F-22 will see no more orders, VH-71 cancelled

[Sirotnikov]

The proper analogy is whether you want your doctor sitting in the same city operating on you remotely or in a different city operating on you remotely.

not true.

many procedures today are done via robotic arms, with the doctor being at your bedside or, sometimes in an adjustant room. they could just as easily be done from a clinic on the other US coast.

which treatment would you choose, and why?

[Asher]

not true.

many procedures today are done via robotic arms, with the doctor being at your bedside or, sometimes in an adjustant room. they could just as easily be done from a clinic on the other US coast.

which treatment would you choose, and why?

It makes no difference if they're doing it remotely no matter what.

Duh?

On the other hand, you're far more likely to find a wider base of more skilled pilots if you let them do it all state-side. You're going to reduce your talentbase if you force them to actually go to Iraq or Afghanistan, or even Texas.

[KrazyHorse]

not true.

many procedures today are done via robotic arms, with the doctor being at your bedside or, sometimes in an adjustant room. they could just as easily be done from a clinic on the other US coast.

which treatment would you choose, and why?

Open heart surgery is NOT done from an adjacent room. And even in arthroscopic procedures the surgeon is directly mechanically linked to the instruments, allowing him a level of feedback and control NOT OTHERWISE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

Let's see: to make this analogy proper, we have to presume that:

1) The doc is already only electronically connected to feedback and control
2) The doc's physical presence is NOT required in an emergency during the operation
3) The infrastructure to connect distant docs is in place and robust

None of these conditions is currently true for any major medical procedures I'm aware of.

But IF we presume a bunch of **** that isn't true then I don't particularly care whether the doc is in the same city or in a different city.

Duh.

All you've done here is demonstrate that you're unaware of current medical technology AS WELL AS being unable to construct a proper analogy.

[Sirotnikov]

Digital communication and networking is the same regardless of the situation.

The simple fact is you spewed obvious vacuous bull**** about why you need to be local to fly a plane remotely. Anyone with a truly analytical mind would've dismissed your opinion outright, as I have. It was nonsense.

I hope your analytical mind is better at software that it is at issues regarding human interaction.

The fact is, you're flying these planes remotely anyway. If you've already got realtime video and voice communication, you gain nothing by being within 5km or so -- or even in the same room as other people.

wrong.

I know this because I've worked remotely in high-intensity real-time situations. I've been involved in crises where a system goes down in an investment bank that is the vehicle for billions of dollars of transactions daily, where every minute the system is down millions of dollars are lost. I've been part of these teams while working remotely from the main team (we're in Toronto, they're in New York). We collaborated in realtime with teams in NYC, London, Tokyo, and Mumbai much like you would in a combat operation.

They're not that far apart. You've got your chain of command, your high intensity situation, and you're doing everything remotely. It's far more similar than you realize.

running a combat operation is not the same as handling software bugs, be they critical as they may.

A system down, and a soldier down are treated differently.

So really, the fact that you were part of the Israeli military which is more famous for atrocities in Palestine than anything else -- and where you probably were an IT monkey at best or an infantryman at worst -- doesn't give you any extra cred in this discussion.

I've been involved behind the scenes in command centers and fusion centers during a war and several large scale combat operations.

It gives me a hell of a lot more credit than the "look at me, I've been involved in hasty bug-solving from afar" paragraph you wrote earlier.

You began acting uppity, and raising the tone, so don't be surprised when you're called in order.

[KrazyHorse]

Siro, that post is just another example of semi-mystical mumbo-jumbo.

[Sirotnikov]

Open heart surgery is NOT done from an adjacent room. And even in arthroscopic procedures the surgeon is directly mechanically linked to the instruments, allowing him a level of feedback and control NOT OTHERWISE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

Let's see: to make this analogy proper, we have to presume that:

1) The doc is already only electronically connected to feedback and control
2) The doc's physical presence is NOT required in an emergency during the operation
3) The infrastructure to connect distant docs is in place and robust

None of these conditions is currently true for any major medical procedures I'm aware of.

But IF we presume a bunch of **** that isn't true then I don't particularly care whether the doc is in the same city or in a different city.

Duh.

All you've done here is demonstrate that you're unaware of current medical technology AS WELL AS being unable to construct a proper analogy.

There are already prototypes that allow feedback and control over such things as incisions and manipulation to be transmitted non mechanically.

What you an Asher have done is hyperbole my argument and then ridicule it, which is both unfair, and shows a simplistic understanding of it.

The pilot's proximity is required not for flying the plane, but for being properly involved in a mission where every second counts, and on another level of thought, where his routine presence during off-peak can increase the rate of learning and developing of new tactics dramatically.

[Asher]

I hope your analytical mind is better at software that it is at issues regarding human interaction.

wrong.

running a combat operation is not the same as handling software bugs, be they critical as they may.

A system down, and a soldier down are treated differently.

No, they're not.

The system is down, you need to get it restored ASAP.
Soldier is down, you need to get him help ASAP.

If the guy is flying the plane remote from Nevada or remote from Baghdad IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

I do not comprehend how you can be this stupid. EITHER WAY this plane is BEING PILOTED REMOTELY.

I've been involved behind the scenes in command centers and fusion centers during a war and several large scale combat operations.

It gives me a hell of a lot more credit than the "look at me, I've been involved in hasty bug-solving from afar" paragraph you wrote earlier.

No, it doesn't. Don't dress up the **** you do in the Israeli army as anywhere being in the same league as flying attack drones remotely and working with teams in real-time around the world in mission-critical situations.

The bottom line is in both situations you're talking about distributed networks of people communicating in real time. That is what we're discussing here. It makes no difference if you're troubleshooting complicated systems you could never comprehend or if you're organizating Israeli troops on how best to bulldoze Palestinian daycares. It's distributed teamwork in real-time.

You began acting uppity, and raising the tone, so don't be surprised when you're called in order.

Siro, you've been smacked down so hard here that it's best if you just up and leave the thread.

You are seriously baffled by why REMOTE pilots are flying OUT OF THE UNITED STATES where:
- The talent pool is far larger and more skilled
- The cost is much lower
- The infrastructure is far more stable

And your reasoning is a bunch of vacuous bull**** about COHESION. And then you drop the fact that you were in the Israeli military so it makes you qualified to make a bunch of unsupported statements that don't even pass the common sense sniff test.

[Sirotnikov]

Siro, that post is just another example of semi-mystical mumbo-jumbo.

KH, what is mystical? "fusion centers"? The US has learnt and started to set up those too.

[Asher]

KH, what is mystical? "fusion centers"? The US has learnt and started to set up those too.

Because "fusion centers" cannot be built in the USA, where they already exist. Right?

More solid logic.

[Asher]

As for Siro's assertion that being a gamer is no qualification

http://i4.democracynow.org/2009/2/6/wired_for_war_the_robotics_revolution

MY GOODMAN: The relationship with games? You write that the best pilot is an eighteen-year-old kid who trained on an [Xbox] video game?

P.W. SINGER: Pretty much. It’s a sort of fascinating story of—

AMY GOODMAN: Xbox.

P.W. SINGER: Yeah. He was actually a high school dropout who wanted to join the military to make his father proud. He wanted to be a helicopter mechanic. And they said, “Well, you failed your high school English course, so you’re not qualified to be a mechanic. But would you like to be a drone pilot?” And he said, “Sure.” And it turned out, because of playing on video games, he was already good at it. He was naturally trained up. And he turned out to be so good that they brought him back from Iraq and made him an instructor in the training academy, even though he’s an enlisted man and he’s still—he was nineteen.

And the fascinating thing is, you go, “That’s an interesting story.” You tell that story to someone in the Air Force, like an F-15 pilot, and they go, “I do not like where this is headed. You know, I’ve got a college education. The military spent $5 million training me up. And you’re telling me that this kid, this nineteen-year-old—and, oh, by the way, he’s in the Army—is doing more than I am?” And that’s the reality of it.

[Sirotnikov]

I do not comprehend how you can be this stupid. EITHER WAY this plane is BEING PILOTED REMOTELY.

Which makes absolutely no meaning to the fact that the pilot, if possible, is best seated close to where data is gathered and decisions are made.

No, it doesn't. Don't dress up the **** you do in the Israeli army as anywhere being in the same league as flying attack drones remotely and working with teams in real-time around the world in mission-critical situations.

What ever the **** I did doesn't matter, since I don't need to be flying attack drones to see how its done a desk away from me, and I don't need to be managing mission-critical situations in foreign countries, to see how its done near me.

The bottom line is in both situations you're talking about distributed networks of people communicating in real time. That is what we're discussing here. It makes no difference if you're troubleshooting complicated systems you could never comprehend or if you're organizating Israeli troops on how best to bulldoze Palestinian daycares. It's distributed teamwork in real-time.

Which is great.
But it just works better in person. Every time. Which is why every military center (in the networked US too) has liaisons for units that are involved, but are operated from elsewhere.

Siro, you've been smacked down so hard here that it's best if you just up and leave the thread.

hardly.

[Asher]

Which is great.
But it just works better in person. Every time. Which is why every military center (in the networked US too) has liaisons for units that are involved, but are operated from elsewhere.

And why do you suppose it is impossible for these liaisons to not be present in the drone control rooms in the USA if they are present in the drone control rooms near hostile territory?

There are holes in your logic bigger than the US deficit.

[Sirotnikov]

Because "fusion centers" cannot be built in the USA, where they already exist. Right?

More solid logic.

How do you even consider it a response to anything I said?

When did I imply they weren't fusion centers in the USA?
Do you know that there are also fusion centers in Iraq?

[Asher]

How do you even consider it a response to anything I said?

When did I imply they weren't fusion centers in the USA?
Do you know that there are also fusion centers in Iraq?

Do I know? Yes.
Is it relevant? No.
Did you miss the point? Yes.

[KrazyHorse]

What you an Asher have done is hyperbole my argument and then ridicule it, which is both unfair, and shows a simplistic understanding of it.

No, you made a mockery of yourself when you attempted to introduce a COMPLETELY NEW argument by way of an analogy which(as I've demonstrated) is retarded. The reason that doctors need to be in the same room as their patients has everything to do with feedback, control and physical presence when things go wrong and NOTHING to do with some mystical connection to their patient which makes them better doctors.

The pilot's proximity is required not for flying the plane, but for being properly involved in a mission where every second counts

Yeah, because usually these guys just check the screens every few minutes because they don't care that much (because they don't have lunch with some of the guys on the ground every once in a while).

and on another level of thought, where his routine presence during off-peak can increase the rate of learning and developing of new tactics dramatically.

And now we're back to TCO's argument. Congrats. That only took a page of me making fun of you. This is THE ONLY thing which MIGHT make some sense. But I've explained why it's unlikely that putting operators and grunts together will lead to something new and unexpected. It's like putting together the techs who build the artificial hearts with the docs who install it. Their skillsets are too far apart, and they interact via a complicated piece of technology whose design and capabilities they don't fully understand. What you want is engineers/designers/tacticians to talk to the operators and to the grunts, who can design better UAVs and better ways to use them.