US Army Aviation to be unmanned (mostly) by 2035

[chopper2004]

VIDEO: Army aviation gets mostly unmanned by 2035 - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/04/video-army-aviation-gets-mostl.html)
Any thoughts please?

[Fareastdriver]

When I was a young Pilot Officer on my first tour at my first station in 1962 I was buttonholed by an Air Commodore from the Engineering Branch. He was appplauded by his chortling minions as he asked me what it was like to be in a dead end, soon to be be obsolete, job as a pilot.
"Don't you know," he said. grandly, "your'e all going to be replaced by missiles in a few years."

I've heard it all before.

[Mechta]

Just imagine a patrol of tired 'grunts' throwing themselves into the back of 2035's remotely piloted verison of a Huey, only to find it deposits them straight into the enemy's POW camp. Pointing a gun at a box of electronics won't help much... I guess that's why utility was left out?

[Two's in]

Army General or not, he has the makings of a top politician by planning for the future of Army Aviation based entirely on the last war he fought. Use of UAV's will undoubtedly become more widespread in the future, but not every bad guy will be living in the Hindu Kush. Any smart potential enemy out there has seen the dependency on UAV's grow and will no doubt be asking themselves, "so how do you counter the UAV threat?". The current insurgents may be a bit thin on viable air threats, but don't assume everyone is in that boat, and you don't just have to shoot them down to counter them effectively.

As for the line "The only two roles left primarily for manned aircraft will be -- curiously enough -- utility and medical evacuation." speaks volumes in itself. If you think getting soldiers in and out of the battle, injured or unharmed, is somehow just some "ash and trash" secondary duty for Aviation then you probably shouldn't be making decisions about the future of Army Aviation.

As Fareastdriver said, it's all been said and done before. Wait to see which UAV manufacturer he is working for next year. Utter Bolleaux.

[racedo]

While there is a role for UAVs the elimination of an uplink to a satelite pretty much renders them in effective.

I can see a situation where an "aircraft" gets flown into a battle area with the kit required for the battle team it carries and then gets abandoned as a throw away item while the kits splits into 4-5 pieces and starts manouvers, attacking an enemy.

Course if its all robotic one wonders when it will turn on its makers.

[minigundiplomat]

UAV's are a new and very useful tool. But that's it, they supplement existing forms of aviation. Only a fool would write off manned aviation at the present time.

Unmanned aviation does, however, suit todays risk averse leadership.

[barnstormer1968]

There has been much talk recently as to whether manned aviation is dead, or as to whether today's aircraft will the last ever built from scratch for manned flight. There is a very good measure of when automated/computer systems will be good enough to take over, and this is no where near to being possible yet. A very good measure of when computers can think and learn/decide for themselves is when one can successfully iron a man's shirt from start to finish with no help (many boffin types see this as a reference).

Most of us can iron a shirt very well, while watching TV and holding a conversation, yet there is no computer in the world can that even begin the very complex task of ironing a shirt (assuming the shirt can be any cut/size/material or dry/damp/wet).

If we consider that ironing is beyond a computer, then it must surely be folly to let them lose on a battlefield, where split second realistic and life saving decisions need to be made!

[Boatman]

Again, UAVs are not the panacea or the be all and end all of mil aviation but not to consider or understand the concepts available with this technology is quite blinkered and if you don't get it why make such uneducated opinion?
As for "real life split second decisions", well think about what that processor is doing in your airbus next time you go transatlantic or when it lands your aircraft at LHR?
"Cut the satellite link" only renders satellite controlled UAVs useless, what about autonomous or as with most, line of sight UAVs.
Ironing is beyond a computer?! but designing/modelling a supersonic aircraft is not? well balanced thought that? why would our best brains apply themselves to ironing your shirt?
Gentleman we have advanced our industry through open thought and employment of the best technology availible and through foresight! that is surely our duty?
Ultimately the flying club will end one day and we will all be sat in chacons staring at a screen. May be not soon but 2035 is feasible, look where this technology has come in 10 years!
I guess you have heard it all before though.

[Fareastdriver]

That's what I was told in 1962.

Years later I went for a failed interview with ETPS in Boscombe Down. A lot of the time was spent discussing fly by wire in helicopters. I ventured the opinion that it would not be feasable in the forseeable future. My interrogators were insisting that it was just around the corner so maybe it was one of the reasons I was turned down.

That was in 1976.

[t43562]

Ironing can't be far off if they can do this:

BBC News - Towel-folding robot created by US researchers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8607538.stm)

[barnstormer1968]

That's an interesting video, but it also illustrates my point.
Folding identical sized towels made of the same material takes that robot a long time. It would have no chance to iron anything. Note how it smoothed out the creases in the towels, and then just think how many variations it could need to do something similar to shirts, bearing in the mind the shirt could be made of wool, cotton or silk etc. The robot would need many more sensors to detect material types.
I imagine it would need more 'intelligence just to check pockets were empty or not, than it takes to fold a towel.

Either way, the video is still impressive:ok:

[Mechta]

Can anyone give a figure for what percentage of the useable comms bandwidth each UAV uses for its up & downlinks? Given that info it should be possible to determine the maximum number of UAVs that can be operated in one area at the same time.

It needs to be borne in mind that base stations are not necessarily aware of what the other is doing, and allowances would need to be made.

With regard to combat UAVs operating autonomously, one shouldn't forget the Battle of New Orleans which took place after a peace treaty between the two parties had been signed, but the message had not got through to the combatants. Timescales are a bit different these days, but a white flag detector may need to be standard fit on an autonomous UCAV...

[fltlt]

Boatman, try 26 years, not 10. And the capabilties are not that much greater. Only true differences are the sat link and full time GPS, oh and the cost, now that is different!

[GreenKnight121]

Boatman, try 26 years, not 10. And the capabilties are not that much greater. Only true differences are the sat link and full time GPS, oh and the cost, now that is different!

We've been making (and flying them) far longer than that.

Remotely-piloted UCAV: DASH (Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter) - USN, first flight 1959, in service 1963, removed from service 1969 (USN) & 1977 (JMSDF).

UAV reconnaissance aircraft (autonomous): Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bug - Three test flights were performed in April 1962 and demonstrated the validity of the concept, with the drone performing a mission from New Mexico, north into Utah, and then back again with no guidance from the ground, a distance of over 100 miles.
A total of 3,435 Lightning Bug missions were flown against Communist China, North Vietnam, and North Korea, with the mission breakdown by year as follows:
1964: 20
1965: 77
1966: 105
1967: >100
1968: 340
1969: 437
1970: >400
1971: 406
1972: 570
1973: 444
1974: 518 (includes flights in first half of 1975)

[A A Gruntpuddock]

I was watching a program the other day where they were predicting swarms of UAVs flying about and co-operating with each other.

My first thought was, what happens when low-level piloted aircraft enter the same area? Can the UAV's automatically dive out of the way or are collisions likely?

Do the use of these automatically mean that normal planes have to keep well away?

[barnstormer1968]

Boatman
I am not sure of your point. Also why do you want me to consider how far we have come in 10 years? I have been studying the use of drones/UAV's since their use in the Vietnam war, which is clearly more than three time times what you ask me to look at. In that time, certain functions have not progressed that much, and some of the original problems still remain today (although, as per above the cost has changed radically). So although I have heard all of what you said before, the point still remains that UAV's will need to develop a lot more processing power before they become truly independent (plus the bandwidth issue may need to be addressed, as per above).

I'm afraid I have no idea of the relevance of you talking about the system in an Airbus (which is of course monitored by aircrew, who can take over at any point, or make awkward decisions), or that of designing a figher (again to have the awkward decisions made, and flown by a human).

Of course, we could (and already have in this thread) go much further back than the Vietnam war, to just after the second war war, when it was first predicted that manned aircraft were a thing of the past!

As you know so much about this subject, you will realise that over 60 years later, some UAV functions have not improved that much in this time. IMHO what is need to make the huge leap to autonomy is more processing power (within the UAV itself). I have no idea if you have ever been on the ground in combat in a life or death moment, but if you have, I would hope that the UAV above you had the intelligence to decide whether to kill you or the baddie just up the track a bit (if at this point you still didn't think it needed more intelligence than needed to iron a shirt, then prepare to die:eek:)

[Two's in]

if at this point you still didn't think it needed more intelligence than needed to iron a shirt, then prepare to die)

Great segue Barnstormer - do you think this is why so few RAF personnel know how to iron a shirt?

[fltlt]

GreenKnight, I should have clarified my post. I was refering to the start of the "current crop" of RPV's, UAV's, whatever you wish to call them that have their roots based in the Bekaa Valley. Think Aquila onwards.

[Boatman]

Ok Ok,

The last 10 years refers to the volume of hours and experience we have gained on these aircraft consistently on combat operations and the improvements in capability/reliability is becoming exponential due to the sheer volume of investment from the US. And that this technology fits the current battlespace.

Secondly is this debate about autonomous or unmanned I believe the US Army is going for combination as they are two very different concepts.
And yes there is definitley scope for autonomy in the battlespace (the processing power for certain applications already exists), CAS and ISR id targets is only a small element which at this time require human interface. Barnstormer, Your daily mail esque reference to being on the ground and being fired at by something which hasn't reliably/positively Id'd the area well is a bit odd, ask what happens when MGLRS/ arty is fired at range, the firing unit (which could be a computer) rely on the the accurate input of the Jtac/troops likewise any aircraft/pilot requires the same service, I don't think anyone would suggest a computer could positively ID enemy forces in a danger close situation. But why can't a UAV fly autonomously over the battlefield and accept fire orders in an appropriate format direct from the ground troops? And deconflict as we currently do. As an aside nothing is truly autonomous or without supervision in the battlefield or off for that matter, so a decision matrix could easily be programmed to know when to ask for human input.
In addition, autonomous lethal weapons already exist (goalkeeper/phalanx) which are fully automatic and will shoot anything down that has an appropriate speed/height profile. So why can an airborne platform in the maritime/air/land environment do the same when the tactical situation allows, ie hot killboxs/ no fly zones.

The reference to airbus fcs illustrates that software is now so reliable and redundant and capable of complex logic that people are happy to stake their lives on it, on a daily basis, as for the pilot being a supervisor, definitley but as a pilot I know my accuracy of flying and nav skills will be beaten hands down by a computer, and in reality when does a pilot override the system and succeed vs how often does the pilot do nothing because the system works just fine thankyou. I was trying to illustrate reliability.

I still don't think UAV RPA etc are the be all and end all but not to think a bit broader on this subject would be doing the future of aviaition/warfare any favours.

Finally I was only submitting an opinion and never claimed to know so much about this subject, however I did go to stores to try and sign out a high horse but they were all out, I think vec got there first. I am still learning.

[Fareastdriver]

I'll give you your due Boatman, you're battling away there. I probably won't be around in 2035 so I will not know whether you will be right or wrong. Whichever way it goes you can have full marks for trying.

[Trim Stab]

There was an interesting article in The Economist a few weeks ago about advances in AI allowing UAVs to have autonmous decision-making capacity, and even apply ethical judgements to a situation.

It will be interesting to see how UAV use develops in the future, particularly regarding information exchange and cooperation between UAVs.

I think the biggest weakness of UAVs compared to inhabited aircraft must be their inability to deal with unexpected situations or emergencies.

My suspicion is that we will move away from single, highly capable but costly, centrally controlled units like the Predator which have risks of costly single-point failure, to "flocks" of smaller, cheaper networked UAVs that can work together to provide saturated cover and which can lose a few units to hostile fire, technical failure, or weather without disrupting the entire system.

[barnstormer1968]

Boatman.

I wasn't aware my post would come across as daily mail anything!

I was trying to refer to being on the ground, as my background is an army one, so if all was well for you, then it would be more likely to be me on the ground than you:). I also fully understood your Airbus ref, but am still not convinced that quoting a system that takes off from an in-putted place, and flies to another one set by an operator (with pre set heights and parameters) is the best way to go

On the other hand, I think I can help you with the horse thing. You did well to go to stores, but you may need to chose a different stores to get more luck.
I'd suggest either a cavalry or Horse Guard stores is your best bet:ok:

Plus, if you are worried about VVC getting there first......Go on a Saturday:E