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

231–240 of 693 posts

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

#231

Post by ceejayoz »

k12sosse wrote: post #228
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.

> 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".

The argument is not "humans never make a mistake".

There's little evidence autonomous combat fighter AIs are better than humans at tough calls of this nature. They may be someday, but given the state of the art in self-driving, that day probably hasn't arrived.

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

#232

Post by mschuster91 »

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.

Assuming that the US ever enters any war directly, guess what their first action will be: take Musk out of the picture, deal with the legalities later on.

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

#233

Post by Ajedi32 »

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.

Which is partly why the DoD commissioned a second constellation specifically for military use: https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

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

#234

Post by nradov »

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…

Nonsense. AI can work well enough for striking certain known targets. But it is simply not capable of following complex rules of engagement or adapting to highly dynamic situations in real time. We are at least decades away from that capability in a general sense. What you see in movies is not reality.

Sixth-generation tactical aircraft (the successors to the F-35) are likely to be optionally manned. They will be able to operate with remote pilots and/or autonomous control for high risk strike missions but most of the time will still have human crews on board.

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

#236

Post by dgroshev »

some_random wrote: post #186
belter wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A theory pushed constantly by the F-35 program, but quickly dismissed by the Ukrainian War. "Dogfight Over Ukraine Shows The Air War Is Still Very Much Being Fought" - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/dogfight-over-ukraine-...

That dogfight is newsworthy because it's exceptional, and even still it's not a turning duel by any stretch of the imagination. The real takeaway from the Ukrainian war is that stealth and engagement range are paramount.

…plus SEAD/DEAD are incredibly important and (AFAIK) there is only one air force on the planet that systematically develops and deploys tech and trains for it.

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

#237

Post by closewith »

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…

> It's not like pilots are making political decisions.

In the age of the Strategic Corporal, they absolutely are.

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

#238

Post by flakeoil »

SonicScrub wrote: post #141
kunwon1 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert on aircraft procurement or government contracts (I'm an engineer who used to work on fighter jets) - that being said, it's my understanding that the F-35 is actually a very successful project, and a very affordable one at that. I haven't got any citations or evidence to present, I could be wrong about all of this, it's a topic I've got only casual knowledge about. A broad overview of my understanding of…

https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-g... Specific figures will differ depending on how exactly one calculates acquisition costs. These numbers differ depending on the acquiring country, the block numbers, etc. But as rule of thumb the F-35 cost is roughly 10 million USD cheaper than the much less capable Gripen. This is notable as the Gripen is being marketed as the cheaper alternative. The F-3…

From the article the cost per flight hour is around $8,000 for Gripen and $33,300 for the F35A.

The Finish and Swiss most likely have no clue what the final full life-cycle costs will be. No-one knows this cost. The US who sold it knows a bit more than the Finns and the Swiss, but not even they know. Time will tell.

The F35 program has overrun it's costs over and over. The purchase price of the F35A (the conventional version) is being artificially low as a lot of the costs have been pushed onto the F35B and F35C models so they can offer an attractive price for their exports.

It's all politics at the end anyway.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...

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

#239

Post by elil17 »

hindsightbias wrote: post #222
tra3 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The F35 and other modern fighter jets are the exception to the rule: they are inherently unstable because this makes them more maneuverable. They use electronic control systems to keep themselves stable.

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

#240

Post by mschuster91 »

kkielhofner wrote: post #230
mschuster91 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 even…

> All of these TFR violations are early/inexperienced Cessna 172 pilots (or similar) who aren't up on TFRs, just lost, etc.

I'm (as a German) a drone pilot myself and looking to start ultralight next year, and the topic of TFRs/NOTAMs annoys me to no end even when just flying a drone. Tons of junk, hard to parse and keep track of, and hell I get that the primary glass of aircraft is supposed to be certified, but why on earth aren't there smartphone/tablet apps that keep up with TFRs and alert a pilot? Most of GA is low altitude anyway so in reach of cellphone towers.

[1] https://fixingnotams.org/the-problem-why-are-pilots-deeply-c...

Post reply on HN