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

Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

nationalinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#11

Post by bArray »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #2

These aircraft were built with human limitations in mind, take away the human dependency and you can engineer aircraft capable of much higher Gs for longer.

That plus the cockpit and all that human support equipment. We're essentially looking at high-speed UAVs. I wonder if the speed even still makes sense at that point? Just look at the Ukraine-Russia conflict, once decent enough ant-aircraft systems were setup, it makes little sense for either side to fly them any more.

Instead of a few fighter jets, the future might be a tonne of slow high-altitude UAVs that are always present.

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#12

Post by tra3 »

I wanted to make a joke how Sopwith [0] enemy fighters were already good in the 80s but this is kinda terrifying.

Why are they trying to retrofit an F16, a whole new platform without human-required accommodations would make more sense..

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_(video_game)

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#13

Post by throwup238 »

forinti wrote: post #5
cjbgkagh wrote: post #2

These aircraft were built with human limitations in mind, take away the human dependency and you can engineer aircraft capable of much higher Gs for longer.

Plus it's probably better to have many smaller and cheaper planes than one big expensive one.

These drones won't be that much cheaper. The life support isn't the most expensive part in high performance fighter jets, it's the airframe, sensors, and engine. The airframe will still have to have some sort of stealth and the engine will be similar to those in other fighters, especially if they're expected to be supersonic too.

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#14

Post by wrs »

mtillman wrote: post #10
cjbgkagh wrote: post #2

These aircraft were built with human limitations in mind, take away the human dependency and you can engineer aircraft capable of much higher Gs for longer.

I often wonder if drones even need to look like they do or if there is a more efficient design that we don't use simply because "things that fly look like this" where "this" includes a place for a cockpit.

I think that’s called a “cruise missile”.

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#15

Post by topspin »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #2

These aircraft were built with human limitations in mind, take away the human dependency and you can engineer aircraft capable of much higher Gs for longer.

High G is one limitation of human pilots. The added mass and aerodynamic compromises needed for human operation are another. Pilot fatigue is yet another. Training cost is probably the greatest problem. Pilot shortages has to be in the list somewhere as well. This solves a lot of problems.

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#16

Post by cjbgkagh »

krunck wrote: post #7

Seeing term "loyal wingman" - meaning an unmanned combat air vehicle - makes me ask: Are the human pilots not considered loyal enough? Maybe so. The humans might hesitate on an order to shoot whereas the AI will not. I prefer the human that at least hesitates to shoot at a target that will cause substantial "collateral damage".

I think it's in reference to delegation 'wingman' and availability 'loyal'. I like the Russian word Sputnik for 'fellow traveller' but obviously that would not be appropriate for US weapons.

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#18

Post by morkalork »

mtillman wrote: post #10
cjbgkagh wrote: post #2

These aircraft were built with human limitations in mind, take away the human dependency and you can engineer aircraft capable of much higher Gs for longer.

I often wonder if drones even need to look like they do or if there is a more efficient design that we don't use simply because "things that fly look like this" where "this" includes a place for a cockpit.

That's already happened, look at how many have a pusher prop configuration to balance out all the electronics and sensor equipment going where the cockpit used to be.

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#19

Post by [deleted] »

krunck wrote: post #7

Seeing term "loyal wingman" - meaning an unmanned combat air vehicle - makes me ask: Are the human pilots not considered loyal enough? Maybe so. The humans might hesitate on an order to shoot whereas the AI will not. I prefer the human that at least hesitates to shoot at a target that will cause substantial "collateral damage".

[deleted]

Re: Autonomous F-16 Fighters Are 'Roughly Even' with Human Pilots

#20

Post by Buttons840 »

forinti wrote: post #5
cjbgkagh wrote: post #2

These aircraft were built with human limitations in mind, take away the human dependency and you can engineer aircraft capable of much higher Gs for longer.

Plus it's probably better to have many smaller and cheaper planes than one big expensive one.

The F-16 was original meant to be cheap, not even having a radar. But by the time it reached production it had far more equipment and weight, for better or worse.

It's original designers thought we should have 10x the aircraft in the sky for the same price. This would result in more fighter pilot deaths, but, as callous as this sounds, maybe that's okay? I mean, it's funny how much expense will go towards saving the life of a fighter pilot while soldiers on the ground can't get proper armor on their vehicles.

Post reply on HN