
Gremlins - tango24
https://www.darpa.mil/program/gremlins
======
CPAhem
Gremlins were not "luck charms of many British pilots during World War II" as
Darpa states. They were bad luck demons that could kill pilots.

"Gremlins were said to engage in such a myriad of bad behavior as sucking the
gas out of tanks through hoses, jamming radio frequencies, mucking up landing
gear, blowing dust or sand into fuel pipes or sensitive electrical equipment,
cutting wires, removing bolts or screws, tinkering with dials, knobs or
switches, jostling controls, slashing wings or tires, poking or pinching
gunners or pilots, banging incessantly on the fuselage, breaking windows, and
a wide variety of other prankish acts. "

[https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/07/the-real-gremlins-
of-...](https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/07/the-real-gremlins-of-wwii/)

~~~
codetrotter
There’s a Bugs Bunny animated cartoon in the Merrie Melodies series that
depicts a Gremlin like the one you mentioned.

Falling Hare (1943)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElJxTCIsJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElJxTCIsJI)

------
cirgue
I am not an aerospace engineer, but the figure '20 uses' stood out to me as
odd: if it's 20 uses, why not just build it to be easily serviceable
indefinitely? With no pilot you massively simplify the set of engineering and
materials problems, and if it's going to be reusable that many times you're
still going to have to perform maintenance, refuel, re-arm, etc. What is so
different between '20 uses' and 'decades'?

~~~
taneq
If they're expecting a 5% loss rate per mission, then there's no point making
them last longer than 20 missions. You can also make things cheaper and more
durable if they don't have to be designed to be disassembled.

~~~
caf
If there's a 5% loss rate per mission, then there's a 35% chance that it will
survive 20 missions.

~~~
taneq
Adjust the loss rate and the point stands, though.

------
Animats
This isn't just a concept. There's already hardware flying.[1]

As a concept, it makes sense. The USAF is being killed by the costs of the
F-35. An aircraft that can survive in hostile airspace today is insanely
expensive. The USAF just won't have enough of them to go up against anybody
serious. Something cheaper is needed.

A cheaper unmanned aircraft won't survive as well. That's OK; if you can get
20 combat missions out of the thing, that's not bad.

[1] [https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-05-09](https://www.darpa.mil/news-
events/2018-05-09)

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Something cheaper is needed._

And if you can get it below (or in the ballpark of) the costs of shooting it
down, that's another huge win.

------
angry_octet
The problem with the SUAS concept is energy and scale. You can't have
something very small (small enough to fit a dozen in a C-130, so several
metres in length at most) which has a powerful turbofan engine and significant
range and excellent manoeuvrability and compact stowage.

Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics and
risk to the people on the mothership. C-130s are fine for a demo I guess, but
are particularly terrible tactically, as the adversary SUAS systems would
easily be able to take them out.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Recovery especially is rather implausible due to the complex aerodynamics
> and risk to the people on the mothership._

Fly straight up, cut engines, fall ballistic. Maybe even add a parachute. The
US recovered spy satellite footage _in the 60s_ this way, with payload falling
from space and being caught in-flight. So it should be workable today as well.

~~~
dgudkov
Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that? I would envision
a robotic arm that automatically collects UAVs when they approach sufficiently
close to the mothership. The arm can be rather large and can be extended
through rear loading bay.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Technology is much more advanced nowadays, why not use that?_

Is it though? I mean, it ostensibly is, at least on paper. Not so much in
practice, though.

Maybe there is a cycle of expansion and contraction? In the 50s-80s we've
pushed tech across all domains as far as we could, doing miracles. Then it got
all scaled back in an attempt to optimize the most common use cases to be
cheaper. If so, I can't wait for the next expansion phase.

------
goshx
I don't understand why you'd want to tell everyone how your weapons work. It
may be a cultural thing, as I am not American. What is the reasoning behind
it?

~~~
mirimir
Advertising, given huge income from arms sales. Also perhaps generating fear
and awe.

~~~
adventured
It's definitely a form of advertising. US companies often publish vast amounts
of public R&D, and universities routinely do it. The US military sometimes
behaves that way for the exact same reason.

When you can advertise that you're cutting edge, it helps attract the best
minds. That's dramatically more valuable than worrying about eg China or
Russia stealing the idea to Gremlins. Those ideas and technologies get out
regardless, you can't protect them very long. Competitors and adversaries are
going to catch up with a given piece of technology, even if they have to
figure out how you did it the hard way. By recruiting the best minds to work
on problems, you can ensure that you remain a lap ahead of the competitors
that will steal or copy from you regardless. If something is very sensitive,
then perhaps you can buy a bit more time by keeping it strictly secret, it's
still going to get out. If your tech is good enough, powerful countries will
do anything to get at it.

~~~
ramses0
vis. Google's open source offerings.

~~~
mirimir
And even Microsoft's ;)

------
victorbstan
Carrier has arrived.

~~~
taneq
<Protoss noises intensify>

------
0003
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses)

------
lerie
The part I found most enjoyable was the fact that DARPA says the British love
Gremlins, while Americans made them into horror icons.

------
ohazi
"and retrieve them in mid-air" sounds pretty challenging.

------
mirimir
Cruise missiles? Drones? With "AI"? Whatever, so damn predictable. But hey,
when you gotta kill, you gotta kill. Might as well do it efficiently, with as
little operator risk as possible.

But it does suck, when you're the target. And low operator risk makes wars a
_lot_ easier to sell to frightened masses. So likely, there'll be more
targets, for less justifiable reasons. Resource wars, for example.

~~~
Koshkin
On the other hand, it's the military who have the money. Jet fighters and
bombers came before jet airliners. So, maybe DOD's involvement will bring the
Singularity closer.

~~~
mirimir
I'm not sure that angry AI is something to look forward to. Unless I'm the
angry AI, anyway ;)

