3 ms·

Locating civilian, friendly and radar-visible aircraft is a solved problem though. So the distinction is only a matter of subtraction. No, in fact this kind o

by ajross 2y ago

Locating civilian, friendly and radar-visible aircraft is a solved problem though. So the distinction is only a matter of subtraction. No, in fact this kind of technique absolutely puts a hard limit on the value of "stealth" devices, which are purpose-designed to evade a very specific technology that was a warfare-changing innovation in the 1940's but is now pretty cheaply replaceable by consumer junk. The days of large manned aircraft are very much numbered, and armies that fail to see that are armies that are destined to lose.

throwaway81523 2y ago
If it's a clear day and the bottom of the airplane is painted blue, it could blend in with the sky. For that matter, didn't Wonder Woman have a transparent airplane? Aha, better yet, it was invisible! https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Wonder_Woman%27s_Invisible_Plane https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Wonder_Woman%27s_Invisible_Plane
- ajross 2y ago
  Yes, because if there's one thing computer vision solutions have historically had trouble with, it's being fooled by paint. The ludditism in this thread is shockingly strong.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    CV systems absolutely do struggle with this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MigIJXJx8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MigIJXJx8
    - ajross 2y ago
      Yes, and that's considered a bug to fix, and can be. CV systems are widely applied to find camouflaged and obscured objects! Literally every automated wildlife camera is proof that this is a silly point.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        Call it whatever you want, lack of contrast is a physical constraint on your system and can be trivially leveraged. There's been an arms race between optical camouflage and detectors for the entire history of eyes. It's not necessarily a game ender, but it's not something you can just wave away either.
nradov 2y ago
Nah. That's such a naive and uniformed take. Signature reduction (stealth) remains broadly useful in that it makes air defense harder and more expensive. Anything based on cameras using ambient light is going to be of very limited use, especially at night or bad weather. And cameras can't be permanently installed on the open ocean. The days of large aircraft are in no way "numbered". In order to have enough range to operate in the Indo-Pacific Theater that requires a lot of fuel, which implies a large aircraft (regardless of whether it's manned or unmanned). And while AI might eventually be effective at controlling combat aircraft, as of today that remains science fiction. So that means you need a person either directly in the combat aircraft, or actively controlling a large "loyal wingman" type drone from within line of sight (to ensure reliable communications in a hostile EW environment).
- ajross 2y ago
  > And while AI might eventually be effective at controlling combat aircraft, as of today that remains science fiction That's ridiculous, sorry. There are literally AI bots being banned every day on War Thunder! There are armed long-range drones under cross-continent satellite control already! Of all the things AI/automation might have trouble with, operating rigorously-documented aircraft systems and making shoot/don't-shoot decisions of a handful of targets is surely one of the easiest[1]. If you as a military planner don't do this because you think it's impossible, you're going to lose. [1] I mean seriously: would you have an easier time making AI to fire a missile or sew a prom dress? Not even close, the dress is harder. And AI garment manufacture is reaching the market already!
  - ckozlowski 2y ago
    War Thunder is not representative of actual conflict.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Nah. That's such a naive and uniformed take. War Thunder is a highly simplified toy video game. It has no relevance to the real world. Satellite control is also irrelevant. In any major near-peer conflict the reconnaissance and communications satellites will be the first casualties. The USA and China are currently engaged in an ASAT arms race. That's why they're back to planning and training to fight without satellite support.

by ajross 2y ago

throwaway81523 2y ago

If it's a clear day and the bottom of the airplane is painted blue, it could blend in with the sky. For that matter, didn't Wonder Woman have a transparent airplane? Aha, better yet, it was invisible! https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Wonder_Woman%27s_Invisible_Plane https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Wonder_Woman%27s_Invisible_Plane

ajross 2y ago
Yes, because if there's one thing computer vision solutions have historically had trouble with, it's being fooled by paint. The ludditism in this thread is shockingly strong.
- itishappy 2y ago
  CV systems absolutely do struggle with this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MigIJXJx8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1MigIJXJx8
  - ajross 2y ago
    Yes, and that's considered a bug to fix, and can be. CV systems are widely applied to find camouflaged and obscured objects! Literally every automated wildlife camera is proof that this is a silly point.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Call it whatever you want, lack of contrast is a physical constraint on your system and can be trivially leveraged. There's been an arms race between optical camouflage and detectors for the entire history of eyes. It's not necessarily a game ender, but it's not something you can just wave away either.

nradov 2y ago

Nah. That's such a naive and uniformed take. Signature reduction (stealth) remains broadly useful in that it makes air defense harder and more expensive. Anything based on cameras using ambient light is going to be of very limited use, especially at night or bad weather. And cameras can't be permanently installed on the open ocean. The days of large aircraft are in no way "numbered". In order to have enough range to operate in the Indo-Pacific Theater that requires a lot of fuel, which implies a large aircraft (regardless of whether it's manned or unmanned). And while AI might eventually be effective at controlling combat aircraft, as of today that remains science fiction. So that means you need a person either directly in the combat aircraft, or actively controlling a large "loyal wingman" type drone from within line of sight (to ensure reliable communications in a hostile EW environment).

ajross 2y ago
> And while AI might eventually be effective at controlling combat aircraft, as of today that remains science fiction That's ridiculous, sorry. There are literally AI bots being banned every day on War Thunder! There are armed long-range drones under cross-continent satellite control already! Of all the things AI/automation might have trouble with, operating rigorously-documented aircraft systems and making shoot/don't-shoot decisions of a handful of targets is surely one of the easiest[1]. If you as a military planner don't do this because you think it's impossible, you're going to lose. [1] I mean seriously: would you have an easier time making AI to fire a missile or sew a prom dress? Not even close, the dress is harder. And AI garment manufacture is reaching the market already!
- ckozlowski 2y ago
  War Thunder is not representative of actual conflict.
- nradov 2y ago
  Nah. That's such a naive and uniformed take. War Thunder is a highly simplified toy video game. It has no relevance to the real world. Satellite control is also irrelevant. In any major near-peer conflict the reconnaissance and communications satellites will be the first casualties. The USA and China are currently engaged in an ASAT arms race. That's why they're back to planning and training to fight without satellite support.