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: BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes
maruben    6/12/2009 6:00:08 PM
Friday, June 12, 2009 BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes Europeans make move amid U.S. export ban on stealth fighter By JUN HONGO Staff writer Japan should consider adopting the Eurofighter Typhoon as its next mainstay fighter jet even if the U.S. lifts its ban on exporting the stealthy F-22 Raptor, representatives of a U.K.-based defense and aerospace company said Thursday in Tokyo. The Air Self-Defense Force is eager to replace about 50 of its aging F-4s with the high-tech F-22 for its agility and high stealth capabilities. But recent reports indicate Washington is unlikely to sell its latest and greatest airplane to just anyone, while others say the ¥25 billion plane is too expensive. Andy Latham, BAE System Inc. vice president in charge of Typhoon exports, told reporters that since the Typhoon costs only about ¥10 billion, it presents "an effective non-U.S. solution" with significant benefits for Japan. The Typhoon, made by a consortium of European manufacturers, is already used by the air forces in Europe. Although export of the F-22 would be strictly controlled to prevent its military technology from falling into the wrong hands, Latham said selling the Typhoon will take a "no black box approach." The biggest difference between the two planes will be the "ability to offer Japan's industry a significant package of work," he said, explaining that the consortium could allow licensed manufacturing of the fighter in Japan and integration with Japanese equipment. As for the Typhoon's lack of stealth capability, however, BAE System's Craig Penrice said stealth technology should not be considered an issue. "Stealth is not the silver bullet answer that some might have you think," the former Royal Air Force pilot said, adding that the Typhoon has overall countermeasures against radar detection, including reduced infrared emissions. By comparison, stealth is "not cheap, not low maintenance and not fully exportable," he said. In total, Tokyo is considering six candidates to replace its F-4EJ fighters, including the U.S. F-35, which is still under development. BAE has been pitching the Typhoon to Japan for years, although Tokyo and Washington have a strong defense alliance that leaves little room for non-U.S. bidders, Latham said. Despite recent reports indicating the U.S. is unlikely to provide the F-22 to Japan, Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada said Tuesday the fighter "remains an option that will be pursued." Japan's strong interest in the aircraft is based not only on its capabilities but also on its compatibility with the U.S. Air Force, which the ASDF would work closely with in the event Japan is attacked. Some observers also say Tokyo is eager to update its aircraft with the most up-to-date fighter available so it can claim air superiority over China, which is continuing to build its military power. Japan's current mainstay fighter is the U.S.-designed F-15 Eagle. P-3C patrols start Kyodo News A Maritime Self-Defense Force P-3C surveillance plane made its first patrol Thursday over the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden off Somalia, the Defense Ministry said. The aircraft is one of two P-3Cs dispatched last month on the first overseas mission by MSDF patrol planes. They are supporting the two MSDF destroyers that have been patrolling for pirates in the gulf since late March. The P-3Cs will gather information on suspicious ships to pass on to the destroyers and the commercial vessels they escort. The information will also be conveyed to navy vessels from other countries operating in the area, according to the ministry. After arriving in Djibouti late last month, the P-3Cs had been conducting training flights. The aircraft are using the international airport in Djibouti as their operational base. The destroyers have been escorting Japanese-related commercial vessels.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT
DarthAmerica    Warpig Reply    6/16/2009 5:57:19 PM

Suppose I give you three choices, A, B, C.

Suppose choice A guarantees 100% destruction of target but 100% chance loss of robot?

Suppose choice B guarantees 75% destruction of target, but 50% chance loss of robot? 

Suppose choice C guarantees 50% destruction of target but 25% chance of return of robot?

Which choice does the robot make?

It will follow minimax pre-programmed choice logic and follow C because that is the profit loss driver that most artilect decision trees use.




A MAN will see Bin Laden on the bridge and choose option A.






 

So what if the programmer insets a line ahead of the minmax preprogrammed choice logic subroutine that says the equivalent of "If Target = BinLadin, Then Goto Attack Subroutine"?

 

It seems to me then at that point, the "decision" you're looking for is made.

 

It's as if you're trying to argue that we can not yet program machines to completely duplicate a human being in all circumstances.  If that's what you are arguing, then 1) I'm pretty sure not even DA is arguing that we can (and DA, please say otherwise if you are), 2) that level of human emulation is not necessary to be sufficiently successful in the mission of being a useful weapon system, and 3) then this is another example of how you seem to set up something quite similar to a strawman to knock down, instead of what DA is actually saying about autonomy in UCASs.



 

Warpig,

I've always stipulated that the function of the UCAV will dictate the complexity of it's AI. You write the code to deal with the inputs you think the machine will need to process. Are there situations where an AI would not be able to properly interpret things? Of course. However, if you have been thorough enough, you can make these cases very rare exceptions such that more often than not, the UCAV behaves as expected. This is a continuous process. Every flight hour will provide data that can be included in future patches for the entire fleet.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/16/2009 6:02:20 PM

He's truly autonomous..

 

GOTCHA!

 

Herald




 
...and do we actually *want* our UCASs to have the ability to ignore limits we place on them in the same way a pilot can ignore orders to not attack a target unless he has been granted permission to do so?  If so, maybe we should insert a randomizer into the decision process, and then it might do what we want it to do, but then again it might "decide" to do something else instead.
 
Swell.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    More spin   6/16/2009 6:02:26 PM

He's truly autonomous..

GOTCHA!

Herald


He could also chose to strafe his parking ramp too or defect with the aircraft. We can play gotcha games all day. He could choose to kill himself too...




...what's your point? Are you being antagonistic for the sake of it? 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

locutus       6/16/2009 8:10:03 PM




The F117 had stellar performance against the Iraqis. But when it was used against 4th rate Serbs, the enemy managed to shoot one down with an obsolete SAM system. Against a top notch 1st rate opponent the results I would expect be worse.





Then the F117 was unexpectedly withdrawn from service. Makes me wonder if it was due to the fact that details about the Serb shootdown became too widely known among potential enemies.






I expect similar with respect to UAV's, stellar performance against lightly armed illiterate goat herders, not so stellar performance against someone who know how to do a half decent job. Against top notch enemies "let's not go there".









Completely apples-and-oranges and also completely overblowing the implications of the one F-117 lost.  Paradoxically, it's because the Iraqis *were* trying to stop our air campaign and *were* trying to shootdown everything they could that they were rapidly destroyed and could not shoot down any F-117s (although they did shoot down several times as many of our aircraft in total than the Serbs did), while it's because the Serbians were *not* trying to stop our air campaign and were *not* trying to shootdown everything they could that they happened to be in the right place at the right time to shootdown one F-117.  The Serbs displayed outstanding craft and understanding of how to stay hidden from our attacks, as well as how to conduct infrequent pop-up attacks as fast as possible against targets of opportunity, followed by a shut down and immediate un-ass of the area.  This preserved the potential threat that at any time they might achieve local surprise, pop-up, and engage an isolated single target.  Thus they retained for the duration of the air war the threat of being able to shoot down one of our aircraft at a moment's notice, and achieve a very high likelihood of gaining a few victories while creating a very low likelihood of achiving many victories or of denying us the ability to accomplish our missions.  The price for adopting this guerilla-war-style air defense was that they totally conceded overall air superiority to us and we bombed all the targets we planned to bomb.  In return, their air defense assets substantially survived the air campaign and in the meantime they did manage to achieve a couple successes, one most notably being against an F-117.  As for actually being able to shoot down an F-117 with relatively ancient technology (SA-3s guided by a LOW BLOW after first detecting and tracking the F-117 with something like a SPOON REST or FLAT FACE or whatever target acquisition radar they used), there's nothing amazing or special about it:  It is a given that when you are 15km from the SAM battalion just as it turns on, it will see you, lock you up, and shoot you before you can get away.  The F-117 was withdrawn because it was falling apart.  One broke up in flight at an airshow and I don't think it even did any manuevering.


The pilot also flew the same route on 3 consecutive days.  Anyone with a rifle could have shot him down.
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/17/2009 4:44:18 PM
The US House votes to save F-22 in the Armed Services Committee's 2010 defense spending bill < link > You already know that the US Senate Appropriation committee is doing the same thing.
 
Things are looking favorable to Japanese F-22 bid now.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Herald TRAP.   6/17/2009 5:22:57 PM




He's truly autonomous..




GOTCHA!




Herald







He could also chose to strafe his parking ramp too or defect with the aircraft. We can play gotcha games all day. He could choose to kill himself too...














...what's your point? Are you being antagonistic for the sake of it? 




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

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/17/2009 5:40:39 PM

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 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Too stubborn to learn.   6/17/2009 7:19:00 PM
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
 
 
 

 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Typing again. Too stubborn to learn.   6/17/2009 7:25:06 PM

You just don;'t get it. Permanently stuck in GOD fantasy mode don't cut it. You are wrong., you haven't been right in 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 adaptive learning.

Show me a machine that goes against programming.

 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
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/17/2009 8:39:53 PM
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 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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