From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #44 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 22 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 044 In this issue: UAV/AUV (was GNAT 750) Re: GNAT 750 UAV/AUV (was GNAT 750) UAV/AUV (was GNAT 750) (fwd) Re: GNAT 750 See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 9:13:14 PDT Subject: UAV/AUV (was GNAT 750) > > > As requested by some folks, the contents of a brochure describing the > GNAT 750 high endurance UAV: > > GNAT-750 > Tomorrow's Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Available Today Just an odd note on the term UAV. I see here it is used to mean Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. I thought I have also seen Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle or maybe it was Autonomous Unmanned Vehicle. The Navy has a AUV program which is Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. These acronyms are hard to keep track of. > State-of-the-Art Ground Control Station > > o Multi-UAV control > o Multi-payload control > o Software programmable > o advanced mission planning > o Cockpit-like human factors > o Large 19" screens > o Operator comfort for long missions > o C-band tracking antenna > o S280 shelter Just curious if anyone has heard anything about a program I mentioned I had heard of, quite a while ago. It was called Pilots Wingman and it was an unmanned craft that would split the pilots work under attack by engaging some of the targets independently or something. Also I seem to remember that it was thought that they could have multiple ones of these in the air that would confuse the enemy as to which were actual manned craft and which were not. Does this sound like anything you have heard about? My understanding was that it was to be in some way controlled by the pilot (ie: not a ground control station like is mentioned above) but that it was to have some sort of AI system and could autonomously fly/engage (maybe a smart drone?). Maybe this program had too many problems and became something like the Amber program? It was obviously not at the full design level when I heard mention of it. ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 15:04:02 -0400 Subject: Re: GNAT 750 In your message dated: Wed, 20 Oct 93 18:13:02 EDT you write: [Neat stuff about GNAT-750 deleted...] >Flight History > >Vehicle Flights Hours Landings > >Amber 147 654 150 ^^^ ^^^ !!! >GNAT-BT 404 359 1169 ^^^ ^^^^ !!! >GNAT-750 45 124 100 ^^ ^^^ !!! Could someone please explain this? Do touch-and-go's count as landings but not as separate flights? Just wonderin', - --Lee ------------------------------ From: Tim Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 9:13:14 PDT Subject: UAV/AUV (was GNAT 750) > > > As requested by some folks, the contents of a brochure describing the > GNAT 750 high endurance UAV: > > GNAT-750 > Tomorrow's Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Available Today Just an odd note on the term UAV. I see here it is used to mean Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. I thought I have also seen Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle or maybe it was Autonomous Unmanned Vehicle. The Navy has a AUV program which is Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. These acronyms are hard to keep track of. > State-of-the-Art Ground Control Station > > o Multi-UAV control > o Multi-payload control > o Software programmable > o advanced mission planning > o Cockpit-like human factors > o Large 19" screens > o Operator comfort for long missions > o C-band tracking antenna > o S280 shelter Just curious if anyone has heard anything about a program I mentioned I had heard of, quite a while ago. It was called Pilots Wingman and it was an unmanned craft that would split the pilots work under attack by engaging some of the targets independently or something. Also I seem to remember that it was thought that they could have multiple ones of these in the air that would confuse the enemy as to which were actual manned craft and which were not. Does this sound like anything you have heard about? My understanding was that it was to be in some way controlled by the pilot (ie: not a ground control station like is mentioned above) but that it was to have some sort of AI system and could autonomously fly/engage (maybe a smart drone?). Maybe this program had too many problems and became something like the Amber program? It was obviously not at the full design level when I heard mention of it. ------------------------------ From: rakoczynskij%postoffice.agcs.com@agcs.com (Jurek Rakoczynski) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 13:16:21 -0700 (MST) Subject: UAV/AUV (was GNAT 750) (fwd) Tim wrote: > > Just curious if anyone has heard anything about a program I mentioned I > had heard of, quite a while ago. It was called Pilots Wingman and it was > an unmanned craft that would split the pilots work under attack by > engaging some of the targets independently or something. Also I seem > to remember that it was thought that they could have multiple ones of > these in the air that would confuse the enemy as to which were actual > manned craft and which were not. I haven't seen this mentioned in several years. The last time I remember it mentioned was in (of all places) Popular Science or Popular Mechanics in the "What's New" column (or some such single picture/short caption type section) about 2-5 years ago. PS/PM seem to be several months to several years behind in their NEWS. The project was to be capable of have several drones fly in formation with a control plane and in combat, the control plane would assign or off-load (presumably air) targets to be engaged. The pilot could, if he chose, also engage other targets, and would not worry about the "other" targets until some warning would signal that an off-loaded target was a danger to the control plane or had defeated the drone. I don't think the drones were totally autonomous, as the control craft may have had to track all the targets. I don't remember the drone weapon payload but I would guess that Sidewinders would have been used since this was a "force multiplier" for close engagements. But guns might have been on interesting feature. - -- Jurek Rakoczynski, AG Communication Systems, POB 52179, Phoenix, AZ. 85072-2179 Inet: rakoczynskij@agcs.com Voice: +1 602 581 4867 Inet: JUREK.RAKOCZYNSKI@gte.sprint.com Fax: +1 602 581 4022 ------------------------------ From: freeman@MasPar.COM (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 14:17:58 -0700 Subject: Re: GNAT 750 > Could someone please explain this? Do touch-and-go's count as landings > but not as separate flights? Maybe it counts as more than one landing if you come down in more than one piece... :-) -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #44 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).