Tempest Manned Unmanned Fighter Concept

#84
So there is the money for Successor gone
Why?

Typhoon has been a huge commercial success, the market for a 6th gen air superiority fighter is the UKs for the taking. After the Obey Ammendement shot down trusted allies attempts to buy the F-22, no ones likeky to be banging on the US door for their next generation air superiority fighter.
 
#85
What 'moral argument'?

Sea Wolf has always had a fully autonomous 'it flies, its dies' mode.
Joe Civi doesn't usually find his way into Sea Wolf's envelope while walking the dog does he. Since human aircrew seem far too capable of shooting at friendlies on the ground it is moot however whether an autonomous system would be any worse, however at present the cognitive computer is still a future project.
 
#86
Joe Civi doesn't usually find his way into Sea Wolf's envelope while walking the dog does he. Since human aircrew seem far too capable of shooting at friendlies on the ground it is moot however whether an autonomous system would be any worse, however at present the cognitive computer is still a future project.
If Biggles and Ivan are going at it fangs out over Syria, best not to go walking the dog between them, the fur and fury will by flying.
If it’s a properly serious shooting war, there will be kill boxes and anything with the wrong squak will get shot. Autonomous can work fine in that non discriminating situation.

We can pontificate about the morality till the cows come home, but potential peer and near peer enemies don’t seem to possess our moral squeamishness.
 
#87
...If it’s a properly serious shooting war, there will be kill boxes and anything with the wrong squak will get shot. Autonomous can work fine in that non discriminating situation...
@sunnoficarus/@SOI/@meerkatz/@PhotEx/@whatever_you're_calling_yourself_today,

I can think of very, VERY few occasions when 'non-discriminating situations' may arise. Certainly, they will remain so unlikely in the majority of our operations as to make such autonomy of little use for the foreseeable future.

The operational dystopia of 'Terminator' style autonomy that many anti-drone lobbyists constantly pontificate upon remains a long way off.

Regards,
MM
 
#88
I can think of very, VERY few occasions when 'non-discriminating situations' may arise.
Regards,
MM

And yet, the threat from saturation attacks by barely supersonic anti ship missiles was sufficient in the 70's for the designers of Sea Wolf to provide an autonomous mode.
Missles aren't getting any slower or smaller in numbers - hypersonic missiles will cut down thinking time to split seconds. F-35 will already carry out autonomous electronic attacks on pop up threats, its just a line of code to add in kinetic attacks to that menu.
Fear not, the role of AWACS will become more crucial as battle space managers moving their autonomous fighters up threat to take down the inbound threats.
 
#89
And yet, the threat from saturation attacks by barely supersonic anti ship missiles was sufficient in the 70's for the designers of Sea Wolf to provide an autonomous mode.
Missles aren't getting any slower or smaller in numbers - hypersonic missiles will cut down thinking time to split seconds. F-35 will already carry out autonomous electronic attacks on pop up threats, its just a line of code to add in kinetic attacks to that menu.
Fear not, the role of AWACS will become more crucial as battle space managers moving their autonomous fighters up threat to take down the inbound threats.
Please quit writing about stuff you patently have no actual knowledge of. I’m embarrassed for you.
 

Echo On

On ROPS
On ROPs
#91
Speed is relative.

A Vietnam era AIM-7 would kill faster than closing for a guns kill...if it guided.

A modern AIM-120D will kill faster than an AIM-7.

A Meteor will probably kill faster than an AIM-120.

A DE weapon will kill faster than a Meteor...if cloud, moisture and other atmospheric obscurants don’t prevent a shot.

Ultimately however, human decision making in combat will remain difficult to beat for the foreseeable future unless you wish to ignore frat and collateral.



Manoeuvre is not the only way to defeat a missile. Moreover, a manned aircraft will still be able to comprehensively out-think artificial intelligence for several decades to come.



The vast majority during ops in the last 30 years.



You effectively need both when dealing with peer threats unless you can stay outside the threat area (either via EW, LO or stand-off weapons). However, SEAD is no longer necessarily restricted to Anti-Radar Missiles, jamming and spoofing.



Sorry, that’s absolutely incorrect when considered over the last 40 years. A (very) quick bit of research suggests the following stats:

Falkland Campaign, 1982: 4 of 5 Sea Harrier and Harrier GR3 combat losses were due to SAMs or radar laid AAA.
Lebanon, 1983: 2 of 2 USN jets (1 x A-6E, 1 x A-7E).
Libya, 1986: Unknown but most likely a SAM or radar laid AAA (1 x F-111).
GW1, 1991: 23 coalition aircraft were lost to SAMs from our total losses of 40. In contrast, AAA only killed 10, a single USN FA-18C was shot down by a MiG-25 and other losses were due to a variety of factors such as CFIT and operating hazards.
Op DENY FLIGHT, 1991-99: 4 of 4 (1 x G222, 1 x F-16CG, 1 x Mirage 2000K, 1 x Sea Harrier).
Op ALLIED FORCE, 1999: 2 of 2 (1 x F-117 to SA-3, 1 x F-16CG to SA-6).

Now, in fairness, many of the above losses were down to MANPADS where SEAD is of less relevance. However, we should remember that a common tactic of adversaries is to barrage fire SAMs (granted sometimes ballistically) to force aircraft into defensive manoeuvres which place them in the MANPADS and AAA envelope. Moreover, SEAD is still equally relevant when countering radar-guided AAA.

During OIF and OEF, definitive figures are difficult to break out but I suspect that MANPADS and operating hazards (eg CFIT) were more of a factor than AAA and even SMARMS/RPG due to the predominance of rotary assets.

As has been mentioned however, we’re increasingly facing very advanced Russian ‘double-digit’ SAM threats which are game-changers to the assumptions of many. They’re already a factor on ops and it’s only a matter of time before we face them for real.



Both. As ever, it’s measure and counter-measure although LO, EW and other factors are also relevant.



RPAS are merely another club in the golf bag offering both pros and cons over manned types.

It could be argued they run the risk of lowering constraint. Equally, the ability to operate remotely over some nations has - I suspect - already allowed the US to avoid punitive air strikes which may have led to a regional conflagration.



If only things were that simple!



If only things were that simple 2!



For all the roles we need them now.

TLAMs are bugger all use for CAS, ISR and any number of other roles. Teranis is just bugger all use.



As has already been mentioned, Teranis was only ever a technology demonstrator. In essence, it’s an unmanned Hawk which managed to fly some circuits and a handful of routes in permissive and sanitised airspace.

Even if it was anything like mature enough for ops, Teranis would only equate to something like the USAF RQ-170.



Which would be Utterly pointless to UK Defence!

Moreover, Protector will be certified for flight in non-segregated UK airspace on a routine basis.



Optionally manned isn’t necessarily costly and arguably de-risks some aspects of a new type.

In terms of large numbers of something ‘...small, lightweight, cheap and nasty...’, that rather dictates something being able to get in close and deliver said small nasties which, given the advent of modern ‘double-digit’ threats would still require something rather more expensive to dispense them.

Regards,
MM
I can accept all that, as my knowledge is limited. With the added proviso, if the enemy is developing them, we have to have them, its as simple as that.

One minor point;
The future of war seems to be all tech, the old theory that the missile was about to replace the manned aircraft was proven to be wrong as the technology simply wasn't good enough and AD Systems have there own vulnerabilities to ARM.

But, with the advent of energy weapons and/or maybe ever more sophisticated AD, its not an impossibility that theory will return in the near future. Making conventional air power go the same way as cavalry, nice to have for mobility, but simply too vulnerable.

Meaning drones is the only future and the idea of the manned element of Tempest will be dropped at a later stage of development.
 

Echo On

On ROPS
On ROPs
#92
Do you ever step back and read before you hit post reply?
Apologies, My underlying point over ethic/morals of this stuff, was its inevitable the spec will change over time and to make the beast work, removing the pilot and giving the AI full control, is always going to be the temptation.
 
#93
While your civil servant experience may have hinted at some of these issues, practical experience for those of us in the military suggests otherwise.

And yet, the threat from saturation attacks by barely supersonic anti ship missiles was sufficient in the 70's for the designers of Sea Wolf to provide an autonomous mode...
How many times has that fully autonomous capability been used operationally? Moreover, the maritime environment is in my experience a little less cluttered and therefore easier to interpret (from a C2 and RoE perspective) than the land environment.

...Missles aren't getting any slower or smaller in numbers - hypersonic missiles will cut down thinking time to split seconds...
For both sides; as I said, speed is relative.

...F-35 will already carry out autonomous electronic attacks on pop up threats, its just a line of code to add in kinetic attacks to that menu...
We've had autonomous EA capabilities since WWII (research PIPERACK). Whether it's 'just a line of code' to add autonomous kinetic effects or not (which I would contest), is an enormous step change and one that can be both operationally constraining and certainly not necessarily advantageous. That's why many nations are adding 'man-in-the-loop' capabilities and in some cases even spending money to remove existing autonomy (eg legacy Brimstone) from weapons.

Incidentally, please may I ask for the third time @sunnoficarus/@SOI/@meerkatz/@PhotEx why you keep changing your name on ARRSE?

I can accept all that, as my knowledge is limited. With the added proviso, if the enemy is developing them, we have to have them, its as simple as that...
Not necessarily. We just have to find a counter.

...The future of war seems to be all tech, the old theory that the missile was about to replace the manned aircraft was proven to be wrong as the technology simply wasn't good enough and AD Systems have there own vulnerabilities to ARM.

But, with the advent of energy weapons and/or maybe ever more sophisticated AD, its not an impossibility that theory will return in the near future. Making conventional air power go the same way as cavalry, nice to have for mobility, but simply too vulnerable.

Meaning drones is the only future and the idea of the manned element of Tempest will be dropped at a later stage of development.
As I've said a great many times, 'Drones' are merely another form of Air Power.

For the foreseeable future, they will remain hugely less capable at multiple levels to manned types and reliably replicating the intuition, sensory capabilities and decision making of a carbon based life form (whether that be in a GCS or a 'conventional' cockpit) would be enormously expensive and technologically prohibitive.

A human seeing a brief puff of exhaust smoke from an aircraft he's maneuvering against will instantly know his opponent has engaged the burners and may be about to take the fight into the vertical. How many lines of software code, how many hours of bench-testing, and how many hours of trials would it take to teach an autonomous drone to draw the same conclusion or to avoid mistaking the puff of smoke for mist, condensation from wings, a missile being launched, chaff and flares, or any number of other possibilities and vice versa?

How many lines of code would it take for a computer to consider that a recent drought may mean that the object being carried by a man on the ground is a length of irrigation pipe he wishes to move to keep the crops he relies on for his livelihood alive rather than an RPG?

How many lines of code would it take for an autonomous drone to recognise a slight discolouration on the surface of some riverine water as oil seeping from a hostile patrol boat hiding in a nearby mangrove swamp as opposed to effluent from a waste pipe, or an algae bloom?

No one with any experience of Air Power is predicting the demise of manned aircraft in the next 50 plus years. An unmanned Tempest will remain highly valuable, particularly as a wingman. But stop worrying about an autonomous dystopia that we can neither afford (operationally and financially) nor possess the technology for.

Regards,
MM
 
#95
I’m so disappointed that I can only give one like for your explanation @Magic_Mushroom. Experience, instinct, intuition, training; whatever it’s called kept this carbon-based life form alive and able to effectively target.
Likewise, instinct, intuition and training always ensured my curry was perfectly cooked in the galley! :)

Regards,
MM
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#98
How many times has that fully autonomous capability been used operationally? Moreover, the maritime environment is in my experience a little less cluttered and therefore easier to interpret (from a C2 and RoE perspective) than the land environment.
Rarely, if ever (@alfred_the_great ), we might in exercise switch CIWS to full auto, but not Sea Wolf/Ceptor, for a variety of reasons.

Magic_Mushroom said:
For both sides; as I said, speed is relative.
Absolutely, and our CS chum is fixated on one mitigation (hardkill), not considering or addressing soft kill, countermeasures, RESM and the TTPs which evolve to address threats,

Magic_Mushroom said:
We've had autonomous EA capabilities since WWII (research PIPERACK). Whether it's 'just a line of code' to add autonomous kinetic effects or not (which I would contest), is an enormous step change and one that can be both operationally constraining and certainly not necessarily advantageous. That's why many nations are adding 'man-in-the-loop' capabilities and in some cases even spending money to remove existing autonomy (eg legacy Brimstone) from weapons.
Agree, the man provides context, judgement and wider considerations. In most cases we will keep that 'command authority/veto' even when capabilities could be fully automated. For the RN we're interested in the human machine teaming that autonomy can leverage,
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#99
And yet, the threat from saturation attacks by barely supersonic anti ship missiles was sufficient in the 70's for the designers of Sea Wolf to provide an autonomous mode.
There is a fully automatic mode on my camera, never used it once!

Just because a designer adds something that doesn't indicate it was needed nor would be used.

PhotEx said:
Missles aren't getting any slower or smaller in numbers - hypersonic missiles will cut down thinking time to split seconds..
Which is why a variety of different capabilities and TTPs are evolving.
 
While your civil servant experience may have hinted at some of these issues, practical experience for those of us in the military suggests otherwise.



How many times has that fully autonomous capability been used operationally? Moreover, the maritime environment is in my experience a little less cluttered and therefore easier to interpret (from a C2 and RoE perspective) than the land environment.



For both sides; as I said, speed is relative.



We've had autonomous EA capabilities since WWII (research PIPERACK). Whether it's 'just a line of code' to add autonomous kinetic effects or not (which I would contest), is an enormous step change and one that can be both operationally constraining and certainly not necessarily advantageous. That's why many nations are adding 'man-in-the-loop' capabilities and in some cases even spending money to remove existing autonomy (eg legacy Brimstone) from weapons.

Incidentally, please may I ask for the third time @sunnoficarus/@SOI/@meerkatz/@PhotEx why you keep changing your name on ARRSE?



Not necessarily. We just have to find a counter.



As I've said a great many times, 'Drones' are merely another form of Air Power.

For the foreseeable future, they will remain hugely less capable at multiple levels to manned types and reliably replicating the intuition, sensory capabilities and decision making of a carbon based life form (whether that be in a GCS or a 'conventional' cockpit) would be enormously expensive and technologically prohibitive.

A human seeing a brief puff of exhaust smoke from an aircraft he's maneuvering against will instantly know his opponent has engaged the burners and may be about to take the fight into the vertical. How many lines of software code, how many hours of bench-testing, and how many hours of trials would it take to teach an autonomous drone to draw the same conclusion or to avoid mistaking the puff of smoke for mist, condensation from wings, a missile being launched, chaff and flares, or any number of other possibilities and vice versa?

How many lines of code would it take for a computer to consider that a recent drought may mean that the object being carried by a man on the ground is a length of irrigation pipe he wishes to move to keep the crops he relies on for his livelihood alive rather than an RPG?

How many lines of code would it take for an autonomous drone to recognise a slight discolouration on the surface of some riverine water as oil seeping from a hostile patrol boat hiding in a nearby mangrove swamp as opposed to effluent from a waste pipe, or an algae bloom?

No one with any experience of Air Power is predicting the demise of manned aircraft in the next 50 plus years. An unmanned Tempest will remain highly valuable, particularly as a wingman. But stop worrying about an autonomous dystopia that we can neither afford (operationally and financially) nor possess the technology for.

Regards,
MM
But....
But....
But...

Rarely, if ever (@alfred_the_great ), we might in exercise switch CIWS to full auto, but not Sea Wolf/Ceptor, for a variety of reasons.

Absolutely, and our CS chum is fixated on one mitigation (hardkill), not considering or addressing soft kill, countermeasures, RESM and the TTPs which evolve to address threats,

Agree, the man provides context, judgement and wider considerations. In most cases we will keep that 'command authority/veto' even when capabilities could be fully automated. For the RN we're interested in the human machine teaming that autonomy can leverage,
Who would DARE to consider such a thing?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Royal Signals 16
maguire Aviation 4
Richard_North Current Affairs, News and Analysis 7

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top