F-22 and F-35 to get AI

I do like how when AI is mentioned in a military capacity a lot of people jump to the Skynet scenario Terminator and other films like irobot have certainly left an impression.

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: mightmight

Maybe combat that by hunting in packs the Ai can delegate certain objectives and targets to other aircraft and supporting drones?

Who identifies and decides what the AI should delegate?
At what point does 'why dont we use more software to make stuff easier' become 'why do we even need a pilot'?
They specifically dont want to go down this road.

And not to go off topic, all this talk about packs, swarms and whatnot - i look at the range and fuel requirements of those shiny 5th Gen fighter jets, compare it to the capacity of air bases like Andersen and just shake my head.
It'll never add up. Less assets with higher ranges and larger payloads is the way to go.

a reply to: mightmight

Maybe that's where the two unidentified aircraft come in. Stealthy command centre to help with the targets and other jobs. Then a stealthy tanker put on show to show people that the 5th gen platforms will have the range they need?!

originally posted by: mightmight
Who identifies and decides what the AI should delegate?

If I had to guess, they probably have run countless exercises, scenarios, and replays of combat analysis of actual battles via simulation and implemented Machine Learning. Then they took that data and made new simulations which simulated any and every conceivable scenario that could happen in battle and tested the AI to see what it learned. The AI then makes decisions and based on those decisions the simulation runners could score the AI's performance to determine if a particular outcome was optimal or not; rinse repeat over thousands of iterations the AI learns and begins to make its own assessments based off of the vast data it already has. As time goes on the AI will get smarter and smarter thanks to Machine Learning.

In essence, it is like having a hardcore battle tested ultra veteran RIO (Radar Intercept Officer), think Goose from Top Gun, while the human pilot is Maverick. Maverick (the pilot) is able to focus and, "Do some of that pilot (stuff)", while Goose (the AI) focuses on detecting threats, weapon selections, etc etc.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Woody510

I think you broke him!

I hope not I think the forum would turn on me.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

The F-35 was designed with electronic countermeasure defense but are still essentially more machine than man. Reports have circulated that they can't hold their own in a dogfight against a super hornet with human pilots so that leaves a lot to be desired.

Analogue control should be a given, the primary concern is the pilot and no pilot wants to be aboard a rudderless ship. The one concern is many nations are scaling back or even considering cancelling their purchase of F-35's due to technical hiccups. The responsibility should be given to the man and not the machine they are piloting.At the battle of Midway computers were non existent in fighters and even they didn't have the hiccups or reliability issues.

What do computers do when they fail? they crash, and that's why the pilot should be the center of attention when it comes to aircraft design whether it be military or civilian.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The F-35 does just fine in WVR. The only reason it didn't before was the software version installed didn't allow them to take full advantage of their maneuverability and envelope. Now that they've upgraded, they are finding even 2v1 fights quite easily handled. It's just a matter of using their strengths.

No one is threatening to cancel, outside of Canada. In fact, they had 6 or 7 nations that aren't currently part of the program ask for information on the aircraft. It's not all sunshine and roses, but they've got most of the issues in hand and things are going well now.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Allaroundyou

The F-35 was designed with electronic countermeasure defense but are still essentially more machine than man. Reports have circulated that they can't hold their own in a dogfight against a super hornet with human pilots so that leaves a lot to be desired.

In a real combat scenario where the F35 has all its bells and whistles turned on a 4th generation platform will have a hard time finding. Plus I'd expect it would escorted by some F22s for cover to mop up any enemy fighters. Plus if it can see the enemy coming before the enemy sees them the BVR weapons would take care of them. Remember it's multi role not a dedicated air superiority fighter.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So if they didn't get a software update the F-35 it would still give substandard performance?

The more I hear the more I think the F-35 is the Windows Vista of the fighter jet. It boggles the mind that a software update can hinder an aircraft that costed more than a billion dollars to develop when that moolah could go into developing more sophisticated drones that don't endanger a pilot.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

It has over 8 million lines of code in its software that's more than 4 times the F22s there's obviously going to kinks in it at first.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The software has been rolled out in blocks. It was cheaper and faster to do it that way, instead of trying to write the final version all at once. It's the largest, most complex code ever written for an aircraft. They rolled out basic flight control software, that limited speed and Gs, and tested the aircraft.

Then they expanded the envelope with the next version of software and increased what could be done. Then the next block started adding weapons to test, etc. They're currently getting ready to drop Block 3F, which adds the Small Diameter Bomb and AIM-9X. Each drop adds to what they can do.

a reply to: Woody510

Ten million now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Have you thought about changing your username from Zaphod58 to aviation Wikipedia?

a reply to: Woody510

No. I'm thinking about personalised plates when I finally get a car though.

Remember it's multi role not a dedicated air superiority fighter.

There hasn't been a dedicated ASF in decades, the last one that vaguely resembles an ASF is the raptor but before then all I can think of is the super hornet, Eurofighter and Mirage, possibly the latest MiG but I digress.

My issue with the F-35 is not with it's capabilities (despite the reports of it's dogcrapfighting) but it's over reliance on technology, as you mentioned it may require some raptors to run interference and that is a concern as the raptors shouldn't have to cradle a JSF, and if it is multi role it should be able to overcome any situation and as Zaphod pointed out the damn thing needed a software update.

More than fifty years ago the SR-71 wasn't controlled by computers but is still one of histories fastest planes (that we know of) and it was piloted by regular crew without the reliance of computers, hell your smart TV has more computing power and 'A.I' than the Blackbird.

The aforementioned ASF's get an overhaul every few years but it the over reliance still concerns me as it doesn't take a genius to screw up a computer, hell deleting one folder from a computer can lead to the dreaded blue screen of death, now this is not a problem unless you are flying at mach two over enemy territory.

The F-35 is like Jennifer Lawrence-damn sexy and performs well but has a meltdown every now and then and you don't want that happening in a combat situation.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Every strike package, regardless of aircraft involved have escorts, when operating in numbers. In the case of the F-35, they'll either require F-22s, or they'll send in some F-35s in the air to air role. Those are the only two that can do the job on Day One.

There was a lot more computer control of the SR-71 than you think. There were constant adjustments to the engine nozzles and flight controls to keep the aircraft at top speed and under control.

Aircraft aren't a case of "oh crap, the computer just went, we're falling out of the sky". They have triple redundancy built into them, to allow for battle damage. And the computers are a hell of a lot more rugged than Windows Vista. They're also not something you can accidently delete something on. All aircraft, starting with the first relaxed stability aircraft have required a lot of computer support. They couldn't fly without it.

Software updates for FBW aircraft are very standard even in civil aviation. This is nothing new or out of the ordinary. We go through the same process flight testing airliners and corporate jets adding more capabilities as the envelope is expanded and fixing bugs as they are discovered. It's ongoing even well after entry into service. I'm wondering based off of some of the earlier questions in this thread whether the FBW system on the fighters can uncouple the built in software flight control protections and limitations and go into a "direct mode" much like we can on the airliners? I'm guessing it wouldn't ever be truly direct as the stability would be hard to handle with the odd control surfaces

a reply to: Charts85

The software updates are only for the flight envelope. This will eventually go far beyond anything else flying. Eventually you're looking at the aircraft activating EW at just the right time, and adjusting it on the fly, identifying the most critical threats automatically, etc. It will even send messages of aircraft problems and order parts to fix them before they land.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Zaphod58


The ramifications are almost endless.

...And probably tricked down from craft we aren't supposed to know about.