Russian company Neiry has tested pigeons as biodrones in Moscow, using neural implants and electronics to enhance their flight capabilities for various monitoring tasks.
Cruise missiles often use pre-programmed guidance systems, or total automation with just set of GPS waypoints to reach. That’s a pretty sensible appropriate because the nature of the device is as a long range weapon that often ventures far into enemy territory. If you needed to stay in constant communication, radio jamming would become a serious liability. I’d imagine this is very similar in its design goals, so they’d likely use a similar approach.
At any rate, I don’t expect the guidance to be the hard part, GPS navigation is not that hard to implement. (or GLONASS, in this particular case)
Also… If the US were doing this, they actually could use star link. Star link direct to cell phone connectivity is actually in beta right now and it works. If the pigeon could carry a striped down iPhone (it doesn’t need a screen, speaker, microphone, etc), then it could actually carry a communications device that could be in constant contact. I wouldn’t recommend Russia try that on starlink though, given that it’s an American company.
Sure, fine. At no point was I making any argument for or against this technology. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it’s a waste of time, maybe it’s the future of aerial surveillance, maybe it’s just propaganda.
The only argument I’m making here is that there’s nothing far fetched about a pigeon flying thousands of kilometers, that’s totally normal. I’m pretty confident in this because I have first hand evidence that birds are actually really good at flying, and sometimes they fly very long distances.
Did you read my comment? My entire point was essentially that I don’t care. I’m not weighing in on that.
Edit: Though, I take that back now, just because you made such a big assertion, I’ll play devil’s advocate.
Let’s say you were using a drone for surveillance, what kind of range can you get in a drone? Looking around online, it appears that 200 km is considered extreme range for commercial drones, it’s hard to find anything greater than that. That said, military drones tend to have much greater range upwards of 1500 km.
On the other hand, I see no maximum range for a pigeon, at all. There’s a maximum distance it can travel per day and a maximum distance between landings that will keep it from crossing oceans. But that’s it.
Secondly, a drone can be shot down. If spotted it will be targeted. So they’re vulnerable. The pigeon on the other hand, if spotted, it will be ignored - because it’s a pigeon. It’s essentially a perfect stealth platform.
So there are two potential advantages if someone got this to work. There would of course also be drawbacks, and ultimately, who knows if it would turn out to be a viable system. But saying there’s “no benefit” is silly.
Cruise missiles often use pre-programmed guidance systems, or total automation with just set of GPS waypoints to reach. That’s a pretty sensible appropriate because the nature of the device is as a long range weapon that often ventures far into enemy territory. If you needed to stay in constant communication, radio jamming would become a serious liability. I’d imagine this is very similar in its design goals, so they’d likely use a similar approach.
At any rate, I don’t expect the guidance to be the hard part, GPS navigation is not that hard to implement. (or GLONASS, in this particular case)
Also… If the US were doing this, they actually could use star link. Star link direct to cell phone connectivity is actually in beta right now and it works. If the pigeon could carry a striped down iPhone (it doesn’t need a screen, speaker, microphone, etc), then it could actually carry a communications device that could be in constant contact. I wouldn’t recommend Russia try that on starlink though, given that it’s an American company.
Or you could I dunno, use a drone? What benefit is there to use a pigeon for any of this? The issue isn’t the payload it’s the platform.
Sure, fine. At no point was I making any argument for or against this technology. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it’s a waste of time, maybe it’s the future of aerial surveillance, maybe it’s just propaganda.
The only argument I’m making here is that there’s nothing far fetched about a pigeon flying thousands of kilometers, that’s totally normal. I’m pretty confident in this because I have first hand evidence that birds are actually really good at flying, and sometimes they fly very long distances.
So no benefit for using a pigeon.
Did you read my comment? My entire point was essentially that I don’t care. I’m not weighing in on that.
Edit: Though, I take that back now, just because you made such a big assertion, I’ll play devil’s advocate.
Let’s say you were using a drone for surveillance, what kind of range can you get in a drone? Looking around online, it appears that 200 km is considered extreme range for commercial drones, it’s hard to find anything greater than that. That said, military drones tend to have much greater range upwards of 1500 km.
On the other hand, I see no maximum range for a pigeon, at all. There’s a maximum distance it can travel per day and a maximum distance between landings that will keep it from crossing oceans. But that’s it.
Secondly, a drone can be shot down. If spotted it will be targeted. So they’re vulnerable. The pigeon on the other hand, if spotted, it will be ignored - because it’s a pigeon. It’s essentially a perfect stealth platform.
So there are two potential advantages if someone got this to work. There would of course also be drawbacks, and ultimately, who knows if it would turn out to be a viable system. But saying there’s “no benefit” is silly.
Happy we agree there’s no material benefit to using live animals to do an imperfect job of what cheap drones are already doing.
Haha, your username is ironic, you’re not even honest to yourself!
That’s not what I said, before or after my edit.