Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 10:57

kostas29 wrote: In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.


:roll: Really? You're one of those? You know, you could have just as easily said, "personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their skin color or possibly the amount of hair on their head. But nah, that wouldn't fit the narrative. McCain is an attention whore. Full stop. Did he serve the country? Sure. Did he sit in a cell in Vietnam? Sure. Does it change what he is? Not one bit. The sooner he exits Washington the better.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

kostas29

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 05:19

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 15:49

sferrin wrote:
kostas29 wrote: In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.


:roll: Really? You're one of those? You know, you could have just as easily said, "personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their skin color or possibly the amount of hair on their head. But nah, that wouldn't fit the narrative. McCain is an attention whore. Full stop. Did he serve the country? Sure. Did he sit in a cell in Vietnam? Sure. Does it change what he is? Not one bit. The sooner he exits Washington the better.


You should read again comments implying that he has deteriorating health, mental senility etc

Such comments are insulting, discriminating and really unnecessary for our discussion.

Old people, people with health problems have the right to have their own opinions. If you think they don’t, you might consider moving out of the free western world and join regimes with similar opinions.

In any case, I don’t fully agree with Senator’s suggestions, but I definitively believe that unmanned platforms do not get the appropriate attention. The possible reasons are many: air force and navy decisions are made by fighter pilots, manned platforms are in general more expensive and have a longer life span thus having a greater profit potential for industry.

Again, notions similar to what we see for F35 (that it will remain relevant in air combat until 2070) are unrealistic.

People seem to be ignorant of all the progress being made in AI. We already have self driving cars in a very complex road environment.

Flying is not that much more complex (according to some is actually less complex).

Now in regards to some sensitive decision making: don’t we already have low latency secure data links? what is MADL

what is more cost effective to try to fit a human being in a fighter (with all the weight/cost/complexity/vulnerabilities) that this brings or just add a couple of fighters in the formation with the task of being data links nodes to higher echelons?

What is so complex about the air refueling option to justify a huge manned platform when this mission can be performed by unmannned platforms (MQ25)? do we really want to pay for the aircrew when we can get the same mission done by unmanned platforms? Please don’t tell me that the air refueling mission can be performed by unmanned platforms by the navy but it requires manned platforms for the air force.

Again I see some tendencies that are not fully justified by logical explanations in the most technologically advanced country of the world. On the contrary, I suspect political agendas, industry interests, pilot nostalgy as the main driving force behind these decisions.

To change things you need brave, rational politicians. The same way that politicians enforced the military to form the special operations command, the same way change should happen now as well

I love airplanes and especially fighters, all my family is in the field, but the reality is changing and we need to adapt otherwise our adversaries will get the advantage. No one wants that, correct?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5996
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 17:45

kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

the notion that the F35s will be operationally and relevant by 2070 is ridiculous

ad hominem attacks against Senator McCain show lack of convincing arguments or attempts to subliminally influence other people. In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.



Really? You are complaining about people making broad sweeping and unprovable statements about McCain while making Broad Sweeping and unprovable comments about the MIC while calling for civility?


So just so I understand the rules, ad hominem attacks are not OK for McCain but are OK for everyone else so long as you are flinging them??

What happened to everyone can have an opinion? even those wacky combat pilots who actually understand UAVs?

Moreover, it wasn't an Ad hominem attack, Mad Rat specifically mentioned his voting record and his history in the Senate, hardly an "Attack" Unless you consider holding him accountable is the same as an "attack"

kostas29 wrote:
You should read again comments implying that he has deteriorating health, mental senility etc

Such comments are insulting, discriminating and really unnecessary for our discussion.

Old people, people with health problems have the right to have their own opinions. If you think they don’t, you might consider moving out of the free western world and join regimes with similar opinions.





Please spare us. People cited actual real reasons, be not happy with theim and you created this emotional appeal by lableing it an "attack against old people" McCain isn't just "some old person" with an "opinion" hes a senior United States Senator with loads of power and as such we are able to question him and criticize him-- its a part of being in the western world you mention.

simply put if hes too old to criticize, hes too old to serve as a senator.

Stop trying to censor discussion, using victumhood guilt. Bottom line McCain is indeed old. McCain does indeed have problems with his brain (tumor). McCain Does indeed have a very nasty habit of talking out both sides of his mouth, Which might explain why some are having a hard time telling if he is lucid. and bottom line McCain is saying and doing some very odd things.

and again, no one even mentioned that. They criticized him for his JOB PERFORMANCE, hardly unreasonable. If bringing up and speaking about McCains very shady dealings and past decisions is too much for you to bear, then perhaps this is not the website for you.


We are allowed to question him, If you think we don’t, you might consider moving out of the free western world and join regimes with similar opinions.


please stop white knighting the underpriveldged millionaire senator, whom youve decided is beyond reproach.

We can't even have factual debates anymore, because its more important to identify a "victim class" and make emotional appeals to create a "moral high ground" The mere fact that you have fallen into this trap is sad.


Write this down because its important:

I will hold John McCain, a US Senator accountable to me and the American people for his words and his actions and promises both kept and broken, so long as he serves. If he is too old or sick to serve, he needs to step down or be removed from office, as by that admission he is not longer fit to serve and be held accountable.



In any case, I don’t fully agree with Senator’s suggestions, but I definitively believe that unmanned platforms do not get the appropriate attention. The possible reasons are many: air force and navy decisions are made by fighter pilots, manned platforms are in general more expensive and have a longer life span thus having a greater profit potential for industry.


Guess How I know you don't know what youre talking about?

Again, notions similar to what we see for F35 (that it will remain relevant in air combat until 2070) are unrealistic.


Why not an AI F-35? Why are these ideas so separated in your mind?

The USAF is saying exactly 2070s. And No, its not far fetched at all. according to you we are the "most technologically advanced country of the world." afterall.

Your "Rule" is that there is no amount of tech that can keep an F-35 relevant for 50 years, but the technology to completely cut pilots out of the loop Exists RIGHT NOW. Thats a strange argument IMHO.



People seem to be ignorant of all the progress being made in AI. We already have self driving cars in a very complex road environment.



And its still not ready for prime time yet. The advances in AI are still not significant enough for real world combat operations.

I like that you mention the self driving cars, because even in civilian land, the jury is still out on those...

We have a hand full of self driving cars that still have issues, some of them fatal. If me still insisting that I drive myself as the AI is not yet advanced enough to do the job better makes me "ignorant" I'll gladly plead guilty. They are still not widely adopted and are considered a novelty currently. Its not a modelor example I would suggest when trying to make the argument you are, but thats your choice.


what is more cost effective to try to fit a human being in a fighter (with all the weight/cost/complexity/vulnerabilities) that this brings or just add a couple of fighters in the formation with the task of being data links nodes to higher echelons?


this is why the F-35 will remain relevant, if only to steer and guide the future UAVS. :D

What is so complex about the air refueling option to justify a huge manned platform when this mission can be performed by unmannned platforms (MQ25)? do we really want to pay for the aircrew when we can get the same mission done by unmanned platforms? Please don’t tell me that the air refueling mission can be performed by unmanned platforms by the navy but it requires manned platforms for the air force.



That small Unmanned tanker is in service already with the Navy? Is it similar to a KC-46? Or Are you making an unfair comparison?


Again I see some tendencies that are not fully justified by logical explanations in the most technologically advanced country of the world. On the contrary, I suspect political agendas, industry interests, pilot nostalgy as the main driving force behind these decisions.


completely and utterly wrong. moreover its a clear lack of understanding. just saying "most technologically advanced country of the world." doesn't mean we can create magic out of thin air, and when the magic isn't there blaming pilots (Ad hominem?)

To change things you need brave, rational politicians. The same way that politicians enforced the military to form the special operations command, the same way change should happen now as well


No

I love airplanes and especially fighters, all my family is in the field, but the reality is changing and we need to adapt otherwise our adversaries will get the advantage. No one wants that, correct?


Correct, which is why your suggestions are terrible, short sighted, biased, ignore reality and current technology. I don't know what your "family in the field" is telling you, but I am hearing vastly different things.

UAVs are coming, we understand that. The current challenge is ensuring the UAVs are competant and capable and can fulfill the roles assigned, are electronically hardened, and recognizing and learning their strengths and weaknesses.

You simply declaring them the future and then declaring anyone who recognizes the above, and the constraints of these platforms now and in the near future as evil tools of the MIC is absurd.

Do you actually want to know what is happening or do you just want to share a false narrative? What smart people are trying to avoid is the same thing that happened with early Air to Air Missiles. Someone declaring them the future and then throwing the baby out with the bath water that in turn causes massive problems when it turns out that like AAMs in the 1960s, UAVs are not perfect weapons, and still have their own pros and cons. There is a reason the F-35A is equipped with a Gun... even 50 years after AAMs were used in combat.

the irony of you saying that the F-35 being relevant in the future is crazy, while simultaneously saying we are "most technologically advanced country of the world." seems to be a bit of a contradiction :wink:

I really don't think you understand what you are talking about to put it nicely, which is why you are going on about McCain (this is pure disctraction and acting offended, to win which is a tactic I see repeatedly and its an emotional appeal) and trotting out the same old stereotypes about the services.

UAVs are the future, just like Lasers of course they always have been. in the 1920s theorists were predicting airplanes that could lay waste to whole cities, planes and bombs so powerful 1 bomber could drop 1 bomb and wipe out a city-- which was indeed true but it took decades and scientific breakthroughs to make happen.

Heres an example, lets say that a UCAV would not be full combat capable and able to fully replace a manned fighter in all aspects until 2038? That would make for a very awkward 20 years of shortfall in the meantime. meaning that people who are saying "hold on, and don't jump from one rock, until youre sure you have another rock to land on" makes a lot of sense. Amatuers practice until the get it right, and professionals practice until they can't get it wrong. And thats a wide gulf right now.

One of the consequences of Vietnam was the "Don't trust anyone who doesn't wear a flight suit" Which was fair considering when the tech or tactics failed, and the good idea fairies were miles away, and Managment/leadership vastly over or underestimated capabilities-- it was the people in the flight suits who suffered the consequences. And I'm not saying that as some pilot worshiper. Its a matter of people not knowing what they don't know, getting lots of power and then making poor decisions that cost the "little people" who "lacked vision" their lives. And after the hell of SEA that was very prudent reaction, by those in flight suits.


MY favorite question to ask is will a UCAV have a gun?
Last edited by XanderCrews on 20 Jun 2018, 19:56, edited 6 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5996
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 18:54

kostas29 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


who do you think builds unmanned platforms?


it has to do with the overall amount of money that they can get from the government. Big manned platforms can pay better because they are usually much bigger programs

You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?



Nope. And the list of retailers who sell cheap and make up with volume in the MIC is enormous, in fact its one of the big criticisms of the Evil MIC who morphs and changes depending on who is criticizing it and why. Always a funny thing to witness


And Big "manned" programs "get more money" because they actually exist. I've also noticed the money the government allocates for Genetically engineered super soldiers is smaller than just turning Civilans into service-people; Its a conspiracy, alright.


Your theory is also interesting in the fact, that what McCain and Co are suggesting would clearly enrich the MIC, as it calls for more programs, more investments in other things, and spending in even more areas. To use your above car analogy, McCain and Co are suggesting the customer buy BOTH The cheap and Expensive cars after military already paid a great deal for the expensive car. Which is a great profit, don't you think?

Notice that they are not saying F-35s are the future, We won't be distracted with shiny things, they are saying "hey what if none of all this other stuff we already invested billions and billions in doesn't work? Better invest billions and billions more into other things too!! And there is just nothing at all that benefits the old MIC here! These new weapons we need are as important as the last set of weapons we needed we now say probably won't work for some reason"

If that's your idea of the future or responsibility, I want no part of it. This is a classic case of wanting to have the cake and eat it too, and simply throwing it on the tax payers credit card in order to make it happen.


Corsair1963 wrote:John McCain is all about keeping pressure on the US Military. Just like a Drill Instructor is to a New Recruit! Yet, in the end you're stronger for it. Something he knows a great deal about.....

Honestly, odd that so free people get it or respect him for it. :?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The problem with your analogy is McCain is both the recruit and the DI here...

McCain is the big brother who grabs your hands and smacks them against your own skull and chides you with "why are you hitting yourself!?"

McCain has been deeply involved with defense services for years, and the more power he gets, and more time he puts into, the more he complains its a complete disaster--its fascinating. Maybe we should elect someone else to fix it, John? oh wait! not that. Vote McCain!

So to review McCain is deeply involved in running the pentagon, DoD, and MIC, and is upset about how the Pentagon, DoD and MIC is being Run.


marauder2048 wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


Which is why McCain wants hundreds of two-seater manned light attack aircraft?



And a rabid A-10 Advocate.

He sure is complicated...

f-16adf wrote:Sen. McCain is not affected by the ACA and its eternal premium increases. He is completely oblivious to assert that there needs to be a 2 party approach to solve the problems facing US health care. Did Lord Obama and his party feel the same way back in 2010 concerning their legislation?? The answer is a resounding NO.

Americans should not hold their politicians as near divine. Regardless of his service, he is simply out of touch-


^This^
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5996
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 21:04

sferrin wrote:
kostas29 wrote: In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.


:roll: Really? You're one of those?


opiio
welcome to the future of debate. You said something not positive about someone who is a part of an identity group. Your points and facts are now irrelevant!

The sooner he exits Washington the better.


There is something deeply comical about someone defending John McCain, a pilot, establishment politician and hero of the military industrial complex, while simultaneously holding him as an innovator who calls on the military to buck the establishment, the MIC, and Traditionalist pilots
:doh: :doh:

"I keep putting John McCain in charge... Why aren't things changing?!" LOL
Choose Crews
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 22:35

kostas29 wrote:
You should read again comments implying that he has deteriorating health, mental senility etc

Such comments are insulting, discriminating and really unnecessary for our discussion.


But likely true since most people with glioblastoma suffer from cognitive deficits.

kostas29 wrote:In any case, I don’t fully agree with Senator’s suggestions, but I definitively believe that unmanned platforms do not get the appropriate attention. The possible reasons are many: air force and navy decisions are made by fighter pilots, manned platforms are in general more expensive and have a longer life span thus having a greater profit potential for industry.


The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm. And the
sustainment contracts are more lucractive and the military doesn't have to burn its own money
on LFT&E survivability and resolving human interface issues.

The Navy hasn't had a CNO with an aviation background in nearly 20 years and when
given a chance by the Air Force (the optionally manned LRS-B took center stage) to take the lead in UAVs
via UCLASS fumbled it badly.

The Air Force has been run mainly by fighter pilots but they also have the largest
and most capable drone fleet; the Navy has very little and won't have anything carrier based until 2026.

So it's hard to assert that there's some intersection of nefarious service leadership with
pilot biases and industry interests.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 22:53

The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm.

The latest MQ-9 (IOC in 2014) will only last through the 2030s while the F-35 (IOC 2015) will last through the 2060s at least (last one built in mid 2040s).

If you are talking lifespan in flight hours, then yes the Reaper has about 40k while the F-35 has 8k (likely to go 12k or 16k in an MLU). That being said, it's a lot less stressful on the airframe (hence the larger hours) for a drone vs a fighter.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 23:17

geforcerfx wrote:Cruise Missiles? Programmed missions, only recently adding data links allow to allow more flexibility.


For a strike mission I don't see any issue with having a programmed mission. Plane can use the same systems already in the F-22/35 to avoid detection and pick the best route to the target, deploy weapons and leave back out. They have to shoot it down to stop it, and we get to reuse it if they can't, a lot cheaper then current cruise missiles.


I agree, but people get all weird about "autonomous" weapons.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Jun 2018, 23:31

rheonomic wrote:I agree, but people get all weird about "autonomous" weapons.


They should educate themselves. We've had "autonomous" weapons since the 50s. Matador first entered service in 1953. Regulus in 1954. 99% of what the public thinks are "autonomous" aren't.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 00:13

SpudmanWP wrote:
The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm.

The latest MQ-9 (IOC in 2014) will only last through the 2030s while the F-35 (IOC 2015) will last through the 2060s at least (last one built in mid 2040s).

If you are talking lifespan in flight hours, then yes the Reaper has about 40k while the F-35 has 8k (likely to go 12k or 16k in an MLU). That being said, it's a lot less stressful on the airframe (hence the larger hours) for a drone vs a fighter.



Lifespan in flight hours. And what's overlooked is the manning requirements.
It's about 10:1 airmen:aircraft to operate a UAV on average vs. 1.5:1 for an F-16.
The cost differences in manning are strictly borne by the government.

Autonomy can help but it along with AI-derived decision aids would benefit
manned systems as well.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 02:58

sferrin wrote:We've had "autonomous" weapons since the 50s.

Should we count the Kettering bug?
XanderCrews wrote:
kostas29 wrote:Again, notions similar to what we see for F35 (that it will remain relevant in air combat until 2070) are unrealistic.

Why not an AI F-35? Why are these ideas so separated in your mind?

The USAF is saying exactly 2070s. And No, its not far fetched at all. according to you we are the "most technologically advanced country of the world." afterall.

I mean, aside from the life of the airframes, there's really no reason why an F-35 can't remain relevant with tech refreshes and software updates.
XanderCrews wrote:And its still not ready for prime time yet. The advances in AI are still not significant enough for real world combat operations.

I like that you mention the self driving cars, because even in civilian land, the jury is still out on those...

I once attended a talk by the project lead for the Google self-driving cars. The end featured a video of a test drive where, after finishing their test ponts, they let the vehicle navigate on its own. It entered a traffic circle, and kept going around and around until finally they safety driver took control.
XanderCrews wrote:MY favorite question to ask is will a UCAV have a gun?


Why not? :mrgreen:
Image
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5996
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 03:48

The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm. And the
sustainment contracts are more lucractive and the military doesn't have to burn its own money
on LFT&E survivability and resolving human interface issues.

The Navy hasn't had a CNO with an aviation background in nearly 20 years and when
given a chance by the Air Force (the optionally manned LRS-B took center stage) to take the lead in UAVs
via UCLASS fumbled it badly.

The Air Force has been run mainly by fighter pilots but they also have the largest
and most capable drone fleet; the Navy has very little and won't have anything carrier based until 2026.

So it's hard to assert that there's some intersection of nefarious service leadership with
pilot biases and industry interests.


Correct. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that the Navy was Run by Fighter pilots. Pretty sure its the boat and ship folks... In the end Kostas is making blanket statements that fall apart on cursory review.

The notion that the Service Chiefs are actually creating and controlling the output of the technology that is going to lead to increasing UAV use or lack thereof is absurd.

If all the pilots in the whole world just up and died tonight, How long would it take to create our self flying airplanes? and how many human pilots would we start training in the meantime?

One of the issues that causes a lot of friction, and Ive seen it in action with a lot of services but I'll use my own as an example. "it takes 12 men to support 1 man in the field" Ok great. But what happens then is that 1 man is invariably outnumbered. And Ive witnessed this many times. So theres a meeting of 13 people, and only one of them is grunt/combat arms/field type. And suddenly 12 people come to a consensus on something and theres 1 combat guy who says "hey not so fast there, ive been there done that, and your idea/suggestion/solution is going to get some people killed if you implement it like that"

Image


now the military is not a democracy, but that one guy is almost always going to be outnumbered, and thus by extension his bosses are less likely to understand or sympathize. The odds of that man getting a combat commander who understand is 1 in 12 for example. And its not hard for that 1 guy who knows whats up to be labeled "cocky" or "difficult" etc. i'm not advocating for the Zipper Suited Sun God. I'm just saying as someone alluded to earlier, the good idea fairies roll out their ideas and some people take issue with them, and then instead of altering or scrapping the idea, they try to bash the people (selfish, just looking out for their cushy pilot jobs, military industrial complex, corruption) who objected based on their hard won experience of blood sweat and tears.

There has to be a balance. I'm a Marine, which means we are always trying to maintain tradition while staying cutting edge to remain relevant in the future. Its a constant push pull. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. sometimes its seen as bizarre or anachronistic by outsiders, and its constantly misunderstood.

Cool Story bro: one of my friends says that Major Powers there above is the most villainous characters ever created for the big screen and I think he has a real point. That man will infuriate you far more than some mustache twirling bond villain...

Ive actually seen people gripe that things in the military would be easier if it wasn't for these damn rough and outspoken combat types... you know like how being a parent would be a lot easier if it wasn't for the damn kids.


rheonomic wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:MY favorite question to ask is will a UCAV have a gun?


Why not? :mrgreen:
Image


LOL

Well let me put it like this. Take an A-10. In the Future will we be removing the pilot, the gun, or the entire airplane first?

:mrgreen:

Interesting question no? everytime someone says "well guns are obsolete" someone says "no technology will always fail, look at Vietnam and AAMs"

but what happens when the pilot is technology too? does he "inevitable fail? " just like all the AAMs that missed, that lead to this swirling dogfight of guns and silk scarves?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 04:03

XanderCrews wrote:Interesting question no? everytime someone says "well guns are obsolete" someone says "no technology will always fail, look at Vietnam and AAMs"

but what happens when the pilot is technology too? does he "inevitable fail? " just like all the AAMs that missed, that lead to this swirling dogfight of guns and silk scarves?


Obviously, just like a backup gun, you need a backup pilot so that when the autonomy fails they can take over and fight like it's 1950 over Mig Alley.

I kind of feel like the "buy all the UCAVs!!!" crowd are the post-modern version of the old "Military Reform Movement" enabled by the current AI hype cycle and the mistaken impression that, because the UAS used in permissive environments today are relatively inexpensive, UCAVs will cost much less than manned aircraft. (After all, like the original, the goal is to decrease military spending, and what better argument than "our solutions are cheaper and better"?)

Most of the speculation about UCAVs and autonomous systems in general lack grounding in technical reality. (My favorites are over-hyping of AI as if "Stealh" were a documentary and not a terrible movie whose sole virtue was form-fitting flight suits for certain cast members and "without a pilot we can make an airplane that can pull 3243252345g's and win all the dogfights!")
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5996
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 04:18

rheonomic wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Interesting question no? everytime someone says "well guns are obsolete" someone says "no technology will always fail, look at Vietnam and AAMs"

but what happens when the pilot is technology too? does he "inevitable fail? " just like all the AAMs that missed, that lead to this swirling dogfight of guns and silk scarves?


Obviously, just like a backup gun, you need a backup pilot so that when the autonomy fails they can take over and fight like it's 1950 over Mig Alley.

I kind of feel like the "buy all the UCAVs!!!" crowd are the post-modern version of the old "Military Reform Movement" enabled by the current AI hype cycle and the mistaken impression that, because the UAS used in permissive environments today are relatively inexpensive, UCAVs will cost much less than manned aircraft. (After all, like the original, the goal is to decrease military spending, and what better argument than "our solutions are cheaper and better"?)

Most of the speculation about UCAVs and autonomous systems in general lack grounding in technical reality. (My favorites are over-hyping of AI as if "Stealh" were a documentary and not a terrible movie whose sole virtue was form-fitting flight suits for certain cast members and "without a pilot we can make an airplane that can pull 3243252345g's and win all the dogfights!")


And that's the Rub as they say. Is the "flight suit mafia" just fighting the inevitable as stooges of the military industrial complex? Or do they maybe, just maybe through real world experience understand the situation better than all the good idea fairies combined?

Wasn't it just a few years ago people were crapping bricks over the idea the A-10 was going to be retired, yet here we are now and all manned aircraft can be replaced by AI thanks to huge advances in driverless cars?

And of course the reason people were passing bricks was every conceivable antiquated "aw shucks. The old way just works better, and the A-10 will never go out of style just duck behind a cloud" cliche traditionalist good old boy phrase imaginable based on a massive misunderstanding of current CAS...


But also were are the UCAVs already!! :doh:
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest