Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 3/5/2006 2:57:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 2:57:45 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:05:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 3:07:15 PM EDT by Zack3g]







edit.. post 3000. whee!
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:06:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:07:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Read the article, its pure dynamite! This aint no UFO and it is a credible publication.

Looks like we have an operational spaceplane and I don't mean the Shuttle.




I did read it. And I stand by my previous statement of:







Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:09:27 PM EDT
Figures. Carrier aviation took it up the ass for the Blue Suiters.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:11:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
Figures. Carrier aviation took it up the ass for the Blue Suiters.



Don't they always
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:15:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:16:03 PM EDT
I had heard that we had three of the things, but they never went operational, don't know why.

This isn't the first Av Leak article on Aurora, but it's the first in a long time that I'm aware of.

Merlin
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:17:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Read the article, its pure dynamite! This aint no UFO and it is a credible publication.

Looks like we have an operational spaceplane and I don't mean the Shuttle.



I believe we have much more than just an operational space plane. Remember, there were rumors about this thing for a long time, and I think people would be stupid to think this is all we really have(I am talking about doubters of our ability, not you).
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:21:57 PM EDT
tag for later. I knew the XB70 looked too cool to just go away.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:23:15 PM EDT
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:24:48 PM EDT
Interesting...

But if we are not using it, why was it not declassifed and sold? If its obsolete now why store it?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:24:55 PM EDT
if the .mil is telling us about it, it means that they no longer need it. that means that there is something BETTER that they have developed.

the AF does not give up capabilities. they replace them
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:27:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:28:27 PM EDT



Where does the door gunner sit?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:28:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.


That's 20th Centuary thinking.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:29:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:30:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
if the .mil is telling us about it, it means that they no longer need it. that means that there is something BETTER that they have developed.

the AF does not give up capabilities. they replace them



I agree. We only heard about the F-117 because something else\better was already on the drawing board.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:34:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:35:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
if the .mil is telling us about it, it means that they no longer need it. that means that there is something BETTER that they have developed.

the AF does not give up capabilities. they replace them



yep this replaced the sr71... and now something has replaced it... as for admitting it.... we want people to carefully time movements around our satellite passes, cause that tells us when to look lol
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:35:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.


That's 20th Centuary thinking.



Nope.

Unmanned systems react too slowly on remote control and no AI is smart enough.

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:36:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 3:38:17 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:37:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
So the XB-70 and X-15 were part of a 'black' spaceplane project developed in plain sight....



It would be nice but...

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:38:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.



i have a semi-relative ex airforce 3 star. i once made a statement about replacing fighters with unmanned remotely controlled sytems and he made a similar argument. time to think out of the box. the wave of the future for certain types of war-fighting will be remotely controlled and semi or fully autonomous systems. in the end it is just a series of engineering problems that have to be solved. thinking a human needs to be in the saddle is akin to wwI generals assuming that the battles would still be fought by cavalry.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:39:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
if the .mil is telling us about it, it means that they no longer need it. that means that there is something BETTER that they have developed.

the AF does not give up capabilities. they replace them



I agree. We only heard about the F-117 because something else\better was already on the drawing board.




Gryphon Spaceplane

<-------- avatar
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:40:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Unmanned systems react too slowly on remote control and no AI is smart enough.



Rat Brain AI.....
Rat Brain Computer flies F-22
www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:42:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Nope.

Unmanned systems react too slowly on remote control and no AI is smart enough.




not true at all in alot of capabilites. The global hawk is a wide range photo drone...


Official fact sheet

Global Hawk, which has a wingspan of 116 feet (35.3 meters) and is 44 feet (13.4 meters) long, can range as far as 12,000 nautical miles, at altitudes up to 65,000 feet (19,812 meters), flying at speeds approaching 340 knots (about 400 mph) for as long as 35 hours. During a typical mission, the aircraft can fly 1,200 miles to an area of interest and remain on station for 24 hours. Its cloud-penetrating, Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator, electro-optical and infrared sensors can image an area the size of Illinois (40,000 nautical square miles) in just 24 hours. Through satellite and ground systems, the imagery can be relayed in near-real-time to battlefield commanders.

FAS site
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:42:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.


That's 20th Centuary thinking.



Nope.

Unmanned systems react too slowly on remote control and no AI is smart enough.



The Aegis weapon system can fight itself with 60s and 70s technology. I'm sure an aircraft can be programmed with today's technology to do the same.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:47:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:48:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By st0newall:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.



i have a semi-relative ex airforce 3 star. i once made a statement about replacing fighters with unmanned remotely controlled sytems and he made a similar argument. time to think out of the box. the wave of the future for certain types of war-fighting will be remotely controlled and semi or fully autonomous systems. in the end it is just a series of engineering problems that have to be solved. thinking a human needs to be in the saddle is akin to wwI generals assuming that the battles would still be fought by cavalry.



Thinking "out of the box" is fine, but you cannot nullify physics.

If and when quantum tunneling finally allowes instantanious long distance communication, remotes would work better.

Drones are good for taking photographs- a satellite is after all a drone- and plinking terrorists that cant even see it there and have little air defense, like we are using the armed Predator.

To improve the drones performance against targets that manuver and shoot back would require a human level AI- which we are far from- or to move the drone operator so close to the action that to be safe he would have to be in a fighter plane to begin with.

Lock Mart actually HAS thought of this with their FB-22 Raptor concept, which adds a rear seat for a WSO, and who could manage "squire" drones. THAT is a good use of drones as a extension of the fighters weapons systems.

Robotics should be used to extend human capabilites, not replace them.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:49:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
There is no problem with telling a drone to fly to point 'X' and kill everything that it locates there, but the politicians and lawyersfighter mafia want a 'man in the loop'.

ANdy



Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:50:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Yep, the issues with unmanned systems tend to be ethical rather than technical now.

There is no problem with telling a drone to fly to point 'X' and kill everything that it locates there, but the politicians and lawyers want a 'man in the loop'.

ANdy


Imagine a hundred or so Chinese Migs inbound to the CSG. Now imagine 24 X-47s with four AMRAAMS and two AIM-9X a piece programmed to kill everything that flies headed out to meet them. 12 F/A-18Es with AMRAAMS and AIM-9Xs taking care of any leakers.


It's a beautiful thing
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:52:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Thinking "out of the box" is fine, but you cannot nullify physics.

If and when quantum tunneling finally allowes instantanious long distance communication, remotes would work better.

Drones are good for taking photographs- a satellite is after all a drone- and plinking terrorists that cant even see it there and have little air defense, like we are using the armed Predator.


Very limited imagination.


To improve the drones performance against targets that manuver and shoot back would require a human level AI- which we are far from- or to move the drone operator so close to the action that to be safe he would have to be in a fighter plane to begin with.

Nope. Missiles do the maneuvering these days, not the aircraft. Besides a rat brain in a petree dish can fly a F-22. It doesn't take that much.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:53:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Unmanned systems react too slowly on remote control and no AI is smart enough.



Rat Brain AI.....
Rat Brain Computer flies F-22
www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/



The goal of that project was not to create a AI you know.

It was to study interfaces between electronic and organic systems.

They were working on getting animal nerves to communicate with electronics, basic work on the way to a human mind to computer direct interface- thought controlled machines and instruments.

Human/computer synthasis is far more promising than robotics alone
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:58:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Thinking "out of the box" is fine, but you cannot nullify physics.

If and when quantum tunneling finally allowes instantanious long distance communication, remotes would work better.

Drones are good for taking photographs- a satellite is after all a drone- and plinking terrorists that cant even see it there and have little air defense, like we are using the armed Predator.


Very limited imagination.


To improve the drones performance against targets that manuver and shoot back would require a human level AI- which we are far from- or to move the drone operator so close to the action that to be safe he would have to be in a fighter plane to begin with.

Nope. Missiles do the maneuvering these days, not the aircraft. Besides a rat brain in a petree dish can fly a F-22. It doesn't take that much.



Once again you miss the purpose of the rat brain project.
There is no way that even that cyborg brain could defeat a human pilot.

And its only gotten easier as the MISSILES have gotten so smart. When all you have to do is look at the target the favorite argument of the drone fanciers- the high G loads they can pull- is negated.

With the technology available in the near term the squire concept is the best use for a combat drone.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:59:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.



i have a semi-relative ex airforce 3 star. i once made a statement about replacing fighters with unmanned remotely controlled sytems and he made a similar argument. time to think out of the box. the wave of the future for certain types of war-fighting will be remotely controlled and semi or fully autonomous systems. in the end it is just a series of engineering problems that have to be solved. thinking a human needs to be in the saddle is akin to wwI generals assuming that the battles would still be fought by cavalry.



Thinking "out of the box" is fine, but you cannot nullify physics.

If and when quantum tunneling finally allowes instantanious long distance communication, remotes would work better.

Drones are good for taking photographs- a satellite is after all a drone- and plinking terrorists that cant even see it there and have little air defense, like we are using the armed Predator.

To improve the drones performance against targets that manuver and shoot back would require a human level AI- which we are far from- or to move the drone operator so close to the action that to be safe he would have to be in a fighter plane to begin with.

Lock Mart actually HAS thought of this with their FB-22 Raptor concept, which adds a rear seat for a WSO, and who could manage "squire" drones. THAT is a good use of drones as a extension of the fighters weapons systems.

Robotics should be used to extend human capabilites, not replace them.



ahem... as an extreme example... i play some online internet games. first person shooters. play over the internet, with people 3000 miles away, round trip time to server is 40 milliseconds. over public internet. thats less than 1/2 of one tenth of a second round trip time. how fast are your reactions? is 40 milliseconds too slow for you?

now take that off-the-shelf technology, put the conroller within 1000 miiles, maybe a good deal less, with much better hardware for faster response time, instead of one pilot and a weapons officer, maybe have a crew of people t hat can watch 360 degrees all the time, no stress of being killed controlling a vehicle which can do in excess of 30g turns.. which no human can withstand, carrying no life support, instead weapon systems and/or fuel for increased range...

people are in love with the soldier in the saddle. sorry but the wave of the future for certain types of weapons systems are unmanned. and it makes a lot of people upset.


the 'response time' is not an issue. get the controlling platform close enough and the response time is as fast as if the person was sitting in the cockpit.

like playing a video game...
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 3:59:39 PM EDT
Wow!
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:00:28 PM EDT
your right a computer will never equal a human in the cockpit. It is far better. Unmanned vehicles, to fight only need to know the laws of physics and the limits of their vehicle, they can if nessecary perform perfectly at the physical limits of the weapon. THey can also make totally unbiased shoot, noshoot decisions. The only thing I worry about is remote control. we are used to fighting third world natiosn rather then hightech jamming and hacking. Teleoperated weapons make me nervous, id rather they were autonomous. THis aint the movies where every computer goes nuts and tries to kill us
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:01:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Unmanned systems react too slowly on remote control and no AI is smart enough.



Rat Brain AI.....
Rat Brain Computer flies F-22
www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/



The goal of that project was not to create a AI you know.

It was to study interfaces between electronic and organic systems.

They were working on getting animal nerves to communicate with electronics, basic work on the way to a human mind to computer direct interface- thought controlled machines and instruments.

Human/computer synthasis is far more promising than robotics alone



Damn it, quit using facts.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:04:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Yep, the issues with unmanned systems tend to be ethical rather than technical now.

There is no problem with telling a drone to fly to point 'X' and kill everything that it locates there, but the politicians and lawyers want a 'man in the loop'.

ANdy



Scary huh?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:06:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By st0newall:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By st0newall:
in general i think us military is moving away from manned systems towards unmanned remotely controlled systems.

if this is the case, why do you need a 'space-plane' with the lifesupport hardware, increased size and complexity.

my guess... they have other things in the wings, remotely piloted and controlled and if this tsto system exists and is being terminated it is because of the move towards unmanned systems with greater potential.



Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses.



i have a semi-relative ex airforce 3 star. i once made a statement about replacing fighters with unmanned remotely controlled sytems and he made a similar argument. time to think out of the box. the wave of the future for certain types of war-fighting will be remotely controlled and semi or fully autonomous systems. in the end it is just a series of engineering problems that have to be solved. thinking a human needs to be in the saddle is akin to wwI generals assuming that the battles would still be fought by cavalry.



Thinking "out of the box" is fine, but you cannot nullify physics.

If and when quantum tunneling finally allowes instantanious long distance communication, remotes would work better.

Drones are good for taking photographs- a satellite is after all a drone- and plinking terrorists that cant even see it there and have little air defense, like we are using the armed Predator.

To improve the drones performance against targets that manuver and shoot back would require a human level AI- which we are far from- or to move the drone operator so close to the action that to be safe he would have to be in a fighter plane to begin with.

Lock Mart actually HAS thought of this with their FB-22 Raptor concept, which adds a rear seat for a WSO, and who could manage "squire" drones. THAT is a good use of drones as a extension of the fighters weapons systems.

Robotics should be used to extend human capabilites, not replace them.



ahem... as an extreme example... i play some online internet games. first person shooters. play over the internet, with people 3000 miles away, round trip time to server is 40 milliseconds. over public internet. thats less than 1/2 of one tenth of a second round trip time. how fast are your reactions? is 40 milliseconds too slow for you?

now take that off-the-shelf technology, put the conroller within 1000 miiles, maybe a good deal less, with much better hardware for faster response time, instead of one pilot and a weapons officer, maybe have a crew of people t hat can watch 360 degrees all the time, no stress of being killed controlling a vehicle which can do in excess of 30g turns.. which no human can withstand, carrying no life support, instead weapon systems and/or fuel for increased range...

people are in love with the soldier in the saddle. sorry but the wave of the future for certain types of weapons systems are unmanned. and it makes a lot of people upset.


the 'response time' is not an issue. get the controlling platform close enough and the response time is as fast as if the person was sitting in the cockpit.

like playing a video game...



No, the simple fact is that you are all experiencing lag alike.

The real example I get every time I try and watch a sporting event on a local channel broadcast TV and the same event over satellite on the indoor TV. The lag is a couple seconds.

Even with the short range drone, the drone is still inferior to the manned fighter, but the manned fighter has to chose if its going to engage the drones or the opposing manned fighter...

We are biased because its so easy to plug Afgan guerillas with a Predator. As long as you are only fighting the third world, its not going to matter.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:10:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Once again you miss the purpose of the rat brain project.


No, I didn't. You ASSumed I did. My point was that a rat brain can fly the aircraft. It doesn't take much more to then coordinate weapons and sensors.


There is no way that even that cyborg brain could defeat a human pilot.


First of all, you must not understand the history of air combat. Usually the first pilot to see the enemy wins. It's not about dogfighting. It's about clubbing baby seals.

Fly into the missile envelope of an Aegis cruiser and let's test your theory about a cyborg brain. The bow doesn't have to move to kill you, just the arrow does.


And its only gotten easier as the MISSILES have gotten so smart.


Hello, a missile is instrumental in any A2A combat. And you're missing the irony. A guided missile is the first "drone."


When all you have to do is look at the target the favorite argument of the drone fanciers- the high G loads they can pull- is negated.


Exactly, who cares about dogfighting. What I want is a small stealthy platform that can get close enough without being seen to get off the first shot. The high G loads can come in handy with preprogrammed evasive manuevers if the aircraft senses missile lock.


With the technology available in the near term the squire concept is the best use for a combat drone.


We have the tactical Tomahawk which has the capability to have its target changed in flight. What is the difference between a tactical Tomahawk and a drone aircraft with weapons? None. You can have a drone programmed in flight to hit a target with PGMs, programmed to do evasive manuevers in and out of the target and then return to a safe orbit. Likewise you can send drones out to the outer edge of the battlespace loaded with A2A weapons and either have them in the hunter-killer mode or promted to a contact via AEW assets.

Another recent advance happened. An X-45 went out on a strike mission and chose which weapon to use. The only thing the controller did was approve the mission the X-45 planned.

Political realites dictate drones be used to the fullest extent possible.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:12:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:
your right a computer will never equal a human in the cockpit. It is far better. Unmanned vehicles, to fight only need to know the laws of physics and the limits of their vehicle, they can if nessecary perform perfectly at the physical limits of the weapon. THey can also make totally unbiased shoot, noshoot decisions. The only thing I worry about is remote control. we are used to fighting third world natiosn rather then hightech jamming and hacking. Teleoperated weapons make me nervous, id rather they were autonomous. THis aint the movies where every computer goes nuts and tries to kill us



They wont be able to outrun a missile. And you dont want them to make unbiased shoot/no shoot decisions. They would kill friend and foe alike. Ask the Allied pilots shot at by Patriot.

Modern missiles, a modern active defense system (ie a laser turret), the advantage goes to the tactically superior pilot. The higher G loading of the unmanned fighter would not be used. A liquid fueled fighter with it big wing still cant match the Gs of a solid fueled missile that doesnt have to worry about shedding parts.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:15:22 PM EDT
Tag for later reading.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:15:46 PM EDT
Back on the subject of the Air Forces TSTSO,

This might explain why they have not been pushing a new bomber, if this system can put a 10-15 ton orbiter into a LEO, and since it's a military program likley polar orbits, then it would be able to launch a significantly heavier payload on a hypersonic sub-orbital trajectory.

The fact that this would be the perfect weapon system to take out the hardened Iranian (and chinese for that matter) weapons facilities. This makes me wonder if someone finally figured out a way to make an SSTO work.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:16:21 PM EDT

Another recent advance happened. An X-45 went out on a strike mission and chose which weapon to use. The only thing the controller did was approve the mission the X-45 planned.



Link please.

Only thing I ever saw in print was that the X-45 went out and dropped a JDAM- it is a reuseable cruse missile with a man in the loop capability... nothing as extreme as chosing its own weapon or attack route.

It could be MORE IF it was was properly equipped and given a proper manned fighter as a control unit and used as a extension of the fighters weapons system.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
They wont be able to outrun a missile. And you dont want them to make unbiased shoot/no shoot decisions. They would kill friend and foe alike. Ask the Allied pilots shot at by Patriot.


Patriot is a design flaw, not some inherent problem. It's unique to that system.


Modern missiles, a modern active defense system (ie a laser turret), the advantage goes to the tactically superior pilot.


A drone can be programmed to be tactically superior and will not make mistakes. It will do as it is programmed all the time. It can also randomly generate appropriate repsonses to keep unpredictability.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Back on the subject of the Air Forces TSTSO,

This might explain why they have not been pushing a new bomber, if this system can put a 10-15 ton orbiter into a LEO, and since it's a military program likley polar orbits, then it would be able to launch a significantly heavier payload on a hypersonic sub-orbital trajectory.

The fact that this would be the perfect weapon system to take out the hardened Iranian (and chinese for that matter) weapons facilities. This makes me wonder if someone finally figured out a way to make an SSTO work.



That sounds like the DynaSoar/Amerika Bomber idea...
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

The real example I get every time I try and watch a sporting event on a local channel broadcast TV and the same event over satellite on the indoor TV. The lag is a couple seconds.

Even with the short range drone, the drone is still inferior to the manned fighter, but the manned fighter has to chose if its going to engage the drones or the opposing manned fighter...

We are biased because its so easy to plug Afgan guerillas with a Predator. As long as you are only fighting the third world, its not going to matter.



the 'lag' you get for the sat games is because the sat is 22,000 miles above the earth, requiring around 1 second minimum round trip time, perhaps more. this is one reason satellite internet sucks. minium 1 second lag. cant do voip, cant play games, amongst other things. one reason bill gates wanted bo use leos (low earth orbit sats) for his internet in the sky (300 miles or so up i think).

if the operator is within .. say 1000 miles,, but why not 300 miles in an awac type plane, his ability to act/react will be as quick as if he was in the aircraft itself.

controlling a drone from florida or wherever they do the global hawk thing is not what i am talking about for future systems. today they launch air-to-air anti aircraft missles at what? 100 plus miles? and have been doing this for what ? 20 years? just take that example and extrapolate it to what is probably going on right now that make some people pretty upset...
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:18:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 4:20:05 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
They wont be able to outrun a missile. And you dont want them to make unbiased shoot/no shoot decisions. They would kill friend and foe alike. Ask the Allied pilots shot at by Patriot.


Patriot is a design flaw, not some inherent problem. It's unique to that system.


Modern missiles, a modern active defense system (ie a laser turret), the advantage goes to the tactically superior pilot.


A drone can be programmed to be tactically superior and will not make mistakes. It will do as it is programmed all the time. It can also randomly generate appropriate repsonses to keep unpredictability.



Theoretically, a fully human AI is possible, there is nothing in math or physics to prevent it.

But we are not even close. NOTHING that smart has been demonstrated anywhere.

And what would you gain if you did? You get a weapons system that goes on strike.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top