# Unmanned Aircraft Crosses the Atlantic



## Foxbat (Jul 12, 2018)

Remotely Piloted Air System (RPAS) Protector crossed the Atlantic Ocean from North Dakota to Gloucestershire in just over 20 hours. It's the first time a craft of this nature has accomplished such a thing and the first time a craft has entered UK airspace under beyond line-of-sight communication control.

 The Protector RG Mk1  is due to enter service with the UK as lead customer in the early 2020s.

Protector unmanned aircraft makes solo trans-Atlantic flight


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 12, 2018)

And here's a pic: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Hmm, remote piloted? Why does that send a shiver up my spine?


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 12, 2018)

I'm not sure I understand people being scared by this. Why is it that a pilot flying a plane full of bombs is less scary than a pilot sitting in front of a screen flying a drone full of bombs? Both can kill but in one, the pilot is not put at risk. Given the wringing of hands that goes on when the West gets involved in a stramash, loses a plane and then the pilot appears on TV to be humiliated and has probably been tortured before hand (as in the case of the Tornado pilots in the Gulf War), I just don't get it.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 12, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> I'm not sure I understand people being scared by this. ... etc.



Perhaps it is because of the same argument that has been made about 'behind the line officers,' firearms, aircraft, bombs, rockets, missiles, etc..  It's one more step detached.  It is no longer (now) a man sitting in a bomber having to push the release button.  As detached as that is, it hardly compares to a man 3,000-miles away looking at a video screen that does the same thing, or worse.

Some drones as we speak actually hunt and kill autonomously.  Meaning, the act of killing another human is even more detached.  Simply someone writing a bit of code, and that is the end of it for them as in the years to follow that code hunts and kills ??? many.

There is a _point_ to 'forcing' people who insist upon killing to do so face to face, up close and personal.  Better still, forcing those who do the real killing (the ones giving the orders) to have to do it.  It becomes too easy otherwise, and to wash one's hands of all guilt.

K2


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 12, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> I'm not sure I understand people being scared by this. Why is it that a pilot flying a plane full of bombs is less scary than a pilot sitting in front of a screen flying a drone full of bombs? Both can kill but in one, the pilot is not put at risk. Given the wringing of hands that goes on when the West gets involved in a stramash, loses a plane and then the pilot appears on TV to be humiliated and has probably been tortured before hand (as in the case of the Tornado pilots in the Gulf War), I just don't get it.


I'm with you; most aircraft nowadays can pretty much fly themselves anyway, including the hard bits of landing and taking off. When an aircraft is landing in the fog now I believe the pilot is pretty much hands off.

I also think the remote pilot probably makes military craft rather safer from the civilian point of view. If a bomber is being attacked, either from the air or the ground and the pilot should panic they are liable to just drop their bombs wherever they happen to be, never mind if that happens to be over a densely populated city, whereas a remote pilot has little to fear apart from the ire of his/her commanding officer, making it less likely they'll just dump their load of bombs on a bunch of unsuspecting civilians.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 12, 2018)

Vertigo said:


> ...making it less likely they'll just dump their load of bombs on a bunch of unsuspecting civilians.



Or perhaps, more likely.  It takes little imagination to see where all morality can go right out the window with such technology (and others long existing).  I get your all's point about the pilot not having to fear their own death... Just like all things however, it *is* a double edged sword.

K2


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 12, 2018)

-K2- said:


> Or perhaps, more likely.  It takes little imagination to see where all morality can go right out the window with such technology (and others long existing).  I get your all's point about the pilot not having to fear their own death... Just like all things however, it *is* a double edged sword.
> 
> K2


I think it's necessary to draw a distinction between an unmanned assassination machine which I do feel to be morally dubious, to say the least, and an unmanned bomber. A bomber pilot is not going to suddenly have a moral crisis before releasing their bombs; being as up close to the target as they can be will not change their mind; they have orders to drop their bombs in place x and will do all they can to do so. This is no different to what an unmanned bomber will do except the latter is not vulnerable to fear-of-death induced panic. Which is probably a good thing.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 12, 2018)

@Vertigo ; though I see your point, I'm not exactly speaking in specifics.  The aversion to such autonomous machines that _can_ be used for war, is that it is simply one more step detached.  Let me pose this to you; 

_When is it time to evaluate a nations justification/morality for fighting a war?_  'When massive numbers of their own people are lost... or when their side alone, does not lose a single one?'

K2


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 12, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> Why is it that a pilot flying a plane full of bombs is less scary than a pilot sitting in front of a screen flying a drone full of bombs?



It's not so much scary as much as chilling, as per K2's reply:



-K2- said:


> It's one more step detached.



There's also the point that human agency can help stop things going wrong. While that's definitely not a 100% failsafe (cf Malaysia Airlines), there's too much real world experience of computer failures to imagine flying bombs remotely makes the world safer for everybody.

Just saying.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 12, 2018)

-K2- said:


> @Vertigo ; though I see your point, I'm not exactly speaking in specifics.  The aversion to such autonomous machines that _can_ be used for war, is that it is simply one more step detached.  Let me pose this to you;
> 
> _When is it time to evaluate a nations justification/morality for fighting a war?_  'When massive numbers of their own people are lost... or when their side alone, does not lose a single one?'
> 
> K2


But it's not autonomous. It needs a fully qualified pilot to operate it.

On Brian's  point of computer failure. - the F35 has a pilot but is effectively computer controlled. In fact most advanced passenger aircraft rely heavily on computers. They all would also be prone to such a failure so anybody fearing this should never get into a plane (I don't fly unless I absolutely have no other choice).

On the justification/morality point: In the first Gulf War 147 allied personnel were killed by the result of enemy action (292 killed in total). Compare this to Iraqi casualty estimates of  25,000 to 50,000 killed, 75,000 wounded and 80,000 captured. It seems to me that what you pose  was as near as dammit in existence long before the advent of unmanned aircraft.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 12, 2018)

And it's not a problem for flying people? [Sorry Foxbat got in first - this is a reference to @Brian G Turner comment on computer failures and flying bombs.]

Sorry I have a problem with that; all modern aircraft are now fly by wire. The pilot is not directly connected to the control of the aircraft - all control is through computers. They have multiple redundancies (as will the drones) but if all the computers fail the aircraft crashes. Whether it's people aboard or bombs.

On the remoteness; good or bad, I think we've long since gone past that particular issue. Yes we still have boots on the ground but an awful lot of warfare is now conducted by missiles, small and large, launched from a few miles away to a few hundred to a few thousand. I really don't see this drone making a significant difference to that.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 12, 2018)

I blame the Nazis. They started all this remote stuff with their V1s and V2s.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 12, 2018)

According to Air Chief Marshal Stephen Hillier (head of the RAF) it will be many years yet before a completely unmanned airforce is viable.
Why an unmanned fighter fleet isn’t yet viable, in the words of Britain’s Air Force chief


----------



## -K2- (Jul 12, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> But it's not autonomous. It needs a fully qualified pilot to operate it.



Perhaps the one above, yet Predator & Reaper B's have fully autonomous capabilities, as do many others, and they have for some time been put into such missions.  Literally, program their mission and cut them loose.  They decide if something meets the target criteria, and then they kill it.

Here is an outdated, (though actually naïve) article from NATO Review: Autonomous military drones: no longer science fiction

K2


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 12, 2018)

-K2- said:


> Perhaps the one above, yet Predator & Reaper B's have fully autonomous capabilities, as do many others, and they have for some time been put into such missions.  Literally, program their mission and cut them loose.  They decide if something meets the target criteria, and then they kill it.
> 
> Here is an outdated, (though actually naïve) article from NATO Review: Autonomous military drones: no longer science fiction
> 
> K2


Thanks for the link. Makes interesting reading.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 12, 2018)

And while we peacefully and legally debate the pros and cons, there's this.
Sensitive Reaper drone documents leaked on the Dark Web

Chilling, as Brian would say


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 12, 2018)

Indeed, modern aircraft are heavily computerized - but I presume the human pilot is there for a good reason. 

I'm not railing against unmanned technology - as pointed out, we've had it for some time, whether in drones or even driverless cars. It just makes me uncomfortable the more technology takes away direct human control.

(One day driverless electric cars will probably be the norm, and I'll be one of those old fuddy-duddies refusing to get in one.  )


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 12, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> Indeed, modern aircraft are heavily computerized - but I presume the human pilot is there for a good reason.
> 
> I'm not railing against unmanned technology - as pointed out, we've had it for some time, whether in drones or even driverless cars. It just makes me uncomfortable the more technology takes away direct human control.
> 
> (One day driverless electric cars will probably be the norm, and I'll be one of those old fuddy-duddies refusing to get in one.  )


My point was there are now computers between the pilot and the actual aircraft control surfaces there is no direct connection. If those computers fail the pilot is completely powerless; they simply no longer include any manual connection to the control surfaces of the aircraft. So yes the pilots are still there for a purpose but that purpose is at least heading towards being solely to reassure the passengers. If the control computer(s) fails they are going down. So even manned aircraft are now totally dependant on the non-failure of their computers.

To be fair pilots fail more often than those control computers.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 12, 2018)

We've been on at least one flight before now where we've been told that the navigation computer had failed and the pilot was relying on an iPad instead for the flight plan - presumably not Google Maps, though.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 12, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> We've been on at least one flight before now where we've been told that the navigation computer had failed and the pilot was relying on an iPad instead for the flight plan - presumably not Google Maps, though.


Just pray the control computers don't fail, though as I say they are usually set up with a minimum triple redundancy (at least the Typhoon has triple redundancy and I doubt civilian ones would have less).


----------



## -K2- (Jul 12, 2018)

Seriously fellas;  Autonomous combat aircraft are old news.  As silly as it may sound, combat flight simulators like IL2 were able to do it 15+ years ago... All it took past that is sending those commands to a real aircraft instead of a digital one.

K2


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

-K2- said:


> There is a _point_ to 'forcing' people who insist upon killing to do so face to face, up close and personal.


What is "up close" or "personal" about dropping a guided bomb from 30,000 feet?


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (Jul 13, 2018)

Vertigo said:


> If those computers fail the pilot is completely powerless; they simply no longer include any manual connection to the control surfaces of the aircraft. So yes the pilots are still there for a purpose but that purpose is at least heading towards being solely to reassure the passengers.


I think you may be thinking of some military aircraft which are dynamically unstable and essentially impossible to fly by hand even in principle. The computer has to make many tiny adjustments very, very quickly to keep it in the air.

I may be mistaken, but I doubt any commercial passenger aviation craft have taken this route. Not to say they they aren't totally computer dependent for NORMAL flight.

The Airbus family is one of the most common type of aircraft in commercial passenger service, I think THE most common. And at least some of them, I suspect all, have a purely mechanical backup system allowing some control. It's discussed here, for example:
What would happen to the rudder on an A320 if both FAC systems failed?

tldr: It's not the recommended way to fly, it doesn't give as much control, but it is practiced in simulators, and it is possible. Even total loss of all electrical power AND all computers, which would be much more serious than computers alone, does not instantly leave the pilot without any control at all.

-------------------------
Somewhere recently I saw a video describing an emergency landing made with a commercial airliner that had lost all hydraulic pressure and had NO control of ANY of their control surfaces. At least one element, I think the rudder, was stuck in a non-neutral position. Altogether a much worse situation actually. Having watched that sometime in the last few days is parlty why I  took an interest in this question. The pilots were a creative group of true geeks.  Busted that aircraft all to hell but kept the shiny side up and everybody walked away. They did it by modulating thrust on the engines individually. It was a challenge even to get it pointed toward the airport & they  could only turn in one direction. So to change course in the opposite direction they had to turn more than 180 and loop back. But they did it. One hell of a story.  Now I can't find the video.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> What is "up close" or "personal" about dropping a guided bomb from 30,000 feet?



It's significantly more up close and personal than writing some software 5,000 miles away and 10 years prior, or deciding to initiate drone coverage of an area that only selects anyone except for your own.  Though that pilot doesn't have to see what he has done, or even have to learn about it, he at least has some idea.  I like the idea of accountability, personal or otherwise.

However, I'll pose my simple question again:
_When is it time to evaluate a nations justification/morality for fighting a war?_  'When massive numbers of their own people are lost... or when their side alone, does not lose a single one?'

K2


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> The Airbus family is one of the most common type of aircraft in commercial passenger service, I think THE most common. And at least some of them, I suspect all, have a purely mechanical backup system allowing some control. It's discussed here, for example:
> What would happen to the rudder on an A320 if both FAC systems failed?


The mechanical back up relies on a working hydraulic system, which is powered by the engines. No electrical system, no engines, no control.

The aircraft is dynamically stable, so it would gracefully crash.


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

-K2- said:


> It's significantly more up close and personal than writing some software 5,000 miles away and 10 years prior, or deciding to initiate drone coverage of an area that only selects anyone except for your own.  Though that pilot doesn't have to see what he has done, or even have to learn about it, he at least has some idea.  I like the idea of accountability, personal or otherwise.
> 
> However, I'll pose my simple question again:
> _When is it time to evaluate a nations justification/morality for fighting a war?_  'When massive numbers of their own people are lost... or when their side alone, does not lose a single one?'
> ...


I honestly think that it is immoral to desire to put the burden of killing on an 18 year old when the people responsible are voters, Presidents and elected representatives. The kid behind the trigger should have the least burden.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (Jul 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> The mechanical back up relies on a working hydraulic system, which is powered by the engines. No electrical system, no engines, no control.


Well it's a long article I linked to, so perhaps you missed this:

"The hydraulic systems will still work for some time if they stop being powered because some power is accumulated in the reservoirs."

The main point is that there are plenty of modern commercial airliners for which it simply is NOT true that "If those computers fail the pilot is completely powerless". I don't claim to know if that is the case with all or even the  majority, but I suspect it is.

This sentence, added as a bonus example of an even more extreme case, is the one you disagree with. Note the emphasis I've added on 2 words:


Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> _*Even*_ total loss of all electrical power AND all computers, which would be much more serious than computers alone, does not *instantly* leave the pilot without any control at all.


It's not essential to the basic point, because the total loss of all electrical power on a modern commercial aircraft is fantastically unlikely because of redundant power sources. Typically there are at least 3 completely independent and fundamentally different kinds of electrical power sources. Often, one is powered by air pressure from forward movement like a giant pitot tube. Another is simply a big stack of batteries. Unlikely as a total failure of the fly-by-wire system is (there is redundancy in that too), the probability of total loss of all electrical power is almost certainly lower. Nevertheless, if complete loss of electrical power DOES occur, in some, I suspect most, systems there will be a grace period before all hydraulic pressure is lost.  Possibly enough, depending on the circumstances.

I'm not trying to "look too good or talk to wise" here. I'm not a pilot. I took the ground school but couldn't afford the lab course past the first lesson. I'm not claiming that flying one of these aircraft with a disabled fly-by-wire system would be a trivial undertaking. My point is that the claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE and that human pilots on commercial passenger aircraft are merely there for public relations is incorrect.


Onyx said:


> The mechanical back up relies on a working hydraulic system, which is powered by the engines. No electrical system, no engines, no control..


The fly-by-wire system ALSO depends on hydraulics.  But neither  electrical power nor hydraulics are totally dependent on engines, at least not with all aircraft & I suspect not with any, The famous "miracle on the Hudson" landing was caused by sudden loss of all engines and was NOT simply a case of an uncontrolled falling out of the sky with a pilot having nothing to do. If there had been no pilot, there would have been no survivors.

You clearly appreciate that hydraulic pressure is pretty darned important in these types of aircraft. Total loss of hydraulic pressure is probably more serious than than any of the failure modes mentioned above - indeed, more serious than just about anything short of having a wing fall off. And this has been true a lot longer than fly-by-wire has been around. And yet . . .  with the right stuff, always think hard before saying anything is IMPOSSIBLE:





That's the video I couldn't find earlier. I misrembered a couple of details & had trouble finding it, but that's it.


Here is another link on the general subject:
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-an-Airbus-A320-lost-all-power-in-flight-Would-the-pilots-still-have-control-of-the-plane-because-it’s-flown-by-wire


----------



## -K2- (Jul 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> I honestly think that it is immoral to desire to put the burden of killing on an 18 year old when the people responsible are voters, Presidents and elected representatives. The kid behind the trigger should have the least burden.



Be sure, the voters and 'their' elected representatives (meaning the voters ultimately are responsible), those appointed and at the top of the military, rarely take responsibility, or feel a comparable burden.  More the shame of it as you point out.  However, the option of purely remote, autonomous weapons systems eliminates all sense of responsibility.

Someone somewhere must.  Otherwise, it becomes all too easy, when it should be one of the most agonizing decisions of all.

In any case, the _morality_ of it is way off topic.  Yet, should always be remembered.

K2


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> This sentence, added as a bonus example of an even more extreme case, is the one you disagree with.


I didn't disagree. I posted more information about what you were discussing.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 13, 2018)

-K2- said:


> Perhaps it is because of the same argument that has been made about 'behind the line officers,' firearms, aircraft, bombs, rockets, missiles, etc.. It's one more step detached.


The issue began when the person ultimately in charge (i.e. the person who decided that their forces should take military action) no longer appeared on the battlefield... and that started happening a _very_ long time ago.

That people are squeamish about unmanned drones for this particular reason** just shows that they don't understand how wars have been conducted long before they were born.


Something rather more pertinent to be squeamish about are autonomous weapons... partly because we should all know that it is impossible to comprehensively test complex software, so there's no guarantee that an autonomous weapon will always behave as expected.


** - People might have other objections -- such as the person whose weapons are at the sharp end not having as much relevant information as they would if they were physically present -- but that is generally true of aircraft whether or not there's a pilot on board... but, in any case, there's still the fog of war to take into consideration


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> I honestly think that it is immoral to desire to put the burden of killing on an 18 year old


So how old should, for example, infantry privates be?

It isn't as if the only "combatants" of that age are piloting drones... and an infantry private may have the additional burden of being in a very dangerous situation, one where an instantaneous response to a threat may be the only thing that might keep them alive, and thus have to judge, just as instaneously, whether a perceived threat is real or not.


----------



## Lumens (Jul 13, 2018)

If rather simplistic, I see this as the same thing as when saddles were fitted to horses - technological progress. In any sort of physical confrontation, be it a boxing match or world war, ideally you want to hit your opponent without being hit yourself. The basic underlying human nature remains the same. Some people will take advantage of it to do terrible things, others will not.


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

Ursa major said:


> So how old should, for example, infantry privates be?
> 
> It isn't as if the only "combatants" of that age are piloting drones... and an infantry private may have the additional burden of being in a very dangerous situation, one where an instantaneous response to a threat may be the only thing that might keep them alive, and thus have to judge, just as instaneously, whether a perceived threat is real or not.


I would replace infantry with drones that are much closer connected to the decision makers, which is in contrast to X2's philosophy that the guilt of a nation's war should reside at the lowest level of the military that takes action.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> I would replace infantry with drones that are much closer connected to the decision makers, which is in contrast to X2's philosophy that *the guilt of a nation's war should reside at the lowest level of the military that takes action*.



Yes, well 'X2' didn't say or imply that, though I suppose you could twist it that way if it suits your agenda.

X2... err K2


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

-K2- said:


> Yes, well 'X2' didn't say or imply that, though I suppose you could twist it that way if it suits your agenda.
> 
> X2... err K2


I don't need the aggression. Bye.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> which is in contrast to X2's philosophy that the guilt of a nation's war should reside at the lowest level of the military that takes action.


Either you know someone who goes by the name of X2 and they have said this to you, or you mean K2, _who wrote no such thing_.

I suggest you read what K2 wrote again before you make such personal accusations to third parties.


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

Ursa major said:


> Either you know someone who goes by the name of X2 and they have said this to you, or you mean K2, _who wrote no such thing_.
> 
> I suggest you read what K2 wrote again before you make such personal accusations to third parties.


Clearly "X2" was a typo on my part for "K2". Pardon my error.

And this is what I'm referring to:


-K2- said:


> There is a _point_ to 'forcing' people who insist upon killing to do so face to face, up close and personal. Better still, forcing those who do the real killing (the ones giving the orders) to have to do it. It becomes too easy otherwise, and to wash one's hands of all guilt.



In this post, *K*2 says that "people who insist upon killing to do so face to face". Clearly, the only people that do the actual killing in war do not make command, policy or diplomatic decisions. The people that do any sort of face to face killing are largely infantry and pilots and aircrew.

That brings us back to the "point". I'm assuming that the "point" is that the horror, guilt and responsibility of face to face killing makes it unappealing to those that choose to order it. And that's the illogic that I was pointing out - you can burden countless soldiers with face to face killing, and none of them may ever be in a position to choose whether more killing will be ordered or not.

I know of no infantry or pilots that "insist upon killing". Do you?


So I don't see any interpretation of *K*2's words where ordinary soldiers aren't the proxy bearers of a nation's mortal choices. Because there is no direct connection between those who serve on the front line and those who "insist upon killing".

There is essentially no real difference between a Prime Minister ordering a cruise missile strike and a PM ordering a sniper to hunt and kill a person. The PM doesn't end up with the sniper's PTSD any more than they sympathize with the cruise missile.


If you understand K2's post differently, fill me in. I'm not accusing K2 of anything - I'm applying his statement to reality.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 13, 2018)

And... back to unmanned aircraft. 

Interestingly enough, Wikipedia claims that the first unmanned aeroplanes appeared as early as WWI - which surprised me: History of unmanned aerial vehicles - Wikipedia


----------



## Onyx (Jul 13, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> And... back to unmanned aircraft.
> 
> Interestingly enough, Wikipedia claims that the first unmanned aeroplanes appeared as early as WWI - which surprised me: History of unmanned aerial vehicles - Wikipedia


I suppose it shouldn't be surprising, but it is. Kind of like how old the electric (1880s) and then diesel/electric (1900s) submarine is, or the first automatic pistols (1890s). The fact that WWI started with horses is just one of those absurd incongruities of the era.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 13, 2018)

Since V1's/V2's were mentioned, do not forget the _somewhat_ _successful_ intercontinental, trans-pacific Fu-Go balloon bombs used by Imperial Japan during WWII:







Fu-Go balloon bomb - Wikipedia

K2


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 14, 2018)

I've been thinking of the future of unmanned aircraft and I think there may be a role as yet unspoken of (as far as I know) and it's this: Anti Submarine Warfare.

Let me elaborate....the Astute class submarine now in use with the Royal Navy has been called the greatest current threat to the Russian Navy. Indeed, in the 2012 Exercise Fellowship, HMS Astute played a cat and mouse game for two days with the Virginia class USS New Mexico and left the Americans very impressed by its capabitilities. The problem is that these boats cost around £1.5 Billion each.  The Royal Navy's traditional role in NATO has been to provide around 75% of the ASW assets in the North Atlantic but rising costs makes that more and more difficult to achieve.

But imagine a drone with tilt props akin to the V22 Osprey that can patrol the Atlantic for 20 plus hours at a time. Fit it with dipping sonar, arm it with Stingray torpedoes and you may have a very effective (yet relatively inexpensive) ASW craft that, because of its mobility and staying power, would be difficult for the submerged Russian subs to predict its whereabouts. Pilot fatigue could be erradicated by simply switching chairs in an office. Indeed, nationality could even be changed by switching control from the the USA to the UK in a matter of seconds.

Finally, with the continuing development of drone in-flight replenishment, these ASW drones could stay aloft almost indefinitely.

Hmmm. Maybe I should give the MOD or Pentagon a call


----------



## Onyx (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> But imagine a drone with tilt props akin to the V22 Osprey that can patrol the Atlantic for 20 plus hours at a time. Fit it with dipping sonar, arm it with Stingray torpedoes and you may have a very effective (yet relatively inexpensive) ASW craft that, because of its mobility and staying power, would be difficult for the submerged Russian subs to predict its whereabouts.


I think it is relatively more likely that the sonar units will be smaller drones themselves rather than a dipping buoy. Flying buoys would allow more triangulation and allow the mother craft to be a cheaper non-VTOL design.

I think that military stuff is likely to be more and more disposable as electronics and batteries get smaller.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 14, 2018)

Onyx said:


> I think it is relatively more likely that the sonar units will be smaller drones themselves rather than a dipping buoy. Flying buoys would allow more triangulation and allow the mother craft to be a cheaper non-VTOL design.
> 
> I think that military stuff is likely to be more and more disposable as electronics and batteries get smaller.


I see your point but I think the craft would have to be large enough to carry the weaponry able to take out a sub.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 14, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> Indeed, modern aircraft are heavily computerized - but I presume the human pilot is there for a good reason.
> 
> I'm not railing against unmanned technology - as pointed out, we've had it for some time, whether in drones or even driverless cars. It just makes me uncomfortable the more technology takes away direct human control.
> 
> (One day driverless electric cars will probably be the norm, and I'll be one of those old fuddy-duddies refusing to get in one.  )



Commercial jets have had autopilots for decades but an autopilot has never been a complete substitute for a pilot, who can respond to situations not forseen by the autopilot (and there will always be situations not forseen by an autopilot). It's the same for cars. Aircraft autopilots have a very simple journey to navigate: take off from a runway, fly whilst missing other aircraft (whose flight paths are known) and the ground, and land. Travelling in a car is far more complex: all sorts of things to miss, other vehicles whose behaviour you *don't* know, and a host of unexpected situations. I can't see a car autopilot ever allowing the driver to keep his hands far from the wheel. I certainly would never use one except to travel along a freeway on a quiet day.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 14, 2018)

I suspect the reason people find unmanned military drones creepy is because one imagines that since there isn't a human in them they are in danger of becoming self-aware and deciding the human race is a liability.

Which gets back to a certain thread on computers becoming intelligent like humans, but that's another story.

[just to add that nobody has anything to worry about]


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 14, 2018)

Justin Swanton said:


> Commercial jets have had autopilots for decades but an autopilot has never been a complete substitute for a pilot, who can respond to situations not forseen by the autopilot (and there will always be situations not forseen by an autopilot). It's the same for cars. Aircraft autopilots have a very simple journey to navigate: take off from a runway, fly whilst missing other aircraft (whose flight paths are known) and the ground, and land. Travelling in a car is far more complex: all sorts of things to miss, other vehicles whose behaviour you *don't* know, and a host of unexpected situations. I can't see a car autopilot ever allowing the driver to keep his hands far from the wheel. I certainly would never use one except to travel along a freeway on a quiet day.


There is one huge difference for cars; they can simply stop if the computer cannot cope with the situation and if there's not enough time to stop then it's even less likely that a human could react and take over in time to improve the situation. I don't know your age but I think the younger folk around today can expect fully automated cars within their lifetimes (they are incredibly close now), and I'd further predict that also within their lifetime they will probably not be allowed to take manual control within urban areas.


----------



## -K2- (Jul 14, 2018)

I mentioned this earlier, though bears repeating again regarding Artificial Intelligence in autonomous vehicles, specifically aircraft (ground based is essentially easier (working in 2-dimensions) except for the collision avoidance and surprise conditions as noted above).

Though work began long before computer games, flight simulation software generated by gaming companies, for a couple decades has been seriously looked at by the military, even solicited to the point where new divisions have been added to those companies.  IL2-Sturmovik by 1C-Maddox was one of those.  The software used to reflect actual conditions (weather, temperature, altitude, air density, g-forces, etc.) were just a small fraction of the conditions considered.  Changes to the aircraft in-flight, fuel use, ordnance expenditure, damage and so on, all taken into account.

They did so to give the game player a 'simulated' experience as close to real as possible (It's my understanding that actual pilots utilized MS-FS to practice difficult landings at difficult fields), and in kind, give AI aircraft realistic responses... EVEN, 'evolving/learning' tactics.

I'm not speaking of A to B - drop ordnance X - B to A, yet actually coping with threats from ground or air and then neutralizing them-- In 'real-time' as they come up.  In that aircraft are now fly-by-wire, and the sensors can feedback information regarding the aircraft/weather/location/altitude state instantaneously, at the aircraft, not home base... It takes little to input that same simulation software into an actual aircraft and have it perform and REACT as though piloted.

And that is just what they make public 

K2


----------



## Onyx (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> I see your point but I think the craft would have to be large enough to carry the weaponry able to take out a sub.


The mothership certainly could, and it doesn't need to be able to hover to do so.


----------



## Onyx (Jul 14, 2018)

Justin Swanton said:


> Commercial jets have had autopilots for decades but an autopilot has never been a complete substitute for a pilot, who can respond to situations not forseen by the autopilot (and there will always be situations not forseen by an autopilot). It's the same for cars. Aircraft autopilots have a very simple journey to navigate: take off from a runway, fly whilst missing other aircraft (whose flight paths are known) and the ground, and land. Travelling in a car is far more complex: all sorts of things to miss, other vehicles whose behaviour you *don't* know, and a host of unexpected situations. *I can't see a car autopilot ever allowing the driver to keep his hands far from the wheel*. I certainly would never use one except to travel along a freeway on a quiet day.


That seems like a bet you could lose within 10 years.

As far as unforeseen issues on airline flights, you could simply have remote emergency crews that can take over flying the plane if the automatic systems encounter something they are not able to cope with. Given instrument flight conditions and fly by wire controls, there is little difference between an in-aircraft crew and one in a simulator on the ground.

Except the radiation, of course.



Justin Swanton said:


> I suspect the reason people find unmanned military drones creepy is because one imagines that since there isn't a human in them they are in danger of becoming self-aware and deciding the human race is a liability.



I think people have a much simpler concern about a machine not reacting properly to the situation, rather than worry that it will become alive.

People also tend to have more petty concerns - who will be held responsible if there is an accident.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (Aug 13, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> . . . the first unmanned aeroplanes appeared as early as WWI - which surprised me: History of unmanned aerial vehicles - Wikipedia


Much earlier actually. Unmanned airplanes came before  piloted ones. Samuel Pierpont Langley was building them in the 19th century.


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (Aug 13, 2018)

Justin Swanton said:


> I suspect the reason people find unmanned military drones creepy is because one imagines that since there isn't a human in them they are in danger of becoming self-aware and deciding the human race is a liability.


----------



## Onyx (Aug 13, 2018)

Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> Much earlier actually. Unmanned airplanes came before  piloted ones. Samuel Pierpont Langley was building them in the 19th century.


I think the term "unmanned" in this context refers to aircraft having a control system that takes the role of the pilot. 

Even in his attempts at manned flight, Langley didn't have a flight control system, making his airplanes the equivalent of heavier-than-air balloons.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Aug 13, 2018)

Vertigo said:


> There is one huge difference for cars; they can simply stop if the computer cannot cope with the situation and if there's not enough time to stop then it's even less likely that a human could react and take over in time to improve the situation.



And then someone crashes into the back of them because they didn't expect to find a stationary car on the highway.

There's a much bigger difference between aircraft autopilot and car autopilot. In an aircraft, when something happens that the autopilot can't handle, there's typically several minutes for the crew to respond. In a car, there's likely to be a few seconds at most.

It's simply unrealistic to expect a driver to take over from a car autopilot when they're a few seconds from disaster and have spent the last three hours sleeping and watching pr0n.

Automated cruise control makes sense, because the driver knows it may fail and has to keep their eyes on the road. Fully automated driving with no manual controls makes sense, because the car has to be able to handle anything that might happen. Nothing in between makes sense in a world where trained airline pilots can fly a perfectly good airliner into the sea after the autopilot cuts out, when they have ten minutes to prevent it.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Aug 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> As far as unforeseen issues on airline flights, you could simply have remote emergency crews that can take over flying the plane if the automatic systems encounter something they are not able to cope with.



An aircraft that can be remotely piloted is an aircraft that can be remotely hijacked.

Besides which, I was watching a video the other day recreating an emergency landing where an airliner lost all hydraulics and the only control the crew had was by throttling the engines to turn, climb and descend. They got the plane down and saved most of the passengers, but, as I understand it, no-one has ever managed to repeat the performance in a high-quality simulator. Knowing your life is on the line tends to concentrate the brain, and a remote pilot isn't going to have quite the same motivation to get it down safely at any cost.


----------



## Onyx (Aug 13, 2018)

Edward M. Grant said:


> An aircraft that can be remotely piloted is an aircraft that can be remotely hijacked.



Unless the remotely piloted aircraft has a facebook account and uses its birthday as a passcode, it is utterly unlikely to be remotely hijacked. Do you know of any remotely controlled aircraft, satellites or spacecraft that have ever been taken over in the 100 years since their invention and use? 




Edward M. Grant said:


> Besides which, I was watching a video the other day recreating an emergency landing where an airliner lost all hydraulics and the only control the crew had was by throttling the engines to turn, climb and descend. They got the plane down and saved most of the passengers, but, as I understand it, no-one has ever managed to repeat the performance in a high-quality simulator. Knowing your life is on the line tends to concentrate the brain, and a remote pilot isn't going to have quite the same motivation to get it down safely at any cost.



The simulator is likely the problem with this example. Doing close contact VFR work in simulators is extremely difficult because of a lack of detailed ground texture to judge speed and simulator lag - the inability of the simulator to match flight control inputs in real time - making 'seat of the pants' flight hard to emulate. 

There are flight control programs developed by NASA that are very adept at controlling aircraft with missing or damaged control and lift surfaces. If a passenger plane was in extremis, I would hope an automatic system in the plane was making the landing and not a remote manual approach from a simulator operator. Machines can actually "sense" altitude, airspeed, inertial, angle of attack and attitude in a way a human pilot can only refer to, while a remote pilot's vestibular inputs are compromised by lag.


So my comment was basically that the aircraft could be remotely piloted in the case of an AI failure, but the AI would be the best pilot in the face of a mechanical failure. The likelihood of a combination AI and severe mechanical failure would be extremely low as those are not related systems.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Aug 13, 2018)

Onyx said:


> Unless the remotely piloted aircraft has a facebook account and uses its birthday as a passcode, it is utterly unlikely to be remotely hijacked. Do you know of any remotely controlled aircraft, satellites or spacecraft that have ever been taken over in the 100 years since their invention and use?



Everyone thinks their security is unbreakable... until it's broken. And, yes, Iran captured a US drone (possibly several?) a few years ago by taking it over in flight.

All it will take is for the bad guys to get one person into the infrastructure that controls encryption between the aircraft and the ground, and you can have a thousand 9/11s on the same day.



> So my comment was basically that the aircraft could be remotely piloted in the case of an AI failure, but the AI would be the best pilot in the face of a mechanical failure. The likelihood of a combination AI and severe mechanical failure would be extremely low as those are not related systems.



Except you can only verify that the AI can handle situations you test it in. The crew apparently called the ground after they stabilized the aircraft, to get the procedures for flying their aircraft after a complete hydraulic failure... only to be told that there were no procedures, because a complete hydraulic failure was 'impossible'.


----------



## Onyx (Aug 13, 2018)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Except you can only verify that the AI can handle situations you test it in. The crew apparently called the ground after they stabilized the aircraft, to get the procedures for flying their aircraft after a complete hydraulic failure... only to be told that there were no procedures, because a complete hydraulic failure was 'impossible'.


Of course a complete hydraulic failure is possible. What was likely thought "impossible" was that the crew were still alive to call for procedures because complete hydraulic failures rarely leave the aircraft in level flight attitude. 

I just don't agree that an AI tasked to control the plane by whatever channels it has available is going to be unable to accomplish a differential thrust landing that a person could. An AI is more capable at that sort of adaptive piloting.

What an AI might not be able to do is something really out of the box, like the fictional upside down flight shown in the film "Flight", it should be able to very quickly decide what flight control it does have and calculate the effect.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 4, 2018)

Some news: US Navy awards Boeing $805.3 million contract to design, build MQ-25A Stingray

Just an observation....it's interesting when you listen to or read the views of test pilots nowadays. It seems that the software does most of the flying already (including target acquisition/priority selection, take-off and landing...vertical or otherwise). Seems to me that most advanced fighters are near-UAVs already.


----------



## Vertigo (Sep 4, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> Some news: US Navy awards Boeing $805.3 million contract to design, build MQ-25A Stingray
> 
> Just an observation....it's interesting when you listen to or read the views of test pilots nowadays. It seems that the software does most of the flying already (including target acquisition/priority selection, take-off and landing...vertical or otherwise). Seems to me that most advanced fighters are near-UAVs already.


I seem to remember being pretty much shot down in flames for making a similar observation earlier in the thread! In fairness I was making it generally whilst it's probably more true when referring to just high performance military aircraft.


----------

