F-ZeroOne Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Even if an AI can pull off such stunts, would the airframe still be able to take it? 9G stuff tends to take its toll. And though you may save some internal space without life support etc the AI itself might need cooling systems and a back-up ZX Spectrum for when a lucky shot turns the proto-plasmic protonic gel processor into spaghetti... Quote
mechaninac Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 US fighters air-frames are designed to withstand sustained 9Gs (its cumulative effects do eventually catch up, though), not due to engineering/manufacturing or materials limitations, but due to the physical limitations of the human pilots. Remove the meat-bag payload and there is nothing preventing the development of a 12, 15, 20G air-frame that would mostly negate strain of regular 9G or 12G or higher maneuvering. From a romantic point of view, a thinking human being will always be preferred, but from a practical standpoint AI is the future. Also, any lucky shot that could turn the AI unit into spaghetti could easily be a lucky shot that turns a fighter jock into hamburger meat... same result as far as the plane is concerned; except that with the AI there is no loss of a pilot's life or the investment in his/her training. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) Well, assuming that the AI doesn't need training in the first place e.g. how to recognise the difference between the Huggylands Happy Home For Orphaned Puppies and the Secret Underground Volcanic Rocket Base Villains Lair (sponsored by SONY)... I did forget about air-to-air missiles which obviously can pull very high Gs though they're obviously not usually designed to be re-used... Edited July 3, 2016 by F-ZeroOne Quote
Thom Posted July 3, 2016 Posted July 3, 2016 I think part of the appeal to an AI pilot is that the aircraft can pull high g maneuvers that would knock out or kill even the best human pilot. When the time came to switch over to human flight the pilot would be a pile of mush . True. But as soon as g-forces relax, consciousness usually returns pretty quick.And if not, then a shot of adrenaline (I am NOT a doctor!) would serve to rouse the pilot.The AI would be in control all through regardless. But the human factor is still there, able to flip the OFF switch if need be. Or able to take control if enemy ECM takes out the AI... Cause you know, as we develop pilotless aircraft, N.Korea (as just an example of a low-tech threat) would be plotting ways to disable them. Quote
dizman Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) Lets meet in the middle ground, cyborg pilots. Still can make the human decisions but has the abilities/reactions of an AI. The AI overlords would be moving us towards that as the next step in evolution anyways, lets impress them and beat em to it. Edited July 4, 2016 by dizman Quote
electric indigo Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 I wonder if unmanned fighters would lead to endless attrition warfare, since a central AI or swarm intelligence would recklessly sacrifice units for the greater good. Quote
Shadow Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 I find the idea of a AI support system far more appealing than a pure AI controlled craft, particularly since no firewall or other cyberspace security measure is infallible. Plus with advances in missile capabilities (AIM-9X, Python 5 for example) and electronic countermeasures, having a hyper-maneuverable aircraft seems unnecessary. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Way, way back in the mists of UK time, when one could still buy war comics with names like "Battle" and "Warlord", the latter (I think) used to run a strip every now and again about a Harrier jump jet equipped with an A.I. co-pilot (well, in those days no-one had invented the term "A.I." so it was a "computer" co-pilot). Oddly enough, I recall that the Harrier was a two-seater, which raises the question of what the other guy did who wasn't flying (possibly a technician overseeing the computer?). The ones I remember were drawn by the great, though possibly in the US somewhat obscure, Ian Kennedy (http://downthetubes.net/?p=27517; gawd that guy could draw aircraft!). Quote
slide Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) US fighters air-frames are designed to withstand sustained 9Gs (its cumulative effects do eventually catch up, though), not due to engineering/manufacturing or materials limitations, but due to the physical limitations of the human pilots. Remove the meat-bag payload and there is nothing preventing the development of a 12, 15, 20G air-frame that would mostly negate strain of regular 9G or 12G or higher maneuvering. From a romantic point of view, a thinking human being will always be preferred, but from a practical standpoint AI is the future. Also, any lucky shot that could turn the AI unit into spaghetti could easily be a lucky shot that turns a fighter jock into hamburger meat... same result as far as the plane is concerned; except that with the AI there is no loss of a pilot's life or the investment in his/her training. F-16 is capable of pulling 9G+, but you'll bend the airframe or crack a wing spar... Some Israeli pilots claim to have exceeded 10G in the F-15 Hell, one had a mid-air and lost an entire wing and brought the thing home 'safely' A human pilot could conceivably 'slam into' a 10G turn without becoming a bag of soup... though you might break your neck if your head is in the wrong position... A 12G pull is survivable, but not sustainable for any length of time, and may instantly GLOC you even if you're trained, fit and wearing a G-suit... which is a death-sentence if you're in a dogfight. at -2G or -3G you'll red-out. removing the squishy-human-element from the equation means your AI-fighter can theoretically pull up to whatever your design limitations are and not even worry about it... which is a terrifying thought considering the electronics in a M982 Excalibur shell are rated beyond 15,500 G Edited July 6, 2016 by slide Quote
electric indigo Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 ^ these videos remind me of the old days of Heavy Metal comics. They look inspired by Juan Giménez, among others. Quote
Shadow Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Hmm. Interesting engine note the F135 produces on the first flyby. Quote
spanner Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Sounds the bollocks! They one big powerful engine in dem things! Quote
505thAirborne Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Someone needed to change their shorts after that failed landing. Damn good pilots, not so good arresting wire. Quote
Petrov27 Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 at least no-one killed with the broken cable lashing back http://pilotonline.com/news/military/local/navy-human-error-to-blame-for-march-cable-break-aboard/article_c4675c54-6cdc-5882-867a-68f961145c9d.html Quote
slide Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 Now that was a close call. I'd love to have been in that cockpit... talk about pucker-factor... I'm honestly surprised the E2 clawed it's way back into the sky! Quote
Thom Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 Now that was a close call. It still surprises me that the modern US Navy still uses black and white cameras... Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 And so ends the saga of the Nimrod MR4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36763212 Quote
slide Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 It still surprises me that the modern US Navy still uses black and white cameras... gotta trim that defense budget somewhere I guess..... Quote
GMK Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 And so ends the saga of the Nimrod MR4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36763212 And all is now right with the world. Quote
grigolosi Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 G forces pulled by fighter aircraft are also limited by the load configuration. F-16's slicked out are capable of repeated 9+ g turns with little to no damage to the frame. The game changes completely when you start mounting external weapons, pylons and fuel tanks. The T.O. 1F-16-6 has set categories for over G situations depending on the load and amount of G's sustained over the set G limit. When this occurs us crew chiefs have to inspect for defects in the frame. Each inspection gets more extensive depending on which level of category the pilot over G'd the aircraft. Quote
electric indigo Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 Rockwell had a quite interesting configuration to test high-G turns and composite materials in the late 70's. The HiMAT was also remote controlled. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 And all is now right with the world. I was still hoping for the Japanese P-1. Just for some variety... Quote
miles316 Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 it did not fail it spent 30 years shuttling rich bastards across the pond who where to good to sleep across in 7 hours in first class! Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Theres a story that when a consultant was bought in by the Thatcher government to try and make Concorde profitable, he ran a survey asking passengers what they thought the tickets cost. Apparently they all answered a figure that was much higher than the actual cost, so they changed the prices up to match the perception... Quote
Chronocidal Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Certain planes have been built with higher g-loading allowances from the start, but payloads definitely limit things significantly. I remember reading that the F-16XL was actually designed to take up to 18 Gs, and its payload distribution wasn't clustered together like the Strike Eagle, with single weapon pylons mounted all over the underside of the wing, which probably helped reduce the stress on the wings. Quote
electric indigo Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Alternatively, the tickets for a supersonic ride in the Tu-144 were competitively priced at 82 Rubel - provided you had any business to do in Kazachstan... Quote
spanner Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Concorde was a lovely thing there is no doubting that but I always preferred the look of the Tu-144.. even though the Tupolev was quite reasonably inferior to the Concorde. Quote
grigolosi Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 This is what I got to do tonight at work.....run ground for a leak check on GE 132 on the jet we just finished phasing today....... Quote
spanner Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 This is what I got to do tonight at work.....run ground for a leak check on GE 132 on the jet we just finished phasing today....... thats awesome! you have a very cool or should I say HOT (afterburner) job! how common are leaks and what is meant by "phasing" ?? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.