JSouthworth wrote:
This article gives details of how the SAGE system controlled the later F106 Delta Dart interceptor. After firing the Genie rocket, the system would automatically put the interceptor into a turn to disengage, thereby preventing the aircraft and pilot being damaged by it's own nuclear weapon.

https://www.f-106deltadart.com/flightcontrols.htm

You don't read your own sources, do you? Or are you just disingenuous?

"the system would automatically put the interceptor into a turn to disengage, thereby preventing the aircraft and pilot being damaged by it's own nuclear weapon."

Never proven to actually work. Never tested in combat, OBVIOUSLY.

"Two CLASS A mishaps in 1981 involving Flight Control malfunctions revealed the need for ADTAC to direct an indepth analysys of the Automatic Flight Control System of every F-106 still flying in the fleet.  Any aircraft experiancing flight control malfunctions during any ground operation were to be immedialtely impounded."

Very comforting for pilots of aircraft being completely taken over by a system controlled by a computer on the ground holding the "record for the world's largest (physical size) computer ever created."

Then, of course:

"By the time the SAGE system was fully deployed, it was obsolete, no match for the speed of new ICBMs.  SAGE was never designed to counter a space or missile threat.  It was designed to counter the air threat.  SAGE was operating long after the ICBM threat was recognized.  Maybe it would have been closed due to ICBMs had the Soviets gotten rid of its manned bomber force and maintained only the Strategic Rocket Forces.  SAGE was eventually closed because the bomber threat diminished, thus the mission became airspace sovereignty not defense. "

What was your point again? Oh, right.

Focuspuller wrote:
"the system would automatically put the interceptor into a turn to disengage, thereby preventing the aircraft and pilot being damaged by it's own nuclear weapon."

Never proven to actually work. Never tested in combat, OBVIOUSLY.

Very comforting for pilots of aircraft being completely taken over by a system controlled by a computer on the ground holding the "record for the world's largest (physical size) computer ever created."


What was your point again? Oh, right.

The point is that the USAF did not have a problem with computer controlled aircraft back in the days when there was a serious threat to the US from Russian bombers. The SAGE system was never proved in combat because the Soviets never did directly challenge it. And pilot comfort was not so much of an issue in those days.

So what is the problem with the autonomous drone or UCAV, beyond the threat it poses to the future careers of pilots of manned combat aircraft? And since when has it been acceptable for them to use a science fiction novel, I Robot by Isaac Asimov (also a very boring film) as a basis for military doctrine? As a basis for the defense of Europe and the United States? It might be added that existing weapons including cruise missiles are already controlled by on board microprocessors.

This is what tends to happen to professional militaries in long periods of peacetime. They become increasingly insular and focused on their perceived self-interest as organisations at the expense of military efficiency and function. NATO air forces today are a bit like the cavalry after WW1, at pains to ignore mounting evidence that manned fighters are rapidly becoming expensive, useless death traps in the demanding context of modern tactical warfare.

Looking briefly at the future prospect of air-to-air combat between manned fighter aircraft and autonomous drones, the drones or UCAVs would potentially have major advantages in terms of stealth and maneuverability, and numbers so it would take an optimist to rate the chances of the manned aircraft in that situation.

JSouthworth wrote:
The point is that the USAF did not have a problem with computer controlled aircraft back in the days when there was a serious threat to the US from Russian bombers. The SAGE system was never proved in combat because the Soviets never did directly challenge it. And pilot comfort was not so much of an issue in those days.

So what is the problem with the autonomous drone or UCAV, beyond the threat it poses to the future careers of pilots of manned combat aircraft? And since when has it been acceptable for them to use a science fiction novel, I Robot by Isaac Asimov (also a very boring film) as a basis for military doctrine? As a basis for the defense of Europe and the United States? It might be added that existing weapons including cruise missiles are already controlled by on board microprocessors.

This is what tends to happen to professional militaries in long periods of peacetime. They become increasingly insular and focused on their perceived self-interest as organisations at the expense of military efficiency and function. NATO air forces today are a bit like the cavalry after WW1, at pains to ignore mounting evidence that manned fighters are rapidly becoming expensive, useless death traps in the demanding context of modern tactical warfare.

Looking briefly at the future prospect of air-to-air combat between manned fighter aircraft and autonomous drones, the drones or UCAVs would potentially have major advantages in terms of stealth and maneuverability, and numbers so it would take an optimist to rate the chances of the manned aircraft in that situation.

" The SAGE system was never proved in combat because the Soviets never did directly challenge it."

Yes the Russians never launched a bomber assault on the United States. You are quite the historian.

"And pilot comfort was not so much of an issue in those days."

"Comfort" has NEVER been a military consideration . Have you ever been aboard a submarine? Navy ship? Tank?....Didn't think so.

"So what is the problem with the autonomous drone or UCAV, beyond the threat it poses to the future careers of pilots of manned combat aircraft?"

What ARE you talking about? You think there is a union of jet fighter pilots who would lobby against the introduction of autonomous fighter aircraft to preserve their future CAREERS?? There are military planners who do warn against prematurely removing human situational awareness from the battle area, and other concerns, but the careers of pilots is NOT one of them.

"And since when has it been acceptable for them to use a science fiction novel, I Robot by Isaac Asimov (also a very boring film) as a basis for military doctrine?"

Just exactly WHO is seriously talking about Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics as actually applying to autonomous military weapons systems? Cite that source. I doubt you ever read Asimov's large collection of work dealing with all aspects of his three laws, which were meant to explore the meanings of "robot" and "human."

"It might be added that existing weapons including cruise missiles are already controlled by on board microprocessors."

You cannot be serious. Cruise missiles do not launch themselves and target themselves😂😂😂😂😂

NATO air forces today are a bit like the cavalry after WW1, at pains to ignore mounting evidence that manned fighters are rapidly becoming expensive, useless death traps in the demanding context of modern tactical warfare.

Utter nonsense. What makes you think autonomous systems are not being developed and tested right now? What do you possibly know?

AI-CONTROLLED FIGHTER JET TAKES FLIGHT, MARKING AN UNPRECEDENTED BREAKTHROUGH IN AUTONOMOUS AVIATION

https://thedebrief.org/ai-controlled-fi … -aviation/

Between referencing obsolete systems and touting systems that do not yet exist, you totally ignore the subject of YOUR OWN THREAD, which is the Russian invasion of Ukraine which is being fought NOW with weapons that exist NOW. Your flights of fantasy and speculations and assumptions and conclusions are just so much worthless, boring waste of bandwidth.

Give it a rest.

For reference , Asimov's THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS:

First Law
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Focuspuller wrote:
"So what is the problem with the autonomous drone or UCAV, beyond the threat it poses to the future careers of pilots of manned combat aircraft?"

What ARE you talking about? You think there is a union of jet fighter pilots who would lobby against the introduction of autonomous fighter aircraft to preserve their future CAREERS??

That is correct. Certain people are placing a higher priority to careers and PR than on military effectiveness, and Isaac Asimov's first law of robotics is being used to provide a convenient excuse for this. I do believe that you have understood what I am saying correctly.

Political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic need to stop assuming that the perceived self-interests of the armed services are necessarily synonymous with effective defense.

An article here discusses some legal aspects of autonomous weapon systems;
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.ed … ontext=hlr

JSouthworth wrote:
The argument that there has to be a human being in a combat aircraft to make "high level decisions" is disengenuous, for at least two reasons I can think of. In the first place, high level decisions are made by the high level commanders, the generals. The pilot of a fighter is a junior officer, usually with the rank of major or lower, sometimes a warrant officer or NCO whose job basically entails compliance with the orders, Standard Operating Procedures and rules of engagement that come down from higher authority.

In addition, it should be remembered that military culture emphasises discipline. The principles of obedience to orders, loyalty to superiors, and sense of duty are suppposed to be more important than an individual's personal feelings about the job or any ethical qualms they may have about it.

From a practical perspective, the military cannot tolerate individuals making their own decisions on whether or not to carry out their orders on a day to day basis, because that could easily lead to disaster in a combat situation. Reliable performance in strict accordance with instructions is what they expect from people.

Absolute ignorance on display. Think harder.

The FIRST thing that goes out the window when the shooting starts in the air IS EVERYTHING YOU SAID. Are you suggesting that "high level commanders" are directing fighter pilots in real time on real sorties? Are you THAT clueless? Apparently you are.

"Standard Operating Procedures and rules of engagement that come down from higher authority" mean NOTHING in the heat of battle. Once the shooting starts its you against the enemy pilot. PERIOD. Go down in flames following "rules of engagement" or use situational awareness and prevail? We know what YOU would do. RIP old chap.

"The principles of obedience to orders, loyalty to superiors, and sense of duty are suppposed to be more important than an individual's personal feelings about the job or any ethical qualms they may have about it."

NOW we understand your infatuation with autonomous weapons facing autonomous weapons. They "follow strict orders." In the here and now, WHAT does any of that have to do with a fighter pilot in a dogfight? NOTHING.You are RIDICULOUS.

'Reliable performance in strict accordance with instructions is what they expect from people."

IMPOSSIBLE in the heat of battle.

Maybe on your toy battlefield, in your toy military, but not in the real world.

JSouthworth wrote:
https://thedebrief.org/ai-controlled-fi … -aviation/


Interesting article there, but the idea of an autonomous AI-controlled fighter with a human pilot on board makes little sense, because of the g limits that would impose on maneuvering capability. Unless of course the success of the mission was considered more important than the survival of the pilot.

You obviously missed, or did not understand, this part:

"“VISTA will allow us to parallelize the development and test of cutting-edge artificial intelligence techniques with new uncrewed vehicle designs,” Dr. M. Christopher Cotting, U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School director of research, said in a press release issued by Lockheed Martin.

“This approach, combined with focused testing on new vehicle systems as they are produced, will rapidly mature autonomy for uncrewed platforms and allow us to deliver tactically relevant capability to our warfighter.”

Too tough for you to comprehend?

Focuspuller wrote:

. Are you suggesting that "high level commanders" are directing fighter pilots in real time on real sorties?
'Reliable performance in strict accordance with instructions is what they expect from people."

IMPOSSIBLE in the heat of battle.

Combat pilots do not have the freedom of action that you seem to think they do. While in the air, they may appear to have a degree of independence from higher authority, but you see, when they return to base after a mission, they have to write a report. And if it turns out that they disobeyed orders, they can be grounded or, in serious cases, court-martialled.

JSouthworth wrote:
The argument that there has to be a human being in a combat aircraft to make "high level decisions" is disengenuous, for at least two reasons I can think of. In the first place, high level decisions are made by the high level commanders, the generals. The pilot of a fighter is a junior officer, usually with the rank of major or lower, sometimes a warrant officer or NCO whose job basically entails compliance with the orders, Standard Operating Procedures and rules of engagement that come down from higher authority.

In addition, it should be remembered that military culture emphasises discipline. The principles of obedience to orders, loyalty to superiors, and sense of duty are suppposed to be more important than an individual's personal feelings about the job or any ethical qualms they may have about it.

From a practical perspective, the military cannot tolerate individuals making their own decisions on whether or not to carry out their orders on a day to day basis, because that could easily lead to disaster in a combat situation. Reliable performance in strict accordance with instructions is what they expect from people.

JSouthworth wrote:
Combat pilots do not have the freedom of action that you seem to think they do. While in the air, they may appear to have a degree of independence from higher authority, but you see, when they return to base after a mission, they have to write a report. And if it turns out that they disobeyed orders, they can be grounded or, in serious cases, court-martialled.

I feel the need at this point to apologise for my compatriot's complete stupidity. I may have done this before, on multiple occasions in fact.

Some of us are looking at ways of getting him dropped into Bakhmut, from a height and whilst attached to an empty canister equipped with paper wings. We feel that this will impart a better understanding of what the outcome will be if combat pilots are required to fly in the manner he describes.

It's doubtful that Southy will survive the experience, but if he does rest assured that we'll send him straight back for a second go, just as soon as he's finished writing his report.

Apologies once again.

LightDreams wrote:
C'mon Preston, that's REALLY not fair...

You should at least provide him with a 1950's military manual for the cannister that he can look up on his descent into Bakhmut...

We did consider doing that but it would risk Muscovy (FKA Russia) finding out how to fly an empty canister, something we've managed to keep under wraps for the best part of a century. However, we're absolutely confident that Southy will figure out everything he needs to know during his brief descent into Bakhmut all by himself.

JSouthworth wrote:

Combat pilots do not have the freedom of action that you seem to think they do. While in the air, they may appear to have a degree of independence from higher authority, but you see, when they return to base after a mission, they have to write a report. And if it turns out that they disobeyed orders, they can be grounded or, in serious cases, court-martialled.

Just amazing. You have totally, embarrassingly, confused "standard operating procedure" and  "rules of engagement" which are general rules of conduct in a theater of operations, with the split-second decisions and situational awareness required in combat and whether the human brain or a microprocessor is best suited in a highly complex battlefield. Following orders into the ground like a good microprocessor, or using human resourcefulness to think outside the box is still an easy decision in favor of the most complex processor currently extant - the human brain. You may be impatient for the day when wars are conducted by robots "following strict orders" but for now, you will have to be satisfied with your toys and pretend battlefield.

P R E S T O N wrote:
I feel the need at this point to apologise for my compatriot's complete stupidity. I may have done this before, on multiple occasions in fact.

Some of us are looking at ways of getting him dropped into Bakhmut, from a height and whilst attached to an empty canister equipped with paper wings. We feel that this will impart a better understanding of what the outcome will be if combat pilots are required to fly in the manner he describes.

It's doubtful that Southy will survive the experience, but if he does rest assured that we'll send him straight back for a second go, just as soon as he's finished writing his report.

Apologies once again.

Just incredible.

JSouthworth wrote:
https://thedebrief.org/ai-controlled-fi … -aviation/


Interesting article there, but the idea of an autonomous AI-controlled fighter with a human pilot on board makes little sense, because of the g limits that would impose on maneuvering capability. Unless of course the success of the mission was considered more important than the survival of the pilot.

The practical limit for an aircraft with a pilot is about 12g but a drone or UCAV can be designed for 20g according to this article from a USAF website;

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portal … s/ucav.pdf

The USAF, along with the US Navy, the Royal Air Force and the French air force are trying to make the UCAV, or unmanned combat aircraft an adjunct, or accessory to the manned fighter rather than it's replacement. But the idea of UCAVs being controlled by pilots of manned fighters offers no real advantages in operational effectiveness over fully autonomous UCAVs, and a number of obvious disadvantages;

In the future, manned fighters are unlikely to survive in the same combat airspace as stealthy armed UCAVs that can maneuver at 20G, so risks to manned aircraft and their pilots will be very high. If you have a manned fighter which is controlling five UCAVs, then the easy option for the enemy is to destroy the manned fighter, effectively putting the UCAVs out of action as well. And since the manned aircraft will always be an easier target than the UCAV because of it's comparatively limited maneuvering capability and inferior stealth characteristics, operational effectiveness will be seriously compromised.

JSouthworth wrote:

The USAF, along with the US Navy, the Royal Air Force and the French air force are trying to make the UCAV, or unmanned combat aircraft an adjunct, or accessory to the manned fighter rather than it's replacement. But the idea of UCAVs being controlled by pilots of manned fighters offers no real advantages in operational effectiveness over fully autonomous UCAVs, and a number of obvious disadvantages;

In the future, manned fighters are unlikely to survive in the same combat airspace as stealthy armed UCAVs that can maneuver at 20G, so risks to manned aircraft and their pilots will be very high. If you have a manned fighter which is controlling five UCAVs, then the easy option for the enemy is to destroy the manned fighter, effectively putting the UCAVs out of action as well. And since the manned aircraft will always be an easier target than the UCAV because of its comparatively limited maneuvering capability and inferior stealth characteristics, operational effectiveness will be seriously compromised.

"But the idea of UCAVs being controlled by pilots of manned fighters offers no real advantages in operational effectiveness over fully autonomous UCAVs, and a number of obvious disadvantages;"

Then I suggest you not use manned fighters in the battles raging in your imagination and basement battlefield. The rest of us, including the military leadership pf the world, will reserve judgement until ACTUAL unmanned fighters are developed and deployed in battle. Until then, your opinion concerning manned fighters will be given all the credence it deserves.

Focuspuller wrote:

"But the idea of UCAVs being controlled by pilots of manned fighters offers no real advantages in operational effectiveness over fully autonomous UCAVs, and a number of obvious disadvantages;"

Then I suggest you not use manned fighters in the battles raging in your imagination and basement battlefield. The rest of us, including the military leadership pf the world, will reserve judgement until ACTUAL unmanned fighters are developed and deployed in battle. Until then, your opinion concerning manned fighters will be given all the credence it deserves.

I think the basic reason for the opposition of the NATO air forces to unmanned combat aircraft is concern for their public image. They're worried that adoption of this technology will have a negative impact on their public image, recruitment, political influence and esprit de corps.


In the short term, this might have some validity but as the gap increases over time between the requirements of modern warfare and what they can deliver, they will come to be regarded as expensive posers, first by the other branches of the military and eventually by the public as well.

JSouthworth wrote:
I think the basic reason for the opposition of the NATO air forces to unmanned combat aircraft is concern for their public image. They're worried that adoption of this technology will have a negative impact on their public image, recruitment, political influence and esprit de corps.

So NATO strategic thinking in the defense of the West is governed above all by VANITY.

Brilliant. 😂😂😂

JQuest wrote:

Are you not smart enough to realize that the second paragraph you wrote directly refutes the claim you make in the first paragraph?

Does it hell. The Ukrainians can take as much time as they need to get the job done, that's the point.

Focuspuller wrote:

So NATO strategic thinking in the defense of the West is governed above all by VANITY.

The US military have already proved that unmanned combat aircraft or UCAVs have major advantages in combat over manned fighters, that's why they're coming out with this crap about Asimov's laws of robotics in a lame attempt to justify their present policies.

JSouthworth wrote:

The US military have already proved that unmanned combat aircraft or UCAVs have major advantages in combat over manned fighters, that's why they're coming out with this crap about Asimov's laws of robotics in a lame attempt to justify their present policies.

"... this crap about Asimov's laws of robotics in a lame attempt to justify their present policies."

Cite your sources.

JSouthworth wrote:
Before anyone accuses me of disliking science fiction, I should point that the novel I'm reading right now is Hardwired by Walter Jon Williams. Cyberpunk.

"Before anyone accuses me of disliking science fiction..."

No one is accusing you of disliking science fiction. Quite the opposite, old chap.

HARDWIRED NOVEL

"Ex-fighter pilot Cowboy, "hardwired" via skull sockets directly to his lethal electronic hardware..."

-Wikipedia

All we need to know, Cowboy.

JSouthworth wrote:
Does it hell. The Ukrainians can take as much time as they need to get the job done, that's the point.

Then why didn’t you write that? 🤷🏼‍♂️ You might try writing so that your insipidly stupid conclusions make sense instead of having to consistently back pedal and explain yourself due to your inability to comment in a cogent and thoughtful manner. Also “Does it hell” is a British colloquialism that doesn’t mean fuckall here, plus it’s not even a complete sentence.

I stand by what I wrote, you blew up your own conclusion, whether or not it’s because you write for shit or you’re moving the goal posts again in attempt to cover for your dumb-assery means little to those of us laughing at you.

Focuspuller wrote:
"Before anyone accuses me of disliking science fiction..."

No one is accusing you of disliking science fiction. Quite the opposite, old chap.

HARDWIRED NOVEL

"Ex-fighter pilot Cowboy, "hardwired" via skull sockets directly to his lethal electronic hardware..."

-Wikipedia

All we need to know, Cowboy.

Shall we get back to the topic? The military and the DoD are arguing, like Isaac Asimov that for "ethical" reasons you have to have a human in the aircraft to make "high level decisions", even though pilots never actually get to make any such decisions, they get to obey orders. Although when Gary Powers was shot down, he had to choose between blowing himself up with his aircraft, taking poison or becoming a prisoner, that might have been a tough call.

There is actually a parallel with the plot of the book, but I won't give too much away. A pretty good novel, they should make a film of it.

JSouthworth wrote:

Shall we get back to the topic? The military and the DoD are arguing, like Isaac Asimov that for "ethical" reasons you have to have a human in the aircraft to make "high level decisions", even though pilots never actually get to make any such decisions, they get to obey orders. Although when Gary Powers was shot down, he had to choose between blowing himself up with his aircraft, taking poison or becoming a prisoner, that might have been a tough call.

There is actually a parallel with the plot of the book, but I won't give too much away. A pretty good novel, they should make a film of it.

i like turtles.

JSouthworth wrote:

Shall we get back to the topic? The military and the DoD are arguing, like Isaac Asimov that for "ethical" reasons you have to have a human in the aircraft to make "high level decisions", even though pilots never actually get to make any such decisions, they get to obey orders. Although when Gary Powers was shot down, he had to choose between blowing himself up with his aircraft, taking poison or becoming a prisoner, that might have been a tough call.

There is actually a parallel with the plot of the book, but I won't give too much away. A pretty good novel, they should make a film of it.

When Isaac Asimov wrote I Robot, he was clearly thinking in terms of self-aware robots, whereas the ones we have today are not.

A robot, or robotic unmanned combat aircraft that isn't aware of itself as being a robot, that isn't aware of it's targets as being human beings, and which doesn't know that dropping bombs on them will harm them obviously cannot violate Asimov's First Law of Robotics, which states that a robot cannot knowingly harm a human being.

JSouthworth wrote:
When Isaac Asimov wrote I Robot, he was clearly thinking in terms of self-aware robots, whereas the ones we have today are not..

Then why did YOU bring it up? Just to discredit the straw man you built?

And for your edification, Isaac Asimov did NOT write "I, Robot".  Eando Binder (pseudonym of Earl and Otto Binder), did. Your ignorance is one thing, but the arrogance you display in defending and embellishing that ignorance is STAGGERING.