Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
trust me.....they fail just as much due to human factors as manned systems.Autonomous systems don't not have failure modes. They just have different failure modes than human-operated systems.
![Yes :yes: :yes:](/community/styles/poa/poa_smilies/yes.gif)
![Yes :yes: :yes:](/community/styles/poa/poa_smilies/yes.gif)
trust me.....they fail just as much due to human factors as manned systems.Autonomous systems don't not have failure modes. They just have different failure modes than human-operated systems.
trust me.....they fail just as much due to human factors as manned systems.....they have failure modes.
![]()
I see some real genius in your posting Henning but I can't say that in here.
Seriously though, good discussion. I really wasn't posting the link to compare the man vs machine aspect or the value of unmanned aircraft in combat. A friend had it on his FB and commented on how he'd be out of work soon. That was the primary theme I was getting at. 1) Are we at the point that automation will remove the pilots with their inherent errors and by doing so saving weight & cost? 2) What level of automation as pilots do we find acceptable? Does the interaction between pilot to aircraft have to be hands on to fulfill a need or is simply typing in an FMS and having your butt off the ground good enough? Questions that have been brought up in the airline realm but not the RW segment.
Valid questions, but neither deal strictly with autonomy. There are lots of unmanned airplane now, but many (most?) of them are not strictly autonomous - there is no explicit decision-making capability onboard. So:Seriously though, good discussion. I really wasn't posting the link to compare the man vs machine aspect or the value of unmanned aircraft in combat. A friend had it on his FB and commented on how he'd be out of work soon. That was the primary theme I was getting at. 1) Are we at the point that automation will remove the pilots with their inherent errors and by doing so saving weight & cost? 2) What level of automation as pilots do we find acceptable? Does the interaction between pilot to aircraft have to be hands on to fulfill a need or is simply typing in an FMS and having your butt off the ground good enough? Questions that have been brought up in the airline realm but not the RW segment.
I hear they're have trouble selecting Tomahawk and CALCM pilots, you volunteering?Human decision versus machine precision. I prefer the former.
I hear they're have trouble selecting Tomahawk and CALCM pilots, you volunteering?Keep in mind there's no retention bonus after your first mission.
Nauga,
and a one-way ticket
I think if you could get past the initial G force, it would be quite a blast to fly a Tomahawk.
Especially in a prone cockpit...weeeeehaaaaa. Or would you rather try Slim Pickins style, maybe with a saddle?![]()
Valid questions, but neither deal strictly with autonomy. There are lots of unmanned airplane now, but many (most?) of them are not strictly autonomous - there is no explicit decision-making capability onboard. So:
1) We're already at the point where the machine can fly the airplane better than the pilot can without the machine. The machine is there to make it easier for the pilot to fly and the pilot is there to make the difficult decisions and deal with contingencies - at least some of them. In the past two years carrier launches and traps and probe-and-drogue refueling have been demonstrated without a pilot onboard. That covers two of the most difficult tasks (yes there are others) that are done in tactical airplane today. Automation is here and some level of mission-level autonomy is coming, whether the fleet pilot is ready or not. Right now it's expensive - the software testing required to flight-qualify a digital control system is formidable, whether automatic or autonomous.
2) These questions *are* being dealt with in the R&D community. There have been unmanned helos for a while now - look at the A160, Unmanned Little Bird, and Firescout, among others. Regardless of what one thinks about these programs, they demonstrate that the interface and C2 issues have been considered. While their missions are different from the H-60 you linked you can be sure that the human-machine interface and concept of operations is being considered - for fixed-wing, rotary-wing, no-wing, underwater, ground, etc. However, it's not a trivial problem and there isn't a simple solution that covers every platform and every mission.
Nauga,
who ran a little long
I remember like 20 yrs ago Pop Science had an article about a future AV-8 concept. It would have two external pods that would hold a SF operator on each side to be transported behind enemy lines. I remember thinking that would be the E ticket ride. Heck of a view too.
The two pods reminds me of the Airacuda.
![]()
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda
![]()
37mm cannons in each outer pod for killing bombers. Gunners responsible for aiming and reloading the cannons from the pods. Engines behind the pods in a pusher configuration.
Some very interesting stories from the wikipedia article.
Ahh, got it, mid 30's design, they were still all experimenting with new construction and configuration, they didn't know yet that this was pretty inefficient of a drag profile.
The version I saw used modified external fuel tanks with no view on using existing pylons and racks. It wasn't in PopSci though.I remember like 20 yrs ago Pop Science had an article about a future AV-8 concept. It would have two external pods that would hold a SF operator on each side to be transported behind enemy lines. I remember thinking that would be the E ticket ride. Heck of a view too.