Human occupant space fighters are pretty stupid

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Chew Toy McCoy, May 16, 2017.

  1. Chew Toy McCoy, May 16, 2017
    Last edited: May 16, 2017

    Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #1
    Just sayin with the drones we have now I don't know why we would need to put people in space fighters, but there they are in just about every space scifi movie defying future logic. In fact I'd say humans are the weakest link in space travel and exploration, but lets have them dog fight it out in space because that's resources well spent.

    On a related note, I'm going to rewatch Event Horizon. I imagine it's what a Trump lead space expedition would result in. "Nobody knew how destructive a portal to Hell would be."
     
  2. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #2
    It's likely we've seen the last manned military fighter designed.
     
  3. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #3
    AI should never be in charge of weapons*, and any communication link between a human and a drone can be hacked. Drones will fight along manned fighters for quite some time I expect.

    *In a lab I used to belong to, we used neural network algorithms to analyse physiological data. We updated our workstations from Sun to Silicon Graphics. The data analyse software was ported over and it produced different statistical estimates on the new workstations than the old. The code generated no errors and peer review suggested the code was flawless. After months of work, it was discovered problem boiled down to whether 0 was represented as a positive or negative number. My point is that as AI becomes more complex, proper debugging becomes more difficult. Moreover, the more 'intelligent' AI becomes, even when functioning properly, the more it is like to make human-like mistakes. Entrusting weapons to AI is a very bad idea.
     
  4. Chew Toy McCoy thread starter macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #4
    But we could remotely control them.

    The closest thing we have on earth is underwater, and while we do have subs, we don't have a bunch of mini subs scooting around dog fighting. It isn't practical.
     
  5. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #5
    I don't think I'm comfortable with that.
     
  6. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    Drones not only cost significantly less than manned aircraft, (like 40%less), but without human physiology restrictions can out perform manned aircraft. Arguably the human brain can react to situations better than A.I., but what it can't do is digest the avalanche of sensor date streaming into the aircraft as well as an A.I. And dogfighting? The U.S. has never looked at dogfighting as the best method of prosecution especially when faced with superiority in numbers even if the enemy aircraft may not be as capable. It's better to shoot something from 100 miles away if you can, not get into a turning fight with them. Then there are pilots expense and time consuming to train and gain experience, plus the pow question.
     
  7. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #7
    Taking about Hal?
     
  8. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    #8
    Based on current level of technology, you are correct. What is missing though, is the instinctive intuitive decision making process for unmanned.
     
  9. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #9
    Are we gonna remotely control them from Earth or a nearby mothership? The lag time between Earth and any space fighter would be pretty significant for anything outside of orbital protection. An entire wing of remotely controlled space fighters near Mars would be completely wiped out by a lone manned space fighter before anyone on Earth knows the attack has begun.

    Controlled from a nearby mothership. I'm all for that. Drones can be made smaller and handle forces that would kill a human pilot.

    As for the reason Sci-Fi movies still have manned space fighters: drama.:cool: No one weeps over a few thousand destroyed drones, but a heroic pilot's death gives the audience a reason to weep.;)
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    While you would defy storytelling logic ... the logic that says we have to engage the audience's emotions and make them care about the characters and their fate.
     
  11. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #11
    Does not matter/ not needed.

    Some human will say attack here, xxx radius, all targets of this type.
     
  12. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    Guardians of hte Galaxy 2. Bunch of drones. 'nuff said.
     
  13. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #13
    There have been plenty of drones in sci-fi, either mechanical or insectoid, autonomous or remote controlled. Star Trek, GotG2, Ender's Game, Edge of Tomorrow, Alien, The Matrix. (Even Star Wars if you count clones as drones.) The commonality is that it's only the bad guys who ever use drones - for the good guys its almost always about individual heroic efforts.

    I can certainly see drones (and single-use missiles) being used in any future space based warfare instead of individual fighters. I can also see manned ships being used, in sizes from small frigates to large battleships, with crews ranging from a dozen to thousands.
     
  14. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    #14
    Actionable intel. Yep. :eek:
    Totally accurate ;)
     
  15. BarracksSi Suspended

    BarracksSi

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    #15
    About the bolded sentences:

    The USAF thought the same thing after the Korean War -- that all air warfare would be fought by radar-guided missiles. They built a whole generation of warplanes (the "Century Series") designed with this kind of battle in mind. So what happened? They found themselves trying to fight turn-for-turn against MiGs over Vietnam.

    But anyway, back to modern technology...

    As much as we've used drones over the past decade-plus to kill people, and even if AI drones can be smart enough to handle combat choices, I still think it's a chicken-sh*t way to fight.

    If you're not willing to risk the lives of your own people to do something, are you really on the moral high ground? Sitting in an air-conditioned control room in Arizona and controlling a drone in Afghanistan to shoot up some guys in a Jeep is like sniping at passersby from your apartment balcony, except that you're thumbing your nose and going, "Nyah nyah, you can't touch me!"

    Of course, I also think it'd be much more impressive -- if not respectable -- if a deer hunter used a three-inch pocketknife instead of a rifle.

    Taking it further: what happens when all sides fight with drones? The battle shifts to resources and logistics -- but isn't that where wars have always been won and lost?
     
  16. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #16
    The first part of your post is historically accurate, but even then if 10 F4s (yes, they need to know how to dog fight) are up against 30 Migs, dogfighting was not ever the preferred tactical setup.

    War is not about macho and honerable vs chicken ****. It's about winning although there are rules if which violated have been deemed war crimes. Look at gorilla warfare, it's not about fighting honorable, it's about winning battles. As far as deer hunting, if you want fair, give the deer an AK-47. :p

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Tinmania macrumors 68040

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #17
    I think it is possible for there to be a future that includes space travel. But I don't think there can be a future that includes space warfare.



    Mike
     
  18. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    Well we are people. While I like the idea, look at the history of the human race. ;)
     
  19. Tinmania macrumors 68040

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #19
    Indeed. But I don't see us getting to that level of sophistication while "only" fighting limited wars. I'd venture we are more apt to create an apocalyptic world than one able to venture into deep space, still fighting.


    Mike
     
  20. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    We alll remember what almost happened the last time we put a computer in charge of our nuclear defense system...

    IMG_7656.JPG
     
  21. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #21
    I came here for a reference to WarGames, was not disappointed.
    --- Post Merged, May 18, 2017 ---

    Also thats the dumbest political cartoon I've ever seen. Like levels of stupid. We are all dumber because you posted it.
     
  22. BarracksSi Suspended

    BarracksSi

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    #22
    We -- and I mean "we" as in "humans" -- won, didn't we?
     
  23. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #23
    But when was the last dog fight? It seems to me that airplanes on the modern battle field are C2 and weapons delivery platforms. I really don't want a computer to deliver a bomb or a missile without a human involved.
     
  24. BarracksSi Suspended

    BarracksSi

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    #24
    No combat encounter is guaranteed to give you a "preferred" setup. F-4s didn't even get guns until the "E" variant because the top brass were too confident about missile-only air combat.

    Is it "winning", though? It's achieving a high kill ratio, sure, but is that really leading towards a winning society?

    (Yeah, we can refer back to the American Revolution and its purported use of guerrilla tactics to overcome older British methods, but that was still putting lives at stake)
     
  25. Huntn, May 18, 2017
    Last edited: May 18, 2017

    Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    Even with the drones, there are cameras, people are involved, monitoring, controlling the drone if required, the flight path, verify the target, etc, and I imagine it's a human who initiates the attack.
    --- Post Merged, May 18, 2017 ---
    But there is preferred doctrine, the perception of the best tactical situation. When the USSR was churning outbthiund upon thousand of Migs, dogfighting them with significantly less numbers was never considered the ideal situation. As AI becomes more sofisticated, I predict you'll see less people physically located inside war machines.

    Your second comment involves two different discussions, the merit of having a war vs the best way to conduct a war.

    I agree war as a philosophical idea is bad for any society, although you must admit there are historical cases where war is necessary, not where you want war, but where it is forced on you, other than surrender, there is no other option, example WWII. Today as far as the Middle East, I think we bear real responsibility with escalating the changes that are happening there, at great fiscal and human expense to ourself, with the payoff of making millions more hate us.
     

Share This Page