The only person digging a credibility grave is you with yet ANOTHER strawman as the shovel. OBVIOUSLY if an aircraft has an engine failure in flight and especially right after take off or during landing then it's probably doomed. However, if the aircraft had an AI running in the background that monitored whether or not the aircraft was in controlled flight or not that could take over and recover the aircraft like the one that recovered the sub-scale F-18, there is a good chance that the aircraft might have survived. Again, you can't engineer out mishaps Herald. Nor does having a person on board mean you would be able to recover the aircraft. Not even if it was a 2.2 billion dollar B-2A. SO basically you have posted the strawman CPT Obvious that an engine failure will crash a UAV most of the time. Guess what, I AGREE!

 

Unfortunately, that isn't what I was talking about. What I am talking about are patches to the FCS software, mission order, target data, routes, threat library ect. Basically all the things you are choosing to ignore for some reason to try to make some point only you get in this argument you have been having with yourself. 

Try to think of it like an update for OS X or Windows when they find some critical issue that needs to be addressed vs

 your example which is more like a HDD failure. Apples and Oranges. 

you neither understand noe care to discuss on the merits the actual problems that robots have. You claimed autonomy. Since they have to report position and status, that was nonsense. You claimed self flight. I showed teleoperation either by super vision or dorect control. You claimed decision making, I showed you a menu driven decision treee architectiure and yoiu tried to byzz word your way out of it. In short you wasted another nine pages or so proving to my satisfaction and to many people here that you let your ignorance drive you forward blithely ignoring the way things REALLY work. Wven those who think of you as a friend and tried to speak with you in a friendly manner had to look at the stuff and nonsense you posted and try to correct you on some of your grosser errors.

 

Well I don't call you friend. I tell you that you are not speaking truth when you aren't, and that you don't understand concepts when you don't. I don't know why I waste my time doing this; but I sort of consoder it a teaching opportunity like your many errors on ballistics and the way aircraft operate. Your wrong ideas about UAS systems and robots in general could actually harm people, if adopted, which is why I suppose I do it. I've seen ineptoids and amateurs like you kill too many people promising things they cannot deliver, or espousing ideas that don't work in the real world.^1.     

Herald

 

^1 don't try the canard about the rpgs from freighters again. That was another TECHNICAL argiment you lost. Legal issues are the only hold up, there. I'll stack that idea's feasibility against your insane stupidity of a nuclear armed UCAV any day. .

 

 

One more thing. I knew exactly what you were talking about poster. I just showed you that it doesn't matter. Most casualties were loss of control issues, which is what I said from the beginning and that you were too clueless to understand. Its the SIMPLE things that trip you up constantly; which is why I'm thankful you aren't in a position to shape policy.

 

Herald

Again, enjoy your self imposed strawman argument. Go get help dude. Meanwhile I'll keep telling you what we are doing in industry and on the battlefield since obviously you don't have direct exposure or knowledge of current events and your preference is to keep these personally directed flame wars going on. This is a open Forum, not a PDR, CDR or policy making session. That you take it that way is amazing. 

Oh,and Nuclear UAV vs Missiles in Civilian Hands on Commercial Shipping? Lets see, first, it wasn't my suggestion, I merely opened the topic up for discussion and in fact it was a USN Admiral who suggested that. MEANWHILE, you are the only human being in the entire world who thinks issuing rocket launchers to civilian merchants is appropriate. Thats obviously because you have no experience with these weapons, have never practiced EOF for real and generally don't know what you are talking about. All of this yet I can show you stories where Glock 17s and Fire Hoses proved to be enough.

You have been told many times by just about everybody now. You post good content when you stick to facts and leave out your personal views of others. You aren't right above all other post. You merely post things that should be taken into consideration. WHen you learn that this isn't a who's right contest perhaps you can join the rest of us in the exchange of ideas. Until then you are stuck in your own Herald trap. Get over it man Geez...

link width="425" height="344">

-DA 

Notice that you did not address once the loss of control issues that continue to plague the active UAV force?

 

We know who the one who is current and technical here is, Ruben.

 

You aren't it.

 

So stow the bilge and address the point or be silent.

Why do we continue to lose UAVs in a low threat environment at rates that far exceed losses in operations by manned aircraft recently in high threat environments?

 

Well?

Stuck on stupid you are and remain.  If you don't think HOW you fight is a policy decision then you are just CRAZY as in insane.

 

I believe somebody already mentioned France 1940, and I've brought up the example of Vietnam, where morons wrote the rules of engagement, not understanding that the TECHNOLOGY wasn't designed for those rules..

 

When the technology doesn't fit the fantasy you cooked up for yourself, poster, and its demonstrated plainly why it doesn't, then your persistence in asserting your crazy position only leads to the conclusion that not only have you no clue as to limits of bandwidth, programming language, mechanical reliability in the absence of direct human supervision, etc. etc. 

 

But you must fantasize a lot.

 

I wonder if you really know what you are talking about?

 

No I don't. You are exactly like Blue Wings; no facts just bias and not even justified bias.

 

At least he's driven by nationalism. All you have is ego.    

 

Tell me, how does it feel to be wrong all the damned time? Must galvanize you into some kind a neurotic defense mechanism.

 

But back to the point. Explain the high loss rates in benign threat environments, the escalating unit costs as we tryn to fix those defects and the still poor performance results when the drones cointinue to hit the WRONG targets at far higher rates per sortie than equivalent manned systems?  

 

well? I'm still waiting poster. You never want to answer THOSE questions. You just want to resort to cgharacter assassination and hope that your wild mud sticks

 

Problem fopr you, poster, is that not only can I walk the technical walk, bit I can call you on every pice of BS you try. 

 

CREF above. Answer the questions posed or be silent. I recommend the latter because you don't know.

 

Herald

 

.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently you are the only one who missed the point about the UAS deployed not went to war as PROTOTYPES AND ACTD and did not enter service after a full development cycle in the way manned aircraft do because of demand. What you need to ask yourself is why are UAS flight hours skyrocketing and reliability constantly improving? Why are all the Field Grade and Flag officers clamoring to get more UAS? The reason is that the benefit of their use outweighs the cost of such use. 

You can twist, spin, curse and whine all you want. Like it or not, UAS will steadily encroach on manned roles including a2a by the end of next decade and all the vitriol in the world will not stop it. Now, go back and read my post and see where I've addressed reliability issues. If not, then just agree to disagree and move on. I'm just a "poster" remember who couldn't possibly actually know anything so why do you pay me so much attention...lol

-DA 

between he two of you, Herald and Darth.

 

I would submit that Herald has NEVER said that the role of unmanned a/c will NOT grow.  Simply that unmanned a/c are not ready for prime time action....and aren't likely to be any time soon.

 

This seems to rankle you, Darth.  You and Herald are arguing, it seems, over a TIMELINE, not the ultimate destination.  You seem to believe that, with the capacity of autonomous decision-making are a near-term thing, and Herald objects.

 

Herald raises some good questions about capacity and the loss rates of such a/c....you are far too wed to the concept, it seems, and posit in-flight software patches and the like.  Certainly they are POSSIBLE, but not to likely.

 

And that seems the nub of it, you say "likely" and Herald says, POSSIBLE, at best....in between you insult one another.

 

I'd say step back and ask "When is an autonomous air combat vehicle possible and what do I mean by 'autonomous?'"  You may have be closer to one another's position than you think....

I'm afraid you've been hit in the head with a shovel....certainly Predators and micro-UAV's have a huge role on the modern battlefield...but it is till a tremendously limited role, of reconnaissance and very limited, man-in-the-loop strike...they are NO WHERE near ready for a combat role...there isn't enough bandwidth to support satellite tele-operation for large numbers of UCAV's and UCAV's aren't nearly smart enough to be SEAD, or CAS or Interdiction a/c without humans being available...and all that ignores the higher loss rate of UAV's....in short if you think that in the next 5 years that UAV's/UCAV's will be encroaching on armed combat in the air, you're nuts.  They have a great future in the next few years expanding their recon role and certainly as decoys and sensors and E/W platforms their role will grow, but in either a2a or a2g a human will be necessary for a long time....and because bandwidth is still low, relatively speaking, tele-operation of UCAV's is not a near-term option.

No, you just aren't familiar. The roles are not "limited". These UAS play very widespread roles. You are also wrong about satellite BW. You are wrong about AI not being smart enough and I didnt say in 5 years a UCAV will take over a2a combat. I said it would be possible to have a purpose built a2a capable UCAV in 5 year IOC. Again, this is all stuff I've seen for myself in real life. So if you disagree thats fine. Just don't say I told you so when I post the roll outs and demonstrations in near real time. If you only had any idea. The only thing we have left is refinement and optimization. You will see...

-DA 

Exactly my point. I'll be careful to be extra super clear next time even though I think most people understand what I'm saying.

-DA 

More education for the amateur.

 

You need to quit making excuses, BSing nonsense all over the place (CREF above and the REFUTATION underlined.all over the place, and sidebarring and answer the questions I asked you dorectly.

 

Now can you do that or do you need to be reminded again why you are not a serious credible commentator?

 

Herald.

 

 

 Do you have a selective memory? Do you read or actually try to understand what people right or do you simply troll the boards looking to pick fights? I seriously can't tell. If you paid any attention you would know that I discussed some of the ways UAV in flight problems are being dealt with. One of them was this...

 

There are several others and they are all being or will be incorporated into the latest FCS. And why you think reliability hasn't improved just plain shows you don't do research. And the current UCAVs that are at war now were not done prototyping in 1991 nor where they at war then. Predator, Reaper and G-Hawk all went into battle as ACTD or prototypes and didn't benefit from the same kind of testing that manned platforms do.

Get over yourself.

-DA 

 

Scripted and pre-programmed single event as I WELL know  that was an actual failure of proof of concept.. The test was not repeatable. Why?

 

YOU still don't know what a proof of concept test is do you?

 

STUCK on ignorant..

 

Herald