Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Successful Unmanned Drone Landing On an Aircraft Carrier

Posted by samzenpus on from the let-the-computer-do-it dept.

redletterdave writes "Salty Dog 502 flew from the Patuxent River Naval Station in Maryland to the USS George H.W. Bush operating off the Virginian coast, but unlike other drones, Salty Dog was piloted entirely by computer without a human operator. The unmanned operation is considered one of the most difficult operations due to navigating the air and a moving ship, and many have said it's a major milestone in the development of drone warfare. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus described the event as witnessing the future and compared it to the first manned aircraft landed on a carrier in 1911."

11 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. The claim of first drone landing is incorrect ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    G.W. Bush landed on a carrier years before this.

    1. Re:The claim of first drone landing is incorrect ! by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't insult the drones. They have a far greater reaching spread of abilities and a much more complicated and adaptable intelligence engine.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:The claim of first drone landing is incorrect ! by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I always love when some random internet wanker posting from his mom's basement posits that a man that:
      a) flew fighter jets for the National Guard (deprecate it all you like, make smarmy comments about his attendance, whatever - nobody doubts that he flew and qualified in fighter jets, which was neither easy nor particularly safe)
      b) Graduated Yale, and earned an MBA from Harvard (it's particularly noteworthy that he's the only president ever with an MBA...if he was a Democrat, that would be widely known)
      c) won an election as Governor of TX over a popular opponent (Ann Richards)
      d) won election to the Presidency of the United States. Won RE-ELECTION (by an even larger margin). ...is an idiot.

      This man has actually accomplished a great deal in his life. Maybe he IS an idiot, but doesn't that make his accomplishments all that more impressive. Particularly compared to you - what have you done? (I mean, aside from generating snarky comments nearly-anonymously on an internet message board? I mean, of course that's pretty impressive alone...)

      Of course, there's practically a Leftist industry of shat-smearing on Republicans (as opposed to Democrats that make 'journalists' legs tingle), so you can't really be blamed. The script has always been "Democrats brilliant, Republicans stoopid" so, if you cheerfully swallow when someone tells you to, that's the impression you're going to have.

      But the sort of self-aggrandizing narcissist fantasyland you exist in to deprecate this man's accomplishments must be...impressive.

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:The claim of first drone landing is incorrect ! by tristes_tigres · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are forgetting his biggest achievements:

      - Invaded sovereign nation that did not threaten USA - the supreme war crime under Nurenberg statues. This war resulted in million+ excess deaths of Iraq populac, according to the Johns Hopkins Unuiversity study

      - Established secret torture GULAG

      - Declared habeas corpus void for "terorism" suspects

      - Launched the total survelliance programs that Snowden now revealed

      - Given away trillions of public money to corrupt and bankrupt Wall Street bankers

  2. Re:just wait... by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Informative

    landed on a perfect clear day. wonder what happens when the seas are rough, the deck is pitching, and MOVLAS is rigged......

    The first manned aircraft landing on a ship was also done on a perfect clear day after several weather driven delays.

  3. guiding system by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real question in my opinion is what kind of guiding system do the drones use. Flying by radar guidance is something that we have been doing for a long time, surface to air or air to air missiles use it to lock on a stay on target, unfortunately flying with active radar turned on you are putting a bullseye on yourself that makes it trivial for a enemy with any kind of air defenses to easily track it and shoot it down. Flying with visual guidance is considerably harder (by visual guidance I don't mean simply terrain contour matching to figure out its current location like the tomahawk). Most don't appreciate just how fast the human brain is in quickly figuring out and processing relevant information in the insane amount of visual data that enters our retinas every instant. Computers are nowhere near as good yet.

    1. Re:guiding system by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if it used stereoscopic vision to assess in figuring out the Z-plane and not just the X,Y. From there, it can infer the geometry and angle of approach of the carrier it's about to land on.

      Furthermore, a carrier deck has markings and lights at precisely known locations. Just by tracking any three of these points, plus the GAIL (glide angle indicator light), the vision system should have enough information to nail the landing. This landing is a notable achievement, but I don't think the vision system was the hard part.

  4. Re: just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Similarly, the first human heavier than air flight. That's why aviation has no future whatsoever.

  5. Re:big whoop by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Landing on a carrier is much more difficult because the motions of the ship and the disturbances on the airplane are random. In space, the motions of all the objects are highly predictable.

  6. Re:Dumbass title is dumbass by MindCrusher · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe because it clearly states WITHOUT A HUMAN OPERATOR.

  7. Re: 1.4 Billion and off to retirement by jxander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prototypes are expensive, mate. Cost of progress. You're probably right, we could test the individual systems more cheaply, but lab tests in similar gear will only get you so far. At some point you need to do a full-up test run with the actual platform and all components.

    Honestly, I would suspect that many MANY tests were run just like you suggested, prior to this event, and the combined cost of those tests (and rectifying and problems found) are all rolled up into that Total cost, driving that cost up further.

    --
    This signature is false.