Identifying unknown emitters this way is a major preoccupation for modern militaries: A novel radio-frequency transmission can indicate anything from an entirely new threat to a well-known radar switching to a different mode. The Air Force runs a global system to take in data on such emissions, transmit it back to the analysts at the 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing, headquartered at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and then send updated “Mission Data Files” to aircraft around the world.
For older aircraft not designed with modern software in mind, this process can take months, but for an ever-growing number of systems, the 350th can run through it in hours.
From Lockheed Martin:
- Project Overwatch -- the first time a tactical AI model has been used in flight to generate an independent Combat ID on the pilot’s display.
“This is a demonstration of 6th Gen technology brought to a 5th Gen platform,” said Jake Wertz, vice president of F‑35 Combat Systems at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. “Equally important is our ability to re‑program the AI model on the ground and have those updates available for the next sortie—an essential step toward maintaining a tactical edge in a rapidly evolving threat environment.
Discovered this article on Tech Monitor (Dashboard), #1440871, under the AI/ML section
ludicrously clickbait title... flying "with AI" in the same way that people drive with a "baby on board".
if anything, both "flying with AI" hype and the "baby on board" bumper stickers are both just pulling undue attention of the neighboring operators away from actual situational awareness. a pilot should not need to be concerned with the inner workings of an EW[1] component, and it should communicate the proximity requirements for signal collection without anyone caring whether it's yesterday's "tactical AI model" or tomorrow's familiar old uninteresting blob.
"Electronic Warfare", and yes, it is all disgusting noise ↩
Who would win in a dogfight? AI F-35 or YFQ-44A?
please see my sibling comment. this AI has nothing to do with maneuvers.
fighter aircraft have been "fly-by-wire" for decades, although the control systems are deterministic [relative to pilot input] and tactical superiority is determined by airframes and munitions.
I thought the whole point of both these weapons systems is that it never comes to a dogfight because you just shoot shit down over the horizon?
Yeah I think you're right-- the battle would be with missiles, not guns. I used the wrong word, IDK what to call the missile fight. I guess my curiosity comes from how the two AI systems would handle that.
From what I've seen from DCS videos on youtube, a big part of winning missile fights comes down to knowing the enemy and the capability of their weapons systems. Like if you see a missile fired off and you know it's range, you can make a turn and/or drag it down to thicker air where it will never have the energy to reach you. Would an AI model just have all that information built in? Would there be a human helping it? Moltbook is cool but the stage where AIs will battle to the death is 100X more fascinating!
Let me start with: Moltbook is retarded, so sure AI vs AI aerial combat is much more interesting. Lol.
In the 90s I had a buddy working for GA and other friends, at Lockheed iirc, said they were just a bunch of bullshitting monkeys. But the Predator did deliver. I wouldn't bet against "establishing newcomer" tech companies in the defense industry - once they get to that stage they've often got something. My money would be on Anduril simply because they don't have a legacy platform to build around. Their entire platform is fit for purpose?
"engagement"
Under the Related while posting was this great read:
The case against the F-35 | Mises #941799