|
Air Combat Drones
The link below covers an interesting article that appeared in "Popular Science" earlier this month mentioning that the US DARPA Organisation (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is to look at the use of Drones/UAV's in the Air-to-Air combat role. The article also suggests a "mixed" use of such technology with manned aircraft.
DARPA : Teaching Drones to Fight Aircraft Just setting aside for a moment the technical challenges that will need to be overcome ... it might be interesting to speculate on what a future Air Combat Drone/UAV deployed capability might look like. For example ... would it be best to control Air Combat Drones/UAV's from the ground (as with current Reconnaissance or Ordnance delivery UAV's), or controlled from the air by something like a Sentry ... or is it conceivable that a Fighter Pilot could even have Drones/UAV's as Wingmen that could then be deployed in a "fight"? I suspect there will be some very experienced members who might say "it will never happen" ... but looking at the way military technology is progressing in this field ... it may not be too farfetched. Coff. |
Semi autonomous drones are well within current technology.
Tell them what is friendly and what is unfriendly within designated airspace. Give them a sensor suite. Existing technology weapons with full envelope data in the computer. Software for air combat manoeuvring. Predictive algorithms. Rules of engagement. Tactical priorities. 20G airframe. Then you could mix and match them safely with manned aircraft. |
Command delay. With a satellite link time-of-flight delay at the 0.2s level, there's going to have to be some considerable degree of autonomy. Plus, the satellite link can break for certain periods, and could be susceptible to concerted jamming.
Direct radio control via relay aircraft would be quicker. Who wants to explain to the judge why the airliner was bumped by the intercepting drone having a senior moment? |
Sounds like a Dale Brown techo novel coming true.
|
From ‘Foyle’s War’; “Why did you survive when others did not, you must have been good?”
“No they (compatriots) were good; they used the conventional tactics which were countered with conventional response. I survived because I didn’t follow the rules and the opposition did not know what to expect.” What drone will be able to think and act like that? |
Air Combat Drones |
Knucky of the future, thy wingman shall be autonomous and be able to pull 20G.
"Watch my six" will be a button push away, or even a voice recognised command. And the only thing that I think will be able to defeat such a UCAV will be a minaturised fast jet mounted HELLADS... |
if you look at the required specs, I'd say we'll be able to compare prices with the F-35 and see how much a pilot is worth. I'm guessing you can add another $200 mill for the luxury of being pilotless....
p.s which is only to say, just because it 'can' be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be done.. |
Against unsophisticated opposition AD pilots in an environment where who is who is reasonably known, then it can probably be done in 10 years.
I think having a drone as a wingman should be the first step - human leader allocates targets. |
I wonder if it is actually being tested as we speak.
Watch this video from March 03. Bunch of tomahawks flying in close formation. If that could happen then, what's possible a decade later? |
Was always impressed by that piece of video. Just showed the capabilities of the Cruise Missile even back then.
I read that they flew very close to the border of some countries because the terrain in a lot of other parts was so plain it made it hard to navigate ? |
It was the Zargos Mountains in Iran.
|
Tartare, great vid, I haven't seen that one before.
Still massively impressed by the video of a Tomahawk flying down a street at roof top level in the first gulf war. |
Was thinking about what UCAVs could really look like in reality.
Imagine an F35, with a 4 ship formation of UCAVs off his wingtip, flying in a perfect diamond formation each no more than a few metres apart. Bogeys sighted - the pilot gives the Tally Ho command, and they snap out of formation in four different directions at rates of climb, negative G pushovers or rates of turn that seem like something out of a science fiction movie. It's a chilling thought. |
tartare
And the bogeys don't even know they are there until simultaneous explosions down the aircraft ? |
Yes - exactly.
I've often wondered what kind of manned aircraft defence could kill an unmanned adversary that can easily tolerate +/-20g maneuverability and the very low wing loadings that some of these UCAV designs appear likely to have in future. Probably only a laser, a minaturised aircraft mounted version of this, or some kind of ventral or dorsal self targeting gun turret, with the ability to move and train at extreme speed - coupled with a prodigious rate of fire - a sort of airborne close-in weapon system. Maybe people who know more about ACM than I do can contribute... I assume the issue is how quickly a UCAV would be able to change its vector? |
We spend vast amounts on expensive aircraft with radar and DASS suites and yet they are limited in combat by the numbers of missiles they carry. The first step will be a "drone" which follows the sensor platform and carries another 8-12 missiles, targeted by the piloted main platform....probably.
|
Thanks for everyones contribution ... it's certainly interesting to speculate on what might constitute a future viable Air Combat Drone capability. But as mentioned by Safetypee, the human brain remains the most agile and flexible CPU ever developed ... and will remain so for a very long time to come ... albeit that it is contained within a "package" that is now nearing the upper end of safe G tolerance. With the human body probably not safely withstanding much above -3/+9G this may be one of the primary drivers in progressing AC Drone solutions?
The Drone "Wingman" approach would bring a whole set of new challenges I guess ... not least ... how would you launch in a QRA scenario ... let alone how do you overcome command and control latency issues as some have highlighted above. Definitely a "watch this space topic" I think ... |
Those lasers are heavy and expensive, and will probably remain so.
They also need very fancy optics to ensure they concentrate on the target, and the lighter and less powerful they are, the more that's true. To achieve 20g without stopping dead there has to be a lot of power, and that's expensive. Drones are relatively cheap because they cruise and loiter stealthily with light simple engines - if you want them to run like an unmanned F22 then the cost will go up. Eyes also gather a lot of information, and it's going to be difficult to provide that remotely without a big and complex set of cameras that might cost more than the career training and salary of the person they're replacing (who still needs to be paid to be somewhere on the ground). |
How about non stealth drones to draw out the enemy, present a bigger target than they actually are and then when close to being engaged, stealth aircraft used to combat the enemy without them knowing ?
Possible loss of a drone for a higher success rate and low probability of crew loss ? |
Blain - you think so?
I'm not so sure. Some of the brightest minds in the `states are making sure that the laser problems are all solveable. 100 - 150kw class is what they're targeting - and HELLADS is roadmapped to be aircraft mounted - maximum onboard space ocuupiued to be no more than 2 cubic m. In fact several elements of JSF design are oriented towards integration of a high powered laser - power is not an issue; you take it off the engine; cooling is in fact one of the biggest practical problems, and you use fuel as the heat sink. Interestingly, one of the real challenges they face is dealing with the optical distortions introduced by airflow around the laser turret. Adaptive optics continue to progress at a great rate, driven by IMINT needs for spy satellites and high altitude airborne platforms. Some more detail here on when a laser might appear on the JSF. Admittedly a 2007 paper, but even then the conclusion? A HEL laser could be fieldable by 2025. R/e high G turns - all you have to do is exceed 9G, at which point the poor meat-pilot you're fighting succumbs to G-LOC...? No doubt somewhere in the USAF or at Lockheed Martin a young accolyte of John Boyd is looking at drag polar charts for planned UCAVs and thinking about just these things. |
There are good reasons that the 747 airborne laser is no longer.
Maybe it'll be viable at some point. Certainly seems unlikely before 2025. Beyond 9g is difficult for people to deal with, but matters have gotten out of hand if that's necessary for success. |
Originally Posted by awblain
There are good reasons that the 747 airborne laser is no longer.
The size that this forces meant a large aircraft to carry it, but newer laser technology provides the same power in a much smaller & lighter package. The same goes for the mechanical components - and all of this also applies for the aiming system, power generator, etc. Additionally, it was an ABM program, meaning it required a longer-range fire-control system, a longer-range focusing system, higher power to overcome atmospheric attenuation of the beam's power, and so on. The one being designed to fit inside the lift-fan space on a modified F-35B airframe is intended for much closer range, with the attendant reductions in required power, capability of the tracking & aiming system, and so on. |
https://dtdnnp-01.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-05-08 DARPA: Training AI to Win a Dogfight “.........The ACE program will train AI in the rules of aerial dogfighting similar to how new fighter pilots are taught, starting with basic fighter maneuvers in simple, one-on-one scenarios. While highly nonlinear in behavior, dogfights have a clearly defined objective, measureable outcome, and the inherent physical limitations of aircraft dynamics, making them a good test case for advanced tactical automation. Like human pilot combat training, the AI performance expansion will be closely monitored by fighter instructor pilots in the autonomous aircraft, which will help co-evolve tactics with the technology. These subject matter experts will play a key role throughout the program. “Only after human pilots are confident that the AI algorithms are trustworthy in handling bounded, transparent and predictable behaviors will the aerial engagement scenarios increase in difficulty and realism,” Javorsek said. “Following virtual testing, we plan to demonstrate the dogfighting algorithms on sub-scale aircraft leading ultimately to live, full-scale manned-unmanned team dogfighting with operationally representative aircraft.” DARPA seeks a broad spectrum of potential proposers for each area of study, including small companies and academics with little previous experience with the Defense Department. To that end, before Phase 1 of the program begins, DARPA will sponsor a stand-alone, limited-scope effort focused on the first technical area: automating individual tactical behavior for one-on-one dogfights. Called the “AlphaDogfight Trials,” this initial solicitation will be issued by AFWERX, an Air Force innovation catalyst with the mission of finding novel solutions to Air Force challenges at startup speed. The AFWERX trials will pit AI dogfighting algorithms against each other in a tournament-style competition...........” |
War of the Drones
Originally Posted by CoffmanStarter
(Post 8339562)
For example ... would it be best to control Air Combat Drones/UAV's from the ground (as with current Reconnaissance or Ordnance delivery UAV's), or controlled from the air by something like a Sentry ... or is it conceivable that a Fighter Pilot could even have Drones/UAV's as Wingmen that could then be deployed in a "fight"?
Coff. Drone shoots down drone: The little known story of how a US Air Force MQ-9 Reaper shot down another drone with a heat seeking missile https://fightersweep.com/12293/the-l...eking-missile/ DARPA tech lets one pilot control multiple aircraft using only their brain https://fightersweep.com/12291/darpa...y-their-brain/ The Skyborg Program: The Air Force’s new plan to give fighter pilots drone sidekicks https://fightersweep.com/12241/the-s...one-sidekicks/ Thread drift but maybe of interest: Declassified supersonic spy drone flew multiple failed missions over China in the 1960s https://fightersweep.com/12316/decla...-in-the-1960s/ War of the drones is on the horizon. It was also predicted by Nostradamus, according to a book I read in the 90's interpreting his writings of the future. Shame it didn't mention Euro-millions lottery numbers. |
It's here now
|
https://www.airforcemag.com/air-forc...t-human-pilot/
Air Force to Test Fighter Drone Against Human Pilot |
Drone vs Human
The detail that is missing from that article is what kind of fight are we talking about?
If it is a BVR scenario then I’m sure AI decision making could beat the human by a second or two. If we are talking guns kills then I remain to be convinced it is worth the effort. Maybe the AI can eke out a few more bernouillis than a human. In the world of all-aspect, high off-boresight missiles BFM (assuming no pre-merge kills) then, yes, the AI may well be able to get a firing solution quicker than a human. Regardless of all of this, even the AI will still be constrained by the limits of radar and weapons. It’s an interesting experiment that could go either way I suggest. BV |
AlphaDogfight Trials Final will be streamed live on YouTube ? Alert 5
AlphaDogfight Trials Final will be streamed live on YouTube The final event of Darpa’s AlphaDogfight Trials will be streamed live on YouTube Aug. 21. The winning AI team will go against a U.S. Air Force F-16 pilot. DARPA’s AlphaDogfight Trials seeks to advance the state of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies applied to air combat operations. The trials are a computer-based competition designed to demonstrate advanced AI algorithms that can perform simulated within-visual-range air combat maneuvering, otherwise known as a dogfight. The goal is to use the dogfight as the challenge problem to increase performance and trust in AI algorithms and bring together the AI research and operator communities. |
|
|
Well there are a couple of Reapers down over Syria, US says they had a mid air but other side claiming shot down as you would.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...de-over-syria/ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-on-the-ground |
Not air combat drones and the subject being discussed - and already up on the Syria thread.
https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...l#post10864773 |
|
AI Controlled F-16 Defeats Piloted F-16
Better start considering those alternate careers.
AI Controlled F-16 Defeats Pilot An AI pilot has defeated a US Air Force pilot in a virtual F-16 dogfight in a "coming of age" moment for artificial intelligence. The US military's AlphaDogfight Trials was organised by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) - a secretive branch of the US Department of Defense responsible for the development of futuristic technologies. It sought to demonstrate the "feasibility of developing effective, intelligent autonomous agents capable of defeating adversary aircraft in a dogfight." The winning AI pilot, developed by Heron Systems, defeated other AI adversaries before going on to beat a human pilot wearing a VR helmet by a score of 5 - 0 in the final. "We've gotten an opportunity to watch AI come of age [against] a very credible adversary in the human pilot," said Col. Dan Javorsek, program manager in Darpa's Strategic Technology Office. "The AlphaDogfight Trials is all about increasing trust in AI. If the champion AI earns the respect of an F-16 pilot, we'll have come one step closer to achieving effective human-machine teaming in air combat." The human pilot, who went by the name 'Banger', said that he was unable to match twisting techniques adopted by the AI pilot that he had not witnessed in human-to-human air combat. "Standard things we do as fighter pilots are not working," he said during a live broadcast. |
The question at the end of the day has to be what is the point? If you build an AI fighter and so presumably does your opposition to counter the threat, then the eventual outcome comes down to resources and attrition. It becomes a war won simply on production rates not on lost lives and a defeated population if that makes sense, which seems a pointless exercise to start with....
I can understand why an AI aircraft will eventually win out as an F16 with a pilot will always have to operate with in the limits of the pilots tolerance to G etc, a AI version is free from that constraint. It was one advantage Bader held over his German counterparts, without legs and the problems of blood pooling in his lower extremities, he was more G tolerant than his opposition. |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10867108)
The question at the end of the day has to be what is the point? If you build an AI fighter and so presumably does your opposition to counter the threat, then the eventual outcome comes down to resources and attrition. It becomes a war won simply on production rates not on lost lives and a defeated population if that makes sense, which seems a pointless exercise to start with....
I can understand why an AI aircraft will eventually win out as an F16 with a pilot will always have to operate with in the limits of the pilots tolerance to G etc, a AI version is free from that constraint. It was one advantage Bader held over his German counterparts, without legs and the problems of blood pooling in his lower extremities, he was more G tolerant than his opposition. Good point It just becomes a game of destroying each other’s expensive drones Can’t see how an advantage is gained |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10867268)
Good point
It just becomes a game of destroying each other’s expensive drones Can’t see how an advantage is gained Really? What do you think warfare is? It is just cutting the middle man out! |
Originally Posted by typerated
(Post 10867324)
Really? What do you think warfare is?
It is just cutting the middle man out! Disagree, War at its most basic level is won by killing more of their people than they kill yours |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10867330)
Disagree,
War at its most basic level is won by killing more of their people than they kill yours |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.