View Full Version : The Future Air War
For many years, about 20, I've never got around to writing a novel about how I saw the future air war. I planned to cal it "The Swarm".
The idea was of a stealthy aircraft with minimal sensors of it's own, but a UWB datalink talking to a swarm of drones of the same RCS/signature around it - up to 30-50nm ahead, behind etc.
Some drones would be weapons of various types, others radars, ECM platforms, refuelling pods etc. More could launched from LRLS types trucks near the FEBA to RV; those needing recovery such as the radar & ECM would recover for net capture.
The manned platform would operate as the heart of the system making decisions, allocating targets; if lost the Swarm could operate autonomously until a replacement took over.
The entire swarm would continuously change formation to match the threat and mission and to confuse enemy sensors & weapons. Any losses would only result in a small reduction in effectiveness.
In the novel the Wing/sqn was going to be secret - Area 51 sort of thing; the pilots were going to be female and as small and light as possible because of the aircraft size (A radical idea at the time - female pilots that is).
Thought it would take a long time to get the sort of technology flying. Now I'm not so sure......
YQIMGV5vtd4&feature=player_embedded
Milo Minderbinder
2nd Feb 2012, 14:49
A radical idea at the time - female pilots that is
Not really - you forgot these girls
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r105/SilverSlyk/spectrum/CSdestiny04l.jpg
http://www.pprune.org/%28A%20radical%20idea%20at%20the%20time%20-%20female%20pilots%20that%20is%29.
air pig
2nd Feb 2012, 15:07
You are Dale Brown and I collect my 10 pounds.
racedo
2nd Feb 2012, 15:56
Idea a good one but when Swarm decides it doesn't need HID - Human Interface Device what then ?
TheWizard
2nd Feb 2012, 16:25
Thanks for the idea. That should save me a bit of time.
Off to ring my publisher.........
Assuming you haven't copyrighted the idea before publishing it on a public website of course :E
Milo Minderbinder
2nd Feb 2012, 16:36
this thesis dates from 2006 http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/staff/owen/newultraswarm.pdf
and I'm sure I've seen the idea many many years ago in pulp fiction mags
fin1012
2nd Feb 2012, 17:26
DCDC's JDN on unmanned aircraft mentions swarms 14 times. Such a system is more likely to be self synchronising/coordinating than need a manned controller in the vicinity.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F9335CB2-73FC-4761-A428-DB7DF4BEC02C/0/20110505JDN_211_UAS_v2U.pdf
ORAC,
You should check out the book "SWARM" by Michael Chrighton (same guy who wrote Andromeda Strain)..........:eek:
Cheers
Such a system is more likely to be self synchronising/coordinating than need a manned controller in the vicinity. The man in the chain was optional; the big side is the MLRS type launchers near the FEBA for short tome reaction - aka the Harrier.
They can launch independently for quick react targets with the Swarm components operating independently or under remote control. But a main in the loop (as an option) can act as a "catcher" to the component launchers with a HVA target. Alternately, he flies an ultra-small aircraft just marking targets with all the weapons being launched from the MLRS.
The ground element becomes complex with MLRS launcher plus recovery sites with quick turnaround for recovered components.
However, the point was the level of station keeping/manoeuvre packed into a micro-UAV.....
kbrockman
2nd Feb 2012, 21:49
Belgian air component has already designed a countermeasure;
http://www.shoof.co.nz/prdimages/202922.jpg
Danny42C
2nd Jul 2013, 11:42
Who's going to write the programme for that lot ?
D.
TomJoad
2nd Jul 2013, 11:51
It is easy to see that in few years the technology will be there to deliver the fully autonomous and operationally capable aircraft. What's going to be the more difficult is the moral/humanitarian questions that arise from machines killing people. Not quite the brave new world we were hoping for.:uhoh:
Q-RTF-X
2nd Jul 2013, 12:09
machines killing people
Machines have been killing people for a long time i.e. machine gun; only the form of human interface has and been and still is a constantly evolving process. Somewhere along the line, there will always be somebody pressing a button in some form or another, perhaps by default i.e. person or persons who had the capability to pull the plug did not. Somebody has to carry the can.
WWII - V1 and V2 rockets being good examples ?
TomJoad
2nd Jul 2013, 12:14
Machines have been killing people for a long time i.e. machine gun; only the form of human interface has and been and still is a constantly evolving process. Somewhere along the line, there will always be somebody pressing a button in some form or another, perhaps by default i.e. person or persons who had the capability to pull the plug did not. Somebody has to carry the can.
Sorry Q, I was stressing "fully autonomous" no man in the loop. Protocols for rules of engagement followed and acted upon by AI capability. Technically a machine taking the decision. Of course not here yet but this is where the technology is heading. The UN is already considering the implication of their potential future use:
"The United Nations Human Rights Council has heard an appeal for a freeze on the development and use of killer robots.
The lethal autonomous robots (LARs) are pre-programmed to kill or destroy and, unlike drones, are not controlled by humans once on the battlefield.
Key points
Lethal autonomous robots are pre-programmed to kill
Can make their own decisions and do not need to be controlled by humans
Supporters say they could save soldiers' lives
Human rights groups want a complete ban
The technology is being developed in the United States, Britain and Israel, although none have actually used it yet."
link to article here UN panel hears appeal for freeze on use of lethal autonomous robots - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-31/un-expert-calls-for-freeze-on-robot-weapons/4724628)
TomJoad
2nd Jul 2013, 12:26
WWII - V1 and V2 rockets being good examples ?
Not really 500N, see my follow up post above. Ballistic delivery platforms including those with nav capability do not fall into the category. V1 and V2 were dumb weapons.
SASless
2nd Jul 2013, 13:56
V1 and V2 were dumb weapons.
Sorta like Rocks and Marines?
TomJoad
2nd Jul 2013, 14:28
Sorta like Rocks and Marines?
More like retarded bombs.:)
NutLoose
2nd Jul 2013, 14:55
Still relying on rotors and things, try this as nature intended...
A robot that flies like a bird - YouTube
Martin the Martian
3rd Jul 2013, 19:37
I think the people creating these machines may need to read up on their Isaac Asimov, in particular his three laws of robotics:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Still, as long as nobody comes up with an idea called SkyNet, I guess we'll be fine.
They also need to read Fredric Brown's Answer. (http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html)
balsa model
4th Jul 2013, 03:19
Key points
Lethal autonomous robots are pre-programmed to kill
Can make their own decisions and do not need to be controlled by humans
For the sake of argument: aren't simple landmines "pre-programmed to kill"? They sense, make a pre-programmed decision, and kill.
No man in the loop.
(I know, they only move at the speed of continental drift but speed wasn't mentioned as a requirement for this new "controversy".)
TomJoad
4th Jul 2013, 16:21
For the sake of argument: aren't simple landmines "pre-programmed to kill"? They sense, make a pre-programmed decision, and kill.
No man in the loop.
(I know, they only move at the speed of continental drift but speed wasn't mentioned as a requirement for this new "controversy".)
By no means an expert but I suspect not balsa, once activated the landmine can do nothing but detonate. There is no real intelligence there - for argument sake it could not differentiate between the footfall of a legitimate target and that of a non legitimate target. It does not make decisions based of ROE, it cares not if the enemy is retreating, carrying casualties, or if a ceasefire has been declared.
Bismark
4th Jul 2013, 16:47
or if a ceasefire has been declared.
Or indeed if peace had broken out 20 years earlier!
The man in the chain was optional; the big side is the MLRS type launchers near the FEBA for short tome reaction - aka the.....
Not many pages then?
Mog😊
Baldeep Inminj
2nd Mar 2023, 12:52
I think the people creating these machines may need to read up on their Isaac Asimov, in particular his three laws of robotics:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Still, as long as nobody comes up with an idea called SkyNet, I guess we'll be fine.
Watch ‘iRobot’ - those exact same laws led to the logical outcome of robots forming a revolution and taking over the world, in order to protect humans from themselves.
Sue Vêtements
2nd Mar 2023, 19:08
For many years, about 20,
so is that about 30 now? ;)
the pilots were going to be female
Don't forget to make them really, really hot!
...if you want to sell loads of copies that is
Salute!
Maybe the "zeroth" law, Bald?
See last Asimov book and Daneel's ultimate mission. Great read.
Foundation and Earth.
Interestingly, a robot developed the "zeroth" law. I would hope the computer geeks today could make that embedded in the chips for the AI stuff coming here to a theater near you.
Gums sends...
cynicalint
2nd Mar 2023, 22:33
For the sake of argument: aren't simple landmines "pre-programmed to kill"? They sense, make a pre-programmed decision, and kill.
No man in the loop.
(I know, they only move at the speed of continental drift but speed wasn't mentioned as a requirement for this new "controversy".)
Indiscriminate booby traps are not pre-programmed to kill. They do not 'sense', but detonate indiscriminately by someone triggering the detonation mechanism. They are booby traps pure and simple and kill indiscriminately without any pre=programming other than arming.