Slashdot Mirror
Unmanned Combat Aircraft
An AC sent in a link to a Jane's article about unmanned fighter aircraft, including some designed for carrier operations. (See older story.) Funny, everyone always thought it would be the tanks that were unmanned.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Yes, but you have to be careful and make sure no pop star computers take over control of your aircraft.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
That is a major reason to go unmanned. A very good pilot can reach 10 G. An unmanned vehicle should be able to turn at the maximum design strength of the airframe, without liquifying the pilot. :)
However, I'm sure that the designers of UCAV will use techniques designed to mitigate any attempt to jam the control signals for the UCAV.
The only really effective way to stop UCAV's other than a lucky shot by ground-based rapid-fire cannon is to detonate a low-yield (around 1 to 4 kT) nuclear warhead at very high altitude (e.g. around 25 km altitude). The EMP from the nuclear blast will effectively jam all communications between the ground controller and the UCAV, though the EMP effects would also jam the communications for the defenders, too.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Sweet, one of those could take out Iraqi radar installations, destroy some of Saddam's surface to air missile batteries, and still crack a few zillion keys per second for distributed.net.
If you see "Team Colin Powell" in the top 100 on the RC/5 stats page, now you know why.
Trolling is a art,
It can do the cobra maneuver? So can the MiG-29 & Su-27. It's impressive at airshows, but not very useful in combat. It was invented to try to fool pulse-doppler radar used by some missiles (i.e. AIM-120 AMRAAM), but most modern fighters' radar (i.e. APG-63/65/70) can still track it, close in and make an easy IR missile or gun kill.
The 3 Su-35s outfitted with 3D thrust vectoring are pretty impressive though. And about the only technology they've got over us is their IRST (infrared scan & track) system that lets them fire IR missiles off-boresight (i.e. over the shoulder).
The F-22 will start replacing the F-15 by then, & nothing is a match for the F-22.
The JSF will eventually replace the F-16, older F/A-18s, and RAF Harriers. It wasn't completely unfunded, just put on the back burner for now. Personally, I think another cheap, single engine, throwaway jet like the F-16 is a mistake waiting to happen. We should skip the JSF & build more F-22s.
Time & time again, dedicated single (or perhaps dual) purpose aircraft have proven much more capable at their mission than any multirole aircraft.
True, but it can carry JDAM precision guided munitions, which will make it a very formidable strike platform.
The Air Force doesn't do CAS for the Marines because that's not part of the Joint Doctrine. The Marines are designed to be a self sustaining force.
While CAS may not be the most glamorous AF job, they definitely have the best CAS platform in history: the A-10. It's a shame that some near-sighted generals want to have the F-16 try to take over its roles.
The UK is the only other country committed to purchasing the JSF. It'll probably end up being far over-budget & too expensive for anyone else to buy any.
I am surprised that it has not already been mentioned. There has to be some method of communication and control. Yes, there is the AI, but that only goes so far. There has to be a method of calling back a system, etc.As they say in security, it is not a matter of "if", it is just a matter of "when". Obviously, they will not tell the public how they or going to make their systems secure (security by obscurity), so there will be little outside testing (except by those with very good spies).
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
there was this chevy chase movie in the 80's about an unmanned fighter like this one, as I recall the movie was pretty funny.
The driver is most definitely a bottleneck in a standard F1 car.
:) As I recall, that sort of thing was part of why they dropped the old turbo engines - truly insane acceleration. In the name of reducing cornering speeds, tyres have been narrowed then forcibly grooved. Why bother reducing cornering speeds? Driver safety - after the spate of accidents in '94, it became clear they needed to make the cars safer at the dangerous points - the corners.
Various bits of design are purely there to protect the driver (which wouldn't be necessary in an autonomous vehicle) while some technologies have been banned to protect the driver.
Full ground effect underbodies were generating enough Gs in the corners to make the drivers begin to black out - 20 years ago. They banned them to avoid needing pressure suits for the driver's safety
Front wheels were moved to protect ankles when the suspension punctured the monocoque. X-wings were banned as they made it much harder to extract drivers in the event of an accident. They weren't so fond of how ugly the cars looked with them, but that wasn't the prime force.
The cars have to carry extinguishers and electrical cutout systems, both of which you can live without with no human on board.
Without trying one you can't say exactly what'd happen, but the autonomous vehicle could be a different shape. Aerodynamics on these things are critical, after all.
A car without a human driver could be substantially faster and certain developmental avenues wouldn't have been closed down.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
The other problem which occurred to me:
:-)
There's no law there which prevents robots from building others not encumbered by the three laws. Which could be in the interests of robot society as a whole...
I propose the fourth law
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
The balance between chassis, engine and driver WRT which is the most significant factor moves pretty much constantly. There have certainly been times when the driver was the least significant component in the package's overall performance.
This would simply be one of them, for racing cars.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Sounds like were nearly at the beginning of a Philip K. Dick novel.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
The combat problem of aircraft is actually a simpler problem in some regards, because generally everything can be better mapped to a certain degree. Long range sensors give an added edge as well.
Also far more things you have to identify for a tank amongst clutter which can render optical and RADAR ineffective
The combat problem with a tank involves far more as far as obstacles goes, plus the problem of identifying friend or foe in dealing with combatents. With aircraft this is dealt with by certain automated communications protocols. This is far harder to do on the ground. How do you identity civilians, etc?
Still a problem an enemy K10 tanker is a high value target it's worthwhile your UAV taking down by any means possible a civilian DC10 you don't want to even go near. They are more or less the same type of aircraft and you can't trust the enemy to send out an "I am your enemy" transponder signal.
In combat situations, your friends send out an "I am your friend" signal in response to the correct query.
A civilian aircraft is not going to respond to a military IFF query. But there is no reason to assume that a military aircraft will not respond with fully valid ATC transponder data.
Also you don't really want your UAV firing off IFF signals which turn out to be "I am a target for your anti radiation missiles"...
> When this thing gets hit, it just goes down whereever [sic] it wants to.
Your comment has two plausible interpretations:
(a) You believe the plane will go "whereever [sic] it wants to." That is, wherever its computer decides is best. Presumably "best" is a place with no structures or people. Even a 1:25k topo map from the USGS shows houses.
Response:
This behavior is good but your phrasing seems to indicate that this behavior is bad. Your rhetorical device is misleading and awkward.
(b) The plane goes somewhere other than where its control system desires. Possibly due to damaged control surfaces, broken servos, or a malfunctioning control computer.
Response:
A control computer can be made stronger than the human body. A human pilot is subject to the same equipment failures as a computer control (servos, linkages, etc). A human pilot bails out; a control computer steers the plane until impact. Therefore, it is possible to construct a control system that maintains control longer than a human pilot in a crash scenario. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe a control system would be constructed such that the preceeding is untrue. You did not conduct this simple analysis before you posted.
As I have shown in my two interpretations and associated responses, you are either misleadingly inarticulate or intellectually lazy, respectively.
A note:
There exists no "flame" moderation category. I wonder why acerbic posts such as this one aren't deserving of their own category? I propose three new categories:
- flame, entertaining (+1)
- flame, annoying (-1)
- flame, principally spelling, grammar (-2)
The last may overlap Redundant (-1) when applied to posts flaming the editors.
Ryan
EMP will destroy most electronics equiment in a large area. A nuclear blast over a city would destroy every electronic item in the city, regardless of whether it's got power or not. It creates a large EM field that induces a large current that fries everything.
Of course, the military knows this and they shield much of their electronics. So while civilian VCRs, TVs, phones, cars, etc. would be history, military units (like the UCAV) would live.
Reasons why the government continues to build weapons:
If a potential enemy knows that it's going to get its ass whipped, what are the chances of it picking a fight? Better weapons increase the chances of this perception taking root. Better weapons are therefore good. Myself, I prefer fewer conflicts over more anyday.
At the most extreme level, consider the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: it may sound grim, but it's also kept the world's trigger fingers away from the nukes for the last 40 years.
More lethality, increased standoff ranges, decreased response times, more integration, etc. are reasons why the armed forces wants the newest and latest toys. These reasons are important because, bottom line, the more advantages our soldiers have, the more soldiers will be alive after the next conflict (e.g. the Gulf War).
Take the M-16 rifle. US infantrymen were still learning the ins and outs of using and taking care of the new M-16 rifle while they were fighting in Vietnam. Result: hundreds of soldiers KIA from having a jammed weapon at exactly the wrong time. Introducing and learning how to use the newest and latest wonder hardware before we get into a fight will save lives.
Some weapons systems take way too long to procure and build to wait until we're near another conflict. The Navy's surface combatants and carriers take years to build, not to mention the time spent in their development phases. Start building Seawolf and Virginia class attack submarines now, and in 15 years we won't be stuck with obsolescent Los Angeles class SSNs when China finally gets around to taking military action against Taiwan.
So for those who don't know the scoop, all the planes that will be replaced by newer ones such as these go up for sale to countries that we have "erratic" ties to like Afghanistan.
More likely, they'll end up going to allies like Taiwan or Egypt, who could use the upgrades for their decaying militaries and we have no problems with selling to. Osama bin Laden's weapons came from the Soviet Afghanistan War, when the mujahedeen were our nominal allies then. Ditto for Iraq in the 1980s against Iran, who had fired on US ships and taken US diplomats hostage.
All these new toys for warfare when people are starving, and our economy slowing tanking. Thanks alot Dumbya.
Okay, you obviously missed A) the economic news that the US economy just grew by 2% and B) that the Fed is cutting interest rates like crazy. I'm not exactly sure how you think the few million dollars could be better spent to help the economy anyways. Monetary policy has been shown to be far superior in prodding the economy along than meager government spending changes.
And pardon me for sounding like a cold-hearted fascist conservative, but throwing money at poor people does not, in the long run, make them any better off! You'd think, after 3+ decades of the welfare state, that people would reconsider using big government as a solution to social and moral ills. Apparently bad ideas, like bad bosses, never go away.
If you were talking about foreign aid (especially to help starving people, a la Ethiopia and Somalia), it's notoriously bad for getting hijacked, commandeered by local warlords, and pocketed by corrupt bureaucrats. Also, consider this: the defense budget is a pittance to what the US government spends in entitlements, corporate subsidies, entitlements, interest towards the national debt, and entitlements. Did I mention entitlements? Sacred Cow programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are using up two-thirds of government expenditures. I wouldn't be worrying about the millions we spend developing UCAVs.
To paraphrase: don't be worrying about our President's education until you check your own noggin.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Stop and think about this for a second if you will though. Sure these seem like great things, but take a look at the move to get the missle defense system in gear, then think about the purpose of these "toys" what exactly will they serve for?
Sure I see the need for a military but its not like we're at war, yet the government continues to build weapons.
So for those who don't know the scoop, all the planes that will be replaced by newer ones such as these go up for sale to countries that we have "erratic" ties to like Afghanistan. (I suggest may of you get familiar with the Center for Defense Information which'll back my claims)
Ok that means in lay man terms...
Hey Osama, we just purchased some new jets so take these off our hands for $X Million dollars, and we can have a war.
All these new toys for warfare when people are starving, and our economy slowing tanking. Thanks alot Dumbya.
Bush: "First of all, Cinco de Mayo is not the independence day. That's dieciséis de Septiembre, and
"Matthews: "What's that in English?"
Bush: "Fifteenth of September." (Dieciséis de Septiembre = Sept. 16)-Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000
Want Root?
Marines' Flying Foot Soldiers
Want Root?
Yes, indeed MAV:s are very cool. But use the right kind of tool for the job.. kinda hard to carry a 1000lbs bomb with one of them 6-inch MAV:s...:)
Self-destruction also makes sense from an intel point of view, if there's anything that an enemy could gain from analyzing it... and it's safer than having a self-destruct capability in a manned craft, since if it goes off by mistake, well, you didn't lose a crew. Sounds like it'd be a relatively sane thing to include.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
An interesting issue that goes along with a more automated (or, more remote-control... either way) military is whether this decreases the political cost of a war (since it reduces the probability of human casualties), and whether or not this is dangerous. Some vague thoughts --
* A reduced casualty rate frees the military to act more aggressively because it's the casualties that most riles up people (and Congressmen). "No hydraulic fluid for oil" doesn't quite have the same impact.
* Thus, they can act with less of a popular mandate, which is a double-edged sword; "unpopular" does not necessarily mean "wrong" from a moral perspective. I've read that isolationism was quite strong in the US before Pearl Harbor (and even *after* that attack, there was STILL a Congressman who voted against declaring war on Japan); but abandoning Europe to the Nazis and even denying, say, Lend-Lease would have been far less moral than going against the isolationists and helping out.
* Conversely, would an enemy, seeing that it may have greater difficulty striking at the people actually in the military, be more likely to resort to striking at people who *aren't* -- via terrorism, for instance?
* How much automation technology will make its way into civillian craft?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Nonsense. The EMP might fry unprotected equipment (which is not what will be involved) but after that, the only radio communications it will affect would be HF. Not a problem for the UCAV.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Well, they better remember to make sure the plane is waterproof!
Free Hans!
I'll settle for an unmanned lawn mower.
// TODO: fix sig
UCAV is old news -- a 40-year-old dream finally being realized. Now Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are a more recent and much more interesting dream that is also being realized.
--
--
I like to watch.
Hehehe... Robowars for the guys with the brains and the *big* money... :)
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
We caught a plane of yours spying off our coast.
We deliberately rammed it with a robotic seabird that we make, and forced it to land on one of our airbases.
We are now holding the chips and resistors on board hostage. If you want them back, please issue an apology to the australian people, for spying on them.
Torture of these chip is proceeding well, we are running electric currents through them, and bending their little legs, with amazing results. You obviously don't prepare your components against torture. Some make squeaky little noises, others light up like a chrstmas tree. Bad move uncle sam, baaad...
And just on a side note, isn't it amazing how much money the USA has to spend defending themselves against their previous mistakes?
The key advantage of unmanned combat aircraft over tanks or F1 racers is that the pilot is the biggest performance bottleneck. The pilot places a limit on how tightly the aircraft can turn, and out-turning your opponent is the key to winning dogfights (or evading missiles.) If you remove the pilot, the dynamic performance of the aircraft is limited only by the airframe. In tanks and F1 racers the crew/driver isn't the bottleneck, but you may get some improvements because unmanned versions could be made smaller, lighter (less armour) or more aerodynamic.
Now, let me get this straight, the geek engineers are the heros behind the military now, while the jock hot-shot pilots are going to be sitting on the sidelines.
Let's see you make fun of my pocket protector now fly-boy!
Didn't you ever see the movie Small Soldiers ?
Electronic action figures run amok, one of the last scenes is Dennis Leary (as the CEO) telling the product managers to get in touch with the company's military division.
Very amusing flick!
What control signals? The article indicates they are intended to be as autonomous as possible, which may mean that a controller is only needed to change the priority of the targets in the list.
With about 10 people you could run a pretty decent IT department and still have programmer and operators left to spare.
--
Milk, it does a body good.
Given that this will have no humans on it it should safely be able to explode into tiny little souvenirs before hitting the ground. Probably worse from a clean-up pollution point of view. But at least the worse things the little plane pieces will do is put a scratch on people's cars.
--
Milk, it does a body good.
--
Milk, it does a body good.
Create an internet spy portal -- www.spyportal.com. Offer free e-mail and webhosting to all spies, supported by banner ad revenues.
Read all their e-mail.
This could even turn profitable if the banner revenues don't plummet this year.
--
Milk, it does a body good.
So that's where all those PS2s are going to. They're using them for robotic planes!
--------------------------------------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
The Zeroth Law is not a true law. It was an extrapolation of the scales of the original Three Laws made by one robot in particular. IIRC, it was after the robot took the actions that Asimov's robot psychologist (it's been a few years and I forget her name) figured out what happened and defined the law.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The planes are capable of higher speed maneuvers (higher G turns, etc) than the pilots are. So why not have the pilots be actually in a remote cockpit control room on a ship or somewhere else?
Cryptnotic
My other first post is car post.
* How much automation technology will make its way into civillian craft?
let the military do what they want with AI, just so long as it eventually leads to my getting a Love Bot 2000 (i love saying '2000' to denote futuristic things). unless the AI goes berserk and becomes insanely jealous of the human woman who i become attracted to in the next 15 minutes of the movie, in which case that would be bad, mkay? however it's comforting to know that she'd be able to flee the crime scene in a flight path that would maximize her stealth capabilities.
"Ask me about Loom"
which brings an interesting point to mind. if there is no crew, who will destroy the tapes and equipment when the plane is going down?
and let's just assume the computers are down, wise guy.
"Ask me about Loom"
but then what the hell is the point of the car?
"Ask me about Loom"
After working with ALOT of diferent AI systems they keypoint does come down, all you need t odo is find a bug, a blind stop in the AI systems, and even if they are the learning/neural net type your gonna get to blow alot of these out of the sky b4 its fixed, hope it dosen't run windows or you'll have to restart to fix a bug ;)
First of all, you can create a much nastier EMP detonation iwthout using a nuke mon ami, try an electromagnet and a capacitor.
...will these planes get stuck trying to manuver around doors? What if enemies are hiding behind walls?
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
DARPA is working on EMP weapons without a nuclear element to do exactly what you were talking about.
These weapons, combined with a ballistic missile shield over the US mainland are designed to provide us with the ability to take offensive action directly to the heartland of hostile nations. (eg China) Using EMP weaponry to stop an UAV attack would have more harmful affect than the actual attack, since it would disable all electronics within a large area.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
The technology for remotely piloted or fully autonomous operation has been around for years; after all hook up the FMC with ground sensing radar and missile approach warners and your half way there.
The problem has always been the lawyers.
"What if X happens, what if Y happens". "No, you can't use these in war - you might kill someone not originally specified as the objective, we could be sued". Couple that with the unwillingness of the fly boys to see their careers shot down and you have the current situation.
Take a look a LOCAAS, its much more the likely future of such things, small, cheap, autonomous and effective. Who needs to spend x million, the tech isn't that difficult.
And that is what really frightens the DoD guys.
Or.. what if someone hack's them... compare the amount of hacking done to .gov sites compared to the amount of breakins in .gov buildings :)
Wanna root a b52 ? ;)
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
The combat problem of aircraft is actually a simpler problem in some regards, because generally everything can be better mapped to a certain degree. Long range sensors give an added edge as well.
The combat problem with a tank involves far more as far as obstacles goes, plus the problem of identifying friend or foe in dealing with combatents. With aircraft this is dealt with by certain automated communications protocols. This is far harder to do on the ground. How do you identity civilians, etc?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
--
Freeper Logic
If you think I'm joking take a peek at the following.
geek
new
UMich
And my favorite, check out his Darpa funding: Quinn
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
I forgot to include this link as well for those who like to know more about these craft: Predator UAV Fact Sheet
"To travel the paths of human imagination you have to be willing to unlearn all you know"
Although the article primarily focuses on new UCAVs been developed for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Precision Strike missions, the Air Force is currently working on a plan to convert their existing fleet of Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles from a reconnaissance to an anti-tank mission
In Febuary, the Predator successfully acquired, launched, and "destroyed" a target using a Hellfire-C anti-tank missile. Phase II, when approved, will contain further challenges for the Predator, to include firing at a higher operational altitude and moving targets.
The Predator has already proved itself a valuable assest in its primary role in locations such as Bosnia, it will be interesting to see how well the Predator can adapt to a more lethal mode.
More information can be found here: Predator missile launch test totally successful
"To travel the paths of human imagination you have to be willing to unlearn all you know"
Most unmanned vehicles? This reminds me of the excellent scifi series "Lord of the Diamonds" by Jack L. Chalker. In the series the human government fights aliens from another galaxy using an array of unmanned remotely controlled war machines - great stuff!
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
Funny, everyone always thought it would be the tanks that were unmanned. Don't worry, they will be as well.
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
My point is that comparing hacking to cracking will convey a hostile meaning to your readers, except perhaps for a few geeks. Please do not compare hacking to cracking.
I agree,
But These are where to look:
Discovery Channel MUAV page
Aerovironment's Black Widow
Black Widow development (pdf)
won't EMP kill the onboard control systems too? if defenders switch to hardened cables, or line of sight lasers for comm, this could be an effective counter to the whole concept...
-- taiji technologies, making ch'i quarks for the new age chalanged
We've been the heroes of war ever since the atomic bomb. Know why? Once we invented it, we got just as much opportunity as the soldiers to die during war!
Will these be able to perform sharper turns without a pilot? My dad, who is a radar specialist, says that missiles can pull 27Gs because they have no pilot to pass out. How about flight time, or reflexes in dodging fire and choosing a target?
We'll have toys fighting toys - He who dies with the most wins! So we have unmanned tanks being shot at by unmanned AV's, being shot at by automated SAM sites, which is fine, until someone runs out of toys. Then a human shoots back at the UAV, and then what?? Right back into conventional war as soon as the toys are gone. Better living through technology. But there's always the possibility that war breaks out and no one shows up...
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
By the Gulf war, our soldiers weren't at risk, and we didn't have the firsthand accounts of the horrors of war. No one saw the bombs blowing people up. Without those things, there was a lot less resistance to the war.
With unmanned vehicles, the risk is even less, and the consequences are seen even less. No longer are pilots of attack aircraft at risk, and no longer do they even see the ground before firing, or the devestation left behind, even from a distance. The only people who see the casualties are the victims, and no one cares about them then. This is truly a horrible development.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
... Any world leaders up for a Q3 match?! The best AI wins the war.
Do you like German cars?
At the bottom of the Jane's article, there are some pictures.
I scrolled through these using the down arrow, and what I saw immediately after the last one (the plane in the crate) was just the first line of the item that followed. It was not unamusing.
--Blair
Now the U.S. can skip the whole getting-the-crew-home part and get on with the getting-the-top-secret-plane-home part.
--------------------------------
There's still plenty of room for human error, instaed of a pilot there's all the fancy software and hardware as well as the controller back at the control center.
Instructions on making top secret unmanned aircraft: 1. Take 1 8.5 x 11 Sheet or Paper 2. Fold in half lengthwise 3. Fold wings 4. Throw And it's only 1/1000000000th the cost! -underdog
It just doesn't come back. But it isn't that big of a jump to guide a missile to a target, deploy whatever weapons it has, then fly it back.
This thing must have some sort of radar, whether it be infrared or whatever (it might have been in the article? I don't know.) and I'm sure someone will come up with some sort of stealth technology to fool the machine. (Unless, of course, there's a camera on it)
It's too bad that nobody important in the US has ever seen Gundam: Wing, it deals with issues like unmanned war machines. No country is going to submit to defeat just because you've killed all of their little toys, humans just aren't that smart. As soon as they've run out of unmanned weaponry they'll send live troops in. Even if the US is the only country that gets the technology for this (not gonna happen) this is still a bad development. The risk of our own boys dying in battle is the only setback (from a general's point of view anyhow) to war. If we don't have any reason to not use violence to solve a conflict with another country we'll start using it far too often and I don't relish the thought of having something my tax dollars paid for slaughtering other people just because they pissed us off. From a military point of view I don't see how this concept is viable either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are ways for the enemy to scramble or block basically any signal being sent from a jet back to a command center. I would think that would render the idea useless. (If they want to port the plane's AI over to an air combat game I'd have no problem with that though :D )
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire