3 ms·

Seems like the whole concept is outdated. Humans are a bottleneck that needs to be mitigated. Each F-35 should probably have a thousand drone missiles flying be

Seems like the whole concept is outdated. Humans are a bottleneck that needs to be mitigated. Each F-35 should probably have a thousand drone missiles flying behind it, ready to swarm-attack any threat. Not just a few F-22s... Send 20 missle drones at any fighter or 100 into any deep bunker. It shouldn't be hard or expensive to fly missiles around the world anymore. An aluminum tube, some fuel, and a computer. The F-35 could be the swarm leader and have the big computer capable of serving its 1000 drones without any outside support. China or Russia could build this today and the technology is only advancing.

Jtsummers 10y ago
If you wanted to go this route, there are probably better control aircraft than the F-35, or a fighter for that matter. The primary benefit of the fighters is their ability to get in and out of situations quickly, and the F-35 stealthily, keeping close proximity (mitigating some electronic countermeasure threats) for command and control. An AWACS, C-130 refueler, or a long-range bomber is probably a more credible C&C platform for the mission, setting aside the preference for proximity. Longer times airborne, more space for controls and controllers, meaning more missions can be managed simultaneously, more power (mitigating the electronic countermeasure threat by power in transmitters rather than proximity), and the potential capability of carrying many of these flying missiles within range of their target mission, reducing the range needs of the missiles themselves. The refueler has the added bonus of literally being able to refuel them while loitering over a target area. The downside, of course, are all the present downsides of drone weaponry (largely moral/ethical concerns). Cheaper to build, deploy, and use means a potential (I'd say probable) increase in their utilization (moral hazards here), without regard to potential casualties (rationalized locally as, "not our citizens/troops dying"). Ultimately, though, this is probably the endgame for weapon systems. It is financially the better option, it does reduce the risk to that side's citizens and soldiers (at least in the short term, long term political and economic fallout may be different), and practically anyone can already make a miniature airborne missile fleet now, though with poor range and precision at present.
- fundameen 10y ago
  If distance was acceptable you could use satellites. I think you need to escort your drone swarm into hostile territory using something like an F-35 so the whole package can penetrate as a unit. You might even want the drones to fly behind using a wire-guided system so they can't be jammed. Imagine the F-35 trailing a cable that spreads out to 1000 wires. It's basically just a way of giving one F-35 a thousand smart missiles that it could never fly itself. The basic idea is used by MIRV ICBMS. You get the whole thing into enemy territory quickly and then launch more attacks than the defense can hope to counter. 1. Fly to the edge of enemy territory. 2. Launch your F-35 towards the enemy. 3. Launch 1000 drone missiles following the F-35 (maybe from a C-130) 4. Split off drone missiles in variable sized chunks according each target detected. Just imagine an F-35 with a dozen F-22s vs an F-35 with 1,000 flying missiles behind it.
na85 10y ago
To be maneuverable enough to hit an aircraft puts upper bounds on your missile's size, which in turn limits the amount of fuel it can carry.
- trhway 10y ago
  stealth drone like X-47B (especially if cheaply mass produced) carrying several fast maneuverable air-to-air (or any other types) missiles gives you the best of both worlds - range and maneuverability. F-35 is just an attempt to get the same using outdated approach of using human to control the plane. Interesting note from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-25_Stingray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-25_Stingray : "Rear Adm. Michael Manazir has suggested that three of these UCAVs could fly with a F-35 for refueling and sensor operation."
  - na85 10y ago
    The idea that drones carrying missiles will always defeat humans carrying missiles is yet to be conclusively proven. Yes, a drone has its advantages, but there are certain other undeniable advantages to using a human pilot for military operations where decentralized decision-making is valued.
    - trhway 10y ago
      >military operations where decentralized decision-making is valued exactly. As high speed trading already shows humans just can't compete with computers in making decisions and acting upon them fast enough. Presented with 3d battlespace densely populated with thousands of various drones (and few planes) moving at all speeds/directions and possessing and using all kinds of weapons (guns, lasers, missiles of various ranges/types) the human brain (without implanted computer chip of course) would just lose to computers.
      - na85 10y ago
        > the human brain (without implanted computer chip of course) would just lose to computers. Your conjecture is compelling but: As I previously stated, this has yet to be conclusively demonstrated on any realistic scenario I'm aware of. HFT and air combat are hardly similar problem spaces.

Jtsummers 10y ago

If you wanted to go this route, there are probably better control aircraft than the F-35, or a fighter for that matter. The primary benefit of the fighters is their ability to get in and out of situations quickly, and the F-35 stealthily, keeping close proximity (mitigating some electronic countermeasure threats) for command and control. An AWACS, C-130 refueler, or a long-range bomber is probably a more credible C&C platform for the mission, setting aside the preference for proximity. Longer times airborne, more space for controls and controllers, meaning more missions can be managed simultaneously, more power (mitigating the electronic countermeasure threat by power in transmitters rather than proximity), and the potential capability of carrying many of these flying missiles within range of their target mission, reducing the range needs of the missiles themselves. The refueler has the added bonus of literally being able to refuel them while loitering over a target area. The downside, of course, are all the present downsides of drone weaponry (largely moral/ethical concerns). Cheaper to build, deploy, and use means a potential (I'd say probable) increase in their utilization (moral hazards here), without regard to potential casualties (rationalized locally as, "not our citizens/troops dying"). Ultimately, though, this is probably the endgame for weapon systems. It is financially the better option, it does reduce the risk to that side's citizens and soldiers (at least in the short term, long term political and economic fallout may be different), and practically anyone can already make a miniature airborne missile fleet now, though with poor range and precision at present.

fundameen 10y ago
If distance was acceptable you could use satellites. I think you need to escort your drone swarm into hostile territory using something like an F-35 so the whole package can penetrate as a unit. You might even want the drones to fly behind using a wire-guided system so they can't be jammed. Imagine the F-35 trailing a cable that spreads out to 1000 wires. It's basically just a way of giving one F-35 a thousand smart missiles that it could never fly itself. The basic idea is used by MIRV ICBMS. You get the whole thing into enemy territory quickly and then launch more attacks than the defense can hope to counter. 1. Fly to the edge of enemy territory. 2. Launch your F-35 towards the enemy. 3. Launch 1000 drone missiles following the F-35 (maybe from a C-130) 4. Split off drone missiles in variable sized chunks according each target detected. Just imagine an F-35 with a dozen F-22s vs an F-35 with 1,000 flying missiles behind it.

na85 10y ago

To be maneuverable enough to hit an aircraft puts upper bounds on your missile's size, which in turn limits the amount of fuel it can carry.

trhway 10y ago
stealth drone like X-47B (especially if cheaply mass produced) carrying several fast maneuverable air-to-air (or any other types) missiles gives you the best of both worlds - range and maneuverability. F-35 is just an attempt to get the same using outdated approach of using human to control the plane. Interesting note from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-25_Stingray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-25_Stingray : "Rear Adm. Michael Manazir has suggested that three of these UCAVs could fly with a F-35 for refueling and sensor operation."
- na85 10y ago
  The idea that drones carrying missiles will always defeat humans carrying missiles is yet to be conclusively proven. Yes, a drone has its advantages, but there are certain other undeniable advantages to using a human pilot for military operations where decentralized decision-making is valued.
  - trhway 10y ago
    >military operations where decentralized decision-making is valued exactly. As high speed trading already shows humans just can't compete with computers in making decisions and acting upon them fast enough. Presented with 3d battlespace densely populated with thousands of various drones (and few planes) moving at all speeds/directions and possessing and using all kinds of weapons (guns, lasers, missiles of various ranges/types) the human brain (without implanted computer chip of course) would just lose to computers.
    - na85 10y ago
      > the human brain (without implanted computer chip of course) would just lose to computers. Your conjecture is compelling but: As I previously stated, this has yet to be conclusively demonstrated on any realistic scenario I'm aware of. HFT and air combat are hardly similar problem spaces.