Stealth Satellites

[Jimmy]

Yes, secrets do get out. The wikileaks secrets are a whole other kettle of fish compared to what we are discussing here. The wikileaks secrets were of the diplomatic kind and not technological. So, this is apples and oranges yes they are both fruit. But, they are different kinds.

Not true at all. There WERE military secrets exposed, as well as criminal evidence and diplomatic information. While there are differences, all of these items were classified under the same laws and subject to (mostly) the same rules. They were accessed through military computer networks. He (can't even remember his name) downloaded that stuff wantonly, without regard (or knowledge) of what it was. There's no way he analyzed all that data and picked what he wanted to release, there was just too much. He wasn't even in the military long enough to have that kind of time if it was his full-time job.

Many of the aviation engineers that I know claim the only reason we have not replaced pilots with drones on the fighter jet front is the brass want their joy ride.

No, it's because when a human shoots down an airliner someone gets punished. When a computer does it, people blame the government/leadership for allowing computers the authority to do so. Humans are generally trusted more than computers when it comes to life-or-death decisions...and they can be held accountable if they choose incorrectly.

[David Crocket]

What technological secrets were exposed? Please provide the wikileaks cables in which technological secrets were exposed.

Many innocent civilians get killed in drone strikes in Pakistan and other countries without any human beings getting punished. But, this also assumes that a computer would have to be at the helm. This is just not the case. We could and would still have pilots in some cases. They would just be in a control center some where.

Not true at all. There WERE military secrets exposed, as well as criminal evidence and diplomatic information. While there are differences, all of these items were classified under the same laws and subject to (mostly) the same rules. They were accessed through military computer networks. He (can't even remember his name) downloaded that stuff wantonly, without regard (or knowledge) of what it was. There's no way he analyzed all that data and picked what he wanted to release, there was just too much. He wasn't even in the military long enough to have that kind of time if it was his full-time job.



No, it's because when a human shoots down an airliner someone gets punished. When a computer does it, people blame the government/leadership for allowing computers the authority to do so. Humans are generally trusted more than computers when it comes to life-or-death decisions...and they can be held accountable if they choose incorrectly.

[Officer of Engineers]

What technological secrets were exposed? Please provide the wikileaks cables in which technological secrets were exposed.

We certainly will not. There are still those of us who believes in OPSEC and it remains illegal for anyone to disclose them even though they're available through Wikileaks.

[David Crocket]

I have a copy of all of the Wikileaks "Cable Gate" documents. I have not seen a single document that looked like blue prints. Plus, the pentagon has a secure internal internet that is not accessible from the outside electronically. I am sure that the true Born Secret Technology is not accessible from where alleged wikileaks source Manning was.

We certainly will not. There are still those of us who believes in OPSEC and it remains illegal for anyone to disclose them even though they're available through Wikileaks.

[Officer of Engineers]

That's fine but it is firm WAB policy that we will not continue Wikileak's crimes. You may use Chantum House Rules but no member here is allow to reference specific Wikileak documents.

[Chogy]

Many of the aviation engineers that I know claim the only reason we have not replaced pilots with drones on the fighter jet front is the brass want their joy ride.

I've had this debate a thousand times.

A drone could be programmed to approach, detect, track, and shoot a target with an AA missile. But it would be robotic in its methodology, obviously.

If there is any maneuvering at all, current AI would fall hopelessly short. ACM can be considered like chaos theory, in that seemingly trivial variations in nose position and vector can cause dramatic changes in the future. The number of possible outcomes is infinite.

Chess is tic-tac-toe in comparison, from a possible outlook POV. And it was only recently that a computer beat a human in chess.

Now, instead of 1 V 1, add dozens of other aircraft, friendly and enemy; jamming, SAMs, everything associated with an aerial battle. A human can, at a glance, acquire and determine friend or foe, in his personal airspace bubble. Think of the sensors needed to do this with an ACM drone. It'd need 360 degree spherical coverage... it'd have to detect, then analyze the other aircraft using NCTR to say "It's a MiG-29" or "It's an F-16". What a human does in milliseconds would be an eternity.

ACM-capable drones are decades away, IMO.

[USSWisconsin]

Some human minds are beyond the current possibilities of electronic computers - the n-dimensional mappings, topological manifolds and tensor bundles that can be handled by computers are impressive - but intuition and imagination are something computers are not even gearing up to do.

[ace16807]

I'm not exactly an expert in the field but aren't most "drones" still piloted remotely? I've heard the same argument but it's not about giving a fighter AI but rather making it a drone in the sense that it's remotely piloted. But I'm not sure current software/hardware can allow for remotely piloted fighter-drones to be nearly as efficient as pilots when it comes to ACM.

[David Crocket]

When was the last time there was a dogfight? I cannot think of one that has occurred in the last 20 years. In the 1950's- dogfighting was declared obsolete, famously the F-4 was not originally armed with a cannon, and the AIM-7 was not ready for prime-time. A half a century later the technology is here and with the technology we have today there is no need for a pilot inside the plane. There may need to be a pilot to remotely controlling the beast. But, there is definitely no need to have one inside the plane. When was the last time there was a legitimate dogfight? Redflag and Topgun training does not count... It has to have been decades.

I have yet to see a valid argument for not replacing piloted planes with drones. The pros outweigh the cons. A pilot-less drone will not produce propaganda coup for the inimical state that shoots it down because there is no pilot. There will not be Hanoi Hiltons, pilots perp walked, or used in propaganda videos with drones.

[ace16807]

When was the last time there was a dogfight? I cannot think of one that has occurred in the last 20 years. In the 1950's- dogfighting was declared obsolete, famously the F-4 was not originally armed with a cannon, and the AIM-7 was not ready for prime-time. A half a century later the technology is here and with the technology we have today there is no need for a pilot inside the plane. There may need to be a pilot to remotely controlling the beast. But, there is definitely no need to have one inside the plane. When was the last time there was a legitimate dogfight? Redflag and Topgun training does not count... It has to have been decades.

I have yet to see a valid argument for not replacing piloted planes with drones. The pros outweigh the cons. A pilot-less drone will not produce propaganda coup for the inimical state that shoots it down because there is no pilot. There will not be Hanoi Hiltons, pilots perp walked, or used in propaganda videos with drones.

Part of the reason we haven't seen any "dogfights" in the last 20+ years is because we haven't seen two legitimate air forces pitted against each other since DS. While remotely piloted craft capable of BVR engagements are well within current technological capabilities, converting everthing to UAVs is essentially eliminating a potential response capability. If in the near future we are ever put in a situation in which the US has to face a legitimate air force that BVR alone won't kill, we'd be in trouble. In the mean time, the US has increasingly been using drones for ground strikes and generally speaking the existing oppontents we face generally don't have sophisticated SAMs that could threaten piloted aircraft.

That also plays into the question of whether it's worth it to covert existing aircraft to remotely piloted drones. That costs a lot of money when there may not be any need. When was the last time a fixed wing aircraft was shot down due to enemy fire? I think one A-10 was shot down in 2003 by an Iraqi SAM but that's it. It's probably deemed more cost effective and worth having piloted aircraft available just in case to maintain the current fleet of piloted aircraft.

[Jimmy]

What technological secrets were exposed? Please provide the wikileaks cables in which technological secrets were exposed.

That's not what you said. You said MILITARY secrets, and that's a broad description. Then you freak out and try to change the rules...then try to get me to break the law. No thanks. I'm done talking to you.

[GGTharos]

While remotely piloted craft capable of BVR engagements are well within current technological capabilities, converting everthing to UAVs is essentially eliminating a potential response capability.

Nope ... what makes you think BVR is any simpler than BFM?

I think one A-10 was shot down in 2003 by an Iraqi SAM but that's it. It's probably deemed more cost effective and worth having piloted aircraft available just in case to maintain the current fleet of piloted aircraft.

6 A-10's were lost to SHORAD in total over Iraq. And a bunch more RPVs.

[Officer of Engineers]

Here is a very simple test. Get a squadron of the latest UCAVs and pit them against a squadron of F-22s.

[ace16807]

Nope ... what makes you think BVR is any simpler than BFM?

It's not necessarily simpler but I'm of the opinion that it would be possible to create a UAV capable of BVR engagements. BFM would seem to require significantly more variable processing than a remotely piloted drone could handle at a practical level.

6 A-10's were lost to SHORAD in total over Iraq. And a bunch more RPVs.

You didn't read what I said, did you.

Last time a fixed wing aircraft was shot down by enemy fire.

So unless these 6 combat losses occurred after 2003, I don't know what you're getting at.

[1979]

technically is it a surface to air missile also a UCAV. ?