A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Rotorcraft
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 3rd 04, 02:45 AM
DumDum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 04, 03:30 AM
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 04, 04:15 AM
Steve Waltner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 04, 03:13 PM
DumDum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 04, 09:11 PM
Al Denelsbeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 3rd 04, 11:59 PM
DumDum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 4th 04, 07:31 AM
Al Denelsbeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 4th 04, 03:51 PM
DumDum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 4th 04, 09:44 PM
Dave Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:22 AM
Commanche alternatives? Kevin Brooks Naval Aviation 23 March 24th 04 04:22 AM
Army ends 20-year helicopter program Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 12 February 27th 04 08:48 PM
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 Larry Dighera Military Aviation 0 November 19th 03 03:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.