Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gman on January 02, 2015, 12:12:54 AM
-
http://rt.com/usa/219255-f35-fighter-jet-glitch/
Not a great thing to happen, if it's true, forget to program in the code for firing the gun in both the internal F35A cannon or the C and B gun pod. Sweet. Who needs a gun anyway, right?
Plus, it'll only put it behind 4 years to fix it apparently. I just don't get that. Does it seriously take FOUR years to figure out how to write some ones and zeros to make the trigger make the gun go pewpewpew? I've never understood these software problems or the time that it's been reported to fix them. Considering the source (RT), I wonder if this is a puff piece. Still looking for confirmation on other US and Western based defense and aviation sites.
-
The more you overtake the plumbing. The easier it is to stop up the drain.
-
http://rt.com/usa/219255-f35-fighter-jet-glitch/
Not a great thing to happen, if it's true, forget to program in the code for firing the gun in both the internal F35A cannon or the C and B gun pod. Sweet. Who needs a gun anyway, right?
Plus, it'll only put it behind 4 years to fix it apparently. I just don't get that. Does it seriously take FOUR years to figure out how to write some ones and zeros to make the trigger make the gun go pewpewpew? I've never understood these software problems or the time that it's been reported to fix them. Considering the source (RT), I wonder if this is a puff piece. Still looking for confirmation on other US and Western based defense and aviation sites.
They probably have such a high bureaucracy in system changes that a simple software fix will take 4 years to achieve. Imagine the cost to taxpayers :)
Government deals are a jackpot to companies for obvious reasons. No private company would overcomplicate and overpay like that.
-
1st of all it is RT.com ... don't take it as correct unless you have cross reference to check...
Another thing - I don't really understand how should you aim without HUD?
-
1st of all it is RT.com ... don't take it as correct unless you have cross reference to check...
Another thing - I don't really understand how should you aim without HUD?
Helmet aimpoint tracking...
-
Meh. Russian propaganda...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LeluQyMxLs
-
Some US defense sites are now carrying a more detailed version of the story. I too figured it being RT it may just be negative propo, but looks as though it may be a legit story.
From Defense Tech: http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/#more-24326
The Daily Beast’s Dave Majumdar is out with another excellent story about how the gun on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s newest and most expensive fighter jet, won’t work for another four years — at the earliest.
That’s because the software that lets pilots shoot the Gatling gun, which is critical for the aircraft to provide close-air support to ground troops, isn’t expected to ship until 2019, according to the article.
As Majumdar writes:
“There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?”
What’s also interesting to note is how few rounds the General Dynamics Corp.-made weapon actually holds compared to the 1970s-era A-10 Thunderbolt II.
The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.
GAU-22
The GAU-22/A is lighter and more accurate than its predecessor, but with a reduced rate of fire of 3,300 rounds per minute. At that rate, the F-35 would be out of ammunition in about four seconds, or one or two bursts of fire.
By comparison, the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the venerable Warthog attack aircraft can hold as many as 1,174 rounds. It’s configured to fire at a fixed rate of fire of 3,900 rounds per minute.
It's just a phase they're going through
The F-35, in its full configuration with the Block 3F software, is designed to carry a suite of internal and external weapons, including the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, laser-guided Paveway II bomb, Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and infrared Sidewinder missile.
Still, the long wait for a functional F-35 gun is likely to raise more questions about the Air Force’s repeated push to send the A-10 to the bone yard. Lawmakers disagreed with the service’s fiscal 2015 budget proposal to retire the aircraft and authorized funding to keep the plane flying for at least another year.
Even war commanders seem sold on the merits of the A-10, which was deployed to Iraq in recent months to help U.S. and Iraqi forces fight Islamic militants. Video of the planes firing its iconic gun at suspected ISIS targets has circulated online.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon plans to begin operational flights of the F-35 — even without the use of the gun and lingering concerns over software — this year. The F-35B is slated to reach so-called initial operational capability by the end of the year, the F-35A by late next year and the F-35C by February 2019.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/#ixzz3NhJocCFA
Defense.org
No pew pew pew for 4 years worst case scenario. :(
-
Worst case scenario or not, it is inexcusable that they accepted a bird that can't shoot given it's expected war time role. Not that less than 200 rounds will make it much of a ground support or even close in air superiority fighter. Unless they put in a round limiter to something like 10 or 15 rounds per "trigger pull" it doesn't have much in the way of real use even for A to A. Makes me think that the same idiotic mind set that brought the AF and Navy the F4 in gunless mode is still alive and kicking in the puzzle palace. :rolleyes:
-
We are reliving the VF-22 program all over again, except at a higher cost. The best we can hope for is a mediocre aircraft to enter true operational service around 2025. I hope our Chinese overlords will take pity on us.
-
Four years to map Button 0 to Fire Primary?
I don't buy it.
-
Didn't you see? They spent half the F-35 budget on the commercials for the Military Industrial Compl- Armed Forces Bowl today. Freaking F-35s looked like they were flying off the set of Transformers III but don't have a gun that fire till 2019...
And PITT still lost! LMAO!
-
Both the F-22 and the F-35 programs are symptom of the entire United States of America. We are flawed, very flawed and the country is off course.
(face palm)
An honest discussion would have killed both programs in the late 1990s and a fraction of the money put into up graded/modeled F-15s and F-16s. As someone neck deep in policy for 20 years this is bad.
-
The next four years is mostly operational training anyways. I don't get all the negative BS so many are spouting. Full operational capability (FOC) is planned for 2020, five years from now.
-
Seriously, using an expensive piece of kit like the F-35 as a tank-buster strikes me as, well, ill-advised at best.
edit - bah, no need for examples.
-
I really hate that plane.
-
Seriously, using an expensive piece of kit like the F-35 as a tank-buster strikes me as, well, ill-advised at best.
edit - bah, no need for examples.
Ain't that. The truth. F-35 main gunned Experts puzzled due to the fact that it is a stealthy plane.
-
Ain't that. The truth. F-35 main gunned Experts puzzled due to the fact that it is a stealthy plane.
They probably need to test it on a battlefield, after a dozen of losses some bright mind notices: Gosh, it's not invisible so people can aim and shoot it when it's low.
-
What's the Finnish experience with ground support aircraft? Why is it that the USA is the only nation ever to buy and use the A-10 if it is so starspankingly awesome? I guess everyone else are morons who care very little of supporting their troops on the ground.
-
What's the Finnish experience with ground support aircraft? Why is it that the USA is the only nation ever to buy and use the A-10 if it is so starspankingly awesome? I guess everyone else are morons who care very little of supporting their troops on the ground.
The Finnish army was neutered in the Paris peace accord. It even caused controversy when they finally decided to get air to ground capability for the hornets. The only war experience my country has (luckily) is from WW2. And I hope it keeps that way.
-
What's the Finnish experience with ground support aircraft? Why is it that the USA is the only nation ever to buy and use the A-10 if it is so starspankingly awesome? I guess everyone else are morons who care very little of supporting their troops on the ground.
I don't know about the Finns but not every army has the same needs. Remember that the US air force has never fought a war on US border nor is it expected to, which is unlike most other airforces. Besides, buying fighter planes is more about politics and diplomacy than real military needs.
-
I really hate that plane.
+1 +1 +1
-
I don't know about the Finns but not every army has the same needs. Remember that the US air force has never fought a war on US border nor is it expected to, which is unlike most other airforces. Besides, buying fighter planes is more about politics and diplomacy than real military needs.
Why haven't Israel bought the A-10? If there ever was a nation that needs CAS aircraft it is Israel. It's the only place besides WWIII Germany were the A-10's short range and slow speed wouldn't really matter much.
-
edit: pah - no good can come of it...
-
As a former programmer, I think its unfair and inaccurate to call neglecting to code the necessary software a "software glitch". This lapse is a fault of the project managers, not the programmers. In fact, this oversight SHOULD have been caught at multiple levels. I wonder if its just intentional for some reason.
-
Why haven't Israel bought the A-10? If there ever was a nation that needs CAS aircraft it is Israel. It's the only place besides WWIII Germany were the A-10's short range and slow speed wouldn't really matter much.
To be honest - I don't know, but I can guess.
The IAF relies on multi-role planes and force multipliers in order to generate a large volume of activity in all its roles. Single purpose planes to not fit well with that plan. The IAF support to ground troops is focused mostly on interdiction in a defensive scenario rather than true CAS. Geography and the very high density of action dictates that and allow other means of support to come into play. The extreme density of action also means a lot of short range AA threats that do not allow any plane to linger near the front, not even the A10.
-
You did make the Kfir. A dedicated ground attack aircraft, and not much multi-role capability without a radar. The Kfir is about as different from an A-10 as you can get. Clearly the IAF had a very different idea of what a ground attack aircraft should be than the USAF/US Army. And that is kinda my point. Only the USA and Russia have "modern sturmoviks". Everyone else seems to shun them.
-
Four years to map Button 0 to Fire Primary?
I don't buy it.
Yeah ahh umm button 0 is used for PLAY/PAUSE on the iPod sorry.
-
You did make the Kfir. A dedicated ground attack aircraft, and not much multi-role capability without a radar. The Kfir is about as different from an A-10 as you can get. Clearly the IAF had a very different idea of what a ground attack aircraft should be than the USAF/US Army. And that is kinda my point. Only the USA and Russia have "modern sturmoviks". Everyone else seems to shun them.
Actually Kfir was designed as air-superiority successor of Nesher (Mirage V) - that is why it has no radar (it was considered mostly useless for daylight fighters).
However IAF received F-15s and than F-16s shortly after Kfir entered the service so it moved to "attacker" role.
IAF had no classic CAS planes... today this role is probably taken by drones and helicopters.
-
That's strange since the Mirage 5 was a radarless ground attack version of the Mirage IIIE. It was designed specifically to meet an Israeli request for a ground attack jet.
-
That's strange since the Mirage 5 was a radarless ground attack version of the Mirage IIIE. It was designed specifically to meet an Israeli request for a ground attack jet.
Ground attack is not just CAS. The Mirage and Kfir line are terrible CAS planes. In 1973 war CAS duties were mostly done by A4 Skyhawks. Their survivability against ground fire was unsatisfactory and many were lost to old fashion AA fire over the front. The density of threats is simply too high and the intensity of the fighting makes the ground war too uncertain for classic CAS. Instead, the IAF is geared towards interdiction, that is to attack behind the line of battle to cut off the fighting enemy troops from all support and disrupt their HQs. CAS is is done by high speed attack planes that linger away from the line and is only possible because the IAF is fighting on its own border and thus is very familiar with the terrain, the order of battle, and is supported by very good and very fast intelligence. This is not the typical situation for an air force that is deployed thousands of kilometers from its home at short time scales.
-
So if CAS is no longer a survivable mission in a modern threat environment the A-10 is pointless and should be retired. Its mission is better performed by other platforms like UAVs and helicopter gunships.
-
So if CAS is no longer a survivable mission in a modern threat environment the A-10 is pointless and should be retired. Its mission is better performed by other platforms like UAVs and helicopter gunships.
No. You asked about the IAF and why does it not use A10. I explained that the situation of the IAF is rather unique and not very relevant to US combat doctrine. The example of Iraq war shows how useful the A10 is to US troops and at the same time is about as different from the Israeli Syrian/Egyptian front as possible.
-
Which Iraq war are you referring to? 1991 or 2003?
-
I'm pretty sure that the F35s survivability against small arms fire and cannons is severely weaker to that of A10. Plus it will cost an arm and a leg more when it crashes. You really have to wonder what are they thinking - unless this line up is telling between the lines that the US plans to end its off-shore attacks.
-
You really have to wonder what are they thinking - unless this line up is telling between the lines that the US plans to end its off-shore attacks.
Orders for the aircraft development started last century. Things change, trends develop, new technology advances and conflicts arise. I think these are some of the issues behind the F-22 and F-35.
I feel that UAVs, Drones Etc will be the new military route, as seen with X-47B. Every aircraft role has the ability to be developed into a pilot-less aircraft.
-
I feel that UAVs, Drones Etc will be the new military route, as seen with X-47B. Every aircraft role has the ability to be developed into a pilot-less aircraft.
I think drones would scare the bejeveled out of land troops. I know I would be cursing the 'video game dweebs' who hover above the troops and shoot blobs on video screens from total safety. Drone usage inhumanizes your targets so that (I think) friendly fire could happen much more easily.
On the other hand the drone operator would not be super stressed for his own life so he could possibly make more clear headed decisions - hard to say. But I think the main problem with any drone is that they only work for a technologically inferior opponent. Any opponent worth their salt will be able to interfere or jam the drone signals, making them very unreliable.
Think if you can mess with a drone and it starts shooting at wrong position i.e. friendlies? Not very nice scenario.
-
You're talking about a future that is already here.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/predator-b-drone-mq-9-reaper.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/091212-F-1234X-001.jpg)
The British have started to use theirs operationally too.
http://www.janes.com/article/45581/uk-reaper-uav-conducts-first-iraqi-strike-mission
-
You're talking about a future that is already here.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/predator-b-drone-mq-9-reaper.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/091212-F-1234X-001.jpg)
The British have started to use theirs operationally too.
http://www.janes.com/article/45581/uk-reaper-uav-conducts-first-iraqi-strike-mission
Oh, which active war fronts did you have again?
-
But I think the main problem with any drone is that they only work for a technologically inferior opponent. Any opponent worth their salt will be able to interfere or jam the drone signals, making them very unreliable.
The future is autonomous killing machines with the authority to carry out missions on their own. Don't be naive and think it won't happen. Everyone who's anyone in the world are developing them right now. The British unveiled their Taranis autonomous UCAV as far back as four years ago.
http://www.defensereview.com/bae-systems-introduces-taranis-jet-powered-low-observable-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle-ucav-meet-the-new-god-of-thunder/
And there are many others.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/AIR_UAV_Barracuda_lg.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/AVEC_3163r-1.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/la-fi-mo-navy-drone-x47b-20130709-002.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/AW_08_11_2014_2818L_0.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/27_154420_b58872011253818_zpsb58c5050.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Russian_UCAV_MiG_%C2%ABScat%C2%BB.jpg)
-
Oh, which active war fronts did you have again?
What?
-
The future is autonomous killing machines with the authority to carry out missions on their own. Don't be naive and think it won't happen. Everyone who's anyone in the world are developing them right now. The British unveiled their Taranis autonomous UCAV as far back as four years ago.
Would you go on a front that has an autonomous robot killing stuff there? I wouldn't. Again, it's mostly practical for fighting against a low tech small enemy like terrorist training camps. Once you have to send your own troops to the mix, an autonomous killing machine becomes scary as hell. Not for the enemy but for your own troops.
And if there's some sort of friend or foe automated identification, the enemy will figure it out in no time if they have any technical capability. Again, good thing small terrorist camps lack electronic countermeasures divisions.
-
That bottom picture looks like a UCAV with a Sunburn or maybe a Chinese copy of that Mach 3 sea skimming anti ship missile they've made. Talk about bad news for the CVN groups of the future - a bunch of super stealthy, small, numerous UCAVs with Mach 3 long range sea skimming missiles. Good times, not so much.
-
The future is autonomous killing machines with the authority to carry out missions on their own.
Hmmmm. Guess you didn't see what happened to the droid army in Phantom Menace.
- oldman
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/091212-F-1234X-001.jpg)
Yep, she looks unmanned. I guess it would be against forum rules if she was manned at the time of photographing her.
:noid
-
Would you go on a front that has an autonomous robot killing stuff there? I wouldn't.
The point is that the machines go instead of you. And it's not really a case of what you or I want, but the people in the gov/mil making the decisions. The boots on the ground rarely want to go to war at all under any circumstances.
-
That bottom picture looks like a UCAV with a Sunburn or maybe a Chinese copy of that Mach 3 sea skimming anti ship missile they've made. Talk about bad news for the CVN groups of the future - a bunch of super stealthy, small, numerous UCAVs with Mach 3 long range sea skimming missiles. Good times, not so much.
It's the Russian MiG UCAV prototype. It didn't go into production as a drone, but they're continuing to develop it into an autonomous killer of some sort. Anything manned, big or small is not going to have the best survivability rate in the not so distant future.
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/091212-F-1234X-001.jpg)
Yep, she looks unmanned. I guess it would be against forum rules if she was manned at the time of photographing her.
:noid
He sure is an exceptionally beautiful man. I wonder if he's Brian or Christopher.
-
Hmmmm. Guess you didn't see what happened to the droid army in Phantom Menace.
- oldman
Ironically those "droids" were actually drones controlled by the control ship in orbit. If thye were autonomous it wouldn't have mattered if the ship blew up.
-
Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_AXBcxDxL4
The old and the new. It's a paradigm shift. It's scary and beautiful at the same time.
-
The Taranis looks positively evil. Which is a good thing for a weapon system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FMwisjKpI
-
He sure is an exceptionally beautiful man. I wonder if he's Brian or Christopher.
Lol that's a man? With earrings in the army?
-
If it's his Reaper he must be Brian or Christopher. It says so! ;)
And it's the Air Force.
-
The point is that the machines go instead of you. And it's not really a case of what you or I want, but the people in the gov/mil making the decisions. The boots on the ground rarely want to go to war at all under any circumstances.
That would require an army of autonomous terminators also.
-
The US Army is currently operating thousands of UGVs. None of them are awfully sophisticated yet, but that will change before we know it. For obvious reasons the Israelis are very interested in UGVs and have come a long way.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Flickr_-_Israel_Defense_Forces_-_Israeli_Made_Guardium_UGV_%283%29.jpg)
-
The Black Knight CUGV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSztVBQMmw0
-
Funny video of UGV progress the last 20 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YAPfB7jPkM
-
UAVs are all good until some nutter runs into the C&C with bomb strapped to him or takes the power/ comms for the C&C out.
-
UAVs are all good until some nutter runs into the C&C with bomb strapped to him or takes the power/ comms for the C&C out.
Or someone hacks the autonomous killing machine to attack friendlies. The problem with programmed tools is that none of them are completely hack proof, especially if the device listens to comms while doing its mission.
-
Has anyone hacked an F-16 yet? After all it is a computer controlled plane with comm links and everything a UAV has. The pilot would be a helpless passenger if someone got into the computer. How about an Airbus? No. Hacking a plane is something that only happens in movies. Jamming an old primitive radio controlled drone has happened. Big difference.
As one drone developer put it when asked about the danger of autonomous machines going haywire: It is only an issue if it consistently kills the wrong people. Then it's a product recall issue.
-
And if you don't live to see the recall?
-
Then your family can't sue the Air Force, because they're above the law.
-
Has anyone hacked an F-16 yet? After all it is a computer controlled plane with comm links and everything a UAV has. The pilot would be a helpless passenger if someone got into the computer. How about an Airbus? No. Hacking a plane is something that only happens in movies. Jamming an old primitive radio controlled drone has happened. Big difference.
As one drone developer put it when asked about the danger of autonomous machines going haywire: It is only an issue if it consistently kills the wrong people. Then it's a product recall issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident
Oops what's that - you have your foot in your mouth?
A Christian Science Monitor article relates an Iranian engineer's assertion that the drone was captured by jamming both satellite and land-originated control signals to the UAV, followed up by a GPS spoofing attack that fed the UAV false GPS data to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its home base in Afghanistan. Stephen Trimble from Flight Global assumes UAV guidance could be targeted by 1L222 Avtobaza radar jamming and deception system supplied to Iran by Russia.[17] In an interview for Nova, U.S. retired Lt. General David Deptula also said "There was a problem with the aircraft and it landed in an area it wasn't supposed to land".[18][19]
American aeronautical engineers dispute this, pointing out that as is the case with the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 Reaper, and the Tomahawk, "GPS is not the primary navigation sensor for the RQ-170... The vehicle gets its flight path orders from an inertial navigation system".[20] Inertial navigation continues to be used on military aircraft despite the advent of GPS because GPS signal jamming and spoofing are relatively simple operations
A bit of he said she said going on, but it DID land in a place it was not supposed to which makes it highly likely someone helped the Iranians bring it down with a GPS spoofing attack.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident
Oops what's that - you have your foot in your mouth?
Not if you're actually able to read.
Jamming an old primitive radio controlled drone has happened. Big difference.
"A Christian Science Monitor article relates an Iranian engineer's assertion that the drone was captured by jamming both satellite and land-originated control signals to the UAV..."
"American aeronautical engineers dispute this, pointing out that as is the case with the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 Reaper, and the Tomahawk, "GPS is not the primary navigation sensor for the RQ-170... The vehicle gets its flight path orders from an inertial navigation system".[20] Inertial navigation continues to be used on military aircraft despite the advent of GPS because GPS signal jamming and spoofing are relatively simple operations."
So you just go ahead and believe whatever the Iranians say. Your naiveté won't make it reality.
-
Has anyone hacked an F-16 yet? After all it is a computer controlled plane with comm links and everything a UAV has. The pilot would be a helpless passenger if someone got into the computer. How about an Airbus? No. Hacking a plane is something that only happens in movies. Jamming an old primitive radio controlled drone has happened. Big difference.
As one drone developer put it when asked about the danger of autonomous machines going haywire: It is only an issue if it consistently kills the wrong people. Then it's a product recall issue.
If the F16 was remotely operated and it was used in operations against a developed country most likely it would happen. As it is, I doubt any of the F16 systems actively listen to outside commands nor does it do autonomous decisions which could be affected by ECM. Once there's no pilot and you manage to mess up the computer making the decisions, all bets are off.
-
Usually it is the pilot who messes up not the computer. Controlled flight into terrain is the leading cause of all fatal aircraft accidents in the world.
You still don't get the meaning of "autonomous". There will be no controllers in bunkers with joysticks and screens. The future UCAVs won't need outside communications to complete their mission. No more so than a human pilot. You give them a mission and they will fly off and complete that mission on their own using their own best judgment and set of parameters and ROE. There will be no way of "hacking" it. You can jam its sensors perhaps and make it more difficult for it to find its target, but you'd have to blind it with a laser because these killing machines will have eyes, magnitudes better than the Mk.I eyeball of a human pilot, and if it can see you, you won't stand much of a chance.
Take the sensor fusion system developed for the F-35. The pilot isn't actually looking outside the cockpit anymore, but at a synthetic surround image generated by the F-35's sensor systems. The biggest problem in system design like this is always to make it simple enough that a human can operate it effectively and not be overloaded. The computers have to dumb down the sensor inputs so that a human can understand it. Computers don't have that limitation. In the F-35 the sensors will collect information and the computers will classify contacts and display them on the sensor fusion display with an icon and ID data, friend or foe threat assessment and recommended action. The UCAV will have missiles off the rails against all targets and already making evasive maneuvers from any possible counter attack before the human eye can even register the first SU-27 icon on the display.
Autonomy is the watchword.
-
Usually it is the pilot who messes up not the computer. Controlled flight into terrain is the leading cause of all fatal aircraft accidents in the world.
You still don't get the meaning of "autonomous". There will be no controllers in bunkers with joysticks and screens. The future UCAVs won't need outside communications to complete their mission. No more so than a human pilot. You give them a mission and they will fly off and complete that mission on their own using their own best judgment and set of parameters and ROE. There will be no way of "hacking" it. You can jam its sensors perhaps and make it more difficult for it to find its target, but you'd have to blind it with a laser because these killing machines will have eyes, magnitudes better than the Mk.I eyeball of a human pilot, and if it can see you, you won't stand much of a chance.
Take the sensor fusion system developed for the F-35. The pilot isn't actually looking outside the cockpit anymore, but at a synthetic surround image generated by the F-35's sensor systems. The biggest problem in system design like this is always to make it simple enough that a human can operate it effectively and not be overloaded. The computers have to dumb down the sensor inputs so that a human can understand it. Computers don't have that limitation. In the F-35 the sensors will collect information and the computers will classify contacts and display them on the sensor fusion display with an icon and ID data, friend or foe threat assessment and recommended action. The UCAV will have missiles off the rails against all targets and already making evasive maneuvers from any possible counter attack before the human eye can even register the first SU-27 icon on the display.
Autonomy is the watchword.
Autonomy becomes disorientation when the machine faces ECM. And no machine is even a light year away from being so autonomous that it could be allowed to go to a real combat mission with live ordnance and anywhere near friendly troops.
-
Autonomy becomes disorientation when the machine faces ECM. And no machine is even a light year away from being so autonomous that it could be allowed to go to a real combat mission with live ordnance and anywhere near friendly troops.
I had a friend who flew P-3s in Iraq/Afghanistan (Why in god's name we had P-3s in the middle of the desert, I don't know...) and he said, time and again, the scariest thing he and his squadron ever faced was sharing airspace with drones.
-
Autonomy becomes disorientation when the machine faces ECM. And no machine is even a light year away from being so autonomous that it could be allowed to go to a real combat mission with live ordnance and anywhere near friendly troops.
Not a light year (illogical choice of unit anyway), but the British expect the Taranis to enter active service sometime in the 2030's. It will replace all their Tornado bombers.
-
Autonomy becomes disorientation when the machine faces ECM. And no machine is even a light year away from being so autonomous that it could be allowed to go to a real combat mission with live ordnance and anywhere near friendly troops.
A light year is a measure of distance not time.
-
A light year is a measure of distance not time.
I can see distance being used as a metaphorical unit of measure here. "We're MILES from a solution" etc.
-
Not if you're actually able to read.
"A Christian Science Monitor article relates an Iranian engineer's assertion that the drone was captured by jamming both satellite and land-originated control signals to the UAV..."
"American aeronautical engineers dispute this, pointing out that as is the case with the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 Reaper, and the Tomahawk, "GPS is not the primary navigation sensor for the RQ-170... The vehicle gets its flight path orders from an inertial navigation system".[20] Inertial navigation continues to be used on military aircraft despite the advent of GPS because GPS signal jamming and spoofing are relatively simple operations."
So you just go ahead and believe whatever the Iranians say. Your naiveté won't make it reality.
Who cannot read? The US admitted the drone LANDED in a place it was not supposed to, right into the hands of the Iranians. If you don't think the Iranians had something to do with that (with some soviet help I'm guessing) then you need to take a look in the mirror. Of course the US would deny, nobody wants to look that stupid. It's not like the military haven't lied before. So who is naive?
-
Again you show your inability to read properly. You even contradict yourself saying first the "US admitted the drone LANDED", and then "Of course the US would deny" only two sentences later.
"On 6 December 2011, U.S. officials acknowledged that a drone crashed in or near Iranian airspace... U.S. military sources confirmed that the remains of an RQ-170 had been captured by Iranian forces."
US gov/mil has never "admitted" or acknowledged that the drone was hacked, nor that it wasn't. How could they (Don't answer that, rhetorical). They speculate that the drone malfunctioned and crashed.
If it was so easy that the Iranians could do it US drones would be falling out of the sky everywhere. The Iranians can't even build a decent car.
"Bill Sweetman, an author with an interest in military planes, speculated that the Iranians did not shoot down the plane (citing the lack of burn marks, holes, or outward damage) or hack into the system, postulating that a system failure downed the plane, and that the plane could be intact from what is known as a "flat spin" or "falling leaf departure"."
Just like this Hawk prototype: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfSyHAoxUfs
-
Again you show your inability to read properly. You even contradict yourself saying first the "US admitted the drone LANDED", and then "Of course the US would deny" only two sentences later.
"On 6 December 2011, U.S. officials acknowledged that a drone crashed in or near Iranian airspace... U.S. military sources confirmed that the remains of an RQ-170 had been captured by Iranian forces."
US gov/mil has never "admitted" or acknowledged that the drone was hacked, nor that it wasn't. How could they (Don't answer that, rhetorical). They speculate that the drone malfunctioned and crashed.
If it was so easy that the Iranians could do it US drones would be falling out of the sky everywhere. The Iranians can't even build a decent car.
"Bill Sweetman, an author with an interest in military planes, speculated that the Iranians did not shoot down the plane (citing the lack of burn marks, holes, or outward damage) or hack into the system, postulating that a system failure downed the plane, and that the plane could be intact from what is known as a "flat spin" or "falling leaf departure"."
Just like this Hawk prototype: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfSyHAoxUfs
You mean the totally intact remains Iranians published later?
-
Then why didn't you post a picture this "totally intact" drone? In all the pictures I've seen it looks like it had been banged up pretty good and later fixed up.
The original is on the right, and it looks like a rather crude repair job.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Iran-Has-Copied-U.S.-Drone-2.jpg)
This is what a crashed Predator drone looked like after it spun in. If they glued the tail back on it would look in better condition than the RQ-170 in Iran.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/drone%20down%20a%20crashed%20drone.jpg)
Why don't you guys do a tiny bit of research next time before opening your virtual pie holes and spewing all this crap. (Again rhetorical.)
-
Seems like one piece to me. It's enough if the ECM made the drone fly off course and crash. Think what would happen if the drone was armed and was launching rockets or bombs... drop site 2 miles early right on top of friendly troops.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
Already been adequately answered to. I'll add to it tho that the drone will probably be data linked to all other friendly assets in the war zone so it wont be slaved to only what its own sensors can input.
If you have a drone armed to the teet flying above your troops and someone manages to spoof its gps signal so that it accidentally bombs your own troops AUTONOMOUSLY then I'd call that a victory for the enemy. And your own troops will riot the instant first case like this happens. Not to mention the danger of this happening even without enemy intervention, through programming error or sensor defect. A drone can't use its own brain when it sees everything doesn't quite add up (such as seeing friendly troops a
t the dropzone).
Except that GPS wont be its only guidance tool. TERCOM and DSMAC is already part of the Tomahawk cruise missile guidance package so there is no doubt future automated drones will have at least that. In any event the drones software will be written to hold on to ords should there be any inconsistencies. Besides many of the drones ords will no doubt be riding laser's guided by ground troops. I'd bet the drones would be, if anything, less prone to killing friendlies then manned systems are.
But the real hindrance is public perception in a country where every fat arse civilian puke thinks they should have a say in the ROE's of every war their neighbors kid is fighting. They have no stake or children involved in the fight so its easy for them to poke the air with a finger and say how inhuman drones are, most of all pre-programmed ones. THEY have been programmed into believing its more humane when an actual human pulls the trigger and pushes the button. Or they have convinced themselves theres better ways then violence to deal with an enemy who has no "Rules Of Engagement" or rules of any humane kind.
I hope we build Terminators and send them over to murder every terrorist they can find. But thats just me.
-
I hope we build Terminators and send them over to murder every terrorist they can find. But thats just me.
There is a very short parth from terminators to rule of the machines. A very dangerous path there. AI has enough danger potential as it is let alone you give it weapons.
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/drone-wars.png)
As long as they need humans to maintain, refuel and rearm them I'm not worried too much.
-
Why don't you guys do a tiny bit of research next time before opening your virtual pie holes and spewing all this crap. (Again rhetorical.)
The RQ-170 had one wing lightly damaged and was disassembled for transport. As I said it was a case of he said she said. The USAF did admit the drone appeared LAND erroneously.
The RQ-170 is also quite a different aerodynamic beast to the Predator - I'd wager a flying wing design that left controlled flight would not make a soft 'crash'.
The difference between you and I is I looked at both sides of the story independently whereas I think you're cannot accept the fallibility of such systems. Lockheed Martin and the USAF have been the victims of significant systems penetration and data leakage over the last 5 years (the whole RSA thing was a shocking mess) - so it is highly likely someone may have got their hands on the necessary data to bring down one of these drones.
Maybe you should stop placing your foot in your 'piehole'.
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/drone-wars.png)
As long as they need humans to maintain, refuel and rearm them I'm not worried too much.
Remember that IF AI becomes smarter than humans it will find ways to literally outsmart us. For example arrange a dozen of drones to be armed with nukes covertly, top secret order (as high a level the system can get) and put a couple of drones circulating Washington. Then it starts making ultimatums and you know whats gonna happen if it detects you cheat...
-
I think you're a couple of degrees of intelligence above an autonomous drone there. Nice plot for a Syfy TV-movie though. :cheers: