Autonomous UH-60

Lindberg said:
Autonomous systems don't not have failure modes. They just have different failure modes than human-operated systems.
Click to expand...
trust me.....they fail just as much due to human factors as manned systems. :yes:....they have failure modes. :yes:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
trust me.....they fail just as much due to human factors as manned systems. :yes:....they have failure modes. :yes:
Click to expand...

The difference is as a weapons platform, they don't have a fatal failure mode, except ground casualties. Will we build Skynet for real?:dunno: To take on China we need to, is it really worth it to keep going down that road though? It's not leading anywhere good so far.
 
I see some real genius in your posting Henning but I can't say that in here.

Seriously though, good discussion. I really wasn't posting the link to compare the man vs machine aspect or the value of unmanned aircraft in combat. A friend had it on his FB and commented on how he'd be out of work soon. That was the primary theme I was getting at. 1) Are we at the point that automation will remove the pilots with their inherent errors and by doing so saving weight & cost? 2) What level of automation as pilots do we find acceptable? Does the interaction between pilot to aircraft have to be hands on to fulfill a need or is simply typing in an FMS and having your butt off the ground good enough? Questions that have been brought up in the airline realm but not the RW segment.
 
Velocity173 said:
I see some real genius in your posting Henning but I can't say that in here.

Seriously though, good discussion. I really wasn't posting the link to compare the man vs machine aspect or the value of unmanned aircraft in combat. A friend had it on his FB and commented on how he'd be out of work soon. That was the primary theme I was getting at. 1) Are we at the point that automation will remove the pilots with their inherent errors and by doing so saving weight & cost? 2) What level of automation as pilots do we find acceptable? Does the interaction between pilot to aircraft have to be hands on to fulfill a need or is simply typing in an FMS and having your butt off the ground good enough? Questions that have been brought up in the airline realm but not the RW segment.
Click to expand...

1) We are within 20 years of it, 5 or less if we go to war with China.

2) Irrelevant, the choice is not up to pilots, pilots are monkeys, they are remote controls that follow the voice commands of management. What management can sell the consumer is the question, and if you start whipping out the Pilot Save:pilot Fail ratio statistic, it's not a tough sell. With the consumer already footing the bill for developing the technology through their tax dollars and that getting rid of the cockpit gets them an extra two inches of leg room and saves them $40 off their ticket, and you pretty much have a done deal.

The real question is what will reality accept. In the standard of air carrier ops, reality will accept a lot. Military missions with a plethora of unknown factors and improvised operating areas not so easy. I think the end standard will be a remote pilot option with one guy responsible for monitoring, inputs, and changes to multiple flights.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Seriously though, good discussion. I really wasn't posting the link to compare the man vs machine aspect or the value of unmanned aircraft in combat. A friend had it on his FB and commented on how he'd be out of work soon. That was the primary theme I was getting at. 1) Are we at the point that automation will remove the pilots with their inherent errors and by doing so saving weight & cost? 2) What level of automation as pilots do we find acceptable? Does the interaction between pilot to aircraft have to be hands on to fulfill a need or is simply typing in an FMS and having your butt off the ground good enough? Questions that have been brought up in the airline realm but not the RW segment.
Click to expand...
Valid questions, but neither deal strictly with autonomy. There are lots of unmanned airplane now, but many (most?) of them are not strictly autonomous - there is no explicit decision-making capability onboard. So:

1) We're already at the point where the machine can fly the airplane better than the pilot can without the machine. The machine is there to make it easier for the pilot to fly and the pilot is there to make the difficult decisions and deal with contingencies - at least some of them. In the past two years carrier launches and traps and probe-and-drogue refueling have been demonstrated without a pilot onboard. That covers two of the most difficult tasks (yes there are others) that are done in tactical airplane today. Automation is here and some level of mission-level autonomy is coming, whether the fleet pilot is ready or not. Right now it's expensive - the software testing required to flight-qualify a digital control system is formidable, whether automatic or autonomous.

2) These questions *are* being dealt with in the R&D community. There have been unmanned helos for a while now - look at the A160, Unmanned Little Bird, and Firescout, among others. Regardless of what one thinks about these programs, they demonstrate that the interface and C2 issues have been considered. While their missions are different from the H-60 you linked you can be sure that the human-machine interface and concept of operations is being considered - for fixed-wing, rotary-wing, no-wing, underwater, ground, etc. However, it's not a trivial problem and there isn't a simple solution that covers every platform and every mission.

Nauga,
who ran a little long
 
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
Human decision versus machine precision. I prefer the former.
Click to expand...
I hear they're have trouble selecting Tomahawk and CALCM pilots, you volunteering? ;) Keep in mind there's no retention bonus after your first mission. :eek:

Nauga,
and a one-way ticket
 
nauga said:
I hear they're have trouble selecting Tomahawk and CALCM pilots, you volunteering? ;) Keep in mind there's no retention bonus after your first mission. :eek:

Nauga,
and a one-way ticket
Click to expand...

I think if you could get past the initial G force, it would be quite a blast to fly a Tomahawk.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think if you could get past the initial G force, it would be quite a blast to fly a Tomahawk.
Click to expand...

Especially in a prone cockpit...weeeeehaaaaa. Or would you rather try Slim Pickins style, maybe with a saddle? :lol:;)
 
Didn't they try to originally design (faster/fighter/jet) aircraft with pilots laying flat for G-force resistance?
 
Henning said:
Especially in a prone cockpit...weeeeehaaaaa. Or would you rather try Slim Pickins style, maybe with a saddle? :lol:;)
Click to expand...

I remember like 20 yrs ago Pop Science had an article about a future AV-8 concept. It would have two external pods that would hold a SF operator on each side to be transported behind enemy lines. I remember thinking that would be the E ticket ride. Heck of a view too.
 
nauga said:
Valid questions, but neither deal strictly with autonomy. There are lots of unmanned airplane now, but many (most?) of them are not strictly autonomous - there is no explicit decision-making capability onboard. So:

1) We're already at the point where the machine can fly the airplane better than the pilot can without the machine. The machine is there to make it easier for the pilot to fly and the pilot is there to make the difficult decisions and deal with contingencies - at least some of them. In the past two years carrier launches and traps and probe-and-drogue refueling have been demonstrated without a pilot onboard. That covers two of the most difficult tasks (yes there are others) that are done in tactical airplane today. Automation is here and some level of mission-level autonomy is coming, whether the fleet pilot is ready or not. Right now it's expensive - the software testing required to flight-qualify a digital control system is formidable, whether automatic or autonomous.

2) These questions *are* being dealt with in the R&D community. There have been unmanned helos for a while now - look at the A160, Unmanned Little Bird, and Firescout, among others. Regardless of what one thinks about these programs, they demonstrate that the interface and C2 issues have been considered. While their missions are different from the H-60 you linked you can be sure that the human-machine interface and concept of operations is being considered - for fixed-wing, rotary-wing, no-wing, underwater, ground, etc. However, it's not a trivial problem and there isn't a simple solution that covers every platform and every mission.

Nauga,
who ran a little long
Click to expand...

ADM really is the hitch, because the variables are infinite and interactive. The question really becomes one of "how much ADM is required?" On a typical mission, how many of these complex resolution sets are required and what is that in % work load? Then we also consider if they can be managed remotely. Can we get it to where one guy can provide the ADM requirements for a squad of aircraft from a remote, protected, position? Air carrier operations are probably the simplest to make semi-autonomous with ATC providing the ADM. Combat gets more complicated by far, but for gunship formations using standard tactical patterns in support of a 'lead ship' that has decision input from a remote operator I see as a pretty near term possibility. As computer learning capability advances, eventually the systems wil 'learn' ADM from their operators, but I don't see it short term, and short term is what is needed if we're going to continue with this game.
 
Velocity173 said:
I remember like 20 yrs ago Pop Science had an article about a future AV-8 concept. It would have two external pods that would hold a SF operator on each side to be transported behind enemy lines. I remember thinking that would be the E ticket ride. Heck of a view too.
Click to expand...

The two pods reminds me of the Airacuda.

Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda.jpg
 
overdrive148 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda

300px-BellYFM1Airacuda.jpg


37mm cannons in each outer pod for killing bombers. Gunners responsible for aiming and reloading the cannons from the pods. Engines behind the pods in a pusher configuration. :hairraise:

Some very interesting stories from the wikipedia article.
Click to expand...


Ahh, got it, mid 30's design, they were still all experimenting with new construction and configuration, they didn't know yet that this was pretty inefficient of a drag profile. It is kinda cool and you could like haul mile high rides 2 at a time, maybe 3.
 
Henning said:
Ahh, got it, mid 30's design, they were still all experimenting with new construction and configuration, they didn't know yet that this was pretty inefficient of a drag profile.
Click to expand...

I don't think the gunners would have been too fond of bailing out into a prop behind them. A pilot or co-pilot broke his legs bailing out of one of the prototypes after hitting the rudder on the way out :eek:
 
Velocity173 said:
I remember like 20 yrs ago Pop Science had an article about a future AV-8 concept. It would have two external pods that would hold a SF operator on each side to be transported behind enemy lines. I remember thinking that would be the E ticket ride. Heck of a view too.
Click to expand...
The version I saw used modified external fuel tanks with no view on using existing pylons and racks. It wasn't in PopSci though. ;) I asked if they were CADed (i.e. jettisonable) but didn't get an answer. :hairraise:

Lots of concepts don't make it past the conceptual stage. Sometimes that's for the best.

Nauga,
and his design screening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top