
DARPA AlphaDogfight Finals: AI agents compete to face a human F-16 pilot - samfriedman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzdhIA2S35w
======
RobKohr
* It seems that all of the maneuvers were very tight with a focus on guns. Aren't things usually at much longer distances now and using missiles?

* Things start side by side. Doesn't seem like a normal place for things to start

* Do they have perfect information? Seems vision would be a major part of this.

~~~
untangle
I'm a former Marine F/A-18 pilot. I'll take your questions in reverse order.

(3) IDK what their vision model is in the simulation, but you are correct –
keeping sight is vital in dogfighting. The F-16 is formidably tiny. It's
practically invisible nose-on. (2) Air Combat Maneuvering ("ACM" or
"dogfighting") training typically begins each engagement a mile or so abeam.
I'd say that more than 95% of my 1v1 exercises began this way. So no radar
lock, visual only. (1) See previous answer: the engagements begin with no
radar lock and the turning characteristics of modern fighters rapidly compress
the fight "inside a phone book." So there's a constant tradeoff of energy and
geometry. Events often occur inside the missile-arming ranges. Radar and/or IR
locks are fleeting.

Most radar/missile training is done in 2v2 (or sometimes mvn) engagements.
These are usually commenced head-on, with "fight's on" signal given at the
first pass.

One can argue about how representative or realistic any of this training is.
But it does make you a better aviator. And fighter pilots _love_ it.

Also, my experience is from decades ago. Take it FWIW.

------
foxyv
I wonder why they use the 1000ft hard deck in simulations? Also be interesting
to see how they manage terrain avoidance and avionics malfunctions. Would the
drone be able to handle VFR without INS/GPS and gyros?

