From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Tony Williams wrote:
> Adam > wrote:
>>> BTW, I see BAe have unveiled a new UAV. How long before wars really
>>> _are_ a battle of the robots?
>>>
>>
>> Dependent upon funding between 5 -15 years (also dependent upon there
>> being a usefull "weapons proving event" aka a war/mil
adventure in order
>> to try it out).
>
> Never seems to be any shortage of those.
>

Wars help to develop & test technology like no other.

>> However this has been happening for a while now anyway e.g. AADS
>> (Automated Air Defence System) vs SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air
>> Defence) contests are generally missile vs missile / machine vs machine.
>
> Sure, but there are now two characteristics being combined: re-usable
> hardware and autonomous (no/little human piloting) behaviour. In the
> past we've had either one or the other but never the two together in a
> single system.
>

Yup. & Cheap too. Take a std flight sim. Take a std set of USB
peripherals (inc cameras, wifi, GSM/3G card, gps receiver etc)). Add some
USB "servo controllers". Buy a model aircraft.

Now get a low power board which runs linux. You may need to bleed energy
off the main engine in order to keep the batteries topped up.

Off you go.

Run in maps etc from google earth etc.

Work on your flight control system. Possibly start an OSS project on
sourceforge called "openFlightControl.org"

There are lots of geeks in the world who like both computers & model aircraft.

> Missiles are pretty much autonomous once given a target and fired, but
> one shot is all you get. Conversely, UAV drones have a remote human
> operator, but can return to base after a mission.
>

Hah. it ain't that hard but the US et al were always planning for WW3 where
it was a maximum of 3 weeks till things went nuclear or the "model
aircraft" aka cruise missiles were carrying nukes anyway for the
chance of them escaping the detonation was reomte anyway.

You could stick landing gear onto a cruise & have it return & land with ease.

However you would be halving it's maximum range.



> There are shades of grey here, such as giving a missile a choice of
> targets, but when you can send out a UAV to seek out self-selected
> targets of opportunity and then return to base I see something
> qualitatively different from current systems.
>

& much much cheaper. Small turbojets are "low tech" &
cheap (esp in a
national budget).

Some are definitely reachable with a private budget:

e.g. for very small e.g. for the project mentioned above:

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/tinyturbo1.html

& more generally:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/article_display.cfm?article_id=166

I particularly like this guy:

http://freespace.virgin.net/dyno.power/gasturbine/

"I have also designed and built a small turbojet using the turbine and
shaft and compressor from a T3 Garrett Turbocharger removed from a Ford
Escort RS Turbo. This was a bit of a failure as it only wanted to run at
high speed."



A howto

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml

Quite a lot of work is going on e.g.

http://www.stormingmedia.co.uk/35/3536/A353643.html?PHPSESSID=7e3a79b3627fb3fac
6b3643cb14f42d2

"Abstract: Three test programs were conducted to provide the
preliminary groundwork for the design of a small turbojet engine from
turbocharger rotor components for possible Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle
applications. The first program involved the performance mapping of the
Garrett T2 turbocharger centrifugal compressor. The second program involved
the bench testing of a small turbojet engine, the Sophia J450, at 115000
RPM, and comparing the results to another small turbojet, the JPX-240, from
previously documented research. The compressor radii of the two engines
were identical but greater than that of the Garrett compressor. The two
engines, despite their physical similarities, had different fuel
requirements. The J450 used heavy fuel (fuel pump required) while the JPX
used liquid propane (pressurized fuel tank required). The third program
involved the performance prediction of the J450 using GASTURB cycle
analysis software. The compressor map generated from the Garrett T2 test
was imported into GASTURB and used to predict the J450 performance at
94000, 105000, 115000, and 123000 RPM. The performance predictions agreed
reasonably well with actual J450 performance."

You could probably bleed enough energy off a gas turbine to power a low
powered PC board & some plugin usb componenents.

Maybe it's just me wot thinks that.

Look how cheap & easily you can produce small solid turbojets (i.e.
ones which you can reuse again & again)

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/forbes/2006/0227/037.html

"Small-Jet Market Heats Up"

"That day is getting closer. Eclipse Aviation will have in play its
revolutionary minijet, the Eclipse 500, by mid-2006. As readers of this
column know, I've followed Eclipse for six years. It's a remarkable, bold
idea--a 430mph six-seat jet, selling for $1.5 million new, that has fuel
efficiencies stingier than most twin-engine prop planes. I flew the Eclipse
last July and was stunned by its ability to get into airstrips as short as
2,500 feet. Eclipse has been successful in raising money--more than $450
million to date, a chunk of it from Bill Gates. Expect an Eclipse IPO later
this year.

Another startup, Adam Aircraft of Denver, will hit the market soon with its
A700 AdamJet. This is a bigger jet, seating four aft of the cockpit and
sporting plenty of legroom and a potty. The A700 is equivalent in size,
though slower than, a Cessna Citation CJ1+. But at $2.3 million the A700
will cost only 52% of the CJ1+.

Cessna will wade into the market later this year with its four-passenger
Mustang, which is larger than the Eclipse 500 but smaller than the A700.
The Mustang will cost a heftier $2.6 million, but many will pay the premium
because of Cessna's sterling reputation for quality, safety and service.
"

http://www.adamaircraft.com/specifications700.asp

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/eclipse_500/



>> I'm just wondering how far the US especially will go with ground based
>> killer machines as those could be fun if they go wrong.
>
> Ever read Saberhagen's "Berserker" stories 
>

It's like the sniper spotting return fire concept. great until your
soldiers decide to advance & then....you shoot your gun forward of a
point & your own anti-sniper robot will shoot you.

In terms of reading, more 2000AD. Esp Rogue Trooper & the ABC warriors.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5