US Navy X-47B Robot Fighter Jet Completes First Phase Of Testing
singularityhub.com
singularityhub.com
Then again, a closed-cockpit jet fighter isn't exactly a cuddly sight regardless.
http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/us-commits-%E2%80%9Cwa...
No, no humanity.
http://www.channel4.com/news/iraqs-secret-war-logs-surrender...
Watch the second video. US Military considers that it is not possible to surrender to aircrafts. So, if someone tries to surrender, they are still valid targets, and then eliminated.
So, basically, it's the same as fighting with a totally autonomous machine. There's no humanity in that kind of fight.
The US has had satellite shoot down capability for a while.
However, I wasn't aware there was air-to-low-earth-orbit shoot down capability. Only ground launch capability.
The first one is a maybe. I’m willing to bet that you still need a lot of people to make those things fly, they are also potentially more complicated machines and I’m not sure how the cost of pilots (and replacing them if one is killed) figures into this.
The second one seems significant to me. It seems that drones already make it pretty sure you are nowhere safe if the US don’t like you – even if you are a relatively low priority. Presidents (especially Obama) have become extremely willing to use them for just about anything.
I've heard folks who work on drones say that once you've fired all your munitions, you have one munition left.
2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit.
3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of).
4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.
6. Stealth
7. Autonomy
8. Cost of pilot death (human loss)
9. Reduced training time
The increased willingness and ability to attack is a bad thing.
Not unique to unmanned aircrafts. On the other hand, pilots need to go to the restroom, get hungry, and tired.
2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit.
Only useful if human pilot have low latency access to aircraft, or if AI is good enough to fight. Otherwise, you're good as owned.
3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of).
Useful, when nobody is trying to shoot down your drone.
4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.
In 30 years, maybe.
I imagine if any modern power got into a real fight with the US, the first volley of missiles would be headed for space.
The recently release radar information (tracking raindrops) was probably a bit of a warning telling others that their new generation of missiles was not going to work as well as they think. Probably much like NASA showing people underground rivers was designed to tell others hiding ICBMs was a waste.
I thought it was the Nile and Egypt, but I am probably wrong on that. It was in one of the history books I was reading in the 90's and they are in a storage garage about 400miles away.
As much as I hate ereaders, there's an excellent example of why ebooks are a good thing.
This is what I think would happen if the events of MC2002 were real:
If an entire fleet and more than 20000 people were killed in a single day of combat, I bet that the US would have a significant political turmoil, much worse than that of Vietnam, and massive protests. Moving an entire fleet to replace the one lost, could take months, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, loss of morale in troops, and an economic disaster (the markets would simply tank to the lowest).
And of course, moving a fleet to replace the one lost, would mean that you have to lower your guard in another front, which itself introduces new kind of problems. Just as an example, moving the 7th fleet would pave the way for China to invade Taiwan. At the same time, China or Russia would be selling more equipment to the other party.
Right-wing groups would ask for a full retaliation, or more possibly, asking for allies to get involved, but that could rapidly escalate to a regional or global conflict, as other countries would try to support the one playing "David" here.
At that point, with the markets falling apart and clamoring for heads to roll, it would simply be unfeasible to continue.
There's even the possibility that some allied economies (Germany?, France?) would probably refuse to help, as the balance of economy tips in their favor, while US markets tank.
Wars are not only resolved with bullets today.
It's cheap and effective, and arguably no more unfair than bombing civilians that don't stand a fighting chance against a drone controlled by an operator thousand of miles away.
This is the major downside of modern American one-sided warfare.
Plenty of small countries around the world have very little military but are completely safe from US attacks because of economic relationships. Modern economics are the most powerful weapon for peace. Not autonomous vehicles nor terrorism.
Military action against China by the US is simply not possible.
The US doesn't bully China. It bullies people who don't have working nukes and ICBMs.
One of the main arguments against the US building a network of "star wars" missile defense stations capable of stopping mass ICBM attacks is it would dangerously shift the balance of power with China, requiring them to pursue other means of preventing the US from attacking them. The Chinese are extremely smart so targetted bioweapons that only infect people with smallpox who don't have asian ancestry are not out of the question as a reasonable project to look into next. It would be better for all of us if they do not pursue this line of research. Not having a missile defense system maintains the usefulness of their nuclear arsenal. It is therefore better than having a missile defense system which makes their nuclear arsenal useless.
But forget the fishing boats, it's not relevant. Let's just talk the submarines and the ICBMs, some which carry multiple nuclear warheads, each warhead capable of destroying a large metro area.
You don't think it is gigantic, really? Let's launch them all at their primary programmed targets. What happens next? If you're in the US do you feel safe because you feel the arsenal is not as gigantic as I think it is? What is the difference in result between whatever level you personally feel qualifies as a gigantic number of nuclear armed missiles, and the number that somebody typed into Wikipedia?
It's completely astonishing to me that anyone thinks the Chinese don't have a gigantic number of nuclear missiles.
The current number is more than sufficient to permanently end 90% of human life in north america. Why is that not enough to qualify? How many more do they need before it's enough to be a gigantic number of ICBMs carrying nukes?
Let's just think about this for a moment. The US launches a full blown robot attack fighter strike against China, for which there is no defense. What's China's response? To give up? No. China has a defense. A last resort defense. Because they have this defense, the US will not attack China. That's just how it is. Attacking China is suicide because of China's nuclear capabilities. Countries without these capabilities are sitting ducks for american corporate imperialists to toy with as they fancy with their shiny robot death weapons. These countries can resign themselves to be the US's plaything, or they can develop a defense strategy. A defense strategy involving an airforce, an army, or anything resembling conventional warfare is not going to work against the US. So now what? Unconventional warfare, that's what. Nothing surprising in the least that more and more countries will be pushed into this corner if they don't want to be bullied by the US. Right now, as well as last week, as well as next week and the week after that, this is the conversation that is going on throughout the world in every country that has natural resources the US might want, that doesn't price oil they sell in US dollars, or that doesn't feel like being controlled by a corporate plutocracy aligned with a phony protestant religious veneer used to get the rubes on board with the looting scheme under the guise of god and patriotism.
No. China has a defense. A last resort defense. Because
they have this defense, the US will not attack China.
That's just how it is. Attacking China is suicide because
of China's nuclear capabilities.
That agreement's laughably unenforceable in a full-bird US/China shooting war; but it's there.
China will continue to build up its conventional forces to project power in the region, that is probably more of a worry for the US than anything else.
Debt.
>The mission of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) Aircraft Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) is to mature technologies for a carrier suitable, low observable relevant, unmanned air system in support of a potential follow-on acquisition milestone for an unmanned air system capable of providing persistent, penetrating surveillance, and penetrating strike capability in high threat areas.
Primarily a recon craft with strike capability.
Of course, the SR-71 Blackbirds had one of the most effective solutions. Fly fast and unpredictable vectors. Anything on an interception vector would be miles off by the time it reached it's predicted location.
Fighter jets might have more of an abstract layer for all the AI stuff so this might leave more room for an actual OS to reprogram and optimize on top off.
Down vote is fine if I am wrong. But would appreciate to learn how I am wrong then.
Been posted to HN before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3967316
From a cursory read, it mostly boils down to ``don't do anything funky or too smart'', with the `too smart' bar is held somewhat low. Still, it asks programmers to use some decent stuff like the RAII idiom, for example (AV Rule 79).
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/02/0...
It's just an unmanned jet.
was expecting something like robotech/macross