neofightr

Then we agree to disagree since you are clearly not thinking outside the box and have not opened your eyes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygFTCRWmwYM I can assure you there are great minds working on AI everyday to address their shortcomings. And all this is what we know publicly, just imagine what we don't know behind secret doors. Drones have a 20 year track record of operating effectively under direct human control and that was point, now the logical next step with AI is happening. Probably one of the greatest cases to what AI is capable of doing right now is what we are seeing gaming AI. Gaming AI has been getting better year over year as I watched it evolved over the past 30 years. From advanced scripting to random intelligent algorithms in games like DCS and others, the AI is getting really good. Just to remind you, what the AI can do in a 3d simulated world like DCS it could easily do in a real 3d world as well (given the right sensors and cpu power). I addressed some of your points in my other posts, try as hard as you like but my time at the Naval Post Graduate school getting my degree in Systems engineering tells me that I am on the right track about the future of drones and that's no hogwash.

Increased g limits does not equal more weight, if anything you require less weight because materials are getting stronger and lighter at the same time. This is the reason why missiles can pull many times more gs than aircraft. Smaller and lighter means more Gs. A drone could easily outmaneuver a missile because it has larger control surfaces which would give it better turn rates etc. A drone would be much smaller and cheaper with the near same capabilities as today's aircraft. Why? No human systems onboard(i.e. no consoles, no ejection seats, etc). The smaller the drone gets in design the lesser the weight, the lesser the fuel needs, the better the performance. I never said the tankers would be in hot areas, that would be silly. The smaller the drone, the lesser the drag and weight and the better the range will be. Just like the F35 :megalol:, all a drone would need is a couple of missiles and a single bomb to be as effective. This does not make a big drone. Training would be a game changer simply put, once new tactics and algorithms are devised based on past experience in the battlefield, all it would take is a simple download on a private network and Bam! the entire fleet of drones are updated with the latest tactics and ROEs. It would literally take months if not years for new doctrines to be trained into human pilots. :book: Jamming would not continue to be an issue. First off no need for voice comms, second any comms between drones could be done at close range either through optic transmissions or high frequency short range data bursts. Both would be nearly impervious to jamming. With regards to sensors, instead of relying on a optically sensored pilots with laggy interfaces (i.e. hands) to aircraft sensor suites, you would have AI directly connected to a full spectrum of sensors. When I mean full-spectrum I mean all frequencies from sound to light and beyond. Impervious to jamming because that's a whole lot of frequencies to jam. They would be cheaper because scale of industry and module-based designs. Both of which applies to today's aircraft but now we are dealing with a more smaller less cumbersome package which would exponentially decrease cost in bulk. Just look at the cost of today's desktop PCs compared to 20 years ago and you can see where the trend would be. "These statement's don't seem very accurate. Like the whole wing loading thing, people point it out but don't actually make a case. The F-35 is about as heavy as the F-15. It's certainly lighter than a Flanker. Why is weight an issue?" The statements feel very accurate to me based on what I have seen publicly. The problem with the F35 being about as heavy as an F15 is just look at their size footprints and their control surfaces. Their is footage of the tiny F35 flying form on an F22. As the competitors (Boeing) have pointed out, the F35 has sacrificed performance for stealth. To me the F35 looks like a dense rock of a plane compared to F16/22 or F18/15. This reminds me of the F-117 all over again (but not as flagrant), funny how no one talks about that plane any more. So it doesn't surprise me that the Air Force pilots had nothing good to say about the plane a few years ago. And don't think for a second that they (LM) just waved a magic wand and fixed all those concerns with today's F35. :megalol: By the way, all my educated guesses on drones and their future are based on my degree in Computer Science and my advanced degree in Systems Engineering and a whole ton of tactical experience.

In response to statements saying I want a fully autonomous drone making it's own decisions to engage or not to engage without human control, I do not. I think this mindset comes from the idea that a human F/A pilot somehow has the authority to engage or not to engage anyone it sees fit without prior approval. Those in the know, realize this is not the case. Typically humans are ordered to attack a specific pre-planned target, or are given real-time designations by controllers with authority from above. As I already stated this can be easily done by a drone just as it is done by a pilot. In the case where humans are ordered to an area and given the weapons-free mandate to attack any target of opportunity bad things can and do happen (collateral damage and targeting of innocents). Blue on blue has been a problem for modern warfare from the start and it would actually improve with AI because we could remove human emotion/error from the equation. What do I mean by this? There is famous footage from the first gulf war showing attack helo pilots aggressively attacking ground targets at night only to discover to their horror that they were friendly. You can hear in the video they are eager to get their first kill and even though they are verifying with other sources before engaging they are ready to jump at it as soon as they get the all clear signal. So how does AI reduce this likelihood? Well for starters AI will not mistake a target because unlike the pilots using visual confirmations at night, AI would have access to the whole spectrum of sensors in real-time and processing the information dramatically faster so it would most likely not attack based on ROE even when given an all clear signal. It would have no problem determining what type of enemy vehicle it is looking at and based on programming determine human weapons at a distance which could help in it's logic on positive ID of the enemy. Furthermore AI drones would not be eager to get their first kill nor would they be excited in the heat of battle (subject to increase error) because emotion is removed from the equation. At worst the drone would behave as badly as a human would but at best we would have the smartest and safest weapon out there on the front lines. All these drone kills of innocent humans we have heard about in the last 15 years can be attributed to direct pilot control or mission planner input error. It is never the drones fault. **At no point would a drone initiate an attack without human orders to do so** Now a drone could easily refuse to attack based on ROE or lack of positive ID but it would not initiate an attack. Here is an easy to understand scenario. Drone is ordered into a hostile area with contacts but not given an order to attack, drone flies into the area IDs the first contact and verifies friendly, obviously does not attack because it's friendly, next contact it intercepts is positively ID (and marks location of) as enemy, drone does not attack because it never got the order to attack and evades, third contact, drone can't ID due to atmospheric interference and range etc etc so evades. Drone returns to friendly territory provides updates to the controllers. Drone is then ordered back into the hostile area with orders to attack *known* enemy targets in the area. Obviously drone ignores known friendly, drone attacks previously marked target, drone attempts to intercept previously unknown target and now IDs as enemy but can't fire on it since it wasn't previously known, evades and returns to friendly area for new orders. This is an example where the drone never initiates an attack without approval from a human authority, but when ordered does the mission and does it superior to what a human could do. Could the IDs be erroneous? Sure but absolutely no worse than a human would do given the same circumstances and I would argue would always be better at it because of no stress, no excitement and no human error in the process.

I am not surprised by this, as you can imagine the technology is maturing and evolving constantly and boundaries needs to be pushed sometimes at great cost. I have seen the dangers to cutting edge tech like this first hand, the best example is the automated landing system for the hornet. In the nineties I saw it almost kill my CO when he had it attempt to land his plane on the carrier in rough seas. I am pretty sure the software is much better and more reliable now. We read about tragic deaths involving cars like Tesla when someone decides to completely let the car drive and ignore the warnings in doing so. The tech is getting there and keep in mind this is for a very dynamic environment like a busy street with unpredictable humans everywhere. As chaotic as battlefields are they still are no where near as chaotic as a busy highway intersection with lots of cars, motorcycles, pedestrians etc. So if we are so close in solving this scenario (as google, tesla and apple think we are) then imagine how close we are to solving the battlefield problem. Oh and by the way, all this talk about trusting autonomous drones with lethality and yet we are doing almost the same thing right now, with 4500lb rolling ground missiles (i.e. autonomous cars) everyday on the roads of this country and others.

I never said the drone would make the decision to use lethal force, that decision lies with the commander that gives the order to the drone to engage. The commander is pulling the trigger and the weapon to that trigger is the drone. You are not using the proper reference here. The fact that the drone is on station ready to attack based on a given marker makes it autonomous in it's execution of the attack. The order to attack is given by the one firing the marker. Again it's all about your perspective. BTW A marker could be encrypted and scrambled on an hourly or daily basis to avoid spoofing/hacking. ROE could easily be programmed into a drone since it's a set of logical decisions but the drone would not prosecute/execute the mission until the trigger is pulled by a human then it could do a double-check on ROE as a precautionary step before Or the ROE programmed onboard could prevent it from (never to initiate) executing a given order if the designers went that route. So many options could be used and none of it would paint the sci fi doomsday picture so many people fear. "When given an order, a soldier has the ability to question that order, to consider whether or not the order falls within the ROE, to evaluate whether or not the person giving the order actually has the full picture... in short, the soldier has a conscience. I do not believe we can "program this into a piece of hard- and software. The whole reason that a commander of a battlefield makes the big bucks and has absolute authority is because an effective fighting unit cannot have soldiers questioning orders, it simply does not work that way. There is no time for a soldier to sit there and evaluate a given order and a soldier will not have the full picture during the fog of war of battle. They simply are not high enough up the chain to see the whole picture. If a given order is illegal then the commander will be punished in due time and process. This is different from having the local tactical picture that is a must have for the soldier and would keep a soldier alive and effective at the mission. Not the same thing. "To put it differently: Say you wanted to protect your property, and you would consider lethal force as a valid means to achieve that goal. Would you really, really trust fully autonomous weapons to do the job? I know what my answer to that question is, and will be." This is the wrong analogy, you want to protect your property and you (or your drone) notice a lethal intruder (has a weapon) is on it, you hit the button that enables your drone to attack and goes after the designated intruder. Once the drone has incapacitated the intruder it immediately goes back into safe mode, etc etc. If the drone attacks an innocent (police officer checking out your yard, unannounced neighbor) it never initiated it on it's own, it simply can't because it has to be ordered by you to go after a target. So in essence the drone is simply a smart weapon nothing more. It's not the terminator. Notice I never paint a picture where the drone is fully on it's own to decide to attack and not to attack without human authority. The drone is simply another form of fire and forget. The fire being the operative word.

What do you think happens in an F18 when the pilot pickles a jdam that takes several minutes to impact?, you think there is a way to recall that? Or better yet a cruise missile (there might be a self destruct for that one) launched from hundreds of miles away. Or how about an antiship missile fired at a target over the horizon that will take several minutes to hit. In an air to air mission just like it's done today, the pilots are cleared weapons free and given a vector; are told if they are a bandit or bogey then prosecutes the targets. If bogey they ID to verify bandit. A drone with the right sensors could easily do this scenario. The drone in this case is really just a smart missile ordered from the command/controller plane to fire smaller missiles then return to be rearmed etc. What we are talking about are windows of time from decision to execution nothing more. In all those scenarios experienced commanders have given the order to execute to an aircrew. No different for a drone. A drone could easily be standing by airborne/on station given the execute order while feet wet then goes in emcon and in full afterburner, attacks a ground target in say 10 minutes then RTB 15 minutes later. Another scenario, Close air support, drone is on station fully autonomous but programmed to wait for a coded marker to be fired at a target from a FAC (or ground agent), once the FAC designates the target with the marker, drone prosecutes the target, if no marker detected in target area after certain a time window, drone RTBs. This is all done autonomously of course. So many ways to use a drone effectively and responsibly, it's really up to the imagination. The biggest sticking point right now is who assumes responsibility if the drone attacks a friendly due to input error. Is it the programmer? the commander giving the order? Someone will have to take the blame and putting the drone on trial won't work. BTW these scenarios are all hypotheticals from my imagination, I do not have any insight to actual capabilities in today's drone programs.:book: I am just using educated guesses from my experience. BTW the original star trek had the best episode on the dangers of autonomy (the M5 episode).

I promise you these software failure scenarios have been thought through. If such a failure would occur it would self-destruct just like rockets automatically do with post-launch failures hence the incentive to have robust redundant software checks.. BTW drones have been successfully used in the military for over 20 years so it already has a track record that is only getting better. The beauty of drones is if it suffered an engine failure over enemy land it would self-destruct to deny the enemy and of course no pilot to imprison. If it engine failed over friendly territory it would deploy a chute (depending on size) to be recoverable. Autonomous means no video transmissions that could be intercepted. It would be unhackable because there would be no way for it to receive hacking instructions when in emcon mode. You need to think outside the box. Drones aren't going to be controlled like the old-school RC types. They will be programmed to go silent once in enemy territory then come back up after feet wet. The only way they can be stopped is with another drone/advanced missile/emp pulse. We are on the verge of mass autonomous cars on human populated city streets and yet F/A mil drones are a stretch? Give me a break. :doh: Oh and by the way if you think because there is no talk about the latest on military drones in the gov and mil channels that it somehow is a dead topic, heh think again. :music_whistling:

Ah now I see why gunfights are downplayed with regards to the F35 This dated article gives insight to the mindset of the no guns philosophy. History repeats itself yet again. http://www.thedailybeast.com/new-us-stealth-jet-cant-fire-its-gun-until-2019?via=googleplus "The lack of a gun is not likely to be a major problem for close-in air-to-air dogfights against other jets. Part of the problem is that the F-35—which is less maneuverable than contemporary enemy fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker—is not likely to survive such a close-in skirmish. “The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point,” said one Air Force fighter pilot. “The JSF is so heavy, it won’t accelerate fast enough to get back up to fighting speed,” said another Air Force fighter pilot. “Bottom line is that it will only be a BVR [beyond visual range] airplane.” But then again these could be F16 and F15 pilots poopooing the plane. :noexpression:

@Fri13 regarding "the expert" video I can't tell you how many times I saw hints of this mindset when I was in acquisitions. This describes productivity in a massive bureaucracy in a nutshell.

As a follow on point since it wasn't mentioned in the discussion. Drones, they are the future and they will make the F35,F22 (any 5th gen) obsolete very quickly. Drones can (pros): -pull inhuman Gs thereby surpassing all manned a/c in maneuverability and most missiles. -process and manage targets faster than humans. -be virtually undetectable thanks to small radar footprint -require no training just software updates (performance constantly being improved through software updates unlike humans that have a natural limit). -come in at a fraction of the cost once development is refined and finalized. -be completely autonomous thereby negating jamming since no comms are required. -be a massive force multiplier due to size and capability. Imagine the USS Ford with 200 drones etc. -put no human at risk for the mission. -not subject to piloting error Cons -subject to EMP effects (just like manned a/c) -subject to system failures (just like manned) -subject to range limitations due to small size requirements (air to air refueling will be a no brainer and very easy obviously) -subject to less ordnance due to size but made up for in numbers. -subject to accountability/legal issues when mistakes are made for mission target assignments etc. Now look at the pros and cons and tell me, what politician in their right mind would not pick a drone x 20 over a single F35. All the military top brass (non-pilots of course) would see it as a no-brainer. This drone topic is the elephant in the room when it comes to fighter pilots because the writing is on the wall, there will soon be (15 years max) no need for pilots other than a small elite seal team like force for those special black ops missions requiring real-time critical thinking. Both the F22 and F35 programs are making the strongest case for drones due to their operating budgets and complexity issues going sky high since their initial proposals. I am surprised Sprey doesn't talk about it. Even back in my flying days 17 years ago I knew drones were coming and was telling my buddies just watch, drones are on the way and will take over once CPU power is sufficient and the need for comms go away.

I am going to chime in here. I knew Chip back at the training commands when we were both JOs and I am amazed at his attitude with regards to visual fighting. We trained extensively in dogfights both at Top Gun and at the squadron level. Sprey makes good points as to why and yet Berke tries to downplay it extensively, this is baffling to me. I could care less about 5th generation, you can't rely on complex systems to be 100% hence the need to train for dogfighting etc. Sprey does a good job of making this case based on historical background. The other aspect that Sprey brings to the table is his talking points regarding operational test and evaluation. I know what he is talking about because I worked at COMOPTEVFOR in the aviation department and saw first hand the weaknesses in our programs. We need to keep the industrial complex accountable and honest with their products and our taxpayer money. This is what Sprey is getting at. LtCol Berke is clearly biased towards the aircraft he flies and he has to be careful at what he says publicly but Sprey is making valid points. Nobody lost this debate, this was a good discussion that shed more light on what is going on with the F35. I suggest you keep an open mind when listening to this discussion. BTW I had two careers in the navy one as an F18 pilot and one as an acquisition officer so I know both sides of this argument very well. The one aspect that Berke may not be consciously aware is the "golden crew" phenomenon where either a Developmental or operational test group becomes so comfortable with the equipment they are currently testing that they lose sight of the true state of the product. Bottom line: humans have faults at all levels and unfortunately they can compound the defects in development without knowing it.

Not sure what your point is. Our conversation started with you stating "whisper pass" and my point to that statement is what I am talking about is not what has been shown at air shows from all the videos I have seen with the label of whisper pass. Whether it is a high speed pass mistakenly called a whisper pass by the announcer/caption or poor mics with background noises we are definitely talking about two separate things. In any case I look forward to the sounds of the Hornet in this game.

Yeah I saw the inverted pass. Not sure why they call it a whisper pass because in one of the videos even the announcer admits it aint that quiet, :lol: The more I think of it the more convinced I am that the carrier break at idle is rare at airshows and like I said the sound is unique during the break. The sound might actually be unique to the C model because of the smaller intakes channeling in the air at high speed.

I stand corrected, didn't realize it was so common that it has a name. I haven't attended an air show in ages so I didn't realize they incorporated that move. Still can't beat a quiet sunday afternoon being interrupted by a 400kt whisper break at the base. :thumbup: Update: Funny thing though, all the videos I searched it looks like the pilots are trying too hard with the speed because it still doesn't sound right (maybe too fast). When it's done right you barely here the background roar of the engines, you just hear this long moan/howl-like sound with little jet noise. It could be because when doing it for a carrier break, the engines stay at idle for a long time due to slowing down to land which is opposite of what they are doing at the airshows, they momentarily go to idle then rev it up right after passing the crowd thereby spoiling the effect. :(

I am sure the sounds of the Hornet will be good in this sim. But the one sound that has rarely been captured or simulated is coming in at 400+ kts with engines to idle and making the carrier break at the airfield. It is one of the prettiest sounds you will ever hear, I know, I have heard it a few times and done it a few times in my career. Hearing the jet tear through the air at that speed with minimal jet noise is gorgeous and is hard to forget. And I was determined to do it whenever I could safely get away with it. It's rare because it's not allowed but you can get away with it on the weekends when there is no other air traffic :pilotfly:

Nice find! It's great to see some serious research on the matter was done at my school years ago. Keep in mind this was back in 2010 so who knows what they changed with the Ford since then.

I won't go into specifics (simply don't remember) but it was a lot of flying. We always hear of the robust training that US mil pilots have and it's true. This is due primarily to having great resources at our disposal. Suffice to say fighter(all mil. really) pilots are expected to be flying every day to include the weekends and virtually daily while on the carrier. A lot of the skills learned from flying are perishable when given enough time away from the controls so pilots are expected to be flying a lot in their careers.

It's just never been a priority for Navy designers and since pilots seem to handle the burble just fine why bother. Over the years I have noticed an attempt with initial designs to reduce or eliminate the island all together but it never pans out. The only ones that understand the stress and impact of the burble are the pilots and no one else. And since pilots aren't in charge of designing the future of naval ships the priorities won't change. This line from the wiki on the Ford class spells out the priorities. "Another major change is that the smaller, redesigned island will be further aft than those of older carriers. This shift creates deck space for a centralized rearming and refueling location, and thereby reduces the number of times that an aircraft will have to be moved after landing before it can be relaunched. Fewer aircraft movements require, in turn, fewer deck hands to accomplish them, reducing the size of the ship's crew and increasing sortie rate." I have no idea if the new island placement will increase or decrease the burble effect. Time will tell if there is an adverse impact (probably won't be public if there are a lot more 1 wires and hook slaps than in the past).

The pilots are the mission planners at least for Hornet C pilots :thumbup: The intel bubbas gave us the problem scenario and we determined how to solve the problem. We went with established guidance we learned from tactical courses and publications and of course past experience.

I think almost all pilots would have loved a chance to fly another comparable performance jet in their career but it's just not practical so you had to be lucky in timing and fortune to get a good deal like that. You always learned something new when revisiting courses. So much to remember.

Not really, unlike more simple times of aviation where pilots became more personal with each aircraft, the modern day jet are big complicated metal beasts that behave very much the same. Squadron aircraft are not specifically assigned to pilots even though there have names on the side. It was a treat when I did fly the plane which had my name on it but it was always random. The only time you notice a difference is when something is off like when one plane I flew, the engines were not up to snuff and I was struggling to keep up in formation so naturally maintenance had to take a good look at it when I got back. Otherwise they all behave the same.

By the time you are regularly flying Hornets, the navy has pumped millions into your training so the navy will make sure that you are going to the ship as much as possible so that it gets the biggest return on investment. My desire from the start was to save up my pennies so upon retirement I wouldn't have to work any longer :) Never had a desire to fly a bus in the sky. It's a noble profession just not for me. Like I said in my earlier posts, the sheer power and size was impressive those first few flights in the hornet compare to previous planes. It was quite a rush.:pilotfly:

I'm sorry but that stuff is still too sensitive to talk about. You have to remember people make a career out of being on the lookout for tidbits of information that they can piece together. This is why I won't talk about BVR tactics or specifics.

Whatever was available, typically the maintenance dept had the planes configured ahead of time.

Happy to talk about time scale, typically it takes 2-3 hours for the start of briefing to engine start and 1-2 hours for debriefing. Time depends of complexity of the mission. The thing I hated most about the process was drawing up the briefing board. Typically have to write it up freehand and I have terrible writing. At Top Gun you have a whole class dedicated to picture perfect briefing boards, I would have failed that miserably. Keeping it generic: You start off the brief with admin, (radio freqs, loadouts, weather, alternate airports,expected take off speeds, any special procedure prior to taking the runway and emergency procedures review). Next: the tactical portion (it's the bulk of the brief) Finally: it's off to get suited up and to the plane. Debrief, is going over what was done right and what was done wrong and commentary from all the players. That's it really.