US Navy remotely lands F/A-18 Super Hornet on carrier deck
flightglobal.com
flightglobal.com
I guess the difference here is that an actual person (the LSO) is controlling the jet vice the computer?
In that scheme, they were probably expecting the UAVs to land automatically on the carrier, with something like ATARI being the backup.
This way they can leave their operators focusing on mission tasks instead of recovery.
On the other hand, landing probably is an easier task than driving given the small amount of ways it can go right versus wrong.
How much of the hardware is devoted to keeping the pilot alive? Once you remove that, the hardware might be a whole lot simpler and cheaper.
There's always going to be a need for humans in the loop. In any sort of major wartime scenario countries will be shooting, disabling, and jamming any form of comms and guidance they know about.
Since at least one of the fancy planes is pretty much guaranteed to stay connected to its flight, you can—if you have the room—stick your CIC in there, rather than on the ground. Then, rather than remote-controlling your fighters from the ground, you can remote-control your fighters from another fighter. Which means that now you only need one crew to pilot, say, 8 aircraft. (Well, for now, doctrine would still require humans in the cockpits of the subordinate aircraft; you just don't need to train them nearly as much on how to execute precise group maneuvers. Like driverless cars on highways!)
This is oddly easier in the air (because aerial maneuvers are something fighters need to do as a unit); the hard part is takeoff and landing, because there's not enough hands in an aerial CIC to pilot all the planes up and down. So you want these hypothetical subordinate drone fighters to be able to be passed off automatically between aerial CIC and ground control. (It's convenient if they mostly launch and park themselves, because you then need less ground-control staff on your aircraft carrier or whatever, but it's important that they can be passed off to humans on the ground when necessary.)
It would; you just need to filter out the sun. Apparently this is already a thing: http://www.trexenterprises.com/Pages/Products%20and%20Servic....
Unmanned, with autonomous carrier take offs, landings, and aerial refueling.
Having options and fallbacks are good. I can't imagine the Navy not looking at all their data in 5 years and figuring out a reasonable plan.
We're all just armchairing it. Engineering data is really all that matters at the end of the day.
So mostly the number bandied around might be just development and for total cost, upkeep costs, divided by the number of airframes. So losing one isn't so hard, if it's unmanned.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-bac...
Turns out that he was a sea scout, as a kid. Civilian GPS wasn't available in the early 2000s... at least not to amateur navigators. I think it only became standard for airlines in the 90s and militaries in the 80s.
That GPS is new is not surprising. That one tech-generation back is "celestial navigation" with a sextant is shocking (at least it was to me). It was like discovering that before smartphones the closest thing available was signal fires.^
Good reminder that tech can work in big leaps, and that a good technology can last a long time. Moore's law has been such a factor for digital technology, that we can forget it is not the norm.
BTW, the alternative to GPS (unless you have a terrestrial signal) for airlines is computerized dead reckoning, the equivalent of throwing a log tied to a rope overboard and counting knots, but a computer counts the knots.
However, I am wondering what happened to all of the technology that they put together for the X-47B - which I believe was fully qualified to land itself in most weather conditions:
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/x-47b-unmanned-com...
btw: Thanks for your service.
> During testing, the ATARI system operators controlled an F/A-18 aircraft using a joystick, while a safety pilot sat in the cockpit as backup. The technology is capable of taking over an aircraft from up to five miles away.
Plus, things like this introduce systemic risk where an adversary can take over multiple aircraft simultaneously, or at least render them all inert midair.
The way around this is by preventing systemic attacks. Analogous is how paper voting—while vulnerable to things like vote stuffing—isn't susceptible to the systemic problems that electronic voting typically is.
It's very dangerous to be a pilot and a soldier but as a software engineer I don't know how I could ever feel safe in a world without people making decisions about how to use weapons.
In fact, the aircraft always go to max throttle at touchdown, just in case they need to go around for another try. This, as opposed to going to max throttle after realizing there's a problem.
I hadn't really considered that before. Say the carrier is doing 20 knots then even on a one minute final approach the carrier will have moved by getting on for half a mile. ( very much fag-packet estimated maths but enough to show you can't just point at the carrier and land in a straight line)
Being accurate enough in turbulent weather to catch the hook seems to be the main problem.
Catching the hook while the plane is in a controlled crash, that's the problem.
The thing about a pitching deck is that it's somewhat, but not completely, predictable. Swells are measurable and generally periodic...but the generality breaks down enough to make it unpredictable. It's why boarding rates (i.e. the ratio of landings to attempt) drop by a factor of 2-3 (i.e. from around 90+% to 30-ish%) in pitching deck situations.