5 ms·

I think you're taking the example of dogfighting a little too literal when it can be easily applicable in all sorts of different ways. Let's take your Hyperson

I think you're taking the example of dogfighting a little too literal when it can be easily applicable in all sorts of different ways. Let's take your Hypersonic missiles. The largest difficulty with intercepting such weapons is not their speed, they travel slower than traditional ballistic missiles, but their terminal maneuvering which tries to dodge any interceptors. AI powered interceptors could be a game changer in improving the likelihood of those extremely expensive and limited quantity stand off weapons from reaching their intended targets. And having a slight edge in your interceptor AI vs say the terminal guidance AI could produce overwhelming advantages. > War has changed; making better versions of old weapons is a waste of time. This has been declared a great many times and yet has been also disproven just as many. Just because a M1A1 Abrams tanks and F-117 Nighthawks Stealth Bombers wouldn't have won the Vietnam War doesn't mean they weren't a significant contributors to winning the Gulf War. For better or worse airpower will continue to be the deliver method of most warheads onto foreheads. The hypersonic's which you suggest that are making them obsolete are very costly and very limited in total payload capacity compared to the amount which can be delivered by air. There's a reason why Russian and China are not discontinuing investments into new fighter jets and bomber programs just because they have hypersonics.

typon 5y ago
How is winning a war against a decrepit nation's badly run military proof of any weapons system's superiority?
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  Your belief that the Iraqi armed forces of 1991 were decrepit and badly run is the proof of just how superior those weapons were, along with the accompanying tactics and doctrine. Before the conflict the overwhelming victory for the Coalition of Willing was not so clear. The Iraqi army was battle hardened and tested after a near decade long war against Iran. They had the third largest army in the world, which was trained in Soviet doctrine, armed with potent and modern weapon systems. Their integrated air defense system was state of the art combination of the most modern Soviet and European systems that were redundantly layered and hardened. America, along with its allies, fought them and won in spite of being geographically on the other side of the planet. The exceptional difficulty of achieving that is impossible over state.
  - KineticLensman 5y ago
    > Their integrated air defense system was state of the art combination of the most modern Soviet and European systems that were redundantly layered and hardened. Not quite: for example, see [0]: "Though impressive on paper, the Iraqi Air Force's primary role was to act as a regional deterrent, with a secondary role of supporting the Iraqi Army, rather than attempt to gain air superiority in any conflict. Basic training was rigid, inflexible, and left pilots with extremely poor situational awareness.... Like its aircraft, much of Iraq's ground air defenses were also outdated: SA-2 and SA-3 systems were nearing the end of their operational lifespan and their countermeasures were well-known at this point, while its other SAM systems were not much younger." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign#Iraqi_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign#Iraqi_Ar...
    - onepointsixC 5y ago
      I'm not talking about their missiles or air force, but the Integrated Air Defense System. The French built KARI IADS system was a very much modern at the time, having been first operationalized in 1987 and was linked with fiber optic cable, with wireless communication as a backup [0]. While the Iraqi's did not have the latest SAM systems themselves, their integrated air defense system allowed them to keep the radars of SAM batteries turned off, keeping them hidden to avoid detection. Their missiles were very potent, and it had a lot of them at 16,000 in total [1]: "The U.S. Government estimated before the war that the most critical Iraqi targets were more heavily defended than any in Eastern Europe even during the height of the Cold War." S-125 missiles had victories against coalition aircraft. They would have had many more victories were it not for the fact that coalition air strikes severed the centralized air command communications in the starting minutes of the war thanks to the Stealthy F-117's which were already above Baghdad at the time of H hour. The combination of stealth aircraft taking out key crucial infrastructure, severing of fiber optics communication, jamming of wireless communications, electronic warfare, and decoy drones proved to be too much for the Iraqi IAD's. But without those technologies and strategies, the Gulf War could have been a blood bath much more akin to Vietnam. [0]: https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD... [1]: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837...
- ridgeguy 5y ago
  At the time of the first Gulf War, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army. Some details here: https://nuke.fas.org/guide/iraq/agency/army.htm https://nuke.fas.org/guide/iraq/agency/army.htm Not decrepit, IMHO.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    It was also widely believed that America's "volunteer force" was a disadvantage. The USA did many firsts. It was the first deployment of M1 Abrams, no one knew if it'd be good (and IIRC, it was considered a waste of money back then, since it wasn't battle proven yet). It was the first time the US used GPS on the battlefield. It was the first time precision weapons were used. Etc. etc. A lot of people at the time thought the USA could lose Desert Storm. It turns out that war happened completely differently than armchair generals / pundits believed. I don't know if we'll necessarily win or lose our next war. But I think I can rather confidently say that none of us will be able to predict it.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      The US won and then lost Desert Storm the same way it won and then lost Vietnam. Anyone who was saying that Saddam would be able to repel the US was engaging in WWE-style theatrics, but anyone who thought it'd turn into an unending mess would have been right (but was anyone saying that?)
      - nextaccountic 5y ago
        The US initially won Vietnam?
        whatshisface 5y ago
        The US was "winning," defined narrowly in terms of military statistics, throughout almost the entire war - casualty ratios were vastly in America's favor, and every military target that was selected was taken and destroyed. Bombers flew with nigh impunity. That carried public opinion until 1968 when business interests started realizing that none of those things corresponded to anything good. Very similar to Iraq and Afganistan where unquestioned military dominance led to the destruction of the ruling order which led to ???.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> AI powered interceptors could be a game changer Nope. AI wouldn't make any difference. The problem in shooting down an inbound maneuvering hypersonic isn't reaction time. It doesn't matter how quickly you see that the target has changed course. Hypersonics are a matter of commitment. Once the interceptor is launched it is committed to very narrow cone of potential trajectories. If the inbound hypersonic makes a slight turn, it is then outside that cone. The interceptor cannot physically alter its course enough to hit the new trajectory. It lacks the energy (delta-V) to make such a change. AI cannot create delta-V out of thin air. A computer can spot a track, project its likely path and guide an interceptor missile. But that isn't AI. Computers in the 1950s were capable of such things before any notion of what we now call AI.
- p1esk 5y ago
  I don't understand, why can't an interceptor missile change its course but a hypersonic missile can?
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    Relative speeds. A slight turn by the inbound hypersonic will could move the impact/intercept point several hundred miles left or right. If you are the ground-launch interceptor that shift left or right requires a much larger turn, a turn requiring much greater energy on your part than the hypersonic spent making the smaller turn. Say the inbound hypersonic just turned a few degrees east. The interceptor fired towards the old western trajectory might now have to turn around and head east, meaning it no longer has enough energy to get to the new intercept point.
    - whiddershins 5y ago
      This doesn’t make intuitive sense. It’s all in how fast the interceptor updates to reflect the new trajectory. If it were magically simultaneous and their mass were the same, the energy would be the same, no? Or is this something I am lacking findamentL knowledge on.

typon 5y ago

How is winning a war against a decrepit nation's badly run military proof of any weapons system's superiority?

onepointsixC 5y ago
Your belief that the Iraqi armed forces of 1991 were decrepit and badly run is the proof of just how superior those weapons were, along with the accompanying tactics and doctrine. Before the conflict the overwhelming victory for the Coalition of Willing was not so clear. The Iraqi army was battle hardened and tested after a near decade long war against Iran. They had the third largest army in the world, which was trained in Soviet doctrine, armed with potent and modern weapon systems. Their integrated air defense system was state of the art combination of the most modern Soviet and European systems that were redundantly layered and hardened. America, along with its allies, fought them and won in spite of being geographically on the other side of the planet. The exceptional difficulty of achieving that is impossible over state.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > Their integrated air defense system was state of the art combination of the most modern Soviet and European systems that were redundantly layered and hardened. Not quite: for example, see [0]: "Though impressive on paper, the Iraqi Air Force's primary role was to act as a regional deterrent, with a secondary role of supporting the Iraqi Army, rather than attempt to gain air superiority in any conflict. Basic training was rigid, inflexible, and left pilots with extremely poor situational awareness.... Like its aircraft, much of Iraq's ground air defenses were also outdated: SA-2 and SA-3 systems were nearing the end of their operational lifespan and their countermeasures were well-known at this point, while its other SAM systems were not much younger." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign#Iraqi_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign#Iraqi_Ar...
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    I'm not talking about their missiles or air force, but the Integrated Air Defense System. The French built KARI IADS system was a very much modern at the time, having been first operationalized in 1987 and was linked with fiber optic cable, with wireless communication as a backup [0]. While the Iraqi's did not have the latest SAM systems themselves, their integrated air defense system allowed them to keep the radars of SAM batteries turned off, keeping them hidden to avoid detection. Their missiles were very potent, and it had a lot of them at 16,000 in total [1]: "The U.S. Government estimated before the war that the most critical Iraqi targets were more heavily defended than any in Eastern Europe even during the height of the Cold War." S-125 missiles had victories against coalition aircraft. They would have had many more victories were it not for the fact that coalition air strikes severed the centralized air command communications in the starting minutes of the war thanks to the Stealthy F-117's which were already above Baghdad at the time of H hour. The combination of stealth aircraft taking out key crucial infrastructure, severing of fiber optics communication, jamming of wireless communications, electronic warfare, and decoy drones proved to be too much for the Iraqi IAD's. But without those technologies and strategies, the Gulf War could have been a blood bath much more akin to Vietnam. [0]: https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD... [1]: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837...
ridgeguy 5y ago
At the time of the first Gulf War, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army. Some details here: https://nuke.fas.org/guide/iraq/agency/army.htm https://nuke.fas.org/guide/iraq/agency/army.htm Not decrepit, IMHO.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  It was also widely believed that America's "volunteer force" was a disadvantage. The USA did many firsts. It was the first deployment of M1 Abrams, no one knew if it'd be good (and IIRC, it was considered a waste of money back then, since it wasn't battle proven yet). It was the first time the US used GPS on the battlefield. It was the first time precision weapons were used. Etc. etc. A lot of people at the time thought the USA could lose Desert Storm. It turns out that war happened completely differently than armchair generals / pundits believed. I don't know if we'll necessarily win or lose our next war. But I think I can rather confidently say that none of us will be able to predict it.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    The US won and then lost Desert Storm the same way it won and then lost Vietnam. Anyone who was saying that Saddam would be able to repel the US was engaging in WWE-style theatrics, but anyone who thought it'd turn into an unending mess would have been right (but was anyone saying that?)
    - nextaccountic 5y ago
      The US initially won Vietnam?
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        The US was "winning," defined narrowly in terms of military statistics, throughout almost the entire war - casualty ratios were vastly in America's favor, and every military target that was selected was taken and destroyed. Bombers flew with nigh impunity. That carried public opinion until 1968 when business interests started realizing that none of those things corresponded to anything good. Very similar to Iraq and Afganistan where unquestioned military dominance led to the destruction of the ruling order which led to ???.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> AI powered interceptors could be a game changer Nope. AI wouldn't make any difference. The problem in shooting down an inbound maneuvering hypersonic isn't reaction time. It doesn't matter how quickly you see that the target has changed course. Hypersonics are a matter of commitment. Once the interceptor is launched it is committed to very narrow cone of potential trajectories. If the inbound hypersonic makes a slight turn, it is then outside that cone. The interceptor cannot physically alter its course enough to hit the new trajectory. It lacks the energy (delta-V) to make such a change. AI cannot create delta-V out of thin air. A computer can spot a track, project its likely path and guide an interceptor missile. But that isn't AI. Computers in the 1950s were capable of such things before any notion of what we now call AI.

p1esk 5y ago
I don't understand, why can't an interceptor missile change its course but a hypersonic missile can?
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Relative speeds. A slight turn by the inbound hypersonic will could move the impact/intercept point several hundred miles left or right. If you are the ground-launch interceptor that shift left or right requires a much larger turn, a turn requiring much greater energy on your part than the hypersonic spent making the smaller turn. Say the inbound hypersonic just turned a few degrees east. The interceptor fired towards the old western trajectory might now have to turn around and head east, meaning it no longer has enough energy to get to the new intercept point.
  - whiddershins 5y ago
    This doesn’t make intuitive sense. It’s all in how fast the interceptor updates to reflect the new trajectory. If it were magically simultaneous and their mass were the same, the energy would be the same, no? Or is this something I am lacking findamentL knowledge on.