5 ms·

Why even have manned fighter planes? Self driving cars is a much harder problem than war drones, and everybody seems convinced the former's just around the corn

Why even have manned fighter planes? Self driving cars is a much harder problem than war drones, and everybody seems convinced the former's just around the corner.

lambdadmitry 9y ago
Self-driving cars have enough of a problem to keep themselves from killing people. You are telling that adding a requirement of killing only the right people makes it easier? I doubt that. Moreover, a lot of people are uncomfortable about making robots decide who to kill.
- favorited 9y ago
  An unmanned drone is easier because it's piloted remotely, where a self-driving car is autonomous.
  - lambdadmitry 9y ago
    You just can't remotely pilot a fighter/bomber. You can't remotely pilot if you don't have an overwhelming air superiority. You can't remotely pilot if your adversary can deny you satellite connection (either through jamming or by destroying the satellite). Here are a few problems: - the lag. Aerial fight implies split-second decisions, many of which are matter of life and death. Sat link is way slower than that. - kiss your stealth goodbye. First, you need a radar-transparent dome and a satellite dish under that; it's hardly stealthy. Second, you need a downlink that can be detected in a large vicinity of its target - even if it's a "tight" beam, it's still kilometers across. Third, the uplink will still bleed some RF energy that can be detectable. Planes fly in a radio silence for a reason. - very low "sensor bandwidth". Fighter pilot constantly receives tons of data using almost all of their senses, while drone pilot only sees a grainy glitchy videostream. To put it in another way: F-35 is basically a multi-ton, hyper-technological shell for about a kilo of squishy brain mass. Unless we invent some form of undetectable, very-low-ping, multi-gigabit communication it will always be better to have that brain "locally" in an adversary environment.
    - favorited 9y ago
      I'm confused as to how this relates to my comment. My point was simply that military UAVs are 'easier' than autonomous cars because they are not autonomous. They are remote-controlled.
joeyo 9y ago
That's actually one of the reasons why the electromagnetic catapult became so important: it can adjust launch force with a lot more precision so it can provide the smaller forces needed for lighter planes and UAVs. The steam catapults (apparently) cannot do that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launc...

Why even have manned fighter planes? Self driving cars is a much harder problem than war drones, and everybody seems convinced the former's just around the corner.

lambdadmitry 9y ago

Self-driving cars have enough of a problem to keep themselves from killing people. You are telling that adding a requirement of killing only the right people makes it easier? I doubt that. Moreover, a lot of people are uncomfortable about making robots decide who to kill.

favorited 9y ago
An unmanned drone is easier because it's piloted remotely, where a self-driving car is autonomous.
- lambdadmitry 9y ago
  You just can't remotely pilot a fighter/bomber. You can't remotely pilot if you don't have an overwhelming air superiority. You can't remotely pilot if your adversary can deny you satellite connection (either through jamming or by destroying the satellite). Here are a few problems: - the lag. Aerial fight implies split-second decisions, many of which are matter of life and death. Sat link is way slower than that. - kiss your stealth goodbye. First, you need a radar-transparent dome and a satellite dish under that; it's hardly stealthy. Second, you need a downlink that can be detected in a large vicinity of its target - even if it's a "tight" beam, it's still kilometers across. Third, the uplink will still bleed some RF energy that can be detectable. Planes fly in a radio silence for a reason. - very low "sensor bandwidth". Fighter pilot constantly receives tons of data using almost all of their senses, while drone pilot only sees a grainy glitchy videostream. To put it in another way: F-35 is basically a multi-ton, hyper-technological shell for about a kilo of squishy brain mass. Unless we invent some form of undetectable, very-low-ping, multi-gigabit communication it will always be better to have that brain "locally" in an adversary environment.
  - favorited 9y ago
    I'm confused as to how this relates to my comment. My point was simply that military UAVs are 'easier' than autonomous cars because they are not autonomous. They are remote-controlled.

joeyo 9y ago

That's actually one of the reasons why the electromagnetic catapult became so important: it can adjust launch force with a lot more precision so it can provide the smaller forces needed for lighter planes and UAVs. The steam catapults (apparently) cannot do that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launc...