US Army Hopes To Outfit Soldiers With Tiny Drones By 2018 (engadget.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The U.S. Army has requested industry information on the feasibility of making tiny drones that would help infantry gather intelligence on a small scale, such as peeping over a hill or around a building. its dream recon machine would weigh no more than a third of a pound, launch within one minute and fly for at least 15 minutes. Ideally, the drones would be in service as soon as 2018. "[A nano-drone] will send real-time video back to the operator to give them real-time situational awareness of what's in the immediate vicinity," says Phil Cheatham, the deputy branch chief for electronics at the Army's Maneuvers Center for Excellence (MCOE). Cheatham says he and his team want something cheap enough to deploy with every squad, noting the Army already uses satellite imagery and larger drones to provide broader battlefield intelligence.
Screw Standing Armies. Just Nuke The Bastards. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
except it denies the resources those areas have to us.
nukes are like permanently poisoning the well. it makes the region useless to us afterwards. look at Chernobyl. 30 years later it's resources are useless to us. another 200 years it will still be useless.
You may not think it useful, but nuking the majority of easy access oil when the USA is still importing oil on a daily basis is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are detonated high in the air and the land isn't contaminated.
Yes, because all the radioactive material magically goes up into space and falls into the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
AmiMoJo's forgotten her password!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Ah, shame. (Score:2)
When I read soldiers would be outfitted with tiny drones, I thought they finally, after almost 3 long decades, have the Innerspace technology perfected... But alas, it is just small RC helicopters... Strangely (to me) they are not quadcopters, I thought is small sizes quadcopters have all sorts of advantages over helicopters, am I wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ah, shame. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, quadrotors are more energy hungry than a plane or an helicopter and it makes probably more noise and is less compact than an helicopter as well.
I bought my son a $69 quadrotor drone for his birthday that has a 10 minute flight time, and meets all of the other criteria listed in the summary. So instead of spending their budget investigating the feasibility, they should get in their Humvee and drive to the closest mall.
The quadrotor may be slightly bigger than a heli-drone, but it is much more stable and easier to fly. My son was flying his skillfully after 2 hours of practice, so the Pentagon should be able to train operators for about $50k each.
Re: (Score:1)
Assuming 40,000 infantry in the US Army(Yahoo answers) at $69/pop it would be $2,760,000 for disposable quadrotors. The logistics cost of moving a .1m cube of styrofoam and cardboard to the sandbox is probably $50/pop and the cost of replacing a broken one is probably $150 real costs(+$50 in paperwork because there's no such thing as petty cash in the military... unless they're bribes for the Taliban ?WTF?).
Based on this I'm guessing a mil-spec(environmental hardening + better materials) should cost $1,000/
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be curious to see how your 69$ drone would fare after being lugged around a dusty/windy desert for a few days and/or a very humid jungle and/or stuck in a tight pack that was thrown around a few times.
You know, nobody has more experience paying people to make fancy cases for equipment than our military. You should see the kind of boxes that fucking cable sets are carried around in. They'd make adequate cover in a firefight.
Re: (Score:2)
You should see the kind of boxes that fucking cable sets are carried around in. They'd make adequate cover in a firefight.
#Pelican4Life
There probably isn't such a hash tag, but there should be. Though after the C2 Rewire project, I'd lugged around enough of those cases full of cable sets to last me a lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
When I read "cheap enough to deploy" my brain replaced with "destroy" instinctively. These things will be (or should be) mass produced and used up like socks.
As for "skill to fly" on a massive program like this, they should be installing a $3 IMU+processor that mostly takes the skill out of flying it.
Cheap enough (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Cheap enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Take your $1000 drone and do the following.
1. Rugedize the controller and drone so they can stand up to battlefield conditions which includes the following: temperature extremes; being dropped, stepped on, etc; waterproof; dust/sand resistant; etc
2. Make the communications channel both jam resistant and secure.
3. Make it, including a protected carrying case for the drone, small and light enough not to be a burden.
4. Go through several rounds of testing and modification so everyone has a say in the design and politicians are seen to be doing something.
5. Parcel out the production to several states to spread the money around.
That $1000 drone just got much more expensive.
The main issue is that military equipment has to work in harsh conditions. On the battlefield you can't say "my machine is not working so I am not going to play today".
Re: (Score:2)
1. Rugedize the controller and drone so they can stand up to battlefield conditions which includes the following: temperature extremes; being dropped, stepped on, etc; waterproof; dust/sand resistant; etc
Yep, people miss this all too often, but the military has learned the lessons of the past.
Look to prior wars, equipment that worked perfectly on the test bench or at home, simply turned out to be useless in a hostile environment.
The US Army tests this stuff in Alaska for example, to see what happens at -40 degrees below zero. A LOT of stuff that works fine elsewhere completely stops functioning in that much cold.
What if we end up having to invade Siberia? Ok, not likely, but you have to plan for everythin
Re: (Score:2)
The cheaper solution is generally better. You buy more, and quantity has a quality all its own.
Re:Cheap enough (Score:5, Interesting)
And what happens in practice is that the 80% solution is 1/10th the cost and so you have twice as many, so there are more working than the ideal at 1/5 the cost.
Twice as many that don't work isn't much of an improvement.
Yes, in some situations, you can get 5 times as many for the same cost, until they don't work.
Read up a bit of history of WWII, the problems of taking vehicles into the desert, then the arctic, then Western Russia and the mud. Then the jungles of SE Asia.
Stuff that is reliable as dirt in one place is worthless in another.
Part of what makes military stuff cost so much is the ability to work everywhere. Our M1 tanks have to be geared up to work in 120 degree deserts and -40 degree arctic snow.
That is harder than you might think.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, lessons always need to be learned... There is always room for improvement...
But imagine if those M1 tanks had not been tested as well before Iraq, imagine if they worked perfectly well in North Carolina, then take them to Iraq? It might not have been possible to use them at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And what about the time that it just has to fucking work? When someone's life is on the line? No, you can't just buy a bunch of the cheap versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you expect a squad to carry a pile of them around, just to make sure they've got one that works. Would it be one guy operating all of them, or would every squad member...teams don't all typically do the same job, certainly not at the same time. In addition to adding weight to the packs of every additional GI that has to carry one, you've gone from one operator to however many you need now to ensure mission success. A squad will typically have maybe a dozen troops...do I really need ten of them to dro
Re: (Score:2)
Your solution will only get people killed.
Reality has shown that more and cheaper of "good enough" beats a shortage of the preferred solution.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that on the battlefield one can not just go back and get another one. When the failure of a piece of equipment may mean someone's death that equipment better work.
A soldier will not carry around equipment that only works 80% of the time and no good commander would make them.
Re: (Score:3)
2. Make the communications channel both jam resistant and secure.
Since when did anybody do that? If we can't be arsed to encrypt Predator communications, what makes you think the shitty little hand carry toy is going to have it?
Re: (Score:2)
The video channel was not encrypted, it now is, but the control channel always has been [wired.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You can build more drone than they are asking for with off the shelf parts for a couple hundred bucks. If you could get the graft out of it, it should be trivial to build multitudes out of it for a grand a pop in hardened form. And therein lies the rub...
Re: (Score:2)
The lousiest of the toys are probably inadequate to the job, if nothing else most of them take a dreadfully naive approach to security on the camera and control signal link; but one would think that these things would be amenable to relatively low cost, in mass production. The cellphone market is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This particulary RFP emphasizes sensors, endurance, and very light weight, so it probably isn't a request for such a gadget; but I would(admittedly naively) imagine that guided munitions based
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only have one R/C copter and I haven't got it flying yet (came with crap electrics) but it seems to me like the prop isn't much bigger than everything else, and the blades fold down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is that corner that is 50 feet away. That is one long selfie stick.
hold me closer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, seems pretty cool for the price. Just a couple of problems...
a) the smart phone app, probably won't pass security, just guessing, at that price it wants to phone home marketing data... (could be wrong)
b) why are they so interested in the wee willy of that greek looking statue? ('course that fits right in w
Re: (Score:2)
Soldiers can carry at least 50% more rounds of 5.56, due to smaller size, lower weight and lighter magazines. A 5.56x45 is 12 grams, a 7.62x39 is 18g, a 7.62x51 is 26g
In traditional warfare, injuring an enemy takes two more off the battlefield while they take the injured one away, fills up their hospitals and costs them more resources.
Personally, I'd rather be shot and survive than be shot and killed.
Dangerous Government Waste (Score:4, Insightful)
If remote controlled tiny aircraft were better on the battlefield we would not need soldiers at all. There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets. I say this as a Veteran (US Army) in case you weigh things by experience.
Communications is important, but so is a lack of communications. Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide, they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Save a soldier's life and write Congress. Tech companies don't need to make money off of soldier's lives.
Re: (Score:2)
If remote controlled tiny aircraft were better on the battlefield we would not need soldiers at all.
There is a huge difference between an armed drone and a small recon drone.
There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets.
True, which is why you train them with and without the drones so they know how to use them but don't become dependent on them.
.
Do you see no value in a soldier being able to send a drone into a building or over a hill to check if anyone is in there? Say you were on patrol and ahead you see a spot that would be great for a sniper. Wouldn't you rather send a drone to check it out?
Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide,
They can only be seen by people with sophisticated tracki
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge difference between an armed drone and a small recon drone.
Fallacy much?
True, which is why you train them with and without the drones so they know how to use them but don't become dependent on them.
Nothing like ignoring the obvious I pointed out.
Do you see no value in a soldier being able to send a drone into a building or over a hill to check if anyone is in there? Say you were on patrol and ahead you see a spot that would be great for a sniper. Wouldn't you rather send a drone to check it out?
A soldier running a recon mission is different than every soldier walking around with a tiny drone tethered to them so that they can all run recon. You further lack both combat knowledge and the ability to read the basic specs of the drone in question. If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.
They can only be seen by people with sophisticated tracking systems which would actually fail when a number of these things are in operation. I doubt Daesh has any of this kind of equipment.
Wrong, it takes very little to detect electronic signals being broadcast.
Which is why encryption and jam resistance is important and one reason why civilian drones will not be sufficient.
While it's nice to see that you are
Re: (Score:2)
Fallacy much?
So you think a this [defense.gov] is the same as this [aolcdn.com]?
You also need to read a bit more.
Nothing like ignoring the obvious I pointed out.
All you said was being dependant is bad. I agree and there are ways around dependence. What did I miss?
A soldier running a recon mission
Who said recon mission. It could be a patrol.
is different than every soldier walking around with a tiny drone tethered to them
They are not talking about a drone for every soldier all the time but a drone per squad used when needed.
You are not going to fit much into a small drone in terms of either anti-jamming or encryption.
Are you an electronics expert who knows what can and can not be done on small chips these days?
If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.
Explain to me how a drone with a camera transmitting back to an operator can't look behind
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.
If the drone has stereo microphones, the data can be relayed for processing and you can use it to find that sniper.
Re: (Score:2)
Only after he fired which is a little late for the soldier who just got killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide,
You mean nothing has an "off" switch? What do they do with the radios that are on 100% of the time?
they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Yes, because being able to detect a wireless signal is the same as decoding the encrypted control channel. I hope you weren't in the Signal Corps.
Tech companies don't need to make money off of soldier's lives.
So it's fine if it's Northrop Grumman, but not if it's a tech company? We've paid private companies tens of trillions of dollars, and you complain about a few drones. Perspective. Find some.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is a huge issue with putting soldier under the dependency of gadgets.
...
Soldiers walking around with broadcast devices have no ability to hide, they also run the risk of interception and force feeding bogus orders.
Yeah! These new-fangled gadgets are nothing but trouble. I mean, radios do nothing but give soldiers positions away and provide the enemy with an avenue to force feed bogus orders. In my book it's flags and smoke signals or nothing for long distance communication!
Wait... what?
Remember to register with the FAA (Score:2)
I'm gonna sic Posse Comitatus on you GI ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tiny surveillance drone. How in the hell do you misuse it on the battlefield?
Seriously, you can't imagine? There will be all sorts of dogfights, and peeking into places they shouldn't...ladies room, commanders office. There are often long periods of boredom, and idle hands with nothing better to do than see if they can fly their drone and land it on a sleeping buddies ear. Realize that many of these folks are just barely out of high school, with a maturity level to match it. That's not meant as an insult in any way, just a fact. FWIW, I'm a veteran myself.
Trying to fix a problem with too much technology? (Score:2)
Let's let the enemy know where we are by flying a noisy thing around the place.
Or, stick a mirror or camera on the end of a stick and do it completely silently.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, stick a mirror or camera on the end of a stick and do it completely silently.
A mirror or camera on a stick can't take an aerial photo. It can't move hundreds of yards away from you to do recon. And a reflection from it most certainly can give away your position. But a soldier behind a hill who pops a drone up over his head is only giving away his position in the vaguest way, and even then, only if someone even notices the tiny speck hanging in the air. Just painting it blue will help with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Security (Score:1)
They need to come up with some security, such that the enemy can't take it over like existing $50k drones.
Having experience with both quads and planes (not copters, too difficult to fly), I see advantages in both. Plane made of foam is light weight, long flight time and distance, little noise, but of course can't stay stationery, a bullet is no problem, unless it kills battery or motor. With a flight controller, they are easy to fly. Quads are dead if hit by anything. Short flight time and range. But can st
Re: (Score:2)
Having experience with both quads and planes (not copters, too difficult to fly)
There's no reason whatsoever that a copter [multiwii.com] can't have fully stabilized flight. You can do it with FOSS and a $3 arduino nano coupled to a $10 10DoF board. There's also no reason you can't build a quadcopter out of foam. Instead, though, the goal will be to make it so small that you can't reasonably shoot it. That also fits in with the goal of having one carried by "every" soldier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can definitely see the use of small autonomous drone that can fly a perimeter around the soldier...
Thus giving his enemies a very good fix on his position.
Fun but distracting (Score:3)
"If you load a mud foot down with a lot of gadgets that he has to watch, somebody a lot more simply equipped--say with a stone ax---will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a vernier".
- Robert Heinlein (“Starship Troopers”)
Allegiant anyone? (Score:2)
Someone must have watched the movie Allegiant and thought to themselves "Hey, that's a good idea! Let's make that." Drones that can be tied to an operator and feed visual information back to them from around corners or watch their back INSIDE the same structure would be a huge improvement in situational awareness.
You'd have to solve two problems (Score:2)
First, you need to design quieter propellers because the sound of a bee swarm is going to give away your position. Second, you need to come up with a battery that has a much higher energy density.
PLEASE, No "Wired" Links! (Score:2)
Or, at least, mark them like "Paywall" links. They block you if you use an ad blocker, and they interpret any disinclination to run any random malicious script they or any of the advertisers on any of the ad serving companies they use might choose to push at you "an ad blocker." Evil. Pure, unadulterated evil.
For the record, I do not use an ad blocker. But I do run NoScript, and I will continue to run NoScript. "Wired"'s oh so very helpful link on their intercept page says about allowing access to NoSc