MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 8, 2008 Surely the only UAV that would replace an F-22 would be the kind of fantasy depicted in the film Stealth - a fully autonomous robot with no dependency on a wireless link using part of the electromagnetic spectrum that can easily be jammed be any half developed nation. Only studied AI for a year so not exactly an expert but it seems to be a complete mash of different research techniques at the mo - several experienced researchers constantly put down ever getting to the likes of things you see in I robot etc maybe this...maybe that...maybe quantum computing (good luck there btw we havn't mastered simple binary comp systems fully :beta1: ) guess only time will tell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) Surely the only UAV that would replace an F-22 would be the kind of fantasy depicted in the film Stealth - a fully autonomous robot with no dependency on a wireless link using part of the electromagnetic spectrum that can easily be jammed be any half developed nation. Only studied AI for a year so not exactly an expert but it seems to be a complete mash of different research techniques at the mo - several experienced researchers constantly put down ever getting to the likes of things you see in I robot etc maybe this...maybe that...maybe quantum computing (good luck there btw we havn't mastered simple binary comp systems fully :beta1: ) guess only time will tell C3PO turned loose in the airways with a Sidewinder........ Edited August 8, 2008 by Typhoid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 8, 2008 C3PO turned loose in the airways with a Sidewinder........ Heavily armed robots that sound gay - welcome to the world of tommorow - or not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted August 8, 2008 the control and responsiveness of the different UAS is also problematic. Taking the 737 sized Global Hawk as an example; (FC - let me know if I goon this one) the GH responds to commands in a way that the FAA does not particularly like. Most airplanes and even UAS, when the controller says to do something, the pilot reacts and the device responds. If voice contact is lost - the pilot will proceed to the limits of his last clearance. Most UAS with a loss of radio command link will continue to the last inputed command or in the absense of one stay straight and level (the latter part which the FAA does not care for either but can understand and comprehend). The GH has to have the operator type in the command and if it looses the command link will return to its previous command. That has resulted in at least one flight violation and a temporary grounding by the FAA of GH ops within the NAS. Typhoid, You sure you haven't been talking to that friend of mine? That was one of the incidents he told me about...and one of the reasons why the FAA is not happy with UAVs in the airspace...and I'm even more leery of flying in that area now! FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) "You sure you haven't been talking to that friend of mine?" I'm stuck in the purgatory of staff misery with an FAA Liason Officer to the NORAD HQ within earshot......... one of the tasks my team is working on is figuring this mess out. To say that the FAA and the DoD have differing views of the world has to rate as one of those classic understatements of all time. and I like to take the train now........... what is even more scary is reading of the airspace congestion over Iraq and Afghanistan with everyone and their cousin heaving a UAV into the air. It is a miracle we haven't had a jet suck a UAV down the intake. Although we have had a helo chop one up! (didn't do the helo any good!) Edited August 8, 2008 by Typhoid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buzzard 72 0 Posted August 26, 2008 My cousin is tranferring to a "Predator" unit in Las Vegas, quite a change from flying A-10's, but at least his coffe will be hot and available...I've discussed the proverbial achilles heel of the UAV program with him and he acknowledges that it is the primary concern (in as much as he can really relate) for operability of these RC planes. Like has been said above they will never be able to assume the multitude of responsibilities of different combat conditions and adapt tactics in a split second. The other thing to consider with automated UAV's is they will be buggy. They will have a pattern of pre-programmed responses and a limited capacity for storage of every possible ACM or A/G condition. Take for instance something as simple as altitude and speed, a pilot in an emergency will attempt to envelope the A/C under given conditions as where the UAV won't even have the electronic thought cross it's program nexus. It may be able to get maximum performance @ cornering speeds but ultimately it will be predictable at some point as all AI becomes. As to the Tomcat, a favorite of mine, I can see where the decision to move towards a fixed wing A/C of much simpler design was ultimatley going to happen. While the swing wing look and concept is appealing it just doesn't create enough of an advantage to warrant futher exploration...canards however, particularly retractable canards might be something to look into. Personally I think the advent of stealth technologies are of prime importance. Good ACM is about initiative and surprise, like any form of combat but more so I think even with ACM. The stealthier the plane the better opportunity for control of the engagement...my $0.02 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
