Wired: Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded

[Mad Mike]

Reading this thread is like reading an intro to Enders Game.

LOVE that book.

---------- Post added August-12th-2011 at 02:30 PM ----------

unless they need killing

we do agree on some things. :evilg:

[gbear]

Some have said one of the greatest failures of the last decade was the loss of imagination in the Science Fiction areas because so much of what has been imagined has been engineered. Reading this thread with drones being controled by people at other locations screams the possibility for an Ender's Game scenario.

[HailGreen28]

Bla, bla, bla,...

Again. Landing an aircraft is SIMPLE *in comparison* to making an aircraft THINK. A landing aircraft is homing into guide signals using pre-programmed instructions. Combat requires creative thought which computers DO NOT DO WELL.

(snip appeal to authority fallacy, and actualy proving my point AI links)

One day, computers *will* be able to think, adapt and be as creative as humans. Thank god we aren't there yet. Because on that day (and I'm not joking here), be afraid. Be Very afraid.

As far as flying goes, and dogfighting, we're already there. Think about what a commercial autopilot has to do. Then figure just adding more parameters to the program.

[twa]

As far as flying goes, and dogfighting, we're already there. Think about what a commercial autopilot has to do. Then figure just adding more parameters to the program.

What MM is asserting is true in that the human intelligence involved in air combat is superior to computers capabilities(and AI)

what I think he overlooks is the limited options available due to the constraints of both the airframe and pilot,which UAV's with a numbers and capability/endurance edge(as well as costs) can define and defeat.

one gunfighter will generally lose to a dedicated posse ,especially when you remove the fear factor and add better armament

[HailGreen28]

What MM is asserting is true in that the human intelligence involved in air combat is superior to computers capabilities(and AI)

what I think he overlooks is the limited options available due to the constraints of both the airframe and pilot,which UAV's with a numbers and capability/endurance edge(as well as costs) can define and defeat.

one gunfighter will generally lose to a dedicated posse ,especially when you remove the fear factor and add better armament

Agreed.

[sacase]

As far as flying goes, and dogfighting, we're already there. Think about what a commercial autopilot has to do. Then figure just adding more parameters to the program.

Its not as simple as just adding in a few parameters, let me tell you, in combat, you cannot account for all of the parameters, its impossible. People have already said, taking off, landing and flying in strait lines is very easy. flying in a combat situation is not. This is not a video game, video games create their own worlds with their own rules with regard for real life physics.

[Destino]

Its not as simple as just adding in a few parameters, let me tell you, in combat, you cannot account for all of the parameters, its impossible. People have already said, taking off, landing and flying in strait lines is very easy. flying in a combat situation is not. This is not a video game, video games create their own worlds with their own rules with regard for real life physics.

Agreed. Without true AI the enemy could figure out an exploit like players do in video games. The counter argument however would be that drones take a lot less time to get into action than birthing, raising, and training a human pilot. You could overcome a lot of problems with numbers. A big part of WWII was the US ability to build tanks faster than the Germans could take them out.

[HailGreen28]

Its not as simple as just adding in a few parameters, let me tell you, in combat, you cannot account for all of the parameters, its impossible. People have already said, taking off, landing and flying in strait lines is very easy. flying in a combat situation is not. This is not a video game, video games create their own worlds with their own rules with regard for real life physics.

I'm talking about a one on one dogfight, against a human pilot, per MM's comment. And the programs F-18 use to land automatically have to account for a moving landing strip and varying wind conditions. so current programming is a little more sophisticated than "flying in a straight line".

Programs can adjust for environmental variables. Programs used for gaming systems TODAY account for players movements and counters. It's certainly within reason for a program to be written today to beat a human in a dogfight.

Agreed. Without true AI the enemy could figure out an exploit like players do in video games. The counter argument however would be that drones take a lot less time to get into action than birthing, raising, and training a human pilot. You could overcome a lot of problems with numbers. A big part of WWII was the US ability to build tanks faster than the Germans could take them out.

And in trying to find the AI exploit, there are no "save points" for the human pilot in question. So how much time and how many pilots can you afford to lose during a conflict? However, software can be updated.

I'm not saying AI is ready to take over completely from a pilot. Especially on whether or not to shoot. Just saying I think AI is already more advanced than people give credit for.

[PeterMP]

Peter have you seen some of the latest results from swarm intelligence and it's dependent cooperation?

Giving a objective and setting them loose had some interesting results.

hailgreen,what he overlooks is the concept is a pack mentality and application,not individual....mano a mano ain't in the game plan....the reduced costs and risks enable it as well

I don't really know anything about swarm intelligence.

I do want to point out that I've never said that computer AI is more creative than humans. Computers have other advantages (mostly with respect to the ability to "practice") that off set human creativity in areas where things can be defined in mathematical terms. Heck, we even see this w/ language know with the computer holding its own in Jeopardy.

When the "experts" play computers in chess, yeah, they are more creative than the computer, but the computer has "played" like 10 million more games than them, and many of them have been playing chess since they were very young.

Same thing with Jeopardy. Yeah, human intiution is better at figuring out what the categories really mean, but the computer has a lot more practice.

[twa]

I do want to point out that I've never said that computer AI is more creative than humans. Computers have other advantages (mostly with respect to the ability to "practice") that off set human creativity in areas where things can be defined in mathematical terms..

Yes that advantage translates into quickly determining the options available to a enemy fighter,when combined with nearly instant coordination with other UAV's the odds of the enemy surviving contact are not very good......especially since speed dictates time.

how would humans stack up in a 3D chess match with the pace dictated solely by the computers processing speed?

add

One interesting facet is they are finding the AI learns better from human instruction in piloting UAV's than traditional input

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4074077/Bootstrapped-learning-beats-AI

Instead of trying to fulfill the AI objective of encapsulating knowledge in an "expert system," the program models an "electronic student," learning tasks from a human instructor. In the examples given by Darpa while soliciting proposals, a human teacher teaches an electronic student to fly an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

[China]

Well this adds to the F-22's troubles:

Sources: Toxins in ****pit grounded F-22s

The Air Force’s fleet of F-22 Raptor fighters has been grounded since May 3 due to toxins entering the ****pit via the aircraft’s life support systems, sources with extensive F-22 experience said.

Service leaders grounded the stealthy twin-engine fighter after pilots suffered “hypoxialike symptoms” on 14 occasions. The incidents affected Raptor pilots at six of seven F-22 bases; the exception is Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.

But despite an investigation that has spanned nearly three months, no one yet knows what toxin or combinations of toxins might have caused the incidents, nor is it clear exactly how the chemicals are entering the pilots’ air supply, sources said.

Toxins found in pilots’ blood include oil fumes, residue from burned polyalphaolefin (PAO) anti-freeze, and, in one case, propane. Carbon monoxide, which leaves the blood quickly, is also suspected.

“There is a lot of nasty stuff getting pumped into the pilots’ bloodstream through what they’re breathing from that OBOGS [On-Board Oxygen Generation System]. That’s fact,” one former F-22 pilot said. “How bad it is, what type it is, exactly how much of it, how long — all these things have not been answered.”

The blood tests were performed after each of the 14 incidents in which pilots reported various cognitive dysfunctions and other symptoms of hypoxia. One couldn’t remember how to change radio frequencies. Another scraped trees on his final approach to the runway — and later could not recall the incident.

“These guys are getting tested for toxins and they’ve [gotten] toxins out of their bloodstreams,” the source said. “One of the guys was expelling propane.”

This source, along with the others, requested anonymity for fear of retribution.

The line of inquiry may shed new light on the death of Capt. Jeff “Bong” Haney, a 525th Fighter Squadron pilot who was killed when his F-22 crashed last November near Anchorage. Sources said that in Haney’s last few radio calls before his jet disappeared, he sounded drunk, a classic sign of hypoxia. Haney was known as a prodigiously skilled aviator who was in line to attend the elite Air Force Weapons School.

Air Force officials have said they have not yet completed the investigation into the crash.

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

Interestingly enough they have returned about 20 to available service w/o correcting the problem

They simply have increased monitoring