Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2018, 12:02:01 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aerospace Education  |  Topic: Boeing new product reveal
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Boeing new product reveal  (Read 1292 times)
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:27:11 PM »


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16984/boeing-defense-teases-mystery-aircraft-unveiling-by-hiding-it-under-a-black-sheetI

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-05-24-Boeing-DARPA-to-Design-Build-Test-New-Experimental-Spaceplane


R/S
Spam
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 646

« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2017, 10:58:21 AM »

Interesting concepts.  A foreseeable large weakness would be the probable imperative for the 'swarm' to protect the 'queen'... the crewed aircraft.  It makes more sense to me for the swarm to be fully AI managed with a remotely located command center.  I expect that might be a tough technology break from past human centered weapons systems to other centered.  Dunno if this model is a direct response to the shortage of flesh & blood pilots, probable inability of human centered weapons systems to successfully compete with machine centered systems, or both. 
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,209

« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2017, 11:39:37 AM »

Not having to support and protect a human pilot results in a large weight savings.
Lighter weight = Longer Range / Increased Payload. Both good things.
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 646

« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2017, 12:18:51 PM »

Not having to support and protect a human pilot results in a large weight savings.
Lighter weight = Longer Range / Increased Payload. Both good things.

All of which = significant performance benefits.  Plus, it's easy to imagine, and therefore anticipate, an AI flown aircraft in the near future pulling 25 'G in combat maneuvers -- which would turn a human pilot into red goo...  :O
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 03:26:04 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
CAPLTC
Forum Regular

Posts: 146
Unit: MER

« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2017, 11:29:23 AM »

Interesting concepts.  A foreseeable large weakness would be the probable imperative for the 'swarm' to protect the 'queen'... the crewed aircraft.  It makes more sense to me for the swarm to be fully AI managed with a remotely located command center.  I expect that might be a tough technology break from past human centered weapons systems to other centered.  Dunno if this model is a direct response to the shortage of flesh & blood pilots, probable inability of human centered weapons systems to successfully compete with machine centered systems, or both.

It is in response to the reality of AI...
For now a human must remain in the loop for moral and legal reasons but we'll soon get past that and onto fully-autonomous killing.
Logged
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact." -- SECDEF Mattis
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,209

« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2017, 11:39:50 AM »

Interesting concepts.  A foreseeable large weakness would be the probable imperative for the 'swarm' to protect the 'queen'... the crewed aircraft.  It makes more sense to me for the swarm to be fully AI managed with a remotely located command center.  I expect that might be a tough technology break from past human centered weapons systems to other centered.  Dunno if this model is a direct response to the shortage of flesh & blood pilots, probable inability of human centered weapons systems to successfully compete with machine centered systems, or both.

It is in response to the reality of AI...
For now a human must remain in the loop for moral and legal reasons but we'll soon get past that and onto fully-autonomous killing.

AI has a ways to go before it's ready to go solo. The current technology doesn't handle unexpected events and conditions too well, yet...
For now the Mark I, Mod 0 Human Brain is still superior.
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2017, 05:17:57 PM »


I would say that there are indeed some mission sets and conditions where automation "handle unexpected events and conditions" far better than humans. Examples are algorithmic sensor-based responses to envelope, signature, or terrain envelope protection (e.g. auto GCAS).  For operators who are faced with multiple UAS operations (perhaps while also flying a manned platform, within a networked environment, with net enabled weapons) the challenge is mating a proper mission/task analysis to a solid automation design to have a failure tolerant/redundant system, within tactically significant engagement timelines.

Here's an abstract from a paper I gave this fall at a DC area conference (the design approach we are taking is based on the need for an automation Executive to arbitrate between individual automation policy managers, such as AGCAS, signature managers, weapon envelope managers, fuel policy managers, etc.):
 

"(U) Abstract
Despite decades of industry experience in the design of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) control systems and their user interfaces, a combination of factors persist that produce a significant and unacceptable loss rate of UAVs due to poor user interfaces. One significant element is the current focus of human systems design on lower-order User Interfaces (UI) at the expense of investing in the design of an adaptive higher level integration to relieve inattentive or overtaxed operators of significant functionality as required, and to perform time-critical tactical tasks which humans cannot perform or for which they are not well suited. The approach proposed is one which defines the respective roles of user interactions with adaptive policy manager automation to address the loss of vehicles and mission failures. Specific policy manager automation elements are explored which will enable the system to flexibly assume or release UAV vehicle or systems functionality based on operator action/saturation in a number of mission areas. A notional Executive automation controller design approach is outlined to meet time critical information integration and mission task requirements".

V/r
Spam


Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 646

« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2017, 12:09:07 PM »


"(U) Abstract
Despite decades of industry experience in the design of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) control systems and their user interfaces, a combination of factors persist that produce a significant and unacceptable loss rate of UAVs due to poor user interfaces. One significant element is the current focus of human systems design on lower-order User Interfaces (UI) at the expense of investing in the design of an adaptive higher level integration to relieve inattentive or overtaxed operators of significant functionality as required, and to perform time-critical tactical tasks which humans cannot perform or for which they are not well suited. The approach proposed is one which defines the respective roles of user interactions with adaptive policy manager automation to address the loss of vehicles and mission failures. Specific policy manager automation elements are explored which will enable the system to flexibly assume or release UAV vehicle or systems functionality based on operator action/saturation in a number of mission areas. A notional Executive automation controller design approach is outlined to meet time critical information integration and mission task requirements".

V/r
Spam

Interesting abstract.  It describes an important interim step in the evolution of AI.  How far out is the edge of the current research envelope for these systems?
Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2017, 12:58:08 PM »

Depends on the customer, the mission, the system, and the user population. USAF, the USN, and the Army have distinctly differing approaches to user selection and training, even when equipment is similar (MQ-1/MQ-9) and mission sets overlap. Commercial foci of research diverge even more, and is more risk-tolerant in pushing design concepts. Multi agent adaptive automation isn't new (JSF was designing policy managers in the 90s) but with multiple UAVs doing different and sometimes cooperative things, the design of an executive was the focus of our work.

Ready for the reveal, now?

V/r
Spam
 





Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2017, 12:59:27 PM »


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17086/boeing-unveils-prototype-for-the-navys-mq-25-drone-tanker-competition


So, that's 2 out of the 3 expected contestants now (LM has yet to pitch in).  http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15037/general-atomics-is-the-first-to-show-off-its-mq-25-drone-tanker-design

« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 01:03:41 PM by Spam » Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aerospace Education  |  Topic: Boeing new product reveal
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.047 seconds with 20 queries.