Jump to content

A.I. downs expert fighter pilot in dogfights


Recommended Posts

I always knew, just knew that we were going to read this in the news someday:

"A.I. DOWNS EXPERT HUMAN FIGHTER PILOT IN DOGFIGHTS"

In a series of flight combat simulations, the A.I. successfully evaded retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Gene "Geno" Lee, and shot him down every time. Lee called it "the most aggressive, responsive, dynamic and credible A.I. I've seen to date."

And "Geno" is no slouch. He's a former Air Force Battle Manager and adversary tactics instructor. He's controlled or flown in thousands of air-to-air intercepts as mission commander or pilot. In short, the guy knows what he's doing. Plus he's been fighting A.I. opponents in flight simulators for decades.

But he says this one is different. "I was surprised at how aware and reactive it was. It seemed to be aware of my intentions and reacting instantly to my changes in flight and my missile deployment. It knew how to defeat the shot I was taking. It moved instantly between defensive and offensive actions as needed."

Here is the paper describing the system:

Genetic Fuzzy based Artificial Intelligence for Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Control in Simulated Air Combat Missions

Edited by KursadA
Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point, AI will catch up with the best human flier. Aren't there yet but when you look at the advancements in this field, even the most jaded skeptics have to admit that it's only a matter of time.

My only question is how soon can they port this AI into a PC flight sim?

Anyhooo, BRB, gotta find the popcorn eating icon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the flight sim, I wonder what kind of aircraft the A.I. was incorporated into. Was the Colonel flying an F-16?

Whatever it is, I think it would be safe to assume that both the AI and the human opponent were flying the same aircraft, equipped with the same weaponry. Nobody would have taken the test seriously otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's not. I'm watching the end of The Terminator as I type this. Huge difference between the flying A.I. and Skynet. Self-awareness is the important facet here.

Agreed. It looks like self-awareness will eventually happen, though. People and institutions have started to seriously look into the possibility of looming AI self-awareness and how humanity could cope with it. It is not an easy read, but this book is very good and explores the issue in detail; complete with predictions on when self-aware AI will happen and what the best/worst case scenarios are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why you could almost say it makes dogfighting a thing of the past

Also much like lazers the manned flight is always going to be obsolete someday in the future.

"Oh look its this story again" -A Brit still bitter about the 1960s white paper

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why you could almost say it makes dogfighting a thing of the past

Welcome to the present.

With the new generation of aircraft dogfight has already become a thing of the past. Let's assume you fly a F-22 or F-35 and have to dogfight; it means something went pretty wrong..

Just to make a statement every one can trip over; dogfight is a thing of the past ;)/>

Daniël

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the present.

With the new generation of aircraft dogfight has already become a thing of the past. Let's assume you fly a F-22 or F-35 and have to dogfight; it means something went pretty wrong..

Just to make a statement every one can trip over; dogfight is a thing of the past ;)/>/>

Daniël

Precisely my point. If you are building an aircraft with lots of dogfighting in mind, you are in the 20th century. We agree

Link to post
Share on other sites

090614_1445_indetailiro19.png

"The future of air combat... Is it manned, or unmanned? I'll tell you in my experience, no unmanned aerial vehicle will ever trump a pilot's instinct, his insight – that ability to look into a situation beyond the obvious and discern its outcome – or a pilot's judgement."

090614_1445_indetailiro20.png

"Why not a pilot without the plane?"

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that current aircraft are the limiter. That G meter isn't to prevent over-G of the pilot. Granted, sustained G limit is 10 or so for the pilot. Build the plane stronger and the A.I. definitely gains the advantage.

This. Plenty of cockpit tapes where the plane warns the pilot, "Over-G! Over-G!" in their headset, followed by the pilot's uttering of a four letter word that I can't repeat in polite company. Then the ground grew has to inspect the plane to see if anything broke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that current aircraft are the limiter. That G meter isn't to prevent over-G of the pilot. Granted, sustained G limit is 10 or so for the pilot. Build the plane stronger and the A.I. definitely gains the advantage.

That is correct, and the G meter is intended to ensure the airframe is not damaged through overstress.

Beyond 9G, it becomes difficult for most pilots to maintain consciousness for long. I have undergone 9G for 1.5 minutes sustained in a centrifuge, and near the end I was about to lose it. If the pilot is tired, or the G onset is very rapid, immediate loss of consciousness (GLOC) can occur very quickly.

Because of this, design load factors for fighters have rarely gone above 9G, and in fact 7.33 or 7.5 was quite common about 20 years ago. Why bother design something that can pull much more G when the pilot cannot maintain consciousness in it?

Remove the pilot, and Steve's point is valid. Now you can design an aircraft to sustain very high G loads, and it will have an advantage over a manned fighter every time.

ALF

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why not a pilot without the plane?" My biggest dream would be to strap a wing and engines on my back and go flying, but as i turn to my left, a guy stands there next to me, with a remote control and he is smiling.....

Bjørn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the present.

With the new generation of aircraft dogfight has already become a thing of the past. Let's assume you fly a F-22 or F-35 and have to dogfight; it means something went pretty wrong..

Just to make a statement every one can trip over; dogfight is a thing of the past ;)/>/>

Daniël

Im no expert just a model builder, but i heard that during the Vietnam war there was the same idea and feeling missiles would do it all

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no expert just a model builder, but i heard that during the Vietnam war there was the same idea and feeling missiles would do it all

Missiles worked fine once pilots were educated in their use, got practice, and maintaining them was better understood. The lesson of the air to air war over vietnam wasn't that missiles don't work, or tech can't be trusted, it's that weapon systems are less useful unless you train people how to properly use them and the limitations and advantages they possess that people have to know to employ them to better effect. A machine gun is useless if you set it up directly behind a tree trunk for example.

Tech has seriously advanced in 50 years too. Typing this from my smart phone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no expert just a model builder, but i heard that during the Vietnam war there was the same idea and feeling missiles would do it all

5mOXa.png

The following is data compiled from 1,450 air-to-air victories from multiple conflicts from 1965 to the present:

9f5c920a-cc94-4424-a044-ba0edbfcdb3a_zpsm02zomzb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...