The Present and Future of Unmanned Drone Aircraft: An Illustrated Field Guide

the Mantis is really a groundbreaking machine , talk about the movie stealth coming to life

the Mantis is really a groundbreaking machine , talk about the movie stealth coming to life

awesome uav's; some are really stretching boundaries of flight,embla(spooky as built craft in 2000 using almost identical fan ducting& lifting turbines);really good to see not going for standard types;
i'm surprised not to see more ugev's (unmanned ground effects vehicles); would be a good support craft for navy,like against pirates, gev's are used fairly widely in public domain,so technology is proven concept. being able to fly @ up to 300metres above sea & 300mph;would make for fast responce & near invisible to radar etc;
would really luv to see what they aren't showing us; you can betcha,skunkworks,darpa etc working on some really awesome smart uav's

If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times. I like the tech, but this is NOT a good idea. Mark my words, kiddies, one day, and sooner than you think, some bad guy will figure out how to jack into one of these puppies and then they become UATV's (Unmanned Aerial Terrorist Vehicles)

I'm just sayin'...

Looks like flying one of those things thousands of miles awya must be a LOT of fun! Seems kinda cowardly though if you ask me. There is absolutely NO risk to the pilot of the drone yet he can still kill innocent civvies.

Jess
www.true-privacy.es.tc

@cowboy82
Right. Because that would NEVER happen to a MANNED aerial vehicle...

Great, brief guide, but there are many more being developed and available than mentioned here. I mean for one thing, you missed out some important ones that could be considered "the future" like the X-45B Pegasus and the Neuron.

Following Screamer's comment, I find it interesting that the FireScout and NUCAS where not included on this list.

Also in your information both the predator and Global Hawk have many more models. For example Euro Hawk and BAMS to name a few.

cowboy82
02/24/10 at 6:03 pm

If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times. I like the tech, but this is NOT a good idea. Mark my words, kiddies, one day, and sooner than you think, some bad guy will figure out how to jack into one of these puppies and then they become UATV's (Unmanned Aerial Terrorist Vehicles)

I'm just sayin'...

This already happen the lack of System Integration Test conducted by GA cause the video to be hacked by the enemy. So they knew what we were looking at for quite a long time. SIT should be enforce but since GA puts up there own money for development there is no test conducted until the systems are in the field.

ccrinko
02/24/10 at 7:30 pm

Looks like flying one of those things thousands of miles awya must be a LOT of fun! Seems kinda cowardly though if you ask me. There is absolutely NO risk to the pilot of the drone yet he can still kill innocent civvies.

Killing CIVVIES is always a concern and everything is done to limit that. The problem is the enemy hides right along the CIVVIES to attempted to cause causalities. I think the goal of UAV is an honorable one, limit death and support the soldier.

Most model plane enthusiasts will read this article and marvel at all the cool toys. Most military members will read this and wish they had the capability when they were deployed. Sadly most that read this will not get freaked out by "big brother" watching over the skies with something new.

They do have systems in place that watch the skies. Those systems are called aerostats. They are essentially blimps with surveillance systems installed. The problem is they are too close to the ground and are vulnerable to attack. Oh wait in 2009 they looked into that problem by investing 400 million into a blimp that flew so high that it would not be visible to the eye. Where did that research end... "MDA plans to deploy approximately 10 blimps to provide overlapping coverage of U.S. coastal regions." Why do we need 10 for the "coastal" regions....

This is one great offensive technology and spy system which doesn't have human on board. Our aeronautics technology today is fast becoming more advance than ever. What if someone is smart enough to successfully hacked in to the system? My question is, does it have a "kill switch" to prevent it from causing dangers to civilians?
We are now in the world of creating weapons of our own mass destruction.
Instead of funding this research institute for future weapons, why don't they concentrate on "Clean and Efficient Energy" and "Cure for Cancer", this is what we need today.

@DJSeebs

I've spent Literally YEARS working on both military and civilian aircraft, so when I post a comment, I actually have the experience and technical expertise to back it up.

That said,NOOOOOOOO it couldn't happen DWeeb. There is a world of difference between a remotely piloted aircraft whose signal can be interfered with or hi-jacked, and a manned aircraft. Think about it, Skippy.

@cowboy82. heh, you have to crash it(physically) before you hack it.

"cowboy82. heh, you have to crash it(physically) before you hack it."

Yup, that said, don't you think the designers are aware of that, once
it happens obviously they would improve on communication tech in these planes, and at the end
make it impossible to hack them over time. (And if shot down for them to hack), make the circuitry self destructing if needed.

Times have changed my friend, the tech wasn't booming back then when you might've worked on the aircraft, but it is now, faster
than many can keep up with.

I just wish they could all be used for peaceful purposes.

@Electrix...the specifics of my background aside, don't have too much faith in this new tech. You're not as safe as you think.

I've said it before "if you can make it, I can break it".

What if you had a robot fighter plane that was smart enough to tell the bad guys from the good guys and was self contained not needing external control?

UAVs rock!

@cowboy82

I understand you may have done lots of work on the engines, but I'm a prior service army signal core junkie. I currently work as an IT contractor in Iraq... let me explain a few things about signal encryption. The dificutly to crach an encytion is raised by 2x10^n. With N being the increase in bits of encyption.

In 2002 the world record for largest encryption crack was 64bits, it took FIVE YEARS to achieve. It litteraly takes DECADES to brute force crack a 128 bit on the worlds fastest systems. Even counting Moore's Law (processors double every 18 months) it will take 192 years to crack a 256 bit encyption. When you consider that even a simple CAISI (long range wireless 802.11B network) has 256 bit encyrption It's not unreasonable to asume that the next generation of UCAVs can support 512 or even 1024 bit encyption, after all, these things already exsist.

Now, as if the idea that it might take over a million years to crack that encyption on the worlds fastest computers (double in speed every 18 months the whole time)you have to remember Frquency Hopping... It's not like we're broadcasting the commands on a fixed channel. Even infantry carried SINGARS supports encryption with freqency hopping.

So, you're suggesting that hundreds (or thousands) of years of brute force cracking on an encyption can be done in REAL TIME to first hack into the aircraft and then lock out the remote operator while also sifting through the millions of possible combinations created by frequency hopping... AND if that wern't enough every aircraft has it's own encyption, theres no "master code" that would unlock them all. They are paired to thier parrent system indevidualy. each and every indevidual FLIGHT would have to be hacked seperately. Encyption keys are easily and reguraly changed, thats part of why they work. It may ake 100 years to crack a medium, or even poor strength encrpytion, but you only have 10 hours to do it if you want to catch this UAV while it's flying in your area.

I definately yield to your knowledge of aircraft engines and avionics, but I don't think you know what your suggesting when you say the control system will be hacked.

One person mentioned the "hacked" video feed from UAVs recently. Let me explain that too... there was absolutely NO hacking involved. The camera and it's braudcast were on a seperate channel from the control of the UAV. The video feed as being broadcasted on an unsecure 802.11 channel. There was no hacking, the enemy used a simple wireless sniffer and watched it like a television. at no time did they have any input ability, or any access to codes. They didn't even have the frequency, much less the keys to enter the control channel for the UAV. Once someone realized the cameras were sending the data out incorectly they were locked down and encypted. the problem was solved instantly.

I know I had alot to say, but I have to add this experpt from a fantastic article on encyption breaking.

"Once some of these basic facts on encryption become clear, "is encryption crackable" isn’t the right question because the real question is "when can it be cracked and will it matter then". This is just like Bank safes which are rated by the time it takes an attacker to crack it open and never sold as "uncrackable". Encryption strength and the number of bits used are selected based on how many decades the data needs to be kept safe. For a secure E-Commerce transaction, the data being transmitted is moot after a few decades which is why 128-bit encryption is perfectly suitable since it’s considered unbreakable for the next few decades. For top secret classified data that needs to remain secret for the next 100 years, the Government uses NIST certified 256-bit AES encryption. So the next time someone tells you that encryption is crackable, ask him if he’ll be around on this earth to see it demonstrated."

The signal is so secure the most dangerous operational threat is the operator. But even there I have to ask in the history of air combat how many pilots, especialy NATO pilots, have taken off in thier plane and then turned it against thier home... now consider the guy trying to do this is sitting in a control room with other people watching him.

I totally support the DROMS!! save a life, end a life... but great idea. WHat about rational thoughs or irrational thoughts will a drome that think by itself be able to make such decitions or will they all be manned from a command center.

ALIEN NATION

BTW... I do support a drom taking us from Earth to another galaxy or nebula!

ALIEN NATION