22 ms·

That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and s

by jfoutz 11y ago

That would be a pretty interesting fight. It looks like the 400mph rc jet engines cost about $4000. decent drone packages are around $1000. let's be crazy and say $100,000 per drone. around $104,000,000 per F-35. i'm not sure how well an F-35 would stack up against 1040 400mph targets. the F-35 is much much quicker, but only has, what 200 bullets? something in that range. Or, take it up a notch. blow $10,000,000 per drone. give them an air to air missile or two. that puts it at a much more reasonable 1 v 10. I get 10 shots, you get 4. You're not wrong, but i think you're missing a classic military lesson, quantity has a quality all it's own.

outworlder 11y ago
While I happen to share the sentiment(re. the numbers game), how wise would be to deploy a massive amount of remote-controlled weaponry against a developed nation?
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue. I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff. I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
  - nether 11y ago
    What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Not sure any of that stuff would work to stop an F-35. You want something more like low frequency radar and S-400s.
  - greedo 11y ago
    Can only afford a few 100 F-35s? You know we're planning on buying over 2000? If you think jets are so delicate, you haven't been paying attention to the mishap rate with drones. It's not like an RC model you're controlling within sight. You're operating them at ranges where lag is significant, where control links can be jammed, where GPS is easily spoofed, and where current performance is similar to a small Cessna. How pray tell, is a small, cheap drone going to be able to carry a high power laser or "high energy RF" weapon (whatever that is) to the altitude that modern jets operate at? And if these "high energy RF" weapons are available, why wouldn't they be deployed on fighters, which can carry heavier weapons than drones, and have more surplus electrical capacity to power them? It's easy to come up with armchair tactics when it's all Starcraft you're drawing upon. But the military doesn't work like that. Weapons take time to design, to implement, to refine. You can't just set your factories up to build UNIT X and ZERG!
- tw04 11y ago
  Remote controlled? They'll be an autonomous swarm before the end of the decade: http://defensetech.org/2016/01/04/u-s-navy-plans-to-fly-first-drone-swarm-this-summer/ http://defensetech.org/2016/01/04/u-s-navy-plans-to-fly-firs...
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Still possibly susceptible to remote exploits.
    - tw04 11y ago
      So is the F-35. "Possibly susceptible" could apply to just about any modern piece of military equipment.
  - greedo 11y ago
    And self-driving cars... I doubt that there will be more than some technology demonstrators in less than four years. And everyone is forgetting that with small size comes small range and payload. Small range means your opponent has to get close to you, exposing themselves. The article has some huge assumptions, at least concerning attacking a naval ship (which is far easier than an aircraft that can outperform a drone). The idea that an Aegis cruiser is going to let a fishing boat launch a significant number of drones without getting perforated by its MK-45 is a non-starter.
nether 11y ago
A $5 bullet probably took down a $40 million F-117 Nighthawk over Serbia in the late 90s. You can always fill the sky with lead. No aircraft is impervious to the "quantity" argument. The F-35 would have a better chance at evading it and delivering its payload than a slow and low A-10 though.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  The A-10 isn't a bomber.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  The F-117 was shot down by a SA-2 SAM, not bullets. The SAM commander was smart, and the mission planners were not being smart and had the F-117s fly the same route repeatedly. Additionally, the SAM locked on while the F-117 was coming off target, with the weapon bay doors open. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
It's a Zerg rush, the darn things don't even need weapons. They can FOD the engine out. Enough strikes might damage the airframe critically. Send them each with a small capsule of Mercury and Gallium for extra fun.
- lambdasquirrel 11y ago
  I see what you did there... yea... mercury on aluminum frame is kind of a mean thing to do. ;)
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Exactly, let's see if you can land it now. Though, I understand much of it is composites so it might sound better than it actually works.
- greedo 11y ago
  Show me a "cheap" drone that can cruise above 500mph at 20k feet...
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Why does it need to go 500 mph? The F35 is going faster than that. How about I just hoist 100,000 ball bearings into the air and drop them in front of the F35? But if you're committed to the fast drone idea then get one. I think they're going about 450 mph now which ought to give you enough time to maneuver in front of the f35.
    - greedo 11y ago
      Most fighters don't cruise around on full AB; they cruise at lower throttle settings to conserve fuel. So again, how are you going to get these 100k ball bearings up to 20k AGI? Your slow, cheap drones are just going to loiter up there and hope an F-35 flies into their web? It's not like the air forces of the worlds would be ignorant of this "surprise" tactic. And the methodology of targeting an F-35 with a cascade of ball bearings is conveniently left out of your scenario.
apr 11y ago
So my understanding is that you are proposing to build a swarm of cheap interceptors. But why would an F-35 even engage your swarm? It would fly around or over it and strike its target. If your cheap interceptors are incapable to impose a fight on opposing planes the net effect is that as if they don't even exist.
- failrate 11y ago
  Because the drone swarm would completely surround the target. Think of them as mobile blitz balloons.
  - apr 11y ago
    For them to surround the target they have to catch up with it first. Not gonna happen if the drones cannot exceed the speed and altitude of the airplane they want to intercept.
  - ambicapter 11y ago
    What makes you think they can keep up?
- na85 11y ago
  The F-35 is slower and less maneuverable than nearly any contemporary fighter aircraft. It cannot avoid an engagement, nor press the attack.
  - greedo 11y ago
    Quit reading the press that loves to paint military spending as a waste. The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as maneuverable as the most agile, but it's not like it's a C-130... It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms. Try that with a 4th gen aircraft.
    - na85 11y ago
      >The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as maneuverable as the most agile Yes. It's slower, and less agile. Than other fighter aircraft. It can't win a dogfight. Period. >It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms. Which the Chinese will surely counter, since they stole the blueprints. That stealth is mostly worthless.
greedo 11y ago
You try controlling 1K drones. Their command and control links would be jammed easily. And what's the flight time/range of one of these toys? And the ceiling on them? The idea that these would pose more of a threat than a flock of geese to a modern fighter is laughable. And a $10M drone attempting to engage in A2A combat is called a target. Not a threat. Drones are a long ways away from engaging in A2A combat.
- woodman 11y ago
  LtGen Riper disagrees [0]. The drones don't need complicated control links if they've got rudimentary autopilot functionality with a few extra routines that would not be out of place in air to air missiles. Take a page from the General's playbook and control the swarm's attack state with WWII style light signals, and then laugh at how long it takes Lockheed Martin to roll out a new multimillion dollar electronic warfare module for the F35 to jam visible light comms. As drones start to take on a larger role in warfare, we'll find ourselves back at where it all started - a war of economies. The country that can crank out the most ball bearings will win. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
  - greedo 11y ago
    Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. Cheap drones are not going to be carrying AMRAAM, or Sidewinders, or Python/Derby or whatever AAM you can find. They won't be carrying AESA radar to guide the missiles, or to even locate the target. It's not a matter of a few extra routines. It's AI, it's BVR, not "light signals." How are your "light comms" going to work at night, or in inclement weather, or even in broad daylight when you're fighting an opponent at 20K feet. Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? Drones may take on a larger role in the future, if we decide to truly let them function autonomously. But the tech isn't there yet. And even if you create a magical swarm, it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
    - woodman 11y ago
      > Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. I wish you went on to back that statement, because I'm going to have to use context clues to guess that you've either failed at reading comprehension or basic abstract thought. The article discusses a well known example of the failure of an inflexible monolithic defense system faced with an enemy schooled in asymmetric warfare. The J-35 is to the naval fleet C2 net as the drone swarm is to the armada of small suicide boats. > Cheap drones are not going to be carrying... Solid rocket boosters and pointy nose cones? The drones are the missiles. As far as targeting, anti-tank missiles have had a great deal of success without fancy radar arrays - just object recognition in extremely noisy environments. I see no reason why that would be impossible for this application. > How are your "light comms" going to work at night... Better > ...or in inclement weather... Ask the Navy, they managed to make it work for a long time without computer aided signal processing. > Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? LOL, the Germans managed to get a range of 4KM (13K feet) in WWI, in broad daylight, with handheld light signals [0]. So yeah, I think you can see a spotlight in daylight from 20 thousand feet in the year 2016. > ...if we decide to truly let them function autonomously... When you say we, do you mean every nation? Because it will only take one to disrupt the whole game. > ...it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter. What? If you want to park an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific, are you going to choose a fighter jet or a drone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communicati...

by jfoutz 11y ago

outworlder 11y ago

While I happen to share the sentiment(re. the numbers game), how wise would be to deploy a massive amount of remote-controlled weaponry against a developed nation?

jfoutz 11y ago
Well... I'm assuming the drones would be deployed by a developed nation as well. I know a few defense contractors, and they're decent guys, but i don't think they make really top notch stuff. In greedo's example, he's talking about all out war. I kinda suspect we would get the best and brightest to build software, sorta like the healthcare.gov rescue. I do think a lot of low tech options are pretty viable, since we can only afford to make a few hundred F-35s. High wattage UV lasers shot at cockpits permanently blind pilots, high energy RF pointed at jets turn all those little wires into antennas, drones can just play tag because jets are so delicate. when the cost of loss is 100M, with equal resources (even fairly unequal!) you can try all sorts of crazy stuff, one win is a huge payoff. I dunno. Playing armchair general is fun. I'll never be in a position to test my theorys. I also played a lot of zurg back in the day, so my opinion is probably kinda silly.
- nether 11y ago
  What is your point? No one should build expensive weapons because attacking them is so cheap? If anything, that strengthens the case for more expensive and sophisticated weapons. Canopy glass needs to block lasers, more RF shielding. Or you just think war is pointless, yay cool story bro.
- tim333 11y ago
  Not sure any of that stuff would work to stop an F-35. You want something more like low frequency radar and S-400s.
- greedo 11y ago
  Can only afford a few 100 F-35s? You know we're planning on buying over 2000? If you think jets are so delicate, you haven't been paying attention to the mishap rate with drones. It's not like an RC model you're controlling within sight. You're operating them at ranges where lag is significant, where control links can be jammed, where GPS is easily spoofed, and where current performance is similar to a small Cessna. How pray tell, is a small, cheap drone going to be able to carry a high power laser or "high energy RF" weapon (whatever that is) to the altitude that modern jets operate at? And if these "high energy RF" weapons are available, why wouldn't they be deployed on fighters, which can carry heavier weapons than drones, and have more surplus electrical capacity to power them? It's easy to come up with armchair tactics when it's all Starcraft you're drawing upon. But the military doesn't work like that. Weapons take time to design, to implement, to refine. You can't just set your factories up to build UNIT X and ZERG!
tw04 11y ago
Remote controlled? They'll be an autonomous swarm before the end of the decade: http://defensetech.org/2016/01/04/u-s-navy-plans-to-fly-first-drone-swarm-this-summer/ http://defensetech.org/2016/01/04/u-s-navy-plans-to-fly-firs...
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Still possibly susceptible to remote exploits.
  - tw04 11y ago
    So is the F-35. "Possibly susceptible" could apply to just about any modern piece of military equipment.
- greedo 11y ago
  And self-driving cars... I doubt that there will be more than some technology demonstrators in less than four years. And everyone is forgetting that with small size comes small range and payload. Small range means your opponent has to get close to you, exposing themselves. The article has some huge assumptions, at least concerning attacking a naval ship (which is far easier than an aircraft that can outperform a drone). The idea that an Aegis cruiser is going to let a fishing boat launch a significant number of drones without getting perforated by its MK-45 is a non-starter.

nether 11y ago

A $5 bullet probably took down a $40 million F-117 Nighthawk over Serbia in the late 90s. You can always fill the sky with lead. No aircraft is impervious to the "quantity" argument. The F-35 would have a better chance at evading it and delivering its payload than a slow and low A-10 though.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
The A-10 isn't a bomber.
neurotech1 11y ago
The F-117 was shot down by a SA-2 SAM, not bullets. The SAM commander was smart, and the mission planners were not being smart and had the F-117s fly the same route repeatedly. Additionally, the SAM locked on while the F-117 was coming off target, with the weapon bay doors open. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

It's a Zerg rush, the darn things don't even need weapons. They can FOD the engine out. Enough strikes might damage the airframe critically. Send them each with a small capsule of Mercury and Gallium for extra fun.

lambdasquirrel 11y ago
I see what you did there... yea... mercury on aluminum frame is kind of a mean thing to do. ;)
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Exactly, let's see if you can land it now. Though, I understand much of it is composites so it might sound better than it actually works.
greedo 11y ago
Show me a "cheap" drone that can cruise above 500mph at 20k feet...
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Why does it need to go 500 mph? The F35 is going faster than that. How about I just hoist 100,000 ball bearings into the air and drop them in front of the F35? But if you're committed to the fast drone idea then get one. I think they're going about 450 mph now which ought to give you enough time to maneuver in front of the f35.
  - greedo 11y ago
    Most fighters don't cruise around on full AB; they cruise at lower throttle settings to conserve fuel. So again, how are you going to get these 100k ball bearings up to 20k AGI? Your slow, cheap drones are just going to loiter up there and hope an F-35 flies into their web? It's not like the air forces of the worlds would be ignorant of this "surprise" tactic. And the methodology of targeting an F-35 with a cascade of ball bearings is conveniently left out of your scenario.

apr 11y ago

So my understanding is that you are proposing to build a swarm of cheap interceptors. But why would an F-35 even engage your swarm? It would fly around or over it and strike its target. If your cheap interceptors are incapable to impose a fight on opposing planes the net effect is that as if they don't even exist.

failrate 11y ago
Because the drone swarm would completely surround the target. Think of them as mobile blitz balloons.
- apr 11y ago
  For them to surround the target they have to catch up with it first. Not gonna happen if the drones cannot exceed the speed and altitude of the airplane they want to intercept.
- ambicapter 11y ago
  What makes you think they can keep up?
na85 11y ago
The F-35 is slower and less maneuverable than nearly any contemporary fighter aircraft. It cannot avoid an engagement, nor press the attack.
- greedo 11y ago
  Quit reading the press that loves to paint military spending as a waste. The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as maneuverable as the most agile, but it's not like it's a C-130... It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms. Try that with a 4th gen aircraft.
  - na85 11y ago
    >The F-35 isn't a dog, it may not be as fast as the fastest jets, or as maneuverable as the most agile Yes. It's slower, and less agile. Than other fighter aircraft. It can't win a dogfight. Period. >It has stealth, so it can avoid an engagement if need be, or maneuver so the engagement is on more favorable terms. Which the Chinese will surely counter, since they stole the blueprints. That stealth is mostly worthless.

greedo 11y ago

You try controlling 1K drones. Their command and control links would be jammed easily. And what's the flight time/range of one of these toys? And the ceiling on them? The idea that these would pose more of a threat than a flock of geese to a modern fighter is laughable. And a $10M drone attempting to engage in A2A combat is called a target. Not a threat. Drones are a long ways away from engaging in A2A combat.

woodman 11y ago
LtGen Riper disagrees [0]. The drones don't need complicated control links if they've got rudimentary autopilot functionality with a few extra routines that would not be out of place in air to air missiles. Take a page from the General's playbook and control the swarm's attack state with WWII style light signals, and then laugh at how long it takes Lockheed Martin to roll out a new multimillion dollar electronic warfare module for the F35 to jam visible light comms. As drones start to take on a larger role in warfare, we'll find ourselves back at where it all started - a war of economies. The country that can crank out the most ball bearings will win. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- greedo 11y ago
  Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. Cheap drones are not going to be carrying AMRAAM, or Sidewinders, or Python/Derby or whatever AAM you can find. They won't be carrying AESA radar to guide the missiles, or to even locate the target. It's not a matter of a few extra routines. It's AI, it's BVR, not "light signals." How are your "light comms" going to work at night, or in inclement weather, or even in broad daylight when you're fighting an opponent at 20K feet. Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? Drones may take on a larger role in the future, if we decide to truly let them function autonomously. But the tech isn't there yet. And even if you create a magical swarm, it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter.
  - woodman 11y ago
    > Seriously, Wikipedia is not your friend. I wish you went on to back that statement, because I'm going to have to use context clues to guess that you've either failed at reading comprehension or basic abstract thought. The article discusses a well known example of the failure of an inflexible monolithic defense system faced with an enemy schooled in asymmetric warfare. The J-35 is to the naval fleet C2 net as the drone swarm is to the armada of small suicide boats. > Cheap drones are not going to be carrying... Solid rocket boosters and pointy nose cones? The drones are the missiles. As far as targeting, anti-tank missiles have had a great deal of success without fancy radar arrays - just object recognition in extremely noisy environments. I see no reason why that would be impossible for this application. > How are your "light comms" going to work at night... Better > ...or in inclement weather... Ask the Navy, they managed to make it work for a long time without computer aided signal processing. > Think you can see a spotlight in daytime at 20K? LOL, the Germans managed to get a range of 4KM (13K feet) in WWI, in broad daylight, with handheld light signals [0]. So yeah, I think you can see a spotlight in daylight from 20 thousand feet in the year 2016. > ...if we decide to truly let them function autonomously... When you say we, do you mean every nation? Because it will only take one to disrupt the whole game. > ...it's range will be very small compared to a jet fighter. What? If you want to park an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific, are you going to choose a fighter jet or a drone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communicati...