Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

Yahoo! News - Technology -m Reuters ^ | Sun Nov 23, 9:43 AM ET | By Chelsea Emery

[Bobby777]

I think some have stated that it's perhaps necessary to have 15G capability to outturn some missiles (decoys / jamming nothwithstanding) ... I don't know the warhead size of today's missiles (have to look it up) but the SA-2 / 5 carried about 400lbs of explosive (? - can't remember) ... with big / high=yield warheads, it may not matter anyway ...

obviously it's a lot less heartbreaking to lose a machine over a mna in a plane ... but battle situations being so fluid I don't think humans can't be near the battle (which you seem to say) ...

and no, I wouldn't get on a comeercial jet totally flown by computer ... (I mean the whole flight) ... I have been on the L-1011 like many planes, capable of taking off and landing by itself ...

now 50 years in the future, it is definitely going to be quite a different world ... technology-wise ... or it could be, all things being equal ...

[Bobby777]

that's alright man ... you've been behind the stick and in the soup ... good to hear from the man in the cockpit ... hoping you'll be in there again in your Falcon ...

[Bobby777]

comeercial

lol ... COMMERCIAL ...

I have not spell-checked in the preview!!!

[dalereed]

They will be just like auto pilots, they can only react, and can never anticipate!

[Archangelsk]

The Tomcat was/is considered to be more dangerous than a Harrier? One of my mentors (a 50%er) would definitely disagree with you. Just as well, as another one of my mentors would say, "anytime something jumps off the deck it's an emergency."

[Physicist]

You will never create a computer that can tell me

The things you named so far are all things that (obviously, to me) a computer can do better and faster than a human. But maybe there are a hundred reasons lurking in there where you're right. A hundred failures later, they'll be identified and fixed, and they'll never be reasons again.

Now, someday, someone could likely program all those sensors into a fighter aircraft and return that data to the ground in about 3-4 seconds allowing someone to take positive action.

There will be no information returned to the ground, and nobody will take any action, positive or negative. The aircraft will make the decisions, and the decisions will take milliseconds. Acquiring and processing information is what computers do best of all, and every 18 months, they get twice as good at it.

[Pukin Dog]

A Harrier? Those things are only dangerous to fly in.

A Tomcat pilot could lock up a Harrier, fire on it, catch a 3wire, and give the Harrier pilot's widow a couple of orgasms before the Phoenix took him out.

[Bobby777]

I think what he alluded to were the sensors more than computer power ...

so let's look at a possible scenario ...

now, of course, an SU-27 has a certain profile from all aspects ... this can be mapped out ... it has certain signal emissions, depending upon configuration and active systems ... these can be identified ... if it were tracked from takeoff, it's range and remaining fuel could be estimated (if the whole flight path were tracked) ... this could be uplinked to a ROV ...

weapons load would have to be estimated ... might could be determined from high-energy radar but not without revealing your position ... same goes for a human pilot who would need some sort of visual to know what the enemy stores look like ... if either gets that close ...

This makes me think of AEGIS ... identifying threats, assessing the imminency of their potential threat and prioritizing targets while simultaneously assigning defensive systems to counter ...

I think we'll find we have justification for ROV AND Combat Pilot systems for easily a couple decades ...

[Mr Rogers]

Disagree.

First, there is no valid reason computers MUST double capability every 18 months.

Second, artificial intelligence isn't based on memory or ability to calculate. It will require building computers that can learn like a human. This may happen, but not in 15 years. We currently cannot even build computers that can adequately ID a military target in a 512x512 picture. And that is just IDing a tank in a simple picture - something a human can do effortlessly.

Air-air combat is changing, but it will take a lot longer than 15 years to change it THAT much!

[Mr Rogers]

G capability is increasingly less important in designing a fighter. Dogfighting is largely a thing of the past - and new systems coming on line will increase that trend.

Hate to admit it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If it's cheap, invisible to radar, deadly quick and accurate WRT delivery, I can see this thing as a terrific supplement to manned fighters. Who knows? Maybe one day we'll have a few DRS (Death Ray Satellite) units up there to *ZOT* certain undesirables, all progammed by fellas with compassion and vision.

[Bobby777]

battlefield data can already be downlinked from recon birds ... they've been working on refining those systems for decades ... the "God's-eye" view it is called ...

as you say, I see these systems as supplements ... good for places like Afghanistan where long patrols over boring terrains looking for a tall Saudi and his friends ... or wherever else he may be ...

[Nick Danger]

[goldstategop]

The Israelis broke ground on the UAV front by using them in Lebanon War to knock out the Syrian air missle defense system. It changed the course of warfare.

[Calpernia]

Ping

[PoorMuttly]

Go Rummy...GO !

[PoorMuttly]

...I Pray that he fixes our Rifles and Sidearms too.

[Bobby777]

hehe ...

[stands2reason]

As long as there's no need for any humans aboard, I think it's fine. But for transporting humans, I'd prefer a human pilot.

[stands2reason]

What, people used to live in them? A cockpit's a "habitat" now?