55 ms·
>> 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'
by 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 agoI don't understand, why can't an interceptor missile change its course but a hypersonic missile can?
- sandworm101 5y agoRelative 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 agoThis 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.
- whatshisface 5y agoThe missile is faster and travels a greater distance, and the interceptor is smaller and slower. That's because every target needs to have interceptors nearby, but you only need one missile.
- whiddershins 5y agoWhy are interceptors always slower
- whiddershins 5y agoCould an algorithm determine the possible evasion changes and provide full coverage with n interceptors per missle?
- sudosysgen 5y agoWhat if the missile just turns away and comes back?
- nradov 5y agoSure, if you have unlimited budget to build those interceptors and the associated launch platforms. These are extremely complex and expensive weapons which no country is able to mass produce.
- jcun4128 5y agoLaser on the interceptor?... edit: might not matter against a thing designed to fly in intense heat
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sandworm101 5y agoBecause, in this case, the incoming weapon dictates the fight. If you are chasing something down (think air-to-air missile) then every turn by the target allows the missile to catch up faster via a shorter path and smaller turn (a2+b2=c2, the missile follows c). A 45 degree turn by a fighter jet might mean only a few degrees turned by the sidewinder missile fired from behind. But with a hypersonic coming towards and the interceptor being slower, the opposite of a classic dogfight, the opposite becomes true. A small turn by the hypersonic means a larger turn by the intercepting missile to get to the new intercept point. If you draw the triangle then the intercept path is C, but the shorter of A or B. The hypersonic is following the longer of A or B.
- sudosysgen 5y agoBecause the hypersonic missile has an air breathing engine and/or goes much faster, so it has a lot of energy to expend. Also, a very slight change in trajectory by a missile far away requires a much larger change in trajectory for the interceptor, because the interceptor has to go to where the missile is projected to be, meaning that the interceptor is always at a disadvantage.
- nradov 5y agoMany of the hypersonic weapons currently under development use a boost-glide design and won't have an air breathing engine running during the terminal phase. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-weapons/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-h...
- richardw 5y agoIt seems that some think it’s possible: https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/raytheon-northrop-lockheed-to-compete-for-hypersonic-interceptor/amp/ https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/raytheon-northrop-lockhe...
- sandworm101 5y agoIntercept is very possible, it just doesn't depend on AI. It depends on rocket equations and potential energy. The calculations/decisions are very simple. It is a rocketry problem rather than an information problem.
- throwthere 5y agoI’m guessing the ai helps optimize chance of interceptions, coordinating with other missiles/aegis to zone off areas or be at the highest likelihood place at the right time.
- nradov 5y agoAdvanced algorithms can be helpful in allocating interceptors and launching platforms, and then deciding on optimal salvo size and launch time. But what we think of as "AI" doesn't necessarily add anything there. Simpler deterministic algorithms are usually superior because they're easier to test and less likely to fail in unexpected ways.
- takinola 5y agoBut you are assuming an AI fighter plane is the same as a human-powered plane. If there is no need for a pilot, you can probably design the fighter to be something closer to a missle. It will pull harder Gs, have smaller radar profiles, etc.