Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

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

[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.)

[Bobby777]

what I saw documented was that the IDF wanted to find out Syrian SA-5 locations ... they sent in the UAV's for a closer look to recon the terrain before the fight began ...

the Syrians, having had their tails whipped pretty handily by IDF Wild Weasel aircraft, freaked out when the UAV's appeared on their radar screens and launched ... wasting several SAM's on UAV's ... when the real Wild Weasels showed up, they faced a lot few SAM's ...

our own UAV didn't fare as well against an Iraqi MiG-25 ... they lauched for the heck of it but it wasn't really set up to dogfight ... however, if it had been carrying AIM-9's, they might have had a better chance. I think (IIRC) they shot at the MiG-25 with a Hellfire which, of course, isn't it's proper mission ...

[PoorMuttly]

"The United States is expected to spend about $680 million on military applications alone for drones in 2002"

I guess Muttly's a little behind the curve out here.

Hey Laz...I thought I didn't have to read the articles...

...must be an art

[stands2reason]

Seriously. A cyberLuddist. Whooda thought?

[Theophilus]

A Phoenix is an autonomous drone designed to ignore dogfights and destroy pilots and their machines. It's just an air launched 1st gen BLOS weapon.

[stands2reason]

(My bet is China landing on the moon).

Another "Space Race?"-----think of how much technology we had developed in the first one that we use every day....all that "space age tech"....

That'd be a major impact.

[Criminal Number 18F]

The NYT doesn't like pilots. Not collectivist enough a trade, I'm thinking. Also... note the cute PC neologism "uninhabited aerial vehicles." Feh.

If you can tell me the day that passengers will voluntarily board a robotic flying vehicle, I can give you that day's weather report in Hades... snow.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Brian Allen]

<< well, with them flying over commercial traffic (now), I'd hate to think ... I just hope they know what they are doing .. >>

Relax, Guys. Nothing will change.

Most of the world's air transport aeroplanes have been operating without pilots for decades.

In America pretty much, chronologically, since the time of deregulation at which time the carriers forced pilot-costumed "low-bidder" cockpit hires [I have never confused one with nor called him "a pilot"] into the Profession -- and in the space of less than five years cut flight-deck quality by 60%. It's worse now, by far -- but the airplanes are more automated and, while functioning, compensate.

Throughout the world "ethicization" has accelerated the spiral and in America cockpit quota hires continue to ensure we don't miss out on defining proficiency down.

In the 40-odd years I have been flying with, commanding, training, supervising and employing pilots I have seen a gradual decline in standards and in flying abilities and consequential all-around competence. In world-wide air transport operations we long ago reached a mix in which around 15% of the folks in the pilot costumes can actually fly the aeroplane -- and the other 85% are along to set the aircraft in motion, for the ride, to monitor a lot of expensive airborne electronics [Most are especially good at that] -- and [Hopefully] to react in time to what the aeroplane does next.

Among Asia's air carriers' pilot-costumed personel -- who are as often as not in large part selected for their ability to be programmed by their state-owned and/or subsidised carriers' accounts department and to toe only the bottom line -- the mix, as is reflected in accident report after accident report, doesn't reach the heights of an 85 to 15% mix.

Those very few of Asia's pilot-costumed who can actually fly the aeroplane are constrained from doing so and and are turned into copies of the computer-gamer cardboard pilot cutouts sitting alongside them by a culture that forbids the questioning of "authority." And don't even ask about Africa's.

Oh -- and by the way -- enjoy your next flight home to see the oldies, eh?

Shoul be a corker trip if you're lucky and nothing goes wrong click goes wrong click goes wrong click goes wrong click goes wrong click goes wrong click ......

Bump/Ping .......

[JETDRVR]

nope I would have liked to. G1159 / A / G-IV /G-V

[Archangelsk]

So you're under the opinion that everyone should turn lousy eights, chandeliers and steep turns for 3000 hours before they're allowed to enter the lordly regions of the flight deck? Sorry, but maneuver-based training is going to go the way of elliptical wings and it's the bottom line that determines everything in the training footprint in today's world. As a training manager, you know that the evolution to CRM-CLR/LOFT and AQP was inevitable and the metric of success is the accident rate for Part 121 since the Fall of 2001 (no large American carriers have fallen out of the sky since the wake turbulence/rudder crash in NY).

The funny part about all of this is that all the young ensigns and lieutenants driving fast movers got the keys to their jets at 200 hours and the naval aviators started jumping off the deck at 300. Thus, it's a question of changing the training criteria, conditions and behavior and not adhering to the old out-dated methodology.

[Jonah Hex]

Air Force = Meatware.

Navy = FiletMignonware.

Iraqi Air Force = Hamburger Helper

[discostu]

Dog fights have gotten bigger but I don't think they'll ever go away. In the age of missiles it's almost a proxy fight, as the pilot must dodge the missile of the other guy while trying to get a lock on and shoot his own. G-forces become more important because sharp turns are the best way to make a missile miss. And some how we still can't mange to get rid of guns.

[Veloxherc]

There will be Combat UAV anyone who does not see this is kidding themselves. Heck the predator uses hellfire missiles. The fighter pilots refuse to see the writing on the wall. The X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft demonstrated that tailless fighters could achieve superior levels of agility to today's best military fighter aircraft. The X-36 was 28% scale, and remotely piloted. This thing kicked every manned fighter’s a$$. With that said I think any plane that carries people will still have pilots.

[Bobby777]

you just scared the daylights out of me!

[JETDRVR]

Well put! Please CC to Al Ueltschi FSI

[Brian Allen]

<< The funny part about all of this is that all the young ensigns and lieutenants driving fast movers got the keys to their jets at 200 hours and the naval aviators started jumping off the deck at 300. Thus, it's a question of changing the training criteria, conditions and behavior and not adhering to the old out-dated methodology. >>

I wasn't talking about the training critera, [Which we have had to adjust to meet the meat] just, over more than 40 years, my objective observations of the declining quality of the available material. [Linked to the fact that the level of education that might have seen you graduated from high school in 1950 would, in 2002, have "earned" you a four-year degree from Yale, Princeton, Harvard or UCLA -- or from one of the Military Academies]

Also, being able to achieve what is required of you as the driver of a military airframe is not the same as being able to actually fly the aeroplane.

That said, I spend lots of time with Naval Aviators and my one of my most recent extended periods of sim-time was in the FA/18. As with any group of pilots some of them can fly -- and all will get the job done. And I love every single one of them.

As for the number of hours required at any stage of a aviator's career: talent is talent at three hundred hours -- and lack of talent is luck at thirty thousand -- and has been at every step along the way!

And I've known scores of guys in both camps.

[The assesment of individual talent, by the way, is why we straightaways put the guys who have little or none in the airplanes with sh**ters -- and tell them to go join the airlines before they hurt someone -- and why the rest of us get to play with the world's very very best toys, to live life on a steady adrenaline diet -- and be young into old age]

[Archangelsk]

You need in on this action. This is about to get really interesting. :-)

[Archangelsk]

Well put! Please CC to Al Ueltschi FSI

Eh, maybe we should branch a part of FR off to aviation. Call it FR-Aero or something. :-)

[Archangelsk]

[The assesment of individual talent, by the way, is why we straightaways put the guys who have little or none in the airplanes with sh**ters -- and tell them to go join the airlines before they hurt someone -- and why the rest of us get to play with the world's very very best toys, to live life on a steady adrenaline diet -- and be young into old age]

I agree, that's why our program has an assessment and selection process that exceeds industry standards.

[Pukin Dog]

As for the number of hours required at any stage of a aviator's career: talent is talent at three hundred hours -- and lack of talent is luck at thirty thousand -- and has been at every step along the way!

Three Hundred?

When kids got to the West Coast RAG (VF-124) it was pretty easy to see who had skills and who didnt after a couple of check rides. I suppose things are a bit easier in the Hornet community. I'd be interested in reading your thoughts, but we could find out almost instantly who kept up a good scan, and who was always going to be behind the airplane. I dont recall anyone getting 300 hours in a Cat who was no good before I had flushed him.

[Brian Allen]

Absolutely. I was responding to someone who mentioned that number of hours. I am sure you can, as can I, figger a driver in the office from his demeanor and from his attitude and have him strap the aircraft on his back just to confim what we already know.

When I was a boy pilot and still too young to join the Air Force, at least thirty per cent of wannabes who, with the intention of taking up flying, walked into the local flying club, [Where every instructor was a WW II vet] were told even before applying for a Student Pilot Licence to not waste their money.