From: Adam 

Robert Comer wrote:
>> But then what was all that wrt protecting the computers?
>
> That was just part of it.
>

A part which has been dealt with for at least....oh when was the F16
"Electric Jet" introduced? mid 70'es was the F16/18 fly off...

>> wrt the "smarts" let's take actually flying the plane,
navigating, take
>> off & landing etc as a "given" ok?
>
> That's what we can do now, yes.
>

where navigating includes navigating at very low level very fast in all
weathers, something a person simply can't do.

>> So remind me again what's left? Air to air tactics? 4d situational
>> awareness? stores management? Mastery of an immelman turn?
>
> Target decision making.
>

"Your mission is to clear the skies of enemy aircraft..here is a list
of enemy types & the engagement area. If you run into any, kill
them."

>> You can't count on it which is why you give the machine a degree of
>> mission completion smarts.
>
> It's going to be more than a degree, it'll have to be totally autonomous.  A
> return to base mode isn't going to be sufficient against an enemy that can
> block comms, and you don't want it making bad decisions on what to attack
> and what not to attack.
>


Why will it have to be totally autonomous? It can be mostly autonomous with
a "if x then call home" thus allowing a single "pilot"
to control a whole squadron.


>> It would be a killing machine. No point trying to use it to deliver aid
>> in earthquake hit areas.
>
> Aye, but you also don't want it killing friendlies or any other non
> combatants that it doesn't have to.
>

Coming from an American I will have to assume that is an attempt at humour.


>> & the weapons/detectors are computerized. No computers no
weapons & no
>> sensors excepting the eyeball.
>
> Of course it's computerized -- but the decision-making is with the pilot.
>

Air dominance questions are easier than mud moving questions in this regard
as it's far easier to id what else is in the air & then to decide if it
should be in the air or not.


>> then you'd probably be using sats for a lot of other uses.
>
> Yep -- you would, killer satellites are eventually going to be out there
> too.
>

Oh you'd better hope not.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5