The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USAF CoS Prefers F-35, UAS and NGB. Also say USAF has enough TACAIR capability
DarthAmerica    5/27/2009 10:45:26 PM
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said increasing production rates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and developing the next-generation bomber are at the top of his wish list of projects to fund if the service had more money.

SOURCE:
h*tp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/SCHWARTZ052009.xml&headline=Schwartz%20Wish%20List:%20Boost%20F-35,%20Plan%20NGB


Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the Air Force?s $160.5 billion fiscal 2010 budget request May 19, Schwartz said service leaders felt they had enough tactical aircraft capability despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates? plans to halt F-22 Raptor procurement at 187 aircraft.

The Air Force chief said the service?s leadership believed it was a ?prudent opportunity to accelerate the retirement of older aircraft.? The FY ?10 budget calls for retiring 250 F-15s, F-16s and A-10s, enabling the Air Force to redistribute more than $3.5 billion over the next six years to modernize combat air forces into a ?smaller but more capable force,? Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told lawmakers in joint written testimony.

Schwartz did say more money would make it easier and faster to upgrade remaining legacy aircraft and make modifications to the F-22 until the F-35 starts rolling off the line in large numbers.

Schwartz said the Air Force would like to see F-35 production boosted to at least 80 aircraft and perhaps as many as 110 per year before the F-16s start retiring in large numbers.

Committee members, including Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Rep. John McHugh (N.Y.), the senior Republican on the panel, worried about producing and flying an aircraft while it was still being tested.

Donley conceded budget constraints compelled the Air Force to make some difficult calls. If there was more money ?we might have made some different choices,? Schwartz added. But both leaders insisted the Air Force was not short-changing itself.

The chief of staff said his wish list also included developing plans for the future long-range strike capability. ?We need, through the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and the NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] to get our secretary of defense comfortable with the parameters of what we propose for that platform.?

Gates canceled funding for a next-generation bomber study, which Schwartz said was of concern to the Air Force ?Once we get him comfortable with the parameters ? range, payload, manned, unmanned, nuclear, non-nuclear, low observable, very low observable ? then we need to proceed aggressively with that program.?

Schwartz said the Air Force also needs to explore using additional automation in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to reduce manpower. He noted that currently one crew operates a single UAS.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
DarthAmerica    Strawman recognized   6/16/2009 12:17:34 AM

Machines have no decision making ability at all.

Herald


That statement with no context is FALSE. Moreover, it's a gross over simplification. Machines have been making decisions for thousands of years. You should be discussing the inputs that cue the decisions and rules that govern them.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Reply to the poster who doesn't understand what a strawman is.   6/16/2009 9:53:06 AM
 
 
Go to school.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Really?   6/16/2009 10:25:03 AM
That statement with no context is FALSE. Moreover, it's a gross over simplification. Machines have been making decisions for thousands of years.
 
They have?  Wow, so it wasn't that I was a bad carpenter it was that my hammer was deciding to do it wrong....*PHEW* I feel better knowing that!
 
Dood, you're going off the deep end...obeying the laws of Physics, is NOT "making decisions"....
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    jfKY reply   6/16/2009 11:38:42 AM

That statement with no context is FALSE. Moreover, it's a gross over simplification. Machines have been making decisions for thousands of years.
 

They have?  Wow, so it wasn't that I was a bad carpenter it was that my hammer was deciding to do it wrong....*PHEW* I feel better knowing that!

 

Dood, you're going off the deep end...obeying the laws of Physics, is NOT "making decisions"....


No, you are just getting bogged down in another one of Heralds obfuscations. Machines can and do make decisions. This is why I said his blanket assertion was too simplistic. If he wanted to focus on what drives those decisions, then thats what he should have done. But believe whatever floats your boat. I've managed programs that have developed machines that make decisions so I'm not going to get into a ridiculous discussion about something even a basic google search will confirm.

-DA
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    It's your hyperbole that gets you into trouble...   6/16/2009 11:54:45 AM
"...thousands of years..."
But believe whatever floats your boat. I've managed programs that have developed machines that make decisions so I'm not going to get into a ridiculous discussion about something even a basic google search will confirm.
 
Programs are NOT machines, or certainly not machines that have been around for thousands of years...the wedge, the lever, the fulcrum are machines that have been around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, Darth  and they don't make decisions.  They operate under the laws of physics...now PROGRAMS CAN make decisions, but they haven't been around for thousands of years.
 
You suffer from a touch of the Bluewings syndrome, you go off the deep end, rhetorically and just can't bear to bring yourself back...machines have NOT been making decisions for thousands of years.  They have been "deciding" for decades, certainly, and if not deciding then recommending. 
 
Though the decisions have been fairly simple and the decisions or recommendations have to be somewhat suspect as the program is not aware at all, and is merely executing a set of "if/then" instructions...an example of which would be the, possibly apocryphal, story about the diagnosis software that when confronted with a rusty car recommended antibiotics....being a non-self aware system it didn't realize that it was NOT dealing with a medical problem.

 
Make REASONABLE claims, not unreasonable ones, please.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Flat assertion.   6/16/2009 11:55:07 AM




That statement with no context is FALSE. Moreover, it's a gross over simplification. Machines have been making decisions for thousands of years.


 



They have?  Wow, so it wasn't that I was a bad carpenter it was that my hammer was deciding to do it wrong....*PHEW* I feel better knowing that!



 



Dood, you're going off the deep end...obeying the laws of Physics, is NOT "making decisions"....







No, you are just getting bogged down in another one of Heralds obfuscations. Machines can and do make decisions. This is why I said his blanket assertion was too simplistic. If he wanted to focus on what drives those decisions, then thats what he should have done. But believe whatever floats your boat. I've managed programs that have developed machines that make decisions so I'm not going to get into a ridiculous discussion about something even a basic google search will confirm.




-DA

 




 



Give a CONCRETE real life example. Put up or be silent.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 12:11:34 PM

"...thousands of years..."

But believe whatever floats your boat. I've managed programs that have developed machines that make decisions so I'm not going to get into a ridiculous discussion about something even a basic google search will confirm.

Programs are NOT machines, or certainly not machines that have been around for thousands of years...the wedge, the lever, the fulcrum are machines that have been around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, Darth  and they don't make decisions.  They operate under the laws of physics...now PROGRAMS CAN make decisions, but they haven't been around for thousands of years.

You suffer from a touch of the Bluewings syndrome, you go off the deep end, rhetorically and just can't bear to bring yourself back...machines have NOT been making decisions for thousands of years.  They have been "deciding" for decades, certainly, and if not deciding then recommending. 

Though the decisions have been fairly simple and the decisions or recommendations have to be somewhat suspect as the program is not aware at all, and is merely executing a set of "if/then" instructions...an example of which would be the, possibly apocryphal, story about the diagnosis software that when confronted with a rusty car recommended antibiotics....being a non-self aware system it didn't realize that it was NOT dealing with a medical problem.

Make REASONABLE claims, not unreasonable ones, please.


There is no "hyperbole", I'm just very well educated on the matter and I know what a decision is in the context of a machine. Physics and a decision are not mutually exclusive properties of a machine. This is something you learn right away in advanced programming and artificial intelligence related courses. I'm not making ANYTHING up or spinning it out of context. Someone made a mistake when they said machines don't make decisions when indeed they do and have for a long time. If you want to discuss levels of complexity, that is a different matter. What you should be doing is asking people to put their statements into context. It makes a difference.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 12:13:18 PM
Boeing X-45A Unmanned Aircraft Demonstrates Autonomous Capability

ST. LOUIS, June 24, 2005 -- A Boeing [NYSE: BA] X-45A unmanned aircraft completed its 52nd flight recently, demonstrating its ability to adapt to a realistic and changing wartime operational environment.

During the test flight, a Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) X-45A departed from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., climbed to 29,000 ft. and entered the base's test range. While flying the mission, several simulated Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) emitters were activated and the unmanned aircraft autonomously created its own flight plan to remain out of lethal range of the simulated SAM sites. Always managed by the pilot-operator, the X-45A then attacked its simulated priority ground target and showcased the ability to suppress enemy air defenses. Once the aircraft had conducted a simulated battle damage assessment, the X-45A safely returned to Edwards.

"The X-45A proved it could autonomously react to a dynamic threat environment while engaging a priority target," said David Koopersmith, Boeing J-UCAS X-45 vice president and program manager. "Onboard planning and decision capabilities like these will make our next unmanned system, the X-45C, a highly survivable platform for the warfighter."

The first X-45C will be completed in 2006, with flight-testing scheduled to begin in 2007. It will be 39 feet long with a 49-foot wingspan, cruise at 0.80 Mach at an altitude of 40,000 feet, carry a 4,500 pound weapon payload, and be able to fly a combat radius of more than 1,200 nautical miles. The software used and tested on the X-45A may be offered as a candidate for functionality in the development of the J-UCAS Common Operating System.

Boeing began its unmanned combat aircraft program in 1998. The following year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force chose Boeing to build two X-45A air vehicles and a mission control station under the J-UCAS Advanced Technology Demonstration Program.

Winner of a 2005 Flight International Aerospace Industry Award, the J-UCAS X-45 program is a Boeing/DARPA/Air Force/Navy effort to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value of an unmanned air combat system for the Air Force and the Navy. Operational missions for the services may include persistent strike; penetrating electronic attack; suppression of enemy air defenses; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/16/2009 12:21:50 PM
Everything in THAT test was pre-programmed and pre-cooked. I mean a true decision making capability in the face of true surprise conditions.
 
Don't try to pass off publicity flack nonsense as the real deal, poster. 

I'm waiting.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Sure there's hyperbole, Darth   6/16/2009 12:45:48 PM
You said machines have been making decisions for thousands of years...but then you talk about AI's and programs...so are you saying AI's and programs have been around for THOUSANDS of years?
 
It's the "thousands of years" statement...and that's why I tagged you with Bluewings Disease...both of you make simply absurd claims and then simply can't bring yourselves to back down from them.
 
For the last 30-some odd years cybernetic decision aids have been helping to decide/recommending courses of action....for about the same time programs have been running fairly complex systems, power grids, manufacturing, even the avionics/flight controls of the F-15.  But it hasn't been thousands of years...and there is ALWAYS a man-in-the-loop because as Herald says, Machines are STUPID.  They CAN decide, but they can make STUPID decisions, being simply if/then lines of code....not fully aware of what they are doing.

 
The Neural Net that learned the difference between cloudy and sunny days, rather than the difference between photo's with tanks and without tanks.....would be an example of a "stupid" machine.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 1:24:00 PM
You said machines have been making decisions for thousands of years...but then you talk about AI's and programs...so are you saying AI's and programs have been around for THOUSANDS of years?

It's the "thousands of years" statement...and that's why I tagged you with Bluewings Disease...both of you make simply absurd claims and then simply can't bring yourselves to back down from them.

You tagged me that way because you probably are not schooled in the subject matter of artificial intelligence and machine decision making capability. I'm not trying to insult you, but you are clearly not familiar. Also, I didn't say "programs" have been around thousands of years. I said machines have been making decisions for thousands of years. Again, GOOGLE, would suffice to prove this. Try the word "automata". Look up a guy named "Al-Jaziri". The history of artificial intelligence and machines that can make decisions goes back before Christ man. Again, this is something they teach FIRST.

It only looks far fetched when people are not familiar with the technology and history. So be careful before labelling peoples statements as absurd unless you know for sure which you didn't. What's absurd is the claim that a machine is "stupid". That is the most ignorant comment. Rather machines are more predictable that humans who do not always make rational logical decisions. A machine may fire all of it's weapons or use most of it's fuel and "decide" to RTB as that status is the cue for the decision. A human in that situation may decide that accomplishing the mission is so important that he/she will use their own aircraft as a weapon and smash it into the target for lack of weapons or continue a fight even though he/she wont have enough fuel to RTB. A machine will not do that if it is not programmed that way. So it has nothing to do with "stupid" and everything to do with the programming. You can make a machine as intelligent as you want.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 1:36:21 PM

Everything in THAT test was pre-programmed and pre-cooked. I mean a true decision making capability in the face of true surprise conditions.

Don't try to pass off publicity flack nonsense as the real deal, poster. 

I'm waiting.


 
Your wait was over the last time someone explained this to you 3 days ago...

warpig       6/13/2009 10:21:54 AM

Not the same as going into the silent unmapped unknown and in a changing in realtime IADS.

 

Helps if you KNOW, doesn't it?

 

Herald  




 
A very unreasonable criticism, for at least two reasons:
 
1)  It was basically a proof-of-concept initial test, not OT&E development of TTPs for an operational weapon system.  It doesn't have to show it is untouchable and devastatingly effective against the toughest imaginable threat to demonstrate that it most certainly has significant, realistic potential that can be realized through further development and improved future systems.
 
2)  There is no such thing in this world--and your favorite threat, China, absolutely will NOT be within any decade soon--a solely or even mostly mobile IADS where the various tracking and engagement units are mainly mobile, pop-up threats that are *unmapped* prior to engaging them or being engagement by them.  Our ability to geo-locate these IADS components is phenomenal and extremely rapid.  While there will always be the possibility of pop-up threats, and in general that possibility is increasing as threat IADS grow more modern and sophisticated, that is *not* the sole threat and in most cases that is only a low-probability (although high pucker-factor when it occurs) threat.  The standard case certainly is and will remain for quite some time yet, primarily fixed component IADS networks.
 
Relocatable threats, yes.  Silent, unknown, unmapped, changing in real-time, mobile threeats, no, not really.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Static targets that were pretaped and radiating.    6/13/2009 2:52:20 AM
Not the same as going into the silent unmapped unknown and in a changing in realtime IADS.
 
Helps if you KNOW, doesn't it?
 
Herald  
 


...if you have ever participated in a military training exercise or test, and I have many times, then you know that all of these scenarios are scripted to certain degree. The idea is to gather data about the outcomes with regard to specific situations that are designed to simulate a live battlespace. It's how you prove your concept. A lot of this proof today is being done on live battlefields BTW. So don't try to spin this again. You were wrong, it's been demonstrated conclusively, now move on to something relevant. Otherwise you will have to debate this with yourself as I am not going to get into a circular argument with you about something even a child could see. Below is another autonomous machine that has to be intelligent enough to "decide" which targets to attack...

Low Cost Autonomous Attack System

Lockheed Martin

LOCAAS Flying over a target after autonomously acquiring it by its LADAR sensor (Lockheed Martin Photo)The Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS) is currently in a final system development phase, as part of the US Air Force Wide Area Search Munition Program. LOCAAS is designed as an un-powered or powered, brilliant submunitions. The 36 inch long powered system weighs about 90 pounds, has a miniature 30 pound thrust turbo-jet engine, and a range beyond 100 nautical miles. It is equipped with a laser radar sensor, sophisticated image processing electronics, full authority flight control system and multi-mode warhead. 

Locaas Strikes at an SA-8 TargetLOCAAS is designed to attack high priority mobile or relocateable targets, armored or soft targets with high precision. The weapon can loiter at an altitude of 750 feet over the battlefield, flying at a speed of 200 knots for about 30 minutes, covering a footprint of 25 square nautical miles, and take out high-priority targets such as mobile air defenses, mobile surface/surface missile launchers and long range rocket systems. This weapon is particularly useful at the early stages of a conflict, when the exact locations of such targets is unknown and when operations of manned aircraft and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV) is too dangerous or too costly. LOCAS is equipped with a multimode, explosively-formed penetrator warhead and programmable fuse to engage the target according to its protection level. The warhead can be configured to explode into an armor piercing long rod penetrator, an aerostable slug against softer targets, or as fragments when engage exposed personnel and unprotected targets. The exact aimpoint and warhead mode are automatically determined by theLADAR fire control system.

LOCAAS' LADAR sensor can be used to guide smart munitions, as well as providing targeting and fire control for associated systems. Prior to the mission, the flight plan and general search area assigned for patrol are uploaded to the weapons. LADAR enables the weapon to find, track, identifies and engage specific target vehicles while ignoring other targets which are defined as "low priority" or "non-combatant". In tests, LOCAS searched a large area for SA-8 and Scud-B targets, detected but ignored T-72 tanks, which were defined as "low priority" targets, and finally located, identified and engaged the SA-8 mobile SAM targets. Four LOCAAS weapons can be carried as submunitions by standard SUU-64 tactical munitions dispenser, with or without Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), Four such bombs can be carried by F-16s, with a total load of 16 submunitions per aircraft. 20 LOCAAS weapons can be carried internally by F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Internal carriage can also be provided by B-1 Lancer, and B-2 Spirit bombers as well as by various land based systems, including advanced versions of Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) rocket Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missile. 

Other applications are considered for naval use, as part of the Lockheed Martin/US Navy VLAAS concept. As LOCAAS are released over the area of operation, they use Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) to navigate through several waypoints enroute to the assigned target area. LOCAAS can operate singularly or in coordinated "swarms", where they maintain open communications with each other and with the mission control. Swarms are providing real-time intelligence and live target information from a wide area of operation. When targets of opportunity or priority targets are located, when assigned an autonomous mission over enemy area, the swarm will "vote" about the best weapon positioned to engage it. Collaborative targeting is also provided by the use of beyond line of sight data Link, which communicates between the LOCAAS and remote operator, to sustain "man-in-the-loop" capability especially against moving targets.LOCAAS autonomous loitering weapon System (Lockheed Martin Photo)
 

-DA
 



-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Weapon proof is NOT scriupted training exercise and I'm still waiting.   6/16/2009 1:42:57 PM
Now cut the CRAP and address the point.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 1:46:48 PM

Now cut the CRAP and address the point.

 

Herald


NULL CONTENT
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    So Darth   6/16/2009 2:42:46 PM
I "Google" ole' Al--Jaziri....so you're telling me that a water raising device or a water clock are "making decisions?"
 
From Wiki: "An automaton (plural: automata or automatons) is a self-operating machine."  Self-operating is NOT self-aware or capable of making decisions.  Maintaining even; "Homeostasis is the property of a system, either open or closed, that regulates its internal environment and tends to maintain a stable, constant condition. " is not a decision-making system.  A homeostatic system simply responds to hydro-dynamic, or fluid, or aerodynamic pressures in such a manner as to maintain an equilibrium....it has NO CHOICE, pressure increases, temperature increases (Boyles Law) that in turn sparks another action, mechanical, electro-mechanical, chemical or the like...the system does not DECIDE to do anything, it simply reacts.
 
Decision making is DECIDING, in a choice the decision-making system chooses between options, after making an evaluation based on certain criteria.
 
So Bluewings/Darth again, just own up to the fact that you over-stated your case, we all do from time-to-time, and that machines have NOT been making decisions for THOUSANDS of years.  Machines have been in a position of deciding or recommending for several DECADES, not millenia.

If you can't own up to a simple mistake like this why should anyone believe you with your larger points?  You're backing yourself into this corner.  It's a small point, almost trivial, in fact it IS trivial in and of itself.  However, you and your ego can't seem to let it go...and that is a pity and implies that you don't monitor yourself real well.  So mayhap you need a cybernetic "agent" to help you decide on courses of action.....but no machines haven't been DECIDING on anything for thousands of years, unless you want to try to tell me that my GI Tract is somehow a lot more intelligent than I give it credit for.
 
Again, homeostatic systems are NOT deciding, they are REACTING, do not evaluate alternative courses of action and CHOOSE.  They obey the relevant Laws of Physics and behave in a deterministic manner...in a predictable deterministic manner.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy