The Air Force is so full of nerds.
I spent half a day at the unmanned aircraft conference at UND today and my note-taking hand is tired from trying to keep up with the technical lectures and rapid-fire PowerPoint presentations.
There was this discussion on Air Force unmanned aircraft doctrine that was so peppered with jargon it left my head spinning. The fellow giving the lecture sounded like he was the kid that raised his hands everytime the teacher asked a question.
There were flow charts, tables, words like "phase 3," "group 4," "CCDR" and "AFOSR."
There were several discussions about new technologies under development or in need of development that were the equivalent of reading a year’s worth of Popular Science. It was pretty awesome.
So, aside from that vision of the future that’s in the Air Force’s unmanned aircraft systems flight plan, which I talked about yesterday, here’s more nerd stuff for ya (or at least the stuff I can remember):
- Besides operating by themselves or in swarms of other unmanned aircraft, the Air Force is looking into something called the "loyal wingman," according to Steve Bishop of Air Force Special Operations Command. This is where, with the right software algorithm, the unmanned aircraft follows a manned aircraft around and helps it by either lugging lots of weapons or defending against attack or providing extra fuel.
You know what this sounds like? It sounds like those Japanese video games from the early 1990s where you get this "companion fighter" that doubles the number of giant fireballs your fighter spits out. (I swear to God, I only played those games at other people’s house. I had better things to do.)
- The concept of modularity, explored yesterday, got some fleshing out from Col. Eric Mathewson, director of the Air Force UAS Task Force. He was talking about modularity for the proposed MQ-X, which everyone says is the follow-on to the MQ-9 Reaper, but, in fact, the Reaper’s attack mission was only one of many intended missions.
I asked the colonel what was wrong with bolting various pods and weapons to hardpoints, which is how you change missions for manned aircraft these days, so I figured. He said the Air Force had something bigger in mind, like turning a ground attack aircraft into a cargo plane or a tanker.
I then asked why you’d want to do that because the airframes would have to be different; an attack aircraft needs to fly differently than a cargo plane, which needs to fly differently than a fighter. He said the specialized attack aircraft would have their own airframe, but much of what the Air Force does is with aircraft like C-130s, which serve as cargo planes, tankers and gunships (not to mention psyops platforms).
Col. Mathewson also mentioned that the Air Force was investigating whether the MQ-X would have modular wings. So we’re talking swept wings for flying fast and big long wings for loitering. It’s like a LEGO plane.
(By the way, this report says the Air Force thinks the MQ-X could be a stealthy and hypersonic. I thought they just wanted a frickin’ C-130.)
- The ability to land automatically is already available for some unmanned aircraft, but now the Air Force is looking at automated mid-air refueling and electronic warfare, according to Col. Jeff Turcotte at the Air Force Research Lab.
- Unmanned aircraft also come in small packages, called micro air vehicles, or MAVs. Col. Turcotte said it’s easy to make a regular paper airplane and make it soar a good distance. But if you make it the size of a fly, it’ll just dive. Aerodynamics work different at that level or something. That’s why researchers are turning to insects for inspiration, making MAVs that flap their wings using tiny piezoelectric elements.
The wing flapping thing, though, is apparently the easy part.
A big challenge is power. A fly-sized MAV can’t lug a battery around yet flies can hover around the room and drive you nuts all day with a tiny and light fuel source. Researchers are looking at biological fuel sources — sounds like sugars and ATP – and enzymes that can make the fuel release energy more efficiently. They’re also looking into MAVs that can eat plants, just like insects.
Another big challenge is a computer that can efficiently fuse all the sensor data and act on them. A fly’s brain isn’t that big, but, amazingly, it can use its sensors to control its own flight and navigate around its environment, two separate functions.
Also, the MAV will have to be smart enough to operate on its own. If the thing is in Ahmadinejad‘s underground nuclear bomb factory, it’s going to be pretty hard to send a signal down there to control the MAV remotely.
There was a lot more nerd stuff on the PowerPoints, but I couldn’t write fast enough.
Ha! I love MOO. Still install and play it from time to time.
Sorry, there’s just something disconcerting and unnerving with all the unmanned technology. The thought of small, sentient, armed, herbivorous drones just smacks of some sci-fi nightmare. Haven’t these guys seen Terminator?
Unfortunately, you know damn well this stuff will be adapted for use against the public. That fly on the wall in your house? Say goodbye to privacy.
I always thought Terminator was pretty silly.
The machines need us to reboot them when they crash, which they will; to swap in new parts for them when they break; the bigger ones are going to need us to change their batteries, which we make and they don’t … on and on.
Plus, for a machine mind, the virtual world is the same as the real world, so there would be no need to take over the world as long as hard drive space is vast. Unlike us, they have no biological instinct to reproduce (unless we programmed it).
I think we’re safe.
This is all about saving the modern world from collapse. Post modernist philosophy’s analysis says the “eugenia”,rule of the fittest, of the Greeks is dying as the 3rd World rebels against the coercion of the world’s elites that are intent on continuing the Greek eugenia, i.e. eugenics movement. The computer revolution’s underlying context was to make deciphering of the human genome possible and therefore the ability to design an elite and eventually eliminate the inferior parts of the pop. UAVs are the military dimension for the control of expendable masses. The U. of Mn. Press is the publisher of this mainly French “post modern” movement.
Whoa. The Developing World isn’t rebelling against anything. It just wants to be rich like the Developed World and the upper classes of the Developing World. Egghead types living in the Developed World shouldn’t presume to speak for people whose lives they don’t know anything about.
Tu-Uyen,–So why are the too numerous to count civil wars going on? Of course they want to be rich and they know they won’t be unless they take control of their resources. 10 S.A. countries have elected indigenous leaders intent on preventing globalization at their expense. UAVs are just Western strategy to try and prevent hostile takeovers of resources. You are so conservative or is it neo-liberal? No diff. I guess. You and Tom Dennis seem to see eye to eye.
Why don’t you look up a list of civil wars and see how many actually involve disputes over natural resources between the developed world and the developing world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars
There are 20 that persist to this day. Of those, the majority involve politics and ethnic or religious unrest not economics. Sudan? Arabs vs. blacks. Somalia? Never really was one country except for brief periods. Afghanistan? Ditto. Colombia? Drugs and criminal gangs. Philippines? Muslims vs. Christians.
Iraq is a maybe, but we all knew that.
Get your facts straight. There aren’t “too numerous to count civil wars.”
Tu-Uyen, You really need to stop posting about the UAV’s until you can find something nice to say! The title “Air Force nerd-fest” is inappropriate to say the least. Half of everything you post is nothing more than garbage. You should consider a job as a sanitation worker if you like Garbage that much!
Tu-Uyen, — The civil wars you describe may be superficially for the reasons you cite but in essence your conservative view causes you overlook the fact that whoever wins will be on the side of the U.S. or our adversaries. The bottom line is they are ultimately about control of resources. It is called American Imperialism and you & the GFH are being schills for it, UND and the GFAFB. Yeh for Ft. Grand Forks.
Annoyed: You obviously haven’t read anything I’ve written. I like nerds and I’ve never written anything not nice about UAVs. I like them, too.
Spearman: I think it’s your fundmentally Marxist worldview prevents you from seeing the situation as it is.
Naturally, it’s going to be one side or the other that wins and one of those sides is the side we like. But the causes of the conflicts are not about resources. Just because natural resources exist doesn’t mean that’s what they’re about.
Anyway, you’ve strayed from the original argument, which involved the developed world using technology to curb the developing world’s population. That’s completely unrealistic.
Similarly unrealistic is the argument that the computer revolution was really about eugenics. It was not. It was about speeding up calculations. In fact, the first one was designed to calculate artillery ballistics.
Tu-Uyen, you are an idiot. You don’t know what you are talking about no matter what you report on. Everything you post is inaccurate. You shouldn’t be a reporter. You suck!
Tu-Uyen,
Well since my contention about the origin of eugenics is not something I invented & was not a Marxist idea but one developed by philosophers of technology you can’t just dismiss the argument because that is your view reading of the phenomena. Of course it was about speedin g up calculations but because the human genome couldn’t be deciphered without faster calculations it is the context of the computer revolution. Ultimately resources are the bottom line issue after the dust clears.
Annoyed….. Tu-Uyen is a huge proponent of UAS and UAVs, just ask Ben “Mr. UAS” Trapnell over at UND. Oh yeah, and I think we all know who really sucks, and it ain’t Tu-Uyen. Good argument between Tu and Spearman. Now that is truly what these kinds of forums are all about. Keep it up guys! Seriously.
J.M. Don’t tell me to talk to Ben. I know him.
I can guarantee you that I know more about UAV’s than you and Tu-Uyen combined, so it is quite easy to tell who sucks and who doesn’t. Now stop giving Tran a reach around and get a grip!
Hey, annoyed. We just might know each other too. We might be friends, because I am pals with Ben, as well. Do you come up to Clifford Hall much? Please don’t judge me on my knowledge of UAS until you truly know. You just might be surprised. I don’t particularly like Tu-Uyen. I just don’t hate him as much as some. Oh, and as a frequent user of this blog for many years, I can honestly say that Tu-Uyen is not against UAS, and Ben would agree.
I used to go to Clifford hall all the time. Not so much now a days. I won’t judge you. :) I just hate Tu-Uyen. My hate for him goes deeper than his retarded articles. :)
I like that you’re contributing to my traffic count. Thanks.
Just curious, why so much hate for him? Apart from the articles that is. As a person, why the hate?
He’s said some pretty rude things to me. I don’t hate him as a person, I just hate his attitude.
Yeah, I think he has a lot of confidence and he is obviously a smart guy who spends a lot of late nights researching many varying things. We’re probably not used to that kind of self-confidence up here where people tend to be more reserved. I think he hails form the Pacific northwest. He’s hurt my feelings before too. But, hey, what evs. We’re adults right? Big boy rules apply sometimes. Take care!