If you really want a good hover capability this is a pretty good idea:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=20389

Posted by: intheknow at September 28, 2006 11:12 PM

Most of this technology is doable with one exception that limits almost all of robotic research today as well as weapon systems - the power supply. From flying robots to flys on the wall to nano medical robots traveling through your body to fight diseases. Electronics are approaching the atomic level now, so smarts aren't the problem. With enough power a disk type device will be able to counter yaw and pitch of a small rocket taking off. Technology for making a disk fly and controlling direction have existed for a decades, there are toys that can do this now. Comminications technology and surveillance exist now that could be used in the field for a fleet of small aircraft such as these.

Check out ZigBee networks: Each unit is a node and if a node goes down the signal is rerouted to the endpoint by the other nodes. NASA is designing a fleet of spacecraft now that will fly in space and spread out in precise formation (kilometers in diameter) to form a giant imaging network powerful enough to image other worlds the size of Earth orbiting stars and be able to distinguish clouds, vegetation, mountains, oceans, etc. Like Scotty said, "I haven't got the power."

RFID tags are also an established technology. A lot of soldiers carry electronics of some sort now anyway so whether you use active or passive field identification, IDing the good guys isn't that hard. The radar in fighter jets and bombers is plenty powerful to pick up RFID pulse returns and so are their computers. Again, individual nodes in a giant network. There are entire computers in a PDA now, cell phones getting GPS, what else do you need but $$$ to make it happen.

Posted by: tomo at September 23, 2006 11:51 AM

But, you've got to admit, that Quarter K is a sweet disc!

Posted by: Clay Richards at September 15, 2006 09:26 PM

It won't work. Surely. It'll be like that ball-bearing machine gun wonder-turret; a crazy sci-fi idea that just might work, until they find out all the reasons why it won't (i won't bother justifying this as I, unlike many other posters am no expert, but somehow I don't think it's necessary)

Posted by: Neil at September 13, 2006 03:43 PM

Jeff Hill wrote,
"Sorry Guys, James Bond and the evil "Odd Job" started the "R&D" on this new weapon back in the 1960's. Hey maybe this 250 lb. flying disc can explain some of those UFO stories."

LOL, Jeff, it's funny that you brought up James Bond. When I saw the story, I immediately thought of an old Bond movie where one of the bad guys (a Korean, if memory serves) killed his opponents by tossing his razor-lined top hat at them.

Posted by: Gavin Snyder at September 12, 2006 12:42 AM

Sorry Guys, James Bond and the evil "Odd Job" started the "R&D" on this new weapon back in the 1960's. Hey maybe this 250 lb. flying disc can explain some of those UFO stories.

Posted by: Jeff Hill at September 11, 2006 04:50 PM

Sark: Greetings. The Master Control Program has chosen you to serve your system on the Game Grid. Those of you who continue to profess a belief in the Users will receive the standard substandard training, which will result in your eventual elimination. Those of you who renounce this superstitious and hysterical belief will be eligible to join the warrior elite of the MCP. You will each receive an identity disk. Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this disk. If you lose your disk or fail to obey commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all.

Posted by: TronFan at September 11, 2006 10:40 AM

Hrm. Granted, it's hard to speculate on what is, at this point purely a concept device...But i can forsee a number of physical limitations that will be difficult, if not impossible to compensate for. While a design like this might make for an adequete, but costly replacement to the existing microhelecopter reconaisence platform, i can't see it having any sort of tactical capability to deliver killing power(unless the damn thing's got a edge on that foil). Simply put, those types of gyroscopes compensators dont take sudden recoil real well, so practically anything that's being shot from it will produce side-thrust producing uncompensatable yaw and pitch...I saw no technical detail on the expected munition being considered, but outside of drop & thrust point fixed rockets, everything else will knock it out of the air, as the vehicle itself will have to absorb the inertia.
-I'd rather see this R&D money going to work on a small platform railgun to remove entrenched enemy positions, or in advanced polymer composites for vehicle and infantry armour

Posted by: Brian at September 10, 2006 09:36 PM

HEY GUYS!!!!! remember: laugh while you can,but KEEP looking over your shoulders.tey watch us on tv,with cellphones they track us!!!!and some even have "lil rice size sliver trancievers in us [just for monitoring - - of course] later gumby "enjoy yor days&remember your nites" "the only easyday,was,yesterday"

Posted by: gumby at September 10, 2006 08:58 PM

Didn't they have these on Dark Angel? Does DARPA pay somebody to watch all the old Sci-Fi channel lineup and pull ideas from failed series?

Posted by: George at September 10, 2006 01:08 PM

This is weird because I had a dream over a year ago where I was in a futuristic America, and law enforcement used flying discs like this to chase after criminals, instead of doing it on foot. I wrote about it here:

http://www.timboucher.com/old/2005/02/20/aliens-over-nyc/

Just a strange and probably meaningless coincidence, I suppose!

Posted by: Pop Occulture at September 9, 2006 09:53 PM

Having spent my career in successful advanced aircraft development work, I can confidently say that this frisbee idea is too dumb to believe. It's nothing but buzzwords and BS. None of the technologies to design, build, field, support, or control such a thing exist. It's all wishful thinking. I can hope that this is merely an advanced concepts project -- to flesh out the problems -- and nothing more.

Are my tax dollars really going for this kind of nonsense? It seems that the DOD is taking lessons from the Dept. of Education.

Posted by: Galen at September 8, 2006 11:56 PM

ummmm anyone ever seen screamers? or read the phillip k dick story "second variety"

Posted by: Ian at September 8, 2006 09:25 AM

"And what exactly is going to keep this thing from fragging friendlies?"

Maybe RFID tags?

Posted by: Jay at September 8, 2006 06:39 AM

Gahh, link didn't work. Lets try again.
Flying Disk Camera
http://www.teamdroid.com/archives/2006/07/15/flying-disk-camera/

Posted by: John at September 6, 2006 11:06 PM

I'm reminded of this thing:
Flying Disk Camera
Not sure how they military versions will be controlled though.

Posted by: John at September 6, 2006 10:54 PM

You want to see some killer frisbee?????

Got http://cubbysdiscgolfworld.blogspot.com and check out some of the frisbee vidoes on the site

Posted by: Cubby at September 6, 2006 01:49 PM

"Auto-hunt" huh? And what exactly is going to keep this thing from fragging friendlies? Doesn't our military have enough trouble with HUMANS killing our soldiers by accident that we need to worry about a load of deadly frisbees flying around?

Posted by: James at September 6, 2006 11:53 AM

Talk about a new spin on Ultimate Frisbee ...

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at September 6, 2006 11:38 AM

Flying Frisbies of Fatality!

FFF's or Triple F's . . . F3's . . . 3F's ?

Fabulous Flying Frisbies of Fatality? 4F?

There is an old Kung Fu movie with flying head choppers. Saw it in my misspent youth at some asian cinema . . . scuze me while I google . . .

Master of the Flying Guillotine (1976)!!!

Posted by: Allen at September 6, 2006 10:41 AM

I think pedestrian had it right the only way for this to work is if there is central body not spinning, if this was combimed with airfoils linking to a heavy outer disk which is set spinning prior to the launch this would give the disc some simple stored power without the need for an engine. You would then have directable projectile weapon that could stay up for a short while and search for the target.

Posted by: fozzy at September 6, 2006 06:51 AM

The use of frisbee seems to be focused on operation in small radius but with continuous surveillance from one point, compared to traditional UAV that may operate at large radius to "hunt" targets rather than defensive means. The advantage of VTOL UAVs is that it could loiter at the same spot for a certain amount of time, while typical UAVs must continue to fly foward to avoid stalls. Different from balloons which the security force of Israel uses, frisbee based UAVs has the advantages to be dispensed out and reach the distant but slightly short destination at a short time. This is the advantage against the balloons Israel uses which is strongly effected by wind, and without the ability to fly against the wind to reach the destination. Of course, frisbee also has a trade off with disadvantages compared to balloons, which is the duration the platform may stay in the air. However, the use of frisbee still provides a new dimension of C4ISTAR, probably with aims of short time loitering surveilance in small radius, such as in urban combat where ground force may not reach to release the balloon. Frisbee based UAVs provides a new UAV option/alternative for surveillance. Both balloon platform and frisbee are more defensive platforms, but frisbee is more offensive in terms of ability to be armed with weapons. At least frisbees may be interesting to be loaded with "gliding" grenades as submitions.

Posted by: pedestrian at September 6, 2006 12:32 AM

It would be easy to provide lift by spinning: Put airfoils in the frisbee. Hard to describe, but it works. Regular frisbees arent much, but add a bit of aero engineering and you can get some insane results. What I personally think would easily work would be an extra ring of sorts around the out dis with slanted airfoils pointing in the appropriate direction and presto, lift. With some extra work you could manage to make these also able to control direction, speed, and of course stability. About the weapons systems, Ever think of the middle of the frisbee? That stays fairly stable, and with the technology of todeay could easily be used to fire accurate weapons.

Posted by: Kevin F. at September 5, 2006 07:23 PM

@kevin:
I think you're right, actually. Mark that down as a brainfart. I guess the spinning has more to do with stability (and with the fact that the human body isn't designed to set things into translational motion without rotational motion).

But if anything, that just makes my point that a frisbee doesn't seem like a natural choice for the task they describe here - if a frisbee really gets its lift from its motion through the air and not from spinning, than the frisbee of death wouldn't be particularly good at hovering.

I'm leaning towards the explanation hinted at by some of the commenters earlier, that basically what we're talking about is more like the flying skeet-disk of death, something flung out by a launcher to pass over a target and image and/or drop munitions on it - with minimal or no maneuverability and endurance, but at a low cost. Not a bad idea, but that would mean that the whole hovering-robot-of-death thing is be nothing more than press-flack hyperbole (which is, of course, unheard of).

Posted by: Haninah at September 5, 2006 03:16 PM

I thought that a frisbee generated lift by acting as an airfoil, preforming like a wing as it move through the air with its own momentum...the spiningg only serves to keep it upright?

Posted by: kevin at September 5, 2006 02:40 PM

What's next? The EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle? :-)

Posted by: Juan-John at September 5, 2006 11:44 AM

Its an intriguing idea, but I don't know if frisbee flight is appropriate for a UAV. It may be good for loitering over an area, but I don't see how it could be more maneuverable than a micro-helicopter. They might also explore the effectiveness of a spin-stabilized frisbee munition.

Pack the frisbee with some of the "skeet" spin-stabilized bomblets of the sensor fused weapon and fire it over a fortified position. The munition would slowly pass over the position and use a down-looking IP scope to pick out targets and deploy its submunitions. It could be like a cheaper, smaller, man-deployed alternative to close air support.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 5, 2006 11:37 AM

I am not an engineer, but at least we can make some inference.

>First of all, will this frisbee of death need
to spin to generate lift, like a normal frisbee?
>Because if it does - well, let's just say it's a bit hard to shoot in a straight line if you're >doing several rps.

It would be worth spinning for lift as a gliding platform just like boomerangs that would not depend on such engine(s)/motor(s). Excluding engine(s)/motor(s) would eliminate the cost for adding such units, and improve the cost performance for mass production. As my impression, this seems to be a low cost type UAV for mass production versus high cost type UAVs that is limited in quantity. Regarding Fire Control System, I imagine a counter rotating mechanism in the center. When dispensed, just spin two portion seperately in the opposite direction.

>Second, will a spinning body actally generate enough lift to keep this thing off the ground? A >normal fribee has to spin pretty fast to actually generate net lift - it's only doing that >for the first few seconds, if then, and after that it's only gliding, generating enough lift to >slow its fall but no more.

I would imagine this depends on the weight, and design of the UAV, and rpm generated by the dispenser unit.

>If the answer to the first question is that there's going to be a central body that's not >spinning that carries the firepower and a separate spinning body to provide lift, I don't >really see how you get a mechanical advantage over just building a micro-helicopter. But then, >I'm no aeronautical engineer.
In short - awesome story!

Once again, device such as boomerangs, and frisbees depends on external power at the boost stage, versus helicopters and jets able to fly by its onboard power. Eliminating onboard power source is likely to decrease the cost for production by eliminating addition of engines and motors. This allows the UAV to be built in large quantities, while UAVs with on board power source are likely to be more expensive, with less quantity availible. In low intensity conflicts, quantity also has importance to cover large area to respond to ambushes, since the concept of frontline often does not exist in low intensity conflicts as in Iraq today. In traditional warfare, you would likely send the UAVs down the main roads, and strategic points, find the enemy vehciles and bases before such attacks by these. There is the frontline where most attacks concentrates which quantity is less an issue. However, in guerilla warfare, the enemy may be less visible wearing civilian clothes, hiding for ambushes with hit-and-run tactics, attacks occuring in various locations at the same time. You need quantity for this case to cover large areas.

Posted by: pedestrian at September 5, 2006 11:24 AM

interesting. This thing couldnt possiblby that small, like a small car floatin around maybe, your talkin weapon systems with at least a small amount of ammos for it, so there a lot of weight right there..... but like someone else said, i aint no aeronautical engineer.

Posted by: Meerkatman at September 5, 2006 10:31 AM

Interesting concept, and a great story - best lede I've read in ages! - but a few striking technical questions.
First of all, will this frisbee of death need to spin to generate lift, like a normal frisbee? Because if it does - well, let's just say it's a bit hard to shoot in a straight line if you're doing several rps.
Second, will a spinning body actally generate enough lift to keep this thing off the ground? A normal fribee has to spin pretty fast to actually generate net lift - it's only doing that for the first few seconds, if then, and after that it's only gliding, generating enough lift to slow its fall but no more.
If the answer to the first question is that there's going to be a central body that's not spinning that carries the firepower and a separate spinning body to provide lift, I don't really see how you get a mechanical advantage over just building a micro-helicopter. But then, I'm no aeronautical engineer.
In short - awesome story!

Posted by: Haninah at September 5, 2006 08:54 AM

hmmmmmm.....a plug here for a fun story: "Spooker" by Dean Ing

about flying disk UAV with auto hunt capability, although I believe its' lethality was a laser......been a few years since I read it...

Posted by: campbell at September 5, 2006 07:27 AM