Saturday, June 11, 2016

Threats? Oh dear.

Often, people who issue threats are betraying the precarity of their own position.

As a major potential F-35 customer, a lack of or continued postponement a Canadian order likely increases the cost of the F-35 for other customers, perhaps prohibitively. This could be terminal to the program as it would also impact US orders.

More to the point, Canadians generally find naked threats terribly impolite. It's ingrained in our national mythology. We are not keen to cooperate with rude people. Trudeau has an out here.

The Canadian military is conditioned by definition to respond to threats with aggression.

Boeing, Dassault, or Saab will see this as an opportunity to sweeten an offer.

I'm not sure Lockmart really did itself a favour.

10 comments:

Alien Contact said...

Our ships should have the latest lasers to hit drones. There are faculties we should not be building and should be preventing others from building. This may mean a first (stealth missile) strike on Russia or China, or even our 5 Eyes allies. We should change NATO so it is willing to risk a nuclear war by launching a pre-emptive missile attack on a said factory, including attacking itself. We should be willing to attack anyone hacking for such WMD info, including ourselves.
For this reason I like the idea of expanding the next purchase of subs to about 8 used models. The idea would be to outfit it as a "Growler" of the oceans. Could surveil the USA, UK, everyone, to see if anyone is supplying the logistics to a banned WMD factory. These types of factories aren't likely in the next decade or two, so for now the target could be TT type orgs before they attack us. I don't like equipping it with advanced UAVs. The whole point is to prevent robots that police can't kill, and UAVs that are too fast, too stealthy or too well missile equipped, from being invented. So I like LM's ISIS submarine suite, but not LM's UAVs.
It should be possible to use brain imaging to screen out mental illness, and maybe even screen for good Aristotle-ian virtues; such inventions should be encouraged.
The Armed Forces should embrace wind and solar as an EMP doesn't necessarily knock out those power sources, as well as use Powerwalls for Base housing. Jets and a refueller should be placed in a Faraday Cage. Reserves should be apply to get sewer, water and hydro infrastructures up and running. Inflatable tents would give many city cores a place to retreat from but winter might be an issue for us.

Alien Contact said...

...I like the Superhornets because countering future WMDs might require payload mass. For ethical procurement, just like I like ships built by the French Company that has a tidal power division, LM is off limits while it has an advanced UAV arm.

Alien Contact said...

For the threat of drones being hacked or just illicitly manufactured, there will likely be multiple targets to engage. The F-35 cannot bank fast. The F-22 can, the CF-18 can, and so can the Super Hornet.
I'd like to see the Super Hornet set up as a Growler custom-refitted to eavesdrop on factories that might be making AI, drones, robots, bioweapons and other future bad R+D. Such a Super Hornet can demonstrate it is not carrying missiles assuming the new Pod is taken out and replaced with some sort of sensor suite.
To fire on the factory, you might want a different airplane than the Super Hornet.

Alien Contact said...

Again, no one knows how well the F-35 stealth works head on, or from the side. It cannot bank fast. If it is fired on, it might not be able to turn to return fire and to exposed only its head on stealthy profile. So 3 1950's Avro Arrows, engaging it from three equilateral directions, probably kill it using present air-to-air missiles.
7 such aircraft might not kill the F-22; it is complicated.
The F-35 is designed to take on a crappy surface to air missile launcher, but not multiple ones from different angles. Again, from another angle, an adjacent missile hits the F-35 on its not too stealthy side profile before it can turn.
The people appointed and elected to educate the public about this are sworn to secrecacy. If we buy it I doubt we use it to engage other aircraft in a six plane formation (not needing to bank much to engage). We would only use it to hit anti-air single launchers or at least launchers without nearby launchers or nearby airfields.
And really, the goal is not to build future WMDs like (LM) drones and to use aircraft to fire upon manufacturing targets or researchers. An aircraft that loses to its own manufacturers hackable drones is comical. I'd like quantum encryption cable layer ship and all services to be able to continually upgrade the newest QE equipment.

Alien Contact said...

It seems there are lots of UAVs on the horizon, not just LM's. If it has a 2km ceiling, isn't stealthy nor armed with air-to-air missiles, and can't go fast, it can be shot down by fighter jets. The Predator doesn't concern me but there is a need to get UAVs back to a 2005-2015 tech level. For surveillance subs I'd only have weather and communications UAVs inside them. If the UAV is in thick atmosphere it will be seen with some sensors.
The F-35 loses its Stealth when its hard-points are used. So while maintaining Stealth, an F-35 might only be able to kill 170 drones. A Super Hornet maybe 1200, 8000 if refitted with more guns and pilots who played my father's favourite Atari game.
But my main concern for now is to limit synthetic biology and much flu research and both aircraft are able to launch a 2030 stealth missile. Ideally sane and degree holding adults get a weighted vote. And some people will have custom training. For some decisions there will be a referendum where Obama's vote is worth 100000x the least person's vote. And you need maybe 1% of eligible voters to vote, but for some decisions you might not want to wait. If you have EMPs for insect drones, and someone uses one on an airfield...you might have to react right away to win against the swarm. Just like in the UK when two towns persons were part of Parliament, there is mobility for most people to get a vote and up to about 100000 votes.
The threat of drones is greater than is the threat of Desert Storm Iraq.

Alien Contact said...

A robotics/AI first strike against airports can be mitigated by using next generation harriers.
As of 1997, the USA was not training to defeat robots. Around 10 miles up, most SAMs can't hit a fighter jet. But jets need to get about 1 mile up or lower to effectively hit a robot with a Gatling gun; well within SAM range but above a 2000ft ground small arms assured kill airspace. The gun is probably still useful for a zero mission that takes out a factory compartment. But what you really want are lots of missiles with which to hit a robot that might have some ability to shoot incoming missiles. A new F-111 type jet could contain a next generation 2.5 mile up cannon, and a Superhornet can carry more future missiles than can an F-35. The F-35 is slow banking again surface small arms and SAM fire as well as unable to hold lots of missiles.

I envision LIDAR in every factory linked up with quantum communications to a satellite. A fighter jet can safely hold a drone in bad weather that is launched to Rendevous with the factory and laser upload the factory data. It is better to have a hard surface mount (not a Stealth skin) to re-acquire the drone. Growlers would be more preferred by neutral countries to get factory data but the Jet still needs to be able to shoot down the drone at least.
In one week robots would get Gatling guns, in a year they would conquer Earth. Russia can be overrun in a week or two. With good defences you give yourself an extra month to nuke a lot of hacked/conquered infrastructure. Non-gvmt hackers should be targeted now.

Alien Contact said...

...there is a need for a shift towards the threats of robots, AI and synthetic biology. For example, ships need to be compartmentalized so a single robot can only kill one person at a time and be killed by a powerful grenade with only one person as collateral damage.
The rust belt has assembly jobs like installing car seats that should not be given over to robots because the robots required are too much like those that can pilot fighter jets, to name one WMD robot aptitude.
NASA could focus more on metal detection that would facilitate detecting a drilling robot gone amuck as well as a space station MRI.
The futurists have generally ignored the risks of dumb AI that make the problem of smart AI trivial as Libertarians miss the obvious solution of taxes to pay for surveillance and then a shift to sane wiser gvmt forms. Probably Australian judges are wiser than are American judges but NZ ones too dovish. There is a rationality that can be measured by MRIs that can be used to learn a CV of assuaging these 3 threats. I'd guess the CV will produce memory activity that can also be measured by an MRI while a president or pilot plays a robot takeover video game or interactive movie.

Alien Contact said...

MRIs and fighter jet rail gun R+D both have better superconductors as an enabler.
It looks like "active radar homing" is the best presently possible method to hit surface robots that have attained small arms; it is presently used only for the end phase of a missile's attack.
MIT and Lockheed Martin can enable AI and robotics or prevent WWIII. LM already does command centre training; I'd hope they would integrate MRIs. You can train how to attack robots, and use an MRI to determine if you a good learner at the time. It might be harder to assess ethics but it should be possible. And you wouldn't want the president to be able to fire such NORAD leaders even if they bomb bad universities/students.

Alien Contact said...

Ideally a new missile will be invented that is maybe about 100kg and uses active radar homing to eventually hit a robot. Robots that can operate vehicles should not be researched.
Existing airports can house 3D-printed copper bunkers. Every robot able to operate a vehicle should need a fibre optic cable link to function and this cable should be easy to sever once an air-raid siren is blasted.

Alien Contact said...

...an attack I'm envisioning is one or more EMPs that each take out at least 1/3 of a continent. Here, it is better to have electricity systems like the Wind Turbines NB is trying to complete, but much more so if it is only connected to a future utility battery bank.
Fighter Jets have a limited range. I envision cargo especially, but also passenger jets, as forming a "Civil Reserve Bomber fleet".
Time would be of the essence as a stupid robot would try to hack into other robots. Unmanned vehicles might make a billion fender penders though electric cars would be useful for emergency electricity. The real dangers too many robots get hacked in a decade before longer range airliners can land and be equipped with missiles launchers, before taking off to bomb ground zero. The fighters would eventually hop to battle especially if they have biometric controls, they will be on our side.