Robots Win
 

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

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 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/...mjj82cjouu.png

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.


..

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.

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"

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

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.......

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 !

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.

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

Ape won. :ok:

D.

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

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?

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.

Herod:

Seriously, What on earth does that even mean?

Oh wait, just got it.

Make really big computers, then we can trust them.

:ugh:

Or put small ones in a room with no windows.

I'm on a roll.

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

Surely not,

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

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.

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.

NASA Global Hawk
 

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