AI vs fighter pilots

PSman1700

Legend
Very intresting, but i think it won't be in the near future AI is going to take over the role of the fighter pilot.
Nice AI progression anyway.

 
I think a fighter pilot will be replaced for many things by drones than can handle way higher g’s. Perhaps a fighter pilot will help coordinate their attacks etc but the importance of fighter jets are definitely on the decline I reckon.
 
Yes uavs already are in combat for a while. I think this was just a test of how long AI has come. Perhaps the AI can help out the pilot in the near future, before replacing altogether in the long future.
The F35 basically is abit like this, a combination of computer and human. I think it's an amazing (but expensive) F16 replacement, sad anyway the last day an F16 will takeoff from ehvk, my favourite airbase :)
 
There's a full 5hrs of the AI vs AI here
Only watched a bit of it & that showed a couple of 'kills' where the planes weren't even close or facing each other -> I question the sim.
Another couple where looks like AIs rammed each other & decision on which got the kill seems questionable.

There's also the initial condition with both planes starting close together tail to tail -> straight into a turn battle.
Rather suspect that a more realisticfurther apart nose to nose start would have resulted in vast majority head on rams.
 
Well for a drone, ramming could be considered a viable winning strategy if the production costs compared to, say, long range missile aren't way off... Admittedly takes away a bit of the glory associated to air combat.

Another couple where looks like AIs rammed each other & decision on which got the kill seems questionable.

Then for this kind of case, a kill should have been handed to both if both got the opponent eliminated.
 
Was there any ramming though? Doesn't seem like it to me, only watched partially but in each case one the planes gets killed before a collision could happen. Admittedly, a collision _after_ the so called kill was not considered...
 
Maybe there was a hidden agenda behind that 'stay on target'-kill criteria... Drones with laser weapons, woohoo!
On a more serious note, I don't believe for a second that the head-on opportunity shot approach was simply because the designers were not aware of the current dogfighting doctrine.
 
I don't believe for a second that the head-on opportunity shot approach was simply because the designers were not aware of the current dogfighting doctrine.

If AI could take over or not, it doesn't mean or matter much if anything anyway. Dogfighting in the traditional sense hasn't existed for some decades anymore. Most air to air kills happen at great distances, if at all. Modern fighter jets are mostly doing air to ground missions.
And yes those tasks can certainly be done without pilots, but for now i think they will co-exist for a long while before that (might) happen.

As noted before, the F35-gen is basically that.
 
AIs will replace human pilots, they're just going to be better/more reliable/easier to replace. As previously mentioned they can handle Gs a lot better and don't have any problem with suicide runs.

It'll also make planes easier/cheaper to build without the need to support a fragile human, plus modern air combat craft is already largely computer controlled and just guided by the pilot. (My brother in law flew F-18s in the Marines in the first Iraq war)
 
AIs will replace human pilots, they're just going to be better/more reliable/easier to replace. As previously mentioned they can handle Gs a lot better and don't have any problem with suicide runs.

It'll also make planes easier/cheaper to build without the need to support a fragile human, plus modern air combat craft is already largely computer controlled and just guided by the pilot. (My brother in law flew F-18s in the Marines in the first Iraq war)

Yes sometime in the future drones will take over, it's unavoidable but will take awhile i guess. Cool, ive been backseat in an F16 in the netherlands :)
 
If AI could take over or not, it doesn't mean or matter much if anything anyway. Dogfighting in the traditional sense hasn't existed for some decades anymore. Most air to air kills happen at great distances, if at all. Modern fighter jets are mostly doing air to ground missions.
And yes those tasks can certainly be done without pilots, but for now i think they will co-exist for a long while before that (might) happen.

As noted before, the F35-gen is basically that.

Even looking at one-on-one scenarios IMO does not seem that important. How would things change if the number of aircraft you could afford to assign on a mission was multiplied with 10-100, possibly even without the need to get any of them back to base? Is the arms race heading back to sheer numbers, a bit like it was during the cold war, but with more potential contestants this time?
 
AIs will replace human pilots, they're just going to be better/more reliable/easier to replace. As previously mentioned they can handle Gs a lot better and don't have any problem with suicide runs.

It'll also make planes easier/cheaper to build without the need to support a fragile human, plus modern air combat craft is already largely computer controlled and just guided by the pilot. (My brother in law flew F-18s in the Marines in the first Iraq war)

I don't think so. I think there will always be a need for human pilots. Not because they are better but because it makes you less vulnerable to attack. A cyber attack might take out your fancy electronics but not a stand-alone human piloted airplane and visa versa.

Cost isn't an issue. The US military operatus and it's programs are designed to be as expensive as possible. It's simply a business for the few companies involved with very little risk as few projects get cancelled at a point where the companies involved would actually lose money. If they can't make money anymore on human piloted fighters the price of other equipment will simply increase.
 
that doesnt make sense

side A has AI drones that will 99.99% win in a dogfight against the human controlled planes of side B, how does that make side B more secure

cyberattack?
remember all those human controlled planes are full of electronics also, so they are just as vunerable to whatever cyberattack plus you have the extra fun fact that 80% of plane crashes are caused by pilot error
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130521-how-human-error-can-cause-a-plane-crash
 
that doesnt make sense

side A has AI drones that will 99.99% win in a dogfight against the human controlled planes of side B, how does that make side B more secure

cyberattack?
remember all those human controlled planes are full of electronics also, so they are just as vunerable to whatever cyberattack plus you have the extra fun fact that 80% of plane crashes are caused by pilot error
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20130521-how-human-error-can-cause-a-plane-crash

Let's be honest, how important is dogfighting? When was the last time dogfighting was a major part of flying fighters? The Korean war? Vietnam was already mostly long distance rockets I think? Though I think there is that one story of a Mustang downing a Mig.

What I'm saying is that there has to be an alternative to drones/ai fighters as those machines are at a different risk than human piloted planes. Doesn't mean that human piloted fighters must have priority over drones. In most cases drones will be more than enough but if it's super power vs super power covering all the bases might be better.

That 80% doesn't say an awful lot without actually numbers. If there are 10 accidents per a million flights for example than that is an insignificant number. Also that link says the accident was due to training errors. AI piloted planes could have many of the same problems.
 
I don't think so. I think there will always be a need for human pilots. Not because they are better but because it makes you less vulnerable to attack. A cyber attack might take out your fancy electronics but not a stand-alone human piloted airplane and visa versa.

Cost isn't an issue. The US military operatus and it's programs are designed to be as expensive as possible. It's simply a business for the few companies involved with very little risk as few projects get cancelled at a point where the companies involved would actually lose money. If they can't make money anymore on human piloted fighters the price of other equipment will simply increase.
Uhm, if an attack takes out a plane's electronics the pilot is pretty much fucked in a modern aircraft and bailing out would be about their only option.
 
Vietnam was already mostly long distance rockets I think?
Some bright spark (Robert McNamara) decided guns were now obsolete and had them removed from us fighter jets, they quickly reversed their decision
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...sed-the-f-4-would-never-dogfight-3e1a66da4e73
Between 1965 and 1968, American fighters launched 321 radar-guided missiles over Vietnam. Slightly more than eight percent hit their targets, according to a 2005 analysis by Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Higby.
 
Back
Top