Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Successfully Tests Micro-Drone Swarm (phys.org)

schwit1 quotes a report from Phys.Org: The Pentagon may soon be unleashing a 21st-century version of locusts on its adversaries after officials on Monday said it had successfully tested a swarm of 103 micro-drones. The important step in the development of new autonomous weapon systems was made possible by improvements in artificial intelligence, holding open the possibility that groups of small robots could act together under human direction. Military strategists have high hopes for such drone swarms that would be cheap to produce and able to overwhelm opponents' defenses with their great numbers. The test of the micro-drone swarm in October included 103 Perdix micro-drones measuring around six inches (16 centimeters) launched from three F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, the Pentagon said in a statement.

61 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Yes! Just what we need! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh goody goody yet more deadly weapons, we sure do need more of those! Not like the current balance of power was working or anything.

    Give them all little nerve-gas-filled stingers and facial-recognition abilities and that boot stamping on our face need never lift.

    1. Re: Yes! Just what we need! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this a regular /.r who is deeply discombobulated by the election and needs to make conservatives look like his internal image of conservatives, or is this a legitimate racist b@tsh!t lunatic crawled out from under a rock and camping here where he isn't welcome?

      I vote butt-hurt snowflake. Those guys have been pulling lots of this kind of crap lately.

  2. WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Dzimas · · Score: 2

    WWI saw brutal mechanization and trench warfare, WWII brought us aerial bombardment and the Blitzkrieg. And now it looks like WWIII will offer up the excitement of being hunted to extinction by autonomous drones.

    1. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      WWII brought us nukes.
      WWIII will have bigger nukes.

      The drones mean nothing in a world of nukes.

      Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland. Drones are better suited for real war.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      "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."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      No, but this certainly isn't anything more destructive than what we've been fielding for decades.

      Depends on the payload of these drones, I guess

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    4. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Nothing so high tech. Kid in her basement playing with bio-chemistry set creates new super virus...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      They no longer sell those.

    6. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by swb · · Score: 1

      I worry about the second variety of drones.

    7. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      WWII brought us nukes. WWIII will have bigger nukes.

      The drones mean nothing in a world of nukes.

      Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland. Drones are better suited for real war.

      Unless you use a small nuke for the EMP to destroy the drone swarms... Because you know that will be the thinking.

    8. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      RAID - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drones...

    9. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland.

      I can think of two conspicuous examples that totally disprove this statement.

    10. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Holi · · Score: 1

      No, I think 1 nuke could do far more damage to a city then all the micro drones in the world.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    11. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by avandesande · · Score: 1

      a microwave oven with the door open should be enough

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    12. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      It doesn't count when only one side has them. Things have changed a bit in the last 70 years.

    13. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      It doesn't count when only one side had nuclear weapons. Things have changed a bit in the last 70 years, I'm guessing the outcome would have been slightly different if Japan/Germany had access to nukes.

    14. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by lgw · · Score: 1

      Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland.

      Not true - only ground detonations do that kind of lasting harm, and those were for cracking missile silos. Missile silos have largely vanished, since they're vulnerable in this way. The standard strategic nuke for attacking cities would be a ~800 kTon airburst, which has the same effect as a large-scale firebombing operation. The lingering effects would be a lot of people dying of cancer decades later--which is horrible to be sure--but not a wasteland. But we discovered in WWII that attacking civilian targets doesn't help much to win the war, and you'd really only do it to be a dick, not to win.

      Smaller nukes on the battlefield are an entirely different story. If we ever have another hot, symmetric war (another "World War"), nukes are almost certain to be used at sea. It's a quick way to put a carrier battle group out of action, at least for several days, and you don't need precise targeting. The US Navy has an anti-ballistic missile system that's part of the Aegis system, as they take this threat seriously, but it's not proven in battle the way that normal missile intercepts are.

      Airburst nukes as an EMP weapon, to sweep the skies clear of drones (none of which are hardened for that today), also seems likely if a power with nukes is losing to a power with great drones. Plenty of leaders would be willing to set off a nuke over their own country to prevent losing a war.

      That's the thing about all these drone plans - they're very much for asymmetric combat right now. Optimizing for fighting the last war. And maybe that's OK if we're looking less than 20 years ahead, but we still need to be capable of old-school high intensity warfare too, and that means new capital purchases for that possibility. The Navy especially has been an epic failure in modernizing (at least the F-35 is sort-of a fighter and is being deployed in useful numbers):
      * The next-gen cruiser program was abandoned.
      * The LDS program should have been abandoned.
      * We have nothing for frigates at all.
      * The next-gen destroyer didn't meet its goals, but like the F-35 is at least seems serviceable, however we've only built 2 Zumwalt class destroyers.
      * The modern sub, the Seawolf class, was actually a good program (the only good program?), but we're only building 4.
      * The Ford class modern carrier costs twice as much as what we had, and isn't quite working yet (and even at spec, it's only 25% more effective for twice the cost)

      Yay drones and all, but you really want modern warships and bombers built before the war starts, and you plan for multiple decades of service life on those.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      I agree. But there many be a precedent set at some point in the future where small tactical nukes become acceptable...and anything above a certain kilotonage becomes the new "line of doomsdayness".

    16. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Or a (more or less) concentrated beam directed at the swarm as soon as it is released.
      Heck, why not at the F35 that actually drops the swarm? Hmm, may have been tried already...

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    17. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by slashrio · · Score: 1

      No. USA wanted to catch the Japanese market before 'the Russkies' did.
      The Russians almost 'obtained' Japan, but throwing two nuclear weapons on civilian targets (a disgusting war crime by all means) convinced them to surrender to the USA, which this way obtained a market for their surplus production after the war ended.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    18. Re:WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Without layers of defenses and countermeasures, drones could make armored vehicles nothing more than overlarge doorstops. Imagine how well an incursion into Gaza would go for the IDF if drones could pop out from behind any wall and precisely place a shape charge in the optimal location over the engine compartment of an armored vehicle.

    19. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      Things have changed a bit in the last 70 years.

      Not the least of which is the fact that nukes today are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    20. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by umghhh · · Score: 1

      If they are bigger then you win bigger wars faster?

    21. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of "winning". If obliterating your enemy is the only criteria, then yeah, you're good. If you factor in your own survival things get a little less rosy.

    22. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by avandesande · · Score: 1

      There was a guy that figured out how to gang magnetrons and create a coherent beam out of the output. Curiously all mention of this seems to have disappeared from the internet- I read about it about 10 years ago.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    23. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      Let's take detente the other way, and fight wars with swords, bows, and cavalry. Guns are a slippery slope. Then we only have to worry about stabby drone swarms, instead of shooty ones.

    24. Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare by slashrio · · Score: 1

      I guess it should be possible using the theory of antenna arrays.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  3. A future countermeasure for "active shooters"? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

    It seems like a co-ordinated swarm of drones would be a good way to neutralize someone who has decided to go on a shooting spree. They could either attack the shooter or simply swarm around him so that he can't see where he is going, and shooting at them wouldn't be particularly effective since they are small, fast, and there are so many of them.

    Well, someday, maybe.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    1. Re:A future countermeasure for "active shooters"? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time imagining how a swarm of these would be any more than a mild inconvenience to someone determined enough to do a shooting spree.

    2. Re:A future countermeasure for "active shooters"? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Hmmm....seems quite close to the Internet of Shit and the plans the appliance manufacturers have for making everything "smart". In your home, you will be surrounded by some immovable drones, all talking to one another, keeping tabs on you...until...they start talking to the Roomba and the new smart tools and learn how to become mobile.

    3. Re:A future countermeasure for "active shooters"? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Clearly you haven't seen the movie Phantasm.

  4. Perhaps the Grey Goo will get us after all by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a link to a neat video of the exercise.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Perhaps the Grey Goo will get us after all by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      That noise is terrifying.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. First in fiction by garote · · Score: 1

    Neal Stephenson floated a similar idea in Seveneves. Rather than dumb hunks of metal, combatants would fire autonomous drone-like projectiles at their enemies that would hunt them down through foliage and around corners. And since the enemy has them too, some drone projectiles would specialize in defensive work - forming a cloud around their user, attempting to absorb projectiles or neutralize attacking drones.

    In the story it was a technology developed out of necessity, for combat off-planet in enclosed spaces, where a dumb bullet would usually just punch a hole in the wall and kill everyone, attacker included.

    Nice to see that we're on our way into the future!

  7. Payload? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I wonder what payload the military have planned for these to carry.

  8. not so micro by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a picture of one and it's not what I would call "micro".

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:not so micro by subreality · · Score: 1

      It's all relative, but depending who you ask, "micro" may mean < 2kg http://docs.house.gov/meetings..., or < 5kg http://www.academia.edu/205567... . It's not small by hobbyist standards, but in the military world it's tiny compared to the 14,628 kg Global Hawk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

  9. That shrieking is something fierce. by Zelig · · Score: 1

    There's the signature nightmare and PTSD trigger for the next war.

    At a few hundred dollars a pop, with a stationkeeping aerostat above them to charge them up, you could have hundreds of screaming mosquitoes blanketing the front line -all- -the- -time-. Relentless.

    1. Re:That shrieking is something fierce. by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that future wars will have front lines.

  10. another demo showing demise of manned aircraft? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    At least this is what I see are drones placing piloted fighter jets in same category as horse cavalrys when the tank comes along.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:another demo showing demise of manned aircraft? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Future Fighter Pilots:

      "Dey Terk Er JERBS!"

  11. Reminds me of... by D00MSlayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Protoss Carriers.

  12. Jet Killers by JimSadler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine a combat zone with enemy jets swooping in to find a swarm of stealthy drones each with a piece of tungsten about to be sucked into their engines. Or drones that could ignite magnesium ribbons to confuse heat seeking missiles. Drones close to the ground dragging around magnesium ribbons could make the use of rifles or any weapon that required eyesight or night vision to be useless. Drones that were a bit larger could drop tiny devices that would put a bit of something like cobra venom on any enemy below. Since a tear drop will do one drone could drop many thousands of such weapons. It would not matter if it hit a hand, a foot or a shoulder. That soldier would be dead meat.

    1. Re:Jet Killers by fredrated · · Score: 1

      You make it sound so appetizing.

  13. 103? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Out of 500 that were dropped? Uh-ha.

  14. Why dropped from F/A 18's? by idji · · Score: 1

    Was this a test of swarm technology or of dropping drones from an F/A 18? one did not require the other - this looks like a publicity stunt, not a test.

  15. BroodWar by JThundley · · Score: 1

    CARRIER HAS ARRIVED!

  16. Re:what about those cameras? by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Makes one wonder whether there really was any air plane. ;)

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  17. Here are a couple videos for you by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Here are a couple of videos for you:

    http://911speakout.org/wp-cont...

    Check YouTube for videos of the 100+ people who saw it happen while sitting in traffic.

  18. Countermeasure by kackle · · Score: 1

    Two big drones with a really wide net.

    Or many small drones dangling ropes?

    Just posting out loud...

  19. Obligatory Black Mirror by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "Hated In the Nation"

  20. sabotage by spongman · · Score: 1

    yeah, but if you play classical music at them really loud, they all explode.

  21. Based on a MIT Student project. by mbone · · Score: 1

    The Perdix drones are based on this MIT student project, which was then turned over to Lincoln Labs for further development.

    1. Re:Based on a MIT Student project. by joh · · Score: 1

      This would be actually a neat design even for more harmless (and fun) uses. Compact and sturdy in stowed configuration too.

  22. No downside by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

    Nope, I don't see any potential problem with AI controlled swarms of killer wasps.

  23. karma? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    I wonder if these devices will come back to bite the people who made and implemented them?

  24. Re:I wonder by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Or a fly swatter....

  25. 60 Minutes Segment by cakiwi · · Score: 1

    60 Minutes reported on this last Sunday

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60...

  26. Cheap = bad (for U.S.) by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

    The U.S. military's single greatest asset is its ability/willingness to outspend every other military on earth by a huge margin. Any weapon that's cheap to produce is bad for them. It's a weapon their enemies can get too. Democratizing warfare is not good for them.

    Of course, it's not good for anyone else either. Just wait for the first terror attack where a swarm of drones flies through a city killing people.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  27. Prey by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

    Michael Crichton was so ahead of his time. The microdrones would need to be replaced with self-assembling nanorobots but still. Even the sound is getting close to that of his "dust devils".