You wouldn't be imagining very long methinks.
Imagine a drone carrier that releases a few dozen small drones that are designed to seek out jet engine inlets before exploding. Going into rest mode until one is detected.A mix of 20% anti-Armor and 80% anti-personnel drones could wipe out a mechanized column in a matter of minutes with just 20% success rate per drone.
An autonomous drone swarm would have many advantages, but the greatest advantage would be efficiency. A swarm would be able to ensure that every drone attacks a dedicated target.
Imagine a drone carrier that releases a few dozen small drones that are designed to seek out jet engine inlets before exploding. Going into rest mode until one is detected.
200 g of explosive on a drone that weighs say 3 lbs being able to go into hangers and disable $100 million dollars worth of a fighter jet until the engine can be repaired or replaced
Imagine a drone carrier that releases a few dozen small drones that are designed to seek out jet engine inlets before exploding. Going into rest mode until one is detected.
200 g of explosive on a drone that weighs say 3 lbs being able to go into hangers and disable $100 million dollars worth of a fighter jet until the engine can be repaired or replaced
I read that same book. The Very Last WarThe javelin missile has a total weight of 45lb, but the actual shaped charge is considerably lighter (~17lbs) than that because the Javelin is mostly delivery system, and targets the top of the tank where the armor is weakest.
But heck, consider a small drone of maybe 3 inches wide with a small amount of thermite as a payload. Such a small drone launched at short range from a mother drone could fly into the barrel of a main battle tank, ignite the thermite and render the tank's main gun inoperable.
Imagine such a mother drone with 20 or 30 such mini drones dropping thermite into the barrels of MBTs and on the hoods of every halftrack and within a few minutes the mechanized column is no longer mechanized.
How long can they loiter ?
How many humans need to guide them ?
Probably 1hr, ideally no humans to guide them.
A camera along with computer programed to find say F35 fighter jets, then fly into the engine intake. Afterwards they explode or wait until engine starts.
Would you really trust "kamikaze" drones to be 100% guided by AI ?
I think AI has its place, but target identification and selection, must be a human decision.
Certainly.
No different than guided missiles using radar or GPS to hit targets.
It is certainly in the realm of AI to identify fighter jets on the ground in hangers. In most cases I would expect communication between the drone and controllers to be blocked especially if being used against more advanced enemies
We are seeing a very dramatic seismic shift in the last few years in war technology. Drone technology is rather ubiquitous, and very easy to militarize to the point where drone warfare is almost as common in poor countries as it is in technologically advanced countries.
We see evidence every day of simple drones defeating modern armor to the point that Tanks are now under threat in much the same was the longbow and gunpowder ended the use of plate armor.
"Air superiority" won't be a thing is a few years when drones will have more capability in air support than a manned aircraft.
This gets even more frightening when you consider the strides made in AI and sensory equipment. A country with even a modest budget can fund a system much like the swarm technology currently used for flying art displays, but with every drone a bomb, and broad spectrum sensory cameras that would allow the country to send out a few thousand coordinated drones at night to hunt all humans in a given area and kill them.
The speed that this technology is taking over is pretty astounding.
My biggest long term fear is lasers. Lasers have the capacity to be far more devastating than even nuclear weaponry.. but drones are the short term threat that really has me worried.
Yeah, I think that UCAVs will make manned fighters obsolete. Drones will make make all kinds of manned warplanes obsolete.
It's inevitable. Machines can outperform human beings in so many ways - soon, even in thinking, analyzing, responding, etc.
Lasers lose power when traveling through the air. They only make sense in space, where there's no air to siphon away their power.
Artillery and grenades will also be obsolete since you will be able to send precision guided small and large munitions from infantry positions. And large munitions will probably not be needed in most situations when you can put a small shaped charge exactly where you want it.
current anti-missile lasers have a range of nearly 2 miles.
Lasers aren't the most efficient way to deliver the most energy to target in the smallest amount of time.FEL systems theoretically will have have a much longer range since the laser can be fired and practically any frequency.
All kinds of counter-measures are possible, such as if the missile flies in an irregular pattern, or if it rotates, or flies faster, etc.
Lasers aren't the most efficient way to deliver the most energy to target in the smallest amount of time.
If they were, then militaries would have adopted them a long time ago.
Doesn't work if the anti-missile missile is faster.
Physics. Look it up.Citation ?
Physics. Look it up.
So you can't back up your claim
Tell you what: YOU go look it up and provide substance for your otherwise worthless claim.
Okay, why don't you give me a counter-example of where lasers can deliver more energy onto target than other more conventional methods?
Actual munitions and/or kinetic energy are the best ways.
So are you now saying that physics do not prove that lasers are an effective way of destroying drones and cheaper than projectiles like missiles/gun ammunition ?
Because earlier you seemed absolutely certain that physics was an adequate citation of how: "Lasers aren't the most efficient way to deliver the most energy to target in the smallest amount of time"
It seems now, you're not so sure.
Your response amounts to evasion.
If you believe that lasers can deliver the maximum amount of energy to target, then show me the scenario.
Right now, existing ordinance is king. There is no example of lasers more quickly delivering more energy to target than ordinance.
Nope, you claimed that "physics" was a source that backed up your claim that "Lasers aren't the most efficient way to deliver the most energy to target in the smallest amount of time"
I'm asking you to elaborate on your claim
It seems you cannot
Can we assume then that "physics" is not a source that backs your claim ?
You're the one who's unable to come up with a single counter-example of lasers being the most effective way to destroy or deliver energy onto a target.
I don't need to because I made no claim: YOU DID
So it is up to YOU to substantiate it
You keep running to your "No, You First" game because you know you can't come up with anything to back up what you've said.
My proof is in the existing practices: enemy targets are destroyed with ordinance and not with lasers.
I don't need to prove anything further than that. Ordinance is how things are currently done, and it's been a proven thing for over 2 centuries.
Yours is the "new technology" which needs to prove itself -- and it hasn't.
Lasers can't deliver as much energy to target as ordinance can in the shortest span of time.
While you're at it, cite one that supports your new claim: "Lasers can't deliver as much energy to target as ordinance can in the shortest span of time."
I got nothing to prove, laser-boy. Things are already being done my way, not your way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?