4 ms·

The classic dogfight can only persist in the hearts and minds of old pilots. A modern state of the art unpiloted fighter, with no human pilot or the burden of l

The classic dogfight can only persist in the hearts and minds of old pilots. A modern state of the art unpiloted fighter, with no human pilot or the burden of life support, and G limitations will be lighter with the same engines, capable of 30-50+ G maneuvers(for which is has been specially designed), with modern long range standoff weapons and suitable radars, will slaughter any human if faces. The high G ability will leave any standoff missiles fired against it in the dust by active evasion. It will be vulnerable to high grade stealthed missiles. as well as hard ballistic stealthed rounds shot from afar - unless it detects and evades. In fact, any modern robot craft will perform high G random jinks to make path prediction difficult. The soone the USA realizes this, the better. You can be sure Russia/China have learned this lesson.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I've said the exact same thing in other threads. You can do fakeouts a human can't possibly do like corkscrew at 500rpm and pull 50gs randomly and repeatedly when a radar is trying to predict your path. If the engineers in charge of designing these crafts around an AI pilot think outside the box we could see some pretty wild tech.
- aurizon 6y ago
  Yes, we need to shake the human limitations off and go full cyber.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I've said the exact same thing in other threads. You can do fakeouts a human can't possibly do like corkscrew at 500rpm and pull 50gs randomly and repeatedly when a radar is trying to predict your path. Those maneuvers sound like they'd destroy the plane.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    I'm thinking of a plane built from the ground up to never be piloted by a human. A missile like drone really.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > I'm thinking of a plane built from the ground up to never be piloted by a human. A missile like drone really. I'm not sure if that would work. Missiles can put a lot more stress on the airframe because they're literally single-use disposable items. Something that takes the "plane" role would probably be larger (so missile solutions may not scale) and would have to account for things like fatigue over time. I'm reminded of the Mig 25: the planes are capable of flying at Mach 3.2, but doing so wreaks the engines. If it was a missile, it'd operate a full speed no question; but since it's a reusable plane, it's operationally limited to Mach 2.8.
- serf 6y ago
  > I've said the exact same thing in other threads. You can do fakeouts a human can't possibly do like corkscrew at 500rpm and pull 50gs randomly and repeatedly when a radar is trying to predict your path. Well, we can already do things like this with non-piloted tech; and there is no way that a traditional jet could keep up, load-wise. The g-force induced load limit for most modern jets is about double the rated limit. You likely wouldn't be able to fly any air-frames made with human passengers in mind over 35g without significant re-engineering. The point of the AI jet-fighter idea is to have an AI that is capable of piloting a fighter jet (designed for a human) at near-human levels. We can already programmatically control super fast flying devices into whatever wacky flight-plan we calculate on the fly, on the device, near instantly. Lockheed and Raytheon advertisements have been talking about super-fast on-device radar/surveillance avoidance systems for years. > we could see some pretty wild tech. you're not kiddin', the only thing that outweighs my hope for what the future brings is my fear of what the future brings.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Why would the engineers designing the opposing guidance systems not do the same? If modern fighters are missile platforms, why not design a fleet of cheap no-human drone missile platforms and put most of the intelligence into the missiles? The "wild tech" would mean getting rid of super-expensive low-reliability fighters altogether, because it's not obvious what they bring to an automated conflict.
- thunderbird120 6y ago
  500 RPM corkscrews and 50Gs are firmly in "missile only" territory due to the limits of material sciences. The square cube law is a harsh mistress and engineering is a game of trade-offs. If you want to design a re-usable platform it's typically better to concentrate on other things like sensors, stealth, speed, networking, and payload which could allow you to get a shot off from outside of the enemy's range or before they are even aware of your presence. It would be interesting to see the inevitable version of this contest for BVR combat but I suspect that's going to end up being classified territory given that it's much more relevant to actual modern combat. AI systems will certainly play a huge role in future fighters but it will probably be more in terms of perfect coordination and execution of long range aerial combat rather than something like dogfighting.
  - clnhlzmn 6y ago
    > "missile only" territory I wonder why we're even talking about planes any more. Missiles to kill the planes and missiles to attack the ground. No pilots, no problems. Right?
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles. Moving the human closer to the battlefield for a more up-to-date viewpoint is quite important.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - clnhlzmn 6y ago
        I was thinking it's because Air Force leadership are all pilots. > Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles Do we? Why is this important. I thought everything could be done remotely these days.
        dragontamer 6y ago
- the_hoser 6y ago
  You're talking about guided missiles with target-seeking behavior.
- CarbyAu 6y ago
  Thought: where is the line between an "AI aircraft" and a "sophisticated missile"? Reuse? IE an "AI aircraft" is a smart missle that can come home.
jcims 6y ago
Great points but all of what you've described can also be solved by teleoperation. In terms of tactical decision making while flying, I think AI's advantage is its ability to integrate (much) more data into overall situational awareness. If you were somehow able to integrate all of this directly into the human proprioception system I have a feeling we would fare much better. It seems like we're probably quite a bit further from humans being defeated in contact sports by an AI-powered robot of equivalent strength/weight/mobility. Not that much further though. :/
nradov 6y ago
Please explain how to design an aircraft that can maneuver at 30G without stalling the wing or compressor. I'm sure Lockheed Martin would pay a fortune if you can teach them that trick. The reality is that aircraft have to fly in air, which imposes severe physical limits regardless of whether there is a human pilot on board.
- PhantomGremlin 6y ago
  Would 20G be more attainable? Or, what about +/- 10G? That's not possible with a pilot onboard but should be achievable in an unmanned aircraft. If I were designing such an aircraft I would make sure that the onboard missiles could be rapidly swiveled. Someone on your tail? Easy, just swivel a missile around 180 degrees and then fire. No need to maneuver the entire aircraft.
  - nradov 6y ago
    10G is attainable at lower altitudes for a few seconds at a time, but it would require a heavier airframe which means less weight budget for fuel and weapons. And you still won't be able to outmaneuver a missile so what's the point? Not a good design trade off. 20G is still in the realm of science fiction for turbine engines. A swiveling missile launcher is far from easy. Please calculate how much such a contraption would weigh. Remember that it needs to securely hold multiple large, heavy missiles without structural deformation during your hypothetical 10G maneuvers. And what sensors will you use to detect someone on your tail and target your own missile before he does? Where will those sensors be placed, how much will they weight, and how much drag will they add?
    - aurizon 6y ago
      The maximum delta-V budget (https://www.google.com/search?q=maximum+delta-V&oq=maximum+delta-V&aqs=chrome..69i57.10598j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=maximum+delta-V&oq=maximum+d...) means few sustained 30G sprints driven by fuel, so any such high-g maneuvers will be emergency evasion. Few air frames can tolerate 30-G. so designs will emerge? I can see no humans in these high g machines, just reporting ground links, with local AI running the attack/defence strategy from the ground.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

I've said the exact same thing in other threads. You can do fakeouts a human can't possibly do like corkscrew at 500rpm and pull 50gs randomly and repeatedly when a radar is trying to predict your path. If the engineers in charge of designing these crafts around an AI pilot think outside the box we could see some pretty wild tech.

aurizon 6y ago
Yes, we need to shake the human limitations off and go full cyber.
ardy42 6y ago
> I've said the exact same thing in other threads. You can do fakeouts a human can't possibly do like corkscrew at 500rpm and pull 50gs randomly and repeatedly when a radar is trying to predict your path. Those maneuvers sound like they'd destroy the plane.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  I'm thinking of a plane built from the ground up to never be piloted by a human. A missile like drone really.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I'm thinking of a plane built from the ground up to never be piloted by a human. A missile like drone really. I'm not sure if that would work. Missiles can put a lot more stress on the airframe because they're literally single-use disposable items. Something that takes the "plane" role would probably be larger (so missile solutions may not scale) and would have to account for things like fatigue over time. I'm reminded of the Mig 25: the planes are capable of flying at Mach 3.2, but doing so wreaks the engines. If it was a missile, it'd operate a full speed no question; but since it's a reusable plane, it's operationally limited to Mach 2.8.
serf 6y ago
> I've said the exact same thing in other threads. You can do fakeouts a human can't possibly do like corkscrew at 500rpm and pull 50gs randomly and repeatedly when a radar is trying to predict your path. Well, we can already do things like this with non-piloted tech; and there is no way that a traditional jet could keep up, load-wise. The g-force induced load limit for most modern jets is about double the rated limit. You likely wouldn't be able to fly any air-frames made with human passengers in mind over 35g without significant re-engineering. The point of the AI jet-fighter idea is to have an AI that is capable of piloting a fighter jet (designed for a human) at near-human levels. We can already programmatically control super fast flying devices into whatever wacky flight-plan we calculate on the fly, on the device, near instantly. Lockheed and Raytheon advertisements have been talking about super-fast on-device radar/surveillance avoidance systems for years. > we could see some pretty wild tech. you're not kiddin', the only thing that outweighs my hope for what the future brings is my fear of what the future brings.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Why would the engineers designing the opposing guidance systems not do the same? If modern fighters are missile platforms, why not design a fleet of cheap no-human drone missile platforms and put most of the intelligence into the missiles? The "wild tech" would mean getting rid of super-expensive low-reliability fighters altogether, because it's not obvious what they bring to an automated conflict.
thunderbird120 6y ago
500 RPM corkscrews and 50Gs are firmly in "missile only" territory due to the limits of material sciences. The square cube law is a harsh mistress and engineering is a game of trade-offs. If you want to design a re-usable platform it's typically better to concentrate on other things like sensors, stealth, speed, networking, and payload which could allow you to get a shot off from outside of the enemy's range or before they are even aware of your presence. It would be interesting to see the inevitable version of this contest for BVR combat but I suspect that's going to end up being classified territory given that it's much more relevant to actual modern combat. AI systems will certainly play a huge role in future fighters but it will probably be more in terms of perfect coordination and execution of long range aerial combat rather than something like dogfighting.
- clnhlzmn 6y ago
  > "missile only" territory I wonder why we're even talking about planes any more. Missiles to kill the planes and missiles to attack the ground. No pilots, no problems. Right?
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles. Moving the human closer to the battlefield for a more up-to-date viewpoint is quite important.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - clnhlzmn 6y ago
      I was thinking it's because Air Force leadership are all pilots. > Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles Do we? Why is this important. I thought everything could be done remotely these days.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
the_hoser 6y ago
You're talking about guided missiles with target-seeking behavior.
CarbyAu 6y ago
Thought: where is the line between an "AI aircraft" and a "sophisticated missile"? Reuse? IE an "AI aircraft" is a smart missle that can come home.

jcims 6y ago

Great points but all of what you've described can also be solved by teleoperation. In terms of tactical decision making while flying, I think AI's advantage is its ability to integrate (much) more data into overall situational awareness. If you were somehow able to integrate all of this directly into the human proprioception system I have a feeling we would fare much better. It seems like we're probably quite a bit further from humans being defeated in contact sports by an AI-powered robot of equivalent strength/weight/mobility. Not that much further though. :/

nradov 6y ago

Please explain how to design an aircraft that can maneuver at 30G without stalling the wing or compressor. I'm sure Lockheed Martin would pay a fortune if you can teach them that trick. The reality is that aircraft have to fly in air, which imposes severe physical limits regardless of whether there is a human pilot on board.

PhantomGremlin 6y ago
Would 20G be more attainable? Or, what about +/- 10G? That's not possible with a pilot onboard but should be achievable in an unmanned aircraft. If I were designing such an aircraft I would make sure that the onboard missiles could be rapidly swiveled. Someone on your tail? Easy, just swivel a missile around 180 degrees and then fire. No need to maneuver the entire aircraft.
- nradov 6y ago
  10G is attainable at lower altitudes for a few seconds at a time, but it would require a heavier airframe which means less weight budget for fuel and weapons. And you still won't be able to outmaneuver a missile so what's the point? Not a good design trade off. 20G is still in the realm of science fiction for turbine engines. A swiveling missile launcher is far from easy. Please calculate how much such a contraption would weigh. Remember that it needs to securely hold multiple large, heavy missiles without structural deformation during your hypothetical 10G maneuvers. And what sensors will you use to detect someone on your tail and target your own missile before he does? Where will those sensors be placed, how much will they weight, and how much drag will they add?
  - aurizon 6y ago
    The maximum delta-V budget (https://www.google.com/search?q=maximum+delta-V&oq=maximum+delta-V&aqs=chrome..69i57.10598j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=maximum+delta-V&oq=maximum+d...) means few sustained 30G sprints driven by fuel, so any such high-g maneuvers will be emergency evasion. Few air frames can tolerate 30-G. so designs will emerge? I can see no humans in these high g machines, just reporting ground links, with local AI running the attack/defence strategy from the ground.