I am sure we have had the same question with different answers before.
One good answer it limited the enemy from opening its lower gun ports so Leeward was good.
Also you can bare away from the enemy with the wind behind you if you wish to decline combat.
Personally I go back to "rubish in = rubish out"
A.I. again!
Roy
I am sure we have had the same question with different answers before.
One good answer it limited the enemy from opening its lower gun ports so Leeward was good.
Also you can bare away from the enemy with the wind behind you if you wish to decline combat.
Personally I go back to "rubish in = rubish out"
Well once more, just as I was getting rid of my RED mark when I guessed the wrong answer. Back to another 30 days of waiting. 🤣
I am not sure that the answer fits the question. Surely it is not of "tactical significance" but of just of "significance" If it was tactical they wouldn't choose the leeward side they would go for the windward or weather gage.
Well once more, just as I was getting rid of my RED mark when I guessed the wrong answer. Back to another 30 days of waiting. 🤣
I am not sure that the answer fits the question. Surely it is not of "tactical significance" but of just of "significance" If it was tactical they wouldn't choose the leeward side they would go for the windward or weather gage.
A sort of lucky guess as Ai did't say tactical advantage!!🙄 Just picked the one that seemed the most feasible 👍 And we have had a similar question a while ago when the answer was about being able to fire more of it's cannons at the enemy ship !! which this time was'nt one of the answers.😠
A sort of lucky guess as Ai did't say tactical advantage!!🙄 Just picked the one that seemed the most feasible 👍 And we have had a similar question a while ago when the answer was about being able to fire more of it's cannons at the enemy ship !! which this time was'nt one of the answers.😠
Hi Ed I agree we need a new thread. A week ago I was typing on this one but decided that Props and propellers needed a separate thread.
This QoD one is enormous compared with the others and should be thinned out a bit.
Roy
I think the power problems on the type 45 were turbocharger related. As I understand it, MOD did not want to use the recommended turbochargers and opted for cheaper ones. The remedial work was carried out in my local yard, Camel Lairds and involved chopping an enormous hole in the side so they could shimmy another diesel generator in to provide the extra power required to run AC, and ops room and operate at full ahead. More MOD false economy....
I think the power problems on the type 45 were turbocharger related. As I understand it, MOD did not want to use the recommended turbochargers and opted for cheaper ones. The remedial work was carried out in my local yard, Camel Lairds and involved chopping an enormous hole in the side so they could shimmy another diesel generator in to provide the extra power required to run AC, and ops room and operate at full ahead. More MOD false economy....
I am not sure if the T45 problems were design problems or caused by cost cutting by Civil Servants and manufacturers amending the origional specifications - I was not suficiently high enough up the food chain to be told such things
Let hope the same does not happen with the latest ships being built currently
I am not sure if the T45 problems were design problems or caused by cost cutting by Civil Servants and manufacturers amending the origional specifications - I was not suficiently high enough up the food chain to be told such things
Let hope the same does not happen with the latest ships being built currently
Another scenario often conducted on BOST and COST is how would you fight a ship reliant on AI if all electric power is lost !
A situation that happened often in the Type 45 until the power system was modified - which involved a major refit
Another scenario often conducted on BOST and COST is how would you fight a ship reliant on AI if all electric power is lost !
A situation that happened often in the Type 45 until the power system was modified - which involved a major refit
Say what you like the final decision to fire must be in the hands of the Captain of the ship - remember the Royal Navy shooting down the Comet and the case of Stanislav Petrov in 1983
In the case of strategic weapons the command to fire must be given by two people after instructions from the political lead through the commander in chief
That is not to say he cannot use input from other means but every ship I have ever been on needs the words “Command Approved” to fire any weapons
Say what you like the final decision to fire must be in the hands of the Captain of the ship - remember the Royal Navy shooting down the Comet and the case of Stanislav Petrov in 1983
In the case of strategic weapons the command to fire must be given by two people after instructions from the political lead through the commander in chief
That is not to say he cannot use input from other means but every ship I have ever been on needs the words “Command Approved” to fire any weapons
We should make this a new thread as we are getting an interesting set of views on this topic
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) to enhance their speed, accuracy, and autonomy in detecting and neutralizing fast-moving threats like missiles, drones, and aircraft. Here's how AI is used in CIWS:
1. Target Detection and Tracking
AI-powered sensors and radar systems use machine learning algorithms to distinguish between actual threats (e.g., missiles) and non-threats (e.g., birds or debris).
Neural networks can be trained to recognize the radar or infrared signatures of different objects.
AI helps in reducing false positives and improving threat classification in complex environments.
2. Threat Prioritization
AI systems analyze the trajectory, speed, and proximity of multiple incoming targets.
They assign threat levels and prioritize which targets should be engaged first.
This is especially critical when under saturation attacks (multiple incoming threats at once).
3. Fire Control and Engagement
AI aids in real-time targeting decisions, calculating optimal firing solutions.
It adjusts for target movement, system latency, environmental conditions (like wind), and platform motion (especially on ships).
Autonomous engagement capability is sometimes enabled, allowing the system to fire without human input in critical time windows.
4. Sensor Fusion
AI integrates inputs from radar, infrared, optical, and even acoustic sensors to build a more accurate picture of the threat environment.
Sensor fusion enhances decision-making and compensates for weaknesses in individual sensors (e.g., radar being jammed).
5. Counter-UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) Capability
Modern CIWS platforms face threats from swarms of drones.
AI algorithms detect swarm behavior and coordinate responses, such as adjusting firing patterns or prioritizing the swarm's lead elements.
6. Simulation and Training
AI-driven virtual environments simulate various attack scenarios for training purposes.
They can create adaptive threats that learn from the defender's behavior, enhancing preparedness.
7. Maintenance and Diagnostics
AI monitors the health of the CIWS through predictive maintenance.
It analyzes usage patterns, wear data, and sensor feedback to predict component failures before they happen.
Example: AI in Specific Systems
Phalanx CIWS (US Navy): Newer versions incorporate improved targeting algorithms that benefit from AI/machine learning for faster threat assessment.
SeaRAM: Combines CIWS with Rolling Airframe Missiles; AI helps select between gun or missile engagement depending on the threat type.
Russia's Pantsir system and China's Type 730/1130 CIWS are also believed to integrate AI for target identification and fire control.
We should make this a new thread as we are getting an interesting set of views on this topic
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) to enhance their speed, accuracy, and autonomy in detecting and neutralizing fast-moving threats like missiles, drones, and aircraft. Here's how AI is used in CIWS:
1. Target Detection and Tracking
AI-powered sensors and radar systems use machine learning algorithms to distinguish between actual threats (e.g., missiles) and non-threats (e.g., birds or debris).
Neural networks can be trained to recognize the radar or infrared signatures of different objects.
AI helps in reducing false positives and improving threat classification in complex environments.
2. Threat Prioritization
AI systems analyze the trajectory, speed, and proximity of multiple incoming targets.
They assign threat levels and prioritize which targets should be engaged first.
This is especially critical when under saturation attacks (multiple incoming threats at once).
3. Fire Control and Engagement
AI aids in real-time targeting decisions, calculating optimal firing solutions.
It adjusts for target movement, system latency, environmental conditions (like wind), and platform motion (especially on ships).
Autonomous engagement capability is sometimes enabled, allowing the system to fire without human input in critical time windows.
4. Sensor Fusion
AI integrates inputs from radar, infrared, optical, and even acoustic sensors to build a more accurate picture of the threat environment.
Sensor fusion enhances decision-making and compensates for weaknesses in individual sensors (e.g., radar being jammed).
5. Counter-UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) Capability
Modern CIWS platforms face threats from swarms of drones.
AI algorithms detect swarm behavior and coordinate responses, such as adjusting firing patterns or prioritizing the swarm's lead elements.
6. Simulation and Training
AI-driven virtual environments simulate various attack scenarios for training purposes.
They can create adaptive threats that learn from the defender's behavior, enhancing preparedness.
7. Maintenance and Diagnostics
AI monitors the health of the CIWS through predictive maintenance.
It analyzes usage patterns, wear data, and sensor feedback to predict component failures before they happen.
Example: AI in Specific Systems
Phalanx CIWS (US Navy): Newer versions incorporate improved targeting algorithms that benefit from AI/machine learning for faster threat assessment.
SeaRAM: Combines CIWS with Rolling Airframe Missiles; AI helps select between gun or missile engagement depending on the threat type.
Russia's Pantsir system and China's Type 730/1130 CIWS are also believed to integrate AI for target identification and fire control.
AI is already been used in defence systems
Look at this report
https://iotworldmagazine.com/2024/09/16/2448/15-examples-of-ai-in-the-military-and-defence-sector-industry-in-london-uk-europe-and-the-usa-2024-2025
For anyone else, like myself who hasn,t a clue what Pat is talking about when he mentioned CIWS I looked it up and guess what , this is Ai's view-😁🙄.
AI Overview-
In the context of armaments, CIWS stands for Close-In Weapon System. It's a type of automated, naval defense system designed to destroy short-range incoming missiles and enemy aircraft that have penetrated outer defenses. CIWS acts as a last line of defense, typically mounted on naval ships.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Purpose:
CIWS is designed to intercept and destroy threats that have bypassed other layers of defense, such as anti-ship missiles (AShMs), enemy aircraft, and even small surface threats.
How it works:
CIWS systems typically combine radar, computers, and a rapid-firing gun (often a Gatling gun) or missiles. The system automatically detects, tracks, and engages targets, providing a rapid and highly automated response.
Examples:
Popular CIWS systems include the Raytheon Phalanx CIWS (often called the "Sea-Wiz" or "R2-D2 with an erection") and the Goalkeeper CIWS. The Phalanx uses a 20mm Gatling gun, while the Goalkeeper uses a 30mm Gatling gun.
So there you, and I have it !!. You can't knock Ai all the time😁😁......I'm off to bed ..
For anyone else, like myself who hasn,t a clue what Pat is talking about when he mentioned CIWS I looked it up and guess what , this is Ai's view-😁🙄.
AI Overview-
In the context of armaments, CIWS stands for Close-In Weapon System. It's a type of automated, naval defense system designed to destroy short-range incoming missiles and enemy aircraft that have penetrated outer defenses. CIWS acts as a last line of defense, typically mounted on naval ships.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Purpose:
CIWS is designed to intercept and destroy threats that have bypassed other layers of defense, such as anti-ship missiles (AShMs), enemy aircraft, and even small surface threats.
How it works:
CIWS systems typically combine radar, computers, and a rapid-firing gun (often a Gatling gun) or missiles. The system automatically detects, tracks, and engages targets, providing a rapid and highly automated response.
Examples:
Popular CIWS systems include the Raytheon Phalanx CIWS (often called the "Sea-Wiz" or "R2-D2 with an erection") and the Goalkeeper CIWS. The Phalanx uses a 20mm Gatling gun, while the Goalkeeper uses a 30mm Gatling gun.
So there you, and I have it !!. You can't knock Ai all the time😁😁......I'm off to bed ..
Hi Pat very interesting to have direct information always interesting. Although I am dove rather than hawk I am very interested in defence equipment and how successful it is.
regards
Roy
Hi Pat very interesting to have direct information always interesting. Although I am dove rather than hawk I am very interested in defence equipment and how successful it is.
Hi Roy
Most of what you saying is totally correct, however, the gun you are talking about in the UK is called a Phalanx and in the US is called a CWIS. The point I was making is that these are not controlled by AI. The radar does indeed use computers to track the incoming object (It would be very difficult if not imossible for a human to track at the speeds involved) and when at a range of about 1 mile the operators have to decide to shoot - 3000 rounds per minute which totally smashes the target to bits.
The first longer legged defence againt an incoming missile was the Seawolf missle again a computer assisted weapon that was tested shooting 4.5 inch projectiles out of the sky.
In 1991 long before AI HMS Gloucester shot down a Silkworm Missile in the war in the Persian Gulf using her Seadart missle (primary a anti aircraft missle) - the Silkworm was targeting the USS Missouri, detected by a 17 year old that got commended by the Commander in Chief.
Modern improvements have made close range destruction of incoming dangers such as drones even more accurate but as yet AI is not used and the final decisiion to fire is the Captians of the ship normally under the control of the PWO(A).
This is a well practised scenario when ships go through BOST and COST under FOST - once based in Portland but since the 90's at Devonport.
PWO(A)'s in their qualifying course take part in live firings shooting down targets normally off Gibraltar and usually due to the expence using guns rather than missiles.
The common air defence system in use at the moment is the Sea Viper missile system using the Aster missle system which come in two varieties the Aster 15 and the Aster 30. The Sea Cepter mislle system in slowly being introduced on the Type 45 Destroyers and the later Type 23 Frigates.
The Royal Navy has been very wary about taking the control of offensive missle since they accidentally shot down a De Havilland Comet off the Aberporth range in Wales in the late 60's early 70's I cant remember the exact date.
Most of what you saying is totally correct, however, the gun you are talking about in the UK is called a Phalanx and in the US is called a CWIS. The point I was making is that these are not controlled by AI. The radar does indeed use computers to track the incoming object (It would be very difficult if not imossible for a human to track at the speeds involved) and when at a range of about 1 mile the operators have to decide to shoot - 3000 rounds per minute which totally smashes the target to bits.
The first longer legged defence againt an incoming missile was the Seawolf missle again a computer assisted weapon that was tested shooting 4.5 inch projectiles out of the sky.
In 1991 long before AI HMS Gloucester shot down a Silkworm Missile in the war in the Persian Gulf using her Seadart missle (primary a anti aircraft missle) - the Silkworm was targeting the USS Missouri, detected by a 17 year old that got commended by the Commander in Chief.
Modern improvements have made close range destruction of incoming dangers such as drones even more accurate but as yet AI is not used and the final decisiion to fire is the Captians of the ship normally under the control of the PWO(A).
This is a well practised scenario when ships go through BOST and COST under FOST - once based in Portland but since the 90's at Devonport.
PWO(A)'s in their qualifying course take part in live firings shooting down targets normally off Gibraltar and usually due to the expence using guns rather than missiles.
The common air defence system in use at the moment is the Sea Viper missile system using the Aster missle system which come in two varieties the Aster 15 and the Aster 30. The Sea Cepter mislle system in slowly being introduced on the Type 45 Destroyers and the later Type 23 Frigates.
The Royal Navy has been very wary about taking the control of offensive missle since they accidentally shot down a De Havilland Comet off the Aberporth range in Wales in the late 60's early 70's I cant remember the exact date.
Hi Pat your question at the end would be dealt with automatically using a Gatling gun pouring a wall of lead into the missile to disrupt its mechanism and driven by computer controlled radar. One minute of travel time would be ample time for guns to move, lock on and fire. I suspect you would not need A.I. to do this.
We have had radar controlled guns since 1944 and combined with proximity controlled shells all on automatic. On several occasions when GB was being attacked by the V1 missiles in June/July 1944 the radar controlled guns took out over 90% of in-coming missiles.
The system was developed and shipped over here by the Americans. Also at this time the famous Chain Home defence radar system was virtually displaced by a single very large radar system again from the USA. The CH system only worked 'outwards' and did not detect anything coming up behnd it.
Most of this was enabled because of the trip from UK to USA of the Tizzard committee, who laid bare all our secrets but said we do not have the man power to develop them. This included proximity shells, jet engine technnology and the magnetron.
Did you know that the Chain Home radar system involving I think 29 units was linked to the National Grid to ensure synchronisation? This is our 50 hertz system. In the main the radar would transmit a pulse then wait for the echo and then repeat. With 50 hertz frequency anyone listening in would have heard a pulse every 25 hertz.
This is what General Martini heard when an Airship prior to WW2 was fitted out to check if the UK had any radar. It was regarded as so crude (which it was) as not to constitute a problem. After the war in 1950 he was told his airship was tracked the entire route it took and he did not believe it.
When the airship was first seen Professor Lindemand's aid Reginald Jones was asked if they should stop transmitting, his response was No! So the Chain Home system was ignored by German Intelligence, hidden in plain sight.
Our first radio controlled units for models ran at much the same frequency, 27 Mhtz as against 30 Mhtz for the CH radar. They also used Amplitude modulation of the 27Mhertz carrier.
The servos are updated for position every 50Hertz. This is a 20msec long pulse divided into 10 spots of 2msec. A servo is allotted one of these positions and waits for any change on the transmitter stick each stick has a 2msec slot delivering a 1 to 2 msec pulse (Neutral is 1.5msec).
The esc's at the time used this frequency to rate the M/S ratio, although now many esc's have an oscillator running at 2KHertz for finer control of the motor which is also what you hear with the whine.
Roy
Hi Pat your question at the end would be dealt with automatically using a Gatling gun pouring a wall of lead into the missile to disrupt its mechanism and driven by computer controlled radar. One minute of travel time would be ample time for guns to move, lock on and fire. I suspect you would not need A.I. to do this.
We have had radar controlled guns since 1944 and combined with proximity controlled shells all on automatic. On several occasions when GB was being attacked by the V1 missiles in June/July 1944 the radar controlled guns took out over 90% of in-coming missiles.
The system was developed and shipped over here by the Americans. Also at this time the famous Chain Home defence radar system was virtually displaced by a single very large radar system again from the USA. The CH system only worked 'outwards' and did not detect anything coming up behnd it.
Most of this was enabled because of the trip from UK to USA of the Tizzard committee, who laid bare all our secrets but said we do not have the man power to develop them. This included proximity shells, jet engine technnology and the magnetron.
Did you know that the Chain Home radar system involving I think 29 units was linked to the National Grid to ensure synchronisation? This is our 50 hertz system. In the main the radar would transmit a pulse then wait for the echo and then repeat. With 50 hertz frequency anyone listening in would have heard a pulse every 25 hertz.
This is what General Martini heard when an Airship prior to WW2 was fitted out to check if the UK had any radar. It was regarded as so crude (which it was) as not to constitute a problem. After the war in 1950 he was told his airship was tracked the entire route it took and he did not believe it.
When the airship was first seen Professor Lindemand's aid Reginald Jones was asked if they should stop transmitting, his response was No! So the Chain Home system was ignored by German Intelligence, hidden in plain sight.
Our first radio controlled units for models ran at much the same frequency, 27 Mhtz as against 30 Mhtz for the CH radar. They also used Amplitude modulation of the 27Mhertz carrier.
The servos are updated for position every 50Hertz. This is a 20msec long pulse divided into 10 spots of 2msec. A servo is allotted one of these positions and waits for any change on the transmitter stick each stick has a 2msec slot delivering a 1 to 2 msec pulse (Neutral is 1.5msec).
The esc's at the time used this frequency to rate the M/S ratio, although now many esc's have an oscillator running at 2KHertz for finer control of the motor which is also what you hear with the whine.
Hi Roy
That part you just wrote about AI is very good and so true, what the world needs to realise is that computers are a tool to be used and their answer should be checked and double checked.
I have used, worked with and managed IT Systems all my working life after serving, some systems are better than other some quite frankly are p poor but that is life these days.
The problem is people take technolgy as being 100% right 100% of the time which it is not, just like some believe Google always gives the right answer.
Here is a question for you - you are on the bridge of a Warship - the reports come through that a missle is heading for your ship at approx 600MPH and is 10 miles away the crew on the ship is 200 persons, would you trust AI to defend the ship? I have no doubt it will happen but not yet.
The human brain is much better than any computer.
My two penneth
Pat
That part you just wrote about AI is very good and so true, what the world needs to realise is that computers are a tool to be used and their answer should be checked and double checked.
I have used, worked with and managed IT Systems all my working life after serving, some systems are better than other some quite frankly are p poor but that is life these days.
The problem is people take technolgy as being 100% right 100% of the time which it is not, just like some believe Google always gives the right answer.
Here is a question for you - you are on the bridge of a Warship - the reports come through that a missle is heading for your ship at approx 600MPH and is 10 miles away the crew on the ship is 200 persons, would you trust AI to defend the ship? I have no doubt it will happen but not yet.
Hi Ed technology is getting very complex and integrating into one whole is very impressive. I am sure you left all the necessary personnel needed to run and update for the future.
My lad got involved with the local hospital group using the o/p from the MRI scanner writing a program to enable easier resolution of cancer cells (which are very similar to brown fat) on their scanner in Gosford, Australia.
It was all agreed with the MRI manufacturers but I would wonder how it fits in with the future as far as s/w upgrades and problem solving. When I was a computer engineer we were just starting to have diagnostic s/w in some computers and peripherals.
The biggest shock for me anyway was walking into an unkown site, on shift, where the computer was giving incorrect answers to do with renovations on a Thames bridge.
It was using an attached Floating Point arithmetic box, (called an extended mathmatical unit, or EMU). This was in 1971. The resident engineer left instructions to read and use a manual, but not to touch anything else! We did as instructed pressed an unexpected button and 22 lines of numbers and letters was printed out.
We had to type in several responses to questions and were then instructed to change a particular PCB. I did this and the system was re-started and it all worked correctly.
I looked at my assistant and thought 'the writing is on the wall'! This is the end of the old computer engineer job, time to go. By the following year I was managing my own group of 20 engineers and watched as the self diagnosis of errors worked its way through as new peripherals became available.
That was over 50 years ago, the main frames have gone, although we can all access distant servers when needed. But I am told all this technology we have at our finger tips is mainly involved with Social Media, gaming and porn. Ever thus, how tech serves the people in the end.
I suspect A.I. will eventually go the way the public are willing to pay for it. Predicting it and offering a product will be a very big earner for someone.
Regards
Roy
Hi Ed technology is getting very complex and integrating into one whole is very impressive. I am sure you left all the necessary personnel needed to run and update for the future.
My lad got involved with the local hospital group using the o/p from the MRI scanner writing a program to enable easier resolution of cancer cells (which are very similar to brown fat) on their scanner in Gosford, Australia.
It was all agreed with the MRI manufacturers but I would wonder how it fits in with the future as far as s/w upgrades and problem solving. When I was a computer engineer we were just starting to have diagnostic s/w in some computers and peripherals.
The biggest shock for me anyway was walking into an unkown site, on shift, where the computer was giving incorrect answers to do with renovations on a Thames bridge.
It was using an attached Floating Point arithmetic box, (called an extended mathmatical unit, or EMU). This was in 1971. The resident engineer left instructions to read and use a manual, but not to touch anything else! We did as instructed pressed an unexpected button and 22 lines of numbers and letters was printed out.
We had to type in several responses to questions and were then instructed to change a particular PCB. I did this and the system was re-started and it all worked correctly.
I looked at my assistant and thought 'the writing is on the wall'! This is the end of the old computer engineer job, time to go. By the following year I was managing my own group of 20 engineers and watched as the self diagnosis of errors worked its way through as new peripherals became available.
That was over 50 years ago, the main frames have gone, although we can all access distant servers when needed. But I am told all this technology we have at our finger tips is mainly involved with Social Media, gaming and porn. Ever thus, how tech serves the people in the end.
I suspect A.I. will eventually go the way the public are willing to pay for it. Predicting it and offering a product will be a very big earner for someone.
Hi Roy
I worked at the AMIIC at John Radcliffe Hospital.
I designed and implemented the computer systems to work with the new scanner.
https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/about/our-facilities-and-units/acute-multidisciplinary-imaging-and-interventional-centre/about-amiic
Hello Ed perhaps you know my son in law as he is a Program director at Oxford Uni for masters degree courses and recently higher levels. My son (a Phd in computer science) was tutored by the current government 'think tank' Chairperson on A.I. I am probably in your sights as well.
My son also swears by A.I. but that means it is the current go to for problems. But he often asks me how he should go about doing some things! From my part, I used to sort out problems that outside companies had with running their own computer departments.
Too much reliance can be placed on the current technical advances and not enough time on their outcomes. Where ever there is complex (at the time) technical expertise on the way up then it is too easy to base decisions on it.
Remember there are always 4 answers to a test or recommendation. Positive, negative, false positive and false negative. In my book any test or computer based enquiry is 50% accurate. Probably requiring more information to refine the answer.
It takes an all round review by a qualified person to decide whether reliance can be placed on a solution. I used to employ young students for a year as part of their computer course requirements. I met a fair cross section of the populace, obviously more centred at the high end of the IQ.
Some of it was worrying, I had a very well qualified lad who had problems with females especially someone telling what to do. His actions forced me to ask him in conjunction with his tutor to find other work. When asked to give a reference to the Police for employment, I declined to write anything but offered myself to be interviewed over the phone by a Police person (female). I do not know the outcome.
Another very nice lad was an inveterate gambler and could not be trusted. No part of the interview process can account for that. We took him in hand but as soon as he was on his own he was back to what he was.
Having seen that it still comes down to people to decide how the information will or should be used. We have seen the generation of false information and I do read of the many times that A.I. has generated its own false assumptions and information.
We must therefore make use of the technology and make sure the input information is verified as correct and logical and monitor the output information.
Blindly following A.I. results which could have had biased information to work on is too much of a danger these days, as we have seen from the way some politicians have come to the fore.
With current people seeking work they often get help from A.I. generated CV's. Now employers know this and have to take it into account, I believe statistically 70% of jobs are filled from personal reference or contact.
So I do agree that there is a use for A.I. but supervision is also needed which is why there are queries about the veracity of some answers and frequent repetition of questions on this thread.
I do enjoy the banter and repartee and I suspect most of our members are probably retired or close to it. We have seen life as it is, worked with it and around it. We have worked amicably with those with perhaps conflicting views and for my part dug out gems from the most unexpected sources.
Regards
Roy
Hello Ed perhaps you know my son in law as he is a Program director at Oxford Uni for masters degree courses and recently higher levels. My son (a Phd in computer science) was tutored by the current government 'think tank' Chairperson on A.I. I am probably in your sights as well.
My son also swears by A.I. but that means it is the current go to for problems. But he often asks me how he should go about doing some things! From my part, I used to sort out problems that outside companies had with running their own computer departments.
Too much reliance can be placed on the current technical advances and not enough time on their outcomes. Where ever there is complex (at the time) technical expertise on the way up then it is too easy to base decisions on it.
Remember there are always 4 answers to a test or recommendation. Positive, negative, false positive and false negative. In my book any test or computer based enquiry is 50% accurate. Probably requiring more information to refine the answer.
It takes an all round review by a qualified person to decide whether reliance can be placed on a solution. I used to employ young students for a year as part of their computer course requirements. I met a fair cross section of the populace, obviously more centred at the high end of the IQ.
Some of it was worrying, I had a very well qualified lad who had problems with females especially someone telling what to do. His actions forced me to ask him in conjunction with his tutor to find other work. When asked to give a reference to the Police for employment, I declined to write anything but offered myself to be interviewed over the phone by a Police person (female). I do not know the outcome.
Another very nice lad was an inveterate gambler and could not be trusted. No part of the interview process can account for that. We took him in hand but as soon as he was on his own he was back to what he was.
Having seen that it still comes down to people to decide how the information will or should be used. We have seen the generation of false information and I do read of the many times that A.I. has generated its own false assumptions and information.
We must therefore make use of the technology and make sure the input information is verified as correct and logical and monitor the output information.
Blindly following A.I. results which could have had biased information to work on is too much of a danger these days, as we have seen from the way some politicians have come to the fore.
With current people seeking work they often get help from A.I. generated CV's. Now employers know this and have to take it into account, I believe statistically 70% of jobs are filled from personal reference or contact.
So I do agree that there is a use for A.I. but supervision is also needed which is why there are queries about the veracity of some answers and frequent repetition of questions on this thread.
I do enjoy the banter and repartee and I suspect most of our members are probably retired or close to it. We have seen life as it is, worked with it and around it. We have worked amicably with those with perhaps conflicting views and for my part dug out gems from the most unexpected sources.
If this post offends some people, so be it.
I am sick of hearing people moaning about AI when they have no Idea what it is or it's capabilities
AI" stands for Artificial Intelligence. It is a field of computer science focused on creating machines that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as learning, problem-solving, and decision-making. AI systems use algorithms to process data and make predictions, enabling them to adapt to new inputs and improve their performance over time.
The process starts with development of "deep learning" algorithms that process vast amounts of data and create a basis for decisions. The longer the process runs, the better the decisions become.
Most of my career was in Information systems and the last 25 years in senior IT management.
After retiring I was approached to head up IT for a world leading Cardiac Research company. They were an offshoot of Oxford University. This company use AI to analyse CT scans to predict future Cardiac problems. I was also involved in Cardiac research at Oxford University where new deep learning is shaping medical diagnosis and decision making.
The results produced by AI are analyzed by top professionals in the medical field and they fully endorse the results
If this post offends some people, so be it.
I am sick of hearing people moaning about AI when they have no Idea what it is or it's capabilities
AI" stands for Artificial Intelligence. It is a field of computer science focused on creating machines that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as learning, problem-solving, and decision-making. AI systems use algorithms to process data and make predictions, enabling them to adapt to new inputs and improve their performance over time.
The process starts with development of "deep learning" algorithms that process vast amounts of data and create a basis for decisions. The longer the process runs, the better the decisions become.
Most of my career was in Information systems and the last 25 years in senior IT management.
After retiring I was approached to head up IT for a world leading Cardiac Research company. They were an offshoot of Oxford University. This company use AI to analyse CT scans to predict future Cardiac problems. I was also involved in Cardiac research at Oxford University where new deep learning is shaping medical diagnosis and decision making.
The results produced by AI are analyzed by top professionals in the medical field and they fully endorse the results
Nick, I'm waiting for these answers too, thank you very much.
That it's not mentioned on page 64 is easy to see in a few seconds.
SimpleSailor is exactly what I'm talking about.
RT isn't there, or it means something completely different.
DW is there and is consistent with a safe path.
Nick, I'm waiting for these answers too, thank you very much.
That it's not mentioned on page 64 is easy to see in a few seconds.
SimpleSailor is exactly what I'm talking about.
RT isn't there, or it means something completely different.
DW is there and is consistent with a safe path.
Just for the record I could not find it in NP5011 - I did spend a while looking.
Also I wonder how many people these day actually use paper charts anymore- I know the Hydrographic office stopped producing them a couple of years ago except for special order
Will be interesting if our American Cousins ever turn the GPS system off in time of war - guess it will be back to first principals
I am not sure if Celestial Navigation is taught on the PWO(N) - course anymore - I must consult with a onetime colleagues that used to do the sea riding bit on that course
Just for the record I could not find it in NP5011 - I did spend a while looking.
Also I wonder how many people these day actually use paper charts anymore- I know the Hydrographic office stopped producing them a couple of years ago except for special order
Will be interesting if our American Cousins ever turn the GPS system off in time of war - guess it will be back to first principals
I am not sure if Celestial Navigation is taught on the PWO(N) - course anymore - I must consult with a onetime colleagues that used to do the sea riding bit on that course
To answer Alessandro - I got it right from deduction rather than knowledge !! I am beginning to learn how this AI sh1t thinks !!
In all honesty I have never seen RT on an Admiralty Chart - however - just to double check I will consult with some of my old colleagues in Taunton.
To answer Alessandro - I got it right from deduction rather than knowledge !! I am beginning to learn how this AI sh1t thinks !!
In all honesty I have never seen RT on an Admiralty Chart - however - just to double check I will consult with some of my old colleagues in Taunton.
Hi All. On the "RT" question which I got right by guess work. Like most of you I cannot find any reference to "RT" on any chart info except the Canadian & USA charts where it means "Radio Telephone Station". I agree with others suggestions that anyone getting it wrong should be awarded a free "got it right card" "DW" is more like the correct answer. This link might be handy to some people.
https://charts.gc.ca/publications/chart1-carte1/sections/v-abbrs/index-eng.html#R
[{"id":"175368740065","name":"175368740065","caption":"","url":"https:\/\/hobby.land\/media\/175368740065\/l","thumbUrl":"https:\/\/hobby.land\/media\/175368740065\/s","isImage":false,"ext":"file"}]
Hi All. On the "RT" question which I got right by guess work. Like most of you I cannot find any reference to "RT" on any chart info except the Canadian & USA charts where it means "Radio Telephone Station". I agree with others suggestions that anyone getting it wrong should be awarded a free "got it right card" "DW" is more like the correct answer. This link might be handy to some people. https://charts.gc.ca/publications/chart1-carte1/sections/v-abbrs/index-eng.html#R
I gave up looking about half way through. I have passed the question on to 3 people, one a retired Merchant skipper, two, a serving RN "two and a half ringer" and a coxswain on the Liverpool Pilot boat. It will be interesting to compare their answers..
I gave up looking about half way through. I have passed the question on to 3 people, one a retired Merchant skipper, two, a serving RN "two and a half ringer" and a coxswain on the Liverpool Pilot boat. It will be interesting to compare their answers..
Thanks so much, Nick.
This attachment is very welcome.
Chart 5011 is exactly what I was referring to when I said I clearly saw the abbreviation DW (Deep Water) corresponding to safely navigable sectors marked by magenta stripes or sectors.
You can see for yourself.
As I said, I wanted to attach a screenshot to show you, but my damn cell phone decided that wasn't possible (I'm far from books, maps, and a PC these days at sea).
I didn't find the abbreviation RT on the same map, but maybe it's just my oversight.
Has anyone seen it?
I don't think it's there.
It's not even listed on page 64 of the English abbreviations list.
If so, I would delete the question and remove the red line from RonH, which is very close to 100% correct.
Thanks so much, Nick.
This attachment is very welcome.
Chart 5011 is exactly what I was referring to when I said I clearly saw the abbreviation DW (Deep Water) corresponding to safely navigable sectors marked by magenta stripes or sectors.
You can see for yourself.
As I said, I wanted to attach a screenshot to show you, but my damn cell phone decided that wasn't possible (I'm far from books, maps, and a PC these days at sea).
I didn't find the abbreviation RT on the same map, but maybe it's just my oversight.
Has anyone seen it?
I don't think it's there.
It's not even listed on page 64 of the English abbreviations list.
If so, I would delete the question and remove the red line from RonH, which is very close to 100% correct.
The answer will be somewhere in here... the "key" to Admiralty Charts. All you ever wanted to know and more. Some of our international shipmates might find it interesting....
[{"id":"175364736938","name":"175364736938","caption":"","url":"https:\/\/hobby.land\/media\/175364736938\/l","thumbUrl":"https:\/\/hobby.land\/media\/175364736938\/s","isImage":false,"ext":"file"},{"id":"175364756569","name":"175364756569","caption":"","url":"https:\/\/hobby.land\/media\/175364756569\/l","thumbUrl":"https:\/\/hobby.land\/media\/175364756569\/s","isImage":false,"ext":"file"}]
The answer will be somewhere in here... the "key" to Admiralty Charts. All you ever wanted to know and more. Some of our international shipmates might find it interesting....
Guys, I guessed the right answer too, but only out of cleverness. Even knowing it was the wrong one, I bet on RT because it seems to suggest "Recommended Track."
However, I think it's wrong and the correct one is "Deep Water."
I know Italian nautical charts (those created and updated by the Italian Navy), but just for fun, I looked at yours too.
A side note: I have to say that your charts are very nice and full of information; many of the indications are the same as ours, others are different.
Well, I didn't find RT as a recommended route. RT is a radio beacon. Instead, I saw safe and recommended stretches of sea, marked by elongated, magenta polygonal stripes, indicated by the abbreviation DW (Deep Water). There's no risk of running aground.
No question about the other abbreviations as reported by the IA.
At this point, I ask you experts (especially Pat), what do you think?
Pat, I was surprised to see you RT. Is that really true?
Can you take a picture or send me a screenshot of a section of a nautical chart where the abbreviation RT appears?
This damn phone won't let me screenshot a map where the abbreviations DW appear.
Whoever made a mistake and got the red/pink/magenta (not green) line because they wrote DW, I think they have a good right to appeal to Stephen (Fireboat) to have their question revoked.
I take this quiz very seriously, hahaha.
Guys, I guessed the right answer too, but only out of cleverness. Even knowing it was the wrong one, I bet on RT because it seems to suggest "Recommended Track."
However, I think it's wrong and the correct one is "Deep Water."
I know Italian nautical charts (those created and updated by the Italian Navy), but just for fun, I looked at yours too.
A side note: I have to say that your charts are very nice and full of information; many of the indications are the same as ours, others are different.
Well, I didn't find RT as a recommended route. RT is a radio beacon. Instead, I saw safe and recommended stretches of sea, marked by elongated, magenta polygonal stripes, indicated by the abbreviation DW (Deep Water). There's no risk of running aground.
No question about the other abbreviations as reported by the IA.
At this point, I ask you experts (especially Pat), what do you think?
Pat, I was surprised to see you RT. Is that really true?
Can you take a picture or send me a screenshot of a section of a nautical chart where the abbreviation RT appears?
This damn phone won't let me screenshot a map where the abbreviations DW appear.
Whoever made a mistake and got the red/pink/magenta (not green) line because they wrote DW, I think they have a good right to appeal to Stephen (Fireboat) to have their question revoked.
I take this quiz very seriously, hahaha.
Do not get me on Brexit.... It was a manipulation, an exercise to see if it was possible to use so called science to alter a vote. Plus a foolish man in charge who never really understood what a percentage was.
He has gone, left us in the s**t, never I hope to be heard of again. Now if he was a company he, amongst, others could be sued for Corporate liablity, incompetence and criminal damage.
In the USA you have a situation where no previous presidents want to associate themselves with the present incumbent. Most countries trade with their neighbours! Always assuming you understand why.
Whist the turmoil goes on other countries are settling, debts, preducies, and personal ambitions in the hopes that their choice of retaliation will go unnoticed amidst the general free for all.
Roy
Do not get me on Brexit.... It was a manipulation, an exercise to see if it was possible to use so called science to alter a vote. Plus a foolish man in charge who never really understood what a percentage was.
He has gone, left us in the s**t, never I hope to be heard of again. Now if he was a company he, amongst, others could be sued for Corporate liablity, incompetence and criminal damage.
In the USA you have a situation where no previous presidents want to associate themselves with the present incumbent. Most countries trade with their neighbours! Always assuming you understand why.
Whist the turmoil goes on other countries are settling, debts, preducies, and personal ambitions in the hopes that their choice of retaliation will go unnoticed amidst the general free for all.
Hi RonH the facts are against you! You need to get the next 29 questions right to get back to where you were!
To get political if you vote once for the wrong person you may have to wait 5 years to rectify that!
Roy
Clearly on this thread a magenta dash is the road to oblivion! I had no idea of the answer but then the answer was in the question.
If the way forward in this world is with A.I. "don't go there".
On the other hand voting for popular politicians who can manipulate the facts to suit?
I think I have changed my mind!
Roy
If you look at the table you will see the headings at the top. Score, Correct, Incorrect and Unanswered.
The score is based on a sliding 30 days so if 30 are correct it will equate to 100%. Any in Incorrect or Unanswered will reduce the count in Correct and the Score percentage will drop.
Your position in the table is based on your Score.
An Unanswered or Incorrect question will take 30 days to disappear from your score.
You can track this on the dashes below your line, Green for Correct, Red for Incorrect and Grey for Unanswered
Hope this demystifies the scoring for those that are in the dark.
🤔
If you look at the table you will see the headings at the top. Score, Correct, Incorrect and Unanswered.
The score is based on a sliding 30 days so if 30 are correct it will equate to 100%. Any in Incorrect or Unanswered will reduce the count in Correct and the Score percentage will drop.
Your position in the table is based on your Score.
An Unanswered or Incorrect question will take 30 days to disappear from your score.
You can track this on the dashes below your line, Green for Correct, Red for Incorrect and Grey for Unanswered
Hope this demystifies the scoring for those that are in the dark.
🤔
I also wonder how many people “cheat” and look up the answers online before answering
The questions are so diverse and in poor English I think it is very difficult for people to get 100% without looking the answers online before up first
I also wonder how many people “cheat” and look up the answers online before answering
The questions are so diverse and in poor English I think it is very difficult for people to get 100% without looking the answers online before up first
Hi Steves-s. You have explained it well. It took me a while to figure it out. You will notice today all the 97% have one red dash except Jonbliss152 who has a grey dash because he hasn't as of yet answered todays question. In the morning all the people with a red dash will drop to 93% but if they answer correctly it will go back to 97%. This oscillates like this until a red dash drops off the right hand side. Does it makes sense? I have given up on that one 🤣
Hi Steves-s. You have explained it well. It took me a while to figure it out. You will notice today all the 97% have one red dash except Jonbliss152 who has a grey dash because he hasn't as of yet answered todays question. In the morning all the people with a red dash will drop to 93% but if they answer correctly it will go back to 97%. This oscillates like this until a red dash drops off the right hand side. Does it makes sense? I have given up on that one 🤣
I am not sure all the questions are for the intended audience but hay hoy - if you don’t like it you can just get out of Dodge !!!
I am not sure if this board is for me tbh - I will make my mind up before my next subscription is due.
