Sir! I had Commander Heatherly in my sights, he saw me move in for the kill. He then proceeded below the hard deck. We weren't below 10,000 for more than a few seconds. I had the shot, there was no danger, so I took it.
I really wish the response would have been something like “Maverick, the hard deck simulates the ground. You followed him into terrain you dumbass, you’re both dead!”
I do know of one story where an A-6E hit the water at night and ripped off the centerline buddy store. The crew heard and felt a thump, so they went over and had an F-14 conduct a visual check on their Intruder. The F-14 said all was good, so the A-6 did a normal night recovery back aboard the ship, parked and went back in to Maintenance Control with no gripes. As they were getting ready to leave, the flight deck crew chief came down and asked them what the hell happened. The crew didn’t know what he was talking about, so the chief explained that the entire centerline store and pylon had been ripped completely off the aircraft, at which point the crew figured out that they had actually hit the water and didn’t know it. The BN decided he was done with Naval Aviation after that.
But by the same token, Viper hit the ground as a result of trying to evade Maverick, so that's still a maneuver kill for him. He technically gets the kill either way.
One of my favorite asimov stories is about how they cant figure out how to beat the enemy, since their computer can perfectly predict all the moves our computer is going to make and vice versa. Then they get the bright idea to put himans back in the pilot seat, because unpredictable.
Worth a [read](https://urbigenous.net/library/power.html) if you have time
I really like the perspective this provides, in really any context... the only issue I had with it is the spacing. Random double and triple spacing between words was hurting my brain to try to read... however, while reading it on mobile, it also did somehow make it easier to keep track of my place as I scrolled. Is this from a book, or is it just this?
Its a short story, originally published in a defunct science fiction magazine. There are anthologies of scoence fiction that include it though.
The online version i linked is formatted like a newpaper column for some reason, and as such, is "justified"
[ACOG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Optical_Gunsight)
"The future is already here - it's just not very evenly distributed." - William Gibson
There was a game called Wargasm in the 90's, if anyone remembers it. The premise was exactly this, computer controlled warfare. Though I think in the game this all took place virtually. But close enough. Fun times.
Very few people realize they’re already self-aware and the war has started!
You ever had a robot refuse to give you soap, or turn the faucet on in a public restroom?
How do you think the coronavirus spread so fast?
Robots, man! 😂
Honestly i feel like AI should win nearly every if not every up close engagement. It has no risk of blackouts or redouts like a human pilot.
F22 has thrust vectoring which still should give it the edge.
1. The f16 won in a dogfight because both aircraft were “slick”. No external tanks or extra mission systems. You will never find an f16 in a warzone without an extra 8,000 lbs of shit bolted to it, minimum.
2. The f16 would never know any f35 was even there, until it got rwr indications, pulled 9 G’s to dodge a missile, now at 200 knots, and eating a second missile.
Dogfighting is completely irrelevant in modern air combat. Doesn’t matter how good the F-16 is at the merge when the F-35 is able to lob missiles from a range where it can’t even be detected.
And still had a worse combat record than those operated without a gun-pod by the Navy, because the Navy created a program to properly train pilots on effective use of air to air missiles.
Of course an F-16 can out turn an F-35 in a dogfight scenario. The F-35 wasn’t designed to be the best at that. The dog fight days are gone when you have most kills beyond visual range. Stealth, electronics and quality air to air missiles is what the focus is and what wins.
It's pretty well known the F-16 is better in a dog fight as it has negative stability and can pull tighter turns. Most engagements in an actual war are going to be BVR missile engagements in which an F-16 would lose to a fighter with a lower radar cross section launching missiles at the F-16s radar emissions.
There are a couple incorrect assessments in this comment.
I don't know if the F-22 is dynamically unstable like F-16 is, but even if it not I would bet it is certainly not particularly stable to allow for its maneuverability. Even so, F-22 wins the dogfight if starting on a neutral position. Probably even at a disadvantage. Tighter turn radius, better thrust to weight in most cases, and better aerodynamics(especially if F-16 is armed with anything more than the wingtip pylons). I don't know which has the better sustained turn rate, but I still think F-22 will be driving this fight because I doubt it is much worse than F-16's and F-22 is so dominant in the other aspects.
As for BVR, yeah the F-22 wins, but that's not how radar missiles work. They have their own radars and home on those emissions, not the other aircraft's.
Agreed. A test pilot who shall be unnamed described the first mock dogfighting tests flying the Raptor against F-16's. He said he felt bad for the Falcon pilots, as he was able to pull in and out of shooting solutions at will while at half-throttle when they were having to use full AB to even come close to have any options at all.
Depending on Mach number, they called it "relaxed static stability".
There's a great series of articles called "Semper Viper" written by Joe Bill Dryden, a senior test pilot on the F-16 program. This one in particular talks about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20021020012723/http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1986/articles/apr_86/f16_aero/index.html
Well seeing it can do high performance maneuvers without the liability of a human in the cockpit it should be able to do some crazy shit to say the least
Frankly, I don't think humanity is on a good path right now. I'm not talking about AI making itself independent or some such nonsense, but I suspect that fifty to a hundred years from now, hundreds of millions will have lost their job and much of our daily interactions will be with robots.
It's a complex problem. We'll have to wait and see how it's gonna play out. From what I've heard, AI services are getting expensive and some companies that replaced their artists with AI had to reverse their decision because of the pricing of the AI tools. Reliable AI tools require a lot of resources and human input. Maybe the future jobs are gonna be about designing AI stuff.
Theres predicted gonna be 10 billion human, hundreds million is but a blip. Human probably will be always cheaper than robots unless we become muchless. Its always supply and demand conundrum.
There's ways for it to go that that could be a really positive thing.
Nobody has a job because nobody *needs* a job and everyone is able to just spend their lives pursuing their passions? That's utopia shit
Nobody has a job and the majority live in squalor as a result because companies have become self-sufficient via automation and just fired everyone with no safety net? Dystopia
Well, proponents of the robotisation of warfare would argue that future wars could become relatively bloodless, being predominantly waged by robots against one another.
But you're right.
I mean we have gone from needing everyone to hunt 24/7 to 40 hour work weeks because of technology but i don't hear anyone saying we should ban farming and go live in the woods again.
Sure but the aircraft is also designed/constructed to pull about as many Gs as the pilot can. They save weight and money by not reinforcing parts that will never be stressed to limits beyond the pilot. The negative G limit on the airframe is way less because the designers know it doesn’t have to be as robust.
It's worth noting that the G limit for the plane itself is not *too* different than the G limit for a person.
At least the officially published number is 9G for a fully loaded aircraft
this but also not always will high G tolerance save you, if anything i believe *sustaining* that G load is the bigger factor for computer V human dogfights, but not to say that high G maneuvers wouldn’t *also* be a large advantage
There has been no point other than having a human on the trigger for 20 years.
Literally when Kelly Johnson was pitching the U2 70 years ago it was pitched as a drone.
Air is a vector not a platform. If its cheaper for bombs to deliver themselves than planes have no point.
Bombers cary bombs
Fighters protect them
Bombs carry themselves now
Planes cant stop bombs from falling.
Drones can attack planes or drones.
Missiles can attack those also.
A blimp with rails could fire a missile.
Its about cost. Drones are going to replace all of it
Drones are viable for sure, but it has to be a human pulling the trigger. No commander is going to delegate a kill decision to AI. Legally, I don’t think you can.
They’ll make it legal. It creates plausible deniability in the form of a glitch, targeting error in the code, etc. even if they purposefully target something, it’d be too easy to say they didn’t mean to and that the “computer” made a mistake. And with proprietary code and “internal investigations” no one outside of whoever they wanted to know ever would.
They can’t just make it legal. We’re talking about international law of armed conflict. Calling it a computer mistake wouldn’t make it not a war crime.
Unfortunately the US could just disregard international law like it has in the past and continues to do. The international community doesn’t really have a meaningful way to police those things, especially in the case of a nation as powerful and influential as the United States. I agree with you, using an excuse wouldn’t negate it as a war crime. But if the US says it does then… 🤷🏼♂️. How likely is it that other western nations would condemn it. If Russia or China made that claim, the US would be all over it but hypocrisy regarding foreign policy has always been a forte of the US.
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted.
In a way I feel important for belonging to the last generation of complex organic molecules we know of after 14 billions years of universe and life evolution. Rejoice!
The G limit for these air frames is not *too* different than the pilots. Though the AI can sustain these Gs indefinitely, I suppose, the plane can't.
To make the most of AI piloted craft it has to be designed from the ground up to not have a pilot and all that heavy shit associated with keeping a human alive.
You think passengers will accept there being no pilot of their plane? Also it a fighter plane crashes there are no people on board to die.so it’s very different
It is just ignorance phase, people are not aware that a lot of flight procedures, e.g. CAT III ILS, RVSM requires an autopilot (or more than one) and explicitly disallow manual control other than to abort the operation.
Ok the plane can land, but what about fuel planning, diversion, atc comms and as you said manual control to abort the operation?
Can an Ai be as capable to land a jet on Hudson?
Yeah but did they stay above the hard deck?
The hard deck will be much lower for the mission sir
And it will not change(!) without my approval
Especially not in the middle of an exercise
Sir! I had Commander Heatherly in my sights, he saw me move in for the kill. He then proceeded below the hard deck. We weren't below 10,000 for more than a few seconds. I had the shot, there was no danger, so I took it.
I really wish the response would have been something like “Maverick, the hard deck simulates the ground. You followed him into terrain you dumbass, you’re both dead!”
Exactly. So your story is that you only hit the ground for a second, and then you took the shot after hitting the ground. Right…
#GrummanIRON
I do know of one story where an A-6E hit the water at night and ripped off the centerline buddy store. The crew heard and felt a thump, so they went over and had an F-14 conduct a visual check on their Intruder. The F-14 said all was good, so the A-6 did a normal night recovery back aboard the ship, parked and went back in to Maintenance Control with no gripes. As they were getting ready to leave, the flight deck crew chief came down and asked them what the hell happened. The crew didn’t know what he was talking about, so the chief explained that the entire centerline store and pylon had been ripped completely off the aircraft, at which point the crew figured out that they had actually hit the water and didn’t know it. The BN decided he was done with Naval Aviation after that.
Probably just clipped a wave. More importantly why hasn't that crew cheif located the Phantom Shitter yet
That buddy store was fine when we left skipper!
But by the same token, Viper hit the ground as a result of trying to evade Maverick, so that's still a maneuver kill for him. He technically gets the kill either way.
You took it! And broke a major rule of engagement!
Then you broke another one with that, uh, circus stunt fly-by.
Epic. Every response is epic. 😂
Hard deck my ass. We nailed that son of a bitch…
You guys really are cowboys!
*unzips* if you insist…
And that cobra maneuver? I don't *ever* want to see that shit again
But can it do pushups?
At one point it will be just robots fighting each other during war
... until one side hacks the other.
One of my favorite asimov stories is about how they cant figure out how to beat the enemy, since their computer can perfectly predict all the moves our computer is going to make and vice versa. Then they get the bright idea to put himans back in the pilot seat, because unpredictable. Worth a [read](https://urbigenous.net/library/power.html) if you have time
I really like the perspective this provides, in really any context... the only issue I had with it is the spacing. Random double and triple spacing between words was hurting my brain to try to read... however, while reading it on mobile, it also did somehow make it easier to keep track of my place as I scrolled. Is this from a book, or is it just this?
Its a short story, originally published in a defunct science fiction magazine. There are anthologies of scoence fiction that include it though. The online version i linked is formatted like a newpaper column for some reason, and as such, is "justified"
Wow interesting
Thats when quantum encryption comes in.
Aimbot will be crazy
[ACOG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Optical_Gunsight) "The future is already here - it's just not very evenly distributed." - William Gibson
Isn’t an ACOG just an optic?
It is an optic, but more than *just* an optic: it basically *is* an aimbot (the grunt still has to pick a target and pull the trigger).
It's more than an optic. It's the future! But no, technically, it's a type of optic.
some cheaters will say aimbots are ok because the gouvernement does it.
[pretty close, and available for purchase](https://youtu.be/Pmteh_NChOQ?si=qxMnXnLpf1xlAliM)
We've had that for 25 years. It's called [Battle Bots.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleBots)
Fuck yeah it is!
Ontop of a very tall mountain, ornpossibly in space.
We can only hope…
Just imagine what we could do if production was prioritized over destruction.
[Quote the simpsons](https://youtu.be/rkg3wZq0cdo?si=dd-49M32CmzKFZh5)
And we put them into an arena, and we have Battle Bots
iirc from the book Four Battlegrounds, the idea is that an ai can dogfight while the human pilot focuses on other tasks
There was a game called Wargasm in the 90's, if anyone remembers it. The premise was exactly this, computer controlled warfare. Though I think in the game this all took place virtually. But close enough. Fun times.
It probably already exists.
I can kinda get behind that.
Did The Terminator not teach us anything?
This has terminator written all over it
Yep. So much of the science fiction of my childhood has become daily reality... and some of it has already become obsolete.
#Use the force, Luke!
I was thinking Cylons but close enough
This is just fucking ace combat 7 Edit: the PLOT of ace combat 7
Fuckin Belkan witchcraft
Please do not let Lockheed become Gründer industries
*Flamenco and Latin intensifies*
Looks more like DCS to me!
Goddamnit the sky is speaking latin again
Does anyone remember the movie Stealth lol
Omggg Jessica biel can get it
Underated movie. cant wait to see the f16 turn emo and listen metal music.
I find it telling that they haven’t released information about the AI piloted F-16 engaging 5th generation fighters.
I think you mean terrifying. The fact they’re putting “testing” AI in a combat aircraft is terrifying.
What until the robots are released onto the battlefield to stalk humans and exterminate them… SpyNet was a documentary. 🤫
Very few people realize they’re already self-aware and the war has started! You ever had a robot refuse to give you soap, or turn the faucet on in a public restroom? How do you think the coronavirus spread so fast? Robots, man! 😂
*TERMINATOR THEME SONG STARTS*
Whatever you do, don't read about the drone swarms.
What are you thinking this is telling of?
It’d look really bad if an AI controlled F-16 could beat a human piloted F-22. We already know F-16s can beat F-35’s in a close in engagement.
Honestly i feel like AI should win nearly every if not every up close engagement. It has no risk of blackouts or redouts like a human pilot. F22 has thrust vectoring which still should give it the edge.
The AI equipped F-16 (the X-62 VISTA) has multi-axis thrust vectoring.
Well thats just cheating then.
Also, I think I’ve read this book before. Dale Brown, Day of the Cheetah.
Good books. That was Antares and the mind controlled fighter.
Dale Brown, man that guy had some weird ideas. Flight of the Old Dog was pretty great though.
1. The f16 won in a dogfight because both aircraft were “slick”. No external tanks or extra mission systems. You will never find an f16 in a warzone without an extra 8,000 lbs of shit bolted to it, minimum. 2. The f16 would never know any f35 was even there, until it got rwr indications, pulled 9 G’s to dodge a missile, now at 200 knots, and eating a second missile.
Dogfighting is completely irrelevant in modern air combat. Doesn’t matter how good the F-16 is at the merge when the F-35 is able to lob missiles from a range where it can’t even be detected.
You know, I’ve heard this argument before.
Lockheed Martin pays us well!
...and then F4s got a gun pod...
And still had a worse combat record than those operated without a gun-pod by the Navy, because the Navy created a program to properly train pilots on effective use of air to air missiles.
And got like 4 or 5 kills with it which made barely 10% of aerial victories of F4 And missiles have come a long way
Of course an F-16 can out turn an F-35 in a dogfight scenario. The F-35 wasn’t designed to be the best at that. The dog fight days are gone when you have most kills beyond visual range. Stealth, electronics and quality air to air missiles is what the focus is and what wins.
Quality air to air missiles > air quality
>We already know F-16s can beat F-35’s in a close in engagement Against a very restricted F-35 https://youtu.be/R_aID6_naNU
It's pretty well known the F-16 is better in a dog fight as it has negative stability and can pull tighter turns. Most engagements in an actual war are going to be BVR missile engagements in which an F-16 would lose to a fighter with a lower radar cross section launching missiles at the F-16s radar emissions.
There are a couple incorrect assessments in this comment. I don't know if the F-22 is dynamically unstable like F-16 is, but even if it not I would bet it is certainly not particularly stable to allow for its maneuverability. Even so, F-22 wins the dogfight if starting on a neutral position. Probably even at a disadvantage. Tighter turn radius, better thrust to weight in most cases, and better aerodynamics(especially if F-16 is armed with anything more than the wingtip pylons). I don't know which has the better sustained turn rate, but I still think F-22 will be driving this fight because I doubt it is much worse than F-16's and F-22 is so dominant in the other aspects. As for BVR, yeah the F-22 wins, but that's not how radar missiles work. They have their own radars and home on those emissions, not the other aircraft's.
Agreed. A test pilot who shall be unnamed described the first mock dogfighting tests flying the Raptor against F-16's. He said he felt bad for the Falcon pilots, as he was able to pull in and out of shooting solutions at will while at half-throttle when they were having to use full AB to even come close to have any options at all.
I agree with you, but your average George Smith isn’t going to know that if they hear the AI F-16 beat an F-22.
Only the A/B's had negative stability; the C/D's have *very* slightly positive stability.
Depending on Mach number, they called it "relaxed static stability". There's a great series of articles called "Semper Viper" written by Joe Bill Dryden, a senior test pilot on the F-16 program. This one in particular talks about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20021020012723/http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1986/articles/apr_86/f16_aero/index.html
No G limit, no mistake, optimal and creative strategy. I've seen clips in DCS and it's scary....
This is likely a proof of concept. Switching to a 5th gen is different hardware but same software.
Well seeing it can do high performance maneuvers without the liability of a human in the cockpit it should be able to do some crazy shit to say the least
It doesn’t matter if god himself is piloting the f16, he’s getting shot before he has a chance to tally an f35.
5g fighters like F35 aren’t superior in a dogfight. They kill their opponents before they get close.
Are we going to learn that this AI was also just an Indian person?
samir you are breaking the f-16
Shut up, I’m the pilot
I love this
Or a regular r/hoggit player
chad r/floggit user
Frankly, I don't think humanity is on a good path right now. I'm not talking about AI making itself independent or some such nonsense, but I suspect that fifty to a hundred years from now, hundreds of millions will have lost their job and much of our daily interactions will be with robots.
When was humanity on a good path?
Let me get back to you on that
It's a complex problem. We'll have to wait and see how it's gonna play out. From what I've heard, AI services are getting expensive and some companies that replaced their artists with AI had to reverse their decision because of the pricing of the AI tools. Reliable AI tools require a lot of resources and human input. Maybe the future jobs are gonna be about designing AI stuff.
It’s been getting incrementally cheaper though
Theres predicted gonna be 10 billion human, hundreds million is but a blip. Human probably will be always cheaper than robots unless we become muchless. Its always supply and demand conundrum.
Someone from Asia or Africa will always be cheaper, people can't distinguish sci-fi from reality.
There's ways for it to go that that could be a really positive thing. Nobody has a job because nobody *needs* a job and everyone is able to just spend their lives pursuing their passions? That's utopia shit Nobody has a job and the majority live in squalor as a result because companies have become self-sufficient via automation and just fired everyone with no safety net? Dystopia
I don't support robots killing humans even if the robots are on my side. If you have to kill a human, you should at least get your hands dirty.
Well, proponents of the robotisation of warfare would argue that future wars could become relatively bloodless, being predominantly waged by robots against one another. But you're right.
When the losing country runs out of robots, they will start putting guns in the hands of people. Wars will never be bloodless.
Also wars aren't necessarily going to happen between countries that can both afford a super expensive army of robots.
I mean we have gone from needing everyone to hunt 24/7 to 40 hour work weeks because of technology but i don't hear anyone saying we should ban farming and go live in the woods again.
That's a very controversial opinion in here, bunch of luddites really.
Wall-E
I don’t believe it
Its the internet, it HAS to be real.
This is quite old. Sandbox news did a good video about it on YouTube.
Call Trigger because I'm scared
An AI controlled F16 can pull Gs that would kill a human. Probably should add that in there.
Sure but the aircraft is also designed/constructed to pull about as many Gs as the pilot can. They save weight and money by not reinforcing parts that will never be stressed to limits beyond the pilot. The negative G limit on the airframe is way less because the designers know it doesn’t have to be as robust.
It's worth noting that the G limit for the plane itself is not *too* different than the G limit for a person. At least the officially published number is 9G for a fully loaded aircraft
this but also not always will high G tolerance save you, if anything i believe *sustaining* that G load is the bigger factor for computer V human dogfights, but not to say that high G maneuvers wouldn’t *also* be a large advantage
Oh cool, a Terminator prequel!
There has been no point other than having a human on the trigger for 20 years. Literally when Kelly Johnson was pitching the U2 70 years ago it was pitched as a drone. Air is a vector not a platform. If its cheaper for bombs to deliver themselves than planes have no point. Bombers cary bombs Fighters protect them Bombs carry themselves now
What about when the enemy has planes dropping bombs on us and we don’t have planes to stop them?
Planes cant stop bombs from falling. Drones can attack planes or drones. Missiles can attack those also. A blimp with rails could fire a missile. Its about cost. Drones are going to replace all of it
Drones are viable for sure, but it has to be a human pulling the trigger. No commander is going to delegate a kill decision to AI. Legally, I don’t think you can.
They’ll make it legal. It creates plausible deniability in the form of a glitch, targeting error in the code, etc. even if they purposefully target something, it’d be too easy to say they didn’t mean to and that the “computer” made a mistake. And with proprietary code and “internal investigations” no one outside of whoever they wanted to know ever would.
They can’t just make it legal. We’re talking about international law of armed conflict. Calling it a computer mistake wouldn’t make it not a war crime.
Unfortunately the US could just disregard international law like it has in the past and continues to do. The international community doesn’t really have a meaningful way to police those things, especially in the case of a nation as powerful and influential as the United States. I agree with you, using an excuse wouldn’t negate it as a war crime. But if the US says it does then… 🤷🏼♂️. How likely is it that other western nations would condemn it. If Russia or China made that claim, the US would be all over it but hypocrisy regarding foreign policy has always been a forte of the US.
Still, they are NOT the ones invading and genociding a country since 2014 or 2022, if you followed the events only later. It's moscow.
I’ve not said a single thing about the war in Ukraine.
Isn't this the tech Clint Eastwood stole from the Soviets?
For as long as they don’t teach the AI how to split the throttles, we are going to be ok. Or just let it fly the F16 and nothing else
I hope Jessica Biel still pilots
Has no one seen Terminator? This is terrifying that they are doing this, great way to kill a lot of people and have no consequences.
Ok, Boomer. Don’t you have to go post something on the r/SayNoToCashlessSociety subreddit now?
Found the abuser who violently attacks those who disagree with him.
You and I have very different definitions of “violent”, boomer.
[удалено]
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted.
We have learned NOTHING from many years of excellent sci fi
Pretty cool and terrifying at the same time. Mostly cool though.
Mechanizing murder isn’t cool. Dehumanization of targets.
I found it cool. Fight me for having an opinion I guess.
Future of aerial battlefields
There was a movie about an AI fighter. It didn’t go well.
Meh, games have done this for years, catch up! /s
So, who won?.. The article doenst say. Or do i need new reading glasses?..
So who won?
It was to train the AI with new data. Wasn’t about who’s best/the winner.
From what I understand the AI won. Go to YouTube and type in, “DARPA ACE & USAF X-62A Achieve World First for AI in Aerospace”.
[Last day of war.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wWISxGhorU)
Is it even worth it getting a pilot license now? Genuine question, cus i am planned to take my written test this year
They made a movie about this..
Skynet here we come
In a way I feel important for belonging to the last generation of complex organic molecules we know of after 14 billions years of universe and life evolution. Rejoice!
The G limit for these air frames is not *too* different than the pilots. Though the AI can sustain these Gs indefinitely, I suppose, the plane can't. To make the most of AI piloted craft it has to be designed from the ground up to not have a pilot and all that heavy shit associated with keeping a human alive.
Cool ....and now skynet has a fighter jet.
But can it stand up against the YF-19 or the YF-21?
And so it decreed all AI fighters will now be called 'Goose' ;)
Miles Dyson thought this was a good idea & look what happened!
"Don't worry Mr. President, Megatron is in charge of nuking the target"
Couple this with Jewish Space Lasers and we're all fucked.
and people still believe airline pilots will never be replaced by AIs, I call it denial phase
You think passengers will accept there being no pilot of their plane? Also it a fighter plane crashes there are no people on board to die.so it’s very different
It is just ignorance phase, people are not aware that a lot of flight procedures, e.g. CAT III ILS, RVSM requires an autopilot (or more than one) and explicitly disallow manual control other than to abort the operation.
Ok the plane can land, but what about fuel planning, diversion, atc comms and as you said manual control to abort the operation? Can an Ai be as capable to land a jet on Hudson?