|
Dannywilson posted:Rogoway, while his opinions were sometimes a little off, was one of the best things Jalopnik had going for it, and it's a shame they couldn't have kept him on. I enjoyed his articles. Never click baity and always full of content. Always took everything he said with a grain of salt though since he once described North Korea as being able to level Seoul with artillery.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
um excuse me posted:I enjoyed his articles. Never click baity and always full of content. Always took everything he said with a grain of salt though since he once described North Korea as being able to level Seoul with artillery. That might have been true at one point - now we know that alot of those artillery "units" are either broken or a pipe with a muzzle brake welded on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
There's nobody else in the world who has really managed to build a modern (ie. excluding the Avro Vulcan) low RCS combat aircraft right? For all the political calamity that was F-22 and F-35 (and I guess B-2) development, it does seem to at least be a unique and useful achievement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 20:58
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:There's nobody else in the world who has really managed to build a modern (ie. excluding the Avro Vulcan) low RCS combat aircraft right? For all the political calamity that was F-22 and F-35 (and I guess B-2) development, it does seem to at least be a unique and useful achievement. The Russians have the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA; the Chinese have the Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31; these exist at least at the prototype stage. There are also working, flying tech demonstrators, such as the Japanese X-2 Shinshin (formerly ATD-X), the French-led Neuron, the British Taranis, and the German-Spanish Barracuda. Then there are a number of other projects at various levels of advancement between "total pipe dream" and "actually under development".
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
R-Type posted:That might have been true at one point - now we know that alot of those artillery "units" are either broken or a pipe with a muzzle brake welded on. It hasn't ever been true. Only a very small percentage could even get close. Not the steel rain often portrayed. The 7th fleet would make short work of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:It hasn't ever been true. Only a very small percentage could even get close. Not the steel rain often portrayed. The 7th fleet would make short work of it. well, maybe not the central core of the city (as much as a city that big has a central core), but there's plenty of sprawl within 40 km of the border. Technically you could shell New York City from Connecticut, but downtown Manhattan would be safe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:As far as manned aircraft and maneuverability: where else is there to go? As far as I understand the squishy bits in the cockpit don't like much over +9g, which the F-16 and F-22 can easily sustain. Thrust vectoring helps without loading up the wing as much, but I feel the biggest black mark against the F-35 is that it just seems....obsolete already. Yeah if we are bombing dirt huts, then the F-22 and F-35 don't really have much value over the current crop for the expenses involved, besides things like greater operational range or payload in some cases. But that's not why we built these planes. The F-35 and especially the F-22 earn their value but having the latent capability to go places that F-16s and such just could not operate safely. If your stealth coating means you can get 50 or 100 miles closer to a target without allowing their X band fire control radars (search and track vs fire control is an important thing to understand when talking about stealth) to even see you, then you have a valuable capability there you don't have with most "4th gen" options. This is a big deal in the world of Pantsir/Buk-M/S-400s, it's not Shilkas and S-75s we have to plan for. Now there is a lot of debate of value and stuff when you include the modern IR detection or whatever, but it's hard to actually argue stealth isn't valuable when you go look at things like Red Flag results where F-15 and F-16s are getting engaged like 4-5 times before they even get a reasonable shot at a flight of 22s. And to your point of maneuverability, it's a valid concern with the 35 but at the same time we didn't build the F-35 to be a air superiority fighter. We were supposed to have nearly 500 F-22s for that. Mazz fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
And neither the F-35 nor the F-22 have any real value over the equivalently-priced flight of four UAVs with multispectral sensors and a rack of AMRAAMs and SDBs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:And neither the F-35 nor the F-22 have any real value over the equivalently-priced flight of four UAVs with multispectral sensors and a rack of AMRAAMs and SDBs. Probably true in about 15 years when that's actual procurement possibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:And neither the F-35 nor the F-22 have any real value over the equivalently-priced flight of four UAVs with multispectral sensors and a rack of AMRAAMs and SDBs. Except that an F-22 can operate independently in a severely EM-contested environment. You think China/whomever they sell their poo poo to isn't going to dial up our UAV datalink freqs right away and jam the poo poo out of them? There's gonna be so many trons flying in the next war that doesn't have one side basically fighting from the middle ages that everyone involved is going to grow tits like Robert Paulson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Except that an F-22 can operate independently in a severely EM-contested environment. You think China/whomever they sell their poo poo to isn't going to dial up our UAV datalink freqs right away and jam the poo poo out of them? There's gonna be so many trons flying in the next war that doesn't have one side basically fighting from the middle ages that everyone involved is going to grow tits like Robert Paulson. That's what we're developing MurderAI for!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
And on that note I just stumbled across this. Genetic Fuzzy based Artificial Intelligence for Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Control in Simulated Air Combat Missions quote:For current mission profiles, ALPHA’s red forces are handicapped with shorter range missiles and a reduced missile payload than the blue opposing forces. ALPHA also does not have airborne warning and control system (AWACS) support providing 360° long range radar coverage of the area; while blue does have AWACS. The aircraft for both teams are identical in terms of their mechanical performance. While ALPHA has detailed knowledge of its own systems, it is given limited intelligence of the blue force a priori and must rely on its organic sensors for situational awareness (SA) of the blue force; even the number of hostile forces is not given. Both to mirror training exercises and to offset these weaknesses, ALPHA is typically given a numeric advantage over the blue forces. However this is not always the case and ALPHA is capable of controlling any finite number of friendly aircraft. The current problem is focused on purely beyond visual range air-to-air combat missions; no ground targets or friendly platforms requiring escort are considered at this time. quote:As one example, ALPHA can perform lethal cooperative tactics if the opposing force allows ALPHA to pincer it. The flow of this tactic is shown in Figure 5, in 3 distinct phases. The northernmost ALPHA is designated WOLF-1 and WOLF-4 the southernmost. In the first phase, ALPHA seeks to obtain the flank by having WOLF-1 and WOLF-4 climb altitude and approach the blues at opposite and wide angles. WOLF-2 and WOLF-3 reduce velocity and climb altitude, to maintain range from the incoming blues. quote:ALPHA was assessed by Colonel (retired) Gene “Geno” Lee. As a former United States Air Force Air Battle Manager, Geno is a United States Air Force Fighter Weapon School graduate and Adversary Tactics (Aggressor) Instructor, and has controlled or flown in thousands of air-to-air intercepts as a Ground Control Intercept officer, as a Mission Commander on AWACS, and in the cockpit of multiple fighter aircraft. The company also has a suitably sinister name and logo. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:And neither the F-35 nor the F-22 have any real value over the equivalently-priced flight of four UAVs with multispectral sensors and a rack of AMRAAMs and SDBs. C.M. Kruger posted:And on that note I just stumbled across this. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Eh, just put that anywhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4R_Jgfdt4k Alternative title: I CAN'T PULL OVER ANY FARTHER!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Eh, just put that anywhere. I was expecting the SUV to get a haircut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Eh, just put that anywhere. Ahaha, the way he emerges from it and thrusts his arms up in victory after clearing the a/c
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Yeah, he's happy about it now. But wait until he gets a ticket for blocking an intersection. That's a 200 dollar fine, minimum. He's just lucky CA doesn't count those violations against your driving record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Fredrick posted:Ahaha, the way he emerges from it and thrusts his arms up in victory after clearing the a/c Actually it was two middle fingers thrust vigorously in the air whilst proclaiming "SUCK MY BALLS, GRAVITY!!!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Someone still has to provide the firing solution, and when you put "multispectral sensors", good engines and a maneuvering airframe on a AUV you won't buy 4 of them for the price of a raptor. People tend to overlook that the person in the loop is a degree of fault tolerance. It's pretty important really and actually turns out to be much, much cheaper most of the time than adding in a degree of fault tolerance with more redundant hardware/processing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Murgos posted:People tend to overlook that the person in the loop is a degree of fault tolerance. It's pretty important really and actually turns out to be much, much cheaper most of the time than adding in a degree of fault tolerance with more redundant hardware/processing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
The hard part is the procedures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
It's a Simple Matter Of ProgrammingTM
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
It's telling that the people making that argument are, almost without exception, computer people, and not command pilots. Drone warfare is a lot like autonomous cars. It's coming, but not as fast as the computer guys think it is, because the real world is a BITCH.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Actually it was two middle fingers thrust vigorously in the air whilst proclaiming "SUCK MY BALLS, GRAVITY!!!"  Just take it, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It's telling that the people making that argument are, almost without exception, computer people, and not command pilots. i'm a computer guy and i'm refuting his argument
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:i'm a computer guy and i'm refuting his argument There's a fuckload of selection bias between computer guys like you (and me) and those ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I think that because of improvements in the performance, cost, and size/weight of computer electronics this is no longer true. Nah. It's trivially easy to spend a couple of hundred million dollars on fault tolerant software for systems with very little complexity at all. The hardware is getting cheaper but by the time you've established the pedigree of your parts and processes the number of zeros involved still gets to quite surprising levels. Computers are good at evaluating problems that can be identified and processed as discrete inputs. Most cases where the word 'fault' comes into play don't fit those categories. Kind of by definition you are dealing with systems not working correctly and not telling you the truth. Computers have hard problems with liars, particularly when they may be the one lying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Amphibious Aircraft Industries (who own the type certificate for the Grumman Albatross) have announced a $100M factory is being built between Sydney and Newcastle so they can actually/maybe/one day/not-at-all-vapour-ware start production of turboprop, all-glass cockpit HU-16/G-111 albatrosses. My dream plane might actually get built  
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Nah. It's trivially easy to spend a couple of hundred million dollars on fault tolerant software for systems with very little complexity at all. It's also easy to spend little money on complex fault tolerant software, like my company's timesheet and billing database. Fault tolerance is not a cutting edge area of computer science. Testing and regulatory compliance are probably the expensive part in cars and airplanes and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Amphibious Aircraft Industries (who own the type certificate for the Grumman Albatross) have announced a $100M factory is being built between Sydney and Newcastle so they can actually/maybe/one day/not-at-all-vapour-ware start production of turboprop, all-glass cockpit HU-16/G-111 albatrosses. Fuckin A man. Dream plane bros.   Mortabis posted:It's also easy to spend little money on complex fault tolerant software, like my company's timesheet and billing database. Fault tolerance is not a cutting edge area of computer science. Testing and regulatory compliance are probably the expensive part in cars and airplanes and whatnot. Fault tolerance for your company's crappy timesheets is not even kinda the same as fault tolerance for any kind of robotics. The inputs to your timesheet software goes through a huge amount of human filtering before the machine sees it. All your software has to do is catch when someone accidentally claims they worked 400 hours this week. Robotics software has to do all kinds of loving  that I barely understand after studying it for 4 years to have a 50/50 shot to point at the sky instead of the ground.
CBJamo fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Amphibious Aircraft Industries (who own the type certificate for the Grumman Albatross) have announced a $100M factory is being built between Sydney and Newcastle so they can actually/maybe/one day/not-at-all-vapour-ware start production of turboprop, all-glass cockpit HU-16/G-111 albatrosses. Another "Yeah we're totally going to bring back this old design, but modernized." These seem to come and go every few years, and rarely does much ever come of it. Only the guys building new Cubs seem to have any success at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
I suspect they'll end up just manufacturing parts for maintenance. On the other hand, it's a loving boat - there isn't much you can do to a clean-sheet design to make it more efficient within the constraints of hull size/shape and materials. So maybe if the demand for amphibs is there, the G-111 with more efficient engines is as good as any (except it already has type certificate)? Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Talking of which.     International Seaplane Fly-In, Greenville, Maine
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Talking of which. drat, tanning is bad for you but I'd lay out on the wing of that beauty just out of principle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Another "Yeah we're totally going to bring back this old design, but modernized." These seem to come and go every few years, and rarely does much ever come of it. Only the guys building new Cubs seem to have any success at it. Viking Air has done a pretty good job with the Twin Otter; supposedly their order books are full through 2020 at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:Fault tolerance for your company's crappy timesheets is not even kinda the same as fault tolerance for any kind of robotics. The inputs to your timesheet software goes through a huge amount of human filtering before the machine sees it. All your software has to do is catch when someone accidentally claims they worked 400 hours this week. Robotics software has to do all kinds of loving That's input sanitation, not fault tolerance. And for that matter, input sanitation on web forms can get dramatically complicated because you have to deal with deliberate malicious attacks. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:That's input sanitation And I thought input sanitation was the hard cut in adult films when switching from A to V or M.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:Fuckin A man. Dream plane bros. Now add the requirement that this software make decisions on whether or not to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:And I thought input sanitation was the hard cut in adult films when switching from A to V or M. If that's true then I should have showed up to lecture more in Networks. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
CBJamo posted:Fuckin A man. Dream plane bros. I think you're mistaken here. "Human filtering" is usually going to introduce noise, not remove it. I work on a streaming data system that takes in about 5 TB of data daily; our noisiest and least consistent data by far is the stuff that involves people. Control theory is certainly complicated but hardly an unsolved problem. EDIT: Another thing worth mentioning is that noise introduced by people tends to be difficult to reason about. My experience has been that noise introduced by problems with telemetry or sensors is usually more "well behaved" in that it either follows some sort of probability distribution or otherwise just dies entirely, both of which are a little less wacko than one problem we had, where employees would always pick the first item on question menu because they were lazy, which took a while to realize was happening. Hauldren Collider fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:14
|
|