Robots Win

[ORAC]

Slowly following the navigator out the door. Black boxes don't need training, housing, feeding and pensions; or maybe a modern day Duncan-Sandys?

SECNAV: F-35C should be Navy's last manned strike jet (http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2015/04/16/navy-secretary-ray-mabus-joint-strike-fighter-f-35-unmanned/25832745/)

The operational use of the carrier-based joint strike fighter could mark the beginning of the end of the Navy's manned bombing sorties, if the Navy secretary gets his way.

The F-35C "should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said in a speech Wednesday at the annual Sea-Air-Space Exposition outside Washington, D.C. Fighter jocks would still be needed for dogfighting, but Mabus envisions a future when strike missions will be fulfilled by unmanned aircraft.

Mabus announced the creation of the N99 Navy staff office for unmanned weapons systems and a new position for deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for unmanned systems. "Unmanned systems, particularly autonomous ones, have to be the new normal in ever-increasing areas," he said.

The announcement came the same day as a milestone test (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/x-47b-demonstrates-unmanned-aerial-refueling-for-the-fi-1698310343) for the Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration program, the first of three aerial refueling tests that mark the program's concluding step..........

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--m1ts9lVj--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/q48va6xrvrmjj82cjouu.png

t8-kNPKNCtg

[NutLoose]

My, my..... we'd already decided on that flawed Plan back in 57. There is stll nothing that can beat the MK1 eyeball and a brain attached to it.


..

[cattletruck]

Mr Mabus then only needs to man his N99 Navy staff office with robots to close the loop.

Then we'll have to send Arnie over to sort it all out.

On the other hand, if you wanna trump the obscene development costs of the F35 programme then this would be it.

[Tourist]

Nutloose



"There is stll nothing that can beat the MK1 eyeball and a brain attached to it."


At what, exactly

Please add content.

The eye certainly has remarkable abilities, but a computer can simultaneously be using visual, IR, radar, various other available "dars" and datalink to find a target and can react faster than you. It can see in all directions at once. It is less vulnerable to damage. It can land on a carrier in perfect darkness every time. It won't get scared/over excited. It won't require currency flying and won't degrade with lack of use.
It can also pull exactly to the perfect buffet angle of attack every time instantly. I can never be disorientated. It will never get the leans or any somatographic problems. It won't get tired, weary or bored. It doesn't need to be trained. Every computer will be as good as the other. If the war drags, the pilots won't get worse if they are computers, they will get better as new tactics are added. Every engagement you win can be downloaded and programmed into the others instantly in real time with no loss of experience.It has no g limit. It requires no life support, or sleep. Refuel it and set it off again.

We may not be quite there yet, but it is v close and once there the advantages are spectacularly enormous.

There are always those that say "it will always be predictable"
This is to some extent true, if by that you mean "it will always do the right thing"
Knowing what it is going to do is not much use if the answer is "kick your ass"

[BEagle]

So, Tourist, is your latest secret-squirrel military job that of a drone operator?

[Tourist]

Ha, no.

I'm at the other end of the spectrum. Can't get dumber than my steed...

Which is why I like it!

I don't like these new toys, I just recognise that they are the future. Know your enemy....

Right now there are aircraft that I have flown that do some/many things better than me.
It won't be long before I will have to say "I can do some/ a few things better than the aircraft"

And then.......

[woptb]

First they came for the Radio Operators and I said nothing,
because I'm not a Radio Operator.

Then they came for the Flight Engineers and I said nothing,
Because I'm not a Flight Engineer.

Then they came for the Navigators and I said nothing,
Because I'm not a Navigator.

Then they came for the Pilots - and there was no one left to speak out,apart from a couple of Engineers,but all they did was crack a joke about,'Monkeys & bikes' and were still chortling as they wandered off to the bar !

[tucumseh]

Interesting discussion on the day the "inventor" of Moore's Law says it may have run its course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32335003computing technology wasn't available.

I remember in 1994 the RN deleted a hitherto "essential" requirement from an aircraft spec because the technology simply wasn't available. (Processor speed, RAM). I cited Moore's Law and took the chance it would be available at ISD, 2001. It was, and it's still in service.

Even companies with seemingly limitless cheque books who yearned after a lesser capability, like the BBC (!), didn't fancy funding it. Nowadays everytime we watch the news that MoD work is evident, yet I wager we didn't get a penny out of it. Probably nobody left in MoD who realises what they actually own the rights to.

[Danny42C]

Final answer delivered by an ape up a tree with a stick (reported recently somewhere on "Military Aviation").

Ape won. :ok:

D.

[Herod]

"Never trust a computer you can't throw out of a window"
Steve Wozniak, founder of Apple.

[Pontius Navigator]

Had a trip in a particular aircraft a long time ago. It went tango uniform but as a stude I followed up what caused the total electrical b*ll*cks on all the nav kit. Twenty years later, same aircraft type, same fault. Kicked the stude out of the seat, got out the protractor and 4H pencil :)

How well do modern electric jets or drones manage with multiple systems failures?

[Danny42C]

P.N.,

No idea, but probably as your car or TV does (ie not at all). Much the same as a human with the head cut off.

D.

[ExRAFRadar]

Herod:

"Never trust a computer you can't throw out of a window"
Steve Wozniak, founder of Apple. Seriously, What on earth does that even mean?

[ExRAFRadar]

Oh wait, just got it.

Make really big computers, then we can trust them.

:ugh:

[ExRAFRadar]

Or put small ones in a room with no windows.

I'm on a roll.

[finestkind]

As much as I dislike technology “it is here to help you" and we spend far more time doing our work on a computer than we did with pen and paper it’s part of the world.

PN totally agree that the old tools of the trade are being lost. The youngsters nowadays do not get trained to develop basic skills. Any technological breakdown will mean the aircraft will not fly or if flying eject as it either will not fly or the pilot will have no idea what to do without a screen.

Unfortunately I have to agree. Technology has advanced enough to deliver what is required without a pilot. We have even gone past the full circle. Aircraft initially unitised to spot movement and direct artillery. Than armament developed to take out the other aircraft. Further development to deliver those “shell” further than artillery could. Further development to prevent the bombers from getting through and so on. The basics are can we see what the bad guy is doing and can we take them out from a great distance. Can the bad guy see us and can he take us out from a great distance and if so let’s find a defence that prevents this. We do not need a pilot to do this anymore.

The next generation will be comfortable with having no human pilot up the front particularly given the German Wings flight

[Pontius Navigator]

Surely not,

You can throw an IPad out of a window so you can trust it.

[Pontius Navigator]

The next generation will be comfortable with having no human pilot up the front particularly given the German Wings flight

As SLF I have sat with a display screen in the seat back going through its Linux reboot process. At least it wasn't Microsoft BSOD. As long as there it someone who can press ctrl-alt-del.

[Danny42C]

Suppose you designed an airliner to fly LHR - JFK with no human pilot (I believe it's technically feasible today). How many seats would you sell ?

D.

[chopper2004]

NASA had carried out an experiment with GLobal Hawk refueling one another last year to demonstrate autonomous operation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMbwifwj5pg

[Surplus]

Suppose you designed an airliner to fly LHR - JFK with no human pilot (I believe it's technically feasible today). How many seats would you sell ?

The next generation will be comfortable with having no human pilot up the front particularly given the German Wings flight

MH370 dailytelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mh370s-fate-captain-shah-carefully-pre-planned-and-brilliantly-executed-the-planes-hijacking/story-fni0cx12-1227308452509)

Danny, if tragedies like these keep happening, you'd probably get a full aircraft.

[Danny42C]

Surplus,

Good point - but then again: "A Black Box has no fear of Death !"

Danny.

[Willard Whyte]

No crew or 4(+) crew. Anything in-between is dangerous.

Well, maybe not dangerous lest some pedantic tw@t nit-picks in the usual unimaginative fashion, but riskier.

[Surplus]

Danny, I agree A Black Box has no fear of Deathbut neither would it make a conscious decision to commit suicide and, knowing the consequences, take all it's innocent passengers with it. If computer systems keep on evolving as they are and sufficient redundancy is in place, I think I'd rather take my chances with a computer than a homicidal maniac. Willard makes a good point about flight crew numbers, although flying by committee might be a tad too expensive for most airlines, some are baulking about having a third flight deck crew member. It wouldn't need to be another pilot, a sky marshal or an air engineer perhaps? :E

[Danny42C]

Surplus,

You're right, though AFAIK, there have been few (if any) suicides of this nature recorded which involved an aircrew member. The terrorist bomber or frustrated highjacker would seem to me a much greater threat.

"The next generation will be comfortable having no human pilot up front, particulary given the German Wings flight".

Bully for the next generation, then ! (but not in my time, I think). Even now I don't see any great demand for driverless trains, buses or cabs. And, if there were any possibilities of the idea catching on, the operators (particuarly the airline companies) would be on to it like a flash. They would dearly love to cut down to one-pilot operation on the shorter hauls as it is (and save a lot of money), but the possibility (indeed the reality, for there have been cases) of a heart attack rules that out. :eek:

When I think how my laptop drives me up the wall, all I can say is: "Not this child !"

Danny.

[Willard Whyte]

It wouldn't need to be another pilot, a sky marshal or an air engineer perhaps?


Perhaps the old joke about having a pilot there to feed the dog, and the dog being there to bite the pilot if (s)he touches any of the controls, isn't too far from becoming reality...

[ExRAFRadar]

There seems to be a misconception about the software that might be employed on these automated aircraft.

We are talking about software built for one purpose and one purpose only.
To think that an aircraft would be controlled by an app that sits on top of Windows is absurd.

Comparisons with your laptops are just simply wrong.

You all use Flight Management Systems for large parts of the flight if not all.

You are already using autonomous self testing systems.

And lets not forget, as if we ever could, that German pilot used the FMS to cash. He dialled in the numbers and let the aircraft hit a mountain.

Imagine a system that given access to emergency sub systems, knew exactly where it was and had been programmed to 'think' abut the hundreds of other flights that had flown the route before it.

Not much stretch of imagination for it to imagine it saying to itself "Hmm, we are over Mountains, 300 miles from destination, no Runway near us, no emergency reported, all systems working, cabin and cockpit pressure is normal and I have just been commanded to descend to 100 feet"

It then takes control of the aircraft, sets squawk to 7700, levels off and sets airspeed for maximum fuel conserve. Alerts its company and ATC and fires off an emergency signal to every aircraft in the vicinity that something is wrong.

Imagine a system like that in place on 9/11.

I know it all seems a bit Sci-Fi but take a Pilot of 30 years ago, stick him in a modern glass cockpit and how do you think he/she would react.

Edit: Whoops, forgot I was in Mil Aircrew. I'd imagine most of you want to take me outside for a an interview with your boots for suggesting you all use Flight Management Systems to get the job done. But you get the point. :-)

[Tourist]

Danny42C

Do you watch the news at all?

Lots of big names putting autonomous cars on the road at the moment. Huge investments. They think it is happening and are putting their money where their mouth is.

Re unmanned trains. A very short Google search will show you the enormous amount of driverless trains in the world. They have been around for decades.

[ORAC]

Audi Self-Drive Car in Action (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motoringvideo/11545952/Watch-Audis-self-driving-car-in-action.html)

[Tourist]

Driverless cars trialled on UK roads for first time in four towns and cities - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/driverless-cars-officially-trialled-on-uk-roads-for-first-time-in-four-towns-and-cities-10037737.html)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401562/pathway-driverless-cars-summary.pdf

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercedes/90921/what-s-it-like-to-ride-in-mercedes-f-015-driverless-car

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/bmw-hits-the-performance-limits-with-its-driverless-car/

It's happening.....

Those who go on about "what happens when the computer crashes like they all do" are missing the point. Pretty much all modern aircraft both civil and military are already flying via a computer. An Airbus cannot be flown without a servicable computer. There is no reversionary mode that does not involve the pilots inputs going through a computer. If the computer dies we die with it.

[Pontius Navigator]

The driverless trains at Gatwick have a big advantage compared with traditional manned trains and open platforms.

The latter is akin to a lift with no doors on the lift shaft. The former has totally enclosed platforms whose doors only open when the train is stopped in the station.

[Tourist]

Yes, I have.

I will say again.
There is no reversionary mode that does not go through a computer.

[Steve the Pirate]

I will say again.
There is no reversionary mode that does not go through a computer.

What about Mechanical Backup in early 330/340 models? Even in the later 330 models, which have a Backup Control Module (computer) for lateral control in the event of a total electrical failure or the loss of all PRIMS/SECS, the THS is still connected directly to the trim wheel without going through a computer. At least that's what my FCOM says. :confused:

STP

[Tourist]

Ok, think about it this way.

You are at FL390 in your A320.

The Ruskies set off an EMP near you and all the computers on the aircraft are killed. (no idea if they are in fact hardened, but for the sake of the example lets say they are not.)

How are you landing this aircraft?

Have a think about all the things that a computer runs that you need to put it on the ground.

[Steve the Pirate]

The Ruskies set off an EMP near you and all the computers on the aircraft are killed.

So can a Boeing, or any other modern aircraft for that matter, be landed in the scenario you've posed?

STP

P.S. Apologies for the thread drift.

[Tourist]

Nope, don't think so, and that is my point.

Those who argue that we can't rely on computers yet are missing the point.

We are already totally reliant on computers continuing to work as advertised.

In the areas that are of particular concern we double/triple/quadruple them up until we lower the risk to acceptable standards.

[Hempy]

'Manual override'...

[Tourist]

???????????????

[Red Line Entry]

Tourist has it spot on. There seem to be two main objections to unmanned aircraft :

1. Technical - are there things that a human can do better than a computer as captain of an aircraft (besides chasing hosties)? At the moment, in my opinion, the answer is yes - give it a decade or so and the answer may well be no.

2. Cultural - would Joe Public be happy getting on an unmanned airliner or allowing an autonomous killing machine to fly? At the moment, only a small minority of people probably would. But 10 years ago, I didn't think I'd be able to ask my phone a verbal question and get a sensible, fast and accurate response. As people become more used to what technology is already doing in their daily life, so they will become more accepting of what they will allow it to do.

If you think otherwise, you're in good company - with all those who felt the car would never replace the horse, that aircraft would ever be more than just toys, or that all that nonsense about the practical uses of fire was just Ugg having a daydream! :O

[Tourist]

Ozy, yes that is exactly where I was heading.

Doesn't matter what clever things you do with the flight controls, the FADEC computers failing will kill you and there is no back-up for that on any aircraft I know about.

For some reason we all seem happy with FADEC though.

I'm guessing its because despite all the "I don't trust a computer" types on here, we have all actually come to trust FADEC because actually they are astonishingly better than humans at their job.

This was in no way a dig at Airbus by the way.

[Tourist]

Ozy

You are absolutely wrong.

Post the Sioux City crash NASA built a system called IFC.

In short it is a neural network that learns to compensate for damage and work around it.

It does not require programming of each mode. It learns and reacts.

Scientific American article: crippled not crashed [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-139778.html)

That was 20 years ago. We are a long way past that.

My point stands.

If you fly in an Airbus or any modern airliner you are relying on at least some of the computers working or you are dead.

I don't have any problem with this. There are lots of them and multiple redundancies.

Exactly like in a future autonomous airliner.

My point is that relying on computers is not some new paradigm. We have been doing it for years.

There will be issues with unmanned vehicles, but relying on computers is a hurdle we have long passed.

[Tourist]

Getting back to military aircraft, how long do you think an F22 flies once the computers fail?

[NutLoose]

At what, exactly

Please add content.

Well self preservation has to come into it, if you are hit and damaged, controlling an expensive asset from the ground you will have less of a need to recover back than when you are manning it. Would they have ever come up with a way to get the DC10 down in the states thus saving a lot of pax using engine power after losing the hydraulics systems?

[Tourist]

Nutloose

I think you labouring under a misapprehension.

Do you think that these new vehicles are radio controlled?

The word autonomous is there for a reason with the new toys.


Re the DC10

That is the whole point of the article I just posted the link to. They came up with a way 20 years ago. It learns to fly using what controls it has left. Currently it then gives that control back to the pilot in a relatively invisible manner, but I can just as easily do it with an autopilot.

I believe a development of it is now standard on F15 and C17?

[Danny42C]

Tourist,

Already duly chastened as being the old fuddy-duddy that I undoubtedly am, I
must say that I am with you when you say:

"....we have all actually come to trust FADEC because actually they are astonishingly better than humans at their job". No one would dispute that.

And before that:

".....the FADEC computers failing will kill you and there is no back-up for that on any aircraft I know about".

An old story (from when the pilotless airliner was first envisaged):

Robot Jumbo takes off faultlessly and climbs away. Recorded cabin annoucement comes on to reassure the fearful that this carry-on is entirely safe: "You can rest assured that all the automatic systems on this aircraft have been triplicated..... there is no possible way in which they can all fail....all fail....all fail...all fail....Sqwark !....(silence)" :eek:

Danny.

[tucumseh]

Tourist

Doesn't matter what clever things you do with the flight controls, the FADEC computers failing will kill you and there is no back-up for that on any aircraft I know about.the FADEC computers failing will kill you and there is no back-up for that on any aircraft I know about. I too agree with you.

The difficulty I have is that a couple of months ago, when discussing such safety critical systems in an aircraft you have flown in, you stated you "fully supported" MoD senior staffs who ruled it unnecessary for these systems to work or be integrated properly; which led directly to the deaths of aircrew. Have you changed your mind?

[Tourist]

Tuc

As usual, you are messing around with words to make people say what you want them to say.

There is a big difference between declaring it unnecessary for a system to work, and declaring it unnecessary to test a system in the manner which you happen to want it tested.

ie If my sunglasses work in a Seaking, it is not unreasonable to infer that they will work in a Merlin.

A senior officer who declares that a new sunglasses trial is not required for a new aircraft is not declaring that it is not required for sunglasses to work in a Merlin, he is declaring that he would like his Merlin crew to have sunglasses before the merlin goes out of service.

[Pontius Navigator]

Back to passenger aircraft,

"Mrs PN, would you fly from Gatwick to Barbados without a pilot?"

"No, would you?"

On consideration, after a few thousand flights.

[ShotOne]

In an interesting and probably unintended feat of technical judo, the "anti" computerites have formed a powerful argument in favour of robotic unmanned aircraft. If some beastly enemies break all our toys with an EMP, theres no NOK letters to write; simply roll out another few dozen (comparatively) inexpensive drones and send them off for the return match.

[NutLoose]

I'm guessing its because despite all the "I don't trust a computer" types on here, we have all actually come to trust FADEC because actually they are astonishingly better than humans at their job.


Well unless it's originally designed badly, take the Diamond Twin star, on that by the book you had to start an engine off external power if the battery was flat, you then once the battery had charged (from the running engine) you started the other one off internals if i remember correctly, except that was a disaster waiting to happen.. The crew in question naturally started both on external power, got all the wonderfull avionics up and running, radio, lights etc. Hurtling off down the runway they lifted off and selected the, yup you've guessed it, all electric gear up and the said battery and alternators having nothing left to give promptly chopped the power to the FADECS, the now undercarriage less glider used gravity to arrive back on mother earth. Hence rapid modifications ensued to add a secondary power source simply to power the FADECS. :O

read all about it

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/accident-ignites-da42-engine-row-213371/

Tourist, what I am saying one cannot totally eradicate flaws, and it only takes one to make the whole thing go west. A man in the cockpit can at least work through a fix a computer simply cannot do.... a popped CB being a simple example. I also remember reading of one aircraft where they actually rewired part of it in flight. However what may tip the equation in military fighters is the limit of the mans tolerance to G forces that an autonomous aircraft does not suffer from.

.

[cattletruck]

I've always said that a pilot with a good sense of self preservation was a bonus to his/her passengers.

Now show me a robot that gives a damn.

FADECs, like most automation, are designed by humans and only capable of handling scenarios they have been designed to handle. As a fuel metering system they are brilliant, but not without there limitations - just ask anyone flying a twin engined helo and how they are taught to deal with identifying the failed engine - it's not quite as obvious as you would think.

[Tourist]

Nutloose

Your Diamond example demonstrates exactly where the advantage of computers lies.

The human pilot did not follow the instructions and broke the system. He then did not manage to fix the problem and crashed. I fail to see how that is an advert for manned flight. The computer would have always followed the checklist.
The fix was not a fix for the FADEC at all. It was an attempt to idiot proof it against bad pilots.

Whatever the disadvantages, and there are currently many, there are many advantages to having no human, not restricted to g tolerance as mentioned earlier. The weighting is shifting all the time.

Cattle truck

Giving a Damn is meaningless. Really really wanting something is always trumped by reality.
I really really want to fly better than my autopilot on the approach. Rarely happens.
Please read earlier links about learning neural networks. They are decades old and are in currently flying aircraft.

Thanks for the mention of twin helos, something of which I am very experienced on.
They are a beautiful example of where a computer would be massively better.
When you have let's say Tq instability, a pilot has to try to work out from a variety of waving needles what is going on. It can be confusing because humans are easily overloaded by inputs.
Computers are not.
There are far more metrics produced by a modern engine than we would ever consider showing to a pilot. He would be instantly overloaded by a tenth of what a modern engine can produce in terms of data. An Airbus is sending home vastly more info to home base than the pilot ever sees.
That data makes it elementary for a computer to diagnose the problem. It is in fact very unlikely to ever come to that since continuous monitoring will pick up the problem before any pilot could ever dream of noticing the first needle wibble.

[darkroomsource]

Today, it's probably safe to say that a "computer" isn't better than a person at flying a plane in all circumstances.
But with the rate at which machine learning is advancing (not necessarily neural networks, but Markov and other probability "networks"), it is also safe to say that in the very near future a "computer" will be far better at handling abnormal situations than a human pilot. (at the extreme a decade, more likely within 3 to 5 years)
We have already seen cases where autonomous vehicles are better at handling many (not yet all) abnormal situations than a human. And the rate at which the technology is advancing would lead anyone who's studied these vehicles to conclude that the "computers" that are driving them will be more capable than humans within just a few years.
These "computers" are capable of absorbing the data from hundreds and thousands of sensors within milliseconds, and then predicting the hundreds and thousands of possible futures based on any number of combinations of actions, and thus determining the best action, all within fractions of a second. Then, after running around for awhile, they begin to "tune" their cost/values for inputs and actions and reach a point where they're no longer using the original logic "proposed" by the developers.
(I'm putting "computers" in quotes, because they're not like what we normally call a computer, they still have a CPU, and memory, etc. but they don't usually have much in the way of user interface equipment).

[ORAC]

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/h2RYpANN.CrEecv6zOiDAA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MTg3O3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3 PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt150904.gif

[barnstormer1968]

I don't think there is much use in debating a large part of an autonomous mission as its very clear the unmanned aircraft could get itself to the battle area or target every time, and with perfect precision. What the unmanned aircraft can't do are the jobs the mk1 eyeball can do.

A pilot in the cockpit using his or her mk1 eyeball can (normally) differentiate between a Middle eastern wedding and rebels, friendly or opposition troops, civilian cars with innocent drivers, civilian cars with opposition rebel drivers or pickups mounted with 12.7mm machine guns etc. the mk1 eyeball can also tell if opposing troops want to surrender or attack.

While computers are better at navigation and have much faster processing and reaction times there is a very useful measure of artificial intelligence that no computer has achieved yet. When a robot/computer can be given a random basket of washed clothing and successfully iron each item then it will match the mk1 eyeball and human decision making. So far, no computer can even get close.

[ORAC]

When a robot/computer can be given a random basket of washed clothing and successfully iron each item then it will match the mk1 eyeball and human decision making. So far, no computer can even get close. I refer to my previous post...... :E

[Pontius Navigator]

Really?

Unfortunately the Mk 1 Eyeball, connected to a Mk 1 Brain has failed every test you cite:

IWhat the unmanned aircraft can't do are the jobs the mk1 eyeball can do.

A pilot in the cockpit using his or her mk1 eyeball can (normally) differentiate between a Middle eastern wedding and rebels, friendly or opposition troops, civilian cars with innocent drivers, civilian cars with opposition rebel drivers or pickups mounted with 12.7mm machine guns etc. the mk1 eyeball can also tell if opposing troops want to surrender or attack.


I accept you say Normally but the failure rate is sufficiently high to suggest the Mk 1 Eyeball alone is not infallible.

The A6 cable strike in Italy was a human error. A drone with proper sensors, in peacetime, would fly over or around, in wartime it might fly under; it should not hit it.

[Tourist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ

It's a TED talk.

Getting cleverer.....

[GlobalNav]

"While computers are better at navigation and have much faster processing and reaction times there is a very useful measure of artificial intelligence that no computer has achieved yet. When a robot/computer can be given a random basket of washed clothing and successfully iron each item then it will match the mk1 eyeball and human decision making. So far, no computer can even get close."

Capability to do a given, defined task is one thing. But how do you design a robot to CARE or to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY? I lost count of human errors blamed on computer error, as if the computer did anything other than what its design made it do. Humans make mistakes, but we try to make them responsible for them and we try to change behaviors that led to or permitted the mistakes to go uncorrected.

[Tourist]

Whether they care or not is irrelevant.

Responsibility is going to be a big issue.

[Mechta]

We are talking about software built for one purpose and one purpose only.
To think that an aircraft would be controlled by an app that sits on top of Windows is absurd.

There are plenty of UAVs in military service with ground control stations in which the Windows jingle is heard when booting them up.

[GlobalNav]

"Whether they care or not is irrelevant."

"Whether they care" may seem irrelevant to many people, but not me. The degree to which "care" is taken to prevent life-and-death errors truly matters. The amount of attention given and the measures taken to prevent and or manage error depends a lot on the "care" one takes. Granted, for robots, such "care" must be taken in the software development, but it is also taken when deciding how much authority is given to unthinking, uncaring automated tools, whether for control of an aircraft, control of weapons or most particularly control of targeting, and launching/dropping/firing lethal weapons.

I don't accept a General apologizing for a death due to "computer error".

[KenV]

We have the ability today to hit targets with autonomous flying machines. They're called cruise missiles. I hafta wonder what an autonomous aircraft that released precision guided munitions on a target add to the equation that a cruise missile does not?

[Tourist]

KenV

Cruise missiles are not a cheap way to wage war, plus they are only a pre-planned mission, not reactive.

[Pontius Navigator]

The cruise missile is also once-only.

[DITYIWAHP]

I think you degrade your mission flexibility if you remove the easily reprogrammed human control unit from all of your aircraft. These bio-units occasionally make mistakes, but they are more easily re-tasked for changing tactics, they can use their imagination in an unexpected tactical situation, and so on. They can't be hacked and they can still operate when their controlling information system (aka radio data link) is being jammed.

Pilot-less civil aircraft would have one mission - to make the number of take-offs equal the number of landings and make the rest of the journey as smooth as possible for the paying luggage. For a strike aircraft it's not so simple...

[Tourist]

DITYIWAHP

In general I might agree, but the bit about being hacked makes no sense.

An F22 is a flying computer. The consequence of being hacked is the same.

[DITYIWAHP]

Tourist, I suppose I should expand on my imaginings (although I feel I need to tread carefully around this topic). If either system was to be hacked then you're right, the result could be mission failure for either platform - so no difference in loss. However, the F-22 has the advantage of a human who could save the machine / prevent nefarious weapon employment. Although the human would be a greater loss if the system was to be lost... It was just my mind rambling... :8

[Tourist]

I don't really think the human could stop a hacked F22 doing anything....

I would be surprised if there was a single input he can make that doesn't go through a computer.

[DITYIWAHP]

Well, humans were able to take control and fly their F-22s across the international date line after all of their computer systems shut down. Not sure if a pilot-less vehicle would have coped in a similar fashion.... You're presuming that a hack on a mission computer would equally render the aircraft un-flyable and un-navigable to a human and a computer 'pilot' system.

[Tourist]

I have not heard about the incident to which you refer, but I was operating under the understanding that an aircraft like the F22 is absolutely unflyable without a computer to help, ie instant departure from normal flight.

[DITYIWAHP]

I agree that none of these aircraft are flyable if their flight control systems are shut down - and I think that's where you're coming from. However, many of these aircraft comprise modular systems that can and are designed to work independently should the others fail (a proper fail-safe redundant system of systems), so any attack would have to be quite accurately targeted and delivered to bring a manned aircraft down. Indeed, such a feat might not be possible on a flight control system unless you can actually get your hands on a comm port (that's how I'd make it, anyhow). Designing the redundancy capabilities of other systems to cope when one fails is something I imagine the designers lose a lot of sleep over, especially when the number of possible failure modes could be huge...