Technology Stats Help

[Uberstein]

So what happens when somebody jams your between-plane wireless?

Honestly it's a silly idea.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1286248180' post='2475314']
Our smartest AIs so far were directly coded, a very hard and error-prone task. Nor are they capable of sending information to each other unlike the AI system that I planned on using. My automated aircraft are mostly harmless when flying alone, but in squadrons that are all interconnected via wireless, it would be suicidal to attack them even with the same number of the manned aircraft.

[b]A single neuron cell is weak, but many of them interconnected...[/b]

For example, human infants are not very bright. But give them time to grow and learn, and usually they will become smarter. Same with the adaptive AI system and I plan on RPing it for about 2 RL years (24 RP years, depending on how much combat time they had) from the development to the point where it can fight toe-to-toe battles against average fighter pilots. Then they will be transferred to more advanced automated aircraft to allow them to continue learning when their computing power are pushed to the limit.

However, I agree they will never be able to stand toe-to-toe battles against expert fighter pilots without needing reinforcements. But it would be very hard to man an air force consisting of entirely expert human pilots. A RPer (such as Lavo or Lyth) with superior tech and a larger air force or a RPer who spent large amount of time making numerous detailed posts about the training of his/her pilots could still kick even experienced automated aircraft's rear ends.

To ensure other RPers do not abuse automated aircraft, I decided to count every 4 of my IG aircraft as 3 RP automated aircraft squadrons instead of 4. This will force them to decide if they want to use automated aircraft (which would reduce their max air force size) or stick with manned and remote controlled aircraft. Is that fair enough?
[/quote]
Actually...neurons don't work the same way as computers. AT ALL. do you realize the POWER requirements it would take for a computer to even SIMULATE human intelligence? The SPACE required for all the ciruitry and chips, at what have you? I don't think you do. Even if it were POSSIBLE, it would be the size of a small building, at the very LEAST.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1286292608' post='2475942']
So what happens when somebody jams your between-plane wireless?

Honestly it's a silly idea.
[/quote]
They will switch a different frequency within their transmitters'/recieviers' frequency range if they realize they can't get anything through, and then hunt down whoever is flying/running around with the jammer by determining the strongest source of the interfering radio signals. Now if someone jammed every last radio frequency that the automated aircraft used while somehow staying hidden, then the automated aircraft would purposely switch to the exact radio frequency their enemy is using, forcing them to decide if it would be a bright idea to prevent their own aircraft from communicating.


Wireless connection is not required for the operation of the automated aircraft.
[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1286305509' post='2476129']
Actually...neurons don't work the same way as computers. AT ALL. do you realize the POWER requirements it would take for a computer to even SIMULATE human intelligence? The SPACE required for all the ciruitry and chips, at what have you? I don't think you do. Even if it were POSSIBLE, it would be the size of a small building, at the very LEAST.
[/quote]
I used neutrons as a reference to how the automated aircraft would operate better as a large group rather than alone.

Processors: http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/02/graphene-fets-promise-100-ghz-operation.ars

Graphene based, 100 GHz while silicon processors at the same size only reached a max of 30 GHz. Keep in mind that the processor is 240nm compared to the current 32nm silicon processors. Now shrink the graphene processors down to 32nm and its max processing power will skyrocket.

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/24843/

Low voltage self error-correcting prototype processor.
[quote]Tests in the lab have shown that the chip can either save 37 percent on power consumption, or operate 21 percent faster at a given power level.[/quote]

Indium antimonide based processor: http://apcmag.com/intel-looks-beyond-silicon-for-processors-past-2017.htm

[quote]Given that Intel’s ‘tick-tock’ model sees a new microarchitecture every two years – and starting at the current 45nm ‘Nehalem’ silicon microachitecture, which will be followed by 32nm (‘Sandy Bridge’) in 2011, then 22nm (Haswell’) in 2013 and 16nm (codename unknown) in 2015 – then Otellini’s talking about the first wave of non-silicon processors kicking off by 2017.


Intel has long been directing large amounts of its already-substantial R&D budget – which is estimated at US$5 billion per year – towards new ‘post-silicon’ materials and the association manufacturing techniques.

These include indium antimonide, a ‘compound semiconductor’ which Intel reports as clocking at 1.5x the speed of silicon transistors while drawing one-tenth of the power; optical ‘circuits’ which could lessen the reliance on relatively slow physical circuitry such as copper; as well as carbon nanotubes and semiconductor ‘nanowires’.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium_antimonide#Device_applications

[quote]Bipolar transistors operating at frequencies up to 85 GHz were constructed from indium antimonide in the late 1990s; field-effect transistors operating at over 200 GHz have been reported more recently (Intel/QinetiQ). Some models suggest that terahertz frequencies are achievable with this material. Indium antimonide semiconductor devices are also capable of operating with voltages under 0.5 V, reducing their power requirements.[/quote]

Spintronic transistors/memory: http://io9.com/5608807/breakthrough-scientists-use-electron-spin-to-expand-computer-memory

[quote]So how does spintronics work? Basically, electrons can be polarized so that they have a particular directional orientation, much like a bar magnet. These orientations are known as spin, and an electron can either be polarized so it's "spin up" or "spin down." Storing data with spin would effectively double the amount of data a computer could store, as two pieces of data could be stored on an electron instead of just one, which is the case with current electronics.

But the advantages of spintronics don't stop there. As data density increases, so too would processing speed. And one of the biggest causes of heat in current circuit boards - the movement of electrons - would be eliminated entirely, which would mean huge energy savings and thus require smaller batteries to do the same amount of computing work.[/quote]

In 1999, the eMachines eTower 366c was put into the market by eMachines, read this:

CPU: Cyrix M II-366 (w/512KB L2 Cache) Processor 366 MHz
Operating System: Genuine Microsoft Windows 98
Memory: 32MB SyncDRAM (up to 256MB)
Hard Drive: 3.2GB HDD (Ultra DMA EIDE)
Optical Drive: 32x Max. CD-ROM Drive
Video: ATI Rage IIc 3D AGP with 4MB SDRAM
Audio: Crystal CS4235 3D Audio
Network: Internet Ready
Modem: 56K ITU V.90 PCI Fax/Modem
Peripherals: PS/2 Keyboard/Mouse, Stereo Speakers
Ports/Other: 2 USB Ports (1 is on Front), Audio In & Out / Game Port on Front, 1 Serial / 1 Parallel
Expansion Slots: 3 Expansion Slots

(Fun fact: Check Google's Shopping list, that type of computer is being sold for $2 as of now, MUCH lower than what it was worth originally. Even lower than a box of Oreo cookies. I predict the computer will eventually be sold for less than a dollar.)

Now compare that to any 2010 mid-range desktop PCs in the market as of now. Processors' GHz had hovered between 3 to 4 lately, there are 16 GB RAM sticks in the market (though they cost over $700 each), largest SSDs have 2TB, and the largest hard drives have 3TB.

By 2020, processors' GHz should be above 40 GHz, RAM sticks should be above 1 TB, SSDs should be above few dozens TB, and those would be the mid-high range of consumer desktop/laptop components. The computer on the automated aircraft will be about 100cm x 50cm x 100cm in size, much larger than a typical desktop computer. Now toss in enough 2020' era electronics to fill it up (just enough for the cooling and power system).

(For reference to the exponential growth of computing power: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg )

However, the aircraft' computer would be very expensive, which is why I previously stated that I will RP 3/4 of a squadron of it rather than a full squadron per IG aircraft.

Edited October 6, 2010 by HHAYD

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1286338039' post='2476879']
By 2020, processors' GHz should be above 40 GHz, RAM sticks should be above 1 TB, SSDs should be above few dozens TB
[/quote]
And AI would still be vastly inferior to the computing power of the human brain. Face it, it'll take decades for a machine to be able to do what a human can. Just get to training pilots and shut up about it.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1286338925' post='2476892']
And AI would still be vastly inferior to the computing power of the human brain. Face it, it'll take decades for a machine to be able to do what a human can. Just get to training pilots and shut up about it.
[/quote]
Fine, tell me a way to enable pilots to withstand above 10 G and maneuver sharply at +2 mach without blacking out or having multiple severe concussions with strokes.

EDIT: I would also like for you explain how an AI controlled helicopter can perform complex tricks without crashing, all operated by a desktop computer via wireless.

Edited October 6, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1286339254' post='2476900']
Fine, tell me a way to enable pilots to withstand above 10 G and maneuver sharply at +2 mach without blacking out or having multiple severe concussions with strokes.

[/quote]

There is no way. That leap would have to wait a lot more decades of innovation and inventions.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I do not see a day coming when there will be completely automated war machines. There will always be some level of human interaction. I do however, see a day when remote machines which are piloted by humans remotely with significant ai augmentation will come. That day is perhaps now via predators and the M.U.L.E as just a couple of examples.

[Lynneth]

I thought of using semi-automated tanks that have various routines and the like programmed in to react to specific conditions and threats on the ground.
However, they would be slaved to a command tank, and basically be ordered around by it, perhaps 1 command tank to 4 "smart" tanks.
I estimate that automated vehicles would be much more easy to make on the ground, seeing as there's technically only 2 dimensions instead of 3 (barring cliffs and the like).
Also, with tanks of different nations often having very distinct silhouettes, finding allies and foes may be somewhat easier as well.

Basically, these automated tanks would work similarly as the AI in the C&C games. Command tank says "Go there" with parameters like "attack enemies on the move" or "destroy hardened structure" or something, the tanks would do that.
Upon encountering potential hostiles, threat-assessment would dictate further actions, depending on the silhouette of the enemy vehicle (looks like tank? penetration munition; looks like jeep? HE munition and so on).
While perhaps not as effective as humans - the programs can't think for themselves, can't interpret things the way humans do and all - they may act faster than human-manned tanks could, where the commander has to relay orders to the gunner and driver, who have to react and then choose the appropriate action, react faster to new threats.
This means where a human-manned vehicle might take 2-5 seconds to engage an enemy tank, an automated one could do the same within one second or less, a considerable improvement.

Not 100% sure how I'd go about RPing all that though, or if it's worth it.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1286339254' post='2476900']
Fine, tell me a way to enable pilots to withstand above 10 G and maneuver sharply at +2 mach without blacking out or having multiple severe concussions with strokes.

EDIT: I would also like for you explain how an AI controlled helicopter can perform complex tricks without crashing, all operated by a desktop computer via wireless.
[/quote]
Air combat is always a case where brain wins over brawn. Unlike humans, computers cannot create novel solutions to problems, they lack the ability to think outside the box. A human will always outsmart a computer, and in a dogfight, the person who was outsmarted dies.

Plus, at 10Gs, you need to worry more about pieces falling off your plane than anything else.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1286368179' post='2477092']
Air combat is always a case where brain wins over brawn. Unlike humans, computers cannot create novel solutions to problems, they lack the ability to think outside the box. A human will always outsmart a computer, and in a dogfight, the person who was outsmarted dies.

Plus, at 10Gs, you need to worry more about pieces falling off your plane than anything else.
[/quote]
Again, the AI software loaded onto each automated aircraft allows the computer to find solutions to new problems without assistance and the time it takes to come up with a solution is greatly reduced when there are dozens of automated aircraft communicating with each other on how to fix the problem. Besides, 24 RP years of experience (2 RL years of RPing them learning) before being able to match average pilots is a long time.

Although it will take more time than a human pilot can learn, air warfare is not all about reactions. A computer will always react faster than a human pilot and if equipped with high speed cameras, allowing it to dodge some incoming fire (or shift position in a way where the shell/missile would not hit critical systems). Computers can also withstand much higher Gs than humans, enabling the usage of highly maneuverable yet fast aircraft that would have given pilots numerous lethal concussions and strokes. Since there is no need for life support and that computers can be compacted much more easily, it allows the usage of smaller (and harder to detect and hit) aircraft.

In brief, advantages that average fighter pilots and high end computers would have:

-Problem solving (Humans)
-Reaction time (Computers)
-Withstanding high maneuverability at high speed (Computers)
-Being able to pilot smaller aircraft (Computers, I like for someone to try to get their pilots to use 2 meter tall and 9 meters long aircraft.)
-Expendability (Humans, since the large computers onboard will be very expensive, unless if the human pilots are elite pilots.)
-Endurance (Computers, humans can not continue highly demanding activities for days straight without rest, drinks, and meals.)
-Trickery (Humans, but when as the computers gain more combat experience, they will rival human pilots.)

You can design aircraft to withstand much higher G, but most are limited around five G since the major structure weakness of all fighter aircraft are the squishy, squishy pilots' bodies with fragile brains.

[Subtleknifewielder]

HHAYD the point is such advanced AI will NOT be even in the development stage buy the cut-off date. No. End of story..

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1286408315' post='2477522']
HHAYD the point is such advanced AI will NOT be even in the development stage buy the cut-off date. No. End of story..
[/quote]
Subtle's right. We're not even in true AI's infancy now, it won't be ready in 10 years. You have a problem HHAYD. You take very easy problems, and you try to give them difficult solutions. Just do what everyone else does. Develop better fighters, train better pilots, and build better missiles.

[Sargun II]

Lynneth: maybe. Query me about it when you get the chance.

[HHAYD]

Automated recon/detector aircraft with very limited offensive capabilities (just enough to shoot incoming AA missiles out of the sky and flee if detected, and destroy sources of radio interference) it is.

Main roles:

-Scout ground targets with its powerful cameras and other sensors.

-Spot enemy aircraft and enemy's fire and alert allied aircraft before the enemy manages to inflict harm. One of the roles would be spotting incoming shells using their high speed cameras and alerting the manned aircraft. Currently I can't decide if all manned aircraft should also have an AI that is dedicated to avoiding/minimizing damages from enemy's harm since human pilots will never react fast enough.

-If enemy's AA missiles lock onto the automated aircraft, it will fire mini-missiles (about the size of a .50 caliber bullet) to shoot the missiles out of the sky and deploy flares and chaff if all else fails. It will then flee and attempt to avoid being spotted while continuing its mission. It will not engage enemy aircraft or take extremely complex maneuvers unless if directly controlled by a human operator.

-Radio jam it and it will try to find the source of the interference. Then fire a large missile to blow it up since the automated aircraft would be useless without wireless connection. That will be the only kind of major harm it can inflict on enemy forces directly.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Automated craft as you describe in [i]that[/i] post, I believe, are only a few small steps up from what we have today.

[HHAYD]

What are the different uses between a single and dual seated fighter aircraft?

Edited October 23, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

A Single seater is primarily a fighter interceptor and air superiority fighter. A twin seater is primarily a fighter bomber with the rear seat occupied by the navigator/bombardier/weapons specialist.

[HHAYD]

Which one would be most fuel efficient and reliable in a military vehicle assuming if all of the engines ran on diesel? OPOC engine(s), stirling engine(s), scuderi engine(s), or a turbine engine?

For tanks, the total hp would be at 2000.

For medium vehicles, the total hp would be around 1000.

For light vehicles, the total hp would be around 600.

[Uberstein]

The only military Stirling engine in action is the one on the Swedish submarines we can't detect.

[Zoot Zoot]

DAMN SWEDES

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1288096857' post='2493528']
DAMN SWEDES
[/quote]
lol, zoot.

[HHAYD]

EDIT: Nevermind

Edited October 26, 2010 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

Can pure tungsten be used in a engine cylinder and piston?

[Kankou]

No. It's too soft for that. You have to make alloys for engines.

Why would you even want tungsten engines anyway?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1288232570' post='2494786']
No. It's too soft for that. You have to make alloys for engines.

Why would you even want tungsten engines anyway?
[/quote]
The higher the operating temperature, the more efficient it is. But the metals that are typically used in the engines (steel or titanium alloy) have too low of a melting point for the fuel to completely burned.

Edited October 28, 2010 by HHAYD