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

21–30 of 50 posts

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

#21

Post by crazygringo »

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.

Drones already look different.

The basic design of wings sticking out from a pointy cylinder isn't going to change, because of aerodynamics.

But in the case of the Predator drone, for example, it didn't reduce the volume of the "cockpit" -- it expanded it into a big bulge to fit the satellite antenna and all of the sensors.

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

#22

Post by jandrewrogers »

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.

Yes and no. In principle you could engineer something to support higher Gs but that is not a critical part of the performance envelope in modern combat and it comes at the cost of heavier weight and reduced weapons capacity. Since modern aerial combat is sensor-driven, you'd be better off with a lighter and less maneuverable airframe and larger weapon capacity. You can see this with the recent evolution of combat aircraft being converted into "missile trucks" with massive weapon stores that unavoidably hamper agility.

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

#23

Post by GuB-42 »

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".

Missiles, which are essentially single use "unmanned combat air vehicles" don't hesitate to destroy whatever target they are shot at.

If these "loyal wingmen" only shoot when ordered to by a human, these can be seen as reusable missiles more than actual human wingmen.

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

#24

Post by tharkun__ »

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.

We already see in Ukraine that many effective drones are not the "Predator" type that are basically a "fighter jet without the human" design.

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

#25

Post by foxyv »

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.

Higher Gs isn't a significant advantage anymore. Sidewinder missiles hit 60-70Gs and no plane you can make will out pull one. Modern dogfights often last for a single turn or even less. It's often a matter of who sees the other first. Israel's new Python-5 is able to attack jets in a 360 degree sphere and has lock after launch. Countermeasure rejection has gotten so good a merge is essentially a death sentence.

The real reason we are working on autonomous fighters is that we can build jets faster than we can raise and train pilots. It takes 4 years and $5 million dollars to train a pilot, and they will take decades to become seasoned. You can make an F-16 in a few months for $30 million.

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

#26

Post by ourmandave »

The Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program is developing autonomous aircraft that are likely to be part of the larger NGAD effort.

It would consist of the unmanned, loyal wingmen that would support a manned fighter.

How long before that's flipped and the manned fighter is supporting the UAV?

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

#27

Post by maxerickson »

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.

Pilots can survive maneuvers that damage the airframes, it isn't just a free for all.

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

#28

Post by 0x457 »

tra3 wrote: post #12

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)

Do you know how much time passes between "let's make a whole new platform without human-required accommodations" to an even an aerodynamic model? Not even talking about the first flight.

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

#29

Post by T-A »

tra3 wrote: post #12

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)

> Why are they trying to retrofit an F16

Because there are lots of them,

As of 2023, it is the world's most common fixed-wing aircraft in military service, with 2145 F-16s operational. [1]

and several countries are phasing them out in favor of the F35. Pilot training is a slow and expensive affair (ask Ukraine), so it makes sense to concentrate scarce resources on the top model - unless the legacy one can fly itself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...

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

#30

Post by jmward01 »

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 have long maintained that command and control aircraft will be the only piloted things in the future (and just so they can evade easier). Have them stand off and be able to control directly via line of sight/hard to jam comms (likely by relay of some comms drone network), but also have relays back to other controllers in case the primary command and control becomes unable. By 'control' though it is clear that this will just be authority based and much higher level 'patrol over here weapons free' not 'turn left to 180'. The future is drones, either single use (missiles, TLAMs but with more autonomy, etc) or multi-use like reapers, etc but all of them with much more autonomy.

The fighter pilot mafia mentality is hard to change though just like the bomber mafia. Ukraine is likely changing that mentality a lot right now though. This feels like a battle ship vs aircraft carrier moment for aircraft so maybe this shift will happen sooner than I thought. Not that that is a good thing unfortunately, just an inevitable one.

Post reply on HN