Massive military cuts

[Thunderbolt]

Sorry to post from the Fail, but I'm doing my dissertation on UAVs and this is by far the most informative article written in laymen terms that I've come across.

DAILY FAIL!

But unlike the American Predator and Reaper drones now flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan, this isn't flown by pilots via satellite control from a bunker outside Las Vegas. It flies itself.

Although all three can of course perform autonomous flight they aren't allowed for some very peculiar reason.

The Mantis only needs human beings for one thing - to pull the trigger.

As far as I'm concerned a computer will never have the ability to "push the button", however is entirely capable of anything else.

 

[RoboCod]

For instance enemy milliatry vehicles are easy to identify, as are fire arms being fired in your direction.

A white toyota pickup or a moped cannot easily be identified as being enemy.

As for firearms, yes as you say when they are being fired, but that happens for a few split moments. Men carrying weapons is not so easy to identify from the air, in fact weapons can usually be mistaken for farming tools and even when they do happen to have weapons they tend to be wrapped in blankets to conceal them. AI cannot make such assessments, human eyes can.

 

[Glaucus]

A white toyota pickup or a moped cannot easily be identified as being enemy.
.

In which case as I keep saying a human can.

There is no reason it could not be programmed with several rules of engagement or even one all encompassing rule of engagement. That can self act or need human interaction. Tank - blow it up, white pick up don't take action, unless the "pilot" takes control.

Computers can make lots of assessments, they are much better at tracking bullets and locating source, as you say humans are better at camouflaged stuff. Which is why you have both. Human does not have sensor data and reflexs of a computer and computer does not have logic liek a human.

 

[Andr3w]

White pickup truck with a roll of carpet strapped to the top could easily be a tank to AI

 

[platypus]

My feelings are actually FOR this. We're all trying to save and get out of this debt nightmare -- why should the forces be any different?

You're for 16,000 people losing their jobs?

 

[Glaucus]

White pickup truck with a roll of carpet strapped to the top could easily be a tank to AI

How?

It does not have any tank attributes and certainly not in the shape or charismatics of it's known enemy tanks.

 

[clv101]

Andr3w's perfectly correct point is that artificial pattern recognition is currently rubbish compared to human pattern recognition.

 

[Castiel]

Andr3w's perfectly correct point is that artificial pattern recognition is currently rubbish compared to human pattern recognition.

Correct, and not only that, a Machine, no matter how sophisticated cannot reason and as such cannot be used safely in every situation or replace Human intuition and the ability to adapt on the fly.

 

[Glaucus]

Andr3w's perfectly correct point is that artificial pattern recognition is currently rubbish compared to human pattern recognition.

It's not rubbish at all. What it's rubbish at doing is recognising different thing of the same type. Say it has a Ferrari f40 in it's data bank, it will be very good at identifying that reliable, as it and try programming it to recognise all cars. Is very hard and it is rubbish at it.
But it doesn't need to do anything like that.

and as such cannot be used safely in every situation or replace Human intuition and the ability to adapt on the fly.

I'm not saying that. I totally agree.
In certain battlefields or under certain conditions there is no reason not to use full computer control.

 

[clv101]

You're for 16,000 people losing their jobs?

Absolutely! If the alternative is future public sector borrowing.

According to the August report from GMI, the UK is the single most indebted major nation on earth when total debt is taken into account, 475% GDP. We are pretty much certain to default eventually.

 

[Rameses]

I am all for a leaner / stronger military that doesn't waste money but reading that article pains me.

The Royal Navy is small as it is, I could stomach a few Frigates going but don't touch the Subs, they are the pinnacle of our techno ability in my opinion. I'd rather have 4 out at sea 24/7 if it was down to me.

The RAF needs the new Euro Fighters's asap but not in a way that dumps good reliable planes flying for us now. I believe the Jaguars have a future, even the Harriers too as there are now 10 in Afghan. Until the Euro Fighters's are ready and I mean immediate ready then keep the current fleet as it is. Also the backbone of the RAF is our 36 Hercules, and to replace them with only 22 A400M is a little unbalanced.

We have 406 (1 knocked out, 1 other) Challenger 2 Battletanks, I could stomach a reduction but not by a lot. These tanks again show our ability to construct a fine armoured machine why not open it and sell on, only Omen has a varied version of the tank! Surely we could export them?

I also believe we' the public should pay for the Trident Replacement NOT the Defence, to me it's a separate entity, it may be operated and maintained by the army but its in our national interest to have this and have the latest technology for our defence!

:/

 

[platypus]

Absolutely! If the alternative is future public sector borrowing.

According to the August report from GMI, the UK is the single most indebted major nation on earth when total debt is taken into account, 475% GDP. We are pretty much certain to default eventually.

I wasn't questioning the resolve to reduce debt, simply the way in which the op chose his words.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Are RAF Jaguars still in service ?

 

[Over Clocker]

Are RAF Jaguars still in service ?

Nope.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I like your posts OC ... straight to the point.

 

[Castiel]

I'm not saying that. I totally agree.
In certain battlefields or under certain conditions there is no reason not to use full computer control.

Absolutely, but those conditions are extremely limited, any combat theatre fought in and around urban population centres would be unsuitable and as most modern warfare is based around these kind of close-quarter scenario's then the use of fully automated UAV's is severly limited in scope.

Because of this limitation, it would be irresponsible to divert large amounts of R&D and procurement funds into their development. Far better to expand the current remotely manned systems to support ground based troop operations.

 

[Over Clocker]

I like your posts OC ... straight to the point.

, sorry, was in a massive rush! I think the last ones went out of service in 2007 mate.

 

[Castiel]

I am all for a leaner / stronger military that doesn't waste money but reading that article pains me.

The Royal Navy is small as it is, I could stomach a few Frigates going but don't touch the Subs, they are the pinnacle of our techno ability in my opinion. I'd rather have 4 out at sea 24/7 if it was down to me.

The RAF needs the new JF's asap but not in a way that dumps good reliable planes flying for us now. I believe the Jaguars have a future, even the harriers too as there are now 10 in Afghan. Until the JFs are ready and I mean immediate ready then keep the current fleet as it is. Also the backbone of the RAF is our 36 Hercules, and to replace them with only 22 A400M is a little unbalanced.

We have 408 Challenger 2 Battletanks, I could stomach a reduction but not by a lot. These tanks again show our ability to construct a fine armoured machine why not open it and sell on, only Omen has a varied version of the tank? Surely we could export them?

I also believe we' the public should pay for the Trident Replacement NOT the Defence, to me it's a separate entity, it may be operated and maintained by the army but its in our national interest to have this and have the latest technology for our defence!

:/

The amount of inaccuracies and misunderstanding of what a modern armed force needs in this post scares the hell out of me.

 

[fadetoblack]

I am all for a leaner / stronger military that doesn't waste money but reading that article pains me.

The Royal Navy is small as it is, I could stomach a few Frigates going but don't touch the Subs, they are the pinnacle of our techno ability in my opinion. I'd rather have 4 out at sea 24/7 if it was down to me.

The RAF needs the new JF's asap but not in a way that dumps good reliable planes flying for us now. I believe the Jaguars have a future, even the harriers too as there are now 10 in Afghan. Until the JFs are ready and I mean immediate ready then keep the current fleet as it is. Also the backbone of the RAF is our 36 Hercules, and to replace them with only 22 A400M is a little unbalanced.

We have 408 Challenger 2 Battletanks, I could stomach a reduction but not by a lot. These tanks again show our ability to construct a fine armoured machine why not open it and sell on, only Omen has a varied version of the tank? Surely we could export them?

I also believe we' the public should pay for the Trident Replacement NOT the Defence, to me it's a separate entity, it may be operated and maintained by the army but its in our national interest to have this and have the latest technology for our defence!

:/

Harriers have now been replaced in afghan by tornado
Also we don't have 408 challenger any more -2 (one was knocked out by a Rpg 29 also there was a blue on blue)
And Jaguar retired years ago

They tired to sell challenger 2s a few years ago but nobody wanted them Australia went refurbished Abrams and Greece went for leopard 2s

 

[Rameses]

My bad, I meant Tornadoes haha.