





Pentagon Successfully Tests Micro-Drone Swarm (phys.org) 113
schwit1 quotes a report from Phys.Org: The Pentagon may soon be unleashing a 21st-century version of locusts on its adversaries after officials on Monday said it had successfully tested a swarm of 103 micro-drones. The important step in the development of new autonomous weapon systems was made possible by improvements in artificial intelligence, holding open the possibility that groups of small robots could act together under human direction. Military strategists have high hopes for such drone swarms that would be cheap to produce and able to overwhelm opponents' defenses with their great numbers. The test of the micro-drone swarm in October included 103 Perdix micro-drones measuring around six inches (16 centimeters) launched from three F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, the Pentagon said in a statement.
Yes! Just what we need! (Score:1)
Oh goody goody yet more deadly weapons, we sure do need more of those! Not like the current balance of power was working or anything.
Give them all little nerve-gas-filled stingers and facial-recognition abilities and that boot stamping on our face need never lift.
Re: (Score:1)
Is this a regular /.r who is deeply discombobulated by the election and needs to make conservatives look like his internal image of conservatives, or is this a legitimate racist b@tsh!t lunatic crawled out from under a rock and camping here where he isn't welcome?
I vote butt-hurt snowflake. Those guys have been pulling lots of this kind of crap lately.
WW3 is going to be a nightmare (Score:3)
WWI saw brutal mechanization and trench warfare, WWII brought us aerial bombardment and the Blitzkrieg. And now it looks like WWIII will offer up the excitement of being hunted to extinction by autonomous drones.
Re: (Score:2)
WWII brought us nukes.
WWIII will have bigger nukes.
The drones mean nothing in a world of nukes.
Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland. Drones are better suited for real war.
Re: (Score:2)
WWII brought us nukes. WWIII will have bigger nukes.
The drones mean nothing in a world of nukes.
Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland. Drones are better suited for real war.
Unless you use a small nuke for the EMP to destroy the drone swarms... Because you know that will be the thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Heck, why not at the F35 that actually drops the swarm? Hmm, may have been tried already...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: WW3 is going to be a nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland.
I can think of two conspicuous examples that totally disprove this statement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Things have changed a bit in the last 70 years.
Not the least of which is the fact that nukes today are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are a "doomsday weapon". You don't win a war with them, unless you want to rule an irradiated wasteland.
Not true - only ground detonations do that kind of lasting harm, and those were for cracking missile silos. Missile silos have largely vanished, since they're vulnerable in this way. The standard strategic nuke for attacking cities would be a ~800 kTon airburst, which has the same effect as a large-scale firebombing operation. The lingering effects would be a lot of people dying of cancer decades later--which is horrible to be sure--but not a wasteland. But we discovered in WWII that attacking civilian t
Re: (Score:1)
The Russians almost 'obtained' Japan, but throwing two nuclear weapons on civilian targets (a disgusting war crime by all means) convinced them to surrender to the USA, which this way obtained a market for their surplus production after the war ended.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but this certainly isn't anything more destructive than what we've been fielding for decades.
Depends on the payload of these drones, I guess
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing so high tech. Kid in her basement playing with bio-chemistry set creates new super virus...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I worry about the second variety of drones.
A future countermeasure for "active shooters"? (Score:3)
It seems like a co-ordinated swarm of drones would be a good way to neutralize someone who has decided to go on a shooting spree. They could either attack the shooter or simply swarm around him so that he can't see where he is going, and shooting at them wouldn't be particularly effective since they are small, fast, and there are so many of them.
Well, someday, maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm having a hard time imagining how a swarm of these would be any more than a mild inconvenience to someone determined enough to do a shooting spree.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm....seems quite close to the Internet of Shit and the plans the appliance manufacturers have for making everything "smart". In your home, you will be surrounded by some immovable drones, all talking to one another, keeping tabs on you...until...they start talking to the Roomba and the new smart tools and learn how to become mobile.
Perhaps the Grey Goo will get us after all (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
First in fiction (Score:2)
Neal Stephenson floated a similar idea in Seveneves. Rather than dumb hunks of metal, combatants would fire autonomous drone-like projectiles at their enemies that would hunt them down through foliage and around corners. And since the enemy has them too, some drone projectiles would specialize in defensive work - forming a cloud around their user, attempting to absorb projectiles or neutralize attacking drones.
In the story it was a technology developed out of necessity, for combat off-planet in enclosed s
Payload? (Score:2)
I wonder what payload the military have planned for these to carry.
not so micro (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a picture of one and it's not what I would call "micro". [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's all relative, but depending who you ask, "micro" may mean < 2kg http://docs.house.gov/meetings... [house.gov], or < 5kg http://www.academia.edu/205567... [academia.edu] . It's not small by hobbyist standards, but in the military world it's tiny compared to the 14,628 kg Global Hawk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
That shrieking is something fierce. (Score:2)
There's the signature nightmare and PTSD trigger for the next war.
At a few hundred dollars a pop, with a stationkeeping aerostat above them to charge them up, you could have hundreds of screaming mosquitoes blanketing the front line -all- -the- -time-. Relentless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here are a couple videos for you (Score:2)
Here are a couple of videos for you:
http://911speakout.org/wp-cont... [911speakout.org]
Check YouTube for videos of the 100+ people who saw it happen while sitting in traffic.
another demo showing demise of manned aircraft? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Future Fighter Pilots:
"Dey Terk Er JERBS!"
Reminds me of... (Score:4, Interesting)
Protoss Carriers.
Jet Killers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound so appetizing.
103? (Score:2)
Why dropped from F/A 18's? (Score:2)
BroodWar (Score:2)
CARRIER HAS ARRIVED!
Countermeasure (Score:2)
Or many small drones dangling ropes?
Just posting out loud...
Obligatory Black Mirror (Score:2)
"Hated In the Nation"
sabotage (Score:2)
yeah, but if you play classical music at them really loud, they all explode.
Based on a MIT Student project. (Score:2)
The Perdix drones are based on this MIT student project [mit.edu], which was then turned over to Lincoln Labs for further development.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be actually a neat design even for more harmless (and fun) uses. Compact and sturdy in stowed configuration too.
No downside (Score:2)
Nope, I don't see any potential problem with AI controlled swarms of killer wasps.
Re: (Score:2)
karma? (Score:1)
60 Minutes Segment (Score:1)
60 Minutes reported on this last Sunday
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60... [cbsnews.com]
Cheap = bad (for U.S.) (Score:2)
The U.S. military's single greatest asset is its ability/willingness to outspend every other military on earth by a huge margin. Any weapon that's cheap to produce is bad for them. It's a weapon their enemies can get too. Democratizing warfare is not good for them.
Of course, it's not good for anyone else either. Just wait for the first terror attack where a swarm of drones flies through a city killing people.
Prey (Score:2)
Michael Crichton was so ahead of his time. The microdrones would need to be replaced with self-assembling nanorobots but still. Even the sound is getting close to that of his "dust devils".