4 ms·
hmm ... as a pilot and student of WW2 combat, I think this might be ok in peace-time, but definitely a problem in war time. - to avoid radar, you have to fly l
by throwaway8898 12y ago
hmm ... as a pilot and student of WW2 combat, I think this might be ok in peace-time, but definitely a problem in war time.
- to avoid radar, you have to fly low - tree-top high
- to save ammo, you have to shoot near ground-targets
- can the software be fooled in mountainous terrain?
- what about off-field landings?
- Japan's most effective bombers were kamikaze, and American pilots also considered ramming other aircraft after their ammo ran out
- if the software is wrong, does it roll inverted and pull down at 5G? how do you stop it?
- sharth 12y agoThe article says that 1. The pilot is first notified that the system is about to take control. and 2. That the pilot can override the system at any time.
- jjwiseman 12y agoFrom http://www.aerotechnews.com/laafb/files/publications/ala_10082010A20.pdf http://www.aerotechnews.com/laafb/files/publications/ala_100..., it looks like it's designed to avoid "nuisance activations": “As Nils got down low, I could see dirt being kicked up off of the desert floor and no nuisance activations.”
- mjmahone17 12y ago1,600 automatic avoidances in 141 hours of flight. Holy crap, that's a lot of "point it at the ground, hope you don't die". Unless they did something else?
- mattmanser 12y agoSurely they just set the ground level to be higher?
- kelseyfrancis 12y agoDid you RTFA? Do you honestly believe these utterly basic questions you've posed after a few seconds of consideration never occurred to any Air Force or Lockheed or NASA personnel involved in building this system? Or are you just cynical enough to believe the Air Force isn't really concerned about the "war time" effectiveness of its _fighter_ planes?