Are pilots becoming obsolete?

God i hope not

>>32987964

Not until the last pilot becomes too old to do his job.

not until latency isn't a thing anymore, or AI becomes so advanced that it beats humans even in small, cheap hardware
wouldn't be surprised if cargo planes and tankers were automated, though

Yes, I would predict that within our lifetime. the profession "Fighter Pilot" will no longer exist. Aircraft technology has gotten to the point where the pilot is now the weak link in the system, they can't think fast enough, can't handle the G-loads, and they become a tactical liability (you can fly a drone anywhere into any situation and who cares if it gets blown up, not so with a human pilot)

>>32987964
Becoming? Yes. Are they? Not even close.

>>32987964
I hope not. Don't want to die just because some stupid drone will forget that we are on the same boat.

File: shaky.gif (486KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 500x250px

>>32987964
I mean, I can always see human infantry playing a role in warfare, even far into the future, simply because making a robot in our likeness is way too complicated and expensive, especially when you have 7 billion of us lying around. That being said, literally everything else is likely to be automated eventually. Tanks? Yes. Ships? Yes. Planes? Especially yes. If it ain't human shaped, it likely will become automated. I could see carrier becoming entirely automated, with AI planes, and the only humans being a few mechanics and engineers that are there for maintenance and repair.

And it's terrific and terrifying, it means a new age of USA hegemony over the world, but it also means almost no consequences for waging war except a few tax dollars and possibly some PR loss.

At the end of the day, all I have to say is "Thank God they're on our side".

>>32987964
Our planes have been capable of more than our pilots can survive for decades.

My dad was an F-15 mechanic in the 80's. He talkes about how fly-by-wire systems are built in to the planes that scale back pilot input as the planes speed increases so that a pilot cant sneze and accidentally pull a turn at mach speeds that would kill himself.

He also talks about some incredibly crazy cold war stuff called "Y-zone missions."

A Y-zone mission is when the planes red-line lockouts are disengaged and the plane is pushed to far beyond its operating parameters in order to do a 1 way mission.

An example of a y-zone mission is this:

Nuclear threat coming over the north pole, and no on-station craft are available for intercept by normal means.

Planes fly to the edge of space and have thier saftey locks disengaged and the plane normally limited to mach 2.5 is pushed to mach 4.

The engine slags very shortly after reaching this speed.

The plane is now in an unpowered ballistic trajectory on intercept with the missile.

As soon as target lock is aquired the pilot fires all ordinance available at the target utilizing emergency power.

Ordinance expended, and the target now hopefully destroyed the pilot rides the trajectory until at a safe altitude and speed to eject, as he is still going to fast to turn, and has slagged his powerplant.

And thats how it works in theory.

Pilots could also be expected to utilize the plane itself to intercept a target in some scenarios though the plane would be traveling so fast any manuevers would probably kill the pilot, and the window of opportunity would be less than a fraction of a second.

>>32987964
Not while the chief of every AirForce is a fighter pilot.
>the same as Euro armies returned to horse cavalry training after WW1

>>32988483
People will be talking about our pilots like we talk about the last cavalry. (A bunch of stodgey old men trying to relive the last century)

I bet our great great grandchildren will talk about the last fighter pilots as a bunch of wealthy dandies who spent all day denying technological advancement in favor of fantasizing about ww2.

>>32988482
Nah, the only reason the controls have to be scaled back is because you can damage the flight control surfaces if you take a turn too hard too fast. Planes are not made out of tank armor. They're relatively fragile military vehicles.

>>32988613
That too, but a plane can survive sustained high G a lot longer than a pilot can.

Plus it wont be a national tragedy to lose a few of them.

>his fleshy meatbags can't operate above 10g

>>32988202

Robots don't generally need to be in our likeness to perform effectively. But let's say in a scifi setting where humanity spreads so far in the solar system that the value of the human life weighs far less than how much it takes to maintain and build robots to shoot eachother.

Nah. What'll happen is that future warfare will consists of a "mothership" controlling a set of drones. The drone can perform reconnaissance, baiting, or shoot missiles. A pilot's lethality increases by quite a lot behind a screen of drones.

File: robowar.jpg (731KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1440x900px

>>32988754
>Robots don't generally need to be in our likeness to perform effectively.
Well, not necessarily. But civilization is built for humans, so when you get into urban environments, having flesh-bags capable of interacting with all environment will be pretty useful.

But yeah, there will never be a time where humans are just sitting around doing nothing, if you have 20 billion humans around they'll take up food whether they're working or not, so might as well have them do something useful.

File: grid_stealth_talon_3d_model_max_2257bcac-504e-4643-8639-c57eb291b522.jpg (7KB, 255x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 255x200px

>hurr drones are the future!
Only for killing ragheads with NO AA or MANPADS or fighter support.
>gets hacked.
>SATs get jammed/shot down.
>fighter run rings around them.
REAL FUTURE.
> direct neural link makes pilot reactions near instant.
This tech is in it's infancy, give it 20 years and DARPA will make us cyborgs.
>"Mah G-Forces!"
Liquid filled cockpits, pilots can pull 50G maneuvers how much more do you need?
Drones have ONE purpose, to replace thinking, loyal humans with weapons that only obey (((them))). With a few strokes of key board your whole army is now (((theirs))).

The f-35 isn't the last manned jet, its the last single seat manned jet.

>>32989174
>gets hacked
that can be made difficult enough that it's not a realistic concern.
>SATs get jammed/shot down
why should they be solely dependant on SATs?
>fighter run rings around them
and why would that be?

>>32988027
>they can't think fast enough
Because a fixed processing architecture is of course a much better choice for a job that needs split second reactions to unexpected events

>>32987964
>and the fact that our planes are exceeding the pilots ability to take the g-forces

This is a total myth, by the way.

File: jet fighter crash.webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>32989376
So you're saying the next fighter jet will be a double unmanned jet? The fuck are you trying to convey, retard?

>>32989605
No it isn't.

>stealth bombers become fully unmanned
>They fly with a perfect operational record
>the sky*** funding bill is passed...

File: EU_BulldogTurret.jpg (171KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x600px

Drone technology will bring static defense systems out of obsolescence as soon as the need arises, Which I say would have a greater impact on the military then drone tanks, ships, and aircraft.
Only drone foot soldiers would have a bigger impact on how the military operates then a revival of military fortifications.

>>32989801
Yeah, I mean some things don't seem that hard. Enforcing a do not fly zone seems built for a drone fleet.

>>32989715
One pilot

One drone wingmen controller

>>32988202
You don't understand carriers. All of the people on them are there to keep it running. Each carrier only has ten pilots.

>>32989419
there's only so many things that can happen in the air. when a processor can react appropriately to expected threats much faster it's superior to a human who can improvise when facing a genie on a flying carpet.

>>32987964
Is this the timeline where the top 10 ace combat pilots become actual aces, with hundreds of confirmed kills on J-20's and SU-35's, and the Air Force keeps a steady stream of flaming hot cheetos and yellow Gatorade to their finest?

>>32987964
Fucking kys, nerd. Weapons have always and will always be an extension of the man and not replacement. Society and its conflicts are inhereintly social, so people will always be at the center of warfare, no matter the situation. No amount of wanking over how important you think you are is going to change it. Now give me your fucking lunch money

>>32988628
Thats not true
A person can handle way more g's than a plane
Might not stay CONCIOUS
But a plane will totally break up before it kills a pilot via g's

>>32987964
One day, it is probable that a computer could do a fighter pilot's job without any commands. Anything that a person does can be abstracted into a mathematical function that has a discrete finite space as its inputs and outputs. It was proven in 1989 by Hornik et al that any discrete mathematical function can be approximated to any degree of accuracy given a neural network with at least 1 hidden layer.

So, yes, fully autonomous fighters are possible.

Are we currently near a place where an AI pilot would beat a well-trained human pilot in 1 on 1 air combat without external variables? Possibly. Are we currently near a place wher an AI pilot would be able to handle a modern battlefield with all the variables? No.

Why? The immense amount of data that you would have to feed the AI, and the size of the network that trains it, sets all the weights of the parameters, etc, would not be supported by current hardware. It's going to be at least 2050 until we manage to get it working.

However, I do think simple transport planes could be fully automated, but only if you are willing to accept that failures will occur.

>Pilots becoming obsolete
>Human loaders aren't

tanks btfo

>>32989906
>However, I do think simple transport planes could be fully automated, but only if you are willing to accept that failures will occur
A plane full of GIs that just hopped on at a dirt airstrip in Africa seems like the least likely arena for AI pilots. Everyone I know who has a combat deployment speaks about their extract heli pilot and c-130 pilot like they were god sends. People just like dealing with other people. I'd argue that drone strikes and AI fighters will be accepted before an AI extract.
But I never did time in the service so I'm full of shitty hypotheticals.

>>32989715
Poor sukhoi, why did this happen?

>>32989721
Yes, it is.

Most airframes in service can't handle 9G with load, and even if they're fitted to do so its endangers the airframe due to stresses.

>>32989951
Horse meat and cabbage stew doesn't sit well with vodka

>>32987964
I honestly can't see the benefit outside of saving on pilot training, and I really doubt the likely extreme cost of an autonomous fighter wouldn't render that moot.

>>32989945

Well, I meant simple as in only cargo and no humans. Autoland and autotakeoff is a thing, but you can't do it on places without radio compass beacons and whatnot. A sensor-only approach (visual, laser ranging, etc.) might be possible in the near future but I wouldn't ride in one.

>>32987964
Pilots over-g jets all the time, the limit isn't them it's the equipment staying together.

>>32989174
>>gets hacked.
>>SATs get jammed/shot down.
>>fighter run rings around them.
Are you aware that regular aircrafts can be hacked and jammed?

>>32990717
If a regular aircraft gets hacked or jammed, they still have a human that can make complex, ethical decisions. If a drone gets hacked, it'll fire on friendlies with no questions asked. If it's jammed, it can't receive authorisation to fire and so it'll either loiter in place waiting for comms, or it'll RTB.

>>32989975
nothing stops you from just turning any fly-by-wire plane into a drone easily enough

>>32990748
Obviously there is a big fucking difference between an autonomous drone, and a remote controlled aircraft

>>32990748
>If a drone gets hacked, it'll fire on friendlies with no questions asked.
The most that hacking can do is to feed the drone false information. And friendly fire is not exclusively a drone problem. It happens quite a lot in the fog of war.

If you think an AI can just be reprogrammed, you've been watching too much Hollywood

>If it's jammed, it can't receive authorisation to fire and so it'll either loiter in place waiting for comms, or it'll RTB.
A jammed human pilot is way more screwed than a drone. He just has his worthless eyes and gets lost into enemy territories (happened before).

>>32988613
G-limiters are there for the pilot first, then the airframe. Pilots can still "over G" airframes under some conditions. Quite annoying for the crew chiefs who have to depanel and inspect for damage.

Fun fact: Phantoms could be over G'ed enough to break engine mounts, but the engine bay doors and remaining mounts keep the engine in place. Our Nam vet pilots at Moody in the 1980s did that now and then.

>>32989174
>With a few strokes of key board your whole army is now (((theirs))).

You know nothing about military UAS. You probably think they run on Windows.

>>32989801
Static firepower gains no advantage by being static.

>>32987964
>advancing AI
Not likely to ever be fully handed the kill decision.

>exceeding the pilots ability to take the g-forces
This meme is the least important concern in designing G-limits.

>are we soon going to see a replacement of pilots in the military?
No.

>>32989975
No multi-billion dollar and massively riskyCSAR force requirement is a huge benefit. No CSAR catastrophes as depicted in "Bat 21" which itself could have been averted if UAS existed instead of meatbags in a converted bomber.

>>32990779
>The most that hacking can do is to feed the drone false information.

>Drone, engage that target
>Target identified as friendly
>Override IFF, authorisation XYZ
>Complying

>Pilot, engage that target
>Sir, I have a positive ID that that's a friendly
>This is an order, engage it
>That's an illegal order sir

>A jammed human pilot is way more screwed than a drone. He just has his worthless eyes and gets lost into enemy territories (happened before).
A human is way less screwed; both the drone and human have inertial and beacon-based navigation if GPS is jammed, but the human can also observe terrain, air traffic, etc and find his way home.

>>32990768
Relevance? No autonomous drone today or in the near future can make ethics decisions.

>>32990001
>Pilots over-g jets all the time, the limit isn't them it's the equipment staying together.

It's both. GLOC is a thing, but aircraft being designed for just barely over what pilots can take because why bother when the meatbag is the limiter is also reality.

The life support, ejection seat etc are major limfacs. So is endurance. Pilots have to shit, piss and rest.

>>32990837
>>Drone, engage that target
>>Target identified as friendly
>>Override IFF, authorisation XYZ
>>Complying
Nice work of fiction. I see you base this on nothing.

>Pilot, engage that target
>Sir, I have a positive ID that that's a friendly
>This is an order, engage it
>That's an illegal order sir

More like
>Sir I got a target
>You authorized to engage
>*shoots friendlies*
Happens over 9000 times already by humans

>A human is way less screwed; both the drone and human have inertial and beacon-based navigation if GPS is jammed, but the human can also observe terrain, air traffic, etc and find his way home.
Did you seriously compare a human navigation with a drone with highly advanced sensors and inertial system?

>>32990837
>A human is way less screwed; both the drone and human have inertial and beacon-based navigation if GPS is jammed, but the human can also observe terrain, air traffic, etc and find his way home.

GPS, GLONASS and INS failure at once is absurdly unlikely. A UAS could have dual INS if wanted. Mark 1 Eyeballs don't work in IFR conditions.

Artillery doesn't make ethics calls either. Ethics are for children. Deniability is for adults. When AI are ready they'll be adopted without much fuss. Not ready yet tho.

>>32989715
Impressed that the eject worked at suck a how alltitude

>>32990748
>they still have a human that can make complex, ethical decisions
Like "when in doubt shoot the scout?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4

>>32990877
Modern seats work at zero airspeed and zero altitude. If you eject inverted and they don't kiss the ground due to low altitude, they'll orient vertically before firing the drogue to deploy th e parachute.

>>32990842
Even though jets are designed around pilot capabilities, that doesn't mean they have much headroom to improve. Missiles, which have the massive advantage of being orders of magnitude smaller, break if they get above ~50Gs. I highly doubt you could design a fighter-sized jet to withstand more than 20Gs.

>>32990862
>Nice work of fiction. I see you base this on nothing.
>what is simplification
Drones require orders sent over a data link to engage a target. If you can get the required encryption keys and any authorisation codes relevant to that system, it doesn't care who you are or what your orders are. If you managed to hijack a Reaper's data link and targeted friendly ground forces, there is absolutely nothing preventing it from taking out those friendlies.

>Happens over 9000 times already by humans
Newer jets like the F-22 and F-35 are lightyears ahead of where we were 2 decades ago with being able to identify what a target is and who it belongs to. When it comes to air-to-ground, there's tons of cases where pilots have been given a target, the pilot arrives on the scene, finds that the intel was wrong, and cancels the mission. Today's drones and not a single thing in the works is capable of doing that.

>Did you seriously compare a human navigation with a drone with highly advanced sensors and inertial system?
Did you seriously forget that the jet the pilot is flying has all the same / generally even better advanced sensors and inertial systems?

>>32990864
Sure, but INS drift is significant.
>Ethics are for children. Deniability is for adults.
And that logic is why ISIS, etc exists. Either commit genocide, wipe out everyone in the region and deal with the international fallout somehow, or get better at the whole hearts & minds thing.

>>32990879
>>32990862
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/raaf-red-cards-spare-civilians-in-iraq/news-story/40d3cd57a07ca5921d20ffd555611201

>>32990862
>*shoots friendlies*
Why do I find this so funny?

>>32990879
How are you going to hold a computer liable when it makes a mistake like that?

>>32990910
>>32990879
>>32990862
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/mortality-meets-morality-in-airstrikes/news-story/11b3d0378f347f8ca84091fa808baf7c
>It’s also why the US-led coalition’s aircrews bring their bombs home on about 75 per cent of missions

File: 1486412182317.jpg (54KB, 500x411px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x411px

>>32989419
Yea, actually it fucking can
Retard

>>32990910
>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/raaf-red-cards-spare-civilians-in-iraq/news-story/40d3cd57a07ca5921d20ffd555611201
>31 ISIS units dodged attacks
Thanks, Obama.

>>32990914
>Why do I find this so funny?
Because it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8-wr8_qRBQ

Drone missile trucks slaved to a manned "mothership" air superiority fighter is the future for now.

File: 1248916341690[1].jpg (190KB, 3656x1556px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 3656x1556px

>>32990984
Been watching too many movies, anon.

>>32990837
>but the human can also observe terrain
machines know that trick since half a century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERCOM

>>32989419
lel found the chair force fan
machined will replace the personnel. only poor coutries will use soldiers

>>32988202

i agree on tanks and planes,but ships,especially carriers,will need human crews for quite a while more.

>>32991044
They also used to observe the stars, but most systems (besides some cruise missiles) don't use terrain / landmark mapping and AFAIK no autonomous systems today have celestial navigation anymore

File: Brahmos_imds.jpg (66KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x533px

>>32991028

That piece of shit movie was about an AI fighter retard. Unmanned missile trucks following stealthy fighters using their sensors to track and engage targets are the future. Every logical thought process points towards it, until the day (if ever) when AI is better than humans.

just wait until we get satellites with weapons that will come into orbit and hit whatever target you want.

>>32990790
Got an instructor who used to teach at top gun did that accidentally while fucking around a ship for an air show trying to impress the BA pilots to hopefully join up with them.

He didn't tell anybody and then about 2 am he got a call that a few of the high ranking people were waiting for him at the hanger. Dude tried to say he didn't exceed the limits and then they showed him the mounts and stress breaks.
Needless to say they decided to leave him there

>>32990910
INS vs IRU. Using lasers for the man system really limits that drift. Only issue really comes in if for whatever reason you start out at mid or so latitudes and then pop up north or south to one of the poles

>>32991100
machines can do it. when necessary, it would be implemented. if they could do it 50 years ago they should be stellar at it by now.

>>32990920
Shoot the programmer :)

>Are pilots a meme

>>32990796
The systems that control the drones go through satalites, and the secure DOD net has been hacked before, I had to reset all my passwords.
>old password
>over 300 characters.

>>32987964
Drones lack situational awareness and have a bit of an input delay in the controls. They're good for recon, but don't expect them to take any role that would require any sort of complex maneuvering besides flying around in a circle or towards a waypoint

>>32993746
>Drones lack situational awareness
>what is AWACS

>>32993819
Next you're going to give some shit about zero-lag, unjammable datalinks.

>>32989174
>SATs get jammed/shot down

Anon, you're implying that targeting military satellites isn't a precursor to nuclear escalation.

>>32993981
Do you have any idea how little power it takes to shut down a satellite's transceiver?

>>32989860
The G force doesn't need to kill the pilot to render him u/s though. I was talking to a physio the other day who said he had a pilot pull a 9G turn into the circuit with his head out of position and ended up taking a trip to snap city. Luckily he was able to land but it'll be a while before he's flying again. If that had happened in a dog fight he'd have got shot down.

>>32989975
Gary Powers
Smaller footprint in theatre
Aircraft more efficient without life-sustaining systems
Reduced training/manning burden

>>32990748
If a modern jet gets hacked it'll drop out of the sky and they're just as reliant on GPS as uav's

>>32993746
Lack SA of the air space but have better SA of the ground

Everything BVS can totally be analyzed by a computer. Locking and firing an AMRAAM isn't hard. Dogfighting might be harder, however if you could have a 360° coverage of IR cameras I don't see why a computer shouldn't be able to do what a pilot can do. It's not much different to what a sidewinder does, after all.
Just FFID might be an issue, but with datalinks transmitting the positions of friendlys that should be easy enough too.

>>32993933
AWACs works without such. See Desert Storm.

File: civvy.jpg (36KB, 355x355px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 355x355px

>>32987964
Let's not forget that drones would be able to coordinate far better than a wing of human pilots could, it'd be more of a hivemind coordinating to take down the pilots, they wouldn't stand a chance.

>>32994464
>Just FFID might be an issue,
If all planes are drones it would much less of an issue. X-47 is shaped so differentially than Su-30 automated visual ID would be easy cake too.

>>32989399
>why should they be solely *dependent on SATs?
Something called the earth is a sphere and radio can't travel through it very far.
>and why would that be?
The drone has no-one controlling it and no AI is getting to defend itself without a human in the loop to tell it whether it's allowed to fire or not.

>>32989808
Depends on if it's a "shoot if they enter" or a "intercept" kind of no fly zone. A drone can't do an intercept, there are too many problems with it dealing with

a. the other pilot having lost communication
b. the other pilot not understanding intercept procedure
c. the other pilot experiencing a situation forcing him to violate the no fly zone, such as an engine failure and therefore being unable to comply with the intercept
d. The other guys being actual bad guys and just tricking the drone into thinking they're not, then shooting it down.

>>32989819
>Each carrier only has ten pilots
Anon, stop that.

>>32989906
>AI pilot would be able to handle a modern battlefield with all the variables?
Don't forget this aircraft needs to operate in civilian airspace where civilians will be fucking around and failing to do so in a safe manner. They bring a whole fuckload of retarded variables into the mix that sometimes well trained air traffic controllers can't handle their shit, and any neural network will eventually run into a situation it does not know how to handle.

>>32989976
Just because there's no people in it doesn't mean it couldn't kill people. Computers are not great at dealing with emergencies, and an automated C-17 full of ammo crashing into the terminal at LAX would be a bad thing.

>>32994464
A sufficiently advanced neural net could probably beat humans in any realm of combat, but BVR combat is more complex than WVR combat / classic dogfighting.

>>32994369
You're not going to hack a plane out of the sky; their fly-by-wire control systems are entirely independent of their comms and mission systems specifically to prevent that. And again, drones are far more reliant on GPS than humans - a manned fighter has every method of navigation that a UAV has, and more - a drone doesn't have the intelligence to see another aircraft on radar and to follow it home or get navigational help via voice comms, etc.

>>32993746
The X-47B did aerial refueling and carrier launches / landings without any human input. There's also been a dogfighting AI that was tested recently; it ran off a Rasberry Pi, yet was superior to a veteran fighter pilot every time.

>>32991450
>Using lasers for the man system really limits that drift.
Explain. I was under the impression there is no way for a computer to tell if the INS is drifting without a secondary reference, like GPS.

>>32994332
And there's pilots who've brought F-15Cs to +12G and been fine. Just because an injury can happen doesn't man it will, and if you need the pilot to be able to pull harder, you can now days add a flexible cable which hardens as the pilot applies G so his neck can't get fucked up.

More importantly, if he doesn't want his neck fucked, he shouldn't be doing such snappy turns.

>>32994861
>it ran off a Rasberry Pi, yet was superior to a veteran fighter pilot every time.
Was this in a simulator, or an actual plane?

>>32994963
Simulator, but the electronics to visually (in IR) identify a target are already present in the F-35; so in other words, if the USAF decided they wanted the F-35 to be able to dogfight autonomously while the pilot did other things (I don't know what would be more pressing under such circumstances though; maybe requesting drone support), they could do so with very minor hardware upgrades (assuming it couldn't just be implemented in software on the existing hardware).

>>32994905
There isn't, but I think he's talking about laser ring gyros. Wikipedia says they have ~0.01 degree per hour drift rates, but I've heard them having worse performance (there's a lot of money going into creating GPS independent navigation at DARPA for instance), so I get the feeling that that spec isn't constant and is in a lab setting.

File: Terminator T-800.jpg (404KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1280x1024px

>>32987964

Humanity is becoming obsolete.

File: 1418346067248.jpg (47KB, 660x412px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 660x412px

Robots are the future of warfare. The only question is how much they replace human soldiers.

>>32995036
If it's a sim it doesn't represent real life settings. Sims can be extremely good, but aircraft performance can be quite different and it's not a realistic representation of how EO-DAS sees a target. For example, in order to feed the algorithm, the F-35 needs to know the angle the other aircraft's nose is pointing at, which requires much finer image analysis than it's likely currently capable of. Especially at the border zones between cameras.

>>32996121
Something about that thing's alien look makes me hard as a rock. Also that it's fucking huge.

File: 1286848984141.jpg (94KB, 992x597px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 992x597px

>>32996766

I like thinking about who is responsible when a 100% autonomous aircraft commits friendly fire or something. I think it will come down to how much learning the aircraft can accrue on the job. If it's something built into the neural network or whatever to start, heads will roll. If it "learned" that blowing up orphanages is how you war, then it's the aircraft's fault and needs maintenance. If every other fucking drone learns to hate orphanages then heads roll still.

>>32997045
Really not as good without the paint job, anon.

>>32990837
>>This is an order, engage it
>>That's an illegal order sir
what world do you live in
Jesus fucking Christ
Fantasy land, man.

>>32996749
The work being done in lots of processing power and real time image analysis for automated cars will transfer over to target identification

File: claymorehead.jpg (122KB, 1000x461px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1000x461px

>>32987964
Probably, humans are the sex organs of machines after all.

>>32987964
the attack mission will goes towards unmanned, pax mission will always have at least a standby human pilot.

attack pilot here.

Drones are generally not entirely automated.
I expect all that'll happen is that pilots will pilot possibly multiple planes in serial from a nice air-conditioned office.
The chair force meme will be real life.

>>32997650
True, but in general, cars are far ore consistent, all being standardized in size and generally position.

>>32991453
>stellar at it

I see what you did there

File: 2-FCgvOpq.jpg (111KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1280x720px

>>32988202

>>32989921
Rekt

>>32998595
Sure, but once you have tech that can almost always accurately identify a vehicle from the air
Or hand held weaponry
Or suspicious movement of groups of people/cars

Then autonomous drones that can decide to engage by themselves are a reality

>>32990910

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7061

"modern" jets can handle some impressive strains. Obviously the amount of G's pulled here were for a short time, but both the aircraft and pilot survived.

>>33000617
They probably scrapped the plane for parts afterwards though

>>32988014
>latency

That's if you assume we want human-controlled drones
What about autonomous drones ?

File: black_projects_6.jpg (193KB, 640x388px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 640x388px

>>32990796
The Ayathola thanks you for the hardware, infidels

File: Concrete Battleship.jpg (37KB, 700x455px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 700x455px

>>32990804
It's pretty hard to argue against such a nebulous statement but:
>limitless weight capacity
>Lowered personnel requirements
>Cheaper to maintain continuously

Pretty much everything developed for navel warships can be applied to static fortifications because of those points.

>>32989174
>enemy has AA and MANPADS
>better send in human pilots, not drones
Idiot.

>>33001135
This.

It costs more than 9 millions $USD and take years to fully train a fighter pilot.
Add to that the cost of the aircraft he is flying and you get why people want to avoid risking these assets.

Drones aren't cheap but they are still way cheaper (and faster) to replace than pilots.

>>32987964
Never.


Automation is a 90's meme, just see the hacked drone in Obongo Administration Hacked into landing in Iran.

>>33001311

Drones don't have the same view as what a pilot can see. The drone cannot feel the aircraft. So chances are more drones will be shot down.

>I'LL FADE AWAY AND CLASSIFY MYSELF AS OBSOLETE.

>>33001323
>The drone cannot feel the aircraft

says who

thread about science on /k/ are always the best.

just like self driving cars, automated aircrafts and in the long run automated military drones will be a thing.
there is nothing special in a human being piloting an aircraft, and there's definitely nothing said human can do better than an AI programmed to fly.

by the way, all the talk about "ethic" can easily be translated in a really complex algorithm, because that's what ethic is : arbitrary judging good and bad stuff using our education.
well guess what, we can teach that to AI. we can give it guidelines about what to do and what not to do, and they'll start applying them. the day of "IF ELSE" is over, our AI can currently make smart decision by transposing earlier problems into the current ones. they learn.

>>33001759
Call me when someone actually does this

>>33001788
try not to die in the next 30-50 years and you'll see it.

>>33001323
there are no hard limits on a computer's field of view or the amount of sensor input it can receive.

Latency, possible loss of connection, and its really fucking expensive

File: SFZ-Fox_McCloud.jpg (336KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1000x1000px

>>32987964
Only if we don't go full Star Fox and come up with a g-defuser system and chop the legs off of our pilots at the knee.

>>32987964
I hope so

>tfw my ex is a pilot

>>33000951
>reading comprehension
Stop fisting yourself for ten seconds jesus christ

>>33002031
>t. never seen Game Theory

>>32994635
>missing the point that you still need something to control the drones

>>33002205
>>missing the point that you still need something to guide manned interceptors on targets
>inb4 they guide themselves
Nope this is not how USAF operated in realty. Iraqi aircraft tried to act autonomously results are well known.

>>33002284
You do realize the difference is that manned aircraft are actually capable of guiding themselves and performing intelligent decision making, right?

File: 1479532794881.jpg (348KB, 1280x1051px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1280x1051px

>>33002389
>are actually capable of guiding themselves and performing intelligent decision making
Again
>Iraqi aircraft tried to act autonomously results are well known.
Did you ask for situational awareness? This is how it looks.

>>33002410
>I'm going to keep ignoring that drones either need a remote operator or some form of AI, which currently cannot be packaged in a vehicle that size, even if current smart computers could approach that level of decision-making quality
Keep repeating yourself as if it makes you sound smart, I guess.

File: 160217-watson[1].jpg (644KB, 2400x1758px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 2400x1758px

>>33002415
For reference: the equipment it takes for a computer to be competitive in a trivia game.

File: 1479532794881.jpg (101KB, 1024x657px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x657px

>>33002440
http://europe.newsweek.com/artificial-intelligence-raspberry-pi-pilot-ai-475291?rm=eu

>>33002415
USAF pilots didn't win single air combat autonomously since 1968.

>>33002460
>Air to Air combat in a simulator with free-fire combat ROE, not ground fire risk, no air to ground operations
>Same as any kind of modern combat scenario

>>33002477
Are you an idiot? And what do you mean "autonomously"? Like they just fly out on their own and go hunting with no support or coordination? US pilots have what is easily the broadest degree of freedom in deciding how to engage once cleared hot.

And getting back to your earlier point, Iraq's core problem (and Russian doctrine as a whole) was its over-dependence on Ground Control Intercept and limitations to the pilot's personal situational awareness and decision-making capabilities. Because if they need to be told where to go it's harder for them to defect with a multi-million dollar aircraft.

>>33001318
B but muh drones

>>32987964
>are exceeding the pilots ability to take the g-forces
Wrong.

>>33002519
>USAF core problem (and US doctrine as a whole) was its over-dependence on AWACs
To bad Iraqi has no means to defeat AWACs.

>>33002483
I can reduce air combat decision making to maybe 20 factors at most, every one represented by a floating point number. All it is is flight controls (easy) and gunlaying (also easy). If you can't figure out a way to determine via mathematical algorithm the difference between a hostile aircraft and a hospital then you should retake computer science 101.

>>32990894
Zero speed means in this case horizontal speed. If vertical speed is negative (dive) during the ejection, practically no ejection seat can beat relative speed to the ground.

>>33002607
Then do it. You'll become very rich.

>>33002579
Congratulations, you're retarded.

Even without AWACS, which is an extremely powerful force multiplier, US Fighters had significantly better radar and cockpit layouts. They didn't need overhead command. Iraq did.

>>33002626
You act like we couldn't have done it 20 years ago. The software is not the limitation here. Yes, it is simple. Modern sensor-fused avionics suites make it even simpler due to the extreme level of integration. The F-35 could be made to handle A2A fully autonomously. Fuck, the DELTA DART already HAD that capability. The crux of the issue is convincing politicians that YES the ballistics computer knows where the cannon rounds will land if it fires at that Sukhoi right this second and NO the Russians won't be able to hack it.

Ground attack will never be autonomous, however. Not today, not in fifty years.

>>33002669
But what if you don't want to just shoot everything out of the sky?

What if you want to do a controlled intercept, like, say, and F-22 sneaking right up into an F-4's ass and telling him to go home? What if you need to do an escort flight?

You're basically saying we could go to drones because they can do the one, smallest part of modern fighter aviation really well.

>>33002657
>They didn't need overhead command.
Prove it.

>>33002706
You're the one making the outlandish claim here.

>>33002669
>The F-35 could be made to handle A2A fully autonomously.
Great, how? In what way can you do it that won't endanger friendly aircraft? If you you think about replying "use IFF systems", then don't reply at all.

>>33002725
It is meat bags make the claims that they can fight effectively autonomously when they always fight with AWACS guidance.

>>33002772
And there you go again. Tell me how, exactly, a pilot whose aircraft was designed around providing him the ability to operate independently AND has additional SA support from AWACS is less independent than one whose aircraft is designed so he strictly has to depend on GCI?

>>33002861
>ability to operate independently
>wins only when has AWACS support

>>33002737
>In what way can you do it that won't endanger friendly aircraft?
How do pilots identify aircraft again?

>>33002876
Ah, here we go with the "beating a dead horse" method of argument.

US fighters DON'T NEED AWACS TO WIN. In fact, the F-35 is effectively a mini AWACS in its own right. It's called a FORCE MULTIPLIER. AS in, by having it up we turn an already unfair fight into a seal clubbing event.

>>32989801
I love that mod

>>33002894
As an addendum, Israel flies the same fighters we do, have a similar combat record, and don't have AWACS.

>>33002607
Why floating point? I thought it would just be a 1 or 0 flag.
And 2^20 is a big number

>>33002921
t. retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/192_Squadron_(Israel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_Squadron_(Israel)

>>33003008
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Israel
>Three of the four Israeli-owned Hawkeyes were sold to Mexico[36] in 2002 after they had been upgraded with new systems; the remaining example was sent to be displayed in the Israeli Air Force Museum.

>Doesn't read own link

Now, they do have a few Gulfstream G550s modded with early warning systems, but that's not the same thing.

>>32994940
No, but if an injury can happen then it might happen and we should account for it happening, its just an undesirable variable that can be eliminated.

>>32994940
>More importantly, if he doesn't want his neck fucked, he shouldn't be doing such snappy turns.

Says the armchair faggot who will never, ever dodge a SAM but thinks manned aircraft are cool because cool is all that matters in war.

/k/tards like manned fighters because they dream of flying one. Go dream your loser ass into a Jap cartoon instead.

>>32997650
No enemy storefront will be safe.

>>33000946
Nah. Over-G inspections suck and NDI is tedious, but you can pull the wings off then send it to Depot for a rebuild easily enough.

That way you get an aircraft back in service even if you had to do major airframe repairs. It's been standard practice for many decades.

>>33003041
>Israel was the first export customer, its four Hawkeyes were delivered during 1981, complete with the folding wings characteristic of carrier-borne aircraft. The four examples were soon put into active service before and during the 1982 Lebanon War during which they won a resounding victory over Syrian air defenses and fighter control. They were central to the Israeli victory in the air battles over the Bekaa Valley during which more than 90 Syrian fighters were downed. The Hawkeyes were also the linchpins of the operation in which the IAF destroyed the SAM array in the Bekaa, coordinating the various stages of the operation, vectoring planes into bombing runs and directing intercepts. Under the constant defense of F-15 Eagles, there were always two Hawkeyes on station off the Lebanese coast, controlling the various assets in the air and detecting any Syrian aircraft upon their takeoff, eliminating any chance of surprise.
>They were central to the Israeli victory


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_EL/W-2085
>The IAI EL/W-2085 is an Airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) multi-band radar system developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Elta Electronics Industries of Israel. Its primary objective is to provide intelligence to maintain air superiority and conduct surveillance. The system is currently in-service with Israel and Singapore, and in the future Italy and the United States.

>>33003148
>/k/tards like manned fighters because they dream of flying one. Go dream your loser ass into a Jap cartoon instead.
You're the one living in a sci-fi fantasy world if you think drones will actually replace manned fighters this century,

>>33003199
And? You've yet to prove that F-15s are somehow completely helpless without an AWACS system, either.

And we know for sure Russian planes ARE helpless without GCI.

>>33001323
>The drone cannot feel the aircraft.

Automated flight controls already "feel" the aircraft. Control movements by pilots are merely a "request" to which flight control systems respond.

Pilots must scan a wide variety of systems in addition to the work of flying the aircraft. Vision through even a clean, brand new aircraft canopy is still limited by the Mark 1 Eyeball. Eyeballs don't zoom and cannot linger on a target for long.

Do this with one pair of meatbag eyeballs:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/04/10/air-forces-secret-gorgon-stare-program-leaves-terrorists-nowhere-to-hide/#38dac29e5271

>>33001323
False.

But even if it was, and then ?

Better 10 drones that can be replace in a month than 10 pilots who'll need years to be up to speed.

>>33001889
>>33001759

> .t skynet

>>33003224
>>33003250
>Still ignoring judgement and accountability factors for "robots can do everything better!"

>>33001015
No mobility. The US was scrapping coast artillery during late WWII because its fixed nature is extremely limiting.

What would you use such terrain-imprisoned fixed equipment FOR? No shoot-and-scoot option and no ability to move if war is declared just makes fixed installations into easy targets.

Israel for example moves Iron Dome batteries to interfere with enemy planning. Concrete blockhouses aren't cheap and if you can have the same equipment plus mobility it's both easy to move and cheap to upgrade, or to replace when killed.

Why do you like fixed fortifications?

>>33003332
>>Still ignoring judgement and accountability factors for "robots can do everything better!"

Still ignoring common flaws in human judgement because meatbagophile. Accountability isn't important and can be paid lip service by organizational structure. KILLING EFFECTIVELY is important. Precision is important. Pilots get tired, distracted (CFIT is real, so is GLOC), and their eyes are terrible compared to a modern sensor suite. Human memory is highly unreliable under stress which is why eyewitness testimony is frequently discredited in court.

We already solve accountability issues with BOTH locally manned and remote manned systems by expressing a sad then pressing forward. The microscopic collateral damage compared to wars fought with the Mark 1 Eyeball suggests the modern way works better. Every time we augment the eye and automate controls we get good results. The last move will be to put the "scope dope" in a box where he won't be a burden to the machine.

>>33003685
>Implying Human-Machine partnerships haven't proven the best solution
>Implying the ethical concerns of completely replacing the human element in warfare shouldn't be a huge element of these decisions

>>32987964
>Tfw future wars will be fought like video games except there's really a robot/drone battle going on somewhere that you control with a screen
>Tfw eventually that will cost everyone too much money/resources and the nations will agree on completely digitized militaries
>As in the war is now no longer taking place irl but only within a computer

>>32988027
>you can fly a drone anywhere into any situation and who cares if it gets blown up, not so with a human pilot)
HAHAHAHAHA. No.
The drone is worth way more than a human life.

>>33003742
yes, just like the ethical concerns of automated factories removing millions of jobs. just like the ethical concerns of all the horses dying because of cars. all those people dying in conflicts around the world because we're craving petrol.
face it, we only care about effectiveness and money, and in the long run drones are the answer to everyfucking thing.
ethics aren't and never were a part of warfare. we only slapped ethics on the "we shouldn't fuck with them since we have more to loose" thing like winter truces and the cold war. that's it.

the day the military finds a magic device that immediately kill everyone in a whole country in exchange of complete worldwide domination for a decade, you bet your ass the button will be pressed a hundred times.

>>33003872
t. Armchair General

>>32989419
>he doesn't know about the machine learning revolution that will reshape society over the next century
>he doesn't know that it will redefine civilization more than cars, electricity, airplanes and industrialization combined

There was a general after World War I who said the airplane would never have a prominent role in modern warfare. In his defense, aircraft in 1918 were pretty shit and air superiority had a limited effectiveness on the battlefield. But he didn't see the writing on the wall, that just because military aviation was in its infancy didn't mean it couldn't become crucial in the future. He can be forgiven because he was rigidly a man of his time.

Machine learning will change everything. As in, EVERYTHING. Automation will transport us places, handle most or all of our medical care, fight our wars, care for our children, defend our homes.

Basically everything except fucking your wife, and I'm not even 100% sure about that, since what is acceptable sexual behavior has changed tremendously over the last thousand years. And even the last 25 years.

Maybe a ripped 7' soft-polymer Hugh Jackman android plowing your wife while you're plugged into the matrix will be seen as no different than your wife using a dildo while you're at work. After all, it's just a machine, not another person. Who the fuck knows, I'm not condoning robot cucking.

But what I do know is that robots are going to replace EVERYTHING, or 99% of everything. Art is another thing that will probably stay un-automated (since it's so subjective and contextual). Maybe religion. But yeah, that's it.


TL;DR if you think unmodified humans can compete with a self-modifying AI on a circa year-2050 neural optic architecture chip, then you and you wife's roboson are in for a rude shock.

File: c09ccd313605ce90b1527d8e54878a55.jpg (55KB, 736x613px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 736x613px

>>33003940
>robocucking will be a thing in the future

How can homo """"sapiens"""" even compete?

>>33002440
Bullshit. Siri could be competitive in a trivia game with access to the internet.

>>32987964
I don't keep track or try to notice these threads so can anyone tell me is this the first one this month?

>>33003785
>The drone is worth way more than a human life.

What YOU think it's worth is irrelevant. Combat does not take place in a vacuum. When manned systems get dropped there is often political fallout, and when the operators get captured, like Frances Gary Powers, the US looks like ass while they are used for bait.

>>32988482

Not doub tipi ng you, but Google shows nothing on Y zone missions.

More?

>>33003940
>But what I do know is that robots are going to replace EVERYTHING, or 99% of everything. Art is another thing that will probably stay un-automated (since it's so subjective and contextual). Maybe religion. But yeah, that's it.
STEMfags btfo

File: quad.jpg (251KB, 1178x505px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1178x505px

>>33003940
>Art is another thing that will probably stay un-automated
Actually that will be automated too. Since AI can create its own art, and is far better since it can create art that conforms to want humans want far better than some shut in liberal artist can ever create.

That being said, I think we're going to see a use of humans for physical work rather than mental work. Maybe some mild transhumanism too, who knows.

File: mercs.jpg (1MB, 1280x780px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x780px

>>33003940
While what you say is true, you shouldn't bank on it too hard. Maybe there really is a limit to what AI and robotics can do. Or maybe electronic warfare makes a leap in technology and those robots are rendered obsolete. Maybe having fleshy meatbags on the battlefield is still important in the age of robots. Or maybe transhumanism happens and we become much stronger alongside the robots.

By all means, don't get stuck in the old ways of thinking because technology is always advancing. But at the same time, let's not presume to know what the future holds. 50 years ago we were expecting to have hover-boards and practical jetpacks by now, and while we still don't have those technology has advanced in ways that people 50 years ago would never have predicted.

File: Gorchak2.jpg (32KB, 320x208px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 320x208px

>>33003633
I never said that static defenses didn't have disadvantages.
The lack of mobility is an issue but what matters more for a fixed defense is location location location, Fortifications are only effective when the location is critical enough that the enemy can't ignore it.

Just to make it clear a modern fortification wouldn't be a single built up location, Instead imagine a network of remotely operated weapon systems in temporary, semi-permanent, and permanent emplacements spread over a large area. The strategy of such a system is to have too many soft targets to make precision weapons effective forcing the use of saturation bombing, Which is ineffective against the hardened targets so precision weapons must be used. Combined saturation and precision air campaigns like that have much larger logistical requirements and operational risks, Which means it's much easier to stop the enemy from maintaining air superiority.

iirc Israel used concrete blockhouses on the Jordan boarder to great effect against the larger Egyptian force by providing information on enemy movements and assaults.

>>33003148
>>33003131
The pilot is the one in control of the onset of Gs. If he can't coordinate his mind and his hands enough to keep from snapping into turns until his neck is straight, he probably shouldn't be flying; as there's a lot more complex things to do flying a plane.

Sudden, jerky movement are bad for you and the plane. You can pull a 9G turn in any position if you enter the turn over the course of half a second instead of a quarter. Also, you can't move very much in the cockpit in the first place, being strapped to your seat and all.

>>33004268
Older Pratt and Whitney engines offered a V-MAX switch to increase the FTIT limit for enhanced, emergency "get me the fuck out of here" performance. Throw switch, throttle to MAX AUG, boogie!

That option existed on both Pratt-engine F-15 and F-16s. I was an engine mechanic on F-16s. The engines themselves were almost identical, differing in accessories, starter and gearbox arrangements.

OPs father was correct that the option existed, and it could certainly be used as described though for any non-kamikaze mission V-Max would just be used for short times and the approximate length of operation noted. Follow-on maintenance would include borescoping the hot section to check for damage. If within limits, return to service.

Getting about an hour of maximum haul ass could be vital intercepting Commie bombers.

>>33004352
Art isn't about conforming to what people want.
It hasn't been about that for two centuries.

File: rest.jpg (364KB, 717x745px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 717x745px

>>33005905
It is if you want to make any money off of it.

>>33005905
>>33005935
It really depends if you're talking art or Art.

>>33004144
Siri is about the same size; everything you ask Siri is saved as an audio file, sent off to an Apple server building, deconstructed, analysed, etc, with large server banks generating an answer (which with Siri in particular 9/10 is shit).

>>32987964
Not obsolete, they are just getting more comfy chairs, better ac and more potty breaks. All in new cockpits that dont move any where, located nowhere near any conflict.

>you will live to see the day when Virtex 7s and Xeon processors kill each other

>>32990796
Dude, they still run windows XP...
http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-navy-pays-out-millions-to-microsoft-to-keep-running-windows-xp/

>>32987964
yes.

File: 1351548597132.jpg (57KB, 525x504px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 525x504px

Now we just need a bunch of drones dropping lots of cluster munitions.

>>32987964
>advancing AI
someone seen to much tv
and no.

>>33005104
Depends on wether your concrete emplacement+whatever you have in there is cheaper than a precision ballistic missile.

>>33013331
if you have concrete + steel bunkers, they will need special munitions to destroy them

>>32987964
Why stop development of manned aircraft when you can use it as an excuse to siphon trillions in tax payer dollars?

File: 1477731055662.png (32KB, 636x555px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 636x555px

As of now and probably the next several decades, robots don't come close to human problem solving and logic capabilities. Drones piloted remotely by humans will probably be used more, and other anons are probably right about possible autonomous cargo planes in the future, but combat flight roles in the foreseeable future need a human involved.

>>33003201
They probably will, but I think manned aircraft will still be needed for certain situations

>>33001323
>Drones don't have the same view as what a pilot can see. The drone cannot feel the aircraft. So chances are more drones will be shot down.
Drones can see 360 degrees in radar, conventional vision, IR and whatever sensors you can attach all at the same time while tracking multiple targets. If there's anything that will put drones ahead of humans it's the ability to feed data directly into them. Only a tin volume of data can be sent to human brains via eyes and ears and even then you can't leverage much of their brain because it's not configured for flying jetfighters.

>>33013450
>even then you can't leverage much of their brain because it's not configured for flying jetfighters.

>Doesn't understand neuroplasticity
>Thinks number crunching rate is the only factor that matters

>>32989976
On cargo planes you're going to still need a load master to inspect the cargo during flight. There's a lot more than just a pilot involved in flying a plane.

>>33014377
And at that point, since cargo planes have longer lifespans and less difficult pilot skill/aircraft strain, why waste $2m a plane putting in a computer?

>>32988482

>mach 2.5 is pushed to mach 4

Nonsense, you could maybe squeeze 10% extra out of the engine before you melted the turbine blades