Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Joint Strike Fighter


happy_renting

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Yes it's fine for a missile, it's not OK to manage the control surfaces of a plane, nor manage complex weapon systems or distinguish between friendly and enemy forces. Put it this way, the code would have to emulate the senses and cognitive ability of a human being, that's got to be billions, if not trillions of lines of code.

> Replacing front line fighter aircraft with drones is probably 30-40 years away IMO.

Why? The current SW for anti aircraft missiles seem OK for the job ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 399
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Watching something on aliens on one of the doc channels and that claimed Ronnie was into aliens and decided to defend the earth from interplanetary attack. However if you are capable of interstellar travel I'm sure you are going to arrive here with weapons that can deal with a few rockets aimed at you.

Don't be silly. Jeff Goldblum will just upload a windows virus to save the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

Yes it's fine for a missile,

1/ it's not OK to manage the control surfaces of a plane,

2/ nor manage complex weapon systems

3/ or distinguish between friendly and enemy forces.

4/ Put it this way, the code would have to emulate the senses and cognitive ability of a human being, that's got to be billions, if not trillions of lines of code.

1/ this is already automated; even taking off and landing from an aircraft carrier

2/ firing a missile from a drone is also already automated; such as hellfire on predators

3/ this has been automated for ages (IFF)

4/ I do not think for now we need a strong AI to fly a "stupid" killer drone; if they operate in groups they can be given an area to search and destroy; or they can be given targets by AWACS to kill; if you need any cognition you can still keep real pilots in the back or using the drone video feed.

I do not see any reasons for now to have the drones really intelligent; ideally the human authorisation shell be required for a kill of human target

Edited by Damik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

1/ this is already automated; even taking off and landing from an aircraft carrier

2/ firing a missile from a drone is also already automated; such as hellfire on predators

3/ this has been automated for ages (IFF)

4/ I do not think for now we need a strong AI to fly a "stupid" killer drone; if they operate in groups they can be given an area to search and destroy; or they can be given targets by AWACS to kill; if you need any cognition you can still keep real pilots in the back or using the drone video feed.

I do not see any reasons for now to have the drones really intelligent; ideally the human authorisation shell be required for a kill of human target

There are technical challenges with latency so a partially automated UAV is useful. Their operation wouldn't be much different with complete automation I would imagine, and besides the technological challenges there might well be legal ones… Pay a pilot a salary to operate them remotely to a large extent and you sidestep a great many problems for very little relative cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

You said the infrastructure required to fly a missile was adequate to control a fighter jet, hence my reply. You're now comparing an autonomous fighter jet to something like a RQ-4 Global Hawk, the RQ-4 is just a glorified RC plane with missiles, it's not the same thing. My initial comments related to a fighter jet, something that could engage in dog fights not simply engage surface targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

You said the infrastructure required to fly a missile was adequate to control a fighter jet, hence my reply. You're now comparing an autonomous fighter jet to something like a RQ-4 Global Hawk, the RQ-4 is just a glorified RC plane with missiles, it's not the same thing. My initial comments related to a fighter jet, something that could engage in dog fights not simply engage surface targets.

1/ the comment about Predator was only in relation of managing complex weapon systems

2/ I still believe that a missile SW is good enough for a killer drone; you do not need the "strong AI" on human level to have killer anti aircraft drones for now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

You said the infrastructure required to fly a missile was adequate to control a fighter jet, hence my reply. You're now comparing an autonomous fighter jet to something like a RQ-4 Global Hawk, the RQ-4 is just a glorified RC plane with missiles, it's not the same thing. My initial comments related to a fighter jet, something that could engage in dog fights not simply engage surface targets.

Thing is with over the horizon air to air armaments the pilot will not even see the target, the only notificatin they will get is friendly IFF or other confirmed details via command / AWACS / other sources, all of which would be just as applcable for a pilotless plane in the same situation.

But, you would need comprehensive ground to air / air to ground communications that we both reliable and secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449

I take your point, but what if you're out of missiles or the drone is faced with a SAM, it's a different game then.

Thing is with over the horizon air to air armaments the pilot will not even see the target, the only notificatin they will get is friendly IFF or other confirmed details via command / AWACS / other sources, all of which would be just as applcable for a pilotless plane in the same situation.

But, you would need comprehensive ground to air / air to ground communications that we both reliable and secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

I take your point, but what if you're out of missiles or the drone is faced with a SAM, it's a different game then.

That's where the cost differential kicks in and the fact that you don't have milion £ trained personnel to lose. Could be looking at 10:1, 20:1, 50:1? maybe, difference in cost of the lost platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

The R&D on something like this would be astronomical, 10:1 may still be exorbitant. I work with code monkeys, they're very slow and methodical, it could take generations! :D

That's where the cost differential kicks in and the fact that you don't have milion £ trained personnel to lose. Could be looking at 10:1, 20:1, 50:1? maybe, difference in cost of the lost platform.

Edited by warpig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

I work with code monkeys, they're very slow and methodical, it could take generations! :D

Like the F-35 software, you mean?

I think the problem is, we're struggling to see what you believe human pilots can do better than computers.

Dog-fights? Drones can turn faster, and modern missiles can out-turn any human-piloted aircraft, so the dog-fight mostly comes down to who has the best (and most) missiles.

Target identification? Maybe if they get close, but then the F-35 is dead. It's designed to shoot the other guy before it enters the other guy's radar range, so the pilot is just telling the missile to shoot at a dot on the screen. A computer can do that just as well.

Flying in bad conditions? Improving autopilots might take a bit of work, but worrying about landing is pointless if you don't survive to get back.

Drinking beer and picking up chicks with tales of derring-do? Got me on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

The R&D on something like this would be astronomical, 10:1 may still be exorbitant. I work with code monkeys, they're very slow and methodical, it could take generations! :D

From what I've heard of military/avionics software development, this is a valid point.. for some reason they seem to think that a plane that stays in the air 97% of the time isn't good enough..

Interestingly, this is the sort of thing that might suddenly speed up in wartime, simply because the extreme reliability requirements would be dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416

I can't help but think that just as it took the Brass some time to recognise the utility of carriers in ww2, the next war will demonstrate how useless they now are.

They are offensive weapons, and vulnerable to attack. This is the same as it was in WW2, carriers that were in action got used up fast, and they were highly vulnerable. Consider Midway, the Japanese lost 4 out of 4 fleet carriers in a few minutes. A CV on CV encounter is going to be bloody. I'm not seeing what has changed, they have always been vulnerable.

The thing is, there's no real alternative. If the Royal Navy didn't have carriers during the Falklands War, for example, it would have been suicide to go. You can't fight without air cover. In the middle of nowhere you have to bring the air cover with you. Carriers are flexible, they can mass air power at any coastline on Earth, and a supercarrier is a big beast alright, a couple of those at a specific point will seriously tip the air superiority stakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

They are offensive weapons, and vulnerable to attack. This is the same as it was in WW2, carriers that were in action got used up fast, and they were highly vulnerable. Consider Midway, the Japanese lost 4 out of 4 fleet carriers in a few minutes. A CV on CV encounter is going to be bloody. I'm not seeing what has changed, they have always been vulnerable.

The thing is, there's no real alternative. If the Royal Navy didn't have carriers during the Falklands War, for example, it would have been suicide to go. You can't fight without air cover. In the middle of nowhere you have to bring the air cover with you. Carriers are flexible, they can mass air power at any coastline on Earth, and a supercarrier is a big beast alright, a couple of those at a specific point will seriously tip the air superiority stakes.

How about drones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

They are offensive weapons, and vulnerable to attack. This is the same as it was in WW2, carriers that were in action got used up fast, and they were highly vulnerable. Consider Midway, the Japanese lost 4 out of 4 fleet carriers in a few minutes. A CV on CV encounter is going to be bloody. I'm not seeing what has changed, they have always been vulnerable.

The thing is, there's no real alternative. If the Royal Navy didn't have carriers during the Falklands War, for example, it would have been suicide to go. You can't fight without air cover. In the middle of nowhere you have to bring the air cover with you. Carriers are flexible, they can mass air power at any coastline on Earth, and a supercarrier is a big beast alright, a couple of those at a specific point will seriously tip the air superiority stakes.

The problem is that they haven't been tested in a full-on conflict. The current generation of US carriers do seem vulnerable to anti-ship missiles of various forms. On the other hand, those missiles still have to be launched and get through.

The new generation of US carriers are designed to have much better directed-energy weapons capabilities (Lasers, Railguns, that sort of stuff). It may prove impossible to design a missile that can get through and also deliver enough damage. Unless you build a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, in which case you don't need to get very close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
19
HOLA4420

I can't help but think that just as it took the Brass some time to recognise the utility of carriers in ww2, the next war will demonstrate how useless they now are.

If we are talking about the aircraft carrier battle group it is not just the carrier. They are other supporting ships plus a submarine. And on the top 100+ jets, choppers and now drones. The strongest weapon and the best defence of the group are the jets, which provide like 500km radius cover. So the aircraft carrier is just an enabler of the air power to get the small airfield close to the enemy. In general the defense of the battle group is quite diverse and overlapping.

I like the Russian thinking with their supersonic rocket powered cavitation torpedo with a tactical nuke to destroy the whole group at once. Simple, but deadly ...

Edited by Damik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

The problem is that they haven't been tested in a full-on conflict. The current generation of US carriers do seem vulnerable to anti-ship missiles of various forms. On the other hand, those missiles still have to be launched and get through.

The new generation of US carriers are designed to have much better directed-energy weapons capabilities (Lasers, Railguns, that sort of stuff). It may prove impossible to design a missile that can get through and also deliver enough damage. Unless you build a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, in which case you don't need to get very close.

I think that the idea of the battle group is to have all possible different ships and aircraft to provide all defense and offense capabilities available. It is like a small army on it's own. If something gets through then it means nothing would stop it anyway ...

Edited by Damik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

How about drones?

It's still going to essentially be a carrier... a floating city. Minus Tom Cruise, but I presume you'd have everything else.

Maybe they'd call them CVDs, Carrier Vessel Drone. The cost, the size, the crew, probably wouldn't be that different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

Exactly ~ My case in point. As computer's are considered artificially intelligent, you have to program for every eventuality. We can see proof of the complexity based on the lead time for the F35's software.

I have no doubt machines are far better at killing than people, because they have no compassion. Franz Stigler was gallant enough to escort a stricken b17 home over the channel in his bf109, how do you program a drone to be benevolent? The technological issues are only one aspect to this, they have to consider morality as well. Should a drone shoot at a pilot that's ejected from a crippled plane?

ye-olde-pub_zps861bbaa2.jpg

Before we have autonomous front line fighter jets, I think we'll have mixed squadrons of drones and traditional planes, where the drones act as slaves taking their lead from the traditional planes.

My point isn't that it won't happen or that it shouldn't happen, all I'm saying is the development time on such a military project is huge.

Like the F-35 software, you mean?

I think the problem is, we're struggling to see what you believe human pilots can do better than computers.

Dog-fights? Drones can turn faster, and modern missiles can out-turn any human-piloted aircraft, so the dog-fight mostly comes down to who has the best (and most) missiles.

Target identification? Maybe if they get close, but then the F-35 is dead. It's designed to shoot the other guy before it enters the other guy's radar range, so the pilot is just telling the missile to shoot at a dot on the screen. A computer can do that just as well.

Flying in bad conditions? Improving autopilots might take a bit of work, but worrying about landing is pointless if you don't survive to get back.

Drinking beer and picking up chicks with tales of derring-do? Got me on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

From what I've heard of military/avionics software development, this is a valid point.. for some reason they seem to think that a plane that stays in the air 97% of the time isn't good enough..

Thing is, with drones, 97% is probably good enough.

You never need to fly the things outside of war since there's no training to be done, you could literally keep them in a warehouse for years before you use them at which point who cares about a 3% loss rate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Exactly ~ My case in point. As computer's are considered artificially intelligent, you have to program for every eventuality. We can see proof of the complexity based on the lead time for the F35's software.

I have no doubt machines are far better at killing than people, because they have no compassion. Franz Stigler was gallant enough to escort a stricken b17 home over the channel in his bf109, how do you program a drone to be benevolent? The technological issues are only one aspect to this, they have to consider morality as well. Should a drone shoot at a pilot that's ejected from a crippled plane?

If the pilot have been on the Eastern front do you think he would have been so benevolent?

If a drone can recognise a target how hard would it be to assess if the target was really a threat or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information