|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:27 pm
What do you guys think of the possibility of autonomous warplanes? On the pro side, they could completely replace conventional fighters and deal out wars without much casualties. On the con side, it risks turning war into video games and make it easier to start a war.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:15 pm
Now I wouldn't say it makes war easier to start. These drones are pretty expensive to produce, and although our military perfers losing them than an actual person and plane, they still won't use them for missions on their own.
However I do see them adding to the complexity of war. The drones going out first to map out the area and relay the info to the fighters.
Or setting off traps and diverting enemy lines
Or even sneeking in as suicide bombers while the fighters distract the enemy, taking down walls of protection or even entire forts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Nah. A Drone Fighter would never be a replacement for a real fighter jock. Or a compy flyer, as one of my friends put it. "Being in the cockpit is far more different then being behind a screen. You don't have any of your senses that make flying easier."
Now, if you're talking "Oh hay, we are in spacez an kin mine teh asteroidz for res and make nu fighterz." then yeah, go for the Drone fighter spam. twisted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:01 pm
I always hear in movies like "Stealth" and "Ironman" etc that autonomous aerial vehicles can never rival the instinct, judgements etc of a real pilot.
What I want to ask is (and I have no opinion/knowledge in this affair): in modern warfares are there that many judgements to make during a mission? A target is mapped out and confirmed; a plane goes in, drops a bomb, return. Unless a dogfight occur (which might be rarer given stealth supersonic/hypersonic planes) or a target is actually false on close-up look (which is also rare), the conventional pilot sense might not have so much place to apply.
Drone planes are expensive, but at least more dispensable than pilots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:02 pm
Because unless A.I. evolves beyond "Go here. Do This. Go There. If B is false goto A again." you can't fight with a drone fighter. Simply because a Pilot has had so much experience in the cockpit that if A, B, and C go wrong, they can still do D.
A Drone Fighter would be restricted to A, B, and C. If all three of those things go wrong, they can't do D, simply because the hand of experience is much different.
Sure UAVs are cheaper, but when you spend about 12 of them for the price of one fighter pilot and his craft, with the pilot recoverable... It fails.
Besides. F-22 Lightning > Any number of UAVs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:20 pm
Auren Shiro Because unless A.I. evolves beyond "Go here. Do This. Go There. If B is false goto A again." you can't fight with a drone fighter. Simply because a Pilot has had so much experience in the cockpit that if A, B, and C go wrong, they can still do D. A Drone Fighter would be restricted to A, B, and C. If all three of those things go wrong, they can't do D, simply because the hand of experience is much different. Sure UAVs are cheaper, but when you spend about 12 of them for the price of one fighter pilot and his craft, with the pilot recoverable... It fails. Besides. F-22 Lightning > Any number of UAVs. Agree about the limitation of UAVs' decision making capabilities. A remotely piloted UAVs could be different though, no? Nah, one UAV could bomb as much as one piloted plane could, IF nothing goes out of plan (UAV are currently rather useless/helpless at dogfight nonetheless). Haha, you love F-22, yes? lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:35 pm
The problem with current UAVs is that they will never carry as much as a plane. Make a plane into a UAV, and you run into bandwidth problems. Another such problem is that with the way that radar is today on jet fighters, a remote piloted UAV might get jammed when its being lit up by Radar.
Simply put, you can't do remote piloting if the other guys have any sort of radio jamming going on. (Don't gimmie bullshit about shielded communications. Y'can't shield constant traffic. Radio traffic? Sure, you can do stuff like that. Something like a UAV? Forget it.)
F-22 Lightnings. Just as good as mass murdering flights of MiGs from beyond visual range as it is bombing the s**t out anything that moves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:59 am
Auren Shiro The problem with current UAVs is that they will never carry as much as a plane. Make a plane into a UAV, and you run into bandwidth problems. Another such problem is that with the way that radar is today on jet fighters, a remote piloted UAV might get jammed when its being lit up by Radar. Simply put, you can't do remote piloting if the other guys have any sort of radio jamming going on. Doesn't the Global Hawk have the wingspan of a 737 (should be able to carry quite a load with a bomber of similar size)? Are the remote bandwidth limited like an internet bandwidth is, or does is depend on how big a dish you have? What is the factor that affects bandwidth? Yeah, and with jamming you risk losing your plane's tech to enemy if they could replicate your transmission and take over the UAV. Auren Shiro (Don't gimmie bullshit about shielded communications. Y'can't shield constant traffic. Radio traffic? Sure, you can do stuff like that. Something like a UAV? Forget it.) I resent that tone stressed XD But heck, I have little knowledge and interest in radio communication, so I'll spare you from my opinions. But isn't there this thing about constantly switching frequency so jamming or homing in doesn't work? question You have such a way of putting absolute and immediate authority on whether things'll work, don't you, Auren? XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:45 am
Zupu Doesn't the Global Hawk have the wingspan of a 737 (should be able to carry quite a load with a bomber of similar size)? No. It's about engine power. Prop engines are currently favored because they are pretty quiet, etc. Wing Span isn't much to do with carrying capacity. See F-4 Phantom II. It doesn't subscribe to the regular rules of Aerodynamics but follows its own rule of this: "Attach enough engines to a brick, and it'll fly." But that's a messy way for a lightweight craft such as a UAV to fly, because Something Bad can happen, like wings shearing off, etc. Zupu Yeah, and with jamming you risk losing your plane's tech to enemy if they could replicate your transmission and take over the UAV. I'd like to meet the guy who could do that, because that's pretty slick. Zupu I resent that tone stressed XD But heck, I have little knowledge and interest in radio communication, so I'll spare you from my opinions. But isn't there this thing about constantly switching frequency so jamming or homing in doesn't work? question Are the remote bandwidth limited like an internet bandwidth is, or does is depend on how big a dish you have? What is the factor that affects bandwidth? It works for radio communications. It wouldn't work for something that would require constant communications, such as a remotely piloted craft. Even a few seconds worth of delay can seriously mess things up. Like when the pilot gets new stuff from the UAV, it could be on a tail spin into the ground. (Highly doubt that. Yay Autopilot) The problem is that with current radio technology, you can't send enough data forwards and backwards to get a semblance of real-time. That isn't much of a problem for observation, like Predators, or even killing stuff with Predators (See Hell-Fires on Predators) but the issue gets to be large scale multiple bombings. Or dodging AA. Plus there's the sheer psychological factor for the gropos. What would you rather have. Some pimple faced kid behind the joystick of a UAV dropping missiles on stuff, or an experienced pilot at the controls of something say like a A-10 Warthog? Zupu You have such a way of putting absolute and immediate authority on whether things'll work, don't you, Auren? XD I try to say on top of military tech. Several good friends of mine are ex-army, and we talk about stuff like this all the time. Expert? I am not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Geez, What is with you two? But there good points from both of you. The problem with UAV's right now is indeed bandwidth. Your using something like wireless cable, and even if you are in the same room as the sender, you still get lag-time because unlike wired cable, wireless cable is sending out pulses in all directions, rather then sending though a tube, which is hooked right into what your wanting. another thing that affects bandwidth is the recivier. My house COULD be running with 1 gb/s of bandwidth right now, but our recivier can't handle that much information, so it cuts it down to about 100 mb/s. The one thing people keep forgetting about the military, is that the military goes with the cheapest seller in order to keep costs down. it's run just like a company. Go for the cheapest product you can so you get 'more bang for your buck'. So UAV systems are actually not as cutting edge as people tend to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:20 pm
DAMMIT GLEIN! QUIT WINNING! rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:35 pm
Auren Shiro Zupu Doesn't the Global Hawk have the wingspan of a 737 (should be able to carry quite a load with a bomber of similar size)? No. It's about engine power. Prop engines are currently favored because they are pretty quiet, etc. Wing Span isn't much to do with carrying capacity. See F-4 Phantom II. It doesn't subscribe to the regular rules of Aerodynamics but follows its own rule of this: "Attach enough engines to a brick, and it'll fly." But that's a messy way for a lightweight craft such as a UAV to fly, because Something Bad can happen, like wings shearing off, etc. Agree about strapping engines to brick (like the Britist VTOL Harrier). Engines give power to move; larger wings just mean better efficiency (fuel-saving --> longer range). Need to fit large engines to UAV if they're carrying big loads. Auren Shiro Zupu Yeah, and with jamming you risk losing your plane's tech to enemy if they could replicate your transmission and take over the UAV. I'd like to meet the guy who could do that, because that's pretty slick. That's probly the worst fear about using UAVs. If the other guy knows your signals and encodings, he could steal your plane when it's in his country (because his transmitter is a lot closer and stronger)- just like regular RCs, saved a deal more complicated. Auren Shiro Plus there's the sheer psychological factor for the gropos. What would you rather have. Some pimple faced kid behind the joystick of a UAV dropping missiles on stuff, or an experienced pilot at the controls of something say like a A-10 Warthog? If the results are the same- then the pimple faced kid (human casualty = 0 when planes get blown up).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:43 pm
Glein Geez, What is with you two? Lol, dunno, just keep finding ourselves on different ends of the spectrum. Though have to say everytime we debate I learn or figure out something new. Glein But there good points from both of you. The problem with UAV's right now is indeed bandwidth. Your using something like wireless cable, and even if you .......get 'more bang for your buck'. So UAV systems are actually not as cutting edge as people tend to think. Just like NASA, eh? XD Agree, UAVs now are not up to the level yet (though they're VERY helpful in surveillence). I wonder whether the cost of development and advanced electronics can be traded with life-support, cockpit instrumentation, pilot limitations at no additional expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:20 am
Zupu Agree about strapping engines to brick (like the Britist VTOL Harrier). Engines give power to move; larger wings just mean better efficiency (fuel-saving --> longer range). Need to fit large engines to UAV if they're carrying big loads. Harriers have a different mission profile then say, regular fighter bombers. The VTOL capacity is what makes the plane. Zupu Yeah, and with jamming you risk losing your plane's tech to enemy if they could replicate your transmission and take over the UAV. I'd like to meet the guy who could do that, because that's pretty slick. That's probly the worst fear about using UAVs. If the other guy knows your signals and encodings, he could steal your plane when it's in his country (because his transmitter is a lot closer and stronger)- just like regular RCs, saved a deal more complicated. Not necessarily, as UAV and their transmitters are only a couple of miles away, I would think. Only the reeeeeally long range recon ones do that kind of distance thing. That's also a pretty easy thing to counter. Just implement into the software "Accept signals from X degrees to Y degrees" via compass. Then you have real issues trying to control the thing when it says "BUT UR NOT IN THAT DIRECTION!" Zupu If the results are the same- then the pimple faced kid (human casualty = 0 when planes get blown up). Uh, what does that have to do with psychology? If you were a soldier, on the ground. Would you rather an experienced pilot in the plane that's doing Danger Close Air Support, whose right there in real time, or some kid 50 miles behind the front lines with 2-3 seconds delay? It's why the military only uses short range recon UAVs. Well, that and the A-10 is so much bad-assery in a jet that the Air Force wants to get rid of it, because it isn't "Sexy" enough. (The Marines and Army would like to respectfully agree by blowing up their hangers not containing A-10s. rofl ) It's because of the limits of technology and the morale factor. 'Sides, if you're army, what are you doing thinking about the air force's casulties? wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Auren Shiro Not necessarily, as UAV and their transmitters are only a couple of miles away, I would think. Only the reeeeeally long range recon ones do that kind of distance thing. That's also a pretty easy thing to counter. Just implement into the software "Accept signals from X degrees to Y degrees" via compass. Then you have real issues trying to control the thing when it says "BUT UR NOT IN THAT DIRECTION!" See, I KNOW everytime we debate I learn something new! Dunno you could do a coordinate thing with the receiver, very interesting indeed. Zupu If the results are the same- then the pimple faced kid (human casualty = 0 when planes get blown up). Auren Shiro Uh, what does that have to do with psychology? If you were a soldier, on the ground. Would you rather an experienced pilot in the plane that's doing Danger Close Air Support, whose right there in real time, or some kid 50 miles behind the front lines with 2-3 seconds delay? That would be a difference in results- in that case, a large-chinned, crew-cut, cigar-smoking pilot is desired. For simple bombing and recon (as is now), UAVs are probly better. Auren Shiro 'Sides, if you're army, what are you doing thinking about the air force's casulties? wink Wait.... what? So.... army shouldn't be thinking about casualty question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
