NOVA: US Military is Developing an Incredible Range of "Smart" Robotic Planes

[Larry Dighera]

So how does the military propose to fly these pilotless aircraft among
civil aircraft without causing a safety hazard?

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


NEXT ON NOVA: "SPIES THAT FLY"

http://www.pbs.org/nova/spiesfly/

Broadcast: February 24, 2004
(NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check your local listings as
dates and times may vary.)

The U.S. Air Force claims that unmanned aerial vehicles like the
Predator, a 50-foot-wingspan plane that flies by remote control,
have recently been successful at locating missile launchers and
tracking insurgents' movements in Iraq. These are the same UAVs that
helped eliminate terrorist threats in Yemen and Afghanistan. In the
wake of Predator's success, the military is developing an incredible
range of "smart" robotic planes, from flyers small enough to fit in
a pocket to soaring jets that fly halfway around the world. The next
generation of pilotless planes will be capable of far more than
aerial spying and in time may revolutionize the way we fight all
future wars. In "Spies That Fly," NOVA presents the latest hot
designs and reveals some newly declassified chapters from the
exciting history of airborne spying.

Here's what you'll find on the companion Web site:

Slide Show and Interview

Spy Photos That Made History
A surveillance image specialist examines photographs of Iraq,
North Korea, and other political hotspots.

Master of the Surveillance Image
Meet Dino Brugioni, formerly of the CIA, who analyzed the photos
that triggered the Cuban missile crisis.

Interactives

Timeline of UAVs
From Civil War hot-air balloons to today's miniature flying
robots, explore the history of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Imaging With Radar
See what synthetic aperture radar can "see" with this picture of
Washington, D.C., taken on a snowy winter's day.

http://www.pbs.org/nova/spiesfly/

[BTIZ]

1) they already do, in certain approved corridors of the west, ground based
pilots hold civil or military commercial IFR ratings and they have a looking
forward camera, and they have a radio to talk with local ATC
2) in the US they fly mostly within MOA or Restricted airspace except when
transitioning between airspace in approved corridors
3) for the larger "world class" aircraft, they climb up to Class A or higher
in Restricted airspace
4) if the smaller are used in a "combat zone", I don't think they would be
worried about civil aircraft that are not under positive ATC control.

BT

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So how does the military propose to fly these pilotless aircraft among
> civil aircraft without causing a safety hazard?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> NEXT ON NOVA: "SPIES THAT FLY"
>
> http://www.pbs.org/nova/spiesfly/
>
> Broadcast: February 24, 2004
> (NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check your local listings as
> dates and times may vary.)
>
> The U.S. Air Force claims that unmanned aerial vehicles like the
> Predator, a 50-foot-wingspan plane that flies by remote control,
> have recently been successful at locating missile launchers and
> tracking insurgents' movements in Iraq. These are the same UAVs that
> helped eliminate terrorist threats in Yemen and Afghanistan. In the
> wake of Predator's success, the military is developing an incredible
> range of "smart" robotic planes, from flyers small enough to fit in
> a pocket to soaring jets that fly halfway around the world. The next
> generation of pilotless planes will be capable of far more than
> aerial spying and in time may revolutionize the way we fight all
> future wars. In "Spies That Fly," NOVA presents the latest hot
> designs and reveals some newly declassified chapters from the
> exciting history of airborne spying.
>
> Here's what you'll find on the companion Web site:
>
> Slide Show and Interview
>
> Spy Photos That Made History
> A surveillance image specialist examines photographs of Iraq,
> North Korea, and other political hotspots.
>
> Master of the Surveillance Image
> Meet Dino Brugioni, formerly of the CIA, who analyzed the photos
> that triggered the Cuban missile crisis.
>
> Interactives
>
> Timeline of UAVs
> From Civil War hot-air balloons to today's miniature flying
> robots, explore the history of unmanned aerial vehicles.
>
> Imaging With Radar
> See what synthetic aperture radar can "see" with this picture of
> Washington, D.C., taken on a snowy winter's day.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/nova/spiesfly/

[Casey Wilson]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So how does the military propose to fly these pilotless aircraft among
> civil aircraft without causing a safety hazard?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> NEXT ON NOVA: "SPIES THAT FLY"
>
It's already being done. Fly to the west of Apple Valley (APV),
California, and you are likely to hear Joshua Approach telling you:
"Unmanned drone manuevering in the vicinity of El Mirage lakebed, use
caution."
The scary ones sound like: "Archer umpty-ump, traffice alert!
Ten-o'clock, three miles, closing, altitude 5,500, unmanned drone."
These, by the way, are NOT in RSA or MOA and are, technically, NOT
military.

[William W. Plummer]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So how does the military propose to fly these pilotless aircraft among
> > civil aircraft without causing a safety hazard?
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > NEXT ON NOVA: "SPIES THAT FLY"
> >
> It's already being done. Fly to the west of Apple Valley (APV),
> California, and you are likely to hear Joshua Approach telling you:
> "Unmanned drone manuevering in the vicinity of El Mirage lakebed, use
> caution."
> The scary ones sound like: "Archer umpty-ump, traffice alert!
> Ten-o'clock, three miles, closing, altitude 5,500, unmanned drone."
> These, by the way, are NOT in RSA or MOA and are, technically, NOT
> military.

Note that an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle may be remotely piloted. In fact this
distinction is a loophole in the SALT II treaty that forbids dropping bombs
and launching cruise missiles from unmanned vehicles -- we do it using
remotely piloted vehicles.

I chatted with a Marine UAV pilot about 2 years ago. He explained that a
remotely piloted vehicle must be on an IFR flight plan and he, the remote
pilot, must be an instrument rated pilot. I presume he must be in contact
with ATC in the area where the vehicle is flying. I have no idea how they
can be "stealthy" in that situation.

[Bob Fry]

Larry Dighera > writes:

> http://www.pbs.org/nova/spiesfly/
>
> Broadcast: February 24, 2004
> (NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check your local listings as
> dates and times may vary.)
>
> The U.S. Air Force claims that unmanned aerial vehicles like the
> Predator, a 50-foot-wingspan plane that flies by remote control,
> have recently been successful at locating missile launchers and
> tracking insurgents' movements in Iraq. These are the same UAVs that
> helped eliminate terrorist threats in Yemen and Afghanistan. In the
> wake of Predator's success,

Yada yada <snipped>

Hmmm. Does anyone else recall that video clip that circulated here
and other groups a year or so ago, that was shot from a fixed-wing
gunship in Afganistan? It showed the gunship crew, in communication
with a team on the ground, blasting up a supposed terrorist hideout.

It was a pretty intense video clip. What struck me was the obvious
confusion and haste as the gunship crew was trying to determine the
proper building to shoot up. Apparently there was a mosque nearby,
which was off limits. It was like:

Gunship (GS): There! That's them! Kaboom! Brrrraaaapppppp!!!
Ground Team (GT): No! Not that building!
GS: Roger that! Kablam! BRRRAAAPPPPPPP!!! BRRRAAAPPPPPPP!!!
GT: Wait! Stand By! No, fire on the OTHER square building!

etc.

In other words, even with a ground team, and humans on the aerial
ship, it was confusion city. Hell you can't tell one turban head from
another, so kill 'em all, eh?

Does anybody really imagine that some guy looking at an umanned
drone's fuzzy TV image is going to be better at selecting targets to
kill? Oh, sure, these are only going to be used for recon. Right, and
my mother-in-law will do the intel.

[Larry Dighera]

On 21 Feb 2004 14:40:07 -0800, Bob Fry
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera > writes:
>
>> http://www.pbs.org/nova/spiesfly/
>>
>> Broadcast: February 24, 2004
>> (NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check your local listings as
>> dates and times may vary.)
>>
>> The U.S. Air Force claims that unmanned aerial vehicles like the
>> Predator, a 50-foot-wingspan plane that flies by remote control,
>> have recently been successful at locating missile launchers and
>> tracking insurgents' movements in Iraq. These are the same UAVs that
>> helped eliminate terrorist threats in Yemen and Afghanistan. In the
>> wake of Predator's success,
>
>Yada yada <snipped>
>
>Hmmm. Does anyone else recall that video clip that circulated here
>and other groups a year or so ago, that was shot from a fixed-wing
>gunship in Afganistan? It showed the gunship crew, in communication
>with a team on the ground, blasting up a supposed terrorist hideout.
>
>It was a pretty intense video clip. What struck me was the obvious
>confusion and haste as the gunship crew was trying to determine the
>proper building to shoot up. Apparently there was a mosque nearby,
>which was off limits. It was like:
>
>Gunship (GS): There! That's them! Kaboom! Brrrraaaapppppp!!!
>Ground Team (GT): No! Not that building!
>GS: Roger that! Kablam! BRRRAAAPPPPPPP!!! BRRRAAAPPPPPPP!!!
>GT: Wait! Stand By! No, fire on the OTHER square building!
>
>etc.
>
>In other words, even with a ground team, and humans on the aerial
>ship, it was confusion city. Hell you can't tell one turban head from
>another, so kill 'em all, eh?
>
>Does anybody really imagine that some guy looking at an umanned
>drone's fuzzy TV image is going to be better at selecting targets to
>kill? Oh, sure, these are only going to be used for recon. Right, and
>my mother-in-law will do the intel.

I'm beginning to believe that SNAFU mentality is typical of the
military.


But when the day dawns with a sky full of military UAVs with their
pilots safely on the ground, do you think there might be some impact
on civil aviation? Its difficult enough to see-and-avoid when you're
in the cockpit. I would imagine it might be more difficult over a
telemetry link, and the self-preservation motive for diligent traffic
scan is removed. Sometimes the 21st century is frightening....

[john smith]

Bob Fry wrote:
> Hmmm. Does anyone else recall that video clip that circulated here
> and other groups a year or so ago, that was shot from a fixed-wing
> gunship in Afganistan? It showed the gunship crew, in communication
> with a team on the ground, blasting up a supposed terrorist hideout.

I downloaded it.
*(Jay Honeck, if you want a copy, I will send it to you on a cd. It is a
large file.)

[Air Force Jayhawk]

I have that video and you have it completely wrong. There was some
clarifying required (there always is, even with no unmanned assets
involved), but NO shots were fired until all agreed on the target.

Second of all, the image you get from an Predator is far better than
real eyes...why? Becasue the predator flies real slow and can linger
whereas a manned aircraft (for self-protection reason) must fly much
faster, leaving less time to actually find and ID targets.

Before you slam folks, you better do your homework better.

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)


On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:10:39 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 21 Feb 2004 14:40:07 -0800, Bob Fry
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>
>>Larry Dighera > writes:
>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/nova/spiesfly/
>>>
>>> Broadcast: February 24, 2004
>>> (NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check your local listings as
>>> dates and times may vary.)
>>>
>>> The U.S. Air Force claims that unmanned aerial vehicles like the
>>> Predator, a 50-foot-wingspan plane that flies by remote control,
>>> have recently been successful at locating missile launchers and
>>> tracking insurgents' movements in Iraq. These are the same UAVs that
>>> helped eliminate terrorist threats in Yemen and Afghanistan. In the
>>> wake of Predator's success,
>>
>>Yada yada <snipped>
>>
>>Hmmm. Does anyone else recall that video clip that circulated here
>>and other groups a year or so ago, that was shot from a fixed-wing
>>gunship in Afganistan? It showed the gunship crew, in communication
>>with a team on the ground, blasting up a supposed terrorist hideout.
>>
>>It was a pretty intense video clip. What struck me was the obvious
>>confusion and haste as the gunship crew was trying to determine the
>>proper building to shoot up. Apparently there was a mosque nearby,
>>which was off limits. It was like:
>>
>>Gunship (GS): There! That's them! Kaboom! Brrrraaaapppppp!!!
>>Ground Team (GT): No! Not that building!
>>GS: Roger that! Kablam! BRRRAAAPPPPPPP!!! BRRRAAAPPPPPPP!!!
>>GT: Wait! Stand By! No, fire on the OTHER square building!
>>
>>etc.
>>
>>In other words, even with a ground team, and humans on the aerial
>>ship, it was confusion city. Hell you can't tell one turban head from
>>another, so kill 'em all, eh?
>>
>>Does anybody really imagine that some guy looking at an umanned
>>drone's fuzzy TV image is going to be better at selecting targets to
>>kill? Oh, sure, these are only going to be used for recon. Right, and
>>my mother-in-law will do the intel.
>
>I'm beginning to believe that SNAFU mentality is typical of the
>military.
>
>
>But when the day dawns with a sky full of military UAVs with their
>pilots safely on the ground, do you think there might be some impact
>on civil aviation? Its difficult enough to see-and-avoid when you're
>in the cockpit. I would imagine it might be more difficult over a
>telemetry link, and the self-preservation motive for diligent traffic
>scan is removed. Sometimes the 21st century is frightening....
>