Titanium 3D printing

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15256008/3d-printed-titanium-parts-boeing-dreamliner-787

Composite 3D printing

http://www.engineering.com/3DPrinting/3DPrintingArticles/ArticleID/14869/Impossible-Objects-Launches-Composite-3D-Printer-with-Fortune-500-Customers.aspx

3D printing an engine

https://qz.com/667477/ge-fires-up-worlds-largest-commercial-jet-engine-using-3d-printed-metal-parts/

Anyways the UCAV ( F-16s or other ) would be used mainly to launch AMRAAMs.

yeah that’s the F-35 argument, “the missiles will do the turning”
the major difference is once your run out of missiles. the R-77 is said to be able to shoot down the AMRAAM, my guess is in the future every missile will have that ability (mostly a matter of programming), at that point you’re just trading missiles and it comes down to pure numbers and the ability to dodge incoming missiles (which UCAVs do better than manned aircraft)
and don’t get me started on lasers, once those go mainstream they’ll greatly limit the use of missiles and WVR combat will become a death sentence, it’ll be matter of laser range, numbers and strength vs armour I guess?

but as I’m arguing by then air combat will be all UCAVs and losses will become irrelevant
so will stealth, as when you get WVR optical sensors will still detect you. stealth will be great for avoiding fights or defences, but in air combat it’s pretty much useless as the enemy will ignore the F-22 and F-35 sneak attacks and just go for the AWACS and tankers

I think they’d simulate many possible tactics on computers and in the simulator to figure out the best ones.

that’s what Google Go playing AI did, it played a trillion games against itself (or variations of itself) and that way came up with superhuman tactics
I’m guessing it’ll do the same with RC F-22s and Sukhois and develop real life superhuman tactics
the hardest part will be figuring out which tactic to use. but as with gaming AI, my guess is computers are already better at that than humans (because they compute more data faster and without mistakes) and in the near future they’ll become unbeatable by human standards

The F-35s share raw data between themselves to perform the fusion. They need the hi bandwith MADL for that. But it is surely possible to use the link-16 with a lower level of fusion and still be effective.

sure, the data sent to an AMRAAM isn’t raw data either, it’s just target coordinates
a UCAV doesn’t have to see the raw data image, it can rely on another aircraft to process that information
all it needs is the target location, then it can engage it

They will surely make computer simulations to test tactics using manned and unmanned fighters. Is it better to send the F-35s first to take out the enemy fighters, and then send the UCAV F-16s to finish of the other easiest targets ( with F-35 sensor help ) or is it better to send the UCAV F-16s first, knowing they would have a high chance of being shot down ( the F-35s staying a bit behind providing sensor coverage ), and then finish off with the F-35s?

they won’t actually, using UCAVs for air combat is taboo
I read an article about how the USAF tested remotely controlled F-4s in dogfights against manned F-4s. they found that after a learning curve the remote operators would win pretty much every fight because they could turn sharper than their manned opponents. when they got in a fight all they had to do was get in a turning match and they’d get the advantage

er, Sanem, you seem to believe that AI “flying” in a simulator is the same as flying a real machine… and if you’re at that, it’s hopeless

good point, in a simulator a computer can “cheat” by having perfect situational awareness. as the world is digital, it has the ability to receive all information

the thing is that the USAF and LMT say the F-35 can autonomously detect, track and identify both enemy and friendly aircraft, even visually
if that is true you could upload a dogfighting AI to it tomorrow and it would outperform any manned F-35 by simple virtue of being able to endure more G forces or at least for longer

but more importantly it would have total situational awareness, as it would in a simulator
today the F-35 probably already has this ability, but will have trouble communicating this information to the pilot, who’s still “only human”
the best pilot in the world can’t be aware of more than 2 or 3 other aircraft at the same time and perfectly adjust his flight path and tactics accordingly
a computer however can do this, the F-35 probably can, yet it’s being “dumbed down” because the human pilot needs to be in control

plus as described a dogfighting AI is naturally scary to a human pilot because its remorseless, has superhuman reflexes, knows no fear…
I’ve seen pro gamers hold their ground against advanced bots in computer games, but this is life or death we’re talking about, and the human pilot will get scared/nervous a lot faster than a computer will, and that gets you killed

However, as djcross said at the beginning, something like 2050 might be more relevant (although, I think in service by 2040 and flying air 2 ground trials now).

oh I’m sure the USAF and others already have advanced UCAVs in service, they’re just top secret

Personally, I think a2a is the last preserve of the combat pilot and carries some political energy of its own -so not for more than a generation in that case.

I agree. which is the problem, if one day the other guy decides to try something else
the technology is already here, it’s just a matter of someone taking the initiative

The development cycle for highly sophisticated military aircraft these days is in the 15 to 20+ year range, from program initiation to IOC, and that’s if everything goes fairly well.

yes but that’s for building an aircraft from scratch. I’m talking about upgrading the autopilot software

Boeing demonstrated in 2005 that a computer could autonomously detect an unplanned threat, decide which aircraft would be best positioned to attack, ask for confirmation from a human operator and then execute the attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45#X-45A

last year a graduate student developed an AI that could be an expert human pilot every single time in dogfighting simulations
http://www.popsci.com/ai-pilot-beats-air-combat-expert-in-dogfight

we don’t need to develop this, it’s already here. all we need to do is put it in aircraft and that’s it

Also, in most countries (certainly in the U.S.) saving money 20 or 30 years in the future doesn’t produce much investment money in the current budget.

they won’t have to, companies will develop it and offer it
Air Force generals won’t like it, but when politicians get wind of it that will change things
and if the West won’t do it, poorer countries will, if only because it will be so much cheaper

Also, the money you expect to save by eliminating the pilot is eaten up by the requirement to train and man the ground-based technicians that plan and fly/maintain the aircraft (save one U-2 pilot, add 5-7 people in the Ground Control Station).

1) if you automate existing planes, you’ll need as many ground crew to do maintenance

2) but you’ll lose the pilot, and you’ll need hardly any training flights anymore, which will cut the number of flights down by like 90% outside of combat tours. according to a Time article an F-16 costs about $22,514 per hour to fly and flies about 300 hours a year, in peace time. if you automate that F-16 and scrap 90% of the flights, then the cost goes from $6.6 million to $500k per year. on top of that a computer is less likely to make mistakes, like fly into the ground or collide with other aircraft, plus you don’t lose a multi-million Dollar investment if your pilot dies, nor do you need to send out an extremely expensive and risky rescue mission if he gets shot down over enemy territory

3) the USAF is already looking to have on human operator control multiple UAVs. and landing will be fully automated, so there will be no longer a need for crews on the ground to land the aircraft (btw a large percentage of USAF UAV losses are due to pilot error on landing. the US Army suffers much fewer such losses because it has already automated the landings)

Besides, what happens when the adversary hacks your system and tells your unmanned systems to shut down?? That’s not an insignificant worry in these times!

it is. which is a problem considering all manned aircraft today are digitally controlled, as are all satellites, weapons…
anyone who can hack an unpiloted aircraft will probably be able to hack all those others as well, they all have datalinks

Setting up an artificial intelligence that will be able to manage the aircraft and apply decisions in real time in combat is not years but decades away.

as I posted above, such software has been around for over 10 years

problem being, most of the time, the visual ID is still required.. how do you ID visually when your only eyes are hundreds or thousands of miles away?

Facebook knows when I post a picture if I’m in it, as well as any of my friends
I’m guessing by comparison recognizing a tank is a lot easier
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI13/paper/viewFile/6435/6839

but that doesn’t keep an automated aircraft from doing the same that human pilots do today, which is to contact mission control and confirm the target
unless you’re flying deep into enemy territory and want to maintain radio silence, but then you’re likely hitting GPS coordinates or targets likes missile launchers and radar, and yes computers have become pretty damn good at recognizing those, the F-35 does that automatically

it is about having an aircraft flown and maneuvered by a computer in a rapidly evolving environment, which is simply a huge task to do. The amount of information to manage in real time is enormous, even for the latest computers available, providing you were able to program them properly which is even worse

take a look at how the Tesla’s drive in traffic, where there are waaaaaay more factors to take into account
by comparison flying or even dogfighting is super easy because of the limited number of actors involved (aircraft + missiles)

You are watching way too many sci-fi movies.

I read an article published by Boeing on what their software could do in 2005
if you run a multi-billion Dollar company that develops some of the most advanced autonomous aircraft on the planet, then do please tell us why your program failed where Boeing succeeded

The EMP would make all these robot wunder craft useless.

and likely fry every computer on every missile and manned aircraft as well, since they’d all have the same level of EMP resistance
if that’s your worry, you better get those Sabres out of the graveyard

QUOTE=Hotshot;2374625]For a2a I’m not sure the link-16 would be fast enough, but it may well be considering that the AIM-120D can get its targetting data from link-16.[/QUOTE]

I’m guessing by “datalink not fast enough” you mean that the F-35 pilot will manually steer the F-16s in a dogfight?
because at BVR combat that’s not relevant
and WVR, as I mentioned software running on a Rasberry Pie will let a computer outfight any human pilot
http://www.zdnet.com/article/raspberry-pi-ai-vs-usaf-colonel-guess-who-wins-in-sim-dogfight/

especially when datalinked with an F-35 with the latest sensors they’ll kick ass
and you don’t need much data for that, all you have to know is the location of all aircraft in the area (simple GPS location + altitude), their bearing and speed (again a simple string of numbers), and the computers will compute from there how best to engage
there’s no need for large sized data streams with detailed images of the enemy, an AMRAAM doesn’t need that either to do its job