Unmanned Aircraft Crosses the Atlantic

[-K2-]

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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

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]

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:

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.

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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, K2 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 K2'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]

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]

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-]

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