4 ms·

targeting hasn't improved as much as you think (hell, 1920s mechanical computers have about as much accuracy as a modern day cpu, so you can tick more in a seco

by autokad 11y ago

targeting hasn't improved as much as you think (hell, 1920s mechanical computers have about as much accuracy as a modern day cpu, so you can tick more in a second, so what?). there are still so many reasons for a missile to miss its target that even todays missiles are unreliable against an advanced craft with the right support. thats the real reason they believe dog fighting is dead. having radar, drone, and satellite control of the sky is far above and beyond important. who cares if your multi core cpu enabled missle has a .0001% more accuracy when you know when the enemy's plain is fueling up in the hangar? the US doesn't believe its going to get into a fight with a peer competitor, that's why they are ill concerned with dog fighting abilities.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>the US doesn't believe its going to get into a fight with a peer competitor, that's why they are ill concerned with dog fighting abilities. Then why don't they buy more AC-130?
- autokad 11y ago
  I'm not saying they are right in that assumption, and I'm not sure why you would suggest the AC-130. they are more focused on drones for better or for worse
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    The focus of your previous post was that electronic gizmos make dogfighting obsolete and unnecessary. You can put far more electronics and weapons in an AC-130 than in an F-35. I'm only half-joking here. If you have no maneuverability or power advantage, then just forget about dogfighting altogether and take more weapons and countermeasures. If they field this thing and try to rely on it, someone will build a purpose-built F-35 killer for a fraction of the cost and field 10x of them against it in battle; assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US. >they are more focused on drones for better or for worse I agree drones and remotely piloted will eventually supplant piloted craft, but I think the Air Force is a generation of leadership away from that change.
    - rbanffy 11y ago
      > assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US. If the past serves as a guide, it's usually the other way around.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Because the AC-130 is far more vulnerable to MANPADs and so has had periods even in Iraq where it was restricted to night flying only due to losses.
Tuna-Fish 11y ago
> targeting hasn't improved as much as you think (hell, 1920s mechanical computers have about as much accuracy as a modern day cpu, so you can tick more in a second, so what?) The primary advances are the ability to distinguish signals returned by chaff/flares from the real aircraft, and to have a model of the target aircaft's capabilities, so that on each targeting step the missile simulates the most extreme maneuvering it's capable in all directions, aiming the missile so that it is capable of keeping it's seeker on it and following regardless of how the plane flies. That's something that a higher tick rate is quite useful for.
- ObviousScience 11y ago
  (I'm agreeing with the parent post, just elaborating.) Also, much like the weather, sometimes you can only make accurate predictions if you make a small prediction and correct it once you get feedback. Much like you can get insanely high correlations on your predictions about the weather if you never predict more than 15 minutes out, the problem of predicting the other plane's response only become tractable when you can predict and correct over very short windows. The higher clock rate doesn't just do more of the same faster, but rather, enable a sort of "phase shift", where the speed enables a new form of computation to work in a meaningful way.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    Doesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Doesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner? Anti-missile missiles already exist (missiles designed to intercept air-to-air missiles are still a ways off.)

by autokad 11y ago

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

>the US doesn't believe its going to get into a fight with a peer competitor, that's why they are ill concerned with dog fighting abilities. Then why don't they buy more AC-130?

autokad 11y ago
I'm not saying they are right in that assumption, and I'm not sure why you would suggest the AC-130. they are more focused on drones for better or for worse
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  The focus of your previous post was that electronic gizmos make dogfighting obsolete and unnecessary. You can put far more electronics and weapons in an AC-130 than in an F-35. I'm only half-joking here. If you have no maneuverability or power advantage, then just forget about dogfighting altogether and take more weapons and countermeasures. If they field this thing and try to rely on it, someone will build a purpose-built F-35 killer for a fraction of the cost and field 10x of them against it in battle; assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US. >they are more focused on drones for better or for worse I agree drones and remotely piloted will eventually supplant piloted craft, but I think the Air Force is a generation of leadership away from that change.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    > assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US. If the past serves as a guide, it's usually the other way around.
cmdkeen 11y ago
Because the AC-130 is far more vulnerable to MANPADs and so has had periods even in Iraq where it was restricted to night flying only due to losses.

Tuna-Fish 11y ago

> targeting hasn't improved as much as you think (hell, 1920s mechanical computers have about as much accuracy as a modern day cpu, so you can tick more in a second, so what?) The primary advances are the ability to distinguish signals returned by chaff/flares from the real aircraft, and to have a model of the target aircaft's capabilities, so that on each targeting step the missile simulates the most extreme maneuvering it's capable in all directions, aiming the missile so that it is capable of keeping it's seeker on it and following regardless of how the plane flies. That's something that a higher tick rate is quite useful for.

ObviousScience 11y ago
(I'm agreeing with the parent post, just elaborating.) Also, much like the weather, sometimes you can only make accurate predictions if you make a small prediction and correct it once you get feedback. Much like you can get insanely high correlations on your predictions about the weather if you never predict more than 15 minutes out, the problem of predicting the other plane's response only become tractable when you can predict and correct over very short windows. The higher clock rate doesn't just do more of the same faster, but rather, enable a sort of "phase shift", where the speed enables a new form of computation to work in a meaningful way.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  Doesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Doesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner? Anti-missile missiles already exist (missiles designed to intercept air-to-air missiles are still a ways off.)