5 ms·

From the article: "The current implementation of JPADS relies on GPS tracking to guide unmanned drops to the correct coordinates, but any deviation from the dro

by daveguy 11y ago

From the article: "The current implementation of JPADS relies on GPS tracking to guide unmanned drops to the correct coordinates, but any deviation from the drop target, which can be caused by wind or other environment factors, can result in the necessity for troops to venture into frontline territory to retrieve the delivery." The image shows a parachute drop. I'm not sure how image recognition will help reduce the impact of wind or other environment factors. It seems like military GPS now in the sub-meter accuracy would be - by far - the best guidance system. Anyone have any insight as to how image recognition is better than GPS or even helps (although article implies replacement)?

callesgg 11y ago
It is harder to spoof image recognition guidance, but spoofing is not mentioned as an issue in the article.
- vanattab 11y ago
  Ah.. I think you might be onto something. An image recognition approach probably does mitigate gps spoofing and jamming attacks. And perhaps they are thinking about china's anti satellite missiles that they tested a few years back.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Is it really? The military has been using camo to spoof image recognition since forever. But I guess if this is for drops then camo wouldn't apply?
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    > Is it really? The military has been using camo to spoof image recognition since forever. I don't think so. Camouflage has been used to hide things in the terrain for a long time, but I don't think it's ever been used impersonate a different area's terrain (which I think you'd have to do to "spoof" in this context). Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, I might be wrong. Wartime blackouts could probably be thought of a kind of spoofing camouflage, especially if they put decoy lights in an area away from the city or left lights on in less-critical areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_%28wartime%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_%28wartime%29
    - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
      Was used in Area 51: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110520-area-51-secret-hid-craft-base-declassified-a-12-plane/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110520-area-... And while not images per se (though they did use blow up equipment), there's the Ghost Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Army Edit: To clarify, the Ghost Army used inflatables not to hide, but to mimick and deceive, but the concept is similar.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    There is the unspoken assumption here that several methods are used to guide airdrops to the proper location. All of them coupled together are strong against any attack which targets one. Something else is that specifically there would most likely be markers (infrared fireflies, colored flares, smoke, etc) that would be used to signal the drone in the first place. The infrared spectrum is still phenomenally useful because of the barrier to entry the technology has for utilizing it. If you see a flashing infrared signal, it is almost a certainty it's US or "allied" forces. Kinda tangential but interesting.
jevinskie 11y ago
I agree. I can't think of a better or more reliable way to place one object at/near another. If they both have GPS units, the hard part should be steering the parachuting drop not knowing where to steer to, right?
jws 11y ago
1) GPS is a weak signal and can be jammed or spoofed. 2) Your satellite imagery might not be accurately aligned to the coordinated system. If you want to land on a little flat spot, then doing it visually will work even with misaligned imagery.
- acveilleux 11y ago
  I'm sure the NRO can source some really accurate satellite and drone based terrain imagery if needed.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    Maybe, but the cost in that infrastructure is the bureaucracy of getting that data to the machine doing the dropping. There is a huge walled fortress surrounding imagery acquisition and analysis that would make tunneling that information to the airplane/drone in a timely manner very hard in its current form.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  You don't need to use a coordinate system at all with scene match guidance. You can use what ever imaging you have since the guidance system calculates the position based on the position of known points in the scene. If you want to drop something you just pick the spot visually on the map and it will work better than gps. Visual guidance and INS are considerably more accurate than GPS when it comes to terminal guidance.
vanattab 11y ago
My guess is the military is using image recognition in ADDITION to gps like you suggest. But I too don't see how that is going to help with the wind. Also I would assume you would drop the package several miles behind the front lines to avoid that sort of problem (Assuming the allied forces are not surrounded). Maybe they are referring to placing the camera's directly on the payload but I still don't see why that would be better then gps.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Thinking about it, i wonder if it is about "intelligently" locating an alternate place to touch down when wind etc makes it impossible to reach the GPS location. Could be that right now it dumbly steers towards the location no matter if that brings it smack into a hillside or similar, thus ending up in unpredictable and possibly hostile locations.
- VLM 11y ago
  I find it hard to believe they can pull this off, but it is theoretically possible that they could visually look at clouds vs trees and trash blowing about to correct for the difference between surface winds and winds aloft, which sometimes can be quite a difference. If you somehow magically knew the wind vector at various heights (visually, I guess, although a mesh network of cooperating air drop parachutes would work), even relatively slow actuators could very accurately pinpoint land. Another "I can't believe it, but maybe..." is GPS doesn't have a plot of every tree or vehicle and visual could be programmed, in theory, to do something ridiculous like thread the needle of individual trees and bushes to land next to visually identified military vehicles, where ever they may be parked, or even crazier, supply on the move vehicles, so if we're hitting the ground in 30 seconds and that APC is moving at 25 MPH to the east then I want to land 20 feet away from where it'll be in 30 seconds while missing the nearby trees... Another strange visual landing idea... regardless of GPS jamming, using narrow beam optical signalling make a mesh network of dropping pallets and visually coordinate landing such that you avoid all trees vehicles and people while landing in a super convenient straight line exactly 50 feet apart regardless of how/when the pallets were kicked off the plane.
  - 11y ago
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
GPS in wartime is a problem as it can be spoofed or jammed. This is how some think Iran managed to capture an RQ-170 drone. The military is very motivated to find ways to be less reliant on GPS and other easy to spoof technologies.
tim333 11y ago
There's a better article here: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/army-testing-robo-parachutes-dont-need-gps/125151/ http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/army-testing-ro... >GPS “makes us vulnerable to attacks, it is impossible to use in the valleys of Afghanistan or in a big city [where signals are blocked], or in places where the signal is poor.” “At DoD, we worry about enemies jamming GPS signals.” >“Threats to military GPS have evolved and improved at a rapid pace — from a proliferation of small-scale commercial jamming devices that can readily be purchased on eBay to large-scale military anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities.”

by daveguy 11y ago

callesgg 11y ago

It is harder to spoof image recognition guidance, but spoofing is not mentioned as an issue in the article.

vanattab 11y ago
Ah.. I think you might be onto something. An image recognition approach probably does mitigate gps spoofing and jamming attacks. And perhaps they are thinking about china's anti satellite missiles that they tested a few years back.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Is it really? The military has been using camo to spoof image recognition since forever. But I guess if this is for drops then camo wouldn't apply?
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > Is it really? The military has been using camo to spoof image recognition since forever. I don't think so. Camouflage has been used to hide things in the terrain for a long time, but I don't think it's ever been used impersonate a different area's terrain (which I think you'd have to do to "spoof" in this context). Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, I might be wrong. Wartime blackouts could probably be thought of a kind of spoofing camouflage, especially if they put decoy lights in an area away from the city or left lights on in less-critical areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_%28wartime%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_%28wartime%29
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Was used in Area 51: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110520-area-51-secret-hid-craft-base-declassified-a-12-plane/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110520-area-... And while not images per se (though they did use blow up equipment), there's the Ghost Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Army Edit: To clarify, the Ghost Army used inflatables not to hide, but to mimick and deceive, but the concept is similar.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  There is the unspoken assumption here that several methods are used to guide airdrops to the proper location. All of them coupled together are strong against any attack which targets one. Something else is that specifically there would most likely be markers (infrared fireflies, colored flares, smoke, etc) that would be used to signal the drone in the first place. The infrared spectrum is still phenomenally useful because of the barrier to entry the technology has for utilizing it. If you see a flashing infrared signal, it is almost a certainty it's US or "allied" forces. Kinda tangential but interesting.

jevinskie 11y ago

I agree. I can't think of a better or more reliable way to place one object at/near another. If they both have GPS units, the hard part should be steering the parachuting drop not knowing where to steer to, right?

jws 11y ago

1) GPS is a weak signal and can be jammed or spoofed. 2) Your satellite imagery might not be accurately aligned to the coordinated system. If you want to land on a little flat spot, then doing it visually will work even with misaligned imagery.

acveilleux 11y ago
I'm sure the NRO can source some really accurate satellite and drone based terrain imagery if needed.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  Maybe, but the cost in that infrastructure is the bureaucracy of getting that data to the machine doing the dropping. There is a huge walled fortress surrounding imagery acquisition and analysis that would make tunneling that information to the airplane/drone in a timely manner very hard in its current form.
dogma1138 11y ago
You don't need to use a coordinate system at all with scene match guidance. You can use what ever imaging you have since the guidance system calculates the position based on the position of known points in the scene. If you want to drop something you just pick the spot visually on the map and it will work better than gps. Visual guidance and INS are considerably more accurate than GPS when it comes to terminal guidance.

vanattab 11y ago

My guess is the military is using image recognition in ADDITION to gps like you suggest. But I too don't see how that is going to help with the wind. Also I would assume you would drop the package several miles behind the front lines to avoid that sort of problem (Assuming the allied forces are not surrounded). Maybe they are referring to placing the camera's directly on the payload but I still don't see why that would be better then gps.

digi_owl 11y ago
Thinking about it, i wonder if it is about "intelligently" locating an alternate place to touch down when wind etc makes it impossible to reach the GPS location. Could be that right now it dumbly steers towards the location no matter if that brings it smack into a hillside or similar, thus ending up in unpredictable and possibly hostile locations.
VLM 11y ago
I find it hard to believe they can pull this off, but it is theoretically possible that they could visually look at clouds vs trees and trash blowing about to correct for the difference between surface winds and winds aloft, which sometimes can be quite a difference. If you somehow magically knew the wind vector at various heights (visually, I guess, although a mesh network of cooperating air drop parachutes would work), even relatively slow actuators could very accurately pinpoint land. Another "I can't believe it, but maybe..." is GPS doesn't have a plot of every tree or vehicle and visual could be programmed, in theory, to do something ridiculous like thread the needle of individual trees and bushes to land next to visually identified military vehicles, where ever they may be parked, or even crazier, supply on the move vehicles, so if we're hitting the ground in 30 seconds and that APC is moving at 25 MPH to the east then I want to land 20 feet away from where it'll be in 30 seconds while missing the nearby trees... Another strange visual landing idea... regardless of GPS jamming, using narrow beam optical signalling make a mesh network of dropping pallets and visually coordinate landing such that you avoid all trees vehicles and people while landing in a super convenient straight line exactly 50 feet apart regardless of how/when the pallets were kicked off the plane.
- 11y ago

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

GPS in wartime is a problem as it can be spoofed or jammed. This is how some think Iran managed to capture an RQ-170 drone. The military is very motivated to find ways to be less reliant on GPS and other easy to spoof technologies.

tim333 11y ago

There's a better article here: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/army-testing-robo-parachutes-dont-need-gps/125151/ http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/army-testing-ro... >GPS “makes us vulnerable to attacks, it is impossible to use in the valleys of Afghanistan or in a big city [where signals are blocked], or in places where the signal is poor.” “At DoD, we worry about enemies jamming GPS signals.” >“Threats to military GPS have evolved and improved at a rapid pace — from a proliferation of small-scale commercial jamming devices that can readily be purchased on eBay to large-scale military anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities.”