If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
El Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:46:41 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh =
escribi=F3: You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handl= ing Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good= fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup. Dan H. No Dan, I'm also a system engineer, the Pentagon choice, was the correct= , = the Commanche was visualized early the 80's, then the Robotics, = communications and the AI evolved to levels never foreseen, at Afganista= n = & Iraq the UAV's and UCAV's performed excellently. The Commanche really is a wonder, but a wonder out of time. The stealth reconnaissance can be performed better by an UAV than any = helicopter, the UAVs are much smaller, so are hard to detect, and no cre= w = run risk. Will be developed an VERY small ucav to be used on helos and ground = troops, launched on a rocket. Will fly to the reconnaissance area and th= en = will start an prop to flyover and mark hard targets. then missiles like = the hellfire will eliminate all objectives. Is not only the economy, also is strategy, the robots will be the next = battlefield troopers. Regards, |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an autonomous
human with two eyes and innate human curiousity. Dan H. DumDum wrote in message ... El Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:46:41 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh escribió: You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handling Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup. Dan H. No Dan, I'm also a system engineer, the Pentagon choice, was the correct, the Commanche was visualized early the 80's, then the Robotics, communications and the AI evolved to levels never foreseen, at Afganistan & Iraq the UAV's and UCAV's performed excellently. The Commanche really is a wonder, but a wonder out of time. The stealth reconnaissance can be performed better by an UAV than any helicopter, the UAVs are much smaller, so are hard to detect, and no crew run risk. Will be developed an VERY small ucav to be used on helos and ground troops, launched on a rocket. Will fly to the reconnaissance area and then will start an prop to flyover and mark hard targets. then missiles like the hellfire will eliminate all objectives. Is not only the economy, also is strategy, the robots will be the next battlefield troopers. Regards, |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Micbloo
wrote: (b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly. Saw it fly once on the "Discovery Channel" show "American Choppers" where the team was making a motorcycle to look like the Comanche. Very cool looking ship. Damn shame with all those jobs lost also. And I thought I'd get a chance to see one or two buzzing around NYC on a test flight out of Ct. I guess after The Hulk did a number on them in the Midwest the writing was on the wall. :O) Gerard http://homepage.mac.com/swaltner/flying/comanche.mov For those that missed it the last time I posted the URL to the newsgroup, I've got a 4.5 minute video of the Comanche flyinng around at the Sikorsky facility stored at the URL above. I smile every time I watch that video and hear that unique sound signature of the Comanche in the high-speed flyover. Enjoy. Steve |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:30:42 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh =
escribi=F3: I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an = autonomous human with two eyes and innate human curiousity. Dan H. Yes, the robots lacks the autonomous human with two eyes and innate huma= n = curiousity. But the Robot's controllers are Humans, that's the differenc= e = and the reality of the new technology, the key is the real time = transmission of data. Also the AI could give to the robot's eye's a leve= l = of intuition and "curiosity" that no human could reach. Sorry are the facts. -- = Regards, |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
DumDum wrote in newspr4ahr8gs2nlmxq@localhost:
El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:30:42 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh escribió: I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an autonomous human with two eyes and innate human curiousity. Dan H. Yes, the robots lacks the autonomous human with two eyes and innate human curiousity. But the Robot's controllers are Humans, that's the difference and the reality of the new technology, the key is the real time transmission of data. Also the AI could give to the robot's eye's a level of intuition and "curiosity" that no human could reach. Sorry are the facts. Until somebody jams transmission... Sorry, facts are demonstrations of reality. And you have a long long ways to go before you understand the severe limitations of "AI" controlled systems. "Intuition and curiosity" indeed! - Al, whose buddy is designing autonomous explorer systems and "swarm technology" for future Mars landings... -- To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:11:50 GMT, Al Denelsbeck =
escribi=F3: Until somebody jams transmission... Sorry, facts are demonstrations of reality. And you have a long l= ong ways to go before you understand the severe limitations of "AI" = controlled systems. "Intuition and curiosity" indeed! - Al, whose buddy is designing autonomous explorer systems and "swarm= technology" for future Mars landings... You didn't know the performance of modern anti-jam transmitters, also = Laser Beam Transmitter couldn't be jammed, and you don't know any thing = on = robotics, is not the same to control a rover on Mars than a plane at few= = kilometers, also you know the OCR software that works in your scanner, = well cameras are like scanners, and the software can be programmed to = recognize a wide set of targets. Sorry, don't cry, the war is not a romantic question, is a survival = question. I loved the commanche, but more apaches and UAVs/UCAVs are better partne= rs = on the battlefield. Regards |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
DumDum wrote in newspr4a55mgc2nlmxq@localhost:
You didn't know the performance of modern anti-jam transmitters, also Laser Beam Transmitter couldn't be jammed,... Really? Do you have the faintest idea what "smoke" is? And unfortunately, open-air laser transmission is a "line-of-sight" communication, which not only requires a straight line between the two transmitters, but also enough power (before you even start spouting the word "satellite") to effectively reach between them. AND THEN you need the ability to hold target on your receiver with enough accuracy to maintain communication. Wanna tell me about laser-guided bombs and accuracy? Feel free - I'll show you the reports of the ones that missed when the transmission blipped. And then point out how your 'target' on a satellite based communication system is the relative size of a grain of sand in comparison, and not only does the UAV have to maintain the target of a satellite while jinking around in a combat zone, but the satellite has to maintain the UAV as a target. How do you suspect it'll do that? ,,,and you don't know any thing on robotics, is not the same to control a rover on Mars than a plane at few kilometers,... You're absolutely right - it's several thousand times easier. The entire point behind swarm technology control of Mars explorer "bots" is that they work totally autonomously, requiring NO guidance communication whatsoever with anything but a lander base on Mars (and the use of this is debatable), share their information among numerous units all performing the same tasks, and function on only rudimentary programming. That means small, light, inexpensive, power efficient, and dedicated to a task. They also have very simple terrain to handle. "AI" as you so charmingly put it was a staple item among several of my friends at the UNC-CH Computer Science Department, and one of them still works in the field. The cold hard facts of the matter is that they are light-years away from any kind of system that has the faintest ability to function with "intuition" and "curiosity" in any way that you attempt to define it, much less in, as you say, "a way no humans could reach". And this is being done with a roomful of mainframe computers. At no point has anyone come even close to the concept of "creative thinking", which means taking input from an environment that does not match into programming or "past experience" and determining a course of action from it. In other words, they're not even close to intuition at all, much less doing so in realtime with a programmed unit the miniscule size needed for a UAV. Generating data from an environment requires billions upon billions of bits of information stored every second - that's just the "input" part alone. The what do you do with it? You know all about robotics, do you? You tell me then: how is the information parsed? ...also you know the OCR software that works in your scanner, well cameras are like scanners, and the software can be programmed to recognize a wide set of targets. Heh! Having done the proofreading on documents scanned and 'recognized' by numerous different OCR software packages, I have to tell you that your analogy leaves more than a little bit to be desired. I've often wondered if it wasn't faster to just retype the damn things... And it's orders of magnitude away from what you're describing. We're not talking "All it takes is a faster processor"; we're talking about the ability to see a partially or entirely camouflaged item and determine what the hell it is, and act on it, without input, and in the space of a few seconds. While operating through a three-dimensional environment efficiently. Ah, but since you're so self-assured in how it all works, you must be able to point to documents or resources telling us where you got all this wonderful information? Sorry, don't cry, the war is not a romantic question, is a survival question. If I stop laughing long enough to cry, I'll let you know. It's gonna be a while yet. I loved the commanche, but more apaches and UAVs/UCAVs are better partners on the battlefield. One "M" in "Comanche" there, OCR... I have no issue with remote vehicles and recognize their usefulness - we should have been using them a lot longer ago than this. Unfortunately, war is indeed about survival as you say, but most of the survival takes place at the corporate and DOD level - jobs. It's been decades since the emphasis has been on efficiency and optimal use of technology. But there's also a real world limit to what can be done, and while this changes all the time, it's also decades away, at a bare minimum, from what you're attempting to sell. In fact, many scientists who make their entire living from the field question whether it's even possible. This isn't some hoohah article in Popular Science that's 90% speculation. This is from accounting for what's been accomplished already and comparing it to what still needs to be done. Nobody that has ever seen the details of environmental conditioning in an electronic manner believes this is a viable method of guidance - there are much easier ways, And the primary one is using the supercomputer that's already been developed over millions of years... - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Okai, You're really well informed.
When I said "Intuition" and "Curiosity" I speak in figured mode. Real Intuition and Curiosity are a dream for the AI, as the feelings, but an UAV/UCAV whats need is a mechanism to catch interest point, not need to be precise, the precision helps to low the data to be transmitted, a sensor in an UAV can do thousands of chemical analysis on an area, process the data with the pre-recognition and establish priorities to transmit, is only one of many mechanisms, of course the exact process is a secret. I know the problem with the smoke, the fog and the lasers, as the RF jamming, but if an UAV/UCAV couldn't communicate on an area, the same jamming affect to the comanche's crew. What the commanche crew will do?, well to fly to a zone where the jamming has no effect and to transmit. But a commanche needs to fly very low, to reach an free jamming area and needs to fly a long and dangerous path. an UAV can do the same strategy, but an UAV will only need to fly to a higher altitude, (because are hard to detect can do it, the comanche can't fly as high as an uav and have a larger section), then a laser or mw datalink can work w/o jamming. Need more explications? More data? - Sorry is classified. I have no time for PopularScience and other publicationsm I only can say I'm well informed. Hurts, but was the right choice. DumDum wrote in newspr4a55mgc2nlmxq@localhost: You didn't know the performance of modern anti-jam transmitters, also Laser Beam Transmitter couldn't be jammed,... Really? Do you have the faintest idea what "smoke" is? And unfortunately, open-air laser transmission is a "line-of-sight" communication, which not only requires a straight line between the two transmitters, but also enough power (before you even start spouting the word "satellite") to effectively reach between them. AND THEN you need the ability to hold target on your receiver with enough accuracy to maintain communication. Wanna tell me about laser-guided bombs and accuracy? Feel free - I'll show you the reports of the ones that missed when the transmission blipped. And then point out how your 'target' on a satellite based communication system is the relative size of a grain of sand in comparison, and not only does the UAV have to maintain the target of a satellite while jinking around in a combat zone, but the satellite has to maintain the UAV as a target. How do you suspect it'll do that? ,,,and you don't know any thing on robotics, is not the same to control a rover on Mars than a plane at few kilometers,... You're absolutely right - it's several thousand times easier. The entire point behind swarm technology control of Mars explorer "bots" is that they work totally autonomously, requiring NO guidance communication whatsoever with anything but a lander base on Mars (and the use of this is debatable), share their information among numerous units all performing the same tasks, and function on only rudimentary programming. That means small, light, inexpensive, power efficient, and dedicated to a task. They also have very simple terrain to handle. "AI" as you so charmingly put it was a staple item among several of my friends at the UNC-CH Computer Science Department, and one of them still works in the field. The cold hard facts of the matter is that they are light-years away from any kind of system that has the faintest ability to function with "intuition" and "curiosity" in any way that you attempt to define it, much less in, as you say, "a way no humans could reach". And this is being done with a roomful of mainframe computers. At no point has anyone come even close to the concept of "creative thinking", which means taking input from an environment that does not match into programming or "past experience" and determining a course of action from it. In other words, they're not even close to intuition at all, much less doing so in realtime with a programmed unit the miniscule size needed for a UAV. Generating data from an environment requires billions upon billions of bits of information stored every second - that's just the "input" part alone. The what do you do with it? You know all about robotics, do you? You tell me then: how is the information parsed? ...also you know the OCR software that works in your scanner, well cameras are like scanners, and the software can be programmed to recognize a wide set of targets. Heh! Having done the proofreading on documents scanned and 'recognized' by numerous different OCR software packages, I have to tell you that your analogy leaves more than a little bit to be desired. I've often wondered if it wasn't faster to just retype the damn things... And it's orders of magnitude away from what you're describing. We're not talking "All it takes is a faster processor"; we're talking about the ability to see a partially or entirely camouflaged item and determine what the hell it is, and act on it, without input, and in the space of a few seconds. While operating through a three-dimensional environment efficiently. Ah, but since you're so self-assured in how it all works, you must be able to point to documents or resources telling us where you got all this wonderful information? Sorry, don't cry, the war is not a romantic question, is a survival question. If I stop laughing long enough to cry, I'll let you know. It's gonna be a while yet. I loved the commanche, but more apaches and UAVs/UCAVs are better partners on the battlefield. One "M" in "Comanche" there, OCR... I have no issue with remote vehicles and recognize their usefulness - we should have been using them a lot longer ago than this. Unfortunately, war is indeed about survival as you say, but most of the survival takes place at the corporate and DOD level - jobs. It's been decades since the emphasis has been on efficiency and optimal use of technology. But there's also a real world limit to what can be done, and while this changes all the time, it's also decades away, at a bare minimum, from what you're attempting to sell. In fact, many scientists who make their entire living from the field question whether it's even possible. This isn't some hoohah article in Popular Science that's 90% speculation. This is from accounting for what's been accomplished already and comparing it to what still needs to be done. Nobody that has ever seen the details of environmental conditioning in an electronic manner believes this is a viable method of guidance - there are much easier ways, And the primary one is using the supercomputer that's already been developed over millions of years... - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Al Denelsbeckd wrote in message You tell me then: how is the information parsed? The following AI comments may be outdated by about 15 years. It has been reported that there are a million lines of code in the Comanche. This implies the use of serial processing and its von Newman bottleneck. AI will probably take place in the domain of massive parallel processing, perhaps with Omega net interconnections. The coding in each of the 10 to the ? power processors will be quite simple, since its function is only to replicate a few neurons plus their synapses, dendrites and axons etc. The total neuronal activity of the Aplysia was replicated in silicon a long time ago. I suspect that higher level cognitive abilities are closer than we think. It's sort of scary because it implies Determinism. Roll over Darwin, here comes Skinner and Dawkins. Dave J |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentagon Reviews Health of Helicopter Industrial Base | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | August 22nd 04 07:23 AM |
Commanche alternatives? | John Cook | Military Aviation | 99 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |
Commanche alternatives? | Kevin Brooks | Naval Aviation | 23 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |
Army ends 20-year helicopter program | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 12 | February 27th 04 07:48 PM |
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 0 | November 19th 03 02:18 PM |