Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots
Yahoo! News - Technology -m Reuters ^ | Sun Nov 23, 9:43 AM ET | By Chelsea Emery

Posted on 11/23/2003 2:32:10 PM PST by Bobby777

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Wright Brothers demonstrated that man could fly. A century later, we're looking at a future in which planes fly without humans.

Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, are taking to the skies as military and civilian organizations turn to remote-operated planes or helicopters to perform tasks considered dull, dirty or dangerous.

Already, drones have dropped bombs in the Middle East, snapped images of dangerous terrain from thousands of feet in the air and monitored traffic on congested roads.

Some commentators have even suggested that Lockheed Martin's high-tech F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the last inhabited fighter plane needed. At the very least, analysts say, drones can be used for potentially dangerous environmental monitoring, such as checking air quality for chemical and biological weapons.

"It's no longer 'yes or no' -- the technology and the systems are accepted," says Daryl Davidson, executive director at the trade group Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). "These things are here to stay and they are proliferating."

Proliferating, yes, but not without doubts about their ability to operate safely over urban centers, their cost, and a crash rate that for some far outstrips fighter jets.

In addition, uninhabited vehicles demand extremely high bandwidth -- a measure of how much information can be carried at any given time -- so their use is limited until the technology catches up with the inspiration.

Most fears center on their safety for civilian use, such as monitoring traffic over urban areas.

"They don't have a pilot to get them out of trouble," notes Steve Zaloga, an analyst with Teal Group, an aerospace and defense research firm. "The local TV station isn't going to be happy to have a million-dollar plane crash into traffic or someone's house. It's going to be a hazard and it's going to be a cost issue."

DRONES

The use of drones took off during the Vietnam War, when soldiers strapped cameras onto target planes and flew them remotely through high-threat areas.

But real leaps have come recently amid breakthroughs in technology, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's clarion call for military transformation, and their success in action in the Balkans and elsewhere.

Advances in satellite-guided global positioning systems and wireless (news - web sites) communications have helped scientists jump numerous hurdles.

Networking technology and increasing bandwidth, too, have driven invention, since they allow the complex machines to communicate simultaneously with centers that send them directions, as well as other locations to which they beam their images.

These innovations have led to the development of combat UAVs like Boeing's formerly top-secret X45 plane, which can carry at least 1,000 pounds of precision-guided bombs and be either pre-programmed on the ground or have its mission plan changed mid-flight.

If operations go as hoped in 2006, the Department of Defense (news - web sites) will start fielding the systems in 2008, Boeing says.

The Marine Corps has also been testing 5-pound, backpack-portable UAVs called Dragon Eye for "over-the-hill" reconnaissance. Missions are programmed via wireless modem and the planes can be launched by hand or bungee cord.

The Marines plan to field at least 311 in coming years. Drones' successes at reconnaissance and bombing in Kosovo, Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites) have also garnered support for the technology.

"Much to the chagrin of fighter pilots in the Pentagon (news - web sites), UAVs are here to stay," says John Kutler, an industry watcher and chief executive of U.S.-based defense investment bank Quarterdeck Investment Partners.

Combat drones were used for the first time in Afghanistan, where the U.S. military deployed a Predator UAV armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles.

But the biggest coup came in November 2002, when the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) used a Predator to blow up a car carrying six suspected al Qaeda operatives in Yemen, including one man suspected of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole (news - web sites) in 2000.

"Everyone saw their use in operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, so there's growing confidence in the systems," says George Guerra, deputy program manager for the Global Hawk at Northrop Grumman. "What we are able to do is remarkable."

Advances in technology attracted defense contractors and scientists to the UAV workshop.

Visions of huge profits are keeping them there: Rumsfeld's mandate for a fully connected, wired battlefield has directed billions of dollars into remote vehicle development.

The United States is expected to spend about $680 million on military applications alone for drones in 2002, estimates the Teal Group. In a mere two years, that figure is expected to almost double to about $1.1 billion.

Israel, Japan and Australia are getting into the act, too.

Worldwide spending on UAV development is likely to run to about $3.35 billion in 2012. That's up from $1.88 billion this year.

Wall Street is taking note.

"UAVs could be the next very big growth area," says Jun Zhao, a defense analyst for U.S.-based fund manager Federated Investors. "The Department of Defense has to make a decision whether they will fund legacy programs or skip a generation and go directly to transformation."

His bet? Traditional-platform budgets will suffer. "With civil aviation in the doldrums, drones represent an entirely new market," says Zaloga. "It's a great way to grow a business."

Some UAVs, like the Global Hawk, carry synthetic-aperture radar that can penetrate cloud-cover and sandstorms. Other, smaller drones carry electro-optical cameras, similar to TV cameras, that can capture details as small as helmets or hats from thousands of feet in the air. And they can do it for hours longer than any piloted plane.

The General Atomics reconnaissance Gnat 750, for example, can fly for 48 hours and reach altitudes of 26,250 feet.

COMMERCIAL USE

But while UAVs are becoming standard equipment in combat, their commercial use has far to go and they are still rare outside the military because of their high costs and the concerns over their safety.

NASA (news - web sites) has tested drones over California grape crops to monitor frost conditions and the U.S. forest service is considering using remote-operated planes to beam images of forest fires back to base camps.

Countries such as Australia are planning to buy drones to monitor their borders for illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Other nations are exploring the possibility of using drones to monitor the seas for both piracy and storms.

Even as the Pentagon and local governments in the United States are fast-tracking the technology, critics are raising some troubling issues.

For one, UAVs are expensive. The General Atomics Predator costs about $3 million for the plane alone, and the costs quickly skyrocket to tens of millions once the ground crew and other operating systems are added.

The Global Hawk system costs between $33 million and $35 million, while the futuristic manned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter costs about $37 million to $47 million, depending on its operating system. F-16s can be had for about $38 million.

The Global Hawk may cost slightly less than the JSF, but its crash potential is high compared to manned aircraft -- some 50 times higher than that of an F-16 fighter jet, says Victoria Samson at the think tank Center for Defense Information.

Of the 80 Predators in service as of March, 30 had crashed, says Samson. (Some had been crashed intentionally for testing purposes and others had been shot down by enemy fire.)

There are also worries about how well drones can communicate with civilian planes. In August, the Global Hawk finally won permission to fly in civilian airspace. That makes it the first pilot-less airplane to get such clearance, but it was on the condition that it takes off and lands in military areas, and stays thousands of feet above the path of most commercial planes.

Nonetheless, development of military and civil-use UAVs is driving ahead. "The future is promising," says AUVSI's Davidson. "It won't be The Jetsons," he says, referring to the science-fiction cartoon. "But we'll see very utilitarian uses of UAVs. We'll see them on every runway of every airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks.

"They're going to be used in commercial markets for things we haven't even thought of."

(This feature appears in the current issue of REUTERS magazine, Issue 59, November/December 2003. Copyright Reuters Ltd 2003. www.reuters.com/magazine.)


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: domesticdrones; drones; dronesus; fighters; miltech; uav; uavs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: xm177e2
I think some have stated that it's perhaps necessary to have 15G capability to outturn some missiles (decoys / jamming nothwithstanding) ... I don't know the warhead size of today's missiles (have to look it up) but the SA-2 / 5 carried about 400lbs of explosive (? - can't remember) ... with big / high=yield warheads, it may not matter anyway ...

obviously it's a lot less heartbreaking to lose a machine over a mna in a plane ... but battle situations being so fluid I don't think humans can't be near the battle (which you seem to say) ...

and no, I wouldn't get on a comeercial jet totally flown by computer ... (I mean the whole flight) ... I have been on the L-1011 like many planes, capable of taking off and landing by itself ...

now 50 years in the future, it is definitely going to be quite a different world ... technology-wise ... or it could be, all things being equal ...
61 posted on 11/23/2003 7:36:36 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
that's alright man ... you've been behind the stick and in the soup ... good to hear from the man in the cockpit ... hoping you'll be in there again in your Falcon ...
62 posted on 11/23/2003 7:37:56 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
comeercial

lol ... COMMERCIAL ...

I have not spell-checked in the preview!!!
63 posted on 11/23/2003 7:40:58 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
They will be just like auto pilots, they can only react, and can never anticipate!
64 posted on 11/23/2003 7:43:16 PM PST by dalereed (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
The Tomcat was/is considered to be more dangerous than a Harrier? One of my mentors (a 50%er) would definitely disagree with you. Just as well, as another one of my mentors would say, "anytime something jumps off the deck it's an emergency."
65 posted on 11/23/2003 7:46:03 PM PST by Archangelsk (Simplistic solutions for free. Real solutions are the usual consultant fees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
You will never create a computer that can tell me

The things you named so far are all things that (obviously, to me) a computer can do better and faster than a human. But maybe there are a hundred reasons lurking in there where you're right. A hundred failures later, they'll be identified and fixed, and they'll never be reasons again.

Now, someday, someone could likely program all those sensors into a fighter aircraft and return that data to the ground in about 3-4 seconds allowing someone to take positive action.

There will be no information returned to the ground, and nobody will take any action, positive or negative. The aircraft will make the decisions, and the decisions will take milliseconds. Acquiring and processing information is what computers do best of all, and every 18 months, they get twice as good at it.

66 posted on 11/23/2003 7:48:10 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
A Harrier? Those things are only dangerous to fly in.

A Tomcat pilot could lock up a Harrier, fire on it, catch a 3wire, and give the Harrier pilot's widow a couple of orgasms before the Phoenix took him out.

67 posted on 11/23/2003 7:51:17 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I think what he alluded to were the sensors more than computer power ...

so let's look at a possible scenario ...

now, of course, an SU-27 has a certain profile from all aspects ... this can be mapped out ... it has certain signal emissions, depending upon configuration and active systems ... these can be identified ... if it were tracked from takeoff, it's range and remaining fuel could be estimated (if the whole flight path were tracked) ... this could be uplinked to a ROV ...

weapons load would have to be estimated ... might could be determined from high-energy radar but not without revealing your position ... same goes for a human pilot who would need some sort of visual to know what the enemy stores look like ... if either gets that close ...

This makes me think of AEGIS ... identifying threats, assessing the imminency of their potential threat and prioritizing targets while simultaneously assigning defensive systems to counter ...

I think we'll find we have justification for ROV AND Combat Pilot systems for easily a couple decades ...
68 posted on 11/23/2003 7:58:25 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Disagree.

First, there is no valid reason computers MUST double capability every 18 months.

Second, artificial intelligence isn't based on memory or ability to calculate. It will require building computers that can learn like a human. This may happen, but not in 15 years. We currently cannot even build computers that can adequately ID a military target in a 512x512 picture. And that is just IDing a tank in a simple picture - something a human can do effortlessly.

Air-air combat is changing, but it will take a lot longer than 15 years to change it THAT much!
69 posted on 11/23/2003 8:07:01 PM PST by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: discostu
G capability is increasingly less important in designing a fighter. Dogfighting is largely a thing of the past - and new systems coming on line will increase that trend.

Hate to admit it.
70 posted on 11/23/2003 8:09:16 PM PST by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777; Pukin Dog; Poohbah
If it's cheap, invisible to radar, deadly quick and accurate WRT delivery, I can see this thing as a terrific supplement to manned fighters. Who knows? Maybe one day we'll have a few DRS (Death Ray Satellite) units up there to *ZOT* certain undesirables, all progammed by fellas with compassion and vision.
71 posted on 11/23/2003 8:10:58 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
battlefield data can already be downlinked from recon birds ... they've been working on refining those systems for decades ... the "God's-eye" view it is called ...

as you say, I see these systems as supplements ... good for places like Afghanistan where long patrols over boring terrains looking for a tall Saudi and his friends ... or wherever else he may be ...
72 posted on 11/23/2003 8:16:09 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777

73 posted on 11/23/2003 8:17:49 PM PST by Nick Danger (With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
The Israelis broke ground on the UAV front by using them in Lebanon War to knock out the Syrian air missle defense system. It changed the course of warfare.
74 posted on 11/23/2003 8:18:33 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Ping
75 posted on 11/23/2003 8:19:16 PM PST by Calpernia (Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
Go Rummy...GO !
76 posted on 11/23/2003 8:21:36 PM PST by PoorMuttly (DO, or DO NOT. There is no TRY - Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
...I Pray that he fixes our Rifles and Sidearms too.
77 posted on 11/23/2003 8:23:54 PM PST by PoorMuttly (DO, or DO NOT. There is no TRY - Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
hehe ...
78 posted on 11/23/2003 8:25:55 PM PST by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
As long as there's no need for any humans aboard, I think it's fine. But for transporting humans, I'd prefer a human pilot.
79 posted on 11/23/2003 8:27:38 PM PST by stands2reason ("Don't you funk with my funk."--Bootsy Collins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw
What, people used to live in them? A cockpit's a "habitat" now?
80 posted on 11/23/2003 8:31:04 PM PST by stands2reason ("Don't you funk with my funk."--Bootsy Collins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson