Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate

 

I'm afraid I disagree, you're not thinking outside the box. You expect these things to simply work, but the problem is you haven't thought sufficiently about how. There are entire schools of research dedicated to the AI problem and how to resolve it, and those people with engineering and computer science PhDs haven't come up with a solution yet.

Then we agree to disagree since you are clearly not thinking outside the box and have not opened your eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygFTCRWmwYM

I can assure you there are great minds working on AI everyday to address their shortcomings.

And all this is what we know publicly, just imagine what we don't know behind secret doors.

Drones have a 20 year track record of operating effectively under direct human control and that was point, now the logical next step with AI is happening.

Probably one of the greatest cases to what AI is capable of doing right now is what we are seeing gaming AI. Gaming AI has been getting better year over year as I watched it evolved over the past 30 years. From advanced scripting to random intelligent algorithms in games like DCS and others, the AI is getting really good.

Just to remind you, what the AI can do in a 3d simulated world like DCS it could easily do in a real 3d world as well (given the right sensors and cpu power).

I addressed some of your points in my other posts, try as hard as you like but my time at the Naval Post Graduate school getting my degree in Systems engineering tells me that I am on the right track about the future of drones and that's no hogwash.

By the way, all my educated guesses on drones and their future are based on my degree in Computer Science and my advanced degree in Systems Engineering and a whole ton of tactical experience.

Okay, let me put it like this.

Antivirus software is, by design, built with the sole purpose of protecting computers from attacks.

Yet in the past couple of months the sheer amount and severity of flaws in Antivirus software that made computers more vulnerable, rather than less, was breathtaking.

If you think for a second that it's possible nowadays to design a killing machine with no exploitable flaws, I'm at a loss for words to describe the bubble you're in.

Increased g limits does not equal more weight, if anything you require less weight because materials are getting stronger and lighter at the same time. This is the reason why missiles can pull many times more gs than aircraft. Smaller and lighter means more Gs.

Better materials apply to everything, including missiles and piloted aircraft. There is an advantage from removing the pilot, but planes are not sized purely on the pilot.

A drone could easily outmaneuver a missile because it has larger control surfaces which would give it better turn rates etc.

These larger control surfaces will experience larger forces which leads back to structural weight. Also keep in mind that turning inside the circle of a missile doesn't matter. Missiles don't have to follow in the path of their target. They only need to intercept them.

Then there is energy retention. Missile have huge energy stores that allow them to dump a lot of energy into violent maneuvers. Aircraft don't tend to fly as fast (maintaining hypersonic stealth skin coatings would be immensely expensive) and they don't have the thrust to weight ratios of missiles. Even if a drone could pull a maneuver to evade a missile, it would then leave the drone a sitting duck.

A drone would be much smaller and cheaper with the near same capabilities as today's aircraft.

Why? No human systems onboard(i.e. no consoles, no ejection seats, etc).

 

The smaller the drone gets in design the lesser the weight, the lesser the fuel needs, the better the performance.

Would a drone B-2 equivalent be bigger than a drone F-35 equivalent, or would there be no need for different sized aircraft?

I never said the tankers would be in hot areas, that would be silly. The smaller the drone, the lesser the drag and weight and the better the range will be.

Until it carries a payload. The fuel fraction would shrink to nothing while carrying anything remotely close to a modern fighter's payload and the range/endurance would be nonexistent. It would be even worse if they were too small to carry internal payloads.

Just like the F35 :megalol:, all a drone would need is a couple of missiles and a single bomb to be as effective. This does not make a big drone.

Training would be a game changer simply put, once new tactics and algorithms are devised based on past experience in the battlefield, all it would take is a simple download on a private network and Bam! the entire fleet of drones are updated with the latest tactics and ROEs.

Yes but then all of your pilot training divisions because programmers. The software does not just appear. This could possible end up being a net savings, but it's not "free".

It would literally take months if not years for new doctrines to be trained into human pilots. :book:

The same could be said for programming new software.

Jamming would not continue to be an issue. First off no need for voice comms, second any comms between drones could be done at close range either through optic transmissions or high frequency short range data bursts. Both would be nearly impervious to jamming.

Woudln't this assume the drones won't be communicating with other assets not in immediate proximity (AWACS, other drone flights, etc)? They also wouldn't be sending data back to commands trying to make decisions, so recon before releasing weapons is out.

With regards to sensors, instead of relying on a optically sensored pilots with laggy interfaces (i.e. hands) to aircraft sensor suites, you would have AI directly connected to a full spectrum of sensors. When I mean full-spectrum I mean all frequencies from sound to light and beyond.

This is cutting into the weight savings from removing the pilot. They're also competing with each other for space in the aircraft.

Impervious to jamming because that's a whole lot of frequencies to jam.

You probably wouldn't bother jamming the less important sensors like sound.

They would be cheaper because scale of industry and module-based designs. Both of which applies to today's aircraft but now we are dealing with a more smaller less cumbersome package which would exponentially decrease cost in bulk.

I'm still not convinced about the size decrease.

"These statement's don't seem very accurate. Like the whole wing loading thing, people point it out but don't actually make a case. The F-35 is about as heavy as the F-15. It's certainly lighter than a Flanker. Why is weight an issue?"

 

The statements feel very accurate to me based on what I have seen publicly. The problem with the F35 being about as heavy as an F15 is just look at their size footprints and their control surfaces. Their is footage of the tiny F35 flying form on an F22.

But if you do the math, based on wing loading and TWR, the F-35 = F-16. I'd like to see something more than weight or wing sized mentioned because those things don't really paint the F-35 in a bad light.

As the competitors (Boeing) have pointed out, the F35 has sacrificed performance for stealth.

To me the F35 looks like a dense rock of a plane compared to F16/22 or F18/15.

Prioritized seems more accurate to me than sacrificed. In any case I agree that the F-35 is a 4th gen plane when it comes to maneuverability, barring some supermaneuverable stuff I guess.

Then we agree to disagree since you are clearly not thinking outside the box and have not opened your eyes.

 

 

I can assure you there are great minds working on AI everyday to address their shortcomings.

 

And all this is what we know publicly, just imagine what we don't know behind secret doors.

 

Drones have a 20 year track record of operating effectively under direct human control and that was point, now the logical next step with AI is happening.

 

I addressed some of your points in my other posts, try as hard as you like but my time at the Naval Post Graduate school getting my degree in Systems engineering tells me that I am on the right track about the future of drones and that's no hogwash.

These are not weapon systems. They are test drones, small and simple placed in a controlled environment. They are not weapons placed in the chaotic world, going to war. People are not actively trying to destroy these drones physically and software wise. AI is not there. AI is decades from being given heavy weapons and turned loose. Of course the military and the US are experimenting with this technology, but it is still a long long way off from replacing manned systems in bulk and being reliable.

You have an oddly simplistic way of viewing AI given your background. Programming an AI is not a series of IF/THEN statements, you're creating something that learns, that forms its own connections, and now you've got to cram the ability to differentiate legal and illegal orders, reject false input, keep in mind who friendlies are and why it's fighting on your side. And its got to do all that while someone is actively trying to uplink a destructive program to either cause it to kill itself, go postal and kill friends, or otherwise take it out of the fight. You're trying to make this AI that regardless of battle damage will keep on your side. Hell, even modern computing isn't that bullet proof, the F-35 had an issue where you had to turn the software off and restart because of software issues and it doesn't use AI. We already don't know how to properly handle an AI without someone actively trying to get it to do things we don't want it to do, and your insistence that these things simply 'work' because we've seen a little drone handle being pushed around is missing a huge amount of problems currently being worked on.

Oh I can assure you that these software failure haven't been totally thought through nor a solution to them fully developed. The reason I can assure of this is because you're talking about a signifigant hurdle in AI development, how to handle the way an AI thinks to avoid it doing things we don't want it to do. There are large portions of the scientific community still dealing with this problem and a solution still hasn't been reached.

Hogwash eh?

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/

"It could be the most critical position during a launch: the military officer ready to push a button to blow up a rocket if it veers off course and endangers the public.

But when a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blasted off Feb. 19, the seat at the Mission Flight Control Officer’s console at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was empty — on purpose.

For the first time in decades of launches from the Cape, responsibility for commanding the rocket to self-destruct, if necessary, lay with computers on board the Falcon, not a “human in the loop.”

Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing, said the successful launch with an Automated Flight Safety System, or AFSS, was a historic “game-changer,” demonstrating technology that will improve safety, lower costs and enable more launches from the Eastern Range.

“It was tested extensively, and is actually safer than having an individual in the loop,” Monteith said in a recent interview. “It fundamentally changes the way we are doing business.”

Hogwash eh?

 

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/

 

"It could be the most critical position during a launch: the military officer ready to push a button to blow up a rocket if it veers off course and endangers the public.

 

But when a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blasted off Feb. 19, the seat at the Mission Flight Control Officer’s console at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was empty — on purpose.

 

For the first time in decades of launches from the Cape, responsibility for commanding the rocket to self-destruct, if necessary, lay with computers on board the Falcon, not a “human in the loop.”

 

Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing, said the successful launch with an Automated Flight Safety System, or AFSS, was a historic “game-changer,” demonstrating technology that will improve safety, lower costs and enable more launches from the Eastern Range.

 

“It was tested extensively, and is actually safer than having an individual in the loop,” Monteith said in a recent interview. “It fundamentally changes the way we are doing business.”

Covered this. Range safety is a series of IF/THEN statements. We're not talking about a rolling dogfight, or a difficult approach, or the implications of whether or not an engagement order was legal. Range Safety equipment isn't designed to operate in an environment where the enemy is actively trying to insert a worm into your system to trash your protocols.

Better materials apply to everything, including missiles and piloted aircraft. There is an advantage from removing the pilot, but planes are not sized purely on the pilot.

 

 

These larger control surfaces will experience larger forces which leads back to structural weight. Also keep in mind that turning inside the circle of a missile doesn't matter. Missiles don't have to follow in the path of their target. They only need to intercept them.

 

Then there is energy retention. Missile have huge energy stores that allow them to dump a lot of energy into violent maneuvers. Aircraft don't tend to fly as fast (maintaining hypersonic stealth skin coatings would be immensely expensive) and they don't have the thrust to weight ratios of missiles. Even if a drone could pull a maneuver to evade a missile, it would then leave the drone a sitting duck.

 

I am going to stop you right there, take it for what it's worth but you don't know what you are talking about. It is your opinion based on what you have read and surmised.

I am saying this because I KNOW, I had access to the real info and know what missiles are capable of vs. aircraft. So I am just letting you know, what you are saying on this topic is not correct and frankly backwards.

This is not a personal attack I am just letting you know you have it backwards.

Generically speaking:

The missile would not have huge energy stores, it's the opposite it actually expends it all after launch. So if a missile is forced to make a hard turn when it reaches the target, it's done because its kinetic energy is spent.

The drone on the other hand has huge energy stores in the form of fuel, so once it's done with it's evasive maneuver it kicks in the afterburner and gains kinetic energy back.

Interception and angles, all I can say on this sensitive topic is you need to hit the ol' DCS sim and experiment, I think you will find over time how an a/c can easily defeat a missile. And I am not talking about chaff and flares. The key here is seeing the missile, if you can see the missile you can defeat the missile.

So who/what do you think will see a missile more often and much earlier, a pilot with his mk1 eyeball or a drone with it's full spectrum of sensors?

Covered this. Range safety is a series of IF/THEN statements. We're not talking about a rolling dogfight, or a difficult approach, or the implications of whether or not an engagement order was legal. Range Safety equipment isn't designed to operate in an environment where the enemy is actively trying to insert a worm into your system to trash your protocols.

Seriously, you trying to change the topic to avoid facing your original statement of

"Furthermore, the simple "Error Detected, kill self" idea is hogwash."

By throwing out terms like "worms" and "trashing of protocols" :music_whistling:

I...don't know what to say.

Seriously, you trying to change the topic to avoid facing your original statement of

 

"Furthermore, the simple "Error Detected, kill self" idea is hogwash."

 

By throwing out terms like "worms" and "trashing of protocols" :music_whistling:

 

I...don't know what to say.

Furthermore, the simple "Error Detected, kill self" idea is hogwash. First of all the software would need to understand that it failed and have a state within it allowing a self termination. Allowing self termination leaves you vulnerable to enemy computer intrusions aimed at getting your drones to kill themselves. A rocket does not have AI, it has a simple command line "If I am x percentage off optimal flight path, self destruct". Combat by its very nature rends such simple instructions worthless.

I've bolded the relevant section since you seemed to miss the preceding sentence. You're asking for an AI to make that determination in a non ideal environment. A worm is destructive software meant to cause damage to the system its infecting. In essence, 'trashing' the underlying architecture.

I am going to stop you right there, take it for what it's worth but you don't know what you are talking about. It is your opinion based on what you have read and surmised.

 

I am saying this because I KNOW, I had access to the real info and know what missiles are capable of vs. aircraft. So I am just letting you know, what you are saying on this topic is not correct and frankly backwards.

 

This is not a personal attack I am just letting you know you have it backwards.

I realize that you're not making an attack, but I disagree with your statements here. You're looking at from a total energy perspective which includes potential fuel energy + kinetic energy. You're not taking into account that transferring potential into kinetic takes time.

Generically speaking:

The missile would not have huge energy stores, it's the opposite it actually expends it all after launch. So if a missile is forced to make a hard turn when it reaches the target, it's done because its kinetic energy is spent.

This isn't true, unless you don't count kinetic energy. But since as you say, all of that is burnt at launch, a missile must rely on kinetic energy to kill (unless fired at extremely short range). Now conversely at long range a fighter can easily outmaneuver a missile, but then this probably would not have been a kill shot.

The drone on the other hand has huge energy stores in the form of fuel, so once it's done with it's evasive maneuver it kicks in the afterburner and gains kinetic energy back.

Only after a time. This might work against missiles spaced far apart. It will be less effective against something like missiles fired in pairs. The drone may not have time to regain energy between shots.

Interception and angles, all I can say on this sensitive topic is you need to hit the ol' DCS sim and experiment, I think you will find over time how an a/c can easily defeat a missile. And I am not talking about chaff and flares.

I've actually done this quite extensively owing to the large amount of DCS missile performance on this forum. DCS is OK for giving a very general picture, but the lack of detailed guidance and incorrect drag values (confirmed by the devs for low altitude) leads to missiles being dodged far too easily. On top of that, players have overly powerful defense tools like the Su-27's SPO-15 telling you exactly at what range a seeker is from your aircraft.

Okay, let me put it like this.

 

Antivirus software is, by design, built with the sole purpose of protecting computers from attacks.

 

Yet in the past couple of months the sheer amount and severity of flaws in Antivirus software that made computers more vulnerable, rather than less, was breathtaking.

 

If you think for a second that it's possible nowadays to design a killing machine with no exploitable flaws, I'm at a loss for words to describe the bubble you're in.

You know as a computer enthusiasts who has built his own PCS since the mid-90s, I can tell you these anti-virus flaws you speak of have been known for decades. I am surprise you are just hearing about them now.

My advice to my friends and family for nearly 20 years has been to avoid anti-virus software because it's a waste of money. I know all about root kits since the big Sony expose last decade.

Anything can be exploitable and at no point did I say otherwise.

We have seen power plants go haywire thanks to viruses and lord knows what other backdoor viruses lurk in hiding amongst all the developed nations infrastructure on this earth.

But should that prevent us from designing an advance drone with the pros and cons I have clearly stated. If you can't see this than I am truly at a loss for words and wonder what bubble you are in.

My point was once the drone is in the battlespace it would not be hackable. Can it be hackable back at home base? Sure.

And where is all this well thought out hacking critique for the F35?

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/072015-f35-supercomputer.html

Surely with that much software onboard, the F35 could be hacked into, viruses planted and the plane turned into a flying rock (that the pilot can do nothing about) in a mili-second during combat right? And yet LM and the government want all the software they can cram into it at a premium price too.

These hollywood notions of planes/drones being taken over with a press of a button is just plain silly.

Why waste all those resources and low probabilities of success when a simple localised EMP detonation can do the trick.

I've bolded the relevant section since you seemed to miss the preceding sentence. You're asking for an AI to make that determination in a non ideal environment. A worm is destructive software meant to cause damage to the system its infecting. In essence, 'trashing' the underlying architecture.

No, the example I gave was on engine failure which is almost identical parameter-wise to your example for the rocket.

I never stated it would self destruct because of information overload, unable to id a target, accidentally killing an innocent but only on engine failure to avoid falling into enemy hands intact.

Your error statement still stands as flawed.

And if a virus or worm successfully tricks the drone into thinking it has an engine failure and destroys the drone then kudos to the enemy and their successful information warfare missile attack.

No need for a worm, there are easier options to take out drones and aircraft too.

I realize that you're not making an attack, but I disagree with your statements here. You're looking at from a total energy perspective which includes potential fuel energy + kinetic energy. You're not taking into account that transferring potential into kinetic takes time.

 

 

This isn't true, unless you don't count kinetic energy. But since as you say, all of that is burnt at launch, a missile must rely on kinetic energy to kill (unless fired at extremely short range). Now conversely at long range a fighter can easily outmaneuver a missile, but then this probably would not have been a kill shot.

 

 

Only after a time. This might work against missiles spaced far apart. It will be less effective against something like missiles fired in pairs. The drone may not have time to regain energy between shots.

 

 

I've actually done this quite extensively owing to the large amount of DCS missile performance on this forum. DCS is OK for giving a very general picture, but the lack of detailed guidance and incorrect drag values (confirmed by the devs for low altitude) leads to missiles being dodged far too easily. On top of that, players have overly powerful defense tools like the Su-27's SPO-15 telling you exactly at what range a seeker is from your aircraft.

How on earth is my statement not true, I clearly stated what fuel stores meant and what kinetic energy meant.

The way you worded your statement was incorrect because you meant huge kinetic energy stored after launch but you stated "Huge energy stores" which implied fuel remaining onboard the missile.

In the end I see your followup post is agreeing with me so let's leave it at that.

How on earth is my statement not true, I clearly stated what fuel stores meant and what kinetic energy meant.

To be more specific, I'm disagreeing with the idea that a "hard maneuver" spends all of a missile's energy. We're getting to a point where vague terms will let the argument slide one way or another though.

I also think you're discounting the missile KE a little too much. Yes it's finite, but the missile is going a lot faster than a fighter. It can make a turn and still have energy to spare, depending on the maneuver and energy state before the maneuver of course.

The way you worded your statement was incorrect because you meant huge kinetic energy stored after launch but you stated "Huge energy stores" which implied fuel remaining onboard the missile.

I thought the context there would imply kinetic energy, sorry if it was confusing.

....You're asking for an AI to make that determination in a non ideal environment.

Did you even look at this video?

Here is a fully automated drone landing on an aircraft carrier. This is one of the hardest most dynamic environments with literally hundreds of variables involving complex fluid dynamics and not to mention the required precise flight inputs that can cause pilots to panic depending on sea state (I know I have lived it and seen it). And yet this drone makes it look all too easy.

And this was done 4 friggin years ago! Before SpaceX's autonomous rockets were landing back on the pad easily. I don't think we need to get into that rocket science when it comes to parameters.

And yet with all this proof of AI handling an insane amount of data input variables in real-time (under very dynamic and constantly changing environments) for the past what 4 years you still think, we are decades away with autonomous drone technology in the battlefield, really??

To be more specific, I'm disagreeing with the idea that a "hard maneuver" spends all of a missile's energy. We're getting to a point where vague terms will let the argument slide one way or another though.

 

I also think you're discounting the missile KE a little too much. Yes it's finite, but the missile is going a lot faster than a fighter. It can make a turn and still have energy to spare, depending on the maneuver and energy state before the maneuver of course.

 

 

I thought the context there would imply kinetic energy, sorry if it was confusing.

Again, I refer to my statement that *I know* what I am talking about and I will reiterate what is already common knowledge, if you can see the missile you can defeat the missile.

The question of how successful you are depends at how early you can see the missile and that's where the drone is superior to the pilot (both in Gs, detection, sustained speeds and maneuverability) and will be every time.

This is why drones are the future and pilots will be the past (eventually).

And like I said earlier, I expect we will see a small cadre of Fighter/Attack pilots remain, kind of like a SEAL team for the air and for those high profile and delicate missions. Because drones don't make good subjects for a ticker tape parade or a medal ceremony.

I am surprise you are just hearing about them now.

I merely used the example because the risk of AV software should be quite obvious after the last couple of months (no idea how you come up with the notion I only just heard about this?)

Anything can be exploitable and at no point did I say otherwise.

Well...

Autonomous means no video transmissions that could be intercepted. It would be unhackable because there would be no way for it to receive hacking instructions when in emcon mode.

Again, if a drone uses any sensor (or rather: any outside input) at all, it is hackable. And if it doesn't use any sensors, it's not much use on the battlefield. ;)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2111041-glasses-make-face-recognition-tech-think-youre-milla-jovovich/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142059-sneaky-attacks-trick-ais-into-seeing-or-hearing-whats-not-there/

We have seen power plants go haywire thanks to viruses and lord knows what other backdoor viruses lurk in hiding amongst all the developed nations infrastructure on this earth.

And while that is already scary as hell, none of these facilities and devices have been designed with the purpose of killing anyone.

If anything, the vulnerability of critical infrastructure should teach us to keep killing devices as dumb as possible, and to make absolutely sure that the only way to close the circuit that fires a weapon is when a person pushes the button.

I merely used the example because the risk of AV software should be quite obvious after the last couple of months (no idea how you come up with the notion I only just heard about this?)

 

 

 

Well...

 

 

 

Again, if a drone uses any sensor (or rather: any outside input) at all, it is hackable. And if it doesn't use any sensors, it's not much use on the battlefield. ;)

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2111041-glasses-make-face-recognition-tech-think-youre-milla-jovovich/

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142059-sneaky-attacks-trick-ais-into-seeing-or-hearing-whats-not-there/

 

 

And while that is already scary as hell, none of these facilities and devices have been designed with the purpose of killing anyone.

 

If anything, the vulnerability of critical infrastructure should teach us to keep killing devices as dumb as possible, and to make absolutely sure that the only way to close the circuit that fires a weapon is when a person pushes the button.

And I have no idea how you come up with this notion of a bubble.

I already stated in an earlier post that I am clearly talking about in the battlespace when it's in emcon mode that a drone would be not be hackable.

Your examples highlight the reason why a full spectrum of sensors would be used in a drone to avoid such trickery. It is extremely hard to spoof the whole spectrum, damn near impossible.

And I don't care what glasses an enemy pilot puts on, it ain't fooling a drone :)

And like I said at the beginning of this subthread, a person is still pushing the button that closes the circuit, that hasn't changed when using autonomous drones.

 

To me the F35 looks like a dense rock of a plane compared to F16/22 or F18/15.

 

This reminds me of the F-117 all over again (but not as flagrant), funny how no one talks about that plane any more.

 

So it doesn't surprise me that the Air Force pilots had nothing good to say about the plane a few years ago. And don't think for a second that they (LM) just waved a magic wand and fixed all those concerns with today's F35. :megalol:

 

By the way, all my educated guesses on drones and their future are based on my degree in Computer Science and my advanced degree in Systems Engineering and a whole ton of tactical experience.

Funny that because the F-35 looks far superior to the FA-18EF in the slow speed high Alpha regime - hate to think you were eyeballing Aerodynamics! ;)

Which pilots are these exactly? (better be unclassified ones ) thus far you are one of only a few pilots to publically start slagging it off - and the last one had to backtrack on pretty much everything when he became more informed.

I hope all the bad vibes you bring here are not to do with you being turned down for F-35C.

And these drones that you are making massive assumptions about - does this please you that you can finally leave the pit for good and fly a desk?

You do realise that your drones will still be experiencing X software issues many years into their service with their pioneering systems - it is not some unique case to the F-35 alone that only Boeing can fix with their magical unicorns.

As a follow on point since it wasn't mentioned in the discussion.

 

Drones, they are the future and they will make the F35,F22 (any 5th gen) obsolete very quickly.

 

Now look at the pros and cons and tell me, what politician in their right mind would not pick a drone x 20 over a single F35. All the military top brass (non-pilots of course) would see it as a no-brainer.

 

This drone topic is the elephant in the room when it comes to fighter pilots because the writing is on the wall, there will soon be (15 years max) no need for pilots other than a small elite seal team like force for those special black ops missions requiring real-time critical thinking.

Drones are here, already (yes I read the rest of the conversation), and with the F35 still not in operational service with the Navy (or widespread service in any military yet) I would be willing to bet you will be very wrong! US procurement of the F35 alone will be for atleast the next 35 years! A few hundred F16's alone will be flying past your 15 year MAXIMUM mark! Some of the Mudhen fleet(which mostly is newer than the Viper fleet) will probably be flying into the mid 2040s! Same possibly for the Eagle! The A-10 might even make it throughout your 15 years until there will be need for no pilots! What about our bomber fleet? With the B52s and B1 flying into the 2040s until replaced by the B21! What about the B2, 2050 atleast? And how about our Raptors and F35s? The F35s produced today will see service still 30 years from now, nevermind the later production. This is a plane made to be upgraded theoughout the decades technologicaly so its safe to assume 2070 for some of the airframes. 2070!!!! What about all the new cargo and gunship/AFSOC platform? What about the current OA-X program going on as we speek for an off the shelt manned light attack/ISR platform? Operating somewhat in roles similar the Predators and Reapers today! So 15 years and pilots will be reserved to spec op type of deals, come on!!! Prove me wrong, do it!!!

Funny that because the F-35 looks far superior to the FA-18EF in the slow speed high Alpha regime - hate to think you were eyeballing Aerodynamics! ;)

The F-35 can definitely pull off some very high alpha maneuvers, higher alpha than the F-18 even it seems. The big difference I see between it and the F-18 though is that the F-35 seems to plow through the maneuvers more, i.e. it doesn't change forward direction as fast as the F-18. This to me again screams of a lower L/W ratio. But if the F-35 can pull sufficiently high AoA and still stay in control to keep the pipper on target, well then that's all it needs, and I believe that's one of the things the Norwegian F-35 pilot who described it eluded to.

But again to deem the a F-35 a poor aircraft solely because of turn rate is ludicrous, esp. in light of the aircraft's recent performance at red flag, as well as all the praise pilots of the are giving it, esp. in terms of its electronic advantages and ease of flight.

I'm convinced it will become a great aircraft, at least for the US. Only thing I'm not convinced of yet is wether or not it is the ideal aircraft for all the countries intending to procure it, my own country (Denmark) included.

Funny that because the F-35 looks far superior to the FA-18EF in the slow speed high Alpha regime - hate to think you were eyeballing Aerodynamics! ;)

 

Which pilots are these exactly? (better be unclassified ones ) thus far you are one of only a few pilots to publically start slagging it off - and the last one had to backtrack on pretty much everything when he became more informed.

I hope all the bad vibes you bring here are not to do with you being turned down for F-35C.

 

And these drones that you are making massive assumptions about - does this please you that you can finally leave the pit for good and fly a desk?

 

You do realise that your drones will still be experiencing X software issues many years into their service with their pioneering systems - it is not some unique case to the F-35 alone that only Boeing can fix with their magical unicorns.

First off, the bad vibes were already here when people decided to attack Sprey's reputation.

Second, I don't bring vibes, I bring facts, observations and educated guesses.

Third, how would it please me either way since I have been retired from flying for decades?

I am not slagging on the F35 as a pilot, I am doing it as a fully-retired mil officer now civilian who isn't eyeing a contracting job with the big 3 so no back-pedaling here.

Fourth, while drones will have its challenges just like all development programs the governments of the world take on, there is a massive difference between drones and tactical aircraft programs.

Right now you can count on one hand the number of companies working on tactical aircraft designs and implementations. There is so little competition it is disturbing and disappointing.

With drones, there are literally dozens upon dozens of companies working on all kinds of drones and drone related tech. AI is being worked on and refined on a daily basis by massive corporations(Intel,MS, Apple, Nvidia, etc etc) and world-renown universities and institutes.

This competition is good real good for innovation, performance, quality and value reasons.

And don't think for a second these innovations can't be converted to military applications.

It is this very lack of competition for military jet development that has led to F35s debacle of a program. I am not talking about it's performance since I am sure it can hold it's own against the 20-35 year old designed craft it's flying with and going against.

It's the price and quality that is the issue. That is what Sprey is getting at in the interview.

Apparently the lessons were not learned with the F22 cost overruns.

Oh don't get me wrong, the F22 is a dream to fly and probably the best fighter out there but it better be for that absolutely absurd price point.

Both the F22 and F35 should have been stopped in it's tracks like the A12 avenger was back in the late eighties and early nineties. Probably the last time we had honest politicians looking out for the taxpayer's money.

And let me make it clear, issues have always happen in the design and acquisition of complex aircraft, heck there was serious doubts about the hornet back in 1980, I just finished watching the documentary on it but back then they got it under control in a very short period of time delivered on their promises aside from the Hornet's range.

And they have delivered on their numbers in the long run.

The F22 and F35 have been runaway disasters in terms of cost and readiness.

Unless the big 3 (LM,Boeing,Grumman) decide to buy up all the drone companies, it's going to be a whole new ball park when it comes to designing and procuring advanced drones from the governments perspective.

And it's clear to me that Grumman is out the gate with their impressive first attempt with the Xb-47. It would not have been possible for Gumman to do what they did with out the exponentially growing drone industry that's been in place for the last 15 years at least.

"Funny that because the F-35 looks far superior to the FA-18EF in the slow speed high Alpha regime - hate to think you were eyeballing Aerodynamics! ;)"

So this one of many articles out there citing the initial reason for a lack of gun software was

because the F35 is not expected to dogfight and does not have a priority for CAS gun support is somehow some made up lie from loser pilots?

Is this suppose to be some fake news article?

"The lack of a gun is not likely to be a major problem for close-in air-to-air dogfights against other jets. Part of the problem is that the F-35—which is less maneuverable than contemporary enemy fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker—is not likely to survive such a close-in skirmish. “The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point,” said one Air Force fighter pilot."

I did a search and did not see any lawsuits suing this website for the fake news article.

Sure sure, it's superior missile loadout of aim9x and amraams negate any need for dogfights, riiiiiight. :lol: History repeats itself yet again (see initial phantom designs circa 1960s).

Drones are here, already (yes I read the rest of the conversation), and with the F35 still not in operational service with the Navy (or widespread service in any military yet) I would be willing to bet you will be very wrong! US procurement of the F35 alone will be for atleast the next 35 years! A few hundred F16's alone will be flying past your 15 year MAXIMUM mark! Some of the Mudhen fleet(which mostly is newer than the Viper fleet) will probably be flying into the mid 2040s! Same possibly for the Eagle! The A-10 might even make it throughout your 15 years until there will be need for no pilots! What about our bomber fleet? With the B52s and B1 flying into the 2040s until replaced by the B21! What about the B2, 2050 atleast? And how about our Raptors and F35s? The F35s produced today will see service still 30 years from now, nevermind the later production. This is a plane made to be upgraded theoughout the decades technologicaly so its safe to assume 2070 for some of the airframes. 2070!!!! What about all the new cargo and gunship/AFSOC platform? What about the current OA-X program going on as we speek for an off the shelt manned light attack/ISR platform? Operating somewhat in roles similar the Predators and Reapers today! So 15 years and pilots will be reserved to spec op type of deals, come on!!! Prove me wrong, do it!!!

The video below shows even more drone capability (mid-air refueling, night ops etc)

In the video you can see the maintenance crews on the ship cheering on the drones because they know the drones don't carry egos with them. :D

All the jets you mentioned can easily be stored at the boneyard for backup once the drones come online. If you seriously think we will have several hundred F35s required to meet defense readiness posture at their given grossly overpriced cost, you are sorely mistaken.

Just look at how many F22s we have and study history to find out how many was initially planned for.

"The U.S. Air Force has as a tiny fleet of 186 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighters. That’s all that survived out of 187 production aircraft (195 jets if developmental airframes are included) that were built out of the 750 that were originally planned. Of those 186 remaining Raptors, only 123 are “combat-coded” aircraft with another twenty that are classified as backup aircraft inventory machines. The rest are test and training assets."

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-killer-it-can-be-14088

BTW you need to go research metal fatigue, that should get you to revise your predicted date numbers.

Oh and here is your wake-up call article in case you still can't believe it.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2016/05/why-did-the-united-states-stop-f-22-production-could-lockheed-martin-restart-the-production-line.html

" Congress has expressed keen interest throughout this year’s budget season in restarting the line. Air Force officials, on the other hand, have consistently dubbed reviving the Raptor line as a nonstarter, citing the enormous cost of the project."

Drone Video:

Published on Apr 17, 2016

The US military X-47B UAV will serve the US navy well and will be the worst nightmare for the Russian military. The Northrop Grumman X-47B is a demonstration unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) designed for carrier-based operations.

The US Navy has successfully catapulted a prototype drone from an aircraft carrier on Tuesday, which is the first step in a program designed to begin fielding drones on all Navy carriers between 2017 and 2020.

The flight serves as a milestone for the future of drone aviation, and US Navy officers have celebrated the success of its launch. But the flight of the unmanned aircraft, which is the size of a fighter jet, is likely to become the subject of criticism from those who believe drone usage hurts the US image – especially since drones are behind many civilian deaths on foreign grounds.

Critics have already condemned the Navy’s $1.4 billion drone prototype program, relaying their concerns over the development of weaponized systems in which humans will have even less control over when it comes to launching attacks.

Human Rights Watch has particularly protested the development of drones that carry weapons and are fully autonomous, like the X-47B unmanned aircraft that the Navy launched from the USS George H.W. Bush on Tuesday. This unmanned aircraft can reach an altitude of more than 40,000 feet and has a range of more than 2,100 nautical miles, the Associated Press reports.

This model is particularly valuable because it has the capability to take off and land on an aircraft carrier. Developing such drones would allow the US to launch strikes from anywhere in the world, regardless of whether or not a foreign country allows the US on its grounds.

The drone is fully autonomous in flight, and relies on computer programs to direct it – unless an operator programs it to operate otherwise. Most drones currently employed by the military fully rely on operators to control it from a remote location.

While the X-47B is only intended for testing purposes rather than operational use, the Navy will use it for research purposes to develop advanced unmanned aircraft for use in future conflicts. When it comes to using lethal force, the X-47B still requires human approval. But Human Rights Watch believes the prototype research will lead to the development of drones that conduct deadly attacks with no human intervention.

Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, expressed some of his fears with AP.

“For us, the question is where do you draw lines?” he said. “We’re saying you need to draw the line when you have a fully autonomous system that is weaponized. We’re saying you must have meaningful human control over key battlefield decisions of who lives and who dies. That should not be left up to the weapons system itself.”

But despite fears over the future of fully autonomous drones that can launch deadly attacks from aircraft carriers, the Navy is hailing the flight of its prototype as a success it has long sought.

“US Navy history is made!” the Navy wrote from its official Twitter account. “Was airborne at 11:18A. More to come.”

The Navy plans to release videos and photographs of the event, which Read Adm. Mat Winter wrote marks “an inflection point in history on how we will integrate manned and unmanned aircraft on carrier flight decks in the future.”

Video Description Credit: Russia Today

Video Credits: Navy Media Content Services,Terry Turner, DoD News,Dustin Good, Defense Imagery Management Operations Center, Gregory WilhelmiSmall, Seaman Apprentice Travis Litke, 3rd Class Sade Lucas, 2nd Class Gregory Wilhelmi, Petty Officer 3rd Class Donald White, MC2 Chris Brown, Andrew Johnson, NAVAIR, 2nd Class Kristin Rojas and Northrop Grumman.

Thumbnail Credit: US Navy

The video below shows even more drone capability (mid-air refueling, night ops etc)

In the video you can see the maintenance crews on the ship cheering on the drones because they know the drones don't carry egos with them. :D

 

All the jets you mentioned can easily be stored at the boneyard for backup once the drones come online. If you seriously think we will have several hundred F35s required to meet defense readiness posture at their given grossly overpriced cost, you are sorely mistaken.

Just look at how many F22s we have and study history to find out how many was initially planned for.

"The U.S. Air Force has as a tiny fleet of 186 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighters. That’s all that survived out of 187 production aircraft (195 jets if developmental airframes are included) that were built out of the 750 that were originally planned. Of those 186 remaining Raptors, only 123 are “combat-coded” aircraft with another twenty that are classified as backup aircraft inventory machines. The rest are test and training assets."

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-killer-it-can-be-14088

 

 

BTW you need to go research metal fatigue, that should get you to revise your predicted date numbers.

 

Oh and here is your wake-up call article in case you still can't believe it.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2016/05/why-did-the-united-states-stop-f-22-production-could-lockheed-martin-restart-the-production-line.html

" Congress has expressed keen interest throughout this year’s budget season in restarting the line. Air Force officials, on the other hand, have consistently dubbed reviving the Raptor line as a nonstarter, citing the enormous cost of the project."

 

 

 

 

 

I am aware of what happened to the raptor program, and I agree that the lack of competition is disturbing. I agree the idea of a JSF was foolish and allowing the company's to buy each other up is near criminal.

 

I read what you say was a "wake-up call", nothing that hasnt been said before about the raptor. Though the article saying it will be useless in 30 years is quite amusing. I guess you cant upgrade technology anymore? Cause you know that the F15 from 1975 is the same one today :megalol: Particularly since the F35 was designed to be adapted over the decades to the newest technology.

I am no expert on metal fatigue, though I doubt that you are either, or anyone here is for that matter. But metal fatigue hasnt stopped the B52, especially since its going into 2040. And it wont stop the other aircraft. And yes I believe we will eventually have a couple hundred F35s for combat purpose eventually, time will tell.

I am not doubting drones, as I am aware what your cut and paste article of the XB-47 proves. They are amazing machines. But taking over flying roles in the next 15 years :megalol:, no way! Drones in your and I's lifetime will play a continuing role in military aviation and combat, but a complete take over what come any time soon! Though I must say I wonder where you think we will have all this money to just get ready of heavily invested into airframes, if we cant even afford a couple hundred F35's, an aircraft with over 4000 orders! Talk about starting up new production lines foe your 20 to 1 F35 type of deal! Assuming a cost of 90 million per F35 that puts your drones to a strick 4.5 million per airframe. What about all the spare parts for said aircraft? These aircraft are more capable without humans right? So unless you want flying gliders it wont be happening. And what about all the advanced ai and that cost?

The video below shows even more drone capability (mid-air refueling, night ops etc)

In the video you can see the maintenance crews on the ship cheering on the drones because they know the drones don't carry egos with them. :D

 

All the jets you mentioned can easily be stored at the boneyard for backup once the drones come online. If you seriously think we will have several hundred F35s required to meet defense readiness posture at their given grossly overpriced cost, you are sorely mistaken.

Just look at how many F22s we have and study history to find out how many was initially planned for.

"The U.S. Air Force has as a tiny fleet of 186 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighters. That’s all that survived out of 187 production aircraft (195 jets if developmental airframes are included) that were built out of the 750 that were originally planned. Of those 186 remaining Raptors, only 123 are “combat-coded” aircraft with another twenty that are classified as backup aircraft inventory machines. The rest are test and training assets."

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-killer-it-can-be-14088

 

BTW you need to go research metal fatigue, that should get you to revise your predicted date numbers.

 

Oh and here is your wake-up call article in case you still can't believe it.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2016/05/why-did-the-united-states-stop-f-22-production-could-lockheed-martin-restart-the-production-line.html

" Congress has expressed keen interest throughout this year’s budget season in restarting the line. Air Force officials, on the other hand, have consistently dubbed reviving the Raptor line as a nonstarter, citing the enormous cost of the project."

 

 

 

 

 

I am aware of what happened to the raptor program, and I agree that the lack of competition is disturbing. I agree the idea of a JSF was foolish and allowing the company's to buy each other up is near criminal.

 

I read what you say was a "wake-up call", nothing that hasnt been said before about the raptor. Though the article saying it will be useless in 30 years is quite amusing. I guess you cant upgrade technology anymore? Cause you know that the F15 from 1975 is the same one today :megalol: Particularly since the F35 was designed to be adapted over the decades to the newest technology.

I am no expert on metal fatigue, though I doubt that you are either, or anyone here is for that matter. But metal fatigue hasnt stopped the B52, especially since its going into 2040. And it wont stop the other aircraft. And yes I believe we will eventually have a couple hundred F35s for combat purpose eventually, time will tell.

I am not doubting drones, as I am aware what your cut and paste article of the XB-47 proves. They are amazing machines. But taking over flying roles in the next 15 years :megalol:, no way! Drones in your and I's lifetime will play a continuing role in military aviation and combat, but a complete take over what come any time soon! Though I must say I wonder where you think we will have all this money to just get ready of heavily invested into airframes, if we cant even afford a couple hundred F35's, an aircraft with over 4000 orders! Talk about starting up new production lines foe your 20 to 1 F35 type of deal! Assuming a cost of 90 million per F35 that puts your drones to a strick 4.5 million per airframe. What about all the spare parts for said aircraft? These aircraft are more capable without humans right? So unless you want flying gliders it wont be happening. And what about all the advanced ai and that cost?

 

I am glad to see you agree on some points.

 

I am no expert on metal fatigue but I know how it affects fighter planes pulling constant g's over the lifetime of the aircraft because I flew them.

 

The F15s have been in constant production so those planes you cite in '75 are not the ones of today. Another example are F18As made in the eighties, no longer used by the Navy.

Reason for both cases: metal fatigue.

F14s retired due to metal fatigue and upkeep cost.

 

B52s are truly an amazing story but you need to research it to understand how they are flying today. First off, they don't pull serious Gs so metal fatigue takes longer. Second the B52s keep flying because some forward thinking people preserved the bulk of the fleet a long time ago and placed them in the boneyard and now selectively use them for parts and use.

This method can't be as easily done with fighters.

 

The ratio I state is simply a blind guess to illustrate there is an order of magnitude difference in cost between an F35 and a modularized/miniaturized drone.

I have no idea what the cost difference would actually be but I guarantee it would be eye popping when compared to capabilities.

 

Ask yourself did you think just 10 years ago that a full-sized 4500 pound car would be traveling on our highways with no need for a driver? It happened and it's already 2 yr old news.

Still needs refinement of course but our government along with others are buying off on it and are allowing it. And already there is talk about full-size autonmous 18-wheelers.

 

One more thing about drones and cost, the smaller the unit the lesser the cost in the long run.

If you can make a mini-hornet then why not a mini-xb47

 

And no, the ordnance of today will not be the ordnance of tomorrow when it comes to drones.

Think smaller and more powerful :smilewink:

 

We have soo many AI efforts going on in the world it's not even funny, remember AI is not a physical property and yes it will cost money but not at the level you think it will be.

 

I never said complete take-over, it will be gradually phased-in over the decades with a small cadre of elite human pilots remaining.