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 |
Such a system is more likely to be self synchronising/coordinating than need a manned controller in the vicinity. 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 killing people |
WWII - V1 and V2 rockets being good examples ?
|
Originally Posted by Q-RTF-X
(Post 7919240)
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.
"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) |
Originally Posted by 500N
(Post 7919247)
WWII - V1 and V2 rockets being good examples ?
|
OK, thanks :ok:
|
V1 and V2 were dumb weapons. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 7919384)
Sorta like Rocks and Marines?
|
Still relying on rotors and things, try this as nature intended...
|
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.
|
Key points Lethal autonomous robots are pre-programmed to kill Can make their own decisions and do not need to be controlled by humans 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".) |
Originally Posted by balsa model
(Post 7921996)
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. |
or if a ceasefire has been declared. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 6996213)
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😊 |
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian
(Post 7921467)
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. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 6995437)
For many years, about 20,
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 6995437)
the pilots were going to be female
...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... |
Originally Posted by balsa model
(Post 7921996)
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".) |
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.