Another couple where looks like AIs rammed each other & decision on which got the kill seems questionable.
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.
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)
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)
you have the extra fun fact that 80% of plane crashes are caused by pilot error
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
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.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.
Some bright spark (Robert McNamara) decided guns were now obsolete and had them removed from us fighter jets, they quickly reversed their decisionVietnam was already mostly long distance rockets I think?
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.
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.