UAV / UCAV / LAR (robotit) Uutiset ja jutut

Olisko se vanha syy, raha.
Ei niinkään raha vaan se että DJI on suojannut dronejensa ohjelmistoa niin että virallisen tilalle jonkun omavirityksen päivittäminen on tavalliselle ja vähän edistyneemmällekin pulliaiselle tehtävä mahdoton.

Luotettavaa ohjelmistoa löytyy ihan ilmaiseksi, tai ainakin sellaista jonka luotettavuuden voi jokainen itse tarkistaa koska on avointa lähdekoodia. Mutta se toimii ohjainraudassa jonka ympärille yleensä kasataan oma drone yleispalikoista. Ukrainan isommat kranaatinpudottelijat on juuri näitä.
 
Sillon kun PV hankki DJI droneja, ei ollut vielä tiedossa nämä paikkatietojen yms vuotamiset. Esim Phantom 1 ja 2 ei moisia luovutellut, uudemmathan vaatii nettiyhteyden yms. Ja näissä sit heräs epäilys, että jotain vilunkia on. Ja se mitä yksityinen voi tehdä, ei aina koske virallistatoimijaa.
 

Eight-ish years ago, back when drone delivery was more hype than airborne reality (even more so than it is now), DHL tested a fully autonomous delivery service that relied on drones to deliver packages to an island 12 kilometers off Germany’s North Sea coast. The other alternative for getting parcels to the island was a ferry. But because the ferry didn’t run every day, the drones filled the scheduling gaps so residents of the island could get important packages without having to wait.

“To the extent that it is technically feasible and economically sensible,” DHL said at the time, “the use of [drones] to deliver urgently needed goods to thinly populated or remote areas or in emergencies is an interesting option for the future.” We’ve seen Zipline have success with this approach; now, drones are becoming affordable and reliable enough that they’re starting to make sense for use cases that are slightly less urgent than blood and medication deliveries. Now, thinly populated or remote areas can benefit from drones even if they aren’t having an emergency. Case in point: The United Kingdom’s Royal Mail has announced plans to establish more than 50 new postal drone routes over the next three years.

The drones themselves come from Windracers Group, and they’re beefy, able to carry a payload of 100 kilograms up to 1,000 km with full autonomy. Pretty much everything on it ensures redundancy: a pair of engines, six separate control units, and backups for the avionics, communications, and ground control.
 
Hyvä kysymys. En ole vieläkään nähnyt mitään mainintoja, että oltaisiin edes käynnistämässä ucav:n hankintaa. Kaipa tuohon jokin syy on, että tuo osa-alue katsotaan "turhaksi". Siis muukin kuin raha.
 
Hyvä kysymys. En ole vieläkään nähnyt mitään mainintoja, että oltaisiin edes käynnistämässä ucav:n hankintaa. Kaipa tuohon jokin syy on, että tuo osa-alue katsotaan "turhaksi". Siis muukin kuin raha.

Oma veikkaukseni on edelleenkin että aseistetut dronet näkyvät tutkassa ainakin aseidensa verran paremmin, joten ehkä on parempi vain käyttää lennokkeja tulenjohtamiseen.
 
Jos aseistetut droonit maksavat miljoonia, niin voi hyvin olla niin, että PV:n vaaka kallistuu perustellusti ”Ei” suuntaan.

Ukrainassa nähty tuhansien eurojen drooneja tekemässä tuhoa, ne on tosin lentoajaltaan ja tarkkuudeltaan aika rajoitettuja. Mutta ehkä jo kymmenillätuhansilla alkaisi saamaan hyöty/kustannus vaikutuksiltaan hankkimisen arvoisia aseistettuja drooneja. Minusta olisi hyvä jos PV ryhtyisi ennakkoluulottomasti kokeilemaan erilaisia vaihtoehtoja. Jos löytyy joku hyvä konsepti niin sitten isompi tilaus.

Esim. 100 kpl 30 TEURin droonia = 3 MEUR, mikä nyt ei pitäisi olla ylitsepääsemätöntä.
 
Nearly a decade after it was signed, a directive that laid out the ground rules for U.S. autonomous weapons is due for a refresh, according to the leader of the Pentagon’s emerging capabilities policy office.

Given the time passed and significant advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning, now is “actually an opportune time” for the Department of Defense to “take a look at that directive and figure out what should be done to reflect, sort of, where we are now compared to where we were a decade ago,” Director Michael Horowitz said May 17 at the Nexus 22 symposium.

Exactly what would change or when was unclear. He made no suggestions at the event.

Defense Department directive 3000.09, signed by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter in November 2012, details how autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems can be developed and deployed and constructs guardrails to mitigate loss of control or unintended casualties.

Horowitz regards the edict as “the world’s first policy statement on autonomous weapon systems,” a “remarkable document in many ways.”

The passage of time, technological leaps, wars fought abroad and bureaucratic changes at home can render policy and procedure out of touch.

Since the creation of the directive, the Pentagon launched the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, what was its AI locus, and the chief digital and AI office, a next-generation suite dedicated to all things data. The military services, too, are increasingly experimenting with autonomy and unmanned systems. And there remain skeptics and grassroots groups opposed to tools of war — so-called killer robots — that can operate without a human directly looped in.

Horowitz said the Defense Department is committed to “being responsible about autonomous weapon systems, and having guidance concerning them that incorporates all that has happened over the last decade.” His hope, he said, is that anything the department does moving forward “would reflect that need for responsible speed when it comes to the the adoption of these kinds of systems.”

The Pentagon on May 27 said Horowitz and his office were examining what autonomous systems, hypersonic tech and directed-energy weapons mean for international competition and stability. Ethical considerations are also being reviewed.

“There are types of weapon systems where the department has decided that we need some additional level of scrutiny or review in addition to the many existing checks that the department has for the approval of weapon systems,” Horowitz said, according to the Pentagon. “This office will be managing policy about some of those processes and advising the undersecretary of defense for policy on other emerging capabilities, those where additional policy guidance is necessary.”
 


 
Back
Top