User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:05:12 PM EDT
[#1]
  edit.. post 3000. whee! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:06:55 PM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:07:54 PM EDT
[#3]
I did read it. And I stand by my previous statement of: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:09:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Figures. Carrier aviation took it up the ass for the Blue Suiters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:11:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Don't they always 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:15:30 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:16:03 PM EDT
[#7]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:17:17 PM EDT
[#8]
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). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:21:57 PM EDT
[#9]
tag for later. I knew the XB70 looked too cool to just go away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:23:15 PM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:24:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Interesting...
But if we are not using it, why was it not declassifed and sold? If its obsolete now why store it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:24:55 PM EDT
[#12]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:27:23 PM EDT
[#13]
Unmanned system with greater potential? Unmanned systems have strictly limited uses. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:28:27 PM EDT
[#14]
 Where does the door gunner sit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:28:29 PM EDT
[#15]
That's 20th Centuary thinking. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:29:06 PM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:30:42 PM EDT
[#17]
I agree. We only heard about the F-117 because something else\better was already on the drawing board. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:34:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Interesting.
And AWST is a HIGHLY credible source. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:35:16 PM EDT
[#19]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:35:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Nope. Unmanned systems react too slowly on remote control and no AI is smart enough. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:36:11 PM EDT
[#21]
So the XB-70 and X-15 were part of a 'black' spaceplane project developed in plain sight....
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:37:24 PM EDT
[#22]
It would be nice but... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:38:45 PM EDT
[#23]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:39:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Gryphon Spaceplane <-------- avatar |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:40:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Rat Brain AI..... Rat Brain Computer flies F-22 www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:42:12 PM EDT
[#26]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:42:22 PM EDT
[#27]
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. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:47:24 PM EDT
[#28]
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 |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:48:53 PM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:49:33 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:50:42 PM EDT
[#31]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:52:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Very limited imagination.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:53:18 PM EDT
[#33]
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 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:58:18 PM EDT
[#34]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:59:27 PM EDT
[#35]
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... |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 3:59:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Wow!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:00:28 PM EDT
[#37]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:01:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Damn it, quit using facts. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:04:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Scary huh? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:06:02 PM EDT
[#40]
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. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:10:18 PM EDT
[#41]
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.
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.
Hello, a missile is instrumental in any A2A combat. And you're missing the irony. A guided missile is the first "drone."
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.
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. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:12:23 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:15:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Tag for later reading.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:15:46 PM EDT
[#44]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:16:21 PM EDT
[#45]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Patriot is a design flaw, not some inherent problem. It's unique to that system.
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:19 PM EDT
[#47]
That sounds like the DynaSoar/Amerika Bomber idea... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:35 PM EDT
[#48]
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... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Most shipborne missile systems can operate totally autonomously, there is no man in the loop, no time delay, no 'if', buts' or 'maybes'... you just tell the system that ANYTHING in area 'X' is to be killed unless it gives the right squak and sit back and sip your coffee. The ability for a fighter to fly to a point 'X' and launch a missile automatically at anything it's onboard rader detects is old hat. All a pilot does in a modern fighter is permit the shot. ANdy |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:18:37 PM EDT
[#50]
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. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
