F-22
-
I believe in the UCAV being an extremely capable strike platform, as we have already seen in the Predator, but to say that UCAVs *will* win Human pilots in dogfights is questionable. Once again is boils down to one problem - Will the pilot in the air will have better awareness, or the "pilot" on the ground watching a screen? If you follow my points, the display issue is the main hindrance.
Also, to enable the UCAV to fight autonomously, you need powerful computers. Forget the 3 Crays you have on F-22, you will need more like 15 of them on board. The other issues include protecting the computers against failure, network security, and a datalink capable of handling the truckloads of information. -
Actually what you have said makes even less sense then me.Why?Well are the soldiers though equiped with all that high tech gear present on the battlefield?YES.Is the pilot equiped with "bulletproof vests" and all the other high tech gismos?Yes in the form on jammers and BVR missiles.By my example the frontline soldiers would be replaced by robots and sure that sounds all dandy by cutting down on human losses but are you really sure robots would be better?Would they have the gut feeling to make decisions on the battlefield condition and assumations?Sure the tech can do that but would he make a bad mistake and commit to attack even if chances of it failing is high?Could the failure of that attack result in the total distruction of the line??Would the tech even care???What would happen if the command center is taken out or the link up is destoryed??Too many but's and if's!The time is not yet right for Robots to completely replace the human in the armed forces.Sure they are showing great progress up the technology is still too new to be phased in fully within the next 8-15 years.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What you said made little sense. The entire point of UCAV and such unmanned technology is to get the dudes out of the line of fire, and that's what matters.
If I were to follow your logic, I would conclude that equipping troops with good weapons and body armor encourages them to be slack when they fight, so I should make them go in with arcadic weapons and no protection except their own hide so that when their butt is on the line, they fight better. Nonsense.
It is the very reason that their lives are on the line, that's why they can't hit the target, not because their are at the risk of being killed, they can! Wheverever did you get that reasoning! Pls use brain, hello. Witness vietnam when US pilots would dump bombs at the sight of a mig. I'm sure they're hitting their targets... Human nature will cause them to heck care hitting the targets, drop their bombs and get out when they can, not encourage them to carry out their mission sucessfully! When your butt is on the line, you aim for the minimum requirements to get out, and if that's dumping bombs and missing everything or not getting anywhere close, that's what we'll do!
Putting pilots (which themselves cost more then a UCAV to train and are ahrder to replace) in the cockpit to send on some mission that a UCAV can do with less risk and greater effectiveness on some justification holding their life hostage so that they will fly their best lacks logic. It's like that guy who said that we should dump our falcons and go back to hunters because operating them is far more dangerous! No! That's crazy, that's nuts in war. You dun take unnecessary risks like that, aircrew, unlike UCAVs, cannot be easily replaced, and even if you do, there is going to be an attrition in general quality of aircrew! It's sucide! UCAV attrition on the other hand, can be sustained and is cheaper and easier to manage.
Tell me which is a greater vulnerability, losing aircrew which is hard to replace because you put their butt on the line to knock out some vietcong on the ground or losing a UCAV to jamming? (A vulnerabilty that is now being managed by making the UCAV automous in the event of signal loss where it will complete it last orders and return home)
When you can program a UCAV to dodge enemy air defences better then a pilot can (which they already did), and penetrate deeper into enemy airspace (which they already can) and loiter tireless and work 24/7 without tiring (which they can), tell me which is a superior system.
The fighter pilot, to put it lightly, is gonna get the boot once UCAV technology is prefected and. There's just no reason for them anymore, unless you are in the habit of throwing away lives and cash needlessly.
I am appaled by the lack of proper thought in your line of reasoning.
To use your own quoteI am appaled by the lack of proper thought in your line of reasoning
-
You do not seem to have an accucrate picture of the actual computing requirements for making a UCAV fight smartly. Actually AI engineers are projecting a computing system that is no larger then your average PC CUP, with current technology. It hardly requires supercomputing power. I wun go so far as to say the UCAV MUST win a dogfight, but I can be pretty certain that it will be able to do so a large number of times.Originally posted by EXCO:I believe in the UCAV being an extremely capable strike platform, as we have already seen in the Predator, but to say that UCAVs *will* win Human pilots in dogfights is questionable. Once again is boils down to one problem - Will the pilot in the air will have better awareness, or the "pilot" on the ground watching a screen? If you follow my points, the display issue is the main hindrance.
Also, to enable the UCAV to fight autonomously, you need powerful computers. Forget the 3 Crays you have on F-22, you will need more like 15 of them on board. The other issues include protecting the computers against failure, network security, and a datalink capable of handling the truckloads of information.
In terms of technology, the technology already exists to make UCAVs smart enough to dogfight (the basic manuvers were from fighter pilots themselves) and engage in BVR engagements (in which case the UCAV has an advantage).
Another thing, esp with multiaspect missiles coming on line which can aquire targets in a 360 sphere around an aircraft, doing extensive manuvers to dogfight will also become less important. What matters is who gets off the first shot, and who dodges missiles the best. Are you telling me, a human pilot that can at best make desisions at 0.1 sec and pull 9 gees will be able to evade missiles better then a computer drone that reacts within nanoseconds of the missile launch and launches into pre programed erratic manuvers that would kill a pilot that probabaly pull as much gees as the missile itself.
And no, if you have any basic idea computing engineering, you will know that this tasks do not require the power of 12 super crays, but can be reduced to a remarkable package the size of your PC.
Having said that, how on earth would a pilot be able to shoot down a UCAV with missiles in the first place, and how would he survive if a UCAV shot missiles at him? He could try the gun, but then again, a properly programmed UCAV would evade his attempts. The computer just thinks and acts way too fast for any pilot to keep up with.
Again, to smash your repeated old points, computer vulnerabilities can be managed, and is a moot point, because it is also one in an advanced manned fighter. If the computer of an F-22 dies, the plane is unflyable itself and the pilot will have be eject. Same thing with the UCAV. Unless the comps of the UCAV are inherently less reliable then that of a manned fighter, this would be a point, which is not the case. -
Dude, you are nitpicking. The bottomline is this, and remains the same.Originally posted by |-|05|:Actually what you have said makes even less sense then me.Why?Well are the soldiers though equiped with all that high tech gear present on the battlefield?YES.Is the pilot equiped with "bulletproof vests" and all the other high tech gismos?Yes in the form on jammers and BVR missiles.By my example the frontline soldiers would be replaced by robots and sure that sounds all dandy by cutting down on human losses but are you really sure robots would be better?Would they have the gut feeling to make decisions on the battlefield condition and assumations?Sure the tech can do that but would he make a bad mistake and commit to attack even if chances of it failing is high?Could the failure of that attack result in the total distruction of the line??Would the tech even care???What would happen if the command center is taken out or the link up is destoryed??Too many but's and if's!The time is not yet right for Robots to completely replace the human in the armed forces.Sure they are showing great progress up the technology is still too new to be phased in fully within the next 8-15 years.
Given the current rate of technological development, do you think UCAVs will eventually replace manned combat aircraft?
And the answer is yes, as the tank replaced the horse, the train the pony express. -
As are you dude.....since when did i not say it would replace?i said not YET not so soon! read lah deh READ!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Dude, you are nitpicking. The bottomline is this, and remains the same.
Given the current rate of technological development, do you think UCAVs will eventually replace manned combat aircraft?
And the answer is yes, as the tank replaced the horse, the train the pony express. -
Comparing an M16 and a katana. what a good analogy, again it displays your imagination to good effect.. My concerns with UAVs and present technology will remain the same and with your vast array of knowledge with comtemporary tech you have not answered any of it.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Your lack of understanding of the true implications of my points have led you again to sweeping statements, unproductive stonewalling and of course, the all important asccusation that I am engaging in sturbomess. Sadly, there is little solution in response but to keep reiteriating the facts and truth into a form you can better understand.
However, I have noticed you finally begin to see some logic, but you have not seen the paridigm shift.
These are points I understand completely. But what I am trying to point out to you, and is something you are apparently unwilling to see is that in the near future (within twenty years), UCAVs are going to take the roles I have suggested, well, actually not me, I am just rehasing the points the people who came up with such concepts did.
In short, the F-22 will probably be the one of the last generations, if not the last of manned air combat aircraft. If you see it this way, you can see how near the end of the line is.
The difference is, you think that UCAV replacement of pilots is a chancy thing, but for me, it is unavoidable.
But then again, you lack the proper information ammunition to engage in this debate, as most of the people here have. Go and read up about emergent technologies, grasp the new paridigm, before going on to debate from your old point of view, which is what you are doing now.
The difference between me and you is that I see both sides of the picture, while you appear to have only a hazy view of the unmanned side.
I am like a person trying to explain the merits of an M-16 when to a person who only knows katanas, which is you. Unless you are completely aware of how the M-16 will change the way you fight. If not, even if you had the M-16, you would view it, and use it like a katana!
In short, if we transpose this debate over to the M-16 vs Katana, your arguments would go:
"There is no subsitute in warfare for the slashing of the katana."
"The M-16 cannot slash like the katana."
"We can only use it to kill targets far away, most other things we rely on the katana."
"There is no subsitute for actually using your arms to move the weapon to slash, you can't kill just by aiming down a straw-eye view of the sight and squeezing the trigger."
"What you say about the M-16 over the katana insults us sumurai and our abilities, we are upset."
"The M-16 can never replace us when it come to war."
"Do you trust your own hands, or some chemical charge in that bullet?"
"Unlike a katana, the M-16 will jam and fail and miss, you are being optimistic by claiming that these problems can ever be overcome in the near future and that these things will become more then a battlefield noveity."
"To pull a trigger over slashing a sword with martial arts? That's a devolution in warfare, if you ask me."
Your line of argument is to simply exasperate.
Oh and it seems like you just learned a new word: paradigm
seems like you're using it an aweful damn lot -
Dude, I knew that world a long time ago. And yes, this issue is all about paradigms. Unfortunately you have failed to see it as such and have resorted to "well, I can't be bothered to understand this because it's too strange to me"
And it seem that having reached the point where you are unable to answer my suprior logic, you have resorted once again to character biting to gain some sort of pedestal.
I'm sorry, but your points are unfounded, and show your lack of understanding of such technology in the first place. Had you demostrated proper understanding of the capabilities, and limits of such technology, you would not be going "datalink datalink pilotsare better pilotsare better computerswill fail computerswill fail." like a borg drone repeating "resistence is futile.
It is my observation that you demostrate the signs of somebody who has no imagination and a myopic view of events. Thintelligence, rather then intelligence. -
SingaporeTyrannosaur, I applaud your faith in ummanned technology. I don't know how you got all those ideas from, and those ideas are indeed what will happen in the future. Perhaps when Humans can sustain a moonbase. Like it or not, the tech you are saying *does not exist* and will not for the next 50 or more years. It is purely Star Wars stuff here. If you think that a UCAV that will win a Human in dogfights will happen in the next 10 years, dream on.
-
Erm, dun mind if I butt in here:
Firstly, I have to disagree with EXCO on some points esp. that ST points are imaginative. Because I had not been involved in this debate, I had the chance to take a back seat and take a long, hard look at all this, along with read up a little of my own.
Well, it appears that ST's points are more logical then imaginative, I have followed through them carefully (sans iraqi-information minister style childish insults) and they appear to me more of how things are going to logically turn out rather then wild crystal-ball speculation on how the future is going to be like.
And also, what he said had the support of the USAF officials, who stated that they are moving towards replacing a "significant portion of their manned strike force it. And, far from clinging to a "white scarf" mentality that sees UCAVs as a threat to the livelihoods of pilots, service leaders have had to rein in their exuberance for the new class of aircraft, lest they get ahead of where the technology really is."
Now on where technology really is, I also have to contradict you on multiple points you stated. Current technology has already greatly managed and even solved some of the problems you have stated. And yes, the datalink that can handle "truckloads" of information enough to pilot a UCAV well already exists, has existed for years, and is getting better.
"You've got a wideband distribution network as part of the basic architecture," as well as "multiple channels so that you've got redundancy, plus you've got these sensors in a forward location,"
So what it means is a lot of the stuff for UCAVs to work well you said to be moonbase era already exist and is getting better, given the drive to figure out such technology.
As for winning air to air combat, the UCAV obviously has an edge in BVR combat, and that's something nobody can deny. In close range I'm not so sure, but it's not a "dream on" thing. Coding a UCAV to fight humans close in does not require many super crays to do, and the technology is again hardly moonbase, I dunno why you keep claiming that when it already exists somewhere on earth. Sure the idea of a elite combat pilot getting blasted out of the sky by a robot is distasteful and hurts our human ego, but to deny it would be possible given the current state of technological development is kinda wack if you ask me.
We are like maybe the world in the early states of the space program. Some people still think that we will never reach the moon, but some others, and an increasing number of people are already seeing that there is no reason why we cannot land a man on the moon.
I'm just looking at this from an impartial point of view, but I suspect EXCO needs to get over some "white scarf"
Sorry, my two cents worth. -
Nonono, you didn't get what I mean.Originally posted by 440mhz:Erm, dun mind if I butt in here:
Firstly, I have to disagree with EXCO on some points esp. that ST points are imaginative. Because I had not been involved in this debate, I had the chance to take a back seat and take a long, hard look at all this, along with read up a little of my own.
Well, it appears that ST's points are more logical then imaginative, I have followed through them carefully (sans iraqi-information minister style childish insults) and they appear to me more of how things are going to logically turn out rather then wild crystal-ball speculation on how the future is going to be like.
And also, what he said had the support of the USAF officials, who stated that they are moving towards replacing a "significant portion of their manned strike force it. And, far from clinging to a "white scarf" mentality that sees UCAVs as a threat to the livelihoods of pilots, service leaders have had to rein in their exuberance for the new class of aircraft, lest they get ahead of where the technology really is."
Now on where technology really is, I also have to contradict you on multiple points you stated. Current technology has already greatly managed and even solved some of the problems you have stated. And yes, the datalink that can handle "truckloads" of information enough to pilot a UCAV well already exists, has existed for years, and is getting better.
"You've got a wideband distribution network as part of the basic architecture," as well as "multiple channels so that you've got redundancy, plus you've got these sensors in a forward location,"
So what it means is a lot of the stuff for UCAVs to work well you said to be moonbase era already exist and is getting better, given the drive to figure out such technology.
As for winning air to air combat, the UCAV obviously has an edge in BVR combat, and that's something nobody can deny. In close range I'm not so sure, but it's not a "dream on" thing. Coding a UCAV to fight humans close in does not require many super crays to do, and the technology is again hardly moonbase, I dunno why you keep claiming that when it already exists somewhere on earth. Sure the idea of a elite combat pilot getting blasted out of the sky by a robot is distasteful and hurts our human ego, but to deny it would be possible given the current state of technological development is kinda wack if you ask me.
We are like maybe the world in the early states of the space program. Some people still think that we will never reach the moon, but some others, and an increasing number of people are already seeing that there is no reason why we cannot land a man on the moon.
I'm just looking at this from an impartial point of view, but I suspect EXCO needs to get over some "white scarf"
Sorry, my two cents worth.
Do not forget that UCAVs are controlled by Humans sitting in a room. The issue ultimately boils down to this. How do you, and can you transmit enough information so that the SA of the human operator is equivalent, if not better than the pilot in the air? You would quite literally need 360 degree cameras. That alone will cause a bottleneck in the datalink. All the data will have to be sent in split-second as well. If you are talking about datalinks for Apaches and F-22s, You are looking the wrong way. Those provide only data, worded data. What we are talking about here is a major broadband network which does not exist. That network is supposed to carry, to and fro, all inputs from the operator, and all the viewpoints on the UCAV. Not forgetting datalinks with other UCAV, other manned assets in theatre, and radar/tracking data. That is what my whole point revolves around. Even if it is possible, can the SA of an operator sitting in an air-conditioned room, with no feeling whatsoever of being in the air, be better than that of a pilot in the air?
As for the point on computing power. Once again I have to stress that it is not a game. Dogfighting is *not* simply about pointing in the correct direction and shooting. If you think it is, once again you are looking the wrong way. It could have been damned easy. I call up a few guys at EA, ask them to enhance the AI codes for their fighter games, and I put it into a UCAV. Case closed. Isn't that what you are trying to say? Isn't what I said laughable? That is exactly what you are telling me.
This is not about Human ego. Seriously, who wants to put their lives at stake? It is simply about having an army of bots is not feasible at all.
Another issue is the one of cost and security. The cost of developing such a network architecture, making sure it is 100% workable, scalable, and safe, is not cheap. Heck, developing such a UCAV itself will cost a lot.
How are you going to ensure that the system is going to be safe? Both from opponent hackers, jammers, and domestic system downs. The rate of progress for computers is so fast that the technology for protecting them simply cannot catch up. The moment a piece of data leaves the UCAV, it is going to be monitored by your opponents. You may shield it, but you cannot hide it. Do not forget that all I have mentioned will have to travel thru the air, maybe even bounced off satellites. That decreases the efficiency of such a system even more. -
Don't be too surprised, but that's exactly the case! The US military is actually calling on a team made out of game designers, military people, and DoD people to come up with mission preformance AI for their next generation of advanced cruise missiles and UCAV platforms. And that includes AI that will enable such platforms to actually tangle in active combat, in addition to evasive and mundane mission subroutines.Originally posted by EXCO:As for the point on computing power. Once again I have to stress that it is not a game. Dogfighting is *not* simply about pointing in the correct direction and shooting. If you think it is, once again you are looking the wrong way. It could have been damned easy. I call up a few guys at EA, ask them to enhance the AI codes for their fighter games, and I put it into a UCAV. Case closed. Isn't that what you are trying to say? Isn't what I said laughable? That is exactly what you are telling me.
What is happening is that the idea is to make the AI itself modular and seperate from the rest of the software that actually does the targeting, flying the aircraft and what so. And that's what the US military is doing now, calling on game developers to help them in the development of their artifical intelligence.
I also remember a slight test they did in the early 1990s in a book I read some time back that I am now trying to find, where the put a few simple automated hardcoded subroutines into a QF target drone (the one they usually use to haul radar reflectors to confuse enemy radar in one of shunk works stealth programs). These commands told the drone how to react whenever a mounted threat reciever told them that they were being targeted or there was something chasing them, and basically that was to go into a series of erratic crazy 20 gee manuvers and pump out chaff and flares.
And they launched that thing from a B-52, and pitted it against F-15 aircraft, which were ordered to try to shoot it down. The drone survived 50 dogfights and dodge no less then 24 aircraft and many times that number of simulated missile launches against it.
I believe that was a study into the feasibility of making drone aircraft and cruise missiles smart enough to avoid getting shot down, but I think the interest in such research was dropped in the favour of making more smart munitions and it was not remembered until recently.
And all this was done with computing technology at the time when a good flight simulator was considered Microprose's F-15 Strike Eagle 2.
I'm still trying my best to dig out the article so I can quote it, but I remember it quite clearly. I suspect it could be buried in one of the 12,000 pages of TakeOff Magazine I have.
The whole gist of the matter is, if anything this experiment proves, you dun need super crays to make computing power for a UCAV to fight fighter pilots. If you write good enough software for a automated UCAV to dodge and run through a evasive routine whenever it determines it is in threat. And also subroutines to make it aquire and fire back weapons at that theat, and do all that stuff while following a mission flight plan. There is no reason to see why UCAVs cannot hold their own against manned aircraft.
And better, since UCAV can be designed to make turns in several times multitude that of a normal fighter pilot can, it will be no trouble for the UCAV to just snap about a J turn to face it's opponent (assuming it even needs to face its opponent, given development into networked sensor enhanced AA missiles) and snap off a shot. It does not have to engage in a game of energy manuvering in a limited airframe playing airborne chess until somebody screws up. There's no need to, when you can turn far tighter then your opponent.
I think the logic will be self-apparent if you ask fighter pilots if they want to dogfight something that can make 30 gee turns and snap around to face them (if you calculate, that's a 180 turn taking only 1 second at 450 knots while a manned aircraft takes 3-4 seconds to make the same reversal at nearing 10 gees) assuming they can even get on it's tail.
In the light of this, I doubt there will be much dogfighting in a sense against UCAVs at all, not unless manned aircraft can keep up and preform UCAV like manuvers. No matter how good the pilot, the plane also plays a very big part. The red baron in his triplane is not going to prevail against an average fighter jock F-16 no matter how many times better the german may be, not unless the F-16 pilot does something stupid that is. -
But these are not intracatable problems, like that of the physical limits of pilots. You are assuming that there can be no safe system enough for the UCAV to operate (in that case, the USAF might as well scrape them right now). Most of these concerns you stated of system security seem to be unfounded, partly so because these are part and parcel of any military operation. And obviously the USAF has figured out these problems to a large enough extent that their long term plan (sorry, not near moonbase era) is to replace a large portion of their force with unmanned platforms. You are talking about the replacement of many makes of manned aircraft like the F-16, A-10 and what so have you with something entirely new and different.Originally posted by EXCO:Another issue is the one of cost and security. The cost of developing such a network architecture, making sure it is 100% workable, scalable, and safe, is not cheap. Heck, developing such a UCAV itself will cost a lot.
How are you going to ensure that the system is going to be safe? Both from opponent hackers, jammers, and domestic system downs. The rate of progress for computers is so fast that the technology for protecting them simply cannot catch up. The moment a piece of data leaves the UCAV, it is going to be monitored by your opponents. You may shield it, but you cannot hide it. Do not forget that all I have mentioned will have to travel thru the air, maybe even bounced off satellites. That decreases the efficiency of such a system even more.
What is evident from the evidence we are seeing is that, UCAV technology has advanced to a point where it is possible to operate them, and do so combat effectively. What it indicates, is that these vulnerabilities can be, and have been managed. It is certainly not foolproof, but apparently reliable enough that the USAF is hardly expressing pessimism about such technology. Not unless you want to take the fool's path of arguing for 100 percent security that is, which is impossible.
On the other hand, history has shown manned aircraft are far less reliable in terms of survability and durability and increasingly expensive. -
I agree with ST in the area of manned aircraft vs. UCAV dogfighting. The rules here are rewritten.
That is because funky (and basic) air combat moves like high yoyo, low yoyo, esp the sis and the verti version which are staple moves of air combat only applies to aircraft that are more or less similar in preformance envelopes, with turn factor being the king factor.
That's why countries spend so much to try to be the top of this by making aircraft that can do these kinds of moves the best. If you can't do all these air combat moves the best, that means to have the most energy and turn the tighest (the two main things of air combat school) are those who will fly home from the fight.
The problem is, humans cannot take accelerations above 10 gs, and anything at 13 or more sustained will kill. So this means that the best yo yo or vert. sis can only be done at most 10 (even this is not adviced, because most pilots will be near enough to g-loc that their SA is zero and they are sitting ducks)
Hence we see more creative combat moves like J-turn, extreme AoA and cobra coming up these days that are trying to afford solutions to get the all important nose around without killing the pilot. But these are only stopgap measures.
The UCAV rewrites all these rules. Without the pilot, the designers can make an airplane that can easily pull over 30 g and even do negative g moves with the same amount of force (humans die at negative 5 g)
This completely rewrites the air combat school book. If a pilot is pitted in a dogfight against a UCAV, he will immediately lose because he simply can't outmanuver the UCAV. In fact, the UCAV does not even have to be caught up in all the staple air combat moves that fighter school teaches because it is too far ahead of the fighter pilot abilities to even be caught up in anything like a vert. sis fight (something we always see in the movies but very rare and only happens when true aces meet, like Cunniham and Col. Tomb in vietnam).
ST is correct to say that they dun need to make the UCAV fight the fighter pilot on his terms and turf, that's because when they meet, the fighter pilot will have to try to outfly the UCAV on it's terms. And that's going to be very difficult, meaning the pilot is at a disadvantage. -
I think the logic will be self-apparent if you ask fighter pilots if they want to dogfight something that can make 30 gee turns and snap around to face them (if you calculate, that's a 180 turn taking only 1 second at 450 knots while a manned aircraft takes 3-4 seconds to make the same reversal at nearing 10 gees) assuming they can even get on it's tail.
i know this is just an example but the drone will stall.As for the rest of your arguement it makes sense accept that the technology to make the drone suppass the human pilot is not yet here.It's getting there but not there yet.For now the technology suits a strike mission and as a recon mission.Why?Strike missions and recon mission are "easier" due to the target package being fixed meaning less programming is required.However for fighters and air support roles this is different.In addition to needing to put in computers to handle the data from the human pilot it has to put in computers that can make decisions on it's on should the signal be jammed.That means putting multiple situations and how to handle it.The computer that can make the millions(maybe billions) of calculations required is currently way too big.Which is where the human is better...the brain is smaller and capable of learning from mistakes which the computer cannot YET.Sure you can take the AI from a computer game and put it into a drone but really if the Ai from that game could be beaten by some1 like us how u'd expect it to do againest a real pilot??And from the programming of most AI's currently(namely Janes and Falcon 4.0)the game is programmed to respond on act to your moves.It does things on a 1 to 1 basis and is not yet able to handle the calculations at the speed needed to be fully independent.Now they need at least 2 computers being able to do the same job on each drone to make it more reliable and less likely to fail.Meaning if each computer is bigger then a PC it's too big to be placed in each drone.For now the technology is still too experimental to be used like the stealth fighter in the 70's.Give it another 10-15 years to grow and mature.
And exco nothing is 100% reliable but for now they level of relibility of a computer is not yet there.Imagine your home PC crashes often enough and it is not even doing alot of work and those computers that do not fail easily are the size of cars!So now it is not 100% nor will it ever be.But it can still be used however not just yet! -
Bang on the spot 440 dude.
EXOC's points on dogfightign fall apart when you start to take it down to the base level. Forget all the humanistic rethoric about dogfighting being dribbled out as if gospel. Let's go to the basics of dogfighting, what it really is about.
The ability to do moves like 30 gee turns and that much minus gees opens up a whole regime of short-cut air combat that humans can never reach.
This is very important, considering that most of the air combat moves you mentioned are tailored to human and manned aircraft limits. While the pilot has to take the long way around in a vertical scissors to get his nose from A to B because he cannot take minus g, the UCAV can just snap about into a -30 turn and be on him. Heck, the UCAV does not even need to be involved in the vertical sissors to get its robotic sights on the pilot's butt! Boom!
You are right to say aircombat between the two will be decided on the UCAV's terms, not the manned aircraft. The UCAV does not need to outthink the human, it just needs to outfly him. You can have the darndest dogfight idea in the world but it's irrevelant when the UCAV beats you to the punch and gets on your tail before you can implement it in response to a move which was already long gone.
Say, how do you know so much about dogfighting dude?
Oh yah |0-5|, I think you should know that most planned UCAVs of the future will probably be no smaller in size then modern combat aircraft for all the systems, minus 30 percent weight, cost and size for life support and human interface systems. I'm sure they could fit a few computers in, and not typical PCs, but very high end units that are certainly much smaller and far more powerful that you can fit into a black box. To say that UCAVs can never fight fighter pilots may be as myopic to see Mercury, and claim that Apollo is not possible.
The idea is, the tech is already present, and it is growing. -
What do you mean? Shunk Works has already made drones for some time that can snap in fifty, yes, 50 gee turns as if it was a sunday afternoon tea. Those things turn 5 times faster then the F-22.Originally posted by |-|05|:i know this is just an example but the drone will stall.
The reason why I decided to stick to 30 gees is because it was the figure the USAF military planners stated and since UCAVs are larger then the Shunk Work drones. -
It's precisly that the plane will be smaller that a present day computer cannot be used.Top of the line computers are not getting small they are getting bigger infact.The computers that are used on board ships to automantically fire the air defences are already small compared to super computers and those are already something like 4m by 4m.No computers are not yet there.They currently suck up too much power,are too big and not yet that reliable.Basically you take the B-2's computer multiply it by 3-4 times and try to fit that into an f-16 sized plane.Too big!!And i did not say never i said NOT YET.Technology is still to experimental and not yet reliable.However when it does come it will be better in some ways then a human due to the aiblity to make more calculations per secOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Bang on the spot 440 dude.
EXOC's points on dogfightign fall apart when you start to take it down to the base level. Forget all the humanistic rethoric about dogfighting being dribbled out as if gospel. Let's go to the basics of dogfighting, what it really is about.
The ability to do moves like 30 gee turns and that much minus gees opens up a whole regime of short-cut air combat that humans can never reach.
This is very important, considering that most of the air combat moves you mentioned are tailored to human and manned aircraft limits. While the pilot has to take the long way around in a vertical scissors to get his nose from A to B because he cannot take minus g, the UCAV can just snap about into a -30 turn and be on him. Heck, the UCAV does not even need to be involved in the vertical sissors to get its robotic sights on the pilot's butt! Boom!
You are right to say aircombat between the two will be decided on the UCAV's terms, not the manned aircraft.
Say, how do you know so much about dogfighting dude?
Oh yah |0-5|, I think you should know that most planned UCAVs of the future will probably be no smaller in size then modern combat aircraft for all the systems, minus 30 percent weight, cost and size for life support and human interface systems. I'm sure they could fit a few computers in, and not typical PCs, but very high end units that are certainly much smaller and far more powerful that you can fit into a black box. To say that UCAVs can never fight fighter pilots may be as myopic to see Mercury, and claim that Apollo is not possible.
The idea is, the tech is already present, and it is growing. -
I'm not that erm.....that knowledgeable in that area(the ability to turn 50g's) but i still think that making sure a small turn with that small turn radius is dangerous to the situation due to the lose of speed.However the ability to make bigger negative turns is much more erm......brighter?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What do you mean? Shunk Works has already made drones for some time that can snap in fifty, yes, 50 gee turns as if it was a sunday afternoon tea. Those things turn 5 times faster then the F-22.
The reason why I decided to stick to 30 gees is because it was the figure the USAF military planners stated and since UCAVs are larger then the Shunk Work drones. -
oh and 1 more thing there will not need for a full 360 cam or even a 180 cam.Just a wide angle cam of say more then 120 deg is enough.Couple that with a VR helmet should do it.
-
i read the point on the "human" controller on the ground transmitting instructions for the UCAV? well that is a no no...
the lines of transmission is not possible (many factors) and it is useless... the idea of having UCAV is to have IA control and please don't underestimate the power of IA... they ARE written by HUMANS... -
I have been reading this thread with great interest, and here is my 2 cents worth:
I believe from all the reading so far that UCAVs for now and in the very near future, would not be able to replace or defeat a manned agile aircraft like the Typhoons, Raptors, SU-30 series, Rafales, etc in an air to air combat. Reason, simple enough, UCAVs cannot think tactics. Yes, as SgDino has pointed out that you can make a UCAVs go zip-zap to avoid incoming missiles, pulling high Gs. Yes, a UCAVs will be able to pull GT 9gs whereas a human pilot is limited to not more than 9. However, today's AAMs can certainly pull higher Gs than any UCAVs. Rafael Python 4 can pull 60gs. AIM-9X can do similar. The no-escape zone for AAM will encompass any UCAVs anyone can built. This essentially negates a UCAVs advantage to pull higher Gs than human aircraft theory. It is the first look kills scenarios. In this first-look kill scenarios, I have to say that a skilled human pilot with a 20-20 vision will win the day. Yes, I have no doubt that UCAV kill ratio will be close, but I think so far technology cannot substitute human's adaption and being able to react faster to tactical changes, ie. humans are capable of individual thinking whereas machines are being taught. Even current and near future AI wouldn't come close to human's ability. This is the very same argument used in Star Trek Next generation's Data character.
Secondly, most future A2A battle will not be fought in WVR environment. It would naturally be BVR environment. And logic tells us that the bigger the platform, the bigger the radar the platform can carry. The bigger the radar, the longer distant it can detect. Thus once again, manned aircrafts win.
Ok, lets talk about current UCAVs development. Taking from 2 different streams of development, eg, US UCAVs, and Sweden UCAVs.
US UCAVs are basically designed for ground strike modes. That calls for the UCAVs to be design with high degree of stealth, range and payload capabilities. The UCAVs can be pre-programmed, with some limited remote control from the ground or some large airborne platforms. It is almost like a smart and agile Global hawk cross Predator kind of thing.
Swedish UCAVs are basically controlled by a manned 2 crews Gripen. Designed primary for ground attacks too, with a high degree of stealth.
Note that both UCAVs are designed not to fight air superiority fighters but use for ground attacks. Their roles confined to limited human losses in strike roles. If UCAVs were available in the first gulf war, then the allied air losses would be cut down by some 50 to 90%.
What I have stated here could be located all over the web and I am simply too lazy (right now to find the references)
My conclusion is that for the next couple of decades, we would see UCAVs replacing manned roles but will NEVER totally replace manned aircraft - especially in interception, escort, air-superiority and supremacy roles. If UCAVs can defeat human piloted aircrafts in A2A engagement, God bid and help us, we will really be facing the Matrix/Terminator scenarios. Human race will be made irrelavant. -
This is exactly my point. It can be used, not just yet! When? Thats the secondary issue here.Originally posted by |-|05|:And exco nothing is 100% reliable but for now they level of relibility of a computer is not yet there.Imagine your home PC crashes often enough and it is not even doing alot of work and those computers that do not fail easily are the size of cars!So now it is not 100% nor will it ever be.But it can still be used however not just yet!
I understand SingaporeTyrannosaur's enthusiasm and knowledge about unmanned technology, however it is not as simple as AI for a game. You have told me that it is, and you just turned me off from this discussion. I don't what led you to thinking that unmanned technology has a link to do with game AI, perhaps on a very abstract level.
Also, do not forget that currently, we are talking about UAVs which do not operate in force. Once again, what is being suggested is that a whole air force of UCAVs. Herein lies my point about networking. How do you, or can you coordinate perhaps 50 of them all at once? Imagine the resources, and the computing power needed at home base.
Dude, what made you think that dogfighting is simply about pointing in the correct direction and shooting? -
Secondly, most future A2A battle will not be fought in WVR environment. It would naturally be BVR environment. And logic tells us that the bigger the platform, the bigger the radar the platform can carry. The bigger the radar, the longer distant it can detect. Thus once again, manned aircrafts win....
Erm actually military analysts indicate that in a BVR engagement, a UCAV has the inherent advantage. This is because the UCAV will inherently be able to carry the critical 30 percent more sensors or weapons or anything else you want to cram in the platform then a manned aircraft. You point only works when you suggest that UCAVs will be inherently smaller then that of modern combat aircraft, which does not have to be always true. Even going by your reasoning, it can be reasoned that a UCAV with similar radar capability will be 30 percent smaller, and also we are counting in the stealthier nature of the UCAV because it's form does not have to accomidate a human pilot (50 percent of the F-22 rcs comes from it's canopy). In a BVR, a UCAV will have a large advantage.
My conclusion is that for the next couple of decades, we would see UCAVs replacing manned roles but will NEVER totally replace manned aircraft - especially in interception, escort, air-superiority and supremacy roles. If UCAVs can defeat human piloted aircrafts in A2A engagement, God bid and help us, we will really be facing the Matrix/Terminator scenarios. Human race will be made irrelavant.
[/b]
As for no-escape zones, you must be aware that it is not fixed and differs with aircraft with difference preformances. Usually the figure you see for no-escape zones for most missiles you read about have been tuned to a maximum of the 9-10 gees target manuvering envelope. The tighter the target can turn (or faster it can fly), the smaller the no-escape zone becomes. If you use an AIM-120 to try to shoot down an aircraft, the no-escape zone is certainly much larger then if you are trying down to shoot down, say another missile.
Hence a manuvering UCAV's no escape zone is actually three times smaller, and manuvering aside, a computerized UCAV can react and pump out countermeasures with timing far better then that of any human pilot before, or after missile launch. Hence the chances of it coming out unscathed is far in excess of that of a manned aircraft, as a simple QF drone has already shown. To get within a UCAV's no-escape zone for your missile, you have to manuver into a envelope three times smaller, and I doubt these things present themselves in air combat much.
I'm not sure how getting show down by robots makes humans irrevelant. These things were made by humans in the first place. Besides, robots have been shooting down humans in air combat for a long time liao, witness all the air to air kills with missiles
-
On networking:Originally posted by EXCO:Also, do not forget that currently, we are talking about UAVs which do not operate in force. Once again, what is being suggested is that a whole air force of UCAVs. Herein lies my point about networking. How do you, or can you coordinate perhaps 50 of them all at once? Imagine the resources, and the computing power needed at home base.
Dude, what made you think that dogfighting is simply about pointing in the correct direction and shooting?
Actually in terms of networking, I think you might have to upgrade your knowledge and figures by a large number of manitudes. Already the US army has experimented with networking up to 2,000 micro drone buggies that they intend to launch from a mothership to overwhelm a house with tasers or tear gas as their subsitute for bloody FIBUA. It's one of their unmanned projects and I'll pass you the link once I can scrounge it up. The fact is, such networking is far from impossible.
To understand how, what you are suggesting is a top down network that has to share all the resources in between. Such a network is based on a model of how human organizations usually do things.
But the network model that has come up with to figure out how to network multiple units with little latency is the bottom up, or ant-colony approach. Where units are networked together in a form of collective intelligence, rather then centralized intelligence. This delocalized network model makes it possible to link up an indefinate number of units, coordinate and make them them do the stuff you want as a team.
The ant-colony approach that they are now look to. This also means that the network is incredibly robust, because it's intergity is decentralized. The only way to destroy this network is to kill every single one of the drones. Such a network requires minimal external computing power to support at all as the drones all provide to the overall coordination and network, like an ant colony. As a matter of fact, the more drones you have the better, because the overall oordination and ability of the network will increase. Of course, the disadvantage to this system is that you have less localized control over each individual, as compared to the computing extensive traditional model you suggested. But this is the network model defence planners intend to use for their future extensive drone networks, as it applies to the supernet of other sensors and units.
On dogfighting, I did not come up with that idea. One F-15 pilot said it pretty much himself during aerospace to sum up dogfighting.
"It's nothing like the stuff you see in the movies that you have to come up with complex plans to outfly your enemy. It's just basically a matter of pointing you aircraft in the right direction faster then he can, and shooting."
When asked on what that meant, it was that dogfighting was a brutally simple affair that usually only takes snap seconds to conclude, tatical thinking and human brain mumbo jumbo greatly absent. Get you nose right fast and blast him out before he can. -
It's that case in traditional airfoils. But modern airfoils and exotic aircraft forms can easily make snap turns, go into controled stalls and reverse heading. The problem is, while all these exotic manuvers have been made possible with emerging technology, the basic limit of human endurance is still there. Humans can only do these manuvers under limited circumstances lest they kill themselves if they push it too far. If you do a J-Turn too hard, which involves negative as well as side to side gees (usually takes about 8 seconds to do) you'll stroke yourself and turn your plane into a flying coffin that will intersect the ground shortly. A UCAV can exceute the same manuver easily eight times faster.Originally posted by |-|05|:I'm not that erm.....that knowledgeable in that area(the ability to turn 50g's) but i still think that making sure a small turn with that small turn radius is dangerous to the situation due to the lose of speed.However the ability to make bigger negative turns is much more erm......brighter?
A UCAV can take full advantage of this new genre of flying, and yes, they provide an extreme advantage in combat. To fight a UCAV in air combat would be a nightmare, because it will be akin to flying against a airborne turret that can face anywhere it wants far faster then you can. Hardly anything I would go into with the pretext that the human will always prevail.
If the human could fight the UCAV on fair terms and even ground, I'm sure we'll win more of the times, but this is not the case. The UCAV has inherent advantages in air combat manuvering, and these advantages are huge, akin to the difference between a camel sopswhip and a F-8 Crusader. It's a revolution of difference.