Recent UAV/UCAV/UCAS' and Autonomy

[Jemiba]

From vertiflite, fall 2004, the Lockheed Martin and the Northrop Grumman
UCAR proposals.

And about IE, and "no machine will ever match human capablities" and so on, we perhaps should
remember, that until today, there isn't a generally (or better, among ALL scientists) accepted
definition, what "intelligence" really mean, or what level of intellectual capabilities is needed for
"self-awareness". Which animals are really intelligent ? Monkeys, dolphins .... ants ?
And there may be a lot of disturbances in trying to answer those questions : Philosophical,
religious ...

"No human being will ever be able to move faster than 100km/h", " ... ever be able to fly",
and similar statements of the past make us laugh today. Careful, or we are writing the jokes
of the future !

 

[Just call me Ray]

Well...it does seem to me that the UCAR does demonstrate what I outlined in terms of my personal principles concerning UAV development.

EDIT:

...so of course I go about and use a crappy self-made avatar of Lockheed's UCAR proposal ;D

 

[flateric]

This was Boeing's UCAR. BTW, shouldn't we move UCAR stuff in separate thread (we have some stuff posted before already)

 

[collins355]

Maybe its been said, but how was it intended to distinguish friend from foe? Or civilian from military? I'm intrigued by the suggestion that this was deemed plausible.

 

[donnage99]

I don't exactly know specifically how the sensors will help doing this. I think to understand it, you have to go to a very professional detail explanation. This is/was the the requirement for N-UCAS (then J-UCAS) and UCAR. In case of the UCAR, it will use 5 fusion sensors for automatic targets recognition (ATR). These includes (quoted from flightglobal)

millimetre-wave radar for synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) ground imaging and moving-target indication (MTI); electronic support measures for emitter identification; electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) for targeting; ladar (laser radar) for target identification; and a laser rangefinder/designator

What I know is that these technology are being developed right now even the UCAR has been cancelled, as DARPA said that the UCAR would not invest in new sensors as well as ATR technology for the UCAR, but rather taking these technologies from elsewhere that were/are being developed and incorporate into the UCAR development.

 

[donnage99]

This was Boeing's UCAR. BTW, shouldn't we move UCAR stuff in separate thread (we have some stuff posted before already)

This reminds me of a question of mine that has been bugging me. Does anyone know what approach the Boeing design used to eliminate the tail rotors? The same question for Sikorsky/Rathyeon proposal!

Here's the picture of Raythyeon/ Sikorsky design:

 

[flateric]

ever heard of NOTAR?

 

[donnage99]

ever heard of NOTAR?

Isn't it a not very efficient approach in term of energy and power?

 

[yasotay]

ever heard of NOTAR?

Isn't it a not very efficient approach in term of energy and power?

As I recall the Bell UCAR air vehicle was the only one to actually use a version of NOTAR. It was however somewhat different from the traditional NOTAR, internally. I do not recall ever seeing a Sikorsky fully engineered air vehicle. Given the investment in RAH-66 at the time if they had seriously elected to get into the DARPA effort I suspect it would look a lot like a Comanche without windows... and $$$$ worth of stealth material.

As one might suspect Boeing as a purveyor of manned rotorcraft was not keen on an unmanned attack capable aircraft at the time. Recall this was before UAS had demonstrated goodness that we all now accept.

As to sensors and target recognition, there has been significant work on software to help establish the identity of vehicle types. Of course in the new less organized warfare environment we live in today, you have to let the lawyers see the real time video to determine hostile intent. The US continues to pour gobs of money into systems and networking to make near instant target identification possible. At least it keeps folks employed in the economic down turn.

Interestingly the US SOF community is getting A-160 now.

 

[Jemiba]

"to distinguish friend from foe? Or civilian from military?"

That may be a point, where we are expecting more from a UAV, than from a
human being ! How can an observer in a heli decide, which one of those persons,
running around on the ground is a combatant or a non-combatant ? Even for
vehicles, such a decision may go wrong. I remember, that there was an incident
in Yugslavia, were a column of civilian tractors were hit. The explanation later was,
that all of them were green, so looking like military vehicles ...
Nevertheless, just to stay with the example of those running people : With milimetric
radar it could be possible, to check, if they are carrying larger devices made from metal
with them, image processing could check, if their clothes have the same colour, and an
algorythm could check, if they are moving like soldiers, or just running around in panic.
This maybe would give a 90% precision, probably not worse, than that for a human pilot.
Of course, it still is open to discussion, if that's sufficient for opening fire !
What's about those remaining 10 % ? Collateral damage ?? :
But here we're entering the field of politics, not of military technology

 

[Just call me Ray]

Either way, this is why I think the final authority to in turn give authority to a UAV to drop bombs on target should be given to someone in the command loop.

 

[Jemiba]

"..should be given to someone in the command loop."

And so we are back to "only humans can be court martialed". Some collateral damage, or a
friendly fire incident and the opposition can try to get the minister of defences fired. Of course
this may be prevented by firing an army or airforce officer, probably not the one, who
had actually seen the video footage of the "target", but just a high-ranking one in the "command
loop"...
Anybody remember "“Colossus, The Forbin Project” ?
It ended with the declaration to mankind "you don't lose your freedom, you just lose your pride !"
A film from the late sixties, which, when I saw it in the early seventies made me think about the
reason of mankind in general, and especially in politics.

 

[Just call me Ray]

If a UAV accidentally drops a bomb on an unauthorized target (and it's possible - a tank silhouette could be obscured, or video footage fuzzy), then the responsibility just goes back to a.) whoever authorized the mission (which will be a human ultimately), b.) whoever designed the recognition software, or most likely in this day and age c.) both. So either way someone risks getting court martialled/in legal trouble.

EDIT: I should clarify that this post is specifically in regards to UAVs given full target engagement authority.

 

[yasotay]

If a UAV accidentally drops a bomb on an unauthorized target (and it's possible - a tank silhouette could be obscured, or video footage fuzzy), then the responsibility just goes back to a.) whoever authorized the mission (which will be a human ultimately), b.) whoever designed the recognition software, or most likely in this day and age c.) both. So either way someone risks getting court martialled/in legal trouble.

EDIT: I should clarify that this post is specifically in regards to UAVs given full target engagement authority.

Human beings are very capable of fooling machines still. The human brain will remain the most intense logic processor for a while yet. The Scout helicopter pilot flying low looking at the expressions on the faces of the people still has more sensor data to make a judgment call than a UAV with a FLIR. This may change in the future, but I am not sure that we are going to let UAV loose on ground targets in urban environments with civilians around. A UCAV at 30,000 feet attacking another aircraft or dropping on a SAM or high value target (what ever than will mean in the future) is different significantly than ferreting out the non-state sanctioned combatant fighting in the streets of a huge urban area.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

DARPA recently awarded IBM a contract to develop a simulation of a human brain. They wanted to duplicate the capabilities of it and the low power consumption the brain needs compared to say supercoputers to do the job.

It will not be long before computers easily outsmart us

 

[Jemiba]

Just about this theme, I would recommend the article, written by Carlo Kopp,
in the recent Air International issue ...

 

[flateric]

Oh, my! He has infiltrated!

 

[GTX]

Just about this theme, I would recommend the article, written by Carlo Kopp,
in the recent Air International issue ...

I wouldn't.

 

[sferrin]

If a UAV accidentally drops a bomb on an unauthorized target (and it's possible - a tank silhouette could be obscured, or video footage fuzzy), then the responsibility just goes back to a.) whoever authorized the mission (which will be a human ultimately), b.) whoever designed the recognition software, or most likely in this day and age c.) both. So either way someone risks getting court martialled/in legal trouble.

EDIT: I should clarify that this post is specifically in regards to UAVs given full target engagement authority.

If they're dropping bombs it's because they're in a war and the lawyers can go pound sand.

 

[Jemiba]

"If they're dropping bombs it's because they're in a war and the lawyers can go pound sand."

You should know, today there aren't "wars" any more, just "conflicts".
So Inflicting collateral damage can mean having to pay a lot of bucks for compensation
and bad public relations, leading to loss of export orders or something else annoying,
losing even more money.

"I wouldn't."
I didn't mean, that Mr. Kopp is right in all points, but what's said to a broader public
should be recognised, I think, even if we don't agree.

 

[GTX]

I didn't mean, that Mr. Kopp is right in all points, but what's said to a broader public
should be recognised, I think, even if we don't agree.

Fair enough point.

Regards,

Greg

 

[donnage99]

Kopp wrote several good articles as long as it doesn't concern Australia military purchases (ya know which one I'm talking about).

Edited to remove offensive comment. Please don't do that again.

 

[UpForce]

Well, I tried to search for AI/autonomous vehicle related discussions but most everything centered on specific projects or UAVs - not being too eager to fire off new topics I then settled for this one despite the lack of recent posts. Science Daily reports of U of Southampton autonomous vehicle control systems laboratory having developed a very interesting software ecosystem/platform with high levels of flexibility and fairly open semanticity for all kinds of ... applications:

The world's first control system that will allow engineers to programme satellites and spacecraft to think for themselves has been developed by scientists from the University of Southampton. Professor Sandor Veres and his team of engineers have developed an artificially intelligent control system called 'sysbrain'.

Using natural language programming (NLP), the software agents can read special English language technical documents on control methods. This gives the vehicles advanced guidance, navigation and feedback capabilities to stop them crashing into other objects and the ability to adapt during missions, identify problems, carry out repairs and make their own decisions about how best to carry out a task.

It's of course somewhat brave to use fuzzy value dependent terminology like "thinking" in this conjunction (to date we're slightly in the dark about ourselves' thinking) but besides that this seems quite an achievement with ramifications, frankly, beyond just UAVs. To be sure this work is being done within a vast college of people around the World who are interested in the same sorts of things but this does appear a culmination or a "tipping point" moment. If not in anything else than perception catching up with potential. It seems there's a representative repository of material available on AVCSL's website, if anyone's interested - I haven't looked it through yet. Not sure if it includes "sysbrain" material yet. If anyone (especially someone with prior knowledge) decides to read one of the papers, it'd be nice to have a "cliff notes" abridged version here ...

I've been marginally interested in this sort of thing for a while now and have a very messy bookmarks archive on related matters, ranging from philosophical to practical. I think there's open source control and AI software, even robotics hardware available for aspiring "hackmakers" ... not that I'd be able to homebrew a clone of these Prof. Veres's systems any time soon; the NLP part of the equation seems the trickiest from the outset. I don't think I know much about it. Still, if you Google, there are a surprising amount of UAV hobbyists out there who are into just this sort of thing. Incidentally there was also talk very recently of robots getting their own internet, called "RoboEarth" so that they don't need to bother us with all their efficiency improving fuzzy logic chatter ... and UK MoD's comm satellite network is actually called "Skynet" ...

... wait, wasn't that Arnold Schwarzenegger driving by on a Fat Boy?

 

[Lauge]

That may be a point, where we are expecting more from a UAV, than from a
human being !

I agree. The question is not whether an autonomous UAV/UCAV/UCAS would make mistakes (navigational, tactical, firing on invalid targets, etc.), but whether the UAV/UCAV/UCAS would do so more or less often than a human operator.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[bobbymike]

That may be a point, where we are expecting more from a UAV, than from a
human being !

I agree. The question is not whether an autonomous UAV/UCAV/UCAS would make mistakes (navigational, tactical, firing on invalid targets, etc.), but whether the UAV/UCAV/UCAS would do so more or less often than a human operator.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

There are many, mostly programmers and roboticists, who say robots can be much more ethical because they can be programmed that way. Then there are others, of the same profession, that say no matter the programming you are always, potentially, one lightning strike (e.g. "Stealth" as a humorous example) from robotic anarchy.

 

[Jemiba]

In the december issue of the German magazine "Spektrum der Wissenschaft" (Spectrum Of
Science) it was mentioned, that some sorrows have no ethical, but just legal reasons. Probably
not from the receiving end, but from the side, that is using it. Today it would still be the operator/
groundbased pilot, or the officer in charge, who will get full responsibility doe everything the UAV
does. But with an increasing autonomy, this responsibility will be passed .., well, to whom ?

 

[Grey Havoc]

The USN is going ahead with the MRMUAS competition.

The US Navy has outlined the details of a 15-month competition to start later this month to select an unmanned helicopter that could be purchased in the hundreds by the end of this decade.

The medium-range, multi-role unmanned aircraft system (MRMUAS) contract has already drawn interest from at least three bidders.

Likely competitors include the Boeing A160 Hummingbird and the Northrop Grumman/Bell Helicopter MQ-8C Fire-X, which is an unmanned version of the Bell 407. US-based Lockheed Martin also last month confirmed plans to compete for the MRMUAS contract. Its options include a new version Kaman K-Max with long-endurance, or perhaps an all-new design developed by the Advanced Development Programs unit, also known as Skunk Works.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via Defense Industry Daily, here's the British MOD's Joint Doctrine Note 2/11 (The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems): http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2011/DEP2011-1514.pdf

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via DefenseNews:

Flexrotor Would Fly From Ships, Remote Outposts

Jul. 3, 2012 - 02:28PM | By JOSHUA STEWART


The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is developing a long-range unmanned surveillance aircraft that can take off and land vertically like a helicopter — even on a ship in heavy seas or from a remote Marine outpost — and cruise horizontally like a plane.

The Flexrotor by Aerovel Corp. would provide autonomous intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance coverage with less equipment and maintenance than other drones, according to U.S. Navy officials.

“Aircraft that can take off and land vertically, and also have fast and efficient cruise flight, are potentially useful platforms to operate from ships. They are also suited to operation from Marine Corps small-unit combat outposts,” said John Kinzer, an ONR program officer.

The aircraft will supply imaging, magnetometry, data relays, weather analysis and reconnaissance — all in real time, Aerovel President Tad McGeer said. Production models are expected in 2013 or 2014.

Both the Navy and Aerovel also are playing up the Flexrotor’s use of an “automatic service platform” that serves as a launch-and-recovery pad as well as a maintenance station, eliminating the need for a launching catapult or a snare required by drones with similar missions, such as Boeing’s ScanEagle.

The Flexrotor’s wingspan is less than 10 feet. It’s slightly more than 5 feet long and weighs 42 pounds. It can reach speeds as fast as 90 mph, but cruises at 50 mph, and can stay airborne more than 40 hours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a 2010 Flight International Article:​

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief Spacedaily and Ares blog articles on testing of the first prototype, from the same year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And from an earlier DefenseNews article (Jul. 8, 2012):

IMAGE CREDIT: Aerovel/DefenseNews
Original caption: The Flexrotor unmanned aircraft can take off and land like a helicopter. (Aerovel)​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Grey Havoc]

What Darpa Learned From UAVForge (Ares blog)

A couple of earlier Wired.com articles on the UAVForge contest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uWUhk0GIr0&feature=player_embedded
Failure to Launch: Darpa’s Drone Contest Ends Unconquered

UAV Forge, call for participation


Contest website: http://www.uavforge.net/uavhtml/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/robotic-insects-make-first-controlled-flight

 

[seruriermarshal]

Northrop Grumman, U.S. Navy Complete First Flight of MQ-8C

2013-10-31T16:41:08-0700

POINT MUGU, Calif. – Oct. 31, 2013 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and the U.S. Navy successfully completed the first flight of the next-generation MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopter at Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, Calif.

At 12:05 p.m. the MQ-8C Fire Scout took off and flew for seven minutes in restricted airspace to validate the autonomous control systems. A second flight that took off at 2:39 p.m. for nine minutes was also flown in a pattern around the airfield, reaching 500 feet altitude.

The aircraft was operated by a ground-based Navy/Northrop Grumman flight test team also located at Naval Base Ventura County.

"First flight is a critical step in maturing the MQ-8C Fire Scout endurance upgrade before using the system operationally next year," said Capt. Patrick Smith, Fire Scout program manager, Naval Air Systems Command. "The systems we've developed to allow Fire Scout to operate from an air-capable ship have already amassed more than 10,000 flight hours with the MQ-8B variant. This system's evolution enhances how unmanned air systems will support maritime commanders."

The MQ-8C Fire Scout is designed to fly twice as long and has three times the payload capacity of the current MQ-8B variant. Based on a larger commercial airframe with additional fuel tanks and an upgraded engine, the MQ-8C will be able to fly up to 12 hours or carry up to 2,600 pounds.

"Operating the MQ-8B Fire Scout from Navy ships has proved extremely successful. During at-sea deployments, operators saw the need for a system that carried the same intelligence-gathering capabilities of the MQ-8B, but fly longer and carry additional payloads," said George Vardoulakis, Northrop Grumman's vice president for medium range tactical systems. "Changing out the airframe, installing control systems and avionics, and then conducting a first flight of the system in a year is truly remarkable. I couldn't be more proud of the team."

Currently, the MQ-8B Fire Scout is on its seventh at-sea deployment supporting antipiracy missions on board Navy frigates. The system has also been used extensively in Afghanistan since early 2011 to provide airborne surveillance to ground commanders.

Using on-board sensors to capture full-motion video, Fire Scout can identify targets and then distribute the information in real time to various users. This capability allows ship-based commanders to maintain awareness of a specified area or keep an eye on a target of interest for long periods of time.

Production of the MQ-8C Fire Scout is being completed at the Northrop Grumman Unmanned Systems Center in Moss Point, Miss.

The MQ-8C Fire Scout industry team includes Bell Helicopter, Rolls-Royce, Summit Aviation, Cubic Corporation, General Electric Aviation, Sierra Nevada Corporation and Honeywell.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/Pages/NewsArticle.aspx?art=http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/xml/nitf.html?d=10055694

 

[Blitzo]

Via =GT at CDF

Xianglong box wing HALE UAV, finally a real prototype!

 

[Deino]

But either is is a new design, much smaller MALE or a completely redesigned Xianglong!!

 

[Blitzo]

Indeed, it's quite peculiar
I think we need something to scale it with to properly compare how big this uav is though.

 

[Deino]

Yes indeed ... when You compare both they are completely different (tail, wing joint, front fuselage, wing ...)

IMO it could even be a "successor" to the "Sky Wing".
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BInV1nWtZBM/ULLyBYXKe8I/AAAAAAAADBg/wCCl5RedKMM/s1600/TC1.jpg

Any idea where this image was taken ???

 

[Deino]

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8prdKWTjRw

Deino

 

[Deino]

some snap-shots ...

 

[Deino]

 

[Grey Havoc]

Northrop Grumman, U.S. Navy Complete First Flight of MQ-8C

2013-10-31T16:41:08-0700

POINT MUGU, Calif. – Oct. 31, 2013 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and the U.S. Navy successfully completed the first flight of the next-generation MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopter at Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, Calif.

At 12:05 p.m. the MQ-8C Fire Scout took off and flew for seven minutes in restricted airspace to validate the autonomous control systems. A second flight that took off at 2:39 p.m. for nine minutes was also flown in a pattern around the airfield, reaching 500 feet altitude.

The aircraft was operated by a ground-based Navy/Northrop Grumman flight test team also located at Naval Base Ventura County.

"First flight is a critical step in maturing the MQ-8C Fire Scout endurance upgrade before using the system operationally next year," said Capt. Patrick Smith, Fire Scout program manager, Naval Air Systems Command. "The systems we've developed to allow Fire Scout to operate from an air-capable ship have already amassed more than 10,000 flight hours with the MQ-8B variant. This system's evolution enhances how unmanned air systems will support maritime commanders."

The MQ-8C Fire Scout is designed to fly twice as long and has three times the payload capacity of the current MQ-8B variant. Based on a larger commercial airframe with additional fuel tanks and an upgraded engine, the MQ-8C will be able to fly up to 12 hours or carry up to 2,600 pounds.

"Operating the MQ-8B Fire Scout from Navy ships has proved extremely successful. During at-sea deployments, operators saw the need for a system that carried the same intelligence-gathering capabilities of the MQ-8B, but fly longer and carry additional payloads," said George Vardoulakis, Northrop Grumman's vice president for medium range tactical systems. "Changing out the airframe, installing control systems and avionics, and then conducting a first flight of the system in a year is truly remarkable. I couldn't be more proud of the team."

Currently, the MQ-8B Fire Scout is on its seventh at-sea deployment supporting antipiracy missions on board Navy frigates. The system has also been used extensively in Afghanistan since early 2011 to provide airborne surveillance to ground commanders.

Using on-board sensors to capture full-motion video, Fire Scout can identify targets and then distribute the information in real time to various users. This capability allows ship-based commanders to maintain awareness of a specified area or keep an eye on a target of interest for long periods of time.

Production of the MQ-8C Fire Scout is being completed at the Northrop Grumman Unmanned Systems Center in Moss Point, Miss.

The MQ-8C Fire Scout industry team includes Bell Helicopter, Rolls-Royce, Summit Aviation, Cubic Corporation, General Electric Aviation, Sierra Nevada Corporation and Honeywell.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/Pages/NewsArticle.aspx?art=http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/xml/nitf.html?d=10055694

http://gizmodo.com/u-s-military-drones-are-going-to-start-running-on-linu-1572853572/+TylerRogoway