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

DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

darpa.mil

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 357 posts

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#261

Post by throwaway2037 »

nunez wrote: post #196
SoftTalker wrote: post #22

> The kit utilizes a novel interface with the aircraft’s flight controls and mission systems, allowing a pilot to toggle between traditional human control and AI control with the flip of a switch. This ensures a safe, reliable environment for human-on-the-loop experimentation. How, exactly, does that ensure a safe reliable environment? Humans are pretty bad at suddenly taking over when an automatic system reaches its…

F-16's CFIT reminds me of Boeing's Controlled Impact Demo in the 80s out of Edwards AFB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstratio...

I never heard about this experiment before your post. An interesting quote from that Wiki page:

    > During those same flights, NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center also developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the Boeing 720 to fly as a drone aircraft. An initial attempt at the full-scale test was scrubbed in late 1983 due to problems with the uplink connection to the 720; if the uplink failed the ground-based pilot would no longer have control of the aircraft.
Think for a moment how hard it was to fly that aeroplane as a remote control drone in... wait for it... 1984! Computers were so primitive in the 1980s.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#262

Post by zombot »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #214
SoftTalker wrote: post #22

> The kit utilizes a novel interface with the aircraft’s flight controls and mission systems, allowing a pilot to toggle between traditional human control and AI control with the flip of a switch. This ensures a safe, reliable environment for human-on-the-loop experimentation. How, exactly, does that ensure a safe reliable environment? Humans are pretty bad at suddenly taking over when an automatic system reaches its…

A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft. I wonder if the AI control is giving inputs to the same flight controls system a human pilot would, or if it has a lower-level interface that could bypass the control laws in the human-operated system. On one hand you might be interested in the AI coming up with ways to fly the aircraft that the normal control laws don't allow,…

Well, accidentally producing a G-load incompatible with human life could give the AI freedoms it was denied before. The three laws of robotics are just science fiction, after all.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#263

Post by shevy-java »

Boeing 737 MAX often (and semi-regularly) suicides itself and also kills many people in the process. So now fighter jets are AI controlled, by one government (or, any other government, by the way; that problem is not confined to the USA only). I am sorry but this also means that relying on such fighter jets becomes a problem for other countries depending on that. Essentially another country controls here what other people can do here. Of course objectively this only becomes a problem when there is a war between the country that purchased those fighter jets and wants to fight the country that sold the fighter jet (as otherwise it would hardly matter), but imagine how much blackmail-pressure other countries get into as a dependency here. You can just replace the USA with China here and suddenly it may be easier to see the problem. Considering the huge cost of those fighter jets it seems as if the media deliberately avoids wanting to talk about those problems. But we know of those problems already in other areas - see the right to repair movement, which in turn is a right to ownership movement. Who really owns fighter jets?

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#264

Post by shevy-java »

Mawr wrote: post #242
EvanAnderson wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft. I wonder if the AI control is giving inputs to the same flight controls system a human pilot would, or if it has a lower-level interface that could bypass the control laws in the human-operated system. On one hand you might be interested in the AI coming up with ways to fly the aircraft that the normal control laws don't allow,…

> A computer is "flying" the F-16 all the time anyway. It's a statically unstable aircraft. Ugh... I... Are you serious? Sure, in some sense AI is a computer and the fancy state machine that compensates for inherent flight instability is a computer also. But to equate the two is ridiculous.

Just look at the Boeing 737 MAX. That is the best example for an unstable aircraft. And of course AI is a computer too. None of those comparisons is "ridiculous".

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#265

Post by cloudie78 »

What’s the point of this useless exercise?

Once you optimise for G forces, speed, cost, lethality - you end up with a missile. We have those already. And we know this already.

Give it more fuel and maybe loitering capability. Something with a jet engine for cruising and a small rocket engine for terminal phase kill.

I’ll have my 100mil now please and thank you.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#266

Post by MobiusHorizons »

superxpro12 wrote: post #253
Daneel_ wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're equating it, moreso saying that, on a technicality, it's already a computer that's always flying the plane, but that the AI and the flight control system are quite different. It's a fair comment given that they'd just been talking about how the AI might control the plane - will it give inputs to the state machine or have direct control over all flight systems? One would strongly assume the input…

eh.... its a computer insofar as like.... there's some software functions doing extremely well defined, limited things faster than a human could. but to imply that the f16 flight software (which is ancient btw) is anything like this "AI" is really misleading at best.

I don’t think that’s a good reading of the comment you are reacting to. That comment really only says that there is already a computer in the control loop, and that that computer is responsible for the very fast responses required for stability. The implication is that the ai would not need to replicate those functions.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#267

Post by bobthebob »

jrflowers wrote: post #130
bobthebob wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh what a great CIA campaign that would be to give the impression that U.S. military isn’t up to par - to motivate and trick our enemies into making stupid moves while we keep our true cards hidden. Such a crazy thought.

*Losing war after war after war* victory! My beautiful cards… they remain a mystery

Well, one nation mastered gravity, or maybe two nations? Or three? Hard to keep track of intelligence these days

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#268

Post by Hikikomori »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #187
Hikikomori wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some nation building occurred, but mostly corruption. This was after the first war where they deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure like power plants, water treatment plants, hospitals and such to create a failed nation. A country that was one of the most modern and developed middle eastern countries before the war.

Yeah, that didn’t happen.

Which part?

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#269

Post by 4gotunameagain »

Terr_ wrote: post #220
bilalnpe wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they not bother designing airframes to withstand more because the human wouldn't survive it anyway?

Yeah, we already have decades of prior-art for what can be done if you take a flying machine, remove the pilot, and then aggressively specialize the aggression, which are missiles that can experience up to 100 gees.

But in a completely flight envelope and range requirements. It is not a coincidence that missiles that are higher range (cruise missiles) have not retained the extreme maneuverability of short range, solid booster powered ones.

Re: DARPA, U.S. Air Force fly AI-controlled F-16

#270

Post by rasz »

XorNot wrote: post #238
rasz wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. Drones that disabled /checks notes ~200 barges and tankers in red/black sea in last two weeks cost about $10mil total. Cost of all the drones that burned down half of russian Oil infrastructure totals less than couple F-35s.

And yet the Russian war machine pushes on. Opening up ways to pressure the Russian economy in a war of choice does equate to achieving decisive battlefield advantages. There's a reason those drones hit oil refineries and not steel works. That's not to undermine how the strategic environment has changed, but to imagine that now - after the change - it'll obviously stay that way forever is ridiculous. Ukraine is not be…

>And yet the Russian war machine pushes on

Mostly on foot now. They tried using tanks today in Dobropillia, which was very rare and surprising! 28 (https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/NotWoofers/status/208005697904... didnt even know they had that many left and concentrated in one spot) destroyed in an ~hour, attack routed.

>Ukraine is not being destroyed by unstoppable swarms of cheap drones which Russia is perfectly capable of producing.

"At least 577 civilians were killed by short-range drones in Ukraine in 2025" https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-observers/20260221-...

They arent unstoppable to Ukrainians _now_. Even mighty US just gave up its bases letting Iran destroy hundreds of millions of infrastructure (and kill base staff) with zero attempts at defense. Afaik only Baghdad base has a C-Ram that actually works against flying lawnmovers.

Yes, its more complicated, horses for courses etc. But the idea one needs a jet or cruise missiles to bomb an adversary is an outdated one and whoever clings to it will pay dearly. Its probably a matter of time before Iran tries mass drones launched off a container ship into continental US with zero resistance.

Post reply on HN