I love the discussion on AI "this is great stuff..."
> And have said all that, I think that AI in fighters is a very good
Why >>would you risk a human on what is really a multi-attack >drone?
I thing that a Automated fighter is just an expensive way to say smart
MISSLE...
though there is an appeal to having unmaned ships..
for one suppose an alien reace that is all but wiped out.. I race that have
such a small living population..
they could revert to AI for thire vehicals of war (without risking the lives
of the rest of thier race)...
just a thought.. Great disscution..
CMC
> One great reason, is the training time of pilots. A fighter can be
> This allows for high use/loses. There are a pile of other good reasons,
> Darren
Thought i still believe that from an over all stand point that the living
pilots do has a sort of advantage.. the irrational thought..
but with AI fighters there could resonaly be a 10 AI fighter to 1 Human
fighter.. due to training and so on..
unless...: you have a AI that is smart enough to learn.. there is sucj thing
as self modifing code.. and you have to admit that at a very small and
uncomplex look that is a limited AI. (first steps at least).
CMC
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Chris McCurry wrote:
> >>And have said all that, I think that AI in fighters is a very good
Well there is a slight difference. One could expect to recover an unmanned
fighter as opposed to expending them as smart missiles. The unmanned fighter
would be the carrying vehicle to get the smart munitions into the area,
release a cloud of munitions and return with targeting data, results of the
attack and other items of interest. This might allow "smart" drones to travel
to an area of conflict by FTL, launch a flight of missiles and return. Since
AI will presumbably be smaller and hardier than human occupants the design of
drones could be maximized for effeciency in terms of FTL range, stealth
capability and evasive capability (1000 x g for a drone vs. 10 or 20 g's for a
human)
--Binhan
> Chris McCurry wrote:
One great reason, is the training time of pilots. A fighter can be
manufactured in a lot less time than it takes to train a pilot to fly it.
This allows for high use/loses. There are a pile of other good reasons,
human pilots for example have problems like ill health, fatigue, they need
sleep etc.
> Chris McCurry wrote:
I have just remembered, in the book SkunkWorks, about Lockheeds special
development unit (blackbird, u2 spy plane, Stealth Fighter). They mention the
compterised flight combat system on the stealth.
Apprantly, it could be programed with the mission profile, flight to the
target, (using the best route for stealth capabilites and keep the aircraft at
the best flight angle to avoid detection) drop the muntions if the pilot did
not want to, or had not overidden due to avoiding defences etc. And then fly
home.
True it could not handle a dog flight for the take off and landing and had not
dicussion making capabilities, (we still need human pilots) but add another
twentry or so years and see what we get. This system was designed and
developed in the late seventies early eighties.