AI Beats Air Force Pilot In A DARPA Simulated Dogfight.

a reply to: mightmight

Until something malfunctions or you get hit but not downed and the damage happens to make your missles not wanna launch. I'm sure that's not the only scenario either. In fact with all the stealth tech out there these days what are the chances 2 fighters dont see each other until it happens upon the other in visual range or close to it. The point is you want options...never take away more options even if they are seldom used.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: midnightstar

The question does remine . Once we have TRUE AI how long till it learns tring to kill us will be killing its self ?

What makes you think we don't have true AI?

Just because it's not public knowledge, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I may know one or two people with firsthand knowledge of same. I may even know at least one - maybe 2 or 3 - that actually work on projects based on this and things like this.

I just may...

True "AI" would mean the capability of an unsolicited thought and self awareness.
We do not have that capability yet.
And, if we did, putting it into a weapon like that might not be a good idea. One of those "What could possibly go wrong here" scenarios.

a reply to: charlyv

I don't know man...the things that are locked in compartmentalized labs I would be would seem like pure sci-fi movie stuff to those of us who live in the white world. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if they were 50-100 years ahead of what we know about.

a reply to: RickyD

If you experience a technical malfunction you disengage. Period.
If you accidentally merge with a near peer you fire off a missile and disengage. There's no point in eating an missile trying to get a gun shot in.
Even if both end up without missiles you just don't press the issue in the real world. 1v1 encounters are the rare exception anyway, nothing gained by the wingman shooting you down.

The gun is not an option. It's a relic of the past not suited anymore for modern aerial combat. We don't issue swords to the infantry just in case they run out of ammunition either.

Look at it this way, the M61A1 Vulcan that is used on the F-16 and the F-22 has a total system weight (ammo and all) of 832 lb, the equivalent of 4 modern SRAAMs.
Of course the modern SRAAMs of today like the AIM-9X will look hoplessly outclassed in a decade. Pretty soon it will be possible to carry two dozen miniature defense missiles for the weight equivalent of a gun system.
Hows that for options.

The gun is not an option. It's a relic of the past not suited anymore for modern aerial combat. We don't issue swords to the infantry just in case they run out of ammunition either.

Didnt they have that same argument for the F4 Phantom before they put it back in...

a reply to: Blackfinger

yes they did, and

1) Vietnam happened half a century ago. What may or may not have been warranted at that time doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what should be done today.
Many lessons in warfare are universal. And many are not.
You need to establish why this particular event is still relevant today. Otherwise you just end up fighting yesterdays war.

2) Equipping the Phantoms with guns was just one of several meassure to boost combat performance of the Phantom squadrons. Losses in air combat war too high at the time and they pretty much did everything they could think of to improve the situation. Doesn't imply every measure was necessary or warranted.
IE understandable panic move during wartime.

3) The main reasons for the inadequate peformance of the Phantom in Vietnam were the poor performance or first generation AAMs and lack of proper doctrine and pilot experience.
Vietnam era AAMs sucked. The tech was in its infancy and they were designed to engage soviet bomber sized targets, not MiGs.
A proper missile combat doctrine hadn't been established yet. The pilot had little know how about using them. If anything dogfight mentally still dominated. Hence the request for guns.
Even worse, many pilots simply lacked experience in fighter jets periods since they transfered from bomber squadrons and were send to war without proper training.
None of these factors are still relevant today.

4) The overall ratio missiles vs guns was 3 to 1 for the entire Vietnam war. Later years (after they learned how to use their toys) it was 5 to 1.
For thee Air Force F-4E (the gun variant) the ratio was worse than 4 to 1.
The ratios speak for themselve, even back in the day with very crappy tech, the gun played a very minor roll.

5) The Navy sinks the Phantom argument singlehandly. They never deployed a gun variant of the Phantom and they eventually achieved a record 13 to 1 kill ratio during the later years of the war. Guns were not relevant at all, turns out they just had to establish a proper missile doctrine and train their pilots accordingly.
The Air Force meanwhile pretty much sucked period and didn’t improve it’s kill ratio with or without guns.

6) As said other conflicts. Vietnam wasn’t the only conflict fought with second and third generation fighter jets against Soviet aircraft.
During the Yom Kippur war about two thirds of Israeli air to air kills were the result of canon fire. There are numerous factors why that was, but the point is, less than ten years later, they achieved staggering 93% missile kills during the Lebanon War against the Syrians. They’d started to transitioning to 4th Gen Jets and were using 2nd Gen AAMs and as a result the gun kills dropped to less than 1 out of 10.
And during the Gulf War with fourth Gen tech deployed across the board and 3rd Gen AAMs becoming available, the missile kills were at 100%.

If we extrapolate this to today and tomorrow and factor in the new missile tech, there is only one conclusion - the gun is obsolete.

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: Blackfinger
the gun is obsolete.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Still a lot of advanced fights with a ton of aircraft participating contain gun tracks. It’s not often but it’s not rare.

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: RickyD

If you accidentally merge with a near peer you fire off a missile and disengage. There's no point in eating an missile trying to get a gun shot in. .

So a pilot is going to get all the way to this accidental merge, fire a missile, and disengage? Come on. Say it out loud. No.

It depends.

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: midnightstar

The question does remine . Once we have TRUE AI how long till it learns tring to kill us will be killing its self ?

What makes you think we don't have true AI?

Just because it's not public knowledge, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I may know one or two people with firsthand knowledge of same. I may even know at least one - maybe 2 or 3 - that actually work on projects based on this and things like this.

I just may...

True "AI" would mean the capability of an unsolicited thought and self awareness.
We do not have that capability yet.
And, if we did, putting it into a weapon like that might not be a good idea. One of those "What could possibly go wrong here" scenarios.

What about having that AI system running in a relatively small Quantum computer, all in a satellite that doesn't officially exist, within a fully weaponized Space Force that also doesn't officially exist?



FTW!

a reply to: glib2

Air to air gun kills are not rare. They simply don't happen anymore. The last western Air Force shot down a fighter jet using guns was the IAF back in the 1980s. The Falklands saw some Helicopter kills too from Sea Harriers but thats it. Desert Storm and Allied Force saw only missile combat.

This is a great report of the CSBA about air to air combat in general. You dont need to read the whole thing(also i can onlyn highly recommend it), just scroll down the Figure 1.
csbaonline.org...

Guns are obsolete and combat ranges have been increasing since before Vietnam. Stop embracing warfare from the last century.

a reply to: mightmight

That’s a good article thank you. A lot of what he stated was pretty good. He is missing a few modern day issues for instance EA and it’s affects.

What this old F-4 dude is missing (F-4s lol) in his expertise on modern and future air combat is even in advanced threats dudes are still taking gun kills. There are a lot of reasons this happens. It still happens. I’m not embracing warfare from the last century, it’s just fact. Still happens.

To be clear I’m talking about not historical gun kills real world but exercises with modern threats.

a reply to: glib2

Yes i know. 5th gen jets have merged with 4th gen jets at gun range in certain exercises and achieved very goog kill ratios. They also achieved far superior results in missile combat.

The real question however is, how relevant those exercises are at this point and especially going forward against a near peer.
Basic 4th gen jets are a relativley modern threat at best. They are no on paar with the cutting edge Chinese or Russian operational units.
Also, based on the (admittetly limited) knowledge i have about those exercises, i highly doubt they truely simulated an accurate picture of modern air combat up until very recently, if that.

Anyway, since they still have guns on aircraft they might as well train on how to use them. Even if it'll never happen in actual combat today.

Combat training is to train them in all possible occurrences that the enemy could throw at them.Why they are dragging the F117,s out of storage and using them as Chinese and Russian Stealth assets in exercises.

a reply to: Blackfinger

They resort to using the F117s precisely because the traditional aggressor aircraft are not adequate anymore and haven't been for some time. F-35s would be preferable but Congress said no.

The actual training scenarios flown are another issue, at least based on what i heard. Maybe my expectations are just too high though.

That’s not why they are flying.

The aggressors do just fine. Since always they augment with blue forces. They add eagles, raptors, fat amys, and a bunch more when they fight. When you see the aggressors takeoff add about 20% more and those jets are augmentees to provide that advanced training.

But no, that’s not why “they “ are flying. Back to the gun. It’ll be needed for a long time. It’s used to gun the aggressors and all their augmentees if needed.

a reply to: Kurokage

of course it will

they most likely loaded it with 100's of simulations with other 'players'

then let it play as fast as it can 1000000's of times until its the best air fighter in the world.

every flight win or loss makes it smarter

a reply to: mightmight

Anyway, since they still have guns on aircraft they might as well train on how to use them. Even if it'll never happen in actual combat today.

An aerial version of the joust. Possibly useless in and of itself but the skills required are not.

Still, the reality is that missiles do not always guide and fuze, thus we extend fights to teach aviators how to continue to survive or turn a defensive situation into an offensive one. The true sport of fighter jet aviators is a guns-only BFM engagement. A guns-only BFM engagement is a test of who can efficiently maximize their energy package and capitalize on each merge. Much like chess, truly great BFM pilots are thinking two to three merges ahead, not just reacting.

www.thedrive.com... tab

a reply to: penroc3

also the F35

id love AI geeks to look at its real operating system and management system


i think it might scare ekon

www.flightglobal.com...

Biggest weak link in a close air to air engagement is the squishy 11G pilot.With a proper built UAV that could handle 20+G its a huge advantage over the squishy. Reaction time to get the shot in first usually wins the day.Why Stealth is so important as it cuts down the reaction speed of the defensive pilot.The ideal kill is the plane who gets shot down without even knowing it got hit or where it came from.