4 ms·
In-air refueling for intercontinental missions really only works for bombers. Having a fighter jock in-cockpit from the mainland US to Afghanistan is a complete
by rosser 10y ago
In-air refueling for intercontinental missions really only works for bombers. Having a fighter jock in-cockpit from the mainland US to Afghanistan is a complete non-starter, in terms of time, fuel cost, and amount of force projected over time or fuel-cost.
- burfog 10y agoMuch of the flight cost is inspections, and that is based on flight hours. There is also having a sore butt, sore back, and no place to poo. Other than that, a "drone mode" would mostly work. Sleep would be pretty uncomfortable, but might work OK enough.
- rosser 10y agoThe plane:payload ratio for a fighter is deplorably small, relative to a bomber. And you'd be dealing with a pilot that's probably slept like crap en-route, and suffering the consequences of that in terms of reaction speed and cognitive deficits when he gets on-station. Just no.
- burfog 10y agoYep. I'm saying it's mostly a bad idea, and that we really should have carriers. That said, the capability ought to exist. Even if never used in war, the mere threat of the capability is beneficial. It's also usable to move aircraft around, for aircraft sales and to move aircraft closer to an expected future battle.
- Roritharr 10y ago"drone mode" sounds interesting, are there already systems that let planes that otherwise require humans be flown on autopilot to the next airbase? I imagine that would make deployments much easier.
- nikdaheratik 10y agoThe other issue is tactical air support. Bombers make sense if you are talking about a preplanned target up to 12 hours, or whatever, in advance. If you have to plan an airstrike 12 hours ahead, and you're on the ground getting beat up right now it turns into a big problem.