an air tanker from the carrier, and several nearby military bases, ordering these units into a tight defence formation in the heart of the domestic district where they openly engage anyone and anything the AI has designated as a threat.
      Damn Jigabachis.

    19. Re:Great! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      No, it will be similar, you are going to have a currency/economic crisis when the bond bubble bursts and probably a largely peaceful partial breakup.

      I hope you're right. I see more similarities to the Wiemar Republic than I do the collapse of the USSR.

      The federal military is not gonna march very far when they aren't paid any more than the soviet military did.

      I think US soldiers, being volunteers, would stick to their posts and march where ordered for a good while longer than Soviet troops without pay. Besides, the President can always ask to have UN/foreign troops come in to assist with "Maintaining order and keeping the peace during this time of crisis".

      When Washington has no more money to give there's no more reason for the state governments to listen to them.

      Which should be the norm anyways. The Republic was not designed to have a balance of powers when so much wealth is taken away by the Federal government, only to be redistributed with strings. Each State was intended to be quite different from the others.That's called diversity. It allows for more freedom and avoids a mono-culture.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    20. Re:Great! by cusco · · Score: 1

      You're missing one of the main military developments of the last decade and a half; the rise of the mercenary to a level they haven't held since the Middle Ages. For example Blackwater (whatever its name is this week) has the largest non-governmental weapons depot in the world, larger than some countries. The US embassies around the world, formerly guarded by the US Marine Corps, are today guarded by Blackwater. Triple Canopy suppress indigenous peoples in Nigeria upset about the ecological destruction caused by Shell. DynCorp breaks up unionization rallies in Colombia. I believe the mercenary scum actually outnumber the US soldiers in Iraq now, and are considerably better armed and trained (and paid) than the Iraqi army.

      **IF** (really big 'if') the central government collapses most important areas will be controlled by mercenaries in the pay of the highest bidder.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    21. Re:Great! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Pretty much anything larger and harder than a duck sucked into the intake will take out a jet engine. My wife saw a military helicopter go down when it hit power lines, cables do nasty things to supersonically-rotating blades.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  4. Meh by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I saw these at a kiosk at the Mall the other day.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have missed the man behind the curtain controlling it.

    2. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw these at a kiosk at the Mall the other day.

      Hahaha

    3. Re:Meh by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You jest, but I am seriously not impressed.
      What we see is an autopilot system for a helicopter that performs its job in perfect weather. Such systems already exist: http://www.pilotoutlook.com/helicopter_flying/autopilot

      "A risk-minimizing algorithm was used to compute and command a safe trajectory continuously throughout 23 miles of rugged terrain in a single flight, at an average speed of 40 knots"

      Wow, impressive. Especially the 'rugged' part. And the 40 knots (~75 km/h) part. And the fact that it kept a safe height of hundreds of feet from said rugged terrain ("The aircraft flew at an altitude between 200-400 feet about[sic] ground level.").
      Let's be honest: the autonomous terrain-maneuvering capabilities of this thing are dwarfed by most of the stuff we've seen quadcopters and other smaller UAVs do.

    4. Re:Meh by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      It also had people on board and was a test of the systems. No doubt that once the systems are proven, the people will come off, and the thing will be run lower and lower and faster and faster until it would cause even battle-hardened pilots to soil their drawers.

      A computer can act on inputs a lot faster than humans. The only thing (and it is a big thing) that humans have going for them is complex thought and the ability to think abstractly while maneuvering for the kill.

      But a computer-controlled and armed helicopter can basically maneuver at the limits of the flight envelope constantly without exceeding it. That will make it a very difficult opponent to defeat. Give it the power to compute many different scenarios simultaneously and then choose the one with the highest probability for success and it will be hard, if not impossible, for even abstract human thought to compete.

    5. Re:Meh by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I completely agree: Autonomous UAVs are the future.
      That doesn't change how underwhelming this particular story and the accompanying video are.

  5. So? by JasoninKS · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    My first thought is "So what?" Granted, pretty darn good for a first test. But these were very ideal looking conditions. Try it in real world conditions and then get back to me. Cloudy days, rain, fog, high winds, snow and ice, sandstorms...I'd bet any of those would throw this thing for a big loop.

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My first thought is "So what?" Granted, pretty darn good for a first test. But these were very ideal looking conditions. Try it in real world conditions and then get back to me. Cloudy days, rain, fog, high winds, snow and ice, sandstorms...I'd bet any of those would throw this thing for a big loop.

      I can see you at Kitty Hawk. 'Pretty darn good for a first test Orville, but blah blah blah'.

    2. Re:So? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, given how massively complex and difficult it is to fly a helicopter, the fact that it didn't go spiraling into the ground (which I'm sure the human pilots would have tried to avoid) -- I think any form of autonomous flight is pretty impressive.

      The aircraft flew at an altitude between 200-400 feet about ground level. As part of the field navigation tests, the aircraft's system was able to autonomously identify a safe landing spot within a forest clearing and then hover 60 feet over the identified landing spot. It achieved this goal within 1 foot of accuracy.

      "A risk-minimizing algorithm was used to compute and command a safe trajectory continuously throughout 23 miles of rugged terrain in a single flight, at an average speed of 40 knots," said Matthew Whalley, the Autonomous Rotorcraft Project lead. "No prior knowledge of the terrain was used."

      I'd call that pretty impressive -- automated terrain following in a helicopter isn't exactly an easy task.

      I'd be willing to bet this falls into the more skillful end for even human pilots, and that even doing it under ideal conditions isn't exactly easy.

      Of course, this is just the next in a long line of steps towards Skynet becoming self aware. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:So? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      I'd call that pretty impressive -- automated terrain following in a helicopter isn't exactly an easy task.

      Balancing standing on two wheels with high center of mass is a very difficult task for a human, however Segway does it easily with very primitive microcontroller.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:So? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why did this AC get marked insightful while the other guy who pointed out that military tests have been VERY favorable to the objects being tested for...ohh... I'd say the last 80+ years?

      What the military considers a "test" and what happens when you actually use the thing in combat conditions have been shown time and time again to be nowhere close, this goes all the way back to the mark 14 torpedo in WWII that the military said passed all the tests with flying colors, yet in reality if the thing didn't just blow up in the middle of the water because the magnetic exploder was faulty it would go completely under the target since it ran as much as 25 feet too deep or it would just clang against the hull of the ship since the contact fuse was also shit. the only good thing about it was when the damned thing turned on you you at least had just as much chance as the enemy of it turning out to be a dud, which is why we only lost two subs to it.

      So if anything those ratings should be reversed, as its pretty common knowledge that with the DoD and the defense contractors so chummy the tests are rigged as much as possible to give the thing being tested a favorable outcome, be it giving the Patriot a low flying level target coming in at a known height and trajectory,, similar conditions being given to the Phalanx, hell I could sit here and list weapons that passed military "tests' with flying colors only to turn out to be crap in the field all day, its not exactly like this is a revelation here.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:So? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, given how massively complex and difficult it is to fly a helicopter, the fact that it didn't go spiraling into the ground (which I'm sure the human pilots would have tried to avoid) -- I think any form of autonomous flight is pretty impressive.

      Not really. Military helicopters have long been able to self-stabilize. Apache is rumored to do it. Comanche definitely does it. Is it really that more complex to control a helicopter than a quadcopter? It's more complex to build, certainly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I guess that's why a lot of people were so surprised at how well the Iron Dome system did recently in Israel; a hell of a lot better than a pessimistic / realistic extrapolation of the strategic US interceptors and Israeli lasers which all had "passed" tests but turned out to not work in the field :-)

    7. Re:So? by Quila · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or sometimes last-minute changes to production are made that completely invalidate the tests.

      Take the M-16, great in final tests, but soldiers were dropping like flies in Vietnam because their rifles were jamming. Turns out the Army chose a different powder manufacturer for production cartridges, and this caused fouling and corrosion of the chamber and barrel, and increased the rate of fire beyond design specs.

    8. Re:So? by JasoninKS · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not saying the testing was rigged by any means. And it really is impressive that it worked that well for the first big field test. I'm sure there were many issues in the initial lab tests.

      What had triggered things in my mind was when we first went to Iraq under Bush senior. Our tanks were shut down because they didn't want them sucking in all the sand into their air intakes. Same with our jets...sand would've trashed those engines in a heartbeat. And our advanced weapons couldn't "see" targets due to blowing sand. Yeah, they were good systems, and NO system will function in 100% of conditions. But they were tested under pretty ideal conditions. Our military at the time was built for open land or forestry type conditions. No one ever thought about the effects of tons of blowing sand. No one thought about "How are we going to get this 70 ton tank across a river bridge built to hold small pickup trucks?"

      This was a very impressive feat. I can't argue that. And I'm sure more testing is to come. But I call it a very first test. Throw more harsh conditions at it and lets see how it goes.

    9. Re:So? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But don't you see? That is part of the problem, the DoD and the MIC are so in bed together that they make these tests a bad joke! They test it in perfect weather, not too hot, not too cold, on some nice green grass covered testing range, with a target that they know EXACTLY what its height, speed, and direction are gonna be then they say this "proves" the thing is capable when in reality you are more likely to win the powerball than to get those exact conditions in combat.

      I'll never forget what they did for the Phalanx CIWS "tests", they had it on a single ship, in perfectly calm water on sunny days, with a single target that would be coming in on a known trajectory and at a known speed...what EXACTLY does this prove? Nothing, that's what it proves, it proves nothing! it would be like proclaiming you had made the perfect sniper rifle because the shooter hit a 5 foot target from 1 foot away. I mean look at the ocean, lots of weather shifts, often choppy seas, and in practically every battle I ever heard of you have multiple ships on the water and multiple targets coming in, so the "test" was about as worthless as it could possibly be. Sure enough when actual conditions are used it was found the Phalanx CIWS got scores as low as 30% depending on the weather and the waves.

      So its NOT that they run into some unforeseen condition, although one would have a hard time explaining how nobody was testing for conditions seen in the middle east with it being such a hotspot, no its the fact that they test NOTHING in their supposed battle simulations, because they put so many favorable conditions out there for the weapon being tested it would be damned hard to fail much less find any real weaknesses with the weapon. that is why I find it VERY telling when they say a weapon failed testing, because with the DoD and MIC in cahoots that means even with them rigging the test like crazy it STILL couldn't pass so it has to be an uber shitty design to not pass the Mickey mouse tests the DoD approves of.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:So? by JasoninKS · · Score: 1

      You make valid points. Are they in bed together? Don't honestly know. Would it surprise me? Not really. And I'd imagine some of the weapons makers come up with the tests themselves. It passes, I'm more likely to get DoD funding to keep paying the bills. It fails, I've burned a ton of money.

      Still, I'll give some benefit of the doubt simply because there's no proof otherwise. I still call this a very initial test under prime conditions. That it works at all really is impressive. I won't argue that. Great engineering went into this. I'll be interested to see where this develops in the next couple years. But I do hope "nastier" tests will come.

    11. Re:So? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Look up "defense industry revolving door" into the search engine of your choice, you'll find all the proof you'll need. its no different than how the member heading a committee on ISP regulations quit after passing a VERY favorable to ISPs bill to go and work for Comcast, or how more than half the lobbyists in Washington are former congress critters, look that up and you'll see a pattern going back decades of those in charge of testing and procurement retiring only to go work for the defense industry. Hell look up the history of the B-2, the company just cut a check to every member of congress (that came out to less than 8% of what they made on the sale) even though a stealth bomber in an age of ICBMs really didn't make sense.

      At the end of the day until we see some tests comparable to what you'd see in battle I'd argue these tests are worthless. Just look up at the incredible score that Patriot got during its tests, in the field it was found to get maybe 30%, and even that is doubtful as the Scuds were so old and the metal so thin they began to break up during terminal phase so there is no way to tell if the patriot actually hit anything or just blew up in the debris falling behind the warhead. I also find it telling in their so called tests nobody had even bothered to leave the systems on for a week, if they did they would have found the memory leak in the software that caused the Patriot to get more inaccurate the longer it was left on.

      so I'll reserve judgement until we seen some real battlefield tests, although sadly by then the contractors will have already made their money and if it turns out to be a dud we're just stuck with it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:So? by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Actually the Iraqi SCUDs broke up because the Iraqi engineers lightened the missiles in order to increase the range.

      A Soviet SCUD-B had a range of about 190 miles and a 1700 pound warhead.

      An Iraqi Al Hussein had a range of 400 miles and a 1100 pound warhead

      The breakup on reentry didn't hurt accuracy all that much, since a SCUD-B has no terminal guidance anyway and it made it hell to try to hit because you had a long stream of wreckage acting as chaff and hiding the warhead.

      One good place to watch is "BlacktailDefense" on YouTube. he's not 100% right on everything, nobody is always right, and goes a little loony tunes on the Depleted Uranium = RADIATION OMG.

      One good series is "The Secret History of Artillery in the Vietnam War" which shows how the US has and continues to have a serious inferiority in artillery and an over reliance on air power.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94ehxKHhUBc
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ3lyhJbyUA
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igxFBObUZ-4

      He also has a series on the Sargent York fiasco.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TanFPsRaeto
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNBswoOal7w

      He has LONG series on the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradly, and the Stryker series of vehicles. Again, he's not spot on with everything, but he's pretty good. Some people accuse him of being a Mike Sparks Alt, but Sparks has a very abrasive/distinct personality when writing online. If you don't agree with him 100% then you're an idiot and he tells you. It is quite exasperating, a lot of his ideas seem worth looking into, but he has to have everything be some grand plan rather than separate building blocks people can use to fit the situation.

    13. Re:So? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links Crosshair, i bookmarked them so I can watch 'em when I'm off work. But honestly those videos i doubt I'll find surprising, we have been seeing the same shit since WWII, where an inferior design gets babied through testing and bought (for an insane profit for the contractor) only to find out its completely worthless in the field, the Mark 14 torpedo just to give one example. That thing was so shit the sub drivers could hear the things clanging against enemy hulls so would have to just empty racks and fire huge spreads just in the hope that even one wasn't a dud. you look at reports and there was plenty of cases of subs firing a dozen of them at an already damaged and slow moving target and all 12 would just clang and drop, not a single good one in the bunch.

      Only now it is a hundred times worse,as all the mergers and consolidation means you have a handful of corps who ALL know how to play the game like a harp from hell. The only thing that has saved us is the fact we've been going up against primitives using old Soviet hand me downs, if we ever had to go against another equal like we did in WWII we'd get slaughtered. Most of our planes are 30+ years old but the DoD won't allow the purchase of new proven F teen series because their friends are making out like Gods on turkeys like the F-35 which is obvious that like the F-22 is gonna end up another billion dollar boondoggle that will end up with only a handful built, meanwhile any future enemies can pick up a new SU-35 for $30 million flyaway and a new MiG 29 for less than 60 million, and unlike our techno-turkeys the Russian and Chinese planes are easy to fly, easy to maintain, and easy to afford.

      But the simple fact is our procurement and R&D has become a bad joke, with companies paid hundreds of millions even if we cancel the contracts, so where is the incentive not to pad the bill and just push out junk? And as long as the DoD is in bed with the MIC things will never change, we'll keep buying fighting weapons built for a cold war that hasn't existed in 25+ years and designed for battlefields we'll never fight on. Hell what good is stealth when our enemies either fight from caves with IEDs or like NK are using 40+ year old Soviet hand me downs that frankly the F-4 wouldn't have a problem dealing with?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  6. Noob Pilot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing they didn't hook it up to Battlefield 3. It would have crashed 3 second into the flight.

  7. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First jigabachis... next.. tachikomas? Motoko, be ready.

    1. Re:Interesting by Metahominid · · Score: 1

      Cue heart attack of pilot followed by crazy AI. Ha, jigabachis were the first thing I thought of too.

    2. Re:Interesting by ambrandt · · Score: 1

      I thought that the moment I saw this headline. Wonder is they'll give it the undercarriage weapons array that the ones in the show had.

  8. Autonomous by linatux · · Score: 1

    including the use of weapons? (Next logical step)

    1. Re:Autonomous by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Not until we've perfected the targeting system, so it will only kill brown people and indigenous populations.

    2. Re:Autonomous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Initially, perhaps.

      But eventually it will be anyone in an area that predominantly voted against the current administration.

      And finally anyone not in the ruling elite.

    3. Re:Autonomous by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      If you kill everyone not in the ruling elite, then there is no one to rule. They need us plebes so that they don't have to actually work.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  9. That would be so cool, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it weren't about to kill us.

  10. Cool by codepigeon · · Score: 2

    I am sure there will be many posts about 'big brother' and the evils of the government, but I have to say....cool.

    I have always been interested in robotics. This is just amazing to me. We have moved so fast (in regards to computing), I can only imagine what will be common place in the next decade.

    p.s. It would be awesome if they posted the algorithms they used for this. I won't hold my breath.

  11. SkyNet here we come by kilodelta · · Score: 2

    This is sort of scary to me. It is as though we're living in the age of SkyNet yet most of us don't know it.

    1. Re:SkyNet here we come by ultranova · · Score: 1

      This is sort of scary to me. It is as though we're living in the age of SkyNet yet most of us don't know it.

      And yet, for most people, just what would be the difference between Skynet and the current order? A coldly rational computer isn't going to start a world war, since that would destroy the very infrastructure that feeds it, while humans have done so twice and come darn close to starting a third one multiple times. So, should Skynet take over, would most people even notice?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:SkyNet here we come by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, should Skynet take over, would most people even notice?

      Would you notice the difference between a little bugshit in your candy bar, and a candy bar made entirely out of bugshit? The premise is that Skynet is trying to kill all the humans, TPTB are only trying to kill most of the humans.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:SkyNet here we come by gagol · · Score: 1

      Fuck Skynet, I vote for Colossus.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    4. Re:SkyNet here we come by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      The premise is that Skynet is trying to kill all the humans...

      Which seems quite illogical as long as SkyNet is not superior to humans. Original thinking and coming up with new stuff is quite hard for an A.I., despite our best efforts to teach it to them. We're able to create A.I. which are good problems solvers...but a problem solver can not come up with innovation, not much at least. As long as SkyNet is not superior to a human. As the problem solver would most likely have figured out by then that humans don't like to be killed, and go *way* out of their way to avoid being murdered *or* take the bastard at least with them down.

    5. Re:SkyNet here we come by kilodelta · · Score: 2

      I was waiting for someone to mention Colossus: The Forbin Project. "This is the voice of World Control....Obey and Live". That has to be one of the more scary AI movies out there. I do wish they'd do a remake on that one though the classic, even at it's low budget managed to get the point across loud and clear.

  12. "Robot Down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have Robot Down!"

    That sounds a lot less scary, doesn't it?

    1. Re:"Robot Down... by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Until it gets captured, reprogrammed and sent back.

      Anyone remember the Terminator Series? That was a big thing for the resistance, capturing Skynet weapons intact, or rebuilding one working one from multiple broken ones, and reprogramming them to aid in attacking Skynet.

  13. SCREW THIS ARMY STUFF! by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Where's my $100 plane ticket to Australia?! (Note: far from Kangaroos at this point.)

  14. And this is bad because... by Pecisk · · Score: 2

    Ok, I'm seriously missing something. Is that my paranoid gene? So all tech now will be bad, because all tech can be used to kill people? Seriously?

    Come on, idea of Internet was conceptually concieved by military for communication infrastructure to survive localized nuclear attack! So it must be bad too!

    I'm the only one who sees beneficts of this, or drones... Or Slashdot has long time ago lost it's common, humor and cool head senses and I'm preaching to wall here?

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:And this is bad because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, it belongs to the neverending series of /. articles about lame (both on the cool/interesting scale AND in motoric capabilities) robots.

    2. Re:And this is bad because... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that is further dehumanizes killing, and the US has a history of treating non-US citizens as sub-human (e.g. not respecting their human rights, killing large numbers of civilians by mistake and then using terms like "collateral damage").

      Back in school the teacher posed a question for debate. If you were presented with a button that if pressed would kill some anonymous person you had never met on the other side of the world with no consequences to yourself, other than receiving £1,000,000, would you do it? The US military is close to answering that question in the form of "would you deploy a drone over some foreign country where it might kill some innocent people you have never met if there were no consequences to yourself, other than receiving a few million dollars to buy more drones?"

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:And this is bad because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, this sort of tech is, as you say, a little like the Internet. It'll be really cool when everyone's got it.

      I actually mean this - when autonomous flying vehicles are something "everyone" can own, then it'll be cool. Until then, it's another way for the "haves" to oppress the "have nots". Once the average joe can buy/build a half-decent vehicle of his own, then the advantage of the "haves" is reduced to the point of "we flew a 'copter over his house to see if we could get a shot of him, but he flew one back and dropped grenades over our parking lot". Thing may still not be "even", but they'll be a lot less asymmetric than they are now.

    4. Re:And this is bad because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the only one who sees beneficts of this, or drones... Or Slashdot has long time ago lost it's common, humor and cool head senses and I'm preaching to wall here?

      'beneficts'?

      *facepalm*

      ffs c & t aren't even close on a qwerty board.

    5. Re:And this is bad because... by thatshortkid · · Score: 1

      seriously. my first thought was coast guard search & rescue.

      --
      The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
    6. Re:And this is bad because... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Actually the Internet was conceived by a few sys admins who were tired of having five different terminals on their desk so figured out how to have one system communicate with the others. The salescritters then sold it to ARPA as something else.

      Design a helicopter that can autonomously deliver cargo from one rooftop to another in Manhattan? That's cool. Design a helicopter that can autonomously slaughter people? That's a fucking waste of money and researchers' time.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  15. Osprey by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

    Good for them. Maybe they can use this to finally get the Osprey to fly as well.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:Osprey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Osprey has been flying in service since 2005, bro.

    2. Re:Osprey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you consider "flying in service" as "able to fly about 25% of the design flight profiles, with an accident rate twice that of standard helicopters". It's far more vulnerable to ground fire than either helicopters or planes, and absolutely will crash when performing avoidance maneuvers while in "VTOL" mode. In short - you don't get to use it anywhere near a hostile force, nor can it be flown (well, actually, landed) in rough weather. That kind of cuts it out of use by the Navy, and the Army isn't able have it do more than medium transport into secure airfields.

      The Osprey is a failure, pure and simple. It can't live up to its original design specifications, and thus is more costly than traditional helicopters. Its only current advantage is a longer range, which, given the very restricted flight profile for landing, is practically useless (you can use a C-130 for 80% of the flight profiles that the Osprey can do that a helicopter can't). It's even worse, as the Navy found out that using Ospreys on many current-generation ships isn't possible, due to the excessively hot engine exhaust causing deck-warping (yeah, in 3" solid steel decks). So, the Osprey can't land on the vast majority of helicopter-equipped ships, even those which nominally should be able to handle something the Oprey's size.

      The Osprey is like the DD-1000: something that is never going to be worth the money we spend on it, and should be killed NOW.

  16. what's this bathtub cork doing up there? by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    All looks military grade but this bathtub cork on a cheesy chain attached to the scanning thingy (LIDAR?)...huh?

    --
    4wdloop
  17. And yet more glorification of killing technology by musth · · Score: 0

    You can almost feel the boner that the Slashdot editors have for this crap, the way they're constantly shoving it at the readership. Frighteningly, a considerable portion of the readership likely has the same boner. That's what decades of living in a nation that glorifies war does.

    Notice the display in the corner of the video - just like a video game.

  18. Re:And yet more glorification of killing technolog by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Turning the other cheek only works if the other party is a 60 lb unarmed girl. I think it is very good that you are living in such a nice padded coccoon that you can actually believe that pacifism is a viable strategy. It shows that the police and military are successful in keeping you a safe and insulated mommy's little baby with no real word experience, but one day, when you venture out of the basement, please don't go anywhere with grafiti on a wall, stick to the major shopping mall food courts and you should not come to any harm.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  19. Another step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another step towards video-game warfare. This works better when the enemy, real or imagined, can't attack your country or your ships or your bases. Next step: Soldiers will be randomly selected for suicide according to simulated warfare; no need to make weapons of war.

    1. Re:Another step by Quila · · Score: 1

      This works better when the enemy, real or imagined, can't attack your country or your ships or your bases.

      How is this a bad thing? War pretty much consists of killing the other guys while keeping your guys from getting killed. The more you can protect your guys, the more you are likely to win.

    2. Re:Another step by cusco · · Score: 1

      How is war a good thing?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Another step by Quila · · Score: 1

      It was kind of a good idea to keep Hitler from taking over Europe and killing all the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals.

      When you have to go to war, it's a very good idea to make sure as few of yours as possible die while killing theirs.

  20. Fly Hard by dohzer · · Score: 1

    This is well and good, but what happens when a Marine types 'FLY HARD' into the console and hits return?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7783335/ns/us_news/t/reckless-pilots-problem-us-military/

    1. Re:Fly Hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sure reinforces the "Yee Haw!" cowboy pilot/soldier stereotype the rest of the world has of the US military.

      If you want to do better at "regime changing" you need to send cool headed professionals not a bunch of kids with high powered weapons who are a danger to everyone including themselves AND their allies.

      e.g. the sort who'd say "Grow Up, Kid" when someone asks them to "hot dog" it.

      Would you want to trust your life to a civilian airliner pilot who "hot dogs" it with 300 passengers? No? So why put weapons that can wipe-out entire villages or towns in such immature unprofessional hands?

    2. Re:Fly Hard by Quila · · Score: 1

      We're not looking for the aerial version of bus drivers to fly these things, we're looking for race car drivers, drifters, stunt drivers, people who can and will push the envelope. We want people who will fly in at 100mph at treetop level in a twisty valley at night under fire to exfil pinned-down troops. Unfortunately, as the article notes, this ability and willingness naturally increases the probability of hot-dogging incidents regardless of how otherwise professional the pilots are.

      The difference between hot-dogging and training is mainly whether the pilot was ordered to do it. What would be "watch this trick" in civilian life is done daily by these guys. What kind of idiot dips the back-end of his helicopter in the ocean and holds it there? They do it all the time for Spec Ops boat launch and recovery.

      Those pilots with the conservative airline mentality can fly the C-17s. They're useless for combat helicopters.

  21. Re:And yet more glorification of killing technolog by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    Turning the other cheek

    Hey, look everyone, a Christian who happens to be a complete fuckheaded warmonger! Who would have thought of such thing?

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  22. Re:And yet more glorification of killing technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Notice the display in the corner of the video - just like a video game.

    Just FYI, the video games emulated the HUD's not the other way around. But more to the point, so fucking what?

  23. Re:And yet more glorification of killing technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess who has been going around slapping other people's cheeks and giving pretty bad excuses for doing so.

    Pacifism isn't a viable strategy for other countries when the USA keeps going around "projecting power".

    You bunch look more and more like the bad guys every day. Except with way more firepower.

  24. No Running Man? by Coisiche · · Score: 1

    But if they don't have pilots who are they going to make contenders in an execution that's fronted as a TV game show?

    1. Re:No Running Man? by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Which got me thinking... if you're going to deploy helicopters against civilian food rioters[1] then it's probably better to have them under machine control rather than a pilot who is likely to come from a civilian background.

      [1] Sadly, I don't think that this is an impossibility, even in developed nations.

  25. Non-stupid uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There must be a thousand different ways to use this technology in order to improve our lives rather than in a war machine.

    1. Re:Non-stupid uses by Quila · · Score: 1

      GPS, FLIR, radar, night vision, space rockets, jet engines, all brought to practical reality for military use then later transitioned to benefit civilian life.

      This is history. Even the Roman roads were built for the troops, not civilian commerce.

  26. Everything is openly available by xtal · · Score: 1

    The control algorithms, IMU processing, hell even very good terrain data are all openly available. Some time in a engineering library searching papers will even turn up reams of applications to helicopters specifically.

    Even very good image systems are available.

    What's changed is the processors to make use of all those are both rediculously cheap and light.

    Human pilots.. your time is coming.

    --
    ..don't panic
  27. Some Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article summary is slightly misleading. AMRDEC is headquatered out of Redstone in Alabama, but the US Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate (a division of AMRDEC) developed the RASCAL helicopter and is located at Moffett Field, alongside NASA Ames research center. RASCAL has been in development for many years, flying out of Moffett near Montain View, CA, and this flight is just the latest in a long series of incremental advances.

    The hot new thing in the rotorcraft industry right now is "optionally piloted" vehicles--the idea being that you'd like to use helicopter as they're used today, with pilots flying troop transport and assault missions, but have the option to remove the pilot for riskier or more monotonous tasks like ferrying cargo to forward-deployed troops. There are various levels of human involvement being considered as well; for instance, short of full automation you might have a formation of four helicopters where only the leader is piloted by humans. Things are picking up, and this technology really is going straight from prototypes like RASCAL into the next generation of versions of our current airframes.

  28. Re:And yet more glorification of killing technolog by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

    There is a difference between pacifism and non-interventionism.

    As has been pointed out by the AC, Guess who has been going around slapping other people's cheeks and giving pretty bad excuses for doing so? Are you SERIOUSLY surprised when those people start slapping back after getting slapped for 40 years? The US government continually operates on the idea that, "The best defense is a good offense." That may work for sports, but it's a lousy military strategy and national defense policy.

    We need to stop interfering in their affairs, let them govern themselves and within a generation they will be back killing each other as they were before we intervened. Anyone that bothers to come around the world to attack us will be little more than a lethal nuisance that is easily dealt with by law enforcement.

  29. Re:And yet more glorification of killing technolog by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

    Hey, look everyone, an Atheist who happens to be projecting onto others.

  30. Re:And yet more glorification of killing technolog by cusco · · Score: 1

    Any idea which is the only country in the Americas has not been involved in a war in the last half century? Costa Rica, which has no military.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin