Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Researchers Get Drones To Swarm On Target

Posted by Soulskill on from the teaching-skynet-how-to-kill-us dept.

coondoggie writes: The Office of Naval Research today said it had successfully demonstrated a system that lets small-unmanned aircraft swarm and act together over a particular target. The system, called Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST) features a tube-based launcher that can send multiple drones into the air in rapid succession. The systems then use information sharing between the drones, allowing autonomous collaborative behavior in either defensive or offensive missions, the Navy said.

50 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. LOCUST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fantastic name!

    1. Re:LOCUST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there's a special department whos sole purpose is to think these up.

  2. Low Cost UAV Swarming Technology by sexconker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That's LCUAVST, not LOCUST.

    1. Re:Low Cost UAV Swarming Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Avoid link to clickbait filled, bloated news site: http://i.imgur.com/ivu7txP.gifv

      Unbloated link content:

      When keepers at a zoo decided they wanted to spy on their chimpanzees with a drone, there was one resourceful ape who decided he wasn't going to put up with any monkeying around.

      The clever chimp found a big stick and waited in a tree to ambush the intrusive flying eye.

      As it flew past, he expertly whacked it and sent it plummeting to the ground where other chimps in the enclosure gathered round to inspect the intruder.

      The drone was destroyed but not before it had managed to capture some amazing footage.

      And the zoo at the Royal Burgers' Zoo in Arnhem, Netherlands, posted the video on YouTube.

    2. Re:Low Cost UAV Swarming Technology by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      That's pretty cool. I take some issue with the "expertly" characterization of his swatting, though.

    3. Re:Low Cost UAV Swarming Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maria Hill: What does "S.H.I.E.L.D." stand for, Agent Ward?

      Agent Ward: Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division.

      Maria Hill: And what does that mean to you?

      Agent Ward: It means someone really wanted our initials to spell out "Shield".

  3. Wait I think I saw this somewhere else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of carriers from Starcraft. Just without the Psy power source.

    Their next move will be to develop 3D printers on-board to replace them as they get shot down.

    1. Re:Wait I think I saw this somewhere else... by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Perhaps but Starcraft is older than COD.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:Wait I think I saw this somewhere else... by zlives · · Score: 1

      Robotech Missile Effect

  4. Chewie by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've got a bad feeling about this!

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  5. Smaller Is Better by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Imagine a swarm of baseball size drones all seeking to fly into the air intake of enemy jet engines. One chunk of titanium rod inside the drone should make a real mess out of a spinning engine.

    1. Re:Smaller Is Better by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      The problem with conventional missiles is that if they miss, and they miss a lot, they are expended. A drone can hang around and attack the next aircraft coming by.

    2. Re:Smaller Is Better by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I think that if you are in a position to take out a fighter jet with a drone, you have options that are much simpler and surer.

    3. Re:Smaller Is Better by Nikker · · Score: 1

      You want a small drone that can fly about 50Mph to intercept a jet going 500Mph? Please fill us in on the details.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    4. Re:Smaller Is Better by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      No, I want one of a thousand drones deployed as a wall in front of the aircraft to get sucked into the intake and break a couple of fins which will lead to catastrophic failure.

    5. Re:Smaller Is Better by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Those aircraft only look to be 100Lbs max. A jet coming at a wall of these things would push those drones around like the toys they are. Maybe out of sheer luck you could bring a jet down. If each had some sort of explosive that would be triggered by the jets wake it would be more likely but clouding the sky and hoping for the best doesn't really seem that likely.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    6. Re:Smaller Is Better by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      I guess you remembered your Charlemagne: "Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky..."

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:Smaller Is Better by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      titanium? just the baseball will take out the turbine of a jet engine. all you need to do is break one or two turbine vanes and the engine will destroy it's self.

      Jet engines are pretty darn flimsy in regards to objects entering the intake.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Smaller Is Better by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Which would make flak guns way more effective. Start shooting flak that is nothing more than simple drones that look for large objects, get close to them and explode.

      Flak shells are already 50% there as they have the proximity fuse, all we need to do is add a system to let them steer themselves to big objects.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Smaller Is Better by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Motorcycles are faster than dogs, yet many people get injured by dogs intercepting a motorcycle.

      I am thinking you did not take physics and algebra classes to learn about trajectories and interception.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Smaller Is Better by avandesande · · Score: 1

      or 10 pounds of HX and a proximity sensor... just sayin'

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    11. Re:Smaller Is Better by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      To carry 10 pounds and a proximity fuse would require a 20 pound drone. That would make it large, easily seen and easily avoided.

    12. Re:Smaller Is Better by sjames · · Score: 1

      A commercial jet has an even bigger size/mass advantage over a goose, yet geese have been known to bring one down even while they presumably try not to collide.

    13. Re:Smaller Is Better by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      The question becomes how maneuverable one is, versus the other, as well as the question of speed.

      In fact, let's we have a rocket powered drone, that has its own guidance systems, and an explosive charge, that is trying to hit the jet, or come reasonably close to it and explode that charge, in order to destroy the jet. ...and now let me point out that these "Drones" have been in regular use by armies worldwide for over fifty years. They're called guided Surface to Air Missiles.

    14. Re:Smaller Is Better by sjames · · Score: 1

      Geese have a much tighter turning radius than a commercial jet (which is also presumably not trying to catch the geese).

  6. We're all in the field of PR by recharged95 · · Score: 2, Informative

    “This level of autonomous swarming flight has never been done before,” said Mastroianni. “
    I beg to differ. Some groups I know of have been doing this (with vehicle to vehicle communication) since 2012.

    1. Re:We're all in the field of PR by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Citation needed.

    2. Re:We're all in the field of PR by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If he tells you he'll have to kill you. Unless he's referring to birds.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:We're all in the field of PR by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Theory is great but it does take effort to make it reality.

    4. Re:We're all in the field of PR by petervandervos · · Score: 1

      Example how to use swarming for a good cause. Sorry, part is in Dutch:
      http://fireswarm.nl/

    5. Re:We're all in the field of PR by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      This is not swarming. It is using drones flying pre-programmed paths to survey and area and search for a fire. There is no intelligence in the drones and no drone to drone communication.

    6. Re:We're all in the field of PR by petervandervos · · Score: 1

      That was only the test program to test the fire detection. The problem was that it is illegal to use autonomous drones in the Netherlands. The technology was ready.

    7. Re:We're all in the field of PR by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      can you reference where in the site it states that the project would use true swarming technology and not what I just described?

  7. Re:They should use these... by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Informative

    Idiot. Why do you fools keep buying into that nonsense? There is only one party in Washington, the money party. It shows two faces to make foolish morons like you think they have a choice.

  8. What about jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And how exactly do these swarms work if the intended target starts jamming GPS signals, large chunks of the RF spectrum and shines infrared spotlights towards the swarm? On paper most autonomous military vehicles just seem too fragile to work as intended in a real situation.

    1. Re:What about jamming by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The military is way ahead of you: http://www.slashgear.com/darpa...

      --
      Some things need to be said...
    2. Re:What about jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And how exactly do these swarms work if the intended target starts jamming GPS signals, large chunks of the RF spectrum and shines infrared spotlights towards the swarm? On paper most autonomous military vehicles just seem too fragile to work as intended in a real situation.

      A jammer is a transmitter. Turning on a jammer on the battlefield is like putting up a giant neon sign that says "BOMB ME!" right over your head. Militaries even have special kinds of missiles available (so called anti-radiation missiles) that will lock on to anything transmitting, even in short bursts.

    3. Re:What about jamming by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

      They breed really, really quickly.

  9. Middle East = target? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Of course, the example was shown in what looks like the Middle East. Imagine the fun to be had if they were shown circling the Bundy ranch?

  10. Re:Do the drones use Systemd? by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 1

    I'd imagine that they are not using a publicly available operating system to run their weapons.

    --
    Some things need to be said...
  11. Re:They should use these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee," "the only reason you are endorsing him is because he's black. Let's just be clear." -Clinton

    Keep it classy, Democrats.

  12. That's called a beacon by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    There's nothing like a good, strong RF+IR signal to home in on for pinpoint accuracy.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  13. Re:Another weapon for Skynet by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    What, no Skynet reference?

    The Beer Must Flow. Schmai-gunug be willing, steak for dinner sometime soon.

  14. Was predicted in SF 20 years ago or so... by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

    I remember that an SF story a couple of decades ago predicted that cruise missiles and the computer technology to direct their swarming would make them inexpensive weapons of choice for some nations. Looks as if that time is upon us.

    "...officials note, having this capability will force adversaries to focus on UAV swarm response." I hope that we also have some focus onUAV swarm response; the 'swarm' of Kamikaze attacks on our fleet off Okinawa in WWII inflicted great damage even though we had AA shells with proximity fuzes, early warning radar, and fighter aircraft for interception.

    --
    Nate
  15. Applications by Translation+Error · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the comments about killing machines aside, it sounds like these could be of great benefit in search & rescue and fire fighting.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  16. God of Thunder! by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    And robot swarms

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  17. Re:call a spade a spade? by lurking_giant · · Score: 1

    Kinetic energy penetrator... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

  18. video showing swarm launch by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 1

    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-...

  19. Re:Kill Decision by afranke · · Score: 1

    I did and that was my first thought too. Highly recommended.

  20. Re:Embarassing use of tech by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Doctors take a pledge not to kill people; I see no reason why we engineers shouldn't hold ourselves to the standard.

    The original job of engineers was to build and use siege engines. An engineer's version of the Hippocratic Oath would involve not-not-killing people.