There is an infermous British government documnet dating from the 1950's
which says much the as you have written here. On top of this piece of paper a
British Air Marshall wrote something like "Rubbish". Until we have computer
technology capable of the same decision making as a human
being then computers and robots will always have disadvatages such as they are
predictable, vulnerable to electronic warfare and allowing computers to make
decisions of life and death will be controversial (Film Wargames). Human
beings can make decisions about whether to pull the
trigger. It would be difficult to tell a computer/robot the difference
between a landrover full of troops and a landrover refugees! Also a human
pilot can more than likely identify targets of opportunity. I could rant
on and on and on..........................
Remember ask a Svasku,organic computers are best! And I've got one in my
head I think.
----------
From: FTGZG-L[SMTP:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk]
Sent: 30 October 1996 12:19
To: FTGZG-L
Subject: "real" weapons tech thread (was: coupla Full Thrust questions)
> Adam wrote:
> Seen Janes Defence Weekly recently? The RAF say that the Tornado could
The Pentagon is also working on ground robots that will detect/clear
mines and scan for chemical/biological weapons. They hope to deploy
them to Bosnia.
The USAF has been working for several years to "take pilots out of the loop"
as one official put it. He, an Air Force General, stated that the current view
is that piots are "obsolete" and are the only restrictions on aircraft
performance. Given the limits that a human body can take, it's easy to see
where this idea comes from.
There's an air show this weekend, so maybe I'll get to see some of
these cool aircraft close-up. :)
The Pentagon has been working for many years on "fuzzy logic" computers that
can play battlefield roles. At this pace, all those DSII crewed tanks will be
behind the times before they get built.;)
Christopher "Go Steelers!"
Date sent: 5-NOV-1996 17:09:27
> There is an infermous British government documnet dating from the
> paper a British Air Marshall wrote something like "Rubbish". Until we
> have computer technology capable of the same decision making as a human
> being then computers and robots will always have disadvatages such as
> they are predictable, vulnerable to electronic warfare and allowing
> between a landrover full of troops and a landrover refugees! Also a
He ho! off topic we go again.
The RAF seems VERY fond of non piloted aircraft. Don't forget the proposal for
a unpiloted interdictor is nothing more than a reusable CALCM ( Conventionally
armed Air launched Cruise Missile) so doesn't require any great leap in
technology or innovation. It has been proven on a one way trip (Iraq) so a two
way trip would make a more expensive single unit, but be cheaper in the long
run (something Governments like). As it is based on proven technology, it is
far more likely to be developed. (Proven technology is something else
governments like)
And this weeks Jane's has an article on FAMRAAM. A fire and forget medium
ranged missile being developed by everyone except the US.
Specifically to be the primary armament on the EF-2000. So the
EF-2000 will effectively be a cargo plane for an unmanned suicide
fighter. (When do you separate unmanned aircraft from missile anyway?)
> The Pentagon has been working for many years on "fuzzy logic" computers
Ah yes. The one they trained to spot tanks hidden in trees? They had it
working nearly 100% untill field trials. It turned out all the pictures they
had fed it of Tanks were on a sunny day, and all pictures of trees without
tanks were on cloudy days (or vica versa, I can never remember)
Anyway, it was very good at telling the weather. 8-)
Date sent: 5-NOV-1996 17:24:04
> It would be difficult to tell a computer/robot the difference
Oh and the Interdictor role is the one to be taken over by unmanned aicraft.
The strike and close support roles will be filled by multirole manned
fighters.
> Adam Delafield wrote:
The infamous Sandys report, that put the Kibosh on "any future development of
manned aircraft". Basically it predicted that ICBMs carrying Nuclear warheads
would be the ultimate weapon. Extremely wrong in thinking that all future wars
would be fought using ICBMs and
H-Bombs.
> Ah yes. The one they trained to spot tanks hidden in trees? They had
True. The machine in question was built IN 1962!!! Perceptrons have come a
long way since then, though not as much as they could have if the investment
hadn't been switched to Von Neumann type architectures.
---------------------- <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
> Adam Delafield wrote:
> And this weeks Jane's has an article on FAMRAAM. A fire and forget
Aircraft have a tendency to return to their base (ignoring Kamikaze for
convenience) while missiles...