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......

A radical idea at the time - female pilots that is

Not really - you forgot these girls

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r...destiny04l.jpg
http://www.pprune.org/%28A%20radical...0that%20is%29.

You are Dale Brown and I collect my 10 pounds.

Idea a good one but when Swarm decides it doesn't need HID - Human Interface Device what then ?

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

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

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/F9335...11_UAS_v2U.pdf

ORAC,

You should check out the book "SWARM" by Michael Chrighton (same guy who wrote Andromeda Strain)..........:eek:







Cheers

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.....

Belgian air component has already designed a countermeasure;
http://www.shoof.co.nz/prdimages/202922.jpg

Who's going to write the programme for that lot ?

D.

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:

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 ?

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)

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.

OK, thanks :ok:

Sorta like Rocks and Marines?

More like retarded bombs.:)

Still relying on rotors and things, try this as nature intended...