3 ms·

You try controlling 1K drones. Their command and control links would be jammed easily. And what's the flight time/range of one of these toys? And the ceiling on

by greedo 11y ago

You try controlling 1K drones. Their command and control links would be jammed easily. And what's the flight time/range of one of these toys? And the ceiling on them? The idea that these would pose more of a threat than a flock of geese to a modern fighter is laughable. And a $10M drone attempting to engage in A2A combat is called a target. Not a threat. Drones are a long ways away from engaging in A2A combat.

woodman 11y ago
LtGen Riper disagrees [0]. The drones don't need complicated control links if they've got rudimentary autopilot functionality with a few extra routines that would not be out of place in air to air missiles. Take a page from the General's playbook and control the swarm's attack state with WWII style light signals, and then laugh at how long it takes Lockheed Martin to roll out a new multimillion dollar electronic warfare module for the F35 to jam visible light comms. As drones start to take on a larger role in warfare, we'll find ourselves back at where it all started - a war of economies. The country that can crank out the most ball bearings will win. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- greedo 11y ago
  Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. Cheap drones are not going to be carrying AMRAAM, or Sidewinders, or Python/Derby or whatever AAM you can find. They won't be carrying AESA radar to guide the missiles, or to even locate the target. It's not a matter of a few extra routines. It's AI, it's BVR, not "light signals." How are your "light comms" going to work at night, or in inclement weather, or even in broad daylight when you're fighting an opponent at 20K feet. Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? Drones may take on a larger role in the future, if we decide to truly let them function autonomously. But the tech isn't there yet. And even if you create a magical swarm, it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
  - woodman 11y ago
    > Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. I wish you went on to back that statement, because I'm going to have to use context clues to guess that you've either failed at reading comprehension or basic abstract thought. The article discusses a well known example of the failure of an inflexible monolithic defense system faced with an enemy schooled in asymmetric warfare. The J-35 is to the naval fleet C2 net as the drone swarm is to the armada of small suicide boats. > Cheap drones are not going to be carrying... Solid rocket boosters and pointy nose cones? The drones are the missiles. As far as targeting, anti-tank missiles have had a great deal of success without fancy radar arrays - just object recognition in extremely noisy environments. I see no reason why that would be impossible for this application. > How are your "light comms" going to work at night... Better > ...or in inclement weather... Ask the Navy, they managed to make it work for a long time without computer aided signal processing. > Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? LOL, the Germans managed to get a range of 4KM (13K feet) in WWI, in broad daylight, with handheld light signals [0]. So yeah, I think you can see a spotlight in daylight from 20 thousand feet in the year 2016. > ...if we decide to truly let them function autonomously... When you say we, do you mean every nation? Because it will only take one to disrupt the whole game. > ...it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter. What? If you want to park an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific, are you going to choose a fighter jet or a drone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communicati...
nindalf 11y ago
They'd be autonomous, with instructions like "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone", so jamming their control signals wouldn't cause any major problems. Sure, they might not be able to get new orders (retreat, chase another target) but that's a problem for any plane, drone or not. Flight time/range - if the wings are large enough drones can be powered by solar panels and run forever [1] but we can safely assume that combat drones will be heavier and be capable of high acceleration and maneuverability so they would probably be powered by battery packs charged before take-off. You might think that's a limitation but battery tech is improving to the point where this will be viable by the the next conflict. You're thinking of them wrong. They're not meant to compete with $100m planes. They're so cheap that they could be used as cheap guided missiles. They only need to collide with the enemy plane to achieve the win condition. Considering how light and maneuverable they will be, that should be simple. [1] - http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/solar-powered-drone-designed-fly-five-years-nonstop http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/solar-powered-drone...
- greedo 11y ago
  Creating an autonomous AI that will "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone" is easy to type, not so easy to implement. First, the drone would have to detect its opponents. How? Is it going to carry radar? Carry IR sensors? Both of those cost money. Then it has to discriminate between a drone and an aircraft. How? Drones look like fighters/bombers/civilian airframes, tankers, helicopters, etc etc. Discrimination will be a huge problem. Batteries don't have the energy density for powering high performance aircraft. They can't even power something along the lines of a Cessna 172. Assuming battery tech will take off is just handwaving. What everyone seems to be espousing is already in place: SAMs. SAMs can be autonomous, have the performance and range to shoot down any aircraft. The current generation of Western and Russian SAMs are all excellent. The question is whether they'll be good enough to defeat stealth technology. The jury is still out on it.

by greedo 11y ago

woodman 11y ago

LtGen Riper disagrees [0]. The drones don't need complicated control links if they've got rudimentary autopilot functionality with a few extra routines that would not be out of place in air to air missiles. Take a page from the General's playbook and control the swarm's attack state with WWII style light signals, and then laugh at how long it takes Lockheed Martin to roll out a new multimillion dollar electronic warfare module for the F35 to jam visible light comms. As drones start to take on a larger role in warfare, we'll find ourselves back at where it all started - a war of economies. The country that can crank out the most ball bearings will win. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

greedo 11y ago
Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. Cheap drones are not going to be carrying AMRAAM, or Sidewinders, or Python/Derby or whatever AAM you can find. They won't be carrying AESA radar to guide the missiles, or to even locate the target. It's not a matter of a few extra routines. It's AI, it's BVR, not "light signals." How are your "light comms" going to work at night, or in inclement weather, or even in broad daylight when you're fighting an opponent at 20K feet. Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? Drones may take on a larger role in the future, if we decide to truly let them function autonomously. But the tech isn't there yet. And even if you create a magical swarm, it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
- woodman 11y ago
  > Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. I wish you went on to back that statement, because I'm going to have to use context clues to guess that you've either failed at reading comprehension or basic abstract thought. The article discusses a well known example of the failure of an inflexible monolithic defense system faced with an enemy schooled in asymmetric warfare. The J-35 is to the naval fleet C2 net as the drone swarm is to the armada of small suicide boats. > Cheap drones are not going to be carrying... Solid rocket boosters and pointy nose cones? The drones are the missiles. As far as targeting, anti-tank missiles have had a great deal of success without fancy radar arrays - just object recognition in extremely noisy environments. I see no reason why that would be impossible for this application. > How are your "light comms" going to work at night... Better > ...or in inclement weather... Ask the Navy, they managed to make it work for a long time without computer aided signal processing. > Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? LOL, the Germans managed to get a range of 4KM (13K feet) in WWI, in broad daylight, with handheld light signals [0]. So yeah, I think you can see a spotlight in daylight from 20 thousand feet in the year 2016. > ...if we decide to truly let them function autonomously... When you say we, do you mean every nation? Because it will only take one to disrupt the whole game. > ...it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter. What? If you want to park an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific, are you going to choose a fighter jet or a drone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communicati...

nindalf 11y ago

They'd be autonomous, with instructions like "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone", so jamming their control signals wouldn't cause any major problems. Sure, they might not be able to get new orders (retreat, chase another target) but that's a problem for any plane, drone or not. Flight time/range - if the wings are large enough drones can be powered by solar panels and run forever [1] but we can safely assume that combat drones will be heavier and be capable of high acceleration and maneuverability so they would probably be powered by battery packs charged before take-off. You might think that's a limitation but battery tech is improving to the point where this will be viable by the the next conflict. You're thinking of them wrong. They're not meant to compete with $100m planes. They're so cheap that they could be used as cheap guided missiles. They only need to collide with the enemy plane to achieve the win condition. Considering how light and maneuverable they will be, that should be simple. [1] - http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/solar-powered-drone-designed-fly-five-years-nonstop http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/solar-powered-drone...

greedo 11y ago
Creating an autonomous AI that will "kill anything in the air that isn't a drone" is easy to type, not so easy to implement. First, the drone would have to detect its opponents. How? Is it going to carry radar? Carry IR sensors? Both of those cost money. Then it has to discriminate between a drone and an aircraft. How? Drones look like fighters/bombers/civilian airframes, tankers, helicopters, etc etc. Discrimination will be a huge problem. Batteries don't have the energy density for powering high performance aircraft. They can't even power something along the lines of a Cessna 172. Assuming battery tech will take off is just handwaving. What everyone seems to be espousing is already in place: SAMs. SAMs can be autonomous, have the performance and range to shoot down any aircraft. The current generation of Western and Russian SAMs are all excellent. The question is whether they'll be good enough to defeat stealth technology. The jury is still out on it.