Page 77 - The ROV Manual - A User Guide for Remotely Operated Vehicles 2nd edition

3.3 Autonomy plus: “why the tether?” 65
• Vehicle operating with artificial intelligence and full autonomy: No human supervisor directly controlling the vehicle. The vehicle controls are preprogrammed with the vehicle making objective decisions as to the conduct of that flight from inception to termination based upon the “Sense/Plan/Act” paradigm.
Predator UAVs have recently been retrofitted with weapons, producing the new designation unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV). The most efficient technology would allow that UCAV (without human intervention) to find, detect, classify, and deliver a lethal weapon upon the target, thus eliminating the threat. And here is the crux—is a responsible commander in the field comfortable enough with the technology to allow a machine the decision of life and death? This may be an extreme example, but (for now) a human must remain in the decision loop. To continue this example, would any passenger (as a passenger) fly in a commercial airliner without a pilot physically present in the cockpit? This may not happen soon, but one can safely predict that unpi- loted airliners are in our future. Unattended trolleys are currently used in many airports worldwide.
3.3.2 Underwater vehicle variations
Now, the aircraft analogy will be reconsidered with underwater vehicle control in mind.
• Man in vehicle: Manned submersible pilot sitting aboard the vehicle underwater in the pilot’s seat manning the controls and directly commanding the vehicle.
• Man in vehicle with AutoPilot: Same situation with AutoPilot controlling the submersible’s navigation (pilot supervising the systems).
• Man in remote location with teleoperation: Technician sitting in front of control console on the surface (or other submerged platform) with tether or other data link to the submersible while the technician is manipulating the controls remotely.
• Vehicle operating with artificial intelligence and full autonomy: No human supervisor directly controlling the vehicle. The vehicle controls of the AUV are preprogrammed, with the vehicle making objective decisions as to the conduct of that dive from inception to termination.
During operation Iraqi Freedom, mine countermeasure AUVs were used for mine clearance operations. The AUV swam a preprogrammed course over a designated area to search and detect mine-like objects on the bottom. Other vehicles (or marine mammals or divers) were then sent to these locations to classify and (if necessary) neutralize the targets.
The new small UUVs are going through a two-stage process where they Search (or Survey), Classify, and Map. The Explosive Ordinance Disposal personnel then return with another vehicle (or marine mammal or human divers) to Reacquire, Identify, and Neutralize the target. Essentially, the process is to locate mine-like targets, classify them as mines if applicable and then neutralize them. What if the whole process can be done with one autonomous vehicle? And again the crux—is the field commander comfortable enough with the vehicle’s programming to allow it to distinguish between a Russian KMD-1000 Bottom-type influence mine and a manned undersea laboratory before destroying the target? For the near term, man will remain in the decision loop for the important operational decisions. But again, one can safely predict that full autonomy is in our future.