[Igor Antunov]

AI continues to improve, autonomous drones are becoming common, will the next fighter iteration (20-30 years from now) do away with the pilot completely, allowing for far greater accelerations and maneuverability?

I don't see how else the next generation of fighter could be improved upon, other than to ditch the weakest link.

[Piano Red]

Looks like you've read through the Pentagon's latest QDR.

[Igor Antunov]

The issue here is that once you give an autonomous, heavily armed machine the ability to decide wether something should be destroyed or not, you have a problem. It's not like asimov's three laws of robotics could apply in a combat situation. And I don't think remote control is possible, radio signals lag over long distances, even the speed of light isn't sufficient, the aircraft that can make decisisons on it's own would come out on top.

So, what to do about the 'letting war machines think for themselves' dillema?

[W01f]

I would think there would still be some level of remote control to make the important decisions while allowing the AI to select potential targets and maneuver the craft to its highest potential. Not that I know anything about unmanned combat craft or where they're actually headed, it just seems logical.

[Thunderhawk]

So, what to do about the 'letting war machines think for themselves' dillema?

We already do: missiles. We tag an enemy which is often llittle more then a blip on a screen without an IFF code. I believe this will be especially true in offensive missions over enemy air space where most blips without IFFs will be something of the enemies and therefore open game.

I suspect future fighters will have a huge communication suit for it to be part of a network with drones, many of which will be little more then missile drones. Will they have a human on board.. yes, but the "pilot" will be just as much a drone controller commanding his wing of drones as he will be a pilot.

[War Angel]

Autonomous - probably not, maybe only for flight and not attack.

Remote-controlled - already, a lot of activity and strikes are carried out by UAVs, rather than manned aircraft. I personally believe the future is fat, pimpled joystick jockeys sitting on a comfortable chair in forward-command base somewhere, controlling a full-sized, high-performance, dog-fight capable aircraft.

[Zagadka]

What WA said. It would be stupidly irresponsible to have completely autonomous combat aircraft. Autonomy may just be left for drones so we keep our battlefield networks up.

Remotely controlled UAVs are a definite future tech... not needing to carry a pilot changes the ball game entirely. Not only, as WA says, will they become more maneuverable - they will also be disposable (to an extent, they're still expensive, but it's a much easier call to send in a remote control UAV into a radar hot spot than a manned aircraft).

And even with an armed autonomous UAV, there have to be overrides.

Battles decided by robots is an exciting prospect, saving uncountable lives. Unfortunately, only a handful of countries will have those available, so our enemies are gonna get fucked up pretty badly, which means they'll go even more underground/terrorist.

[Rodion]

The X45 can fly and engage targets on its own. It costs a fraction of what an F22 does and could open up a new dimension in performance. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the US military doesn't trust a drone to do a Man's job.

The problem with drones is, they're a bitch to develop and integrate into a complete organization. It's almost funny how the first battle drones are used in the least imaginative way possible - clearing mines. Give a robot plane to Al Qaeda - they'll fly it into a Navy vessel and congratulate themselves for being tactical masterminds.

Right now, the technology is barely being utilized. What this means, is that a small group of people with proper access and sufficient resources can field a military of Superpower equivalent capacity in any region of the world - all out of a backyard in Nowhere, Alabama. They won't have the "boots on the ground", no, but imagine what a dozen fighters, unstoppable for all practical intents and purposes, can do to, say, the ME peace process. Or the situation in Taiwan. Or the Koreas.

Instead of (or rather, in addition to) paying Russia/Pakistan to prevent their nuclear stockpiles from falling into the wrong hands, the West should be watching Japanese toy makers. That's all they think drones are - toys, gimmicks. No match for a real soldier. That's not the point. When you've got drones, you don't need soldiers. You don't need public opinion, or foreign support, or a military-industrial complex. All you need is money and vision.

To answer your question: yes, 6th gen fighters will fly on their own. They will fly soon and whomever they fly for will shape the course of history.

[Zagadka]

It's almost funny how the first battle drones are used in the least imaginative way possible - clearing mines.

That actually is very logical. Not an intensive task to test platforms, and it is a very dangerous one that ROVs definitely should be doing from the get go.

Give a robot plane to Al Qaeda - they'll fly it into a Navy vessel and congratulate themselves for being tactical masterminds.

In the US, we call that a "cruise missile".

[War Angel]

When you've got drones, you don't need soldiers. You don't need public opinion, or foreign support, or a military-industrial complex. All you need is money and vision.

Almost, but misses the most important part...

The person flying that drone. It can either be a hyper-intelligent, multi-tasking freak with crazy lightning-fast reflexes, or an incompetent arse with no tactical grasp.

Needless to say, you could wreak absolute havoc with a handful of the better soldiers\joystick jockeys, than you could with any number of arse-wipes... just like real air warfare.

[Zagadka]

you don't need soldiers. You don't need public opinion, or foreign support,

This is utterly painful to read. Just because you have no front line soldiers does not mean that you can do whatever the hell you want without recourse.

[Rodion]

Almost, but misses the most important part...

The person flying that drone. It can either be a hyper-intelligent, multi-tasking freak with crazy lightning-fast reflexes, or an incompetent arse with no tactical grasp.

Needless to say, you could wreak absolute havoc with a handful of the better soldiers\joystick jockeys, than you could with any number of arse-wipes... just like real air warfare.

Remote controlled drones are an inefficient compromise. In the future, you will have a fleet of vehicles moving around on their own and only requesting permission before [enter degree of commander's trust in programming]. Every single drone will be a "multi-tasking freak with crazy lightning-fast reflexes". Momma didn't raise no chicken robots.

[Igor Antunov]

Perhaps those drones will require some sort of highly intelligent centralized overbrain to minitor and update their commands, perhaps we could call it Skynet?

[Rodion]

Perhaps we should.

[War Angel]

Remote controlled drones are an inefficient compromise. In the future, you will have a fleet of vehicles moving around on their own and only requesting permission before [enter degree of commander's trust in programming]. Every single drone will be a "multi-tasking freak with crazy lightning-fast reflexes". Momma didn't raise no chicken robots.

I don't think the military will ever fully trust full-AI drones for high-priority missions. I think the 'compromise' will be a computer-controlled drone with active interface with a human factor - making the choices, and even controlling the aircraft itself.

This could be true for ground vehicles, as well.

[Zagadka]

This could be true for ground vehicles, as well.

It will.

Which makes you wonder, what form these vehicles will take when they no longer have a need to carry a crew of 3-5 and shield them from harm, and how quickly they can engage targets... imagine a future tank, basically a high velocity, perhaps railgun, perhaps not, but main turret that can rotate and fire several pre-selected shots in a few seconds. It would be the same effect as having a modern attack heli pop up from behind a hill, fire off a series of rockets, and vanishing again - only this would be more mobile and less risky.

Then wonder the ethics of combat with such machines. Would it keep people out of war, or force people who can't afford robotic tanks to move further to terrorism?

[War Angel]

Which makes you wonder, what form these vehicles will take when they no longer have a need to carry a crew of 3-5 and shield them from harm, and how quickly they can engage targets... imagine a future tank, basically a high velocity, perhaps railgun, perhaps not, but main turret that can rotate and fire several pre-selected shots in a few seconds. It would be the same effect as having a modern attack heli pop up from behind a hill, fire off a series of rockets, and vanishing again - only this would be more mobile and less risky.

Then wonder the ethics of combat with such machines. Would it keep people out of war, or force people who can't afford robotic tanks to move further to terrorism?

The possibilities are mind-blowing, indeed. I think it would make wars longer, though, and would essentially rely on economic power and technology, rather than population and manpower quality. A small country like Japan could take over China, by producing lots of extremely sophisticated vessels, and all China would be able to do, is throw hordes of cannon-fodder in the machines' wake.

[Zagadka]

I suppose it'll be another adjustment to warfare like the machine gun caused in WWI, ending cavalry etc, or the tank/mechanized infantry in WWII, or rifling...

[Thunderhawk]

Without a human crew, protection vs cost will be reweighted for cost savings rather then current protection. I suspect there will be many drones of limited abiility rather then few drones that do many many things.

[Igor Antunov]

I too suspect the emphasis would be on lightweight, cheap unmanned weapons systems, at first at least. These would be used as support.

Going beyond this, to fully featured robotic craft and tanks that outperform human controlled systems...this kind of warfare would be too destructive I suspect, it wouldn't be long before the losing side resorted exclusively to tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. In fact nuclear weapons could become the standard choice by the many, in order to counter the militaries of the technologically privilidged few, which would of course mean disaster if we are still confined to one planet.

I suspect the ultimate weapons will take unexpected forms, biological weapons, that only target certain groups that don't posses immunity. For example whats to stop a belligerent from coming up with a deadly virus, secretely immunizing it's people, then unleashing it on it's enemies? It would take months/years for the battered victims to devise a vaccine, by which time millions would have died, leaving the door open for more conventional tactics.

Another total war would prove final this time around, only takes one great power to go all the way, and all others would follow. We'd be back in the 10th century AD overnight, and nobody could avoid this fate, nobody on earth at least.

Which is why I am an advocate of space colonization as soon as possible.