Prev: RE: "real" weapons tech thread (was: cou Next: RE: "real" weapons tech thread (was: cou

RE: "real" weapons tech thread (was: cou

From: Adam Delafield <A.Delafield@b...>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:23:17 -0500
Subject: RE: "real" weapons tech thread (was: cou

Date sent:  5-NOV-1996 17:09:27 

>There is an infermous British government documnet dating from the
>which says much the as you have written here. On top of this piece of	

>paper a British Air Marshall wrote something like "Rubbish". Until we	

>have computer technology capable of the same decision making as a human
>being then computers and robots will always have disadvatages such as	

>they are predictable, vulnerable to electronic warfare and allowing   
>computers to make decisions of life and death will be controversial
>Wargames). Human beings can make decisions about whether to pull the	
>trigger. It would be difficult to tell a computer/robot the difference 
>between a landrover full of troops and a landrover refugees! Also a
>pilot can more than likely identify targets of opportunity. I could
>on and on and on..........................

He ho! off topic we go again.

The RAF seems VERY fond of non piloted aircraft. Don't forget the
for a unpiloted interdictor is nothing more than a reusable CALCM (
Conventionally armed Air launched Cruise Missile) so doesn't require any
great leap in technology or innovation. It has been proven on a one
way trip (Iraq) so a two way trip would make a more expensive single
unit, but be cheaper in the long run (something Governments like).
As it is based on proven technology, it is far more likely to be
developed. (Proven technology is something else governments like)

And this weeks Jane's has an article on FAMRAAM. A fire and forget
medium ranged missile being developed by everyone except the US.
Specifically to be the primary armament on the EF-2000. So the
EF-2000 will effectively be a cargo plane for an unmanned suicide
fighter. (When do you separate unmanned aircraft from missile

>The Pentagon has been working for many years on "fuzzy logic" computers
>that can play battlefield roles. At this pace, all those DSII crewed
>tanks will be behind the times before they get built. ;)

Ah yes. The one they trained to spot tanks hidden in trees? They had it
working nearly 100% untill field trials. It turned out all the pictures
they had fed it of Tanks were on a sunny day, and all pictures of trees
without tanks were on cloudy days (or vica versa, I can never remember)
Anyway, it was very good at telling the weather. 8-)

| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer	      | Bolton Institute,  |
| #include "witty_saying"	      | Eagle Tower,	   |
| E-mail :	      | College Way,	   |
| Phone  : +44 1204 528851 (ext 3163) | Bolton, UK.	   |
| Fax	 : +44 1204 399074	      | BL3 5AE.	   |

Prev: RE: "real" weapons tech thread (was: cou Next: RE: "real" weapons tech thread (was: cou