10 ms·

I'm not the person you were responding to, nor do I claim any knowledge of jet fighters, but at a top speed of Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph), it would seem to me that re

I'm not the person you were responding to, nor do I claim any knowledge of jet fighters, but at a top speed of Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph), it would seem to me that relaying data back and forth from the jet would be a serious technical challenge. A pilot on board the jet receives input from the environment with effectively 0 latency, and responds with 0 latency as well. The only latency would be human reaction latency, which the remote pilot would have to. Except that remote pilot would also have to contend with network latency to a plane that's thousands of miles away. That's assuming the connection doesn't break, which with a plane moving away at 1,200 mph in various arbitrary directions, seems likely.

394549 8y ago
> A pilot on board the jet receives input from the environment with effectively 0 latency, and responds with 0 latency as well. The only latency would be human reaction latency, which the remote pilot would have to. Except that remote pilot would also have to contend with network latency to a plane that's thousands of miles away. Also remotely operated planes can be disabled by disrupting the communications link. A piloted plane is still able to operate in a degraded mode in an environment where communications links are disrupted. If the USAF went all-in on remotely operated planes, that could incentivize adversaries to increase investment in technology to disrupt the links that control them, since such technology could deliver air-superiority against an all-remote air force in a single action.
- aurizon 8y ago
  so true, and deep scrambling involves longer delays - delays you do not have. You can have local pilots 10-15 miles out with fighting robots as the tip of the spear. Read about how the Air Force shrunk the coding procurement link - which was 3-4 years deep
aurizon 8y ago
Yes, a complex beast that means command decisions will more and more go to onboard AI, because the ~~1 second latency is a real killer.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  Right, so now it's not just "remote jet", but more of an "AI jet", and we have a whole set of challenges to go with that...

394549 8y ago

> A pilot on board the jet receives input from the environment with effectively 0 latency, and responds with 0 latency as well. The only latency would be human reaction latency, which the remote pilot would have to. Except that remote pilot would also have to contend with network latency to a plane that's thousands of miles away. Also remotely operated planes can be disabled by disrupting the communications link. A piloted plane is still able to operate in a degraded mode in an environment where communications links are disrupted. If the USAF went all-in on remotely operated planes, that could incentivize adversaries to increase investment in technology to disrupt the links that control them, since such technology could deliver air-superiority against an all-remote air force in a single action.

aurizon 8y ago
so true, and deep scrambling involves longer delays - delays you do not have. You can have local pilots 10-15 miles out with fighting robots as the tip of the spear. Read about how the Air Force shrunk the coding procurement link - which was 3-4 years deep

aurizon 8y ago

Yes, a complex beast that means command decisions will more and more go to onboard AI, because the ~~1 second latency is a real killer.

dunpeal 8y ago
Right, so now it's not just "remote jet", but more of an "AI jet", and we have a whole set of challenges to go with that...