Pilotless aircraft carrier jet

[pathfinder 0]

Not sure, but don't all the prototypes for the different UCAV's all have internal weapons bays? Won't this get in the way of a VTOL system?

Anyone got a list of the different UCAV'S being developed?

[Othin 0]

They really don't need to go to much bigger. Seems if they could settle on something predator size or slightly smaller would be the way to go. They could load like 25 in the stop that one Tomcat would take.

As far as VTOL goes, why bother? There is more then enough room on a U.S. carrier to land and take one off. Hell they've landed a C-130 (and also took it back off) on the old Forestall, so I'm sure they can land one of these no problem. The increase in size and complexity isn't really a good tradeoff.

Take a page from the Russian foreign sales brochure and sell the Clemenceau to the Chinese. It'll be another "amusement island" inside of ten years.

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 26 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Feb. 26 2003,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More highly trained pilots lose their jobs.     <span id='postcolor'>

Beats losing your life...<span id='postcolor'>

But the whole joy of flying is the freedom that being up there gives you.

Hell, otherwise it's just like flying Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002. Or working behind any other desk. Only difference being you can't take coffee breaks while the computer is paused.

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Feb. 27 2003,12:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the whole joy of flying is the freedom that being up there gives you.

Hell, otherwise it's just like flying Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002. Or working behind any other desk. Only difference being you can't take coffee breaks while the computer is paused.<span id='postcolor'>

This is about getting a job done - as cheap and with only as much risk as absolutely nescessary. War is not about enjoying your ride, but about achieving some political goals by killing foreign people. If you do not need to risk your own people to do the same job at lower risk and a better price, then this is the best solution.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Feb. 27 2003,13:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Only difference being you can't take coffee breaks while the computer is paused.<span id='postcolor'>

Depends where you are in the flight's waypoints.

[Guest]

I think the plan is making a fully autonomous system - not a remote controlled vehicle. Just point and click on a target on a map and the robotic aircraft do the rest themselves.

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 27 2003,15:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the plan is making a fully autonomous system - not a remote controlled vehicle. Just point and click on a target on a map and the robotic aircraft do the rest themselves.<span id='postcolor'>

I wonder how the AI will behave

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Feb. 27 2003,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how the AI will behave <span id='postcolor'>

Oh no... 4 is down...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Feb. 27 2003,16:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 27 2003,156)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the plan is making a fully autonomous system - not a remote controlled vehicle. Just point and click on a target on a map and the robotic aircraft do the rest themselves.<span id='postcolor'>

I wonder how the AI will behave <span id='postcolor'>

[Mister Frag 0]

I'm sure the risk of collisions between the robotic aircraft is a real concern. I doubt that they'll be equipped with radar or any other proximity sensors, so the avoidance logic would have to be through preprogrammed waypoints or realtime control from a remote location that is equipped with radar (AWACS?).

I remember reading an accident analysis report from the FAA (the Federal Aviation Administration in the US) a couple of years ago where two planes that were on autopilot collided in midair. The planes were going in opposite directions between two identical waypoints, and the GPS-controlled autopilots ensured that the planes didn't deviate very far from the direct line between those two waypoints. Furthermore, both autopilots had been programmed with the same altitude, so the planes were put on a collision course.

If a carrier launches a bunch of these robotic planes and they attack the same target, they too could wind up on a collision course if the ingress and egress routes aren't different.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 27 2003,21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure the risk of collisions between the robotic aircraft is a real concern. I doubt that they'll be equipped with radar or any other proximity sensors, so the avoidance logic would have to be through preprogrammed waypoints or realtime control from a remote location that is equipped with radar (AWACS?).

I remember reading an accident analysis report from the FAA (the Federal Aviation Administration in the US) a couple of years ago where two planes that were on autopilot collided in midair. The planes were going in opposite directions between two identical waypoints, and the GPS-controlled autopilots ensured that the planes didn't deviate very far from the direct line between those two waypoints. Furthermore, both autopilots had been programmed with the same altitude, so the planes were put on a collision course.

If a carrier launches a bunch of these robotic planes and they attack the same target, they too could wind up on a collision course if the ingress and egress routes aren't different.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I would hope that if such a system became operational, they would have some sort of system for assigning flight levels and spacing for multiple vehicles. After all, it wouldnt be a great thing if the things started crashing into each other!

I can see this being a really cool system for eath moving. After all, arent ground attack missions among the more dangerous flight missions?

If you want to read some semi interesting fiction about what may be the 'future' of PRV's, read any of the more recent Dale Brown books. A little Tom Clancy-ish, but often a good read.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Feb. 27 2003,22:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I remember reading an accident analysis report from the FAA (the Federal Aviation Administration in the US) a couple of years ago where two planes that were on autopilot collided in midair. The planes were going in opposite directions between two identical waypoints, and the GPS-controlled autopilots ensured that the planes didn't deviate very far from the direct line between those two waypoints. Furthermore, both autopilots had been programmed with the same altitude, so the planes were put on a collision course.<span id='postcolor'>

There's a system being developed that takes these possibilities into account and diverts planes in close proximity to different altitudes/directions from each other.

[Schoeler 0]

Somebody should sell it to BIS

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the whole joy of flying is the freedom that being up there gives you.<span id='postcolor'>

Flying for fun: yes. Flying in combat:

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than willing to risk my life to fly a plane for my country. But if they want me to do it with a remote control I'll be just as happy to.

Then again, I'd probably go to the airlines if the AF wanted me to fly UAVs.

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then again, I'd probably go to the airlines if the AF wanted me to fly UAVs.<span id='postcolor'>

Flying airlines = big money, but boring as hell.

You can't fly at low level (except on approaches and during take-off).

If you want to fly, do it good, fly in fighters.

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Feb. 27 2003,13:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is about getting a job done - as cheap and with only as much risk as absolutely nescessary. War is not about enjoying your ride, but about achieving some political goals by killing foreign people. If you do not need to risk your own people to do the same job at lower risk and a better price, then this is the best solution.<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, initially this technology would be military only. You have them used in ground strikes.

Then as the technology improves, they start getting fighter aircraft as well, and as the military technology gets better and better, the older original technology gets passed onto the civilian airlines, who, because of the cost of paying Pilots and the amount of R&R they need between each flight, could get a hell of a lot more value for money out of these automatic aircraft.

Soon, the only real "pilots" left, will be the 'amateur' light and Ultra-light aircraft pilots, and the occassional "Middle-of-nowhere" transport, or crop duster.

That is at least until space flight becomes a big thing and we have shuttle pilots entering and leaving the atmosphere continually.

I just think that there are occassions where technology can go Too Far, and destroy the joy in doing something the way it was created.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Feb. 28 2003,04:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Feb. 27 2003,132)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is about getting a job done - as cheap and with only as much risk as absolutely nescessary. War is not about enjoying your ride, but about achieving some political goals by killing foreign people. If you do not need to risk your own people to do the same job at lower risk and a better price, then this is the best solution.<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, initially this technology would be military only. You have them used in ground strikes.

Then as the technology improves, they start getting fighter aircraft as well, and as the military technology gets better and better, the older original technology gets passed onto the civilian airlines, who, because of the cost of paying Pilots and the amount of R&R they need between each flight, could get a hell of a lot more value for money out of these automatic aircraft.

Soon, the only real "pilots" left, will be the 'amateur' light and Ultra-light aircraft pilots, and the occassional "Middle-of-nowhere" transport, or crop duster.

That is at least until space flight becomes a big thing and we have shuttle pilots entering and leaving the atmosphere continually.

I just think that there are occassions where technology can go Too Far, and destroy the joy in doing something the way it was created.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think you'll ever see 'robot' pilots of commercial or transport aircraft. At least not for a long long time.

Why?

Liability insurance for unmanned flights would be insane. If an RPV augers in with a load of bombs, the net cost is pretty low. Unless it falls on someones house in Texas, that is But if a passenger airliner had a similar accident, without a real pilot behind the yoke, it would be disastrously expensive. No matter what you do, you'll always need someone there to take control if the computer is scrambled, or there is an emergency that requires some rational input.

I'm not saying it'll never happen...but I doubt it comes even remotely close in my lifetime... maybe even my sons lifetime.

[Frizbee 0]

But on a current long-distance International flight, there are 4-6 aircrew on board. (Not counting Stewards)

2 Captains, 2 First Officers, and occassionally Two Junior Officers. (Depending on what route is being flown, and the size of the aircraft)

Now, on a computer controlled aircraft, you'd only need 1-2 people trained to make input decisions for the computer in an emergency, with basic skills in how to fly and land.

That means at least 4 out of every 6 pilots would no longer be needed. Stretch that across the entire aviation fleet of every airline company in the world, AND the military, and it's a hell of a lot of pilots out of their jobs.

I know it might not be for a while (after all, the technology is hardly going to be given up by the military when it is brand new) But the technology is still THERE, with this eventual use just waiting to be exploited.

[Balschoiw 0]

So basically it makes sense that governments research computer viruses for military use. An EMP pulse also could

really bring high tech armies into trouble.

Did you know that middle east countries have quite experienced hackers ?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont think you'll ever see 'robot' pilots of commercial or transport aircraft.  At least not for a long long time.<span id='postcolor'>

That's already happened.

In Europe and Japan the absolute majority of planes take off, land and fly all by themselves. The pilots don't do anything but monitor the flight so that they can take over in case something goes wrong.

USA has still not implemented the system since they are refusing to use GPS as the primary navigation system. In Europe and Japan you now have fully automatic control towers where a computer coordinates all the flight patterns. We still have of course the traditional system so that planes can be landed without the automatic system.

There are numerous advantages of the system - shorter flight distances and increased safety (mid air collisions between two planes that use the newer system is impossible since the control tower monitors the position and height of all planes via GPS and can issue commands to make the planes turn and avoid collision).

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 28 2003,14:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 28 2003,04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont think you'll ever see 'robot' pilots of commercial or transport aircraft.  At least not for a long long time.<span id='postcolor'>

That's already happened.

In Europe and Japan the absolute majority of planes take off, land and fly all by themselves. The pilots don't do anything but monitor the flight so that they can take over in case something goes wrong.

USA has still not implemented the system since they are refusing to use GPS as the primary navigation system. In Europe and Japan you now have fully automatic control towers where a computer coordinates all the flight patterns. We still have of course the traditional system so that planes can be landed without the automatic system.

There are numerous advantages of the system - shorter flight distances and increased safety (mid air collisions between two planes that use the newer system is impossible since the control tower monitors the position and height of all planes via GPS and can issue commands to make the planes turn and avoid collision).<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, I've seen this happen in a flightsim, no not on my computer but on the airport those big things that move around to train real pilots. The pilot made a turn by switching a switch and the plane did the rest, including the landing.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Feb. 28 2003,04:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Flying airlines = big money, but boring as hell.

You can't fly at low level (except on approaches and during take-off).  

If you want to fly, do it good, fly in fighters.  <span id='postcolor'>

I'd fly a twin engine fighter. So I still get to log multi-engine time while flying something attractive.

[Aaron Kane 0]

Hehehe, I want to fly a Chinook or Blackhawk baby! Some big fat transport helicopter that everyone takes for granted.

Either that, or I'd really like to fly a police helicopter. Or a news helicopter. Or a civilian transport one.

But back on topic... I doubt that pilotless aircraft will ever fully replace manned aircraft. At least not in the near future.

[FSPilot 0]

Helicopters just never really appealed to me. They look like fun and very useful, but I just never caught on.

Airplanes want to fly, helicopters want to fly apart.