4 ms·

If AI can competently dogfight in an F16, doesn't that make the F16 completely obsolete for dogfighting? Because the same sort of AI in a craft that doesn't hav

If AI can competently dogfight in an F16, doesn't that make the F16 completely obsolete for dogfighting? Because the same sort of AI in a craft that doesn't have to cater for a human or even bother making it back to base (say, a missile) is going to kick the butt of an F16 no matter who the pilot is.

angry_octet 6y ago
Only if you consider single games; in repeated games a lower risk engagement (choose to draw or retreat rather than take a high chance of loss) will make sense. The flight dynamics model won't have any data points for large parts of the flight envelope, so if your robo pilot exceeds tested limits we don't know what will happen, or even if control is recoverable. Experienced pilots certainly understand dynamic performance better than state space models -- the original learning platform! People learn jets in 100 hours, it remains to be seen how much training a machine takes. Pulling 12G all the time also imposes stresses on the platforms that they were not designed for, so you'd probably want to ration that. What I'm getting at is that sustainment of operations is as big a problem as individual engagements. You can loose a whole campaign by responding too heavily (or weakly!) to feints and probing.
Wohlf 6y ago
Dogfighting itself is obselete, and has been for decades. Modern missiles are simply too good.
- zoomablemind 6y ago
  It may not be obsolete as such. Just that the fuel constraints make modern day dogfighting (topgun style) too limited in efficacy for either side. Especially when most of the recent conflicts displayed a decisive technological disparity in the air and to lesser extent on the ground. It seems that bombing still remains the most in-demand task for the airforce (fighters included). Should that be done by AI too? The new air threat appears to stem from the ability to fit nuclear power sources onboard of cruise missiles. Which basically turns each such missile into a very determined UCAV. Kind of revisiting the project Pluto [1]. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
  - stubish 6y ago
    My thoughts are if you don't need a human in the pilot seat, you don't need a pilot seat. Fewer constraints and your craft can become a lot more capable. Drones with AI pilots or AI assist seems to fit right in here. And it seems to be the way things already moved a war or two ago. Teaching AI to dogfight in F16s seems completely pointless. Even to train F16 pilots crazy enough to enter a battlefield against a capable enemy, where you will be shot down by an AI guided hypersonic missile or drone swarm rather than jousting against another mounted knight in honorable 1 on 1 combat.
dirtyid 6y ago
Dogfighting is already obsolete. I think the implication / fallout is much more paradigm changing. Impact on order of dreadnought invalidating pre-dreadnought fleets. Competent AI pilot -> autonomous vehicles with more extreme flight performance -> dramatically reduced anti-air capabilities. A UAV without meatbag limits / more fuel = an extremely performant missile that will be significantly more challenging to intercept to the point where anti-air might no longer be viable. This tech gap = lesser adversaries with generation meatbag hardware get disproportionately stomped harder. But it's a capability reset among peer adversaries with pursuing similar technology, i.e. next gen UAV could make manned aircraft obsolete. Imagine scenario where two sides (US / CN) can have mutual air superiority because future UAVs can no longer be effectively challenged. If the only viable tactic is offense, then engagements shift to numbers games, which will favor whoever can field more in theatre which translates to reduction of viability of carrier based naval power projection. 50 years of US manned naval and aviation buildup and expertise could become obsolete the same way UK's massive pre-dreadnaught navy became obsolete, a technical reset that enabled Germany navy to catch up closer to parity via arms race.

angry_octet 6y ago

Only if you consider single games; in repeated games a lower risk engagement (choose to draw or retreat rather than take a high chance of loss) will make sense. The flight dynamics model won't have any data points for large parts of the flight envelope, so if your robo pilot exceeds tested limits we don't know what will happen, or even if control is recoverable. Experienced pilots certainly understand dynamic performance better than state space models -- the original learning platform! People learn jets in 100 hours, it remains to be seen how much training a machine takes. Pulling 12G all the time also imposes stresses on the platforms that they were not designed for, so you'd probably want to ration that. What I'm getting at is that sustainment of operations is as big a problem as individual engagements. You can loose a whole campaign by responding too heavily (or weakly!) to feints and probing.

Wohlf 6y ago

Dogfighting itself is obselete, and has been for decades. Modern missiles are simply too good.

zoomablemind 6y ago
It may not be obsolete as such. Just that the fuel constraints make modern day dogfighting (topgun style) too limited in efficacy for either side. Especially when most of the recent conflicts displayed a decisive technological disparity in the air and to lesser extent on the ground. It seems that bombing still remains the most in-demand task for the airforce (fighters included). Should that be done by AI too? The new air threat appears to stem from the ability to fit nuclear power sources onboard of cruise missiles. Which basically turns each such missile into a very determined UCAV. Kind of revisiting the project Pluto [1]. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
- stubish 6y ago
  My thoughts are if you don't need a human in the pilot seat, you don't need a pilot seat. Fewer constraints and your craft can become a lot more capable. Drones with AI pilots or AI assist seems to fit right in here. And it seems to be the way things already moved a war or two ago. Teaching AI to dogfight in F16s seems completely pointless. Even to train F16 pilots crazy enough to enter a battlefield against a capable enemy, where you will be shot down by an AI guided hypersonic missile or drone swarm rather than jousting against another mounted knight in honorable 1 on 1 combat.

dirtyid 6y ago

Dogfighting is already obsolete. I think the implication / fallout is much more paradigm changing. Impact on order of dreadnought invalidating pre-dreadnought fleets. Competent AI pilot -> autonomous vehicles with more extreme flight performance -> dramatically reduced anti-air capabilities. A UAV without meatbag limits / more fuel = an extremely performant missile that will be significantly more challenging to intercept to the point where anti-air might no longer be viable. This tech gap = lesser adversaries with generation meatbag hardware get disproportionately stomped harder. But it's a capability reset among peer adversaries with pursuing similar technology, i.e. next gen UAV could make manned aircraft obsolete. Imagine scenario where two sides (US / CN) can have mutual air superiority because future UAVs can no longer be effectively challenged. If the only viable tactic is offense, then engagements shift to numbers games, which will favor whoever can field more in theatre which translates to reduction of viability of carrier based naval power projection. 50 years of US manned naval and aviation buildup and expertise could become obsolete the same way UK's massive pre-dreadnaught navy became obsolete, a technical reset that enabled Germany navy to catch up closer to parity via arms race.