Good. This is a good statement. Some evidence points to a possibility. No leaping to conclusions, the logic is openly used as tentative. I can get on board with statements like that.alexjrgreen wrote:There's some evidence that simple organisms use memristance to create complex behaviour.
Perhaps that's the way we need to go...
Since we had this discussion about UAVs and F22s etc...
-
MirariNefas
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am
Let us suppose they are getting smaller at a rate of 10% a year (a WAG. And it happens in steps not linearly)until then a lot of time will pass
10 years = 40% the original size.
20 years = 15% the original size
30 years = 5%
Ten to thirty years is not very long.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yeah, those lasers are still not going too well.
Maybe in a few years they will do better. One problem is the waste heat. The other is the size/KW. If the KWs are to low, then you can maybe blind an enemy with it, but you cant zapp it like that. It would take quite a long time (to long) to explode a missile, e.g.
Maybe in a few years they will do better. One problem is the waste heat. The other is the size/KW. If the KWs are to low, then you can maybe blind an enemy with it, but you cant zapp it like that. It would take quite a long time (to long) to explode a missile, e.g.
"New solid-state lasers like Raytheon’s Phalanx can already shoot down mortar rounds."
Sounds pretty fast and powerful to me.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/techno ... n07_sslad/
"With a weight goal of < 5 kg/kW, HELLADS will enable high-energy lasers (HELs) to be integrated onto tactical aircraft..."
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/hellads/
Sounds pretty fast and powerful to me.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/techno ... n07_sslad/
"With a weight goal of < 5 kg/kW, HELLADS will enable high-energy lasers (HELs) to be integrated onto tactical aircraft..."
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/hellads/
A 100 KW HELLADS would weigh half a ton or over 1000 pounds...
I have heard about the "magical" number of 100kW for usefulness on the battlefield. I am skeptical of that number.
I was unable to find some hard numbers, but I believe the power the THEL- system was in the low Megawatts. Problem with this system was weight, size and the fact that it vented toxic gas and needed expensive fuel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU
Now if THEL was in the low megawatts, then we have a problem. THEL was only effective to up to 20 miles distance and it still took it quite a few seconds to actually destroy a mortar (not a heavy artillery) shell.
I have heard about the "magical" number of 100kW for usefulness on the battlefield. I am skeptical of that number.
I was unable to find some hard numbers, but I believe the power the THEL- system was in the low Megawatts. Problem with this system was weight, size and the fact that it vented toxic gas and needed expensive fuel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LThD0FMvTFU
Now if THEL was in the low megawatts, then we have a problem. THEL was only effective to up to 20 miles distance and it still took it quite a few seconds to actually destroy a mortar (not a heavy artillery) shell.
And yet another UAV:
http://www.gizmag.com/block-40-global-h ... ght/13572/
Seems like development of those is progressing very quickly, with many models being released/tested in a rather short time right now. Some here may not think that way, but it is getting rather obvious what the USAF believes their next gen systems should be.
http://www.gizmag.com/block-40-global-h ... ght/13572/
Seems like development of those is progressing very quickly, with many models being released/tested in a rather short time right now. Some here may not think that way, but it is getting rather obvious what the USAF believes their next gen systems should be.
That will come, I am sure.Not a single one of those UAVs is designed for air-to-air combat.
Right now they are for surveillance and some light bombing/strike capability (hellfire missiles).
I am sure that this will change though. Start with the easier stuff first, then work your way up to the more difficult tasks.
I'm not so sure. During the 1990's a drone was able to fire a hellfire missle at an Iraqi fighter, it missed and the drone was shot down (or maby the drone was killed before the helfire could close). In any case they tried. The prototype navy attack drone (X-47?) is designed for ground attack. I'm sure it could also carry sidewinders, and perhaps radar guided missles if it was networked with F18,s or other Navel radar and command resources. Will autonomus drones attack other planes without a human in the loop? Perhaps, though that is further down the road (I hope).DeltaV wrote:Not a single one of those UAVs is designed for air-to-air combat.Skipjack wrote:Seems like development of those is progressing very quickly, with many models being released/tested in a rather short time right now.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/09/ ... index.html
The Reaper can carry the same bomb load as an F-16 fighter plane, but its pilots are not put in harm's way.
http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=3640310Reaper pilots so far this year have launched 64 missiles and dropped seven 500-pound bombs in Afghanistan
There is a third member of the Predator family, that is only used by the U.S.A.F. The MQ-9 Reaper is a 4.7 ton, 36 foot long aircraft with a 66 foot wingspan that looks like the MQ-1. It has six hard points, and can carry 1,500 pounds of weapons. These include Hellfire missiles (up to eight), two Sidewinder or two AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, two Maverick missiles, or two 500 pound smart bombs (laser or GPS guided.) Max speed is 400 kilometers an hour, and max endurance is 15 hours. The Reaper is considered a combat aircraft, to replace F-16s or A-10s. (Content source: Strategy Page).
Sure, why not? Imagine an enemy fighter suddenly being lit up by a few AIM 120 AMRAAMs coming up at him from the ground clutter. He wouldn't know (or care) if they were launched from the ground or from the Air. His heart would be in his throat. I'm surprised if drones are not capable of doing this already.D Tibbets wrote:I'm not so sure. During the 1990's a drone was able to fire a hellfire missle at an Iraqi fighter, it missed and the drone was shot down (or maby the drone was killed before the helfire could close). In any case they tried. The prototype navy attack drone (X-47?) is designed for ground attack. I'm sure it could also carry sidewinders, and perhaps radar guided missles if it was networked with F18,s or other Navel radar and command resources. Will autonomus drones attack other planes without a human in the loop? Perhaps, though that is further down the road (I hope).DeltaV wrote:Not a single one of those UAVs is designed for air-to-air combat.Skipjack wrote:Seems like development of those is progressing very quickly, with many models being released/tested in a rather short time right now.
Dan Tibbets
I wouldn't call it a retread. It has always been there. Tempest was previously a big deal. Then it lost importance during the "peace dividend". But now that we are facing actual proliferation, vice the 70's where it was a potential (should've learned from India and Pakistans efforts...) and it is apparent that we are not prepared to take the hit. The 70's-80's and 90's to now, we have done a poor job on national infrastructure, we added for sure, but did not do so well on updating or maintaining what was there. The major blackouts we have had as a result of grid management/design are a good clue as to how we would handle an emp hit. When we make mods and changes to our warships, nobody is really paying attention to EMP hardening. We have added so much COTS hardware it is silly. COTS are not held to the applicable MILSTD's for shock or pulse.
What's the point? We have a weakness, it should be addressed, or someone will for us. I can clearly remember standing on deck on a warship overseas several times a number of years before the COLE attack, and talking with fellow officers about it being a matter of when and where, not if, someone would use service/support craft loaded with a bomb to try and take one of our ships out. We all knew it was a weakness, and we new someone else would figure it out. But the system at large was not believeing that the cost of addressing it was worth the effort. Ooops. Of course we now spend a metric butt ton more money on sending a ship onto port to address force protection concerns. To bad we didn't do that before the COLE. I, and others, see a rogue actor nuke emp hit as a similar issue. Asymmetric attack by definition.
What's the point? We have a weakness, it should be addressed, or someone will for us. I can clearly remember standing on deck on a warship overseas several times a number of years before the COLE attack, and talking with fellow officers about it being a matter of when and where, not if, someone would use service/support craft loaded with a bomb to try and take one of our ships out. We all knew it was a weakness, and we new someone else would figure it out. But the system at large was not believeing that the cost of addressing it was worth the effort. Ooops. Of course we now spend a metric butt ton more money on sending a ship onto port to address force protection concerns. To bad we didn't do that before the COLE. I, and others, see a rogue actor nuke emp hit as a similar issue. Asymmetric attack by definition.
On a separate note, to be fair, the fire and forget weapons systems we use today are in effect, Autonomous Vehicles that will seek out and destroy hostile platforms and or personnel. We use them on land, sea, under the sea, and in the air. These systems are smart, make choices on sensor data, and most can not be "called back" once released. There is no magic "Hunt for Red October" button. They are normally only limited by propulsion endurance.
Does this meet the definition of autonomous independantly (and some link to each other) operating vehicles?
Does this meet the definition of autonomous independantly (and some link to each other) operating vehicles?