I'm teaching you, logic as well as how to THINK. MEN can go against programming.

Herald

Well thank you but I think I have going against programming and how to think well covered. And I'd personally prefer none of my robots going outside the bounds of their programming. Would you want your computer to randomly start forwarding emails from your sent inbox to people selected at random from your contacts list? No you would not. 

The benefit of a machine is that it can store and instantly recall vast amounts of data and perform dangerous and mundane repetitive task with consistent results and much faster than a biological organism. It also doesn't take as long to "learn" something. Finally, it isn't limited by human endurance. These are the features that we seek to take advantage of. No where does it say, "Might randomly blow up a guy that looked like Bin Laden" even though you told the machine not to fire on targets outside of certain grid lines. If it did, that would be a major problem. It's a major problem when men do that too and I've experienced first hand when men choose to disobey orders for what they think is the greater good. More often than not that will get you locked up regardless of the result and is nothing like the few handful of stories where the actions were celebrated.

Now, no one to my knowledge is questioning that men can violate orders? Also, no one is asking for a machine that picks what orders to follow either. So, again, what exactly was your point besides stating quite obvious trivia?

-DA 

You just don;'t get it. Permanently stick in GOD mode don't cut it. yoiu are wrohng. tou hgaven't been roght ion months. You name call and throw out paragraphs of bull flop secretly hoping you can bull your way through.

 

Doesn't work.

 

Show me an example of adaptivbe learning.

 

Show me a machine that goes against propgramming.

 

 Show me true autonomy.

 

 Show me these or quit proclaiming you are an expert pr even know. You aren't. You can't even tell the difference between decision and choice or how machines could be designed to perform either. I talk about decision trees and problem solution paths and you go huh? If/then statements are a complete mustery to you as well as concepts of fuzzy and sharp  logics.

 

I pity you. You are so substandard when it comes to actual thinking things through, that I am shocked. 

 

Herald

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also don't get to change the parameters of choices I give you. Only a MAN can do that.

 

Still don't get it, do you?

 

Got you again.

 

Herald

 

Herald, you are being a prick for the sake of it. Everyone sees this in case you haven't noticed. But go ahead and flame away with your irrelevant strawman arguments. GOD FORBID you ever admit to being wrong or that you actually try to discuss minus the vitriol. This debate between you and I is officially over. I do not intend to let you continue to flame and insult me and further derail the thread. Why is it that you have Heorot, Warpig, ReactivE and Rocky all trying to reign you in? What's the common denominator in the threads that go south these days?

Dude, just follow the forum rules and get over whatever it is that makes you behave this way. 

Good Luck

-DA 

and for the twentieth time  save your advice for yourself, you hypocrite and . I don't take advice from the unqualified or from those more guilty of what they complain about in others. So about that you might as well shut up: you don't fool anyone with THAT ACT or pretense either.either.

 

Your latest concession of defeat on thew merits since you had nothing oin point to debate or any sensible comments to make after your argument was destroyed is as usual accepted.

 

Don;'t bother to reply, it would simply be a confirmed  sign of ego defense and would be correctly interpreted as a sign of your neurotic need to claim "I'm right, and everybody else is wrong."

 

Herald

 

Your latest concession of defeat on thew merits since you had nothing oin point to debate or any sensible comments to make after your argument was destroyed is as usual accepted.

Don;'t bother to reply, it would simply be a confirmed  sign of ego defense and would be correctly interpreted as a sign of your neurotic need to claim "I'm right, and everybody else is wrong."

Wow.  Simply pathetic.  I don't know why SYSOPS has given you so many chances to behave decently.  DA learned and adapted, why can't you?

The Serbs fired over 700 SAM's at Coalition aircraft in Operation Allied Force and managed to shoot down 1x F-16 and 1x F-117.

 

THIS is the effect of an IADS system. Just like the Iraqi's firing useless AAA into the night sky, all it does is impress fools....

 

 

 

Again, the fact that Japanese would pick an Eurofighter instead of a F35, shows that F35 is probably too much compromized for air to air combat.
F35 huge internal bay (and frontal surface), its low T/W ratio and highly loaded wing maybe not compensate for its better level of stealth.

What? You think his false manners and pseudo-polite language obviates his gross misstatements, logic errors, fallacies, illogic and continued personal attacks, instead of discussing the case at hand on the merits with substantive FACTS? Curious.

 

I just loved his latest desperate citation on the Global Gawk glideback bringback as his proof of one battle damaged UAV recovered that I demanded he supply. That was on top of his "broken wing F-18" test this past June a year ago.. This is the CRAP and ignoirance I deal with every time he posts his "proofs"..

 

He doesn't know, WP. Its that simple. You'd think he'd realize that is the problem, by now. 

Herald

.

I don't know enough about it to know whether he does know or doesn't know.  But then, I don't really care whether he does know or doesn't know.  What I care about is the content of what he's saying, the content of what you're saying, and the content of what anyone else says.  What is interesting is facts and opinions about things like a recovered Global Hawk, about a tested one-wing recovery, etc.  What would also be interesting would be facts and opinions that explain why incidents like those two are not examples of something else (I'm still not sure what that "something else" i,s but it definitely seems to be at least two different things depending on who is writing about it).

 

What is NOT particularly interesting, useful, nor what I would likely consider an effectual counterargument to anything, is 1) a post that routinely insults the poster personally (I admit there are occasions where I devolve into insults myself, and I do agree that they can sometimes be deserved), or 2) a post that focuses on whether the poster is qualified, experienced, or knowledgable about *ANYTHING* (to include the subject), or 3) a post that in effect does little more than gainsay the poster with a few words saying he's wrong, that contains a link or three to something or another that often to me doesn't really refute anything and often leaves me uncertain as to what its value is as part of the discussion, usually because it is 4) a post that fails to offer a clear explanation of the meaning and relevance of the counterargument that may refute the poster's position.

 

I do agree that sometimes a quick one-liner and a "mere" gainsay of some posts is sufficient and all they deserve.  But if you're going to routinely respond to posts by posting a link and a one-liner that you assume readers will understand all the implications of, then I suggest you are only posting to those few people who know enough about the subject to be able to fill in the blanks with their own knowledge--in which case they ought to already know whatever it is that you think refutes the poster's argument in the first place, and thus you are only posting to those you don't need to post to.  If you are interested in showing ignorant readers like me why you're right and the poster's wrong, it would help if you didn't assume I know as much as you do about whatever you are saying, and explained it a little more at a 5th-grade level so I can get it.  I know I would appreciate that, and I suspect others would as well.

 

Typhoon was specifically designed for A2A, the multirole capability was added later and was more of an Afterthought. The F35 on the other hand, was specifically designed to be a multirole aircraft. F35 would be better for offensive air operations over enemy territory where an IADS exists, but typhoon is better at A2A and when operating in a more neutral airspace, or even after cruise missiles have destroyed even some of the IADS would have an advantage.

 

This is very true; and since the JASDF's mission is notionally a defensive one, an air defense fighter is more in keeping with its charter.

 

Of course, this is mostly moot anyway, since in real life the only people suggesting that Japan should "pick an Eurofighter instead of a F35" is BAe who are trying to sell them to Japan.  Japan will most likely wind up purchasing AESA-equipped F-15s, and use the threat of "considering" the Typhoon as leverage to get a better deal.

 

 

You might as well hang a sign around your neck that says "I'm a noob, but think I am an expert because I have read about planes on the internet!"

 

 

The days when a marginally more maneuverable aircraft had a meaningful advantage in aerial combat are long gone.  Close turning "dogfights" were a product of aircraft fighting with weapons that were really only effective when employed within relatively restrictive engagement parameters.  It took a lot of work to line up a decent Pk shot against an opponent who was trying to do the same to you. 

 

Modern jets' maneuverabiliy is already limited primarily by what their pilot can withstand and modern weapon systems have extremely large effective engagement zones.  Marginal improvements at the very fringe of the flight envelope just don't mean much anymore when few fights will ever reach the merge, and if they do, will likely result in a mutual kill within seconds.  (and let me be clear, the F-35 is a VERY maneuverable jet)

 

Helmet mounted sights and HOB missiles take the fun out of "dogfighting."  Go read some interviews of pilots who have actually used helmet mounted sights and see what they have to say about "dogfighting."  Assuming you are talking about two high-end jets with helmet mounted sights you will have a mutual kill almost instantly.  In most cases you can take a high Pk shot well before the merge, if for some reason you don't, you can expect to take a shot before you have completed your first turn.  With the F-35's DAS system it is debatable whether the aircraft would even bother to turn in a WVR fight. Why turn the whole aircraft at ~9Gs when you can just fire a missile that is going to be able to turn at 50+ Gs?

 

While I am on the subject, the questions raised by fanboys about the F-35's maneuverability are similar to the questions raised about its speed.  

 

I will spell it out for you, The F-35 is fast.  It is very fast.  

I am not talking about some glossy brochure listing a theoretical top speed under pefect conditions.  I am talking about a combat loaded aircraft under real world conditions.  Under those conditions the F-35 is a stellar performer.  

 

It has exceptional acceleration in the parts of the flight envelope that modern aircraft actually operate in.  Its absolute top speed is lower than that of many 4th generation aircraft, but unlike those aircraft it can actually achieve its top speed carrying a combat load, while they will never come close to their top speed. (Even when flying a lightly loaded jet that could achieve M1.5+, actually doing so would waste so much fuel you would be on your way home before you could do anything useful.) 

 

The F-35 improves performance where improved performance is needed.  With a combat load it is just as maneuverable and a fair bit faster than most 4th generation types, but the F-35 also has stealth, the world's most capable sensors, computers, interfaces, datalinks, and EW capabilities.

 

Talking about out maneuvering an F-35 just shows you are still thinking with a knife-fight mentality in a gun-fight age.