bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 That's a three year old article........so what has happened since then? Has Japan committed to actually buying this lame duck or has the deal been allowed to quietly die? There is no deal until the law is changed for FMS (foreign military sales). Japan and Israel represent an opportunity to keep production and supply chains viable for additional units. Senator Inouye of Hawaii is leading one of the efforts: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...ters-for-japan/ The Americans will have about half of the originally planned 381 aircraft as things stand now, but could expand the inventory and forward deployment with allies Japan and Israel. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 There is no deal until the law is changed for FMS (foreign military sales). Japan and Israel represent an opportunity to keep production and supply chains viable for additional units. Senator Inouye of Hawaii is leading one of the efforts:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...ters-for-japan/ The Americans will have about half of the originally planned 381 aircraft as things stand now, but could expand the inventory and forward deployment with allies Japan and Israel. Seems prudent, actually. Can I borrow a cup of F-22s? Thanks Blanche. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bonam Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 Don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm sure it's possible, but probably not desirable. You don't see it happening? Based on what? Autonomous UAVs are under extensive R&D at both the private companies that make normal UAVs and at universities and labs around the world. I have a friend that works on control algorithms for autonomous UAVs actually, very interesting stuff. Keep in mind that a lot of the functions of UAVs are already autonomous, and full autonomy will start with recon drones rather than attack drones. But the autonomy of attack drones is definitely coming as well, and it is certainly necessary. The USA is experiencing a critical shortage of qualified UAV pilots which is seriously limiting the amount of UAV strikes it is able to carry out. The physical supply and production of UAVs far outstrips the rate at which new UAV pilots are being trained. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Posted July 31, 2009 You don't see it happening? Based on what? Autonomous UAVs are under extensive R&D at both the private companies that make normal UAVs and at universities and labs around the world. I have a friend that works on control algorithms for autonomous UAVs actually, very interesting stuff. Keep in mind that a lot of the functions of UAVs are already autonomous, and full autonomy will start with recon drones rather than attack drones. But the autonomy of attack drones is definitely coming as well, and it is certainly necessary. The USA is experiencing a critical shortage of qualified UAV pilots which is seriously limiting the amount of UAV strikes it is able to carry out. The physical supply and production of UAVs far outstrips the rate at which new UAV pilots are being trained. The latest cruise missiles are cheaper than they used to be with increased abilities. The next generation of cruise missiles will have a programed memory of target potentials. It will know what a tank looks like, or an artillery piece, air defense systems, and lots more. They already have loiter ability now as well as the ability to change targeting information in flight. The next step is enhanced computers that will allow a search and destroy ability to look for and take out targets of opportunity as well as a return to base feature availability in forward zones to recapture an unused missile for refit and refuel making it available for reuse. UAV's are now armed as well. This makes them far more capable than simply recon. Technology improves almost daily. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 You don't see it happening? Based on what? Pure speculation. I have no doubt that we will soon be able to fully automate attack drones. I simply question how far along the AI is going to have to be before they can truly and completely erase the need for human pilots whether within the planes or remote controlled. The judgement capabilities of the AI is also something I question. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Bonam Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 Pure speculation.I have no doubt that we will soon be able to fully automate attack drones. I simply question how far along the AI is going to have to be before they can truly and completely erase the need for human pilots whether within the planes or remote controlled. The actual moment of when a drone is about to fire a lethal payload could be watched by human pilots, who could override as necessary, when such a program begins to be phased in. I'm sure that's how it will start. There may be some kinks in the beginning, and as time passes the AI will improve and humans will not need to override for long stretches of operation and will grow comfortable with the concept of leaving their drones unsupervised. The judgement capabilities of the AI is also something I question. The AI makes no "judgment", it is all a matter of the programming, and the judgment of those humans that programmed it. A UAV can be programmed to attack a specific stationary target at a specific location, the simplest use of a fully autonomous UAV. It can be programmed to patrol an area and destroy a (for example) rocket launch site only after it has been fully confirmed as such by the launch of a rocket from it. It can be programmed to automatically target militants, based on a variety of identification factors, such as facial recognition, armament, etc. Or it can be programmed to terrorize a civilian population. All up to the programmer. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 .....All up to the programmer. Technically that may be possible, but there are some other critical command and control (C3I) factors to consider. UAV weapons systems will still exist besides a mix of "dumb bombs", guided munitions, and support elements that have to be coordinated. One of the reasons the F-22 exists is to reduce pilot workload while offering a quantum leap in battlespace sensors / processing and situation awareness, which will present scenarios that the "programmer" has not anticipated. Programmed AI may be able to "learn" from experience, but not as fast as a human pilot. The US has long had the capability to automate detection, analysis, and attack profiles for weapons systems, but is very reluctant to remove key human controls for obvious reasons. Even then, they can fail (e.g. friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 Very good explanation BC Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Posted July 31, 2009 The capability will be improved upon day by day and year by year. We are heading into automated warfare, get used to the concept. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 I really don't believe it will ever be fully automated. The very concept itself is frightening to me but maybe I've watched Terminator a few too many times... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Bonam Posted July 31, 2009 Report Posted July 31, 2009 I really don't believe it will ever be fully automated. The very concept itself is frightening to me but maybe I've watched Terminator a few too many times... I think it is inevitable, just a matter of time, depending on how much social resistance it meets with. But if two major powers ever come into direct conflict again, it will happen very quickly. It would be the ultimate wish of a nation to win a war without having any casualties, and the way to do that is by not putting any soldiers in harms way. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Posted August 1, 2009 The capability will be improved upon day by day and year by year. We are heading into automated warfare, get used to the concept. Warfare is already automated, just not in the way that you think. ROE's, Permission To Fire, and Fire Discipline will not easily give way to the logic of artificial intelligence. Non-Warfare is automated, with less than spectacular results sans human support (e.g. Mars rovers). If you sincerely believe this, raise some capital and skip the F-35 / F-22 entirely.....use Canada's domestic robotics base to show us the "future". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 1, 2009 Author Report Posted August 1, 2009 Warfare is already automated, just not in the way that you think. ROE's, Permission To Fire, and Fire Discipline will not easily give way to the logic of artificial intelligence. Non-Warfare is automated, with less than spectacular results sans human support (e.g. Mars rovers).If you sincerely believe this, raise some capital and skip the F-35 / F-22 entirely.....use Canada's domestic robotics base to show us the "future". BC you are 100% right. I will now change my tune. Quote
Remiel Posted August 1, 2009 Report Posted August 1, 2009 It would be the ultimate wish of a nation to win a war without having any casualties, and the way to do that is by not putting any soldiers in harms way. And the ultimate folly. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 2, 2009 Author Report Posted August 2, 2009 And the ultimate folly. Why is that a folly? Quote
Moonbox Posted August 2, 2009 Report Posted August 2, 2009 Why is that a folly? I think it would be a very dangerous thing to take any more personalization out of war. We're already killing people with simple button pushes. Taking it one step further and completely automating it would be so much worse. Ignoring the fact that there would likely be a lot of accidents, you really remove the sense of consequence from war if you don't have you own people on the front lines hurting and getting hurt. It would almost be like a board game. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 2, 2009 Author Report Posted August 2, 2009 I think it would be a very dangerous thing to take any more personalization out of war. We're already killing people with simple button pushes. Taking it one step further and completely automating it would be so much worse. Ignoring the fact that there would likely be a lot of accidents, you really remove the sense of consequence from war if you don't have you own people on the front lines hurting and getting hurt. It would almost be like a board game. I think that if the system were set up properly, then mistakes simply would not happen. I agree human oversight must be retained, but actual fighting CAN BE conducted without the danger of placing our own citizens in harms way. Let me put it this way, it can be a defensive system. Design it as a point defense system on land. Once our borders are encroached upon and all attempts at stopping the incursion have been expended we simply allow the weapons systems to search and destroy the enemy. Quote
Remiel Posted August 2, 2009 Report Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) Let me put it this way, it can be a defensive system. Design it as a point defense system on land. Once our borders are encroached upon and all attempts at stopping the incursion have been expended we simply allow the weapons systems to search and destroy the enemy. This is similar to the kind of reaching done by those who did not want the Raptor program to die. The dangers of casual and cheap warfare cannot be underestimated. As well, the more automation you have, the more centralization of control there is. It would be infinitely easier for a single person to turn an AI army against its own country than a flesh and blood one. I agree human oversight must be retained, but actual fighting CAN BE conducted without the danger of placing our own citizens in harms way. If you no longer know have to worry about whether it is important enough to risk the lives of your own people, how can you possible know whether it is worth doing? Or rather, if it is not important enough to risks the lives of your own people, there is a strong possibility that it should not be done. Edited August 2, 2009 by Remiel Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 Let me say this. If an enemy is on Canadian soil, you destroy it with all available means. Consider the size of the north, its remoteness, then I suggest we place defensive assets up there to do the job. Humans require all sorts of little things that machines do not, I think it would be cheaper to use machines to do the job. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) The big problem with remote weapons...both myself and a few others have brought it up...is that it could lead to what could be termed callous use of firepower. Push button warfare. What's next? We all go to the killing booths like in that one episode of Star Trek Next Generation after being made a 'casualty' in an electronic wargame? While they might indeed be handy in a fight especially if intelligent, they could just as easily start a war by going off half-cocked or some other unfortunate event/malfunction...Remiel sums up another another very scary possibility, as well. Mad man/woman takes control... Edited August 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 I did say defensive weapon to be used on Canadian soil in case of an incursion. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) I did say defensive weapon to be used on Canadian soil in case of an incursion. Pod X23 just toasted an Inuit village sir. Edited August 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 Pod X23 just toasted an Inuit village sir. No problem, it just needs the latest firmware with the Inuit flag set to "No". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) No problem, it just needs the latest firmware with the Inuit flag set to "No". Oh...that's what that disc was for. Where's the DVD drive on this thing? Edited August 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 Oh...that's what that disc was for. Where's the DVD drive on this thing? Laugh it up folks! Now do you have a VIABLE and COST EFFECTIVE solution to the problems associated with Arctic defense? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.