>Kendalls flight at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), California, on May 2 came just weeks after the air service announced that an autonomously pilo...

>Kendall’s flight at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), California, on May 2 came just weeks after the air service announced that an autonomously piloted F-16 Fighting Falcon had taken part in a series of simulated dogfights with a manned fighter. According to Kendall, during his time in the wienerpit of the autonomous aircraft, the AI was able to maneuver the fighter and could simulate an “engagement” against a manned F-16, piloted by an aviator with 2,000 to 3,000 hours of experience.

bros, should we be scared?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    everyone saw this coming since the 90s
    aerial jet combat is particularly ill-suited to humans and particularly well-suited to computers

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp except:
      >everyone saw this coming since the 90s
      This is 100% not true, since I've spent the last 15 years arguing it all over the internet including here.
      >aerial jet combat is particularly ill-suited to humans and particularly well-suited to computers
      Yeah absolutely, at a fundamental level air to air combat is the absolute fricking ideal situation for computers. The advantages in terms of maneuvering, speed of reaction, etc multiply, and the disadvantages of stuff like target recognition can basically be completely dispensed with. In an actual air combat zone there aren't any rando civilians mixed in with ground spam, and IFF is instant, universal and can be perfect. Identifying ground targets while minimizing blue on blue and civilian damage is extremely challenging even for the best human experts with time and lots of information, armies frick that up every war, repeatedly. In the air in the modern era it's no problem. Jamming is basically useless as well, you have point to point capability for everything.

      But that hasn't changed endless people insisting none of this is true and that Ace Top Guns have The Right Stuff blah blah and that ground drones are the only place for computers.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        probably a matter of romance as much as anything. jet fighter pilots are basically the mounted knights of modern warfare, ultra elites riding thoroughbreds jousting and dueling above the rabble. small in number and thus identifiable in mass war. like even if you look at various games/movies/anime with ai fighter enemies for ages the human always wins the ai isn't quite good enough (at least not yet).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also using drones in an air superiority role negates a lot of the scary bits about "AI going out of control" or whatever, because hard failsafes are pretty easy and there also just isn't that much they can do. Range is inherently quite limited, ammo is quite limited, a2a missiles are quite specific. I suppose an AI plane could try to commit sudoku into a hospital or something but
        >"independent self destruct system if it gets within 200' of the ground or 2000' over cities"
        or whatever details is probably a good idea anyway just for security reasons.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No,

        everyone saw this coming since the 90s
        aerial jet combat is particularly ill-suited to humans and particularly well-suited to computers

        is 100pct on point. By mid-90s aircraft performance capability was limited by pilot bodies. 9G is all we can get out of the human body. All the new stuff was going to be drones, and it was obv even then the fighters and larger would be computer controlled, allowing them to push past 9G and the limits of the human body.
        Mid-90's was also of course drawdown on collapse of the USSR. Peace dividend. Military drawdown. Etc. There were few aero projects, and what there was, wasn't that interesting. Cruise missile improvements were the order of the day, in the late 90s, but as mentioned, long term the pilot would be sitting on the ground (or AI, which no one was really thinking seriously about yet.)
        t. grad school while at NASA/Langley, earning MSME. A few classmates went to defense, I said frick it and did other engineering stuff.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp except:
      >everyone saw this coming since the 90s
      This is 100% not true, since I've spent the last 15 years arguing it all over the internet including here.
      >aerial jet combat is particularly ill-suited to humans and particularly well-suited to computers
      Yeah absolutely, at a fundamental level air to air combat is the absolute fricking ideal situation for computers. The advantages in terms of maneuvering, speed of reaction, etc multiply, and the disadvantages of stuff like target recognition can basically be completely dispensed with. In an actual air combat zone there aren't any rando civilians mixed in with ground spam, and IFF is instant, universal and can be perfect. Identifying ground targets while minimizing blue on blue and civilian damage is extremely challenging even for the best human experts with time and lots of information, armies frick that up every war, repeatedly. In the air in the modern era it's no problem. Jamming is basically useless as well, you have point to point capability for everything.

      But that hasn't changed endless people insisting none of this is true and that Ace Top Guns have The Right Stuff blah blah and that ground drones are the only place for computers.

      Fly by wire was the begining of the end.
      If computers can now make the micro adjustments hundreds of times a second to keep the craft stable in flight why could they not also do macro adjustments?
      A computer would interpret threats and maneuvers thousands of times faster and would already be maneuvering itself to counter the other craft before a human pilot would even have decided on their brain to move stick to the left.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What about neurolink pilots

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What about them? Even if we imagine a fully mature brain-computer interface someday, the brain and body itself still remain major limitations in air to air combat. A solid state system still processes far, far faster then a brain can, still can handle far more g forces, still needs much less physical space and life support, still can handle far more data input (cameras in optical/ir/uv and radar in a sphere around the entire aircraft simultaneously), and finally is still more expendable.

          It'll be quite awhile before we have BCI at that level. A decade or two from now is going to be way too late anyway.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but drone deception will develop just as fast as drone intelligence. Look at those weird cloths that trip up facial recognition, and that's what is available to civilians. If the military is developing autonomous F16s you can bet your ass they are also developing technologies to counter them.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >change your face to avoid face trackers
              How do you propose you change the entire shape of an off the shelf craft turned drone?
              Radars have already been trained on its shape for decades. Putting funky invasion stripes on won't change a radar return. For your comparison to track (heh) you would need an entirely different craft shape. But modern radar don't need return recognition it just picks out anything large enough and fast enough to be a fighter.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Yes but drone deception will develop just as fast as drone intelligence.
              No it won't anon. Stop thinking about this stuff as if it's magic. There is no deception in air to air combat: something either replies to query with the proper cryptographic signature, AWACS/control reports it's an ally because of a query or known position, or it's an enemy. There isn't any need to do any sort of other identification. In an active ADIZ random shit isn't allowed or is assumed to be hostile.
              >Look at those weird cloths that trip up facial recognition, and that's what is available to civilians. If the military is developing autonomous F16s you can bet your ass they are also developing technologies to counter them.
              Based fricking moron.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scared that the board has become infested with dipshits that post moronic screenshot OPs without links? No. Furious? Yes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >without links

      listen up you dumb fricking zoomer. you just type the article title in the search engine of your choice and press enter.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Listen up you moronic zoomer, you expecting people to finish their sentences

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >oh, this article is interesting
        >let me go make a thread about it on /k/
        >should I include the link, which I already have since I'm fricking reading it, so that people can just click it and read the whole thing if they want?
        >nah, I think I'll just make each person have to independently search for the article title instead
        have a nice day.
        t. millennial

        https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/autonomous-f-16-fighters-are-%E2%80%98roughly-even%E2%80%99-human-pilots-said-air-force-chief-210974

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          thanks for proving that any moron can find the article on their own

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If humans have no hope against ai in chess

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"roughly even"
    >Translation: They kicked the shit out of human pilots and I'm scared

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it wasn't a movie

    it was a warning

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Macross Plus with the AI ship came out 10 years before stealth.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dogfights
    trash test

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't they literally have Autonomous F-16s in AC7? I think they spoofed their IFF and basically ambushed you with them.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      F/A-18’s, so no but you were on the right track. There might have been some autonomous fighters in mission 19 as well- I forget.
      Fricking Belkan sorcery- they should’ve gotten seven more nukes just because.
      The IFF spoofing was

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The IFF spoofing was a war crime that nobody even remembered by the end of the war.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          lol what? I don't remember any mention of it being a warcrime, that doesn't even make any sense. Rather everyone just thought it was impossible, same way as nobody would expect SSL to be cracked because nobody knows of any general purpose scalable quantum computer, and some still doubt whether it can even be done (this is separate from specialized annealer stuff and such). It's only been pretty recently that serious post quantum encryption deployment has started happening. Everyone uses prime factorization or elliptic curve pubkey right now, literally trillions of dollars flows protected by that all the time, all militaries use it. If someone had secretly developed and deployed a GPQC that could crack it in the 2000s that'd be a big fricking mess for awhile until everyone adjusted.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Would honestly cause WW3 because nuclear deterrence would be gone

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              ????
              What the frick does nuclear use have to do with that? None of that depends on pubkey encryption, it uses OTPs, physically separate lines etc. And identifying nuclear usage has nothing to do with it either. What the heck are you thinking there anon?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Without encryption you don't want to send communications nor can you trust any communications you receive. This gives an opportunity for a suprise attack. Idk it may be a reach.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong. First, encryption matters of shared, public lines, and/or for scalability. It's much easier to just share a small number of trust authorities and have them be able to authorize endless others. This is vitally important for civilians.

                But in a highly limited military situation where they can do good physical security it's not necessary. You can always just have literal, old fashioned physical security with pre-shared codes in safes where anyone who tries to get them gets shot. You can use one time pads, or preshared symmetric keys as well. None of this is affected in any way by quantum computers. Tech has actually made a lot of this much more practical though still much more expensive and harder then pubkey.

                But even without post-quantum encryption (which we do have already), if there is one organization that'd easily adapt it'd be the military. Old style banks would be another, and criminal cartels. Basically if you can securely move around weapons, gold, or drugs, you can move around entropy as well.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Didn't they literally have Autonomous F-16s in AC7?
      They had autonomous versions of a bunch of aircraft, but they were all loyal wingman types. Only a few were dedicated fully autonomous drone systems.

      >I think they spoofed their IFF and basically ambushed you with them.
      That was something else, they used that a few times but with manned aircraft as well. Most of the non-drones you fought in the war were manned, until the very end when there's a big civil war and general mass frickup and tons of human pilots defected from the enemy so they're rapidly spinning up drone shit to try to make up for the gap.

      AC7 really was a fun game given how much of a clusterfrick of development hell it apparently went through and almost got cancelled and got minimal budget and marketing initially. The developers really loved it and wanted to keep it alive. I'll always remember the interview about how the second to last mission, when the producer was asking for a different song for it:
      >I need you to make me a masterpiece.
      >I understand.
      And then the crazy bastard does it and it's so good they change the mission to sync with it.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dogfight
    That's cool and all, but does it do proficient BVR? As part of a flight?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If this was meant to be part of the loyal wingman concept test, then I would think the BVR stuff would be a lot easier if you had a pilot in a F-35 or an AWACS providing sensor data for the drone to target.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It takes a year to build a modern fighter jet and 4 years to train a pilot. Without pilots you're limited to only how many aircraft you can build and spam at the enemy. You'll never have to worry about running out of pilots like russia has.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >War... has changed
      I don't think thirdies realize the implications of this on their part of the world

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        One of the big advantages the US and NATO has over their competitors is that they can afford to give their pilots a frick ton more hours of training per year (both in simulators and in the air) than their competitors. If AI-piloted fighters ever trickle down to third-tier militaries, it might actually work to their benefit.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ENTERING ELECTROSPHERE

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So in the gulf war it was

    >durka we shot them all down durka, good shooting in the name of god

    Thirdies after wasting all their missiles on cheap decoy drones and getting killed the frick up right after by real pilots

    >now

    >Hurka we shot them all down Hurka, good shooting in the name of (insert dictator here)

    Thirdies after wasting their missiles on cheap decoy drones and getting killed the frick up right after by the very same drones flying fighters and bombers

    >drone operator scratches his balls

    Recieves automated report

    >All kills confirmed

    >Sips soda

    The end

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NGAD wingmen are going to be insane

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      finally, the Fox-4:
      >shoot an entire autonomous fighter jet at them

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who would win in an air-to-air chicken fight? Russia's greatest drone killer (the pilot that dumped fuel on a UAV) or an NGAD drone with a deathwish?

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry Maverick..

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sorry Maverick...
      There were a bunch of things I liked about that movie, but one was that it seemed to strike the right tone on the fact that yeah, drones are the future, the whole ace thing is indeed starting to head into the sunset... but not quite yet. 5-10 years from now still isn't now. There's still room for cool and important stuff, and it won't happen all at once and at the same time. This was Maverick's final mission, he didn't fight some super AI and save humanity or any shit like that either.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >we've been building aircraft acrobatically limited mostly by their own pilots since the 40's
    >OP is shocked by computers being good pilots
    everybody knows flying is for droids

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >be chink pilot
    >flying into taiwan to provide air cover for the invasion
    >get F-16 radar pings
    >oh fugg
    >take it down to the deck so you dont eat a BVR missile
    >pop countermeasures and try to fly unpredictably
    >see F-16 still coming at you
    >but it doesnt fire, passes you by
    >look behind you
    >see it pull 24G's sustained and get onto your tail faster than you can react

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >watch it fall out of the sky as the airframe disintegrates

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, this unfortunately. We could definitely easily build planes that'd take 15 or 20 or 30Gs if we wanted to, raw strength of materials isn't the problem there, engines and electronics are all fine. But nobody has bothered with manned aircraft since the pilots can't take it, and if you're never going to do that kind of g-force then you can save mass to spend on other valuable things instead. So no existing plane is designed for that, with most permanent structural damage starts happening the 9-11g range. Some are still physically capable of doing so, like, once, as a true emergency thing, but 20+ is right out, and you wouldn't expend an airframe like that when missiles can do 60-70gs. Drone F-16 would be used in different ways.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'd imagine that a 20g maneuver would also bleed a ton of energy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure but it's not impossible in the entire envelope of possible maneuvers it might not sometimes be useful. The point though is that currently it's just not possible period, manned airframes aren't made to do things that'd kill the pilot. That's just a waste.

            One of the big advantages the US and NATO has over their competitors is that they can afford to give their pilots a frick ton more hours of training per year (both in simulators and in the air) than their competitors. If AI-piloted fighters ever trickle down to third-tier militaries, it might actually work to their benefit.

            Eh. I've seen this sentiment, but I think it's overdone somewhat. Advanced jet engines are stupendously fricking hard, easily one of the hardest fields of human technology in existence. Even with decades of mass espionage, "tech transfer", enormous resources and unironically implessive industrial base the chinks still aren't there. For ground attack it doesn't matter, but for an air superiority fighter engine is a pretty big fricking deal in sustained operations. So are sensors, so advanced radar, and networking, uplink to sats, all that stuff. No AI, like no human, can ultimately go beyond what information it has to work with. If it simply can't see half the range of its opponent there's no overcoming that at scale. High performance systems will be expensive and maintenance heavy even without a pilot.

            I guess I'd agree it will lower one bar and it will enable more levels of "peer", like two thirdies going at it may now have more air as part of their mix. I'll also in fairness acknowledge that thirdies tend to be on defense vs 1st tier, and the defender has a core physics advantage over the attacker (like if your engine has 1/3 the efficiency and thus 1/3 the range, well you're fighting right over your own territory with minimal travel time while the attacker has way more logistics, the attacker NEEDS more range). But I don't think that alone will make up the difference, because 1st tiers spend a shitload on pilot training too. Both sides save money, the relative economics isn't really changed.

        • 2 weeks ago
          sage

          >watch it fall out of the sky as the airframe disintegrates

          I think the f16s crit rate on frame is 13gs where you'll definitely expect some stress fractures, 9g generally being the pilot and FCS limit.
          Frame itself was designed on high-g loads so it's pretty resilient but we're not getting crazy Gs out of it.
          The AI itself wouldn't need to, high g maneuvers like

          I'd imagine that a 20g maneuver would also bleed a ton of energy

          mentioned are a terrible way to dogfight unless it's 1on1 only and you would have a guaranteed hit with absolutely no potential to follow up(impossible to do).
          Really anything WVR would still be a fox2 regardless.
          This is ultimately a test bed for future programs.Loyal Wingman has been in the works for a while but that's for a specific role. Future state is going to be opened up to a LOT of roles.

          The dogfight testbed here was to prove the following:
          1 - is this a valuable endeavor to pursue
          2 - what are the limitations and capabilities
          3 - how can it handle complex and changing environments
          4 - if it can dogfight(arguably the hardest thing a pilot can do besides SEAD/DEAD over live sites) it will do even better at other roles
          Hell we even started doing interesting AI tracking shit with the MQ9s and RQ4s, way before this shit was commonplace. This is going to expand to a whole new scope of shenanigans I don't really think we're ready for.
          We already have microswarm drones(webm related), imagine a bunch of micro jets each having maybe 2 aim120s and 2 aim9xs in complex formations doing inhuman coordinated tactics.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I think the f16s crit rate on frame is 13gs where you'll definitely expect some stress fractures
            Aren't Rafales allowed to go to 11Gs?That's some shitty frame.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Depends what you consider as allowed. Each frame has different limits, either by pilot, fcs, or airframe.
              For the Rafale 11g is for emergencies only as it stresses the frame heavily, nominal is 9gs just like the viper, F16 can go into unlock mode and pull full g the pilot can handle(think the rafale fcs is similar in that regard not sure though).
              It's extremely hard to make aircraft that can handle HIGH gs and handle good at low gs.
              Even more so the weight problem.
              Example aim120d is what, 350 pounds? at 10g that turns into 3500pounds of increased load on wings and pylons and that's not including the higher drag experienced on top of the wingload.
              Outside of the human limit, there's only so far you can go due to that multiplicative nature of g forces while maintaining flight, handling, performance, and capabilities.

              Shit most ISR pods like sniper/latirn/litening pod have lower g limits than the frame or pilot by far.
              Really there's no reason to push high gs outside of the issues I stated above, all it does is kill energy unless you're doing last second pulls in a sam fight and you've dropped your payload if you're doing that.

              [...]
              I think the f16s crit rate on frame is 13gs where you'll definitely expect some stress fractures, 9g generally being the pilot and FCS limit.
              Frame itself was designed on high-g loads so it's pretty resilient but we're not getting crazy Gs out of it.
              The AI itself wouldn't need to, high g maneuvers like [...] mentioned are a terrible way to dogfight unless it's 1on1 only and you would have a guaranteed hit with absolutely no potential to follow up(impossible to do).
              Really anything WVR would still be a fox2 regardless.
              This is ultimately a test bed for future programs.Loyal Wingman has been in the works for a while but that's for a specific role. Future state is going to be opened up to a LOT of roles.

              The dogfight testbed here was to prove the following:
              1 - is this a valuable endeavor to pursue
              2 - what are the limitations and capabilities
              3 - how can it handle complex and changing environments
              4 - if it can dogfight(arguably the hardest thing a pilot can do besides SEAD/DEAD over live sites) it will do even better at other roles
              Hell we even started doing interesting AI tracking shit with the MQ9s and RQ4s, way before this shit was commonplace. This is going to expand to a whole new scope of shenanigans I don't really think we're ready for.
              We already have microswarm drones(webm related), imagine a bunch of micro jets each having maybe 2 aim120s and 2 aim9xs in complex formations doing inhuman coordinated tactics.

              dunno why sage was in name for this

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >fortunately you painted racial slurs on your aircraft which the AI has been specifically programmed to ignore any data on thereby making you effectively invisible
      >unfortunately the thermal emissions from your aircraft look like an Afghan wedding

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon with how much AI shit Asia is pumping left and right I will bet they will be on AI planes train incredibly soon.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    War's always been gay and often pointless but it's become unbelievably gay and pointless.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *