Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 693 posts

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#221

Post by ceejayoz »

mrtksn wrote: post #219
ceejayoz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same way the F-35 does I guess. No, because that's in part "let the human pilot make decisions". > Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days... Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions.

let the human pilot make decisions == let the machine make decisions It's not like pilots are making political decisions. They pilot and shoot predefined targets, avoid hostile actions. AI is capable of doing this. > Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions. On the contrary, AI is very capable of making that decision. There are no philosophical dilemmas or children in the skies and even if t…

Military pilots absolutely make all sorts of decisions, like "that looks like a civilian target, maybe I have incorrect info" or "a little kid just ran into the target area" or "the controller says I just shot at friendlies".

I would not currently trust an AI to handle those very well.

What would an AI have done in this situation? What should it have done? "Russian pilot deliberately fired missiles at a Royal Air Force surveillance plane in international airspace over the Black Sea last year": https://apnews.com/article/uk-russia-fighter-jet-missile-bla...

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#222

Post by hindsightbias »

tra3 wrote: post #173
tivert wrote: post #87

Maybe it's another Cornfield Bomber ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber ): > The "Cornfield Bomber" is the nickname given to a Convair F-106 Delta Dart, operated by the 71st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron of the United States Air Force. In 1970, during a training exercise, it made an unpiloted landing in a farmer's field in Montana, suffering only minor damage, after the pilot had ejected from the aircraft…

The confluence of events that allowed an unpiloted jet to land with its engine idling.. its unbelievable.

Most aircraft are designed to be inherently stable so as long as it doesn't hit anything a good percentage of them should be able to manage pretty well w/o a pilot.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#223

Post by turnsout »

hef19898 wrote: post #145
turnsout wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the development of the F-35, the idea that the US government could fund and develop a new fighter without the public knowing is somehow heartwarming!

Well, the F-117 was developed in complete secrecy. And, I'd like to add, in busget and on time. All that using a bunch of stuff coming from the F-15 and F-16 programs. My pet theory is, that those twonhad a ton of cost overruns regarding spares and such because avionics and engines for the F-117 had to be sourced somehow.

Yeah… that was the 70s though.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#224

Post by _ea1k »

pjc50 wrote: post #214
mschuster91 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming? For one, by making it harder to jam in the first place. Starlink with its extremely directional antennas is a good example - an opponent would need an equally massive fleet of satellites or high-altitude ECM planes to jam it, and the latter ones can easily be targeted by anti-radar rockets. This is why the US government has been pushing insane amounts of…

SpaceX is not fully under operational control of the US government, if some of the reports from Twitter about geofencing are to be believed.

I have yet to see a credible report of them denying a US government request.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#225

Post by singleshot_ »

mschuster91 wrote: post #211
brobdingnagians wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming? I suppose they have some way (autonomous would be one way), but it seems to me that if communications are cut off, having a pilot with human judgement to respond to changing conditions will almost always have some advantage. Although, you could get a pretty advanced autonomous system that responded to changes from a pre-programmed attack plan.

> How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming? For one, by making it harder to jam in the first place. Starlink with its extremely directional antennas is a good example - an opponent would need an equally massive fleet of satellites or high-altitude ECM planes to jam it, and the latter ones can easily be targeted by anti-radar rockets. This is why the US government has been pushing insane amounts of…

> Starlink is the future of interconnected wars.

Maybe, but what do you figure the US military will use?

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#226

Post by cityhall »

xjlin0 wrote: post #208
slavboj wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire point of the airplane is to never get into close combat. It's like asking which navy has better bayonets.

F-4 Phantom was a great fighter serving US Navy, Marine and Air Force. It equipped with missiles to kill enemies in the beyond visual range, didn't equip internal guns in the first generation because "it shouldn't get into close combat" .....

And the F-15's design slogan was "Not a pound for air to ground". Guess what it's being used for now?

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#227

Post by motohagiography »

simonswords82 wrote: post #172

Hand over as much intel to 4chan as possible and watch them find this thing in a matter of hours...

Came here to say that. Thinking topographic maps of the region for higher probability impacts, wind direction maps, air quality data, last known trajectory, shodan cameras, cell tower signal interference blips, RF noise from surviving electronics or beacons. Not a lot to go on though.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#228

Post by k12sosse »

ceejayoz wrote: post #215
mrtksn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do drones get around the issue of communications jamming The same way the F-35 does I guess. Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days, so when jammed they can just carry on. Sure, they do mistakes but humans do these too and the advantage of not carrying 80kg of fragile human and all the life support systems onboard is quite significant. It makes the thing much cheape…

> The same way the F-35 does I guess. No, because that's in part "let the human pilot make decisions". > Besides, it's pretty common for AI systems to overtake human capabilities these days... Not in the realm of "should I shoot that thing?" sort of decisions.

> Tarnak Farm incident

Canada's first losses in a combat zone since Korean War.

> "Let's just make sure that it's, that it's not friendlies, is all"

> Twenty-two seconds later, he reported a direct hit. Ten seconds later, the controller ordered the pilots to disengage, saying the forces on the ground were "friendlies Kandahar".

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#229

Post by ncallaway »

bumby wrote: post #216
ncallaway wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hardware for the niche Chinese phones can only be so cheap, because an ecosystem exists around the mass production that is built around the mainstream iPhone and Android devices. If not for the insane scale of phones being developed, the components that go into those cheap Chinese phones would be far far far more expensive than they are today.

This assumes the aircraft analogy uses all one-off parts, no? It would be interesting to see if there's any data available on this. I would expect big ticket items like the engines to be bespoke, but even they would likely use some common parts. I'd imagine it's not likely every seal or bolt would be unique to that airframe.

Cheap Chinese phones get to take the mass production benefits of the iPhone and Android markets and then *relax* most of the requirements to get cheaper parts.

The military tends to *tighten* the requirements when it’s procuring parts, so more things end up as custom development.

I have no idea what ratio something like an F-35 is for COTS vs custom hardware, though.

Re: F-35 can’t be found after pilot ejected

#230

Post by kkielhofner »

mschuster91 wrote: post #213
kkielhofner wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even after that event and two decades it's still a joke.

Which is why the regulations on passenger aircraft got tightened up, it's easier to get rid/impede the attack vector than to overcome the physical limitations of a radar antenna in a fighter jet's nose cone vs a many meters large ground radar antenna.

All of these TFR violations are early/inexperienced Cessna 172 pilots (or similar) who aren't up on TFRs, just lost, etc. They often can't even manage the radio and just go completely silent, blissfully unaware anything is happening until an F-16 shows up next to them hailing them saying things like "US military armed fighter aircraft. Acknowledge this by rocking your wings.", etc. Of course assuming the fighter eventually finds them in the first place...

What's really scary about ATC vectoring the fighters in is a bad actor could just as easily use that open comms to evade the fighter aircraft. Although they're obviously faster and more maneuverable it gets back to the first scenario I mentioned - the fighters can't find a target when they're not actively trying to evade them.

It would be pretty easy and straightforward for a bad actor to get a few hours of lessons, take up a Cessna loaded with improvised explosives of some type, and do a lot of damage. A lot of smaller air strips/fields don't even have a tower so they could get up there before anyone really has a clue.

Post reply on HN