http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/01/next-generation-military-drones-may-not-be-controlled-humans/47887/

New drones the military are working on won't even have pilots on the ground. They'll be completely automated. How does that make you feel?

I think it's pretty neat. I'm sure this technology will offshoot in to all kinds of different things from AI research, to automated medical care, etc., etc.

I don't think we have to worry about SkyNet just yet, since AI needs to reach singularity (where it can fix itself and rewrite its own mind to make itself smarter) is about 50 years away or more according to the "experts".

[This message has been edited by jrh1524 (edited 1/30/2012 9:40a).]

http://youtu.be/YPfqODwT9C0

We're a long way away from true AI. We can create things like IBM's Watson, or even SIRI, but neither is even close to true AI. I'm no expert, so I'll defer to them on the 50 year mark, but I'm a little scared.

I personally don't see the machines taking over and launching use into judgement day, but I am scared of over dependence on electromechanical devices. For example in medical care, we have ways now of doing surgeries remotely via the daVinci operating system, but no one does it because so much can go wrong. A lag in internet connection, a dropped connection, a power outtage, etc.

It will be great not to have people in combat, no real consequences for us going to war...terrific...right up until one gets hacked or decides that the base it just left would make an awesome target.

Enjoying this tread. Here's a few thoughts from my experience with RPVS in the AF, circa 1980s,

From 1984-88 I was an AF weather weenie (O-4/O-5) working at the old AF Systems Command Hdqtrs at Andrews. (Now part of AF Material Command at Wright-Pat). AFSC was the R&D Majcom for the AF.

I was an acquisition officer (PEM/SYSTO) for AF weather R&D programs, including space weather.

I got involved with AF RPV R&D programs during that time because us weather weenies had a met obs package we wanted to fly on an operational RPV as a secondary mission package.

I can tell you that during that time, there was no way in hell the pilots running the AF would allow ANY RPV program to progress past early stages of R&D.

And those early AF RPV projects were small, flimsy, short range vehicles that had NO chance of ever carrying an armed payload.

Some years after I left AFSC, the AF did develop and field the Predator RPV, which COULD carry an armed payload.

But once again, the AF higher ups would not hear of ANY ideas of RPVs carrying weapons.

Enter the CIA, who had obtained their own Predators for surveillance missions.

The CIA realized that the Predator might be capable of carrying Hellfire missiles, but also knew that the AF had absolutely no interest in pursuing that capability.

So the CIA funded the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop a Predator vehicle armed with Hellfire missiles.

The rest is history. But I will add an afterthought - when Dr Gates became Sec of Defense, he quickly realized that the AF was STILL dragging their feet vis a vis armed RPVs and put a stop to their BS.

Hence the greatly accelerated, and highly successful, use of armed RPVs of late.

Disclaimer: Pilots have run the AF from its inception and I believe they always should. I also believe armed RPVs can be very effective. But just as successful wars must have "boots on the ground", they must also have manned aircraft patrolling the skies.





[This message has been edited by NormanAg (edited 1/31/2012 7:05p).]

" But just as successful wars must have "boots on the ground", they must also have manned aircraft patrolling the skies."

Absolutely. I have watched people die while waiting on a terrible pred pilot try and make since of a simple problem made difficult because he was sitting in a trailer at Creech. People who say having a majority of unmanned interdiction and CAS planes is the solution have never done the job or flown in any airspace with a resemblence of a threat.

Combat RPAs are going to hit a major snag in five or ten years when their operators start showing signs of major mental illness, and it's already happening on a small scale. You cannot kill people that are thousands of miles away with zero possibility of the operator being injured, it's like stabbing a man in the back. Along the same vein, you cannot kill dozens of people and then go home to your wife and kids. It's not healthy.

It reminds me of the Star Trek Episode (original series) where the population of warring nations had been at war for generations. They evolved their strategies to kill entire cities without any damage to the infrastructure. Those whose numbers came up just reported to a termination facility for processing.

"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise - we would grow too fond of it." Robert E. Lee

Well said. Remember that episode well. Many of the original scripts (certainly not all) were quite thought-provoking for their time.

Good thread.
I am reminded of the battle over Fighter Aircraft design and design of planes that would support ground troops.

Probably posted repeatedly on this Military Board which I am brand new to; please Google the Fighter Mafia and Colonel John Richard Boyd also, read the book (see below)

Remember the battle well, WolfCall.


Outstanding contribution to this thread!

Among my favorite aviation adages:

quote:

---

Ever notice that the only experts who decree that the age of the pilot is over are people who have never flown anything themselves? Also, despit the intensity of their feelings that the pilot's day is over, I know of no such expert who has volunteered to be a passenger in a non-piloted aircraft.

---