how long until drones completely replace manned airplanes for combat?

>>32491904
Never

>>32491906
explain

Likely a long time for fighters. However, in the CAS and attack roles, soon.

>>32492053
but identifying an enemy target in the air is a lot less tricky than identifying enemy targets on the ground.

In the future ant air missiles will just be UAVs with fuel tanks strapped to them that loiter in an area, when a target is identified they drop the tanks and off they go

>>32491906
automobiles will never replace horses

>>32491912
explain

>>32491912
Remotely operated vehicles have a slight communication delay, that is the main reason

>>32492481
once tech fixes this I see no reason for people in aircraft

File: Air Force.png (541KB, 667x474px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 667x474px

Airfags won't let it because its all they have

Airfags are in self-preservation mode

As soon as UCAVs outperform F-22s, we can finally see the death of the Air Force, the world's most embarrassing military branch

>>32492481
You dont need communication. Just get swarms of aircraft, give all your units transponders that identify them, instruct the drones to kill everything within the engagement zone with out one. Done and done.

>>32491904
Never, because jamming exists and I don't think anybody will ever relinquish ALL tasks of air combat to Skyne- I mean, completely-autonomous flying robots.

Also bandwidth limitations are a thing even in cooperative environments, so there's a limit to how extensively even human-controlled UAVs can be employed.

>>32491912
Humans are better at identifying things with their own eyes instead of through electro-optical imagers.

>>32492613
It's impossible for technology to fix that unless the laws of physics change.
>>32492691
There are numerous problems with your plan.

File: air force.png (352KB, 372x484px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 372x484px

>>32492682
Fun fact: Navy development in UCAVs has already overtaken the Air Force. Their protectionism will make them even more irrelevant than they already are.

>>32492705
>There are numerous problems with your plan.

Only if you lack the will to win

>>32492713
Or if you lack the will to kill civilians
Or the will to shoot at dangerous items in the area
What about if the INS isn't properly aligned and then it starts a war in an entirely different country?

>>32492481
>>Remotely operated vehicles
How about ai that flys the plane then? No lag input, faster at deciding. Face it, technology is coming, and you cant stop it.

>>32492723
""""AI"""" does not understand the battlefield and it never will.

>>32491904
You will get a lot of tech talk. And that is all it is: talk.

Reality is that in the Military each brach and service has one particular path that takes you to the top. top ranking officer in signal service? Top performance in engineering? Just forget it, you will never reach the top.

If you are in the Air Force a career as a fighter pilot is the ticket to the top. Replacing fighters with drones will be a career suicide mission that nobody in the Air Force will EVER approve.

You can already see the trends and reactions: you have one set of crews that bring drones in to the theater, but once there you need to be a big guy to take it from there. Gotta clock up some serious kill scores.

Years ago NASA had a drone that pulled way above 30 g in turns. The "white scarf brigade" as some called them, grounded the plane immediately.

Can you imagine the fallout if it turns out the average 4chan poster can successfully do a drone mission!??

>>32492725
It only needs to know what to kill. Computers already know how to determin if an aircraft is a foe or not.

>>32492718
War shouldn't be treated as some half measure to just go in and start killing a few people. If total war is not justified, then your war was not justified to start with and you should stop doing it.

its the first rule of every comprehensive military treatise in history. Avoid war at all cost, if you cant then win at all cost. The chinese guy said it, the greek guy said.

>>32492481
>a slight communication delay
1000 km at speed of light: 3.33 ms.
Human reaction time from visual stimulus: about 250 ms

Basically you do not have the faintest idea about that you are writing about.

>>32492733
>It only needs to know what to kill.
And how does it know what to kill? What's the algorithm here?
>Computers already know how to determin if an aircraft is a foe or not.
IFF doesn't work that way. IFF cannot determine foe, only friendly, and unreliably.

>>32492736
Which of your asses were these numbers pulled from?

>>32492718
>Or if you lack the will to kill civilians
Ooookay.

So have you ever served?

And in what country?

>>32492741
If not friendly, its a foe.

Just tell everyone that, establish your no fly zone, and if they get themselves blown up its their own damn fault.

>>32492747
You're retarded. I'm glad 4chan isn't making any decisions for anything.

>>32492744
Speed of light is a well known physical constant know to most people >18.
Dividing distance by speed to obtain time is known to nearly all people >18.

What are you even doing here??

>>32492741
Dude think for a bit, if you and your allies aint in that space then it means that whatever is there is hostile.
And dont say airliners because transponders are a thing

>>32492749
Im pragmatic

>>32492754
>Dude think for a bit, if you and your allies aint in that space then it means that whatever is there is hostile.
What if there are allies in the area?

>>32492749
Why dont you buy a uav and fly it over an airforce base?

>>32492751
No, retard, where did you pull a 250ms reaction time to visual stimuli and 1000km distance from?

Fuckin' Euros.

>>32492762
Thats were IFF comes in. And also this is in the future were ai is present, so there could well be a better way to determin friend and foe. Also comunications between allies is a good idea. "im flying in your terretorie now so dont kill me plz"

>>32492789
>Thats were IFF comes in
Again, you cannot confirm foe with IFF

IFF is a problem with pilots, now, you think it's not going to be a problem with your dumb drones?

>>32492794
Whats the problem with it?

File: Air_Force_Logo.jpg (15KB, 502x401px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 502x401px

>>32492726
Which is why the Navy should simply take all of the Air Force's combat missions.

And the Army should take the Air Force's transport missions. Obviously the Aircucks can't handle it. If they are the sole obstacle to technological advancement, remove them from the picture.

>>32492815
You're borderline illiterate, aren't you?

>>32492829
So are you. I awnserd how to determin if an aircraft was a friend, not a foe.

All you said is that IFF is a problem for pilots, nothing else...

>>32492846
Yes, and what he means by that is "because even real pilots have difficulty with IFF, dumb algorithms and remote pilots looking through a 640x480 screen don't have a hope in hell."

>>32492723
>How about ai that flys the plane then?

ooooh yeah or why not just have the bullets teleport into the bad guys

>>32492815
>>32492789
>Also comunications between allies is a good idea
"good idea" that fails in practice and is why you can't blast anybody who doesn't respond to IFF.

>>32492736
Sorry are you trying to tell me there's no command delay to a drone?

>>32492736
>1000 km
>Basically you do not have the faintest idea about that you are writing about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit#Communications

>>32492816
Doesn't the US Air Force bill itself as a proponent of innovation?

>>32492877
Mature

>>32492876
Thats why a computer is flying and not a man.

>>32492883
What is visula conformation, dont need a pilot to do that

>>32491904
never, the military need their blood sacrifice to appease the kube

>>32492941
Best argument so far!

>>32492926
Damn, you are such an idiot. If a pilot which can actually visually identify aircraft sometimes engages friendly aircraft, what do you think a computer can do? IFF DOES NOT CONFIRM FOE. It's basically an impossibility because a friendly could have malfunctioning IFF equipment (among who knows what other failure modes since basically all IFF equipment is classified).

>>32491904
A while still.

Drones don't have the G-limits a manned aircraft does and they can save weight and space by eliminating the pilot and support systems. But they would need fully autonomous AI to survive in a contested environment and we're not quite there yet both technologically and morally.

>>32494539
>But they would need fully autonomous AI to survive in a contested environment and we're not quite there yet both technologically and morally.
Realistically we'll never be quite there. Computers will never understand the world the way humans do.

>>32494539
>Drones don't have the G-limits a manned aircraft does

moron

>>32494551
I don't know about that. 'Never' is a very, very long time.

>>32494553
Current drones may have similar or worse G-limits vs. manned aircraft, but future unmanned fighters could be designed to vastly exceed the 9G (or so) limit on human pilots.

>>32494593
and the time at which that would have been relevant or useful has long since passed.

>>32492741
Well then I guess BVR warfare is just a meme then.

>>32494604
BVR doesn't necessarily need IFF.

>>32494539
Planes do not have G-limits because the pilot can't handle more. They have G-limits because of the maintenance life of the airframe. A2A missiles regularly pull over 50 G's, but that's because they're only expected to work for a few minutes at most. A fighter is expected to run for thousands of hours.

>>32494593
Problem with that is to make an airframe that will last thousands of hours, to make it pull very high-G it will have to be very heavy which will destroy its sustained turn rate. Reason why aircraft are all 9G when there have been centrifuge tests of dudes handling 12Gs

>>32494635
>>32494640

That's a good point. Thank you for the information.

>>32491904
>drones beat pilots because they can pull more g's

Pulling g's isn't important in modern air combat. It's like saying your melee drones sharpen their swords better than humans...who have moved on to the Maxim gun.

Modern robotic combat tests such as ALPHA (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627125140.htm) are built for 5th generation air war. They use drones with less maneuverability than human fighters, and beat the humans through superior tactics in BVR.

>>32494691
>and beat the humans through superior tactics in BVR.
What superior tactics?

>>32494653
Holy shit... a rare twinkle of sincerity

>>32494938
That's a bit of a misnomer. The same tactics all pilots use, just performed better, and boosted by the superior mental reaction loops of the AI.

>>32492709
niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggerrrrrrrrrrr

Current theory is that the F-35 is being built as the last dedicated manned fighter, hence all the money dumps, tech dumps, and scatter over it. It is unknown if the next generation (damn you Lockheed) will be fully unmanned or designed with hybrid RORO capabilities so you can remove cockpit/insert drone capabilities on the fly.

While computers can do a lot of the manual/menial tasking we as Humans have an internal fear of complete computer control and will most likely always be needed in the loop at some point for final tasking.

File: 1455763204929.jpg (126KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 640x480px

>>32492682
>>32492709
Holy fuck these pics make me pissed.

Air cucks would absolutely get fucking murdered in a real military branch. The corps technically being the only one left.

>Strategic air command was one of the most badass things ever
>fighterfags ruined everything

Fighter pilots and fighter autists are the worst kind of people. The fighter only exists to protect the bomber, the bomber exists to obliterate. If bomber pilots were in charge the airforce would be respectable and terrifying.

There are a few big steps we have to take to fully automate war-making, in rough order:
>telling apart friendlies, enemies and civilians--if a machine can rescue a hostage without asking at each person "hey can I shoot this guy"
>machines that can do at least limited improv--a robot that doesn't curl up into the fetal position when it gets jammed
>machines that can tell when it is a good idea to sacrifice themselves (think of a billion-dollar drone bomber that keeps convincing itself to ram things)
>machines that have a rough idea of when to seek guidance as to whether or not an order is legal or ethical (this could be as simple as "send scripted message to these people when directed to hit civilian target"), this step is going to be depressingly optional for a LOT of nations
I think in my lifetime it will be possible to automate most of the chair force. I'm not sure if there will be the will to actually go through with it.

>>32491904
>how long until drones completely replace manned airplanes for combat?

For air-to-air, it will be asap. There are multiple projects underway to do that, obviously none of them are 100% yet but they exist and you hear about them now and then. The (a?) UK one is called Taranis.

t. applied for a job with a Taranis contractor but no where near enough qualifications to get on the AI team.

The clinchers are communication links and intelligence. AA drones will exist when fully autonomous drones are practical, which will be soon. They can exist in other roles such as CAS when communication links are super reliable. CAS needs decisions and the ability to react to a changing tactical circumstance. Whether to engage targets revealed by IR through cover is a decision that a drone can't easily make since it's easy for the ground troops to communicate something like that they're have no single soldiers so that target must be hostile to a human pilot/drone operator but not so much to an autonomous drone.

The are many advantages to an AI fighter, even if they were only serving as wingmen to a human pilot who was C&C and supervisor to the drone wing, AI fighters are likely to wreck human fighters in dog fights and they're exactly as capable at deploying a missile from BVR.

A human is there for judgement (and we know that human pilots make all sorts of bad decisions about whether to engage), so they have a role as interceptors when command are unsure of a target but not when the target is confirmed hostile. If communication links are reliable enough then a drone can be used under human control in any circumstance.

So...in AA roles, soon.

In chaotic CAS, Apaches are still the best choice.
In blowing up a designated target CAS though, sure, drones can do that. Even fully autonomous drones would be able to drop a hellfire on something lit up by IFF/laser from friendly ground troops. They can do the math on collateral damage and decide to engage.

File: 1455762242055.jpg (116KB, 711x960px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 711x960px

>>32499155
They should put the corps in charge of training all branches.

can't pass the crucible? then go fuck off back to flipping burgers

>>32494551
>Realistically we'll never be quite there. Computers will never understand the world the way humans do.
>human brains aren't computers
Dude, what are they then? They use electrochemical processes to hold and calculate state and weighted inputs to activate further state.

On a small scale, human brains are very, very like computers.
On a large scale, they have really complicated software and we only understand a bit of it.

There's no technical reason (that we know of) why anything brains can do, computers can't do. We can definitely simulate small pieces of brain in computers, we just can't do it on a large scale or for a large time.

Anyway, a drone doesn't need to understand the whole world, just its mission role. That's why special purposes drones such as AA will be easy to do and hard ones like CAS cooperating with ground troops are hard to do.

Lock a target and release a missile is easy for a drone. That will happen fully autonomously.

This is hard:
(Apache kills 20 taliban) (really 2xApache taking requests from ground troops)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWuP6dmYOE0

What some anon said about visual recognition/IFF is true, drones can do visual regconition, they already do very reliably but IFF is failable and will always be an arms race, you don't want to shoot down friendlies because their IFF got jammed. But if a non-responsive MIG approaches your carrier group then your CAP can engage and destroy them without much fear of collateral damage. The question is whether to engage a 737 doing the same thing and that's gone badly plenty of time with human pilots (and SAM operators).

>>32499087
>we as Humans have an internal fear of complete computer control
While that's reasonable, there are technical limitations. Current types of computers cannot develop an actual understanding of the world.

>>32499459
>Dude, what are they then?
Uh, brains?
>They use electrochemical processes to hold and calculate state and weighted inputs to activate further state.
Wow look at this neuroscientist. Got the brain all figured out.
>There's no technical reason (that we know of) why anything brains can do, computers can't do
Absolutely there is, they are not sentient and cannot be made so. See Searle.

>>32492062
No, they won't be. Why would they make a larger, single use vehicle that does the same thing as a SAM while doing it more expensively?

Being able to loiter until a target is found doesn't increase effective range or decrease time to target, it just burns more fuel.

>>32499521
This, loitering is a fucking meme.

Very long time.

As it stands the technology isn't there.
And even when it gets there it won't happen because the top brass that makes decisions like this won't like the idea of it.

It would take generals that were born this decade to trust an AI to fight a war for them.

Can drones be used in a peer vs peer scenario where ECM aircraft and vehicles will be deployed?

>>32499543
no

>>32499521
Because you are basically just strapping a small inexpensive sustained flight kit to a preexisting missile.

Its going to burn a lot less fuel than an airplane would.

File: o-TARANIS-INFOGRAPHIC-570.jpg (61KB, 570x401px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 570x401px

>>32499489
>Absolutely there is, they are not sentient and cannot be made so. See Searle.
Define sentience.
I know Searle, my point is that we can't even prove that human brains are sentient. There's really no evidence that human brains aren't Chinese Rooms themselves and even if an AI is a Chinese Room, if the reference books are large and detailed enough then the Chinese Room can speak Chinese well enough to perform a mission.

tl:dr;
>Chinese Rooms pass the Turing Test (if you do it in Chinese I guess)

>>32499559
You don't loiter aircraft unless you are stupid. You do what you went to do and then you go home and wait for them to call you again.

>>32499593
Its still going to burn less fuel AND you will have faster reaction time. Win win. You are just against it because you dont like new things.

>>32499559
>strapping a small inexpensive sustained flight kit to a preexisting missile
Whilst I think that drones are imminent, there is no way that I'd call fully autonomous AA drones 'small' or 'inexpensive'.

They'll cost less than an F35 of course but by the time they get into service, entire carrier groups will be cheaper than an F35.

>>32499609
The expensive stuff is the missile. The flight kit can be made cheap because no part of it is actually designed for combat, its a one time use disposable transportation package designed to just bring the missile within range of something. Actual missile control and targeting and stuff could be handled by awacs, or a dedicated control drone or for ground targets by a controller on the ground. What im describing is not a drone so much as a missile that is not carried by a plane (or a drone) but a cute little set of attached wings and engines.

Think of it like those amazon delivery drones. Instead of a box its a missile

>>32492718

Evacuate the civilians. Problem solved.

>>32499559
It's not going to be smaller if it has its own radar. If it's going to be directed by a land based radar then that fuel required for loitering could be used in its initial launch and increase its range by not using that fuel to loiter. Also, the longer that's it's already been loitering the shorter its range.

And it's not going to be cheaper, it's already more complex than existing missiles and it will have shit tier range with its gay loitering.

Literally what you describe is either missiles we already have, except they launch before a target is even found, so they waste fuel or (if you give it a native radar) single use jet fighters.

If you want an A2A drone so fucking bad, you might as well make a drone missile trucks out of existing fourth-gen fighters, but even that's less effective and has a higher logistical strain than just putting some dude in the cockpit.

>>32499672
Wow, you must be a top war scientist.

>>32499672
>Evacuate the civilians. Problem solved.
But the borders are all closed because they listened to /pol/ and don't let 'rapefugees' in.

The civilians all die at the border trying to cross minefields or died on the way from everything that normally kills refugees.

And it's your fault because you told the civilians to gtfo.

>>32499521
>SAM
So what do you do when you are launching an invasion against a target, you do not have air superiority because they are not some backwards shit country, and you need to escort your air dropped troops and equipment?

Why not litter the skies with escort missiles, you can have hundreds of them for the cost of a single airframe, and they can hang out, land at improvised bases to be serviced. Once you have established control of the area you can set up your ground base defenses, and then use the missile-drones to escort your mechanized pushes into enemy teritory.

Swarms of autonomous enemy seeking missiles is an inevitability. They will probably be multi purpose and able to be used by people on the ground to call in strikes as well as defend them form enemy attack from the air.

>>32499687
You dont use the missiles fuel for loitering, thats one of the strap on components that would drop away. Imagine a current missile, but then it has 4 struts sticking out of it with engines on each, like a quad copter. It just hangs out. Then when its time for the missile to do its thing the rest just falls off and the missile shoots away.

>>32499715
>So what do you do when you are launching an invasion against a target, you do not have air superiority because they are not some backwards shit country, and you need to escort your air dropped troops and equipment?
You do DEAD and a fighter sweep first, retard. You don't just drop troops onto enemy armor under airspace you don't control.

>>32499780
And then youre screwed because they had a bunch of missile drones hiding in bushes that just take off once the fighters pass and now your transports are all fucked.

You need always present autonomous point defense for every asset you have.

>>32499715
If they're multi-use airframes, why not make one airframe that carries more of those drones mounted under its wings that it fires at other aircraft while having the same range and lethality of those multi-use drones. We can call them jet fighters.

A reaper drone already cost $17mil. Let's give it a native radar, a powerful ramjet required to match the speeds of an A2A missile, more fuel to feed that engine and at the required range, and larger wing surfaces to keep that bitch in the air. Don't forget development costs. Looks like we got a $50mil aircraft if the development goes as fucking perfectly. That's half the cost of an F-35 by the way. And guess what, ITS GOOD FOR ONE ENGAGEMENT!

Drones of this size can also be targeted by radar and be destroyed by SAMs and fighter aircraft before they even impact their target. That hefty price tag isn't even a guaranteed kill.

I imagine that UAVs will have their place in A2A combat, but it won't your shitty missile storms.

>>32499805
LOL

>>32499815
You are still missing the point. Your argument is based on taking an existing UAV and making it disposable. Im talking about taking a missile similar to what an existing UAV might have, strapping a few hundred bucks worth of l brackets and hobby engines on it, and having it follow you around, or position itself as part of a defensive perimeter, ready to drop all those things and just become a missile again, floating there in air, which then activates its engines and off it goes. It can be targeted remotely, the idea is to have the missiles ever present as an umbrella above all your operations able to be used by multiple assets. Be in some command drone or an awacs or some guy on the ground with laser with a button on it that just automatically sends a signal to send a nearby missile at what hes pointing at, and its like hes point and clicking and firing some virtual missile canon, and that huge missile firing guns magazine is the airspace around him, populated with missiles.

File: NATO-E-3-AWACS.jpg (264KB, 2200x1467px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 2200x1467px

>>32499751
That's still apart of the overall airframe. So what you want is, again, something that does the same thing as a SAM, but is larger, more expensive, and single use.

Explain to me how loitering could possibly be more efficient than a land based system that uses less resources but completes the job with the same success rate.

I doubt this even came across your mind, but the only advantage this loitering clusterfuck would have is a radar with a better OTH view due to being higher up than a ground based radar. An AWACS aircraft has this advantage and more due to being a purpose built flying fucking radar. AWACS could direct SAMs with the same range as your loitering object onto the target while being able to land and conduct another mission another day.

>>32499864
Why spend more money making it hover when it could just be land based? Missiles are thousands of pounds. You're not gonna keep that thing hovering for any decent amount of time with a few hundred dollars worth of Chinese hobby drones. Even if you could, why? It's literally pointless to make it hover when it could just be launched from the ground.

>>32492682
Since when does self preservation mode mean "vastly expanding the use of UAV platforms"? The Air Force trained more UAV pilots that standard pilots for the first time ever this year, and it will only keep growing. Add in the fact that the Air Force spearheaded the development of these UAVs, and you look like the utter mong you are.

>>32491904

CAS but not air supremacy.

>>32500020
Response time and keeping your assets dispersed so they dont make an easy target. The ability to give a few guys out on patrol their own immediate personal protection is invaluable. Remember the things that might attack them are stealth drones that you wont notice until they might be in immediate threat to start with.

Ground based stuff is nice for defense but we are talking about rapidly sweeping across a continent here. You basically want each company able to provide its own air support and air defense.

Im envisioning this taking the place of a manpad, being self-carrying and hover around so it doesn't take up space or require anyone to carry it, able to go with you over rough terrain

>>32500125
They make mobile SAMs, based buk pic related. You still have to fuel that thing, so it wont be small. Companies are not going to be sweeping across continents in any short time, and last time I checked mobile sams are mobile. It's not a company's job to conduct air defense, that's the job of CAP aircraft and local mobile air defense. If shit hits the fan, you have your MANPADS. If you're getting shit on because you somehow outpaced your CAP fighters, your MANPADS are useless, and you're getting shit on by enemy bombers, you've got bigger problems than what that COD quadcopter will solve.

You really want every company to have anti-air capability? You attach a land based, mobile air defense unit to that company. They can keep up with advancing armies. They have air transportable systems that will keep up with airborne units.

And as far as every unit and/or AWACS having access to every anti-air unit via data-links, there's nothing stopping that being achieved with a ground based system.

There is literally no advantage other than that it would be neat. I hope you're trolling, because if you're not, I feel sorry for your caretaker. If you are trolling, it's got no effect. I'm on winter break between uni semesters and I've got nothing better to do.

File: 157.jpg (125KB, 800x890px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x890px

>>32500365
Fuck, forgot pic.

File: 1472839856279.jpg (39KB, 460x615px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 460x615px

>>32492725
>COMMUNICATING FACE TO FACE WITH SOMEONE ACROSS THE PLANET IN REAL TIME? ARE YOU INSANE?!
>MACHINES THAT FLY MEN ACROSS COUNTRIES? IMPOSSIBLE!
>EYE GLASSES THAT LET YOU SEE CLEARLY IN THE DARK? PREPOSTEROUS!
>MEN WALKING ON THE MOON? NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
>A MAN RUNING A MILE IN FOUR MINUTES? HIS BODY WON'T ALLOW IT IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
>A MUSKET THAT FIRES 16 TIMES PER SECOND? you get my fucking point

>>32502079
Gob be retarded somewhere else

>>32499978
Not that guy, buit if you're got an AWACS in the air, you've got multiple fighter flights in the air too.

You don't protect an airborne strategic asset with SAMs.

>>32499978
It would be useful for CAP as part of a QRA

>>32502130
>humans can do it and this is natural
>machines can't do it because ???

>>32491904
at least 10 minutes

>>32502201
I know. I was just giving examples of how his loitering hover missiles aren't better in any way.

File: motivational_poster___kill_xenos_by_johnhazatoth-d5ejt1x.jpg (122KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x800px

>>32492725
>genuine belief in this sentiment
Absolutely Heretical.

I wrote out a big thing about how programming AI for a battlefield is just like counting cards (if you want to win without cheating) but then I realized I don't really care if you learn or not, today, so I deleted it. Good luck with your archaic mentality.

>>32504171
I have to thank you for not assaulting my sensibilities with your ridiculous analogies.

>>32504196
I have to thank you for not being anyone I know or associate with on a regular basis.

>>32504214
Same to you.

>>32491904
>how long until drones completely replace manned airplanes for combat?
When there is less graft,and they make financial and military sense.

File: 1rl257 krasuha-4 (1).jpg (150KB, 1131x890px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1131x890px

>>32491904
Never.

>>32499593
You absolutely do loiter aircraft as long as you can if you are a ground-forces unit interested in killing people. loiter time is the #1 factor in lethality and reaction time, not to mention absence of friendly fire.

>>32504613
That's all lies. You go, do your job, go home.

>>32499543
Yes, if they are autonomous.

Obviously the entire 3rd offset is about building that autonomy.

>>32504629
If you are USAF you do, which is why grunts complain about CAS so much. Artillery does the same shit, but faster and with fewer latte-sipping sneers.

CCA lives and dies by loiter time. That's why grunts like helicopters and drones, because they hang around long enough to do independent targeting, have faster reactions (a turboprop on site is faster than an F22 at Baghram), and know the area instead of dumbly hitting grid points or relying on JTACs and lasers.

Remote-controlled aircraft or fully autonomous drones? The former is obviously a very real possibility in the near future.

7th Gen will be mostly drones, at this rate. But we barely have 6th Gen set in stone, so it's anyone's guess.

>>32504676
>nd know the area instead of dumbly hitting grid points or relying on JTACs and lasers.

right because artillery is called in blind.

and has a comparible CEP than PGMs

lmao

>>32499155
>daily reminder that that 'quote' is confirmed bullshit

>>32494691
pulling g's actually is very important especially in BVR. Making a missile turn is how to make a missile bleed momentum and thus how to dramatically lower the Phit. If you can get a fully autonomous drone which acts equal to a human pilot, it will outperform human pilots simply because it can make higher g turns thus bleeding more energy from the missile thus lowering the Phits. THe problem is how do you get a computer to do all the tasks a pilot does (which go way way beyond just shooting down opposing craft.)

>>32506676
Its not about pulling Gs.

Its about energy retention, making multiple sustained turns.

>>32492062
>>32492053
>>32499521

well the one situation where you need to loiter is when maintaining air superiority or a no fly zone in an area that is over the horizon from a potential sam site - but even then what you'd do is throw a cruise missile into an area that recon drones or satellites detect activity in, and have the cruise missile target the runway or airport the target took off from wiht it's main warhead while also deploying shorter ranged AA-missiles that are still around when it's coming in to strike. That's what your drone fighter looks like.

The point of "loitering" is only really neccesary if you don't have over-the-horizon detection of incoming threats or you're doing Wild Weasel - and wild weasel is for ground attack and sigint drones.

>>32506676
It is not at all a BVR problem you child. Do a 180 turn 40 miles away draining all that energy from the jet and the missile can just make a 3 degree turn to be on a pure intercept. High Gs are not needed in the era of AIM-120Ds and Meteor missiles

>>32506676
Also, you act like these AI jets don't bleed energy by doing a 9G turn. You're either highly ambitious or a fucking idiot. A high G turn from a fighter which ways 30k+ pounds will always deplete way more energy than a missile 40 miles away that has to make a 3 degree turn. Way to defend against missiles is to either notch against a semi-active, kinematically defeat by going low and fast away from it, or last ditch maneuver trying to outperform it as soon as you see it. I wouldn't count on that last one though, as you'll probably never see the tiny missile.

>>32506676
That's what robots like ALPHA excel at. Through superior tactical acumen, they lead the human pilots into lose/lose situations. The classic one is forcing humans to run out of missiles, by maneuvering such that humans fire missiles defensively (preemptively from outside the NEZ), to force drones to bleed energy so that the drones can't get an inside-NEZ kill shot.

AI rock at tactics. They are better than humans in both the short term and the long term and in the overall picture. A big part of the ALPHA program was going to be teaching the AI about suboptimal and unintuitive human behavior like kamikaze attacks, but it adapted quicker than expected.

>>32508895
Yes and no; AlphaGo may be the best Go player in the world, but it has a finite number of pieces and places on a board. Real life air combat, where there's continuous space and potentially thousands of 'pieces', all with very different traits and capabilities, makes it very hard to do this sort of thing.

>>32509450
uhh senpai, the entire reason why alphago can achieve the performance it has in the first place is a neural network. previous bots to play board games (ones like chess, we've had computers who can beat grandmasters by bruteforcing since the 90s) didn't.

there's an entirely different, quantitatively better, more human like approach being used here. it's not a matter of "if" this technique can be expanded to unmanned aircraft, it's a matter of "when".

i wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 could actually fly by itself for the most part actually. it already does all sensor gathering and combination by itself, a lot of flying, missile release, missile guiding, etc. if you really wanted to you could make it fly without a person in the cockpit. maybe it couldn't dogfight, but it could damn well shoot people down.

>>32509717
I'm well aware of what a neural network is and how it works. If you're arguing that an AI can supersede humans in the future, then sure, I don't see any reason why they couldn't. If you're saying that robots like ALPHA and today's tech is superior to humans, then I heavily disagree.

>>32509751
keep in mind i'm not >>32508895, i'm the guy you just responded to

ALPHA, on a theoretical basis, imo is superior to humans. on a tactical level though. it's major flaw is that it doesn't account for sensor noise, shit that it necessarily can't detect, stuff on the ground, etc. if they were to expand that to semi-near-ish human level i guess they could slap the F-35's sensors and computers on a shitty drone and have cheap Iran level kamikaze planes.

>>32509790
Sorta, ALPHA as I understand it is basically just a very good dogfighting AI; if you put it in an F-22 and sent it against 4th gens, it'd do stupid things that a human wouldn't (ie it'd go straight for the kill and not bother trying to set up the fight to improve its odds)

>>32499459

>On a small scale, human brains are very, very like computers.

wtf no lol

>On a large scale, they have really complicated software and we only understand a bit of it.

WTF NO LOL

We don't even understand 0.001% of the hardware

>>32510079
yes because neural networks are named after john h "neural" neuron because he won the bicentural MIT hotdog sucking contest in WW2, eh anon?

>>32504171
>using WH40k as a pic
>the imperium
>who have the adeptus mechanicus
>who hate AI and literally call it abominal intelligence

>>32510276

are you normal?

>>32510352
WELL FUCK YOU.

>>32491904

probably won't happen, people are harder to hack.

>>32491906
That's ridiculous.

File: Khorne_by_alexboca.jpg (277KB, 1136x811px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1136x811px

>>32492941
/k/HORNE IS PLEASED.

>>32492741
Simple enough."If it's brown, gun it down"

>>32492726
>you need to be a big guy to take it from there
UUUU

>>32492741
>Whats the algorithm here?
REMOVEKEBAB.exe

>>32500375
THANK YOU BASED BUK

>>32492481
>Ok time to launch BVR A2A missile at distant enemy interceptor
>Oh no! He launched 0.5 seconds faster since they are manned and our delay is up to a second with SATCOM link, how could we not see the implausibility of this current situation!?

>ok time do CAS and throw GBU at target we've been observing for the last half hour via SATCOM link experiencing a half second delay
>oh wait that's not a problem since we do that all the time without issue.

File: tmp_1405-1468660982425-658360158.png (212KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 600x450px

>>32491912

>>32511261
>>Oh no! He launched 0.5 seconds faster since they are manned and our delay is up to a second with SATCOM link

And? Its not like launching a half second sooner would have magically prevented the target from launching. In that situation both are going to have a missile on them regardless.

>>32510826
I got a better one, can't wait to install this in my drone.

"If they browse /k/, bombs away".

>>32492747
>Crewed helicopter rescue mission loses IFF functionality
As if we need another excuse for blue on blue in the sand box

>>32509450
>>32509790
>>32509812
Incorrect. ALPHA the tactical air combat AI is not AlphaGo, it has nothing to do with it.

It includes every input from the airframe such as raw sensor data; and its situational awareness of that data is superior to humans. It doesn't do stupid things - it takes expert humans going all-out to stand a chance, and it usually beats them even when its using handicapped aircraft.

>>32491904

Drones ARE manned, just remotely.

The number of ass-in-cockpit pilots will decline over time, but will probably not drop to zero for some time. I imagine that the number of (forgive me) "meat actuators" will decrease and the slots will be very competitive. When we get better software and start to explore the capabilities of air frames that are not limited by 9 Gs, we'll find that we're better served by drones. As the old pilots retire, the drones will be more and more accepted.

>>32492481
same thing i posted in the last thread that asked this stupid question

>fighter pilot sees enemy
>fires missile

vs

>drone sees enemy
>beams footage up to communication satellite
>footage beamed down to relay at airbase in trashcanistan
>relay fires that shit back in to space
>shit comes back down to another relay in airbase on US soil
>fat, sweaty, greasy POG piece of shit that has been stuck in a humid shipping container for 20+ solid hours in a chair that smells of farts and dip sees footage of enemy fighter
>ham fisted retard that isn't remotely as proficient or well trained as a pilot inputs command to fire a missile
>said command goes up to space, down to relay, back in to space again, and down to the drone
>drone fires missile

hint: the drone will probably have exploded somewhere in that chain of events.

>>32492701
Could not be more incorrect.

>>32499349
Such a cringey sign.

>>32499593
UAVs are awesome for recon because you can loiter for 8-24+ hours depending on airframe.

That beats the hell out of a fighter that needs to refuel every 4 hours.

>>32502584
I can see a lightweight UAV missile/bomb truck working.

You'd only loiter it if you were already going to loiter the equivalent manned aircraft.

but then its just an another UAV and not some special loiter missile.

>>32492735
abso fukken lutely. sadly, war is a foreign policy tool in the eyes of those in power.

>>32517791
We aren't talking about recon, you fucking retard.

>>32515060
>ALPHA the tactical air combat AI is not AlphaGo, it has nothing to do with it.
No shit Sherlock, hence:
>ALPHA as I understand it is basically just a very good dogfighting AI

>It includes every input from the airframe such as raw sensor data
It's never been plugged into any airframe, it runs on a fucking Rasberry Pi

Based on the article by UC:
http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html
It appears to have all taken place in 1v1 scenarios (essentially in a vacuum), mostly, if not entirely WVR, and with very standard, 3rd/4th-gen-like fighters.

>>32491904
until 1st few months of conventional fighting between real states.

>>32499349
What a fucking chump