Jump to content


Unmanned Patton


  • Please log in to reply
191 replies to this topic

stalkervision #41 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 12:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

I myself do not see this tech coming anytime soon to the battlefield. The conditions of battle and terrain IMO takes a crew to keep a tank running. Crews do lots of maintenance on their vehicles even to this day. I don't see a robot crew member that jumps out of the tank and do this kind of work being made anytime soon

 

Just a funny after thought here. I was let in on the development of one of the first RPV which was being developed at RPI. It was pretty much a failure because the engineering students didn't realize it actually had to be built rather light to get off of the ground !  They used very high density heavy foam and other heavy construction materials in the plane.


 

Soon after the IAF produced a very workable version themselves with contributed significantly to their success in battles taking out sam sites that were downing IAF fighters at a alarming rate.  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/82iaf.html


Edited by stalkervision, Aug 19 2015 - 12:17.


Meplat #42 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 13:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

Elements of it already are in use.  It's more a matter of an armed remotely "crewed" armored vehicle being "high on the why" then a lack of mechanical or practical ability.

The maintenance issue is one you handle by treating the tracked drone like a winged one. It gets daily maintenance away from the loud noises (Kind of like when the squishy crew does it's greasy stuff).

 

The reasons given by LSID for the slow implementation are more valid. Jam free data connections are more of a limiting factor.

 



stalkervision #43 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMeplat, on Aug 19 2015 - 07:15, said:

Elements of it already are in use.  It's more a matter of an armed remotely "crewed" armored vehicle being "high on the why" then a lack of mechanical or practical ability.

The maintenance issue is one you handle by treating the tracked drone like a winged one. It gets daily maintenance away from the loud noises (Kind of like when the squishy crew does it's greasy stuff).

 

The reasons given by LSID for the slow implementation are more valid. Jam free data connections are more of a limiting factor.

 

 

Hay, got any links I would really like to see it !    Jam free connections are on all the drones so I don't see that as a limiting factor.

 

 I really don't believe one can treat tracked vehicles like a winged drone myself by just regular maintenance.  Especially on the battlefield.  That is why crews are trained to replace thrown tracks. Or say you get a bogie damaged by arty ?

 

 Yes, one could certainly operate a tank remotely especially now but as I said I believe the daily maintenance in a combat environment would make this pretty impractical.

 

and say you wedge your remote tank into a shell hole or building remotely and far from a maintenance base.

Who is going to get it out for you ? :)


Edited by stalkervision, Aug 19 2015 - 14:29.


Meplat #44 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 06:16, said:

 

Hay, got any links I would really like to see it !    Jam free connections are on all the drones so I don't see that as a limiting factor.

 

 I really don't believe one can treat tracked vehicles like a winged drone myself by just regular maintenance.  Especially on the battlefield.  That is why crews are trained to replace thrown tracks.

 

Basic radio bud, as long as you're using RF to carry the data, there is no such thing as "Jam Free". A simple and powerful Marconi spark gap transmitter can do a hell of a job on most modern transmissions, just like an electrical storm can jack with them.

All you can do is configure the data transfer to minimize the loss, possibly incorporating a small amount of autonomous capability to keep it from merrily seeking the nearest mudhole or large tree if the connection is lost for too long a period..

 

And yes, you can treat armored vehicles like remotely piloted aircraft regarding maintenance. It's a matter of logistics rather than technology.

If one goes down in field, it's tagged for recovery when possible or destroyed if that's not an option. You don't "fix" drones midflight, nor would you be remounting a track under fire.  When crew protection is a non-issue, you can afford to make the vehicle smaller and a bit more disposable. 



stalkervision #45 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMeplat, on Aug 19 2015 - 08:28, said:

 

Basic radio bud, as long as you're using RF to carry the data, there is no such thing as "Jam Free". A simple and powerful Marconi spark gap transmitter can do a hell of a job on most modern transmissions, just like an electrical storm can jack with them.

All you can do is configure the data transfer to minimize the loss, possibly incorporating a small amount of autonomous capability to keep it from merrily seeking the nearest mudhole or large tree if the connection is lost for too long a period..

 

And yes, you can treat armored vehicles like remotely piloted aircraft regarding maintenance. It's a matter of logistics rather than technology.

If one goes down in field, it's tagged for recovery when possible or destroyed if that's not an option. You don't "fix" drones midflight, nor would you be remounting a track under fire.  When crew protection is a non-issue, you can afford to make the vehicle smaller and a bit more disposable.

 

  Jam free connections are pretty standard on RPV's.  Have been for a long time. You home DSSL phone is a example of one. It frequency hops. Marconi radio is Am, subject to a ton in interference and is never used in any secure communications.

 

Battlefields are very fluid so the "just tag' thing will not work...


Edited by stalkervision, Aug 19 2015 - 14:37.


Meplat #46 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 06:32, said:

 

  Jam free connections are pretty standard on RPV's.  Have been for a long time. You home DSSL phone is a example of one.

 

Try using one of those phones in proximity of an old microwave oven, or poorly shielded CRT TV. Even things like old mag fired small engines with leaky caps can induce interference. 

There is no such thing as a radio signal that cannot be jammed. You can only minimize the jamming's effects on the datastream.



stalkervision #47 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMeplat, on Aug 19 2015 - 08:37, said:

 

Try using one of those phones in proximity of an old microwave oven, or poorly shielded CRT TV. Even things like old mag fired small engines with leaky caps can induce interference.

There is no such thing as a radio signal that cannot be jammed. You can only minimize the jamming's effects on the datastream.

 

  I do it all the time. :)  Your living in the dark ages :)

stalkervision #48 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
 Your pretty funny believe this still. Marconi radio and Microwave ovens. :)

stalkervision #49 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
these new secure communications are FM/FJ data links not you old analog am signals.

Meplat #50 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 06:38, said:

 

  I do it all the time. :)  Your living in the dark ages :)

 You're minimizing the effects of RFI, you cannot eliminate what it will do.. "Dark ages" would be a Baird system TV, and yes I'd like to own one of those as well. 

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 06:40, said:

 Your pretty funny believe this still. Marconi radio and Microwave ovens. :)

 

You make it seem as if knowing how these systems work and their potential effect on modern systems is a bad thing.. Very odd.

Meplat #51 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 06:43, said:

these new secure communications are FM/FJ data links not you old analog am signals.

 Again, FM is not immune (Turn on a FM radio during a lightning storm and note the pops/sizzles), and you're merely reducing the effect of RFI via how the network handles the datastream. Sometimes it does it well, sometimes it does it poorly.

 

 



Dominatus #52 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 17 2015 - 16:34, said:

The Goliath was a tracked mine, not really a tank. The Soviets were planning teletanks in 1935. 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/10/remote-control.html?m=0

They also had a number of other remote vehicles which were tank-sized, although they were all engineering vehicles, not recon or tanks.



stalkervision #53 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMeplat, on Aug 19 2015 - 08:50, said:

 Again, FM is not immune (Turn on a FM radio during a lightning storm and note the pops/sizzles), and you're merely reducing the effect of RFI via how the network handles the datastream. Sometimes it does it well, sometimes it does it poorly.

 

 

 

Your FM radio station doesn't deliver a frequency jumping spread spectrum data link signal.  :)

stalkervision #54 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 14:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

a lot of this tech is pretty standard now. Of course consumer equipment is the low end of the scale. Cordless phones have it and also RC transmitters and receivers.Both suffered from random interference before it was used.


Edited by stalkervision, Aug 19 2015 - 14:57.


Meplat #55 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 15:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 06:53, said:

 

Your FM radio station doesn't deliver a frequency jumping spread spectrum data link signal.  :)

Which is not "proof" against RFI, just a means of circumventing directed/freq spec. active jamming. It still is going to be affected by broader EM/RFI interference.

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 06:57, said:

a lot of this tech is pretty standard now. Of course consumer equipment is the low end of the scale. Cordless phones have it and also RC transmitters and receivers.Both suffered from random interference before it was used.

 

Again, you're trying to make distinctions regarding applications while not grasping that you cannot be free from RFI when you are using RF as the means of signal/data transfer. All you can do is minimize it's effects.

 

No RF signal is immune from RFI.



stalkervision #56 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 15:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMeplat, on Aug 19 2015 - 09:04, said:

Which is not "proof" against RFI, just a means of circumventing directed/freq spec. active jamming. It still is going to be affected by broader EM/RFI interference.

 

Again, you're trying to make distinctions regarding applications while not grasping that you cannot be free from RFI when you are using RF as the means of signal/data transfer. All you can do is minimize it's effects.

 

No RF signal is immune from RFI.

 

  Oh it might affect the signal a very tiny bit but really not enough to matter.  That is what you are not grasping.

stalkervision #57 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 15:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

The evidence is in the drones you see bombing our enemies every day. Don't you think the Soviet Union or IRAN would have sent all their terrorist friends drone signal jamming equipment by now if it was so easy to do ?

 

Hell they have even shot down drones and given the workings to these two countries and the terrorists and our enemies still can't jam the signals!


Edited by stalkervision, Aug 19 2015 - 15:13.


stalkervision #58 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 15:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 49925 battles
  • 7,872
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
In fact very advanced stealth drones have been shot down yet all the branches of service are planning even more and are now planning to use them as fighters!

Meplat #59 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 15:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 07:08, said:

 

  Oh it might affect the signal a very tiny bit but really not enough to matter.  That is what you are not grasping.

Again, there is no RF signal that is not affected/jammed by RFI. As I stated earlier, all you can do is minimize it's effects via how the signal is packaged.

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 07:10, said:

The evidence is in the drones you see bombing our enemies every day. Don't you think the Soviet Union or IRAN would have sent all their terrorist friends drone signal jamming equipment by now if it was so easy to do ?

 

Now you're off on a side tangent.  Active full spectrum RF jamming works both ways. If you fire up a very powerful spectrum-flooding RF noise generator, it will disrupt your RF as well as the enemy signals.  To swat a drone you're likely working with directed interference/jamming which is outside of my root statement.

  I don't really care how "teh baddies" are disrupting datastreams to "our" drones, but to claim it's impossible is pretty damned silly for someone who claims to be in the know.



Meplat #60 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 15:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 6613 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Aug 19 2015 - 07:17, said:

In fact very advanced stealth drones have been shot down yet all the branches of service are planning even more and are now planning to use them as fighters!

 

And some have supposedly been lost to RFI. This does not reinforce your statement, it merely indicates a logistical decision that the benefits outweigh the potential issues.




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users