
US Navy develops cannon-launched 'swarming' drones - jackgavigan
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32334186
======
specialk
Does the US not have regulations about UAVs automatically firing of weaponry?
Don't all current UAVs have human operators. The so-called "man in the loop".
I'm having trouble finding evidence one way or the other but does the man in
the loop have to pull the trigger or can he override a pre-programmed fire
order. Allowing robots to automatically fire ordnance seems something congress
would legislate against -- or at least I hope so.

I'm a little concerned with a swarm of drones controlled by one human. Humans
have limited attention span -- they just can't watch 30 video feeds. Could
this pre-programmed approach with limited human control lead to greater
civilian causalities?

~~~
CoryG89
Disclaimer: I am not a UAV operator. I am basing the following on information
from mostly documentaries, but various other sources as well.

I believe that is correct, current UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) used by the
US military always have a human operator that is controlling the vehicle. If I
understand correctly they do not control the flight of the vehicle in real
time, but rather they give commands along the lines of "circle above this
area" or "track/follow this particular target on the ground". The vehicles is
semi-autonomous in that it figures out what it needs to do to fulfill the
operator's command (ie. adjust yaw, pitch, roll, thrust, etc). I believe to
actually engage a target the operator must manually trigger it.

However, this is not the same as the new swarming drones this article covers.
Most do not consider UAVs currently used by the military to actually be drones
(which implies a high degree of autonomy), instead they are typically thought
of as remotely controlled. In contrast, it sounds like these drones are fired
once with a target specified ahead of time and these drones are completely
autonomous from that point on, swarming, swarming around and firing on a
target all on their own. These drones are probably small and they probably
dont have a video feed for each one for people to monitor.

~~~
SEJeff
Disclaimer: I was a Shadow 200 TUAV pilot in the US Army from 2001-2005, and
yes, I spent a year in Iraq (OIF II circa 2003-2004) where I got 480+ combat
flight hours.

You basically wrote the exact same comment I was about to write with striking
similarity. For reference, this is a 18 year old me in the back of a Shadow
GCS at Ft Huachuca, AZ, where all Shadow pilots are trained:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_control_station](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_control_station)

The military never uses the word "drone", but prefers UAV aka Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle, just as you mentioned. For what it is worth, this new navy thing
isn't really that novel. The latest generation of Tomahawk cruise missiles do
something very similar. You launch several of them into a battle theater and
they circle around sending / receiving target information and telemetry
between each other and the control stations. See: [https://medium.com/war-is-
boring/u-s-marines-can-now-call-in...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-
marines-can-now-call-in-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-for-close-air-
support-2a8aa4a64428)

------
c0decracker
Put them on a B52 and you got yourself Protoss' Carrier... well, almost :)

------
vladtaltos
even in a simulation ad to give a use case, the drones are used to target a
small village in the middle of a desert. it's somewhat obvious what the use
case will be: don't send troops in so that US troop loses can be limited and
in the meantime we can continue to kill all those pesky insurgents in 5-6 hut
villages...

it's fucking insane.

~~~
josefresco
Those "pesky insurgents" are managing to kill a lot of people from their "hut
villages" and oh by the way, are funded by some of the richest and most
powerful nations on Earth. So don't let the "huts" confuse you, there's still
capable forces inside waiting for the opportunity to further their agenda.

Also, the battlefield may be comprised of "huts" but the fighters are living
in cities and using technology far beyond "hut level" throughout the world.

These "pesky insurgents" have also managed to export their agenda around the
world (beyond the borders of their huts), and using _technology_ have
slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?)

~~~
jjoonathan
> using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?)

Yes, yes it does. What's the count again? Them: 5000, US: 100,000? Why take an
eye for an eye when you can take 20 eyes for an eye? Maybe with this
technology we can get that up to 40 or 50! Hoo-rah! /s

~~~
josefresco
"Them" Who is them exactly? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? FSA? ISIL? Al Qaeda?
the dozens of tribal militia funded by both (all) sides ... the list could
literally go on forever and so can the casualty count - speaking of...

5K is a ridiculously low number considering the documented casualties on _all_
sides in the last (roughly) two decades of warfare (although it shouldn't be
limited to this timeframe).

~~~
jjoonathan
I was counting U.S. _civilian_ casualties from Al Quaeda on 9/11 against
_civilian_ casualties in Iraq + Afghanistan with all figures coming from my
highly imperfect memory. There are a number of obvious reasons why this
comparison isn't entirely appropriate, I can think of a number of more
appropriate comparisons, and you can probably do a better job than I. But
before you rise to the occasion, let's re-focus on the core argument.

My claim: We (the US) are unmatched in our ability to "export our agenda" by
"using technology to slaughter civilians." Terrorists do the same thing just
on a much smaller scale. A direct comparison is appropriate, as is dismissing
their relative contribution to the civilian death toll by calling them "pesky
hut-dwellers."

~~~
josefresco
This isn't going to a good place so I'm disengaging, but I wanted to just say
when I read "But before you rise to the occasion" I chuckled.

------
Mithaldu
Key quote from the linked source:

"The ONR demonstrations, which took place over the last month in multiple
locations, included the launch of Coyote UAVs capable of carrying varying
payloads for different missions. Another technology demonstration of nine UAVs
accomplished completely autonomous UAV synchronization and formation flight."

AND there's a video of the things:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyguXoum3rk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyguXoum3rk)

------
Mikeb85
I love how the rendering is of a small village in the desert, and they're
firing at all the houses.

If nothing else, seems pretty accurate...

------
chinathrow
New rules say not to be negative - but in my very strong opininion, producing
newer and better surveillance/recon tech is not the way to go for humanity.
The same goes for producing new high tech weaponry.

~~~
jakeogh
It appears that if something becomes possible and advantageous (according to
any imaginable reasoning) some people will use it. It's unlikely that each
technological genie can be put back, instead we as a species should be
considering effective reactions.

~~~
cousin_it
What's an effective reaction to the fact that offense fundamentally outstrips
defense as technology grows? I can only think of two paths: a) Luddism, b)
world government by benevolent AI. Both of these paths are very risky. So in
the short term, it seems worth it to incrementally slow down the growth of
offense technology, by using activism etc. That gives humanity a little more
time to figure things out.

------
jaybna
Somewhere, Daniel Suarez is smiling/grimacing...

~~~
mortenlarsen
For reference: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15808659-kill-
decision](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15808659-kill-decision)

------
ChuckMcM
This seems like a logical progression of standoff artillery. A MLRS that can
launch drones is that more lethal and the base system and harder to back
compute its location.

------
hedgew
Awesome. The faster we can automate military and police work the faster we can
move away from democracy, into more efficient forms of government.

------
venomsnake
Hmm ... does history shows a way of getting on the good side of Skynet?

------
alttab
And yet we still need Adobe Flash to watch the video.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Non-flash version on YouTube, direct from the source and without their
commercials
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyguXoum3rk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyguXoum3rk)

------
BurningFrog
Second Variety is maybe Philip K Dick's best short story. It both completely
spellbound and scared the hell out of teenage me.

You might guess one of the weapon systems it mentions.

[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032-h.htm)

------
butler14
I wonder how long it's going to take for:

\- modern warfare to evolve (devolve?) into something that has more in common
with a RTS video game than 'conventional' warfare, where soldiers have more in
common with today's professional eSports gamers.

\- the surge in anti-drone technology, including anti-drone drones, and the
inevitable escalation there (stealth drones?)

~~~
adventured
The first major drone on drone conflicts will likely be in the middle east,
and will be transferred technology (deriving from the US, Russia, Iran, or
China).

It will be something like fighters in Yemen, backed by Iran, against Saudi
Arabia using US technology. Or Israel vs Hezbollah. The timeline is within
five to ten years.

Stealth'y drones already exist. The X-47 can land on aircraft carriers, and do
mid-air refueling:

[http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/16/the-x-47bs-first-
aerial-r...](http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/16/the-x-47bs-first-aerial-
refueling-test-will-also-be-its-last/)

------
natch
Navy develops them, and -- a lot of commenters on here are overlooking --
others then copy them, and Navy rules, whatever those may be, do not apply to
those other people.

Just a public service reminder not to make unfounded assumptions. Let's not
assume that rules will keep these in check.

------
ExpiredLink
A 'ballet of drones' for non-military use:

[http://www.dw.de/drohnen-ballett-am-
nachthimmel/av-18203468](http://www.dw.de/drohnen-ballett-am-
nachthimmel/av-18203468) (German dubbing)

------
avz
There appears to be a strong opposition to weapons systems that can
autonomously decide to open fire, but it is rarely explicitly evaluated
against the alternative.

I wonder: why does it appear preferable to have a human control a weapon?

Is it because we assume the human is capable of compassion and empathy? If so,
what about anger, fear, prejudice and hatred?

It seems to me that a machine with clear mission objective, rules of
engagement and criteria for friend-civilian-foe identification may actually be
preferable in terms of minimizing unnecessary war casualties.

Ultimately, it is humans who'd program these machines and you get to do a lot
more calm thinking when coding than when squeezing a trigger. Also, code can
be reviewed and tested, split-second decision cannot.

Moreover, down the road, when humanity reaches a state where most wars are
fought by machines against machines, the pointlessness of the exercise may
become a lot more apparent.

~~~
jacquesm
> Moreover, down the road, when humanity reaches a state where most wars are
> fought by machines against machines, the pointlessness of the exercise may
> become a lot more apparent.

Dial 1-900-you-wish. What will happen is that the richer part of the world
will fight wars against the poorer part of the world where they won't be able
to afford the machines.

This gets rid of the biggest thing holding back the next big war: the fact
that your own troops are also in danger.

~~~
josefresco
"What will happen is that the richer part of the world will fight wars against
the poorer part of the world where they won't be able to afford the machines."

This is already happening.

~~~
Zigurd
This is the principal reason why "drones, OK, land mines, not OK." A land mine
is a drone that waits for you. It is simple and cheap. Any armed group could
afford them. Drones require high technology, among which satellites to relay
video links and commands, etc. The "human in the loop" is just a bureaucrat
rubber stamping, in real time, decisions made by a de facto autonomous weapon.

~~~
Arubis
A drone also isn't there thirty years later when the country has a different
name and a different form of government and an eight-year-old puts an errant
foot where there was once a target designated.

~~~
Zigurd
Drones blow that eight-year-old-into chunks in real time. I doubt the eight-
year-olds appreciate the difference.

------
stefap2
Something along these lines?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vc...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vcV71liAMwc#t=18)

------
swalsh
The barrier between us strapping a gun onto one of these, and hooking the
trigger to some AI seems to be not one of technology, but politics. I really
think we need a Geneva Convention of robots, and I hope we actually follow it
(including clandestine operations).

------
rwhendrix
Carrier has arrived

------
shit_parade2
Missions can be pre-programmed, but there "will always be a human monitoring
the mission", it added. Great use of it.

Reminds me of Eclipse Phase nano swarms. The video suggests these are less
than a meter in length and not yet weaponized (although the nice CG at the end
suggests they will be firing off missiles to blow up random buildings in a
desert like environment).

Whatever your opinion is it doesn't really matter, the US government will
continue in this direction because it is expedient.

------
tstartl
Why the fuck is this okay?

~~~
MichaelApproved
Why is this not OK?

