Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

Yahoo! News - Technology -m Reuters ^ | Sun Nov 23, 9:43 AM ET | By Chelsea Emery

[JETDRVR]

Roger that Bro! Im all for the Mil aplication of the UAV , but about the Civi side.....I dunno

[lodwick]

See 9/11 for an interactive demo of this technology.

[discostu]

Problem isn't the brain, it's the body, especially in combat aircraft. The human body can take less of a beating than any component in a modern fighterplane, it can withstand fewer g-forces, fewer hours of high stress flight and needs to spend more time in recouperation. It also sits in the least armored part of the plane (thanks to people's need to see outside and the canopy that requires), takes up a huge amount of space and requires even more space to be take up in life sustaining equipment. If we leave the body (and the brain) on the ground we can make significantly more effective aircraft that will be able to out perform anything carrying a person.

[Pukin Dog]

Check my profile.

[JETDRVR]

Heres a question. In todays environment{post accident} the Lawyers have a sure fire out...... PILOT ERROR.
Who are they going to crucify in a future of civi UAVs?

[Modernman]

That lesson having been learned, It is going to be a very long time before you remove a man from the pilot seat. Technology will never replace judgment, guile and situational awareness to the point of becoming an advantage against a worthy adversary

Oh, I certainly agree with that statement. What I'm trying to say (and doing a poor job of) is that the future of air combat probably consists of a guy sitting in a control station and flying a UAV remotely, rather than being in the cockpit. I don't think we'll see air combat conducted by artifical intelligencew in our lifetimes.

Would you agree with me that removing the frail human body from the equation (and the cockpit) would give us a major advantage over our potential enemies when it came to air combat?

[Pukin Dog]

What he forgot is that computers double their capabilities every 18 months.

Capacity, is only number crunching. The rules for Chess do not change. ACM tactics change constantly, and it is the pilot that recongnizes those changes, in able to best use his aircraft against any one of dozens of potential fighter threats, at different speeds, altitudes, weather conditions, day-night, radar and hundreds of other factors, that will win the day. From the ground, you stand as much chance against another pilot, as some child with a video game.

You will never create a computer that can tell me whether my tally is losing energy in a turn, or how hard he is pulling based solely on the vortex coming from his LEX. Oh wait, does he have a LEX, or canards, what might his fuel state be; depending on what base he probably came from, how much burner time has he got available? Is he a 2ship or a 4ship from my radar return alone? Can I beam him if he gets a snap off against me? I could go on for days.

Now, someday, someone could likely program all those sensors into a fighter aircraft and return that data to the ground in about 3-4 seconds allowing someone to take positive action. The only problem is that if I'm in the plane, and I cant figure out and act on that information in less than 2 seconds, I will probably get my ass shot off. I wont be holding my breath waiting for some badass computer fighter jock to take the place of a man in the seat.

[Pukin Dog]

Would you agree with me that removing the frail human body from the equation (and the cockpit) would give us a major advantage over our potential enemies when it came to air combat?

No.

Computers do not have the eye-brain combination, and wont process information as fast as that for another 50 years. Fighter pilots are taught to determine what their opponent is doing based on very loosly associated sets of information, and to react in time to gain advantage, shoot, kill, in less time than it would take for a computer to transmit that same information to a ground station, have someone read it, confirm it, act upon it, gauge results, act again, and so on.

How is a computer to remain in formation with another computer controlled aircraft through a 5G break without crashing into it? Are you going to have omni-directional cameras and sensors all over the airframe? My eyes can tell me what I need to know, before you can say "Pukin", and my brain can react in time to save my ass.

Computers are precise, but they dont do well at dead-reckonning or forcing an aircraft to do something it is not supposed to do.

[JETDRVR]

Only a 5g Form break? I know you can do better than that hehehe

[Pukin Dog]

You never know if the other guy can do better than that.

[JETDRVR]

I hear ya bro. 4000+ hrs in the other kind of Gruman

[Modernman]

Computers are precise, but they dont do well at dead-reckonning or forcing an aircraft to do something it is not supposed to do.

I'm not talking about a computer flying a fighter jet. That belongs in the realm of science-fiction for the foreseeable future.

I'm talking about a guy on the ground flying a UAV. You'd still have all the advantages of a human at the controls without any of the disadvantages (susceptibility to g-forces etc.). Wouldn't such a set-up be advantageous?

[Bobby777]

see ... I knew you'd have something to say ... 8)

I could see long-range robot patrol aircraft, high-G capability, heavy on jamming, spoofing, decoy systems, armed with the best automous radar / autonomous heat-seeking missiles deplyed say, 300nm out from a battle group ... removing pilot fatigue, vertigo, shape for low radar return (probably have to bring weapons inboard, but that limits the load) ... these birds, like current jets, could downlink the enemy's position from high-detail RORSAT's like the Navy's Ocean Surveillance satellites ...

of course, I wouldn't want to take pilots out of the loop ... keep 'em closer to the battle group ... maybe 150nm ... just tossing out some ideas ...

of course, I think the biggest threat during total war to a carrier is an SSGN submarine with nuclear cruise missiles ...

for combat close-support, I wouldn't want anything but a pilot in a plane ... mistakes have been made, but compared to the number of sorties, they're low ... I'd hate to be fighting it out on the ground hoping the drones could differentiate between me and the enemy in close quarters ...

FiletMignonware ... good one ...

[Bobby777]

The Air Force is now using Windows NT 3.51 to control the latest drone ...

hehe ... just kidding!!! the ROV pilots would only get Blue Screens of Death!!! (or was that NT 4.0?)

[Bobby777]

F-111 / EF-111?

[Bobby777]

they'd have to have a 360 degree eye ... which is not impossible but to simulate a cockpit it would have to be nearly real-time, which is difficult, and they'd have to sit in a domed set of displays ... not impossible but more than a bit of work ... and there's still transmission delay both ways ...

[xm177e2]

Considering that any plane designed to carry people would not really benefit much in terms of weight from having a computer pilot it instead of a human, I think human pilots will be around for a while. Add to that the comfort factor that people have when they fly commercially and know a skilled human being is piloting their craft, and it is clear we will have human pilots for a long time to come (more and more of the traffic will be automated, but humans will stick around).

[Bobby777]

automous radar

s/b autonomous radar (guided)

[Pukin Dog]

Wouldn't such a set-up be advantageous?

No.

How will a computer transmit stall buffet in a way that tells the man on the ground that he can maintain stick pressure for only three more seconds instead of five? You cant write software to tell you what I can feel in my ass cheeks at 270kts trying to pull lead out of reversing barrel roll that tells me how far I am from corner speed.

Even if you could, how quickly does that information get transimitted back to the man on the ground. It could never be fast enough. Never. G-forces, buffeting, yaw, AOA, even sounds are clues to what is happening around you when you cant take your eyes off the enemy.

I suppose you could transmit the HUD back to someone on the ground in realtime, but you cant transmit back the feeling in the stick of mushyness that comes when there is not enough air coming over the controls, though in FBW aircraft thats gone already. Defense contractors have had to put back artificial "feel" in the stick because pilots rely on it to tell them things that their eyes cant.

Consider all the ways that you might box with a robot. There could be no robot fast enough to anticipate your kicking it in the balls in time to do anything about it. Even if it was able to block you, what could it do about someone pulling it's plug?

[Pukin Dog]

see ... I knew you'd have something to say ... 8)

Yeah, you seem to know what subjects piss me off.