Drone Swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby NRao » 06 Dec 2017 21:23

1. Antipersonnel bomblet drones. Autonomous, can’t differentiate or differentiate much between friend and foe.
2. Loitering scouts that are autonomous or guided with ability to transmit data in real time or return to base where data can be downloaded and processes.
3. Reconnaissance. Behind enemy lines. Drop them and have them detect and transmit vibrations, IR signature, organic chemicals, etc to identify where the enemy is or where he isn’t.


Most, if not all, of these are 1980-90s techs.

Today, forget FF, they can ID individuals (Karachi airport has this *legacy* tech for about a decade now) with minimal data (eye only, forehead, etc). Matter of time that they overcome issues.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby Arun.prabhu » 06 Dec 2017 22:00

NRao wrote:
1. Antipersonnel bomblet drones. Autonomous, can’t differentiate or differentiate much between friend and foe.
2. Loitering scouts that are autonomous or guided with ability to transmit data in real time or return to base where data can be downloaded and processes.
3. Reconnaissance. Behind enemy lines. Drop them and have them detect and transmit vibrations, IR signature, organic chemicals, etc to identify where the enemy is or where he isn’t.


Most, if not all, of these are 1980-90s techs.

Today, forget FF, they can ID individuals (Karachi airport has this *legacy* tech for about a decade now) with minimal data (eye only, forehead, etc). Matter of time that they overcome issues.


We can miniaturise the hell out of drones today and still get the same functionality at a lower price point today. More flexibility, more missions.

Drones are not The solution to everything, especialky in the chaos of a battlefield where human ingenuity, sheer guts, courage, the will to survive and bloodymindedness counts for a lot.

As for being able to identify eyes/uniforms whatever on a battlefield, sure those problems are easy enough - relatively speaking - to solve in the civilian arena, but on the baytlefield where bullets and shrapnel and dirt and grime and terror can make soldiers caricatures of humans... we’re a long, long, long way away. Just think. Would sensors be able to differentiate friend from foe when both are covered in dirt, grime and blood and/or disfigured by wounds or wearing camaflage, with communications with central processor jammed and dust and smoke reducing visibility, etc?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby NRao » 06 Dec 2017 22:38

Arun.prabhu wrote:We can miniaturise the hell out of drones today and still get the same functionality at a lower price point today. More flexibility, more missions.


That is a given. Nothing new.

Drones are not The solution to everything, especialky in the chaos of a battlefield where human ingenuity, sheer guts, courage, the will to survive and bloodymindedness counts for a lot.


Yeah, no one said it is (sorry, internet)

As for being able to identify eyes/uniforms whatever on a battlefield, sure those problems are easy enough - relatively speaking - to solve in the civilian arena, but on the baytlefield where bullets and shrapnel and dirt and grime and terror can make soldiers caricatures of humans... we’re a long, long, long way away. Just think. Would sensors be able to differentiate friend from foe when both are covered in dirt, grime and blood and/or disfigured by wounds or wearing camaflage, with communications with central processor jammed and dust and smoke reducing visibility, etc?


A very good description of the problem.

None of it, however, poses any problem for an AI solution. Besides there are plenty of Indians, in India, that have solved such problems. Just the solutions are for foreign vendors.

A quick word on civilian vs. military. The challenges are about the same. So, in the Karachi example, anybody who wants to hide will "camouflage". Point being the AI solution will need to solve the problem with *extremely* small quantities of *very poor* quality data.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby Arun.prabhu » 06 Dec 2017 23:11

NRao wrote:
A very good description of the problem.

None of it, however, poses any problem for an AI solution. Besides there are plenty of Indians, in India, that have solved such problems. Just the solutions are for foreign vendors.

A quick word on civilian vs. military. The challenges are about the same. So, in the Karachi example, anybody who wants to hide will "camouflage". Point being the AI solution will need to solve the problem with *extremely* small quantities of *very poor* quality data.


Not necessarily. You are rarely going to drop a bomblet on a target in civilian space. On the battlefield, it is probable your intent is to kill or maim. Killing the wrong enemy is all right. Just money wasted there and only in the sense you have to expend more munition to take out your target. Killing a bystander is also all right. It is war and s*** happens, including death of innocents, contrary to what the hand-wringing bleeding heart Army would have us believe. Killing a friendly is a big no. If your drones do that often enough, soldiers are going to start combat loss them at the drop of a hat.

A civilian target isn’t going to wake up one morning and get his eye punctured, his jaw blown off, his ear shot off, his face peppered by shrapnel, etc just as your drone is shadowing him/her. In combat, any/all of those can happen to the enemy and to our people. Since we want to avoid blue on blue, we would need the drone to be able to discern between friend and foe in the heat of combat or have the drone relegated to duties away from the front line.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby NRao » 07 Dec 2017 01:19

Not necessarily. You are rarely going to drop a bomblet on a target in civilian space. On the battlefield, it is probable your intent is to kill or maim. Killing the wrong enemy is all right. Just money wasted there and only in the sense you have to expend more munition to take out your target. Killing a bystander is also all right. It is war and s*** happens, including death of innocents, contrary to what the hand-wringing bleeding heart Army would have us believe.


Neither is the military. The military system will contact a human.

Killing a friendly is a big no. If your drones do that often enough, soldiers are going to start combat loss them at the drop of a hat.


An AI system , over time,will do a better job of avoiding a friendly kill.



However, the topic was ability to ID. So, the point I was making is that the "code" to ID - either in the civilian or military space - is pretty much the same.

There is a lot more to this topic of ability to ID - situational awareness, predictive analysis, etc - ID is not done by itself. All these help the military situation, for the simple reason the drone has a starting point where it knows where the good guys are.

A civilian target isn’t going to wake up one morning and get his eye punctured, his jaw blown off, his ear shot off, his face peppered by shrapnel, etc just as your drone is shadowing him/her. In combat, any/all of those can happen to the enemy and to our people. Since we want to avoid blue on blue, we would need the drone to be able to discern between friend and foe in the heat of combat or have the drone relegated to duties away from the front line.


A military system would be trained for all such situation. The challenge is to ID. Civilian typically pose a greater challenge.

Anyways, I thnk I am done.

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby Arun.prabhu » 08 Dec 2017 09:51

NRao wrote:
A civilian target isn’t going to wake up one morning and get his eye punctured, his jaw blown off, his ear shot off, his face peppered by shrapnel, etc just as your drone is shadowing him/her. In combat, any/all of those can happen to the enemy and to our people. Since we want to avoid blue on blue, we would need the drone to be able to discern between friend and foe in the heat of combat or have the drone relegated to duties away from the front line.


A military system would be trained for all such situation. The challenge is to ID. Civilian typically pose a greater challenge.

Anyways, I thnk I am done.


You assume perfect intelligence of troop locations - like that's going to happen in war. I'm done as well. We're discussing two entirely different things here. I'm discussing completely autonomous vehicles - the overall drone swarms can be given orders, but the individuals have to have complete autonomy once an order is given because there aren't going to be that many humans to operate them - and you are discussing something else.

prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby prabhug » 08 Dec 2017 12:58

I had few observations

1.what happens if the weather is going to be unmanageable ? like a heavy wind or gust etc.
2.The nearest possibility is like three or four drones escorting the surveillance aircraft to protect it.
3.Multiple drone slaved to a helicopter for a search and rescue.
4.Drones for communication to a group of solidiers

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2018 16:52

Austin wrote:Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
58 mins ·
#SYRIA
Security system of the Russian Khmeimim air base and Russian Naval CSS point in the city of Tartus successfully warded off a terrorist attack with massive application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) through the night of 5th – 6th January, 2018.

As evening fell, the Russia air defence forces detected 13 unidentified small-size air targets at a significant distance approaching the Russian military bases.

Ten assault drones were approaching the Khmeimim air base, and another three – the CSS point in Tartus.

Six small-size air targets were intercepted and taken under control by the Russian EW units. Three of them were landed on the controlled area outside the base, and another three UAVs exploded as they touched the ground.

Seven UAVs were eliminated by the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile complexes operated by the Russian air defence units on 24-hours alert.

The Russian bases did not suffer any casualties or damages.

The Khmeimim air base and Russian Naval CSS point in Tartus are functioning on a scheduled basis.

Currently, the Russian military experts are analyzing the construction, technical filling and improvised explosives of the captured UAVs.

Having decoded the data recorded on the UAVs, the specialists found out the launch site.

It was the first time when terrorists applied a massed drone aircraft attack launched at a range of more than 50 km using modern GPS guidance system

Technical examination of the drones showed that such attacks could have been made by terrorists at a distance of about 100 kilometers.

Engineering decisions applied by terrorists while attacks on the Russian objects in Syria could be received from one of countries with high-technological capabilities of satellite navigation and remote dropping control of professionally assembled improvised explosive devices in assigned coordinates. All drones of terrorists are fitted with pressure transducers and altitude control servo-actuators.

Terrorists’ aircraft-type drones carried explosive devices with foreign detonating fuses.

The Russian specialists are determining supply channels, through which terrorists had received the technologies and devices, as well as examining type and origin of explosive compounds used in the IEDs.


The fact of usage of strike aircraft-type drones by terrorists is the evidence that militants have received technologies to carry out terrorist attacks using such UAVs in any country.
https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/po ... 8563787556

Image
Image
Image

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13064
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby UlanBatori » 11 Jan 2018 17:44

FYI, those things can be built by anyone anywhere. The wings are styrofoam cut with heated wire, maybe with plastic sheet heat-shrunk over the foam. The bums look like they are weighted to land nose first, with a compression thingy at the nose to explode on impact. Gen. Vodkov speaks of altimeters, but, well... enuf said on that. Same with guidance, no more complicated than putting one of Brarji's 1000 cellphones on it at the extreme, and probably a lot simpler if you have an AWACS etc where someone sits with radio controls. The props look like just bent sheets of metal even before they hit the ground. The tailplanes are not even airfoils, they are just thin plates of styrofoam maybe with some reinforcement. Motor is likely no more than an electric bicycle motor or maybe a moped's or even weaker. Point is, such things can be built in the thousands if u have cheap labor, and each one costs a heck of a lot less than the rocket-ramjet missile needed to intercept it. Advantage attacker.

With more sophistication they may be designed to glide+dive rather than be powered for final approach, so that acoustic detection won't work.

Rampy
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 25 Mar 2003 12:31
Contact:

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby Rampy » 11 Jan 2018 20:29

Has anyone seen this, if posted already sorry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFz4qjBglmw



NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Drone swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby NRao » 11 Jan 2018 22:27


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Drone Swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2018 06:04

Drone Swarms: A New Challenge For Air Defence Part-I
http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2018/ ... ce-part-i/

By Colonel Mandeep Singh

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Drone Swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby shiv » 30 Jan 2018 07:51

:D Some aheadofcurvedness here?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Drone Swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby brar_w » 19 Feb 2018 00:15

shiv wrote:Several questions stem from this.

What use would such a weapon be? If the launch has to be from an aircraft - it needs to come 30 km from target. If a UAV launches it - the UAV needs a payload capacity to carry a cylinder (or several smaller cylinders" the size of large bombs - so a large UAV.


The vehicle/carrier was not created without a mission in mind. The experiments and the vehicle was created very specifically to support specific ISR needs and it is in this area that it has now evolved over its 5 iterations (its on its 6th one at the moment). In addition to collective, distributed ISR, the system is also a test vehicle for greater incorporation of autonomy and collective decision making and machine learning. That is something that scales depending upon the target vehicle which could be as small as the Perdix, or significantly larger in order to support related or unrelated missions. At a very large scale, a four ship (or more) of F-35 autonomously sharing active and passive sensor data and developing cooperative targeting strategies is an application of this on a much larger scale. It is akin to virtual C2.

NRao posted a video of the F-18's launching the Perdix in support of the SCO experiments and validation flights. In support of a US Navy experiment the SCO used these F-18's to launch 103 Perdix systems, tasked with searching for terrorists in a roadside mock village. The collective swarm, developed autonomous routing and converged to begin searching all roads, all the while updating the "swarm" of each vehicle's progress. I believe there was even communication with a ground based AI based terminal that helped them search for terrorists using facial recognition. The objectives was to demonstrate autonomy, the ability of the swarm to self heal and collective decision making. In addition this experiment conducted in 2016, Perdix has also been used in the Maritime ISR mission during large force exercises off of Alaska. Again, it is a type of swarming drone and supports a type of mission. It isn't a solution for a kinetic weapon requiring mission but specific to ISR.

And it isn't that scaling is not on the mind of those prototyping, experimenting and looking to rapidly operationalize these systems. While the sub-300 gram Perdix experiment was being conducted by the SCO, the US Navy was also involved in (2016 and 2017) another very similar swarming experiment using the P-3 Orion, and a much larger swarming drone in the 12-14 lb. class. with (now) a 2-hour endurance and the capability of being launched at 30,000 ft. Using the Raytheon developed Coyote drone, the US Navy was able to launch from the sonobuoy chute of the P-3. In a separate experiment 30 Coyote's were launched in 40 seconds from a Ground based mobile launcher in Yuma Arizona. The Coyote at under 14 pounds has a communication range of 50 nautical miles.

If one were simply only interested in the kinetic nature of these weapons for the various missions one may need them for, then there are umpteen such applications of the technology that enables these swarm tactics. There are many miniature munitions in advanced development and there are quite a few recoverable, and non-recoverable small drones/cruise missiles in the works that could carry these as sub-munitions and could deploy them utilizing swarming and autonomy as a concept.

AI and related concepts that enable swarming are applicable to virtually all missions that require more than one systems to complete. From putting multiple, potentially dozens, munitions on a target (such as an air-field or a SAM site) to Ballistic Missile Defense (MOKV) to ISR and ASW..The Predix, as small as it might be is only an answer to one very specific need as defined by the operators who funded its development.
Last edited by brar_w on 19 Feb 2018 19:15, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Drone Swarms: Enthusiastic pros and cynical cons

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2018 03:07

"Emergence" is the latest(?) area of interest in "swarm"s. Where individuals are rather dumb, but collectively they have immense intelligence, with some capacity to learn.

Envisioned, currently, to be implemented on the ground and perhaps in the ocean.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: isubodh and 121 guests