Slashdot Mirror
US Army Hopes To Outfit Soldiers With Tiny Drones By 2018 (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The U.S. Army has requested industry information on the feasibility of making tiny drones that would help infantry gather intelligence on a small scale, such as peeping over a hill or around a building. its dream recon machine would weigh no more than a third of a pound, launch within one minute and fly for at least 15 minutes. Ideally, the drones would be in service as soon as 2018. "[A nano-drone] will send real-time video back to the operator to give them real-time situational awareness of what's in the immediate vicinity," says Phil Cheatham, the deputy branch chief for electronics at the Army's Maneuvers Center for Excellence (MCOE). Cheatham says he and his team want something cheap enough to deploy with every squad, noting the Army already uses satellite imagery and larger drones to provide broader battlefield intelligence.
If remote controlled tiny aircraft were better on the battlefield we would not need soldiers at all. There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets. I say this as a Veteran (US Army) in case you weigh things by experience.
Communications is important, but so is a lack of communications. Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide, they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Save a soldier's life and write Congress. Tech companies don't need to make money off of soldier's lives.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Take your $1000 drone and do the following.
1. Rugedize the controller and drone so they can stand up to battlefield conditions which includes the following: temperature extremes; being dropped, stepped on, etc; waterproof; dust/sand resistant; etc
2. Make the communications channel both jam resistant and secure.
3. Make it, including a protected carrying case for the drone, small and light enough not to be a burden.
4. Go through several rounds of testing and modification so everyone has a say in the design and politicians are seen to be doing something.
5. Parcel out the production to several states to spread the money around.
That $1000 drone just got much more expensive.
The main issue is that military equipment has to work in harsh conditions. On the battlefield you can't say "my machine is not working so I am not going to play today".
Yes, quadrotors are more energy hungry than a plane or an helicopter and it makes probably more noise and is less compact than an helicopter as well.
I bought my son a $69 quadrotor drone for his birthday that has a 10 minute flight time, and meets all of the other criteria listed in the summary. So instead of spending their budget investigating the feasibility, they should get in their Humvee and drive to the closest mall.
The quadrotor may be slightly bigger than a heli-drone, but it is much more stable and easier to fly. My son was flying his skillfully after 2 hours of practice, so the Pentagon should be able to train operators for about $50k each.