Air Combat Drones
let me quote ― Sun Tzu,
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
or perhaps Clausewitz
“War is nothing but a continuation of politics.”
or “To achieve victory we must mass our forces at the hub of all power and movement. The enemy’s "center of gravity”
No mention of killing the most - What a ridiculous thought!
You still don’t win until you own the land of your invader
No matter how many of his gadgets you shoot down, in the end his people have to be subjugated
That’s why Normandy and the retaking of Axis Europe was necessary, the air war and the bombing raids were not enough
It still requires boots on the ground
No matter how many of his gadgets you shoot down, in the end his people have to be subjugated
That’s why Normandy and the retaking of Axis Europe was necessary, the air war and the bombing raids were not enough
It still requires boots on the ground
You still don’t win until you own the land of your invader
No matter how many of his gadgets you shoot down, in the end his people have to be subjugated
That’s why Normandy and the retaking of Axis Europe was necessary, the air war and the bombing raids were not enough
It still requires boots on the ground
No matter how many of his gadgets you shoot down, in the end his people have to be subjugated
That’s why Normandy and the retaking of Axis Europe was necessary, the air war and the bombing raids were not enough
It still requires boots on the ground
Still wrong!
Perhaps quit while you are losing!
but let me give you some examples to ponder : Czechoslovakia 1938
Singapore 1942
Japan 1945
beardy,
So how did the RAF win the Battle of Britain then?
So how did the RAF win the Battle of Britain then?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Wrong. Totally utterly wrong!
let me quote ― Sun Tzu,
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
or perhaps Clausewitz
“War is nothing but a continuation of politics.”
or “To achieve victory we must mass our forces at the hub of all power and movement. The enemy’s "center of gravity”
No mention of killing the most - What a ridiculous thought!
let me quote ― Sun Tzu,
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
or perhaps Clausewitz
“War is nothing but a continuation of politics.”
or “To achieve victory we must mass our forces at the hub of all power and movement. The enemy’s "center of gravity”
No mention of killing the most - What a ridiculous thought!
Afghanistan was “won” by dominating the airspace and destroying their heavier assets on the ground, but crucially they never In reality subdued the populace, those fighting melted away, and hence they “won” a war similar to the AI to AI you envisaged .
Now because you haven’t subdued the population you have to stick troops on the ground, but not in sufficient numbers to again totally subdue and dominate the population, this results in you having to build little defensive positions from which to operate while not actually controlling the Country you have supposedly taken.
It also leads to the scenarios where you build a base to protect a road that had no previous problems, but because the base is there the road now becomes a target to kill those protecting it... not exactly winning a war is it...
To win a war you need to destroy not just their tech, but also those on the ground actively participating in it, and that means killing them. Something that appears to have worked with some effect against ISIS.
Aside from the philosophical arguments about what war is, AI drones don’t affect that, but may alter the balance of power in an air supremacy/dominance contest. They don’t have to completely replace manned fighters to have significant impact, but they may become an important contributor. Even if they didn’t always win a dogfight they could keep the enemy very occupied while other friendly forces perform their missions. Not to be trite, but they could be a force multiplier.
The question at the end of the day has to be what is the point? If you build an AI fighter and so presumably does your opposition to counter the threat, then the eventual outcome comes down to resources and attrition. It becomes a war won simply on production rates not on lost lives and a defeated population if that makes sense, which seems a pointless exercise to start with....
I can understand why an AI aircraft will eventually win out as an F16 with a pilot will always have to operate with in the limits of the pilots tolerance to G etc, a AI version is free from that constraint. It was one advantage Bader held over his German counterparts, without legs and the problems of blood pooling in his lower extremities, he was more G tolerant than his opposition.
I can understand why an AI aircraft will eventually win out as an F16 with a pilot will always have to operate with in the limits of the pilots tolerance to G etc, a AI version is free from that constraint. It was one advantage Bader held over his German counterparts, without legs and the problems of blood pooling in his lower extremities, he was more G tolerant than his opposition.
This AI drone similarly potentially eliminates the US advantage of thousands of trained aircrews, leaving the competition to depend on production capacity, where China has or will soon have a substantial advantage.
Surely this is more akin to the introduction of the 'Dreadnought' by Lord Fisher. He successfully cleared the decks for the Kaiser to start a battleship race by obsoleting the existing Royal Navy battle line, so all started from scratch.
This AI drone similarly potentially eliminates the US advantage of thousands of trained aircrews, leaving the competition to depend on production capacity, where China has or will soon have a substantial advantage.
This AI drone similarly potentially eliminates the US advantage of thousands of trained aircrews, leaving the competition to depend on production capacity, where China has or will soon have a substantial advantage.
I'm still unsure how this has morphed into a categorical assumption that a drone will beat a live human in A2A combat? It was a simulation, not a real exercise, where a drone operator (on a computer) beat an F16 pilot (on a computer) with a result that can only be as real as the programming allows. Fully accept that the F16 pilot pointed out manoeuvres that he had never expected not trained for, but maybe they will/can be incorporated into future scenarios and be countered accordingly?
When a real drone in the air takes on a real pilot in a real fighter the results should then be considered realistic.
When a real drone in the air takes on a real pilot in a real fighter the results should then be considered realistic.
No change
It’s all part of the same problem, no matter how many of the enemies weapons you destroy you don’t defeat him completely until you kill and / or subjugate / nullify enough of his population, military and civilian, and occupy his territory
Then you can put the instigators of the conflict / war criminals on trial, punish them and maintain a presence in the aggressors country until the threat is eliminated
Worked pretty well with Japan and Germany
No change
It’s all part of the same problem, no matter how many of the enemies weapons you destroy you don’t defeat him completely until you kill and / or subjugate / nullify enough of his population, military and civilian, and occupy his territory
Then you can put the instigators of the conflict / war criminals on trial, punish them and maintain a presence in the aggressors country until the threat is eliminated
Worked pretty well with Japan and Germany
It’s all part of the same problem, no matter how many of the enemies weapons you destroy you don’t defeat him completely until you kill and / or subjugate / nullify enough of his population, military and civilian, and occupy his territory
Then you can put the instigators of the conflict / war criminals on trial, punish them and maintain a presence in the aggressors country until the threat is eliminated
Worked pretty well with Japan and Germany
Not even on the right page.
The example I gave you - you didn't need to kill, nullify or occupy- think about Czechoslovakia.
What was needed there? Certainly nothing of what you state!
The point of military action is to impose a political cost and then whether a government/people are willing to pay it or fold is the question.
I'm still unsure how this has morphed into a categorical assumption that a drone will beat a live human in A2A combat? It was a simulation, not a real exercise, where a drone operator (on a computer) beat an F16 pilot (on a computer) with a result that can only be as real as the programming allows. Fully accept that the F16 pilot pointed out manoeuvres that he had never expected not trained for, but maybe they will/can be incorporated into future scenarios and be countered accordingly?
When a real drone in the air takes on a real pilot in a real fighter the results should then be considered realistic.
When a real drone in the air takes on a real pilot in a real fighter the results should then be considered realistic.
It's another step towards machine supremacy in cognitive analysis and mechanical skill.
For me the real game changer would be having AI in your BVR AAM/BVR SAM so that it effectively has a Mk.2 Eyeball and can actively distinguish its target from physical and electronic countermeasures. It would also be able to anticipate and counter manoeuvring by the target aircraft manned or unmanned to increase the probability of a kill. Granted it relies on politicians allowing BVR engagement in the ROE in any future conflict.
Er, Hitler tasked the Luftwaffe with gaining air supremacy over the Channel and southern British Isles to permit an invasion. They tried, and failed. So I think they most certainly DID know that there was a battle going on.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Plus an Independent AI controlled missile.
Questions re AI Aircraft, it’s alright when you have something like the F16 where you have reams and reams of data and pilot experience to incorporate into the AI programme, but how will they fair with a new AI design?
After all, a lot of the current requirements can be binned and replaced with fuel or armaments, ie all the junk to keep the pilot alive and informed.
Do you give it the basics and expect it to learn as it fights? because a lot of pilots have died attempting that through the many wars, and if you do give it the ability to learn will it be able to pass this on via a data link to other AI aircraft, or will you be stuck at the learn as you go?
does that make sense?
Questions re AI Aircraft, it’s alright when you have something like the F16 where you have reams and reams of data and pilot experience to incorporate into the AI programme, but how will they fair with a new AI design?
After all, a lot of the current requirements can be binned and replaced with fuel or armaments, ie all the junk to keep the pilot alive and informed.
Do you give it the basics and expect it to learn as it fights? because a lot of pilots have died attempting that through the many wars, and if you do give it the ability to learn will it be able to pass this on via a data link to other AI aircraft, or will you be stuck at the learn as you go?
does that make sense?
After those two events the whole game changed. The cold war concept of MAD was not based on gaining and holding territory in any way shape or form.
If the allies had possessed enough atomic bombs in 1944 or 5 then D-Day would not have been necessary. Germany would have been a ruined and wrecked country after a half dozen 'Hiroshimas' and no land invasion would have been needed.
Japan wasn't invaded and conquered, it was occupied after surrendering.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
If the allies had possessed enough atomic bombs in 1944 or 5 then D-Day would not have been necessary. Germany would have been a ruined and wrecked country after a half dozen 'Hiroshimas' and no land invasion would have been needed.