Monday, February 15, 2010
ROTC Notes
THE RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORE (ROTC)
ROTC History
The Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) is a college-based, officer commissioning program, predominantly in the United States. It is designed as a college elective that focuses on leadership development, problem solving, strategic planning, and professional ethics.
The U.S. Armed Forces and a number of other national militaries, particularly those countries with strong historical ties to the United States, have ROTC programs (Philippines, Rep of Korea, Rep of China).
ROTC produces officers in all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces except the U.S. Coast Guard.
ROTC graduates constitute 56 percent of U.S. Army, 11 percent of U.S. Marine Corps, 20 percent of U.S. Navy, and 41 percent of U.S. Air Force officers, for a combined 39 percent of all active duty officers in the Department of Defense.
With the exception of the U.S. Coast Guard, each of the U.S. Armed Forces offer competitive, merit-based scholarships to ROTC students, often covering full tuition for college.
· U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force ROTC students are referred to as cadets, while U.S. Naval ROTC students are known as midshipmen; these terms coincide with their service academy counterparts.
· The Naval ROTC program commissions both U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps officers.
· The U.S. Coast Guard sponsors only a JROTC program.
· Army ROTC units are organized as brigades, battalions, and companies.
· Air Force ROTC units are detachments with the students organized into wings, groups, squadrons, and flights, like the active Air Force.
· Naval ROTC units are organized into Naval battalions.
· If the Marine students are integrated with the Navy students, there are companies; but having the Navy students in departments and divisions like a ship, and the Marines in a separate company is only done when an ROTC unit has sufficient members to warrant an extra division.
The concept of ROTC in the United States began with the Morrill Act of 1862 which established the land-grant colleges. Part of the federal government's requirement for these schools was that they include military tactics as part of their curriculum, forming what became known as ROTC.
The college from which ROTC originated is Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont. Norwich was founded in 1819 at Norwich, Vermont, as the American Literary, Scientific and Military Academy.
Until the 1960s, many major universities required compulsory ROTC for all of their male students. However, because of the protests that culminated in the opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, compulsory ROTC was dropped in favor of voluntary programs. In some places ROTC was expelled from campus altogether, although it was always possible to participate in off-campus ROTC.
In recent years, concerted efforts are being made at some Ivy League universities that have previously banned ROTC, including Harvard and Columbia, to return ROTC to campus.
In the 21st century, the debate often focuses around the Congressional don't ask, don't tell law, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, which forbids homosexuals serving in the United States military from disclosing their sexual orientation at the risk of expulsion. Some schools believe this legal mandate would require them to waive or amend their non-discrimination policies. The Supreme Court ruled in March 2006 that they are entitled to hold this opinion, but at the expense of federal funding (see Solomon Amendment).
Under current law, there are three types of ROTC programs administered, each with a different element.
* The first are the programs at the six senior military colleges, also known as military schools. These institutions grant baccalaureate degrees (at a minimum) and organize all or some of their students into a corps of cadets under some sort of military discipline. Those participating in the cadet program must attend at least 2 years of ROTC education.
* The second are programs at "civilian colleges." As defined under Army regulations, these are schools that grant baccalaureate or graduate degrees and are not operated on a military basis.
* The third category is programs at military junior colleges (MJC). These are military schools that provide junior college education (typically A.S. or A.A. degree). These schools do not grant baccalaureate degrees but meet all other requirements of military colleges (if participating in the Early Commissioning Program), and cadets are required to meet the same military standards as other schools (if enrolled in ECP), as set by Army Cadet Command. Cadets can be commissioned as second lieutenants in the Army Reserve/Army National Guard as graduating sophomores. Upon commissioning, these lieutenants are required to complete their bachelors degree at another institution (of the lieutenant's choosing) while serving in their units. Upon receiving their bachelors, ECP lieutenants can assess active duty and go onto active duty as a first lieutenant. Only the Army currently offers an Early Commissioning Program. In time of war, MJC's have played a significant role in producing officers for the Army. During the Vietnam War, the requirement to complete one's bachelor degree was not in effect. Therefore, upon commissioning, LT's went straight onto active duty.
One difference between civilian colleges and the senior or junior military colleges is enrollment option in ROTC. ROTC is voluntary for students attending civilian colleges and universities; however, with few exceptions (as outlined in both Army regulations and federal law), it is required of students attending the senior and junior military colleges. Another major difference between the senior military colleges and civilian colleges is that under federal law, graduates of the SMCs are guaranteed active duty assignments if requested.
The Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (AROTC) program is the largest branch of ROTC, as the Army is the largest branch of the military.
The Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps (NROTC) program was founded in 1926; in 1932, the U.S. Marine Corps joined the program.
The first Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps (then Air ROTC) units were established between 1920 and 1923 at the University of California at Berkeley, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of Illinois, the University of Washington, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Texas A&M University. After World War II, General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower established Air Force ROTC units at 77 colleges and universities throughout the United States. As of fall 2008, Baylor University in Waco, TX is currently the #1 AFROTC Large Detachment in the entire nation, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the #1 AFROTC Small Detachment in the entire nation.
There are no current ROTC programs sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard, but there is a Direct Commissioning program for graduates of maritime academies. The Direct Commission Maritime Academy Graduate Program is available to individuals who hold a degree from a qualifying state or federal Maritime Academy and hold a Third Mate or Third Assistant Engineer license, or a degree major in Marine Environmental Protection or a related field. Maritime Academy Graduates have education and training that enhances the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its operational missions. Individuals selected will serve as a Coast Guard Reserve Officer on full-time active duty. In addition, there is only one JROTC program that is sponsored by the Coast Guard. The Mako Battalion is based in the Maritime and Science Technology (MAST) Academy High school in Miami Florida.
ROTC Glossary
Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC)
General Military Course to the Professional Officer Course (POC)
PFT (Physical Fitness Test)
AFOQT (Air Force Officer Qualifying Test)
AS100 and AS200 classes
EFMP (Exceptional Family Member Programme)
Air Force Aid Society
ROTC Programs
Arizona State University (Tempe)
Chandler – Gilbert Community College (Chandler)
Chapman University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
Coconino Community College (Flagstaff)
Devry Institute of Technology GMC (Phoenix)
Emobry – Riddle Aeronautical University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
Embry – Riddle Aeronautical University (Luke AFB)
Embry – Riddle Aeronautical University (Prescott)
Estrella Mountain Community College (Avondale)
Gateway Community College (Phoenix)
Glendale Community College aka GMC (Glendale)
Grand Canyon University (Phoenix)
Maricopa Community School District (Tempe)
Mesa Community College GMC – Mesa
Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff)
Paradise Valley Community College GMC – Phoenix
Park University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
Park University (Luke AFB)
Phoenix College GMC (Phoenix)
Pima Community College (Tucson)
Rio Salado Community College (Tempe)
Scottsdale Community College GMC (Scottsdale)
South Mountain Community College GMC (Phoenix)
Southwestern College (Phoenix)
Troy University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
University of Arizona (Tucson)
University of Phoenix (Phoenix)
Wayland Baptist University (Luke AFB)
Webster University (Luke AFB)
Yavapai Community College GMC (Prescott)
Medical Requirements
Most scheduled to take the medical exam at the nearest military base.
If medically disqualified, a waiver request will automatically be forwarded from DODMERB to AETC/SG for consideration.
General Qualifications:
Pilot ~
Normal color vision
Distant vision (uncorrected 20/70, but corrected to 20/20)
Near vision (uncorrected 20/30, but corrected to 20/20)
Meet refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements
Corrective eye surgery could be a disqualifier
Have no history of hay fever, asthma or allergies after 12
Meet Air Force weight and physical conditioning requirements
Have standing height of 64 to 77 inches and sitting height of 34 to 40 inches
Combat Systems Officer ~
Same except for –
Distant vision (uncorrected 20/200, but corrected to 20/20)
Near vision (uncorrected 20/40, but corrected to 20/20)
Scholarship recipients must also meet requirements specific to the scholarship that they are applying for.
General Military Course Requirements
Enrolled in an accredited college that hosts or has a cross-town agreement with an Air Force ROTC detachment.
United States citizen (if on scholarship)
In good physical condition
Of good moral character
Age 14 years or older – 17 years old to receive a scholarship
Attend both the Aerospace Studies class and Leadership Lab each semester
Following may preclude you from Air Force ROTC membership, but will not keep you from enrolling in an Aerospace Studies class:
Conscientious objectors
Present or former commissioned officers of the Armed Forces
Officers of the Health Services and Mental Health Administration and members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Asthma sufferes
Ritalin prescriptions; diagnosed ADD/ADHD at any point in their life
Individuals on active duty with any military service (Reserve or National Guard)
Nonimmigrant students from nations not approved by Dept of State
Students who do not or cannot meet required standards of weight, appearance, decorum, discipline and military performance.
Individuals who have dropped out of a previous officer training program (Officer Training School, United States Air Force Academy, etc), but this may be waived.
Professional Officer Course Requirements
POC is offered to juniors and seniors who have already committed to a four-year post-graduation service commitment with the Air Force.
Meet all GMC requirements, be a United States citizen, be of legal age according to State or 17 with a guardian/parent signature, be in good academic standing, participate in Aerospace Studies classes and Leadership Lab each semester, be physically qualified, pass the PFT, pass the AFOQT, be selected by a board of Air Force officers, Complete a field-training course.
Age requirements:
Rated (pilot or combat systems officer) – commissioned before reaching the age of 29
Scholarship applications – be less than 31 years old as of December 31st of the year you will commission
Tech, non-tech and non-rated – commissioned by age 30 (waiverable up to age 35)
If single with a dependent or married to a military member with dependent, a dependent care plan must be completed. A dependent is defined as anyone incapable of self-care: child, parent, etc.
Officers ~
You don’t have to live on base and are not restricted to base.
Take advantage of sports facilities, recreational facilities, intramural sports opportunities and golf courses on Air Force bases around the world.
Medicare, life insurance, competitive pay
Social life: Officers’ clubs, swimming, golfing, bowling, tennis and more.
Education: opportunity for higher education with tuition assistance or full scholarship
Retirement: opportunity to retire after 20 years with 50% of your base pay
Promotions: make first lieutenant after 2 years – make captain after 4 years
Shopping: save as much as 25% in on-base stores
Living quarters: on-base housing available or off-base housing allowance paid
Possible eligibility for Veterans’ Administration Home Loans
Emergency leave with priority on military aircraft
ROTC History
The Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) is a college-based, officer commissioning program, predominantly in the United States. It is designed as a college elective that focuses on leadership development, problem solving, strategic planning, and professional ethics.
The U.S. Armed Forces and a number of other national militaries, particularly those countries with strong historical ties to the United States, have ROTC programs (Philippines, Rep of Korea, Rep of China).
ROTC produces officers in all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces except the U.S. Coast Guard.
ROTC graduates constitute 56 percent of U.S. Army, 11 percent of U.S. Marine Corps, 20 percent of U.S. Navy, and 41 percent of U.S. Air Force officers, for a combined 39 percent of all active duty officers in the Department of Defense.
With the exception of the U.S. Coast Guard, each of the U.S. Armed Forces offer competitive, merit-based scholarships to ROTC students, often covering full tuition for college.
· U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force ROTC students are referred to as cadets, while U.S. Naval ROTC students are known as midshipmen; these terms coincide with their service academy counterparts.
· The Naval ROTC program commissions both U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps officers.
· The U.S. Coast Guard sponsors only a JROTC program.
· Army ROTC units are organized as brigades, battalions, and companies.
· Air Force ROTC units are detachments with the students organized into wings, groups, squadrons, and flights, like the active Air Force.
· Naval ROTC units are organized into Naval battalions.
· If the Marine students are integrated with the Navy students, there are companies; but having the Navy students in departments and divisions like a ship, and the Marines in a separate company is only done when an ROTC unit has sufficient members to warrant an extra division.
The concept of ROTC in the United States began with the Morrill Act of 1862 which established the land-grant colleges. Part of the federal government's requirement for these schools was that they include military tactics as part of their curriculum, forming what became known as ROTC.
The college from which ROTC originated is Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont. Norwich was founded in 1819 at Norwich, Vermont, as the American Literary, Scientific and Military Academy.
Until the 1960s, many major universities required compulsory ROTC for all of their male students. However, because of the protests that culminated in the opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, compulsory ROTC was dropped in favor of voluntary programs. In some places ROTC was expelled from campus altogether, although it was always possible to participate in off-campus ROTC.
In recent years, concerted efforts are being made at some Ivy League universities that have previously banned ROTC, including Harvard and Columbia, to return ROTC to campus.
In the 21st century, the debate often focuses around the Congressional don't ask, don't tell law, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, which forbids homosexuals serving in the United States military from disclosing their sexual orientation at the risk of expulsion. Some schools believe this legal mandate would require them to waive or amend their non-discrimination policies. The Supreme Court ruled in March 2006 that they are entitled to hold this opinion, but at the expense of federal funding (see Solomon Amendment).
Under current law, there are three types of ROTC programs administered, each with a different element.
* The first are the programs at the six senior military colleges, also known as military schools. These institutions grant baccalaureate degrees (at a minimum) and organize all or some of their students into a corps of cadets under some sort of military discipline. Those participating in the cadet program must attend at least 2 years of ROTC education.
* The second are programs at "civilian colleges." As defined under Army regulations, these are schools that grant baccalaureate or graduate degrees and are not operated on a military basis.
* The third category is programs at military junior colleges (MJC). These are military schools that provide junior college education (typically A.S. or A.A. degree). These schools do not grant baccalaureate degrees but meet all other requirements of military colleges (if participating in the Early Commissioning Program), and cadets are required to meet the same military standards as other schools (if enrolled in ECP), as set by Army Cadet Command. Cadets can be commissioned as second lieutenants in the Army Reserve/Army National Guard as graduating sophomores. Upon commissioning, these lieutenants are required to complete their bachelors degree at another institution (of the lieutenant's choosing) while serving in their units. Upon receiving their bachelors, ECP lieutenants can assess active duty and go onto active duty as a first lieutenant. Only the Army currently offers an Early Commissioning Program. In time of war, MJC's have played a significant role in producing officers for the Army. During the Vietnam War, the requirement to complete one's bachelor degree was not in effect. Therefore, upon commissioning, LT's went straight onto active duty.
One difference between civilian colleges and the senior or junior military colleges is enrollment option in ROTC. ROTC is voluntary for students attending civilian colleges and universities; however, with few exceptions (as outlined in both Army regulations and federal law), it is required of students attending the senior and junior military colleges. Another major difference between the senior military colleges and civilian colleges is that under federal law, graduates of the SMCs are guaranteed active duty assignments if requested.
The Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (AROTC) program is the largest branch of ROTC, as the Army is the largest branch of the military.
The Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps (NROTC) program was founded in 1926; in 1932, the U.S. Marine Corps joined the program.
The first Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps (then Air ROTC) units were established between 1920 and 1923 at the University of California at Berkeley, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of Illinois, the University of Washington, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Texas A&M University. After World War II, General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower established Air Force ROTC units at 77 colleges and universities throughout the United States. As of fall 2008, Baylor University in Waco, TX is currently the #1 AFROTC Large Detachment in the entire nation, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the #1 AFROTC Small Detachment in the entire nation.
There are no current ROTC programs sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard, but there is a Direct Commissioning program for graduates of maritime academies. The Direct Commission Maritime Academy Graduate Program is available to individuals who hold a degree from a qualifying state or federal Maritime Academy and hold a Third Mate or Third Assistant Engineer license, or a degree major in Marine Environmental Protection or a related field. Maritime Academy Graduates have education and training that enhances the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its operational missions. Individuals selected will serve as a Coast Guard Reserve Officer on full-time active duty. In addition, there is only one JROTC program that is sponsored by the Coast Guard. The Mako Battalion is based in the Maritime and Science Technology (MAST) Academy High school in Miami Florida.
ROTC Glossary
Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC)
General Military Course to the Professional Officer Course (POC)
PFT (Physical Fitness Test)
AFOQT (Air Force Officer Qualifying Test)
AS100 and AS200 classes
EFMP (Exceptional Family Member Programme)
Air Force Aid Society
ROTC Programs
Arizona State University (Tempe)
Chandler – Gilbert Community College (Chandler)
Chapman University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
Coconino Community College (Flagstaff)
Devry Institute of Technology GMC (Phoenix)
Emobry – Riddle Aeronautical University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
Embry – Riddle Aeronautical University (Luke AFB)
Embry – Riddle Aeronautical University (Prescott)
Estrella Mountain Community College (Avondale)
Gateway Community College (Phoenix)
Glendale Community College aka GMC (Glendale)
Grand Canyon University (Phoenix)
Maricopa Community School District (Tempe)
Mesa Community College GMC – Mesa
Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff)
Paradise Valley Community College GMC – Phoenix
Park University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
Park University (Luke AFB)
Phoenix College GMC (Phoenix)
Pima Community College (Tucson)
Rio Salado Community College (Tempe)
Scottsdale Community College GMC (Scottsdale)
South Mountain Community College GMC (Phoenix)
Southwestern College (Phoenix)
Troy University (Davis-Monthan AFB)
University of Arizona (Tucson)
University of Phoenix (Phoenix)
Wayland Baptist University (Luke AFB)
Webster University (Luke AFB)
Yavapai Community College GMC (Prescott)
Medical Requirements
Most scheduled to take the medical exam at the nearest military base.
If medically disqualified, a waiver request will automatically be forwarded from DODMERB to AETC/SG for consideration.
General Qualifications:
Pilot ~
Normal color vision
Distant vision (uncorrected 20/70, but corrected to 20/20)
Near vision (uncorrected 20/30, but corrected to 20/20)
Meet refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements
Corrective eye surgery could be a disqualifier
Have no history of hay fever, asthma or allergies after 12
Meet Air Force weight and physical conditioning requirements
Have standing height of 64 to 77 inches and sitting height of 34 to 40 inches
Combat Systems Officer ~
Same except for –
Distant vision (uncorrected 20/200, but corrected to 20/20)
Near vision (uncorrected 20/40, but corrected to 20/20)
Scholarship recipients must also meet requirements specific to the scholarship that they are applying for.
General Military Course Requirements
Enrolled in an accredited college that hosts or has a cross-town agreement with an Air Force ROTC detachment.
United States citizen (if on scholarship)
In good physical condition
Of good moral character
Age 14 years or older – 17 years old to receive a scholarship
Attend both the Aerospace Studies class and Leadership Lab each semester
Following may preclude you from Air Force ROTC membership, but will not keep you from enrolling in an Aerospace Studies class:
Conscientious objectors
Present or former commissioned officers of the Armed Forces
Officers of the Health Services and Mental Health Administration and members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Asthma sufferes
Ritalin prescriptions; diagnosed ADD/ADHD at any point in their life
Individuals on active duty with any military service (Reserve or National Guard)
Nonimmigrant students from nations not approved by Dept of State
Students who do not or cannot meet required standards of weight, appearance, decorum, discipline and military performance.
Individuals who have dropped out of a previous officer training program (Officer Training School, United States Air Force Academy, etc), but this may be waived.
Professional Officer Course Requirements
POC is offered to juniors and seniors who have already committed to a four-year post-graduation service commitment with the Air Force.
Meet all GMC requirements, be a United States citizen, be of legal age according to State or 17 with a guardian/parent signature, be in good academic standing, participate in Aerospace Studies classes and Leadership Lab each semester, be physically qualified, pass the PFT, pass the AFOQT, be selected by a board of Air Force officers, Complete a field-training course.
Age requirements:
Rated (pilot or combat systems officer) – commissioned before reaching the age of 29
Scholarship applications – be less than 31 years old as of December 31st of the year you will commission
Tech, non-tech and non-rated – commissioned by age 30 (waiverable up to age 35)
If single with a dependent or married to a military member with dependent, a dependent care plan must be completed. A dependent is defined as anyone incapable of self-care: child, parent, etc.
Officers ~
You don’t have to live on base and are not restricted to base.
Take advantage of sports facilities, recreational facilities, intramural sports opportunities and golf courses on Air Force bases around the world.
Medicare, life insurance, competitive pay
Social life: Officers’ clubs, swimming, golfing, bowling, tennis and more.
Education: opportunity for higher education with tuition assistance or full scholarship
Retirement: opportunity to retire after 20 years with 50% of your base pay
Promotions: make first lieutenant after 2 years – make captain after 4 years
Shopping: save as much as 25% in on-base stores
Living quarters: on-base housing available or off-base housing allowance paid
Possible eligibility for Veterans’ Administration Home Loans
Emergency leave with priority on military aircraft
Glossary
DRONE
1. A remote control mechanism, as a radio-controlled airplane or boat.
UAV
1. Unmanned aerial vehicle
2. Unmanned aerospace vehicle
ROBOT
1. A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.
2. a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another's will; automaton.
3. any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill.
1. A remote control mechanism, as a radio-controlled airplane or boat.
UAV
1. Unmanned aerial vehicle
2. Unmanned aerospace vehicle
ROBOT
1. A machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.
2. a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another's will; automaton.
3. any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill.
Drone Swarm for Maximum Harm
Drone Swarm for Maximum Harm
(There's a section on the impact of cheap, numerous unmanned aircraft in my book Weapons Grade, now in paperback. Here's one man's vision of what they could mean.) The awesome future of air power is just around the corner – but the Air Force doesn't want it. That’s the word from Gregory Jenkins of the USAF’s Air Armament Center, self-styled 'heretic' and architect of a concept he calls Just In Time Strike Augmentation (JITSA). There are many fleeting targets on the modern battlefield that appear briefly and are gone. Think Saddam Hussein’s entourage slipping from one hideout to the next, or a Transporter-Erector-Launcher moving into firing position, or a pickup full of insurgents fleeing after staging a mortar attack. An air strike that takes five minutes to arrive is useless in these situations. Jenkins’ vision is a networked battlespace with unmanned aircraft maintaining continuous surveillance over a wide area. At the cutting edge is Boeing’s Air Dominator, a 100 lb drone with a 12-foot span which looks like a model aircraft. I interviewed the people involved in the Dominator program two years ago here. Although Boeing say they have nothing new to report, there have been enhancements since then. A special lightweight fuel cell could bring its endurance to over 40 hours, and there’s a sophisticated new vision system for mid-air refueling to increase endurance even further. Each Dominator will carry out up to three attacks using munitions similar to but more versatile than the BLU-108 Skeet . (Some sources claim this has been increased to eight submunitions; Boeing say it’s still three). Above all it will be cheap, so unlike the solitary MQ-1 Predator drones, Dominator will be used in packs, with a large number of hunter-killers accompanied by a few 'gateway' vehicles providing networked communications and refuelling. Each craft folds away into a pod just eight inches square and four feet long for transport and launch. The plan calls for two dozen or so were to be delivered by an F/A-22 Raptor jet at high speed, but Jenkins is thinking much bigger. You don’t need a stealthy, high-performance aircraft to deliver something that can travel hundreds of miles on its own. In the JITSA scheme Dominators would be packed in pallets of twenty on a C-17 transport plane, with thirty pallets in all – that’s a total of six hundred drones. A loadmaster would handle the individual release of as many as needed. It’s something akin to a British FOAS concept of replacing bombers with a transport plane packed with palletized cruise missiles. Once in position, the swarm would maintain air dominance over a wide area, providing both of continuous surveillance and instant reaction. Jenkins estimates that any target in the kill zone could be hit within 2-4 minutes maximum. None of those fleeting targets would escape. Against a conventional force, Jenkins calls the JITSA system a ‘back breaker’, destroying armor, artillery and air defences on a massive scale, not to mention taking out air forces on the ground. Dominators can also tackle targets that would normally take much larger munitions by being smarter. You might need a 2000 lb laser guided bomb to destroy a bridge, but a few Dominators can simply destroy vehicles attempting to use it. The bridge is denied to the enemy just as well, and you don’t have to rebuild afterwards. The system can also neutralize deep bunkers which are invulnerable to the heaviest bombs. Missiles or stores of WMD are not going to harm anyone if they are stuck underground with a swarm of Dominators overhead 24/7, ready to attack anything the minute it emerges. Underground command centres become prisons. The kill decision will always be delegated to a human operator using a mobile control set, so in the example above the bridge could be selectively closed to military vehicles. JITSA is much bigger than I’ve described here – Jenkins has detailed a true net-centric concept, with additional tiers and other aircraft types providing extra capabilities. It doesn’t even have to be based on Dominators, any networked loitering UAV would do. The Air Force is going head with Dominator, but not in the swarms Jenkins would like to see. So why is JITSA “not a USAF-endorsed concept at this time,” with no funds allocated? In a world of multi-billion dollar programs, it offers outstanding capability for a modest outlay and minimal development. Perhaps a system based on something that looks like a toy and has no requirement for manned combat aircraft is not too popular with the blue suits. Or perhaps the idea of pilots demoted to delivery-truck drivers does not fit their vision. So JITSA is still on the shelf. But even if the US does not buy into the concept, that doesn’t mean nobody else will. And what might happen then would be anybody’s guess. Thanks to SSgt. Ryan Hansen, AAC Public Affairs and Marguerite Ozburn at Boeing for their help.
(There's a section on the impact of cheap, numerous unmanned aircraft in my book Weapons Grade, now in paperback. Here's one man's vision of what they could mean.) The awesome future of air power is just around the corner – but the Air Force doesn't want it. That’s the word from Gregory Jenkins of the USAF’s Air Armament Center, self-styled 'heretic' and architect of a concept he calls Just In Time Strike Augmentation (JITSA). There are many fleeting targets on the modern battlefield that appear briefly and are gone. Think Saddam Hussein’s entourage slipping from one hideout to the next, or a Transporter-Erector-Launcher moving into firing position, or a pickup full of insurgents fleeing after staging a mortar attack. An air strike that takes five minutes to arrive is useless in these situations. Jenkins’ vision is a networked battlespace with unmanned aircraft maintaining continuous surveillance over a wide area. At the cutting edge is Boeing’s Air Dominator, a 100 lb drone with a 12-foot span which looks like a model aircraft. I interviewed the people involved in the Dominator program two years ago here. Although Boeing say they have nothing new to report, there have been enhancements since then. A special lightweight fuel cell could bring its endurance to over 40 hours, and there’s a sophisticated new vision system for mid-air refueling to increase endurance even further. Each Dominator will carry out up to three attacks using munitions similar to but more versatile than the BLU-108 Skeet . (Some sources claim this has been increased to eight submunitions; Boeing say it’s still three). Above all it will be cheap, so unlike the solitary MQ-1 Predator drones, Dominator will be used in packs, with a large number of hunter-killers accompanied by a few 'gateway' vehicles providing networked communications and refuelling. Each craft folds away into a pod just eight inches square and four feet long for transport and launch. The plan calls for two dozen or so were to be delivered by an F/A-22 Raptor jet at high speed, but Jenkins is thinking much bigger. You don’t need a stealthy, high-performance aircraft to deliver something that can travel hundreds of miles on its own. In the JITSA scheme Dominators would be packed in pallets of twenty on a C-17 transport plane, with thirty pallets in all – that’s a total of six hundred drones. A loadmaster would handle the individual release of as many as needed. It’s something akin to a British FOAS concept of replacing bombers with a transport plane packed with palletized cruise missiles. Once in position, the swarm would maintain air dominance over a wide area, providing both of continuous surveillance and instant reaction. Jenkins estimates that any target in the kill zone could be hit within 2-4 minutes maximum. None of those fleeting targets would escape. Against a conventional force, Jenkins calls the JITSA system a ‘back breaker’, destroying armor, artillery and air defences on a massive scale, not to mention taking out air forces on the ground. Dominators can also tackle targets that would normally take much larger munitions by being smarter. You might need a 2000 lb laser guided bomb to destroy a bridge, but a few Dominators can simply destroy vehicles attempting to use it. The bridge is denied to the enemy just as well, and you don’t have to rebuild afterwards. The system can also neutralize deep bunkers which are invulnerable to the heaviest bombs. Missiles or stores of WMD are not going to harm anyone if they are stuck underground with a swarm of Dominators overhead 24/7, ready to attack anything the minute it emerges. Underground command centres become prisons. The kill decision will always be delegated to a human operator using a mobile control set, so in the example above the bridge could be selectively closed to military vehicles. JITSA is much bigger than I’ve described here – Jenkins has detailed a true net-centric concept, with additional tiers and other aircraft types providing extra capabilities. It doesn’t even have to be based on Dominators, any networked loitering UAV would do. The Air Force is going head with Dominator, but not in the swarms Jenkins would like to see. So why is JITSA “not a USAF-endorsed concept at this time,” with no funds allocated? In a world of multi-billion dollar programs, it offers outstanding capability for a modest outlay and minimal development. Perhaps a system based on something that looks like a toy and has no requirement for manned combat aircraft is not too popular with the blue suits. Or perhaps the idea of pilots demoted to delivery-truck drivers does not fit their vision. So JITSA is still on the shelf. But even if the US does not buy into the concept, that doesn’t mean nobody else will. And what might happen then would be anybody’s guess. Thanks to SSgt. Ryan Hansen, AAC Public Affairs and Marguerite Ozburn at Boeing for their help.
Mr. Roboto's Orbiting Dojo
Mr. Roboto's Orbiting Dojo
Most of Defense Tech's new crop of bloggers are loaded with security or technical experience: former platoon leaders, missile defense engineers, homeland defense analysts, insider magazine editors. Steven Snell, on the hand hand, is just your average, garden-variety maniac. But I'm loving this Brit's snarky wit. And I'm hoping this is the first of many posts for the site. Not since the Beastie Boys Intergalactic video have I been this excited about robots fighting. Defense Tech has detailed the Pentagon's numerous efforts to deal with a possible rumble in space before. As you may have guessed, they've been trying to cram everything from exotic micro-satellites to combat-ready marines into orbit. But even the blue-sky research brains at DARPA are behind the times when it comes to the coolest thing since naked Counter-Strike. New Scientist's tech blog reports: A mini-satellite carrying several small humanoid robots will (hopefully) be launched into space in October 2010. Once safely in orbit, the satellite will release its robotic passengers, who will proceed to fight each other in the vacuum of space. That's what organizers of ROBO-ONE, the annual Japanese robot fighting tournament hope to see in just a few years. The official ROBO-ONE site (translated) describes the competition as a "grapple athletic meet by the two-legged robot". In short, its not your usual arena match with competitive dad wrenching the controls from his teary-eyed child mid-battle. Is any of this actually possible? And will it be before my robot learns his own moves ? Frankly, maybe. Let's face it, robots fighting in space is pretty Rumsfeld . And if you combine the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency's recent achievements and the popularity of home made robot kits in Tokyo, we could be watching a very good scrap.
Most of Defense Tech's new crop of bloggers are loaded with security or technical experience: former platoon leaders, missile defense engineers, homeland defense analysts, insider magazine editors. Steven Snell, on the hand hand, is just your average, garden-variety maniac. But I'm loving this Brit's snarky wit. And I'm hoping this is the first of many posts for the site. Not since the Beastie Boys Intergalactic video have I been this excited about robots fighting. Defense Tech has detailed the Pentagon's numerous efforts to deal with a possible rumble in space before. As you may have guessed, they've been trying to cram everything from exotic micro-satellites to combat-ready marines into orbit. But even the blue-sky research brains at DARPA are behind the times when it comes to the coolest thing since naked Counter-Strike. New Scientist's tech blog reports: A mini-satellite carrying several small humanoid robots will (hopefully) be launched into space in October 2010. Once safely in orbit, the satellite will release its robotic passengers, who will proceed to fight each other in the vacuum of space. That's what organizers of ROBO-ONE, the annual Japanese robot fighting tournament hope to see in just a few years. The official ROBO-ONE site (translated) describes the competition as a "grapple athletic meet by the two-legged robot". In short, its not your usual arena match with competitive dad wrenching the controls from his teary-eyed child mid-battle. Is any of this actually possible? And will it be before my robot learns his own moves ? Frankly, maybe. Let's face it, robots fighting in space is pretty Rumsfeld . And if you combine the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency's recent achievements and the popularity of home made robot kits in Tokyo, we could be watching a very good scrap.
Predator Educates Global Hawk
Predator Educates Global Hawk
Every Army battalion commander, Air Force targeting cell and special operations team in Iraq wants access to a Predator drone at all times. The demand for these versatile little birds has skyrocketed in recent years. To meet the demand, General Atomics is rolling Predators off the production line as fast as it can. But there's a mismatch on the Air Force side of things. The Predator squadrons have suffered chronic manpower shortages, meaning they've got the birds, but no one to fly them. It's a matter of planning. The Air Force didn't foresee just how popular Predator would be, so it didn't lay the groundwork for a rapid expansion of Predator infrastructure. Now the service is playing catch-up, struggling to meet warfighter's requirements for on-station Predators while training up new operators and forming new squadrons to fly factory-fresh aircraft. It's a huge mess. "I learned a lot from Predator and what they were doing," says Col. Christopher Jella, commander of the new 18th Reconnaissance Squadron at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. This year the 18th became that second operational squadron to fly the Global Hawk, Predator's high-altitude, long-endurance, unarmed cousin. According to Jella, the Global Hawk community has had none of the Predator's problems. The two Global Hawk squadrons are, if anything, over-staffed. "We've gotten ahead of the wavefront." It helps that the Global Hawk community has fewer aircraft and needs fewer operators. Still, Jella explains, proper planning is vital when you're standing up any new system: "We said several years ago, this system is coming, it's got a lot of steam behind it. I can see where the production line drops airplanes. I said we need to get ahead of this. So I started hiring folks two years ago and bringing them here." Predator and Global Hawk promise to greatly improve the U.S. military's ability to get intel into the right hands at the right time -- but only if the Air Force can keep operators in seats and birds in the air. The service has plans to iron out Predator's problems, according to Pentagon spokespeople. The plan seems to include throwing a lot of money at the problem. For the sakes of all those battalion commanders and their soldiers on the ground in Iraq, I hope it works.
Air Force's Secret Drone Program Revealed
Air Force's Secret Drone Program Revealed
Sharp-eyed Nick Cook of Janes has spotted a new classified UAV program. He refers to this Pentagon budget document which says "the J-UCAS program to split into two separate programs: one Air Force classified program and a navy UCAV [unmanned combat air vehicle] program". Some $1.7 billion is to be spent on these developments over five years. The new craft is referred to as Penetrating High Altitude Endurance (PHAE), and is thought to be able to cruise at 70,000-80,000 ft, similar to the U-2 (Global Hawk has a ceiling of 65,000 ft). ‘Penetrating’ means operating over defended territory, so unlike Global Hawk high degree of stealth will be essential. Being derived from the armed J-UCAS program, strike missions and SEAD are also possible. Cook says:
One report refers to the aircraft using engines from an inventory that has been in storage since the 1970s. This almost certainly refers to the General Electric J97-GE-3 engine for the Teledyne Ryan AQM-91 Compass Arrow UAV (a project terminated in 1971). In 1998, a NASA paper reported that 24 J97 engines were in storage at the agency's Ames research centre...the J97 was rated at around 25 kN and the new UAV is probably a twin-engine design. Compass Arrow, otherwise known as the Ryan Model 154 Firefly, weighed in at 5,000 lbs with a wingspan of 48 feet and carried a payload of over 300 lb. It was very stealthy for its day, with rounded fuselage and inward-canted tailfins, with a coating of RAM (radar absorbing material) to reduce radar returns. The engine was mounted above the fuselage to minimize the infrared signature. Compass Arrow could cruise at 80,000 feet, and was intended to be used over China. For political reasons it was mothballed without ever being used. Compass Arrow Arrow was single-engined, so a twin-engined PHAE is likely to be somewhat bigger. The PHAE concept has been studied before , with a view to roles including countering WMD, attacking fixed and mobile targets, and suppressing air defences. It’s not clear what weapons might be used from this sort of altitude, though a guided kinetic penetrator would make quite an impact from sixteen miles up. A stealthier approach would be for PHAE to act as a ‘mothership’ for smaller UAVs (such as the 100 lb Dominator) killer UAV or miniature munitions. The US Navy has already experimented with launching the FINDER UAV from a Predator drone for close-in reconnaisance, as well as the miniature CICADA Close-in Covert Autonomous Disposable Aircraft which would be dropped in large numbers for electronic attack. The endurance of PHAE will be limited by fuel supply; serious long-endurance drones with mission times measured in weeks or months will be solar powered. High-altitude long-endurance drones will find many more applications in both the civilian and military worlds - there’s more on this topic in my book Weapons Grade. UPDATE – Check out the new Special Report on Weapons & Warfare on the New Scientist magazine website, a feast of dozens of weapons tech articles with an ‘instant expert’ overview by a DefenseTech regular.
Sharp-eyed Nick Cook of Janes has spotted a new classified UAV program. He refers to this Pentagon budget document which says "the J-UCAS program to split into two separate programs: one Air Force classified program and a navy UCAV [unmanned combat air vehicle] program". Some $1.7 billion is to be spent on these developments over five years. The new craft is referred to as Penetrating High Altitude Endurance (PHAE), and is thought to be able to cruise at 70,000-80,000 ft, similar to the U-2 (Global Hawk has a ceiling of 65,000 ft). ‘Penetrating’ means operating over defended territory, so unlike Global Hawk high degree of stealth will be essential. Being derived from the armed J-UCAS program, strike missions and SEAD are also possible. Cook says:
One report refers to the aircraft using engines from an inventory that has been in storage since the 1970s. This almost certainly refers to the General Electric J97-GE-3 engine for the Teledyne Ryan AQM-91 Compass Arrow UAV (a project terminated in 1971). In 1998, a NASA paper reported that 24 J97 engines were in storage at the agency's Ames research centre...the J97 was rated at around 25 kN and the new UAV is probably a twin-engine design. Compass Arrow, otherwise known as the Ryan Model 154 Firefly, weighed in at 5,000 lbs with a wingspan of 48 feet and carried a payload of over 300 lb. It was very stealthy for its day, with rounded fuselage and inward-canted tailfins, with a coating of RAM (radar absorbing material) to reduce radar returns. The engine was mounted above the fuselage to minimize the infrared signature. Compass Arrow could cruise at 80,000 feet, and was intended to be used over China. For political reasons it was mothballed without ever being used. Compass Arrow Arrow was single-engined, so a twin-engined PHAE is likely to be somewhat bigger. The PHAE concept has been studied before , with a view to roles including countering WMD, attacking fixed and mobile targets, and suppressing air defences. It’s not clear what weapons might be used from this sort of altitude, though a guided kinetic penetrator would make quite an impact from sixteen miles up. A stealthier approach would be for PHAE to act as a ‘mothership’ for smaller UAVs (such as the 100 lb Dominator) killer UAV or miniature munitions. The US Navy has already experimented with launching the FINDER UAV from a Predator drone for close-in reconnaisance, as well as the miniature CICADA Close-in Covert Autonomous Disposable Aircraft which would be dropped in large numbers for electronic attack. The endurance of PHAE will be limited by fuel supply; serious long-endurance drones with mission times measured in weeks or months will be solar powered. High-altitude long-endurance drones will find many more applications in both the civilian and military worlds - there’s more on this topic in my book Weapons Grade. UPDATE – Check out the new Special Report on Weapons & Warfare on the New Scientist magazine website, a feast of dozens of weapons tech articles with an ‘instant expert’ overview by a DefenseTech regular.
Darpa's Smart, Mean, Off-Road Drone
Darpa's Smart, Mean, Off-Road Drone
By the time you read this, Carnegie Mellon roboticists and Darpa chieftains will be rolling out their latest mechanical warrior: a six-and-half-ton, six-wheeled unmanned behemoth called Crusher. Back in October, I took a look at the bot as it was being built, in a restored brick-and-chestnut mill on the banks of Pittsburgh's Allegheny River. Even as an aluminum-titanium skeleton, the machine left an impression -- something that looked ready to chew up all kinds of terrain. The clever, almost leg-like way the wheels attached would allow Crusher (like its predecessor, Carnegie's Spinner robot) to climb steps bigger than four feet, and tackle slopes with a 40 degree grade. In-hub electric motors, powered by a VW Jetta's turbo diesel engine, wouldn't hurt, either. Carnegie and Darpa will be talking up Crusher's off-road toughness today. And they'll crow about the robot's brains and eyes -- the machine is part of a $35 million, Darpa-backed effort to make robots more autonomous. A few weeks before I visited Pittsburgh, Spinner used eight laser range-finders and four pairs of stereo cameras to help travel 26 miles of tough terrain, completely on its own. Crusher's 18-foot, telescoping mast, packed with sensors, should only make this both more perceptive. But what today's presenters probably won't talk about much is that Crusher is designed to be mean, too. It's an "unmanned ground combat vehicle," a prototype for the military's next generation of armed robots. Crusher has been equipped with a Rafael Mini-Typhoon gun mount, which holds a "simulated" .50 caliber rifle. "We’re developing Crusher," Carnegie's John Bares said in a statement, "to show people what can be done and pave the way for the future." And in that future, the robots can go anywhere, think for themselves, and carry guns. Alan Boyle reports on Crusher's "Hollywood-style rollout." Two Crusher prototypes made their entrance amid music, video and flashing lights — and one of them proceeded over to the center's obstacle course, rolling over wrecked cars and other obstacles... Crusher also demonstrated a tight U-turn maneuver inside a garage.
By the time you read this, Carnegie Mellon roboticists and Darpa chieftains will be rolling out their latest mechanical warrior: a six-and-half-ton, six-wheeled unmanned behemoth called Crusher. Back in October, I took a look at the bot as it was being built, in a restored brick-and-chestnut mill on the banks of Pittsburgh's Allegheny River. Even as an aluminum-titanium skeleton, the machine left an impression -- something that looked ready to chew up all kinds of terrain. The clever, almost leg-like way the wheels attached would allow Crusher (like its predecessor, Carnegie's Spinner robot) to climb steps bigger than four feet, and tackle slopes with a 40 degree grade. In-hub electric motors, powered by a VW Jetta's turbo diesel engine, wouldn't hurt, either. Carnegie and Darpa will be talking up Crusher's off-road toughness today. And they'll crow about the robot's brains and eyes -- the machine is part of a $35 million, Darpa-backed effort to make robots more autonomous. A few weeks before I visited Pittsburgh, Spinner used eight laser range-finders and four pairs of stereo cameras to help travel 26 miles of tough terrain, completely on its own. Crusher's 18-foot, telescoping mast, packed with sensors, should only make this both more perceptive. But what today's presenters probably won't talk about much is that Crusher is designed to be mean, too. It's an "unmanned ground combat vehicle," a prototype for the military's next generation of armed robots. Crusher has been equipped with a Rafael Mini-Typhoon gun mount, which holds a "simulated" .50 caliber rifle. "We’re developing Crusher," Carnegie's John Bares said in a statement, "to show people what can be done and pave the way for the future." And in that future, the robots can go anywhere, think for themselves, and carry guns. Alan Boyle reports on Crusher's "Hollywood-style rollout." Two Crusher prototypes made their entrance amid music, video and flashing lights — and one of them proceeded over to the center's obstacle course, rolling over wrecked cars and other obstacles... Crusher also demonstrated a tight U-turn maneuver inside a garage.
Terrorists' Unmanned Air Force
Terrorists' Unmanned Air Force
The bad guys can use drones too. While billions have been spent on ballistic missile defense, little attention has been given to the more imminent threat posed by unmanned air vehicles in the hands of terrorists or rogue states. Building a ballistic missile is a big deal. They take a lot of development – it really is rocket science – which is expensive and hard to keep secret. At best, you’ll end up with something like a Scud missile with a range of a few hundred miles and limited accuracy. You would not be able to aim at an individual building. Unmanned air vehicles are another matter. They are small, cheap and you could buy one tomorrow. Short-range versions with video cameras are common, but thanks to GPS and Google Earth you can also put one to within a few yards of your aim point from long range. Very long range – in 2003 a TAM-5 UAV with a six-foot wingspan was flown over 1880 miles across the Atlantic Ocean. One scenario features a mass drone attack launched from a tanker or freighter well out in international waters. Eugene Miasnikov of the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies at MIPT, calls the UAV a suicide bomber on steroids, basically. Unlike a suicide bomber, a drone can easily penetrate security and threaten otherwise safe areas (eg the Green Zone) or reach crowded public places like spots stadiums. Dense crowds would lead to large numbers of casualties from fragmentation bombs, and an attack by multiple UAVs could cause panic and further injuries in the crowd. And don't even get us started about chemical, biological or ‘dirty bomb’ radioactive payloads. Already, there have been a number of terrorists using (or, at least, intending on using) UAVs. Bin Laden had a plan to assassinate President Bush at the G8 summit, the FARC in Colombia bought drones. Hezbollah flew a "Mirsad-1" drone over Israeli territory in 2004. Another paper by Dennis M. Gormley, on UAVs and Cruise Missiles as Possible Terrorist Weapons draws similar conclusions about the ease with which such weapons can be used and the difficulty of intercepting small, slow aircraft. He notes a significant incident in Iraq: Moreover, two Iraqi ultra-light aircraft managed to fly directly over the 3rd Infantry Division’s logistical encampment and disappeared before orders could be arranged to fire at them. Even the use of expensive airborne reconnaissance systems such as AWACS would not help. Their radars intentionally eliminate slow-flying targets on or near the ground to prevent their data processing and display systems from being overtaxed. One solution to the threat of hostile UAVs is DARPA’s Peregrine. This is a drone-killing drone, designed with dual propulsion mode to combine long loiter time on patrol with a dash capability for intercept. Spending on Peregrine has gone up from nothing in 2004 to $1.4m in ‘05 and $5m in the coming year. In Popular Mechanics, Noah and friends tried designing one of the drone-fighters. The one here was provided by The Mad Planeman whose blog tinkers with aircraft design. But killing drones isn't the hard part, really. It's detecting and identifying before they can do damage that poses the biggest challenge. As Miasnikov points out if they are launched a few miles from their target there may be only minutes to react. Those with long memories or an interest in esoteric weapons will recall that we have been here before. During WWII the US came under attack from thousands of small, long-range unmanned aircraft – Japanese ‘Fugo’ balloon bombs. Thirty feet across and made of mulberry paper, each carried three incendiary bombs to the US mainland all the way from Japan. Although they were dismissed at the time, tremendous resources were put into countering them. And although they did little damage, the Fugos were originally intended to carry biological agents, which would have made them a far more serious threat. How great the threat is this time remains to be seen.
UPDATE 2:46 PM: There is no doubt that cheap and plentiful drones will be everywhere in future, used for everything from newsgathering to traffic control and fighting forest fires. The way will be led, as usual, by military...There’s a section on them in my book, Weapons Grade.
UPDATE 05/02/06 8:56 AM: Just how cheap and easy are these UAVs to build? Well, as CF points out, the Society of Automotive Engineers holds a drone-making contest every year for students. The machines cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 to build, he says. And the winning plane can generally haul between 30 and 40 pounds -- with just a 1.5 horsepower engine.
May 1, 2006 02:42 PM
The bad guys can use drones too. While billions have been spent on ballistic missile defense, little attention has been given to the more imminent threat posed by unmanned air vehicles in the hands of terrorists or rogue states. Building a ballistic missile is a big deal. They take a lot of development – it really is rocket science – which is expensive and hard to keep secret. At best, you’ll end up with something like a Scud missile with a range of a few hundred miles and limited accuracy. You would not be able to aim at an individual building. Unmanned air vehicles are another matter. They are small, cheap and you could buy one tomorrow. Short-range versions with video cameras are common, but thanks to GPS and Google Earth you can also put one to within a few yards of your aim point from long range. Very long range – in 2003 a TAM-5 UAV with a six-foot wingspan was flown over 1880 miles across the Atlantic Ocean. One scenario features a mass drone attack launched from a tanker or freighter well out in international waters. Eugene Miasnikov of the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies at MIPT, calls the UAV a suicide bomber on steroids, basically. Unlike a suicide bomber, a drone can easily penetrate security and threaten otherwise safe areas (eg the Green Zone) or reach crowded public places like spots stadiums. Dense crowds would lead to large numbers of casualties from fragmentation bombs, and an attack by multiple UAVs could cause panic and further injuries in the crowd. And don't even get us started about chemical, biological or ‘dirty bomb’ radioactive payloads. Already, there have been a number of terrorists using (or, at least, intending on using) UAVs. Bin Laden had a plan to assassinate President Bush at the G8 summit, the FARC in Colombia bought drones. Hezbollah flew a "Mirsad-1" drone over Israeli territory in 2004. Another paper by Dennis M. Gormley, on UAVs and Cruise Missiles as Possible Terrorist Weapons draws similar conclusions about the ease with which such weapons can be used and the difficulty of intercepting small, slow aircraft. He notes a significant incident in Iraq: Moreover, two Iraqi ultra-light aircraft managed to fly directly over the 3rd Infantry Division’s logistical encampment and disappeared before orders could be arranged to fire at them. Even the use of expensive airborne reconnaissance systems such as AWACS would not help. Their radars intentionally eliminate slow-flying targets on or near the ground to prevent their data processing and display systems from being overtaxed. One solution to the threat of hostile UAVs is DARPA’s Peregrine. This is a drone-killing drone, designed with dual propulsion mode to combine long loiter time on patrol with a dash capability for intercept. Spending on Peregrine has gone up from nothing in 2004 to $1.4m in ‘05 and $5m in the coming year. In Popular Mechanics, Noah and friends tried designing one of the drone-fighters. The one here was provided by The Mad Planeman whose blog tinkers with aircraft design. But killing drones isn't the hard part, really. It's detecting and identifying before they can do damage that poses the biggest challenge. As Miasnikov points out if they are launched a few miles from their target there may be only minutes to react. Those with long memories or an interest in esoteric weapons will recall that we have been here before. During WWII the US came under attack from thousands of small, long-range unmanned aircraft – Japanese ‘Fugo’ balloon bombs. Thirty feet across and made of mulberry paper, each carried three incendiary bombs to the US mainland all the way from Japan. Although they were dismissed at the time, tremendous resources were put into countering them. And although they did little damage, the Fugos were originally intended to carry biological agents, which would have made them a far more serious threat. How great the threat is this time remains to be seen.
UPDATE 2:46 PM: There is no doubt that cheap and plentiful drones will be everywhere in future, used for everything from newsgathering to traffic control and fighting forest fires. The way will be led, as usual, by military...There’s a section on them in my book, Weapons Grade.
UPDATE 05/02/06 8:56 AM: Just how cheap and easy are these UAVs to build? Well, as CF points out, the Society of Automotive Engineers holds a drone-making contest every year for students. The machines cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 to build, he says. And the winning plane can generally haul between 30 and 40 pounds -- with just a 1.5 horsepower engine.
May 1, 2006 02:42 PM
Who Killed the Killer Drone - and Why?
Who Killed the Killer Drone - and Why?
In November, with great fanfare, the U.S. Navy and Air Force took over Darpa's biggest, most promising killer drone program, Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems, or J-UCAS. The idea was to develop a single family of weaponized drones operating from land and from carrier decks, backing up and ultimately replacing manned fighter jets. According to Dr. Michael S. Francis, J-UCAS Director, the program promised "a transformational shift in the operational application of airpower in the 21st century combat environment." Two months later, the 2007 defense budget split the program into separate Air Force and Navy programs. J-UCAS was dead. "We start joint, but we never carry it across the goal line for some reason," Rear Adm. Timothy Heely told Aviation Week after the decision was announced. I'm on the UAV beat for National Defense. In recent weeks I've spoken to many Air Force and Navy UAV program managers and operators -- and none have given me a straight answer on why J-UCAS went extinct. Janes has an idea: The Air Force and Navy drifted further and further apart on what their unmanned combat planes (the X-45 and X-47, respectively) should do. The gap got so wide, the one-size-fits-all approach stopped making sense. [The] USAF decided that its present conception no longer met that service's long-term needs. USAF ambitions are for a long-range strike aircraft embracing stealth, endurance, ISR [or Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] and attack capabilities, and, while the projected [J-UCAS vehicle] clearly offered the first and last of these, there was seen to be a mismatch between the aircraft's range/endurance and its modest 4,500 lb weapon load. Janes is on to something. A few weeks ago, somebody leaked Air Force plans to fold its half of the former J-UCAS program into its Long-Range Strike study, which is looking at ways to replace B-1s, B-2s and B-52s. Air Force Magazine explains: [Long-Range Strike] would replace the Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System--slated for termination--with a larger, faster unmanned bomber. The aircraft would have to cover very long distances and be able to loiter in the target area with a good-sized bomb load. Note that "good-sized bomb load" part. Last week, Navy Capt. Steven Wright told me that the Navy wanted J-UCAS not for strategic bombing, but initially for penetrating ISR and, later, for close air support -- both missions that require smallish, fast, medium-range aircraft like today's manned F/A-18s. Air Force again: The qualities the Air Force wanted in a next-generation strike aircraft were trending toward a larger and larger platform, equipped with a sizable bomb load and able to loiter in enemy territory for long periods, with periodic refuelings from a tanker. The size of the objective Air Force version of J-UCAS had been upped several times, and likely would have been enlarged again. And that meant parting ways with the Navy and its smaller, tactical armed drone. Defense Tech sources have another theory: that the Air Force killed its combat drone, Boeing's X-45, to keep it from competing with its manned fighter jet of the future, the Joint Strike Fighter. The reason that was given (strictly off the record) [by Air Force officials] was that we were expected to be simply too good in key areas and that we would have caused massive disruption to the efforts to "keep… JSF sold." If we had flown and things like survivability had been evenly assessed on a small scale and Congress had gotten ahold of the data, JSF would have been in serious trouble. And what was this shocking data? Say the mission is to take out a SAM [surface-to-air missile] site using a Small Diameter Bomb. That SDB has the same standoff launch max range regardless of the platform releasing it. Given that the state of the art for Low Observable (LO) design and material is much the same between the qualified aircraft designers in the U.S., how LO your system is largely a function of shape and cross section. Compare the shapes and profiles of the F-35 [JSF] and the X-45C. Who do you think is going to have the higher probably of being killed? Of course that "kill" in the JSF case means body bags and in the case of a X-45C, just the lost aircraft and far fewer of them. The Navy's Capt. Wright says that both the X-45 and X-47 J-UCAS demonstrators will continue development under the Navy UCAS program. Carrier trials are expected in 2011. Meanwhile, the Air Force will start from scratch or piggyback its UCAS/Long-Range Strike vehicle on an existing classified platform, perhaps the one mentioned by David Hambling here a few weeks back. For more, check out Noah's January post on how the killer drone program got bumped off. UPDATE 5:40 PM: Not everyone in the Defense Department is sold on the idea of turning J-UCAS into a strike plane -- or on the idea of the new aircraft, period. As Inside Defense notes, "Internal squabbling between two camps within the Pentagon is delaying the formal start of a study aimed at helping the Air Force shape its effort to field a new long-range bomber." May 8, 2006
In November, with great fanfare, the U.S. Navy and Air Force took over Darpa's biggest, most promising killer drone program, Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems, or J-UCAS. The idea was to develop a single family of weaponized drones operating from land and from carrier decks, backing up and ultimately replacing manned fighter jets. According to Dr. Michael S. Francis, J-UCAS Director, the program promised "a transformational shift in the operational application of airpower in the 21st century combat environment." Two months later, the 2007 defense budget split the program into separate Air Force and Navy programs. J-UCAS was dead. "We start joint, but we never carry it across the goal line for some reason," Rear Adm. Timothy Heely told Aviation Week after the decision was announced. I'm on the UAV beat for National Defense. In recent weeks I've spoken to many Air Force and Navy UAV program managers and operators -- and none have given me a straight answer on why J-UCAS went extinct. Janes has an idea: The Air Force and Navy drifted further and further apart on what their unmanned combat planes (the X-45 and X-47, respectively) should do. The gap got so wide, the one-size-fits-all approach stopped making sense. [The] USAF decided that its present conception no longer met that service's long-term needs. USAF ambitions are for a long-range strike aircraft embracing stealth, endurance, ISR [or Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] and attack capabilities, and, while the projected [J-UCAS vehicle] clearly offered the first and last of these, there was seen to be a mismatch between the aircraft's range/endurance and its modest 4,500 lb weapon load. Janes is on to something. A few weeks ago, somebody leaked Air Force plans to fold its half of the former J-UCAS program into its Long-Range Strike study, which is looking at ways to replace B-1s, B-2s and B-52s. Air Force Magazine explains: [Long-Range Strike] would replace the Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System--slated for termination--with a larger, faster unmanned bomber. The aircraft would have to cover very long distances and be able to loiter in the target area with a good-sized bomb load. Note that "good-sized bomb load" part. Last week, Navy Capt. Steven Wright told me that the Navy wanted J-UCAS not for strategic bombing, but initially for penetrating ISR and, later, for close air support -- both missions that require smallish, fast, medium-range aircraft like today's manned F/A-18s. Air Force again: The qualities the Air Force wanted in a next-generation strike aircraft were trending toward a larger and larger platform, equipped with a sizable bomb load and able to loiter in enemy territory for long periods, with periodic refuelings from a tanker. The size of the objective Air Force version of J-UCAS had been upped several times, and likely would have been enlarged again. And that meant parting ways with the Navy and its smaller, tactical armed drone. Defense Tech sources have another theory: that the Air Force killed its combat drone, Boeing's X-45, to keep it from competing with its manned fighter jet of the future, the Joint Strike Fighter. The reason that was given (strictly off the record) [by Air Force officials] was that we were expected to be simply too good in key areas and that we would have caused massive disruption to the efforts to "keep… JSF sold." If we had flown and things like survivability had been evenly assessed on a small scale and Congress had gotten ahold of the data, JSF would have been in serious trouble. And what was this shocking data? Say the mission is to take out a SAM [surface-to-air missile] site using a Small Diameter Bomb. That SDB has the same standoff launch max range regardless of the platform releasing it. Given that the state of the art for Low Observable (LO) design and material is much the same between the qualified aircraft designers in the U.S., how LO your system is largely a function of shape and cross section. Compare the shapes and profiles of the F-35 [JSF] and the X-45C. Who do you think is going to have the higher probably of being killed? Of course that "kill" in the JSF case means body bags and in the case of a X-45C, just the lost aircraft and far fewer of them. The Navy's Capt. Wright says that both the X-45 and X-47 J-UCAS demonstrators will continue development under the Navy UCAS program. Carrier trials are expected in 2011. Meanwhile, the Air Force will start from scratch or piggyback its UCAS/Long-Range Strike vehicle on an existing classified platform, perhaps the one mentioned by David Hambling here a few weeks back. For more, check out Noah's January post on how the killer drone program got bumped off. UPDATE 5:40 PM: Not everyone in the Defense Department is sold on the idea of turning J-UCAS into a strike plane -- or on the idea of the new aircraft, period. As Inside Defense notes, "Internal squabbling between two camps within the Pentagon is delaying the formal start of a study aimed at helping the Air Force shape its effort to field a new long-range bomber." May 8, 2006
How Does That Grab Ya?
How Does That Grab Ya?
Ever tried one of those mechanical cranes where you try to pick up a teddy bear? They look easy but they’re next to impossible because mechanical manipulators are so awkward at handling irregular objects. But this week in New Scientist I report on a new DARPA development which will make robots a lot more dextrous. DARPA’s OCTOR (sOft robotiC manipulaTORs) program is building a new type of robot limb patterned after an elephant’s trunk or octopus arm. It’s flexible, fast, and can handle fragile objects and reach into narrow spaces, as well as coping with a range of different sizes, as this 55 Mb video shows The current Octarms use an industrial Pentium processor board and a 24-volt electro-pneumatic pressure system. They are mainly built with off-the-shelf components, with much of the work going into modelling the behaviour of the system and designing software for kinematics (movement control), and the operator interface. The strength of the arm is governed by actuator pressure and diameter. The current Octarm is pneumatic and works at 60 psi, but in principle a 2000 psi hydraulic system would be possible which would be far more powerful. The design is scaleable; small six-inch Octarms have been built, and a 20-foot tentacle is certainly possible - all it would take is funding. A vehicle-mounted Octarm capable of tearing down walls or shifting rubble would be worth seeing… A team including Bill Kier from the University of North Carolina and Roger Hanlon from the Marine Biological Laboratory provided the biological research behind the Octarm. They found that octopus arms in nature have transverse and longitudinal muscles as well as two sets of helically-wound muscles which spiral around the arm, giving the ability to shorten, lengthen, rotate or bend at nearly any angle. The taper – also borrowed from the octopus - means it can reach into narrow spaces, and helps with handling objects of many sizes. Small objects can be grasped with the thin end section of the Octarm, with larger and heavier objects the thicker and more powerful base sections come into play. Existing manipulators tend to me limited in the range of sizes they can deal with because their grippers can only open to a certain width. Hanlon and colleagues are working on further improvements to the Octarm, using a range of biological models for inspiration, so later versions may take advantage of refinements observed in animal systems. The latest demonstration featured an Octarm mounted on a Talon robot carrying out a variety of tasks, including retrieving a dummy and working underwater. Military applications may include reconnaissance (there’s a camera at the end of the Octarm) and IED disposal, but there are host of civil applications where Octarms should be able to outperform existing designs. The Octarm project is another one of DARPA’s Biodynotics – biologically-inspired robotics – programs, and it’s interesting to see how leveraging techniques perfected in nature brings rapid improvements in robotics. It’s also interesting to see how much of this is led by the military. This follows the same path as early computing described in my book Weapons Grade, which shows how the military were responsible for introducing major innovations in both hardware and software including digital electronic computing and the silicon chip. Octarm joins other well-publicized creations like the BigDog prototype for a robotic mule , Carnegie Mellon’s snakebot and DARPA’s robot flying insects and RoboLobster - and I can guarantee more some even more surprising innovations where these came from. Stay tuned!
Ever tried one of those mechanical cranes where you try to pick up a teddy bear? They look easy but they’re next to impossible because mechanical manipulators are so awkward at handling irregular objects. But this week in New Scientist I report on a new DARPA development which will make robots a lot more dextrous. DARPA’s OCTOR (sOft robotiC manipulaTORs) program is building a new type of robot limb patterned after an elephant’s trunk or octopus arm. It’s flexible, fast, and can handle fragile objects and reach into narrow spaces, as well as coping with a range of different sizes, as this 55 Mb video shows The current Octarms use an industrial Pentium processor board and a 24-volt electro-pneumatic pressure system. They are mainly built with off-the-shelf components, with much of the work going into modelling the behaviour of the system and designing software for kinematics (movement control), and the operator interface. The strength of the arm is governed by actuator pressure and diameter. The current Octarm is pneumatic and works at 60 psi, but in principle a 2000 psi hydraulic system would be possible which would be far more powerful. The design is scaleable; small six-inch Octarms have been built, and a 20-foot tentacle is certainly possible - all it would take is funding. A vehicle-mounted Octarm capable of tearing down walls or shifting rubble would be worth seeing… A team including Bill Kier from the University of North Carolina and Roger Hanlon from the Marine Biological Laboratory provided the biological research behind the Octarm. They found that octopus arms in nature have transverse and longitudinal muscles as well as two sets of helically-wound muscles which spiral around the arm, giving the ability to shorten, lengthen, rotate or bend at nearly any angle. The taper – also borrowed from the octopus - means it can reach into narrow spaces, and helps with handling objects of many sizes. Small objects can be grasped with the thin end section of the Octarm, with larger and heavier objects the thicker and more powerful base sections come into play. Existing manipulators tend to me limited in the range of sizes they can deal with because their grippers can only open to a certain width. Hanlon and colleagues are working on further improvements to the Octarm, using a range of biological models for inspiration, so later versions may take advantage of refinements observed in animal systems. The latest demonstration featured an Octarm mounted on a Talon robot carrying out a variety of tasks, including retrieving a dummy and working underwater. Military applications may include reconnaissance (there’s a camera at the end of the Octarm) and IED disposal, but there are host of civil applications where Octarms should be able to outperform existing designs. The Octarm project is another one of DARPA’s Biodynotics – biologically-inspired robotics – programs, and it’s interesting to see how leveraging techniques perfected in nature brings rapid improvements in robotics. It’s also interesting to see how much of this is led by the military. This follows the same path as early computing described in my book Weapons Grade, which shows how the military were responsible for introducing major innovations in both hardware and software including digital electronic computing and the silicon chip. Octarm joins other well-publicized creations like the BigDog prototype for a robotic mule , Carnegie Mellon’s snakebot and DARPA’s robot flying insects and RoboLobster - and I can guarantee more some even more surprising innovations where these came from. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)