7 ms·
Unmanned aircraft works as a strike fighter once air superiority is established but I don't see how it can replace a stealth air superiority jet at this time.
by sintaxi 8y ago
Unmanned aircraft works as a strike fighter once air superiority is established but I don't see how it can replace a stealth air superiority jet at this time.
- greglindahl 8y agoIs it possible to have air superiority because of missiles fired from the ground? A bit less heroic than manned fighter jets in dogfights, but ...
- pietroglyph 8y agoIt seems difficult to create a platform which securely moves said missiles. Although ships somewhat fill this role, they're still huge fairly immobile targets. I think the high speed ceiling/mobility of the sky is what makes a flying missile delivery platform better than one based on land or sea.
- newnewpdro 8y agoDon't submarines fill this role?
- greglindahl 8y agoThe US already uses them that way, albeit mostly for submarine-to-ground missiles instead of submarine-to-air.
- riku_iki 8y agoSubmarines usually don't have good radar, so they can't lock on difficult air targets.
- newnewpdro 8y agoThat makes sense, I guess I assumed they just need to surface briefly then it's all the same.
- riku_iki 8y agoAnd how you will bring those missile on enemy territory? Also dogfight is not a thing for many years, modern jets can also use missiles..
- greglindahl 8y agoThere are missiles fired from the ground which have long range. Since they don't have to be carried by a plane, they can be bigger. Or if you really want missiles fired from a plane, they can be fired from an unmanned plane.
- riku_iki 8y ago> There are missiles fired from the ground which have long range. Since they don't have to be carried by a plane, they can be bigger. Current generation of US surface to air missiles has range of about 200 miles, which is not that much. > Or if you really want missiles fired from a plane, they can be fired from an unmanned plane. Maybe, but what exactly you propose? Remove pilot from F-35? Or build something completely new?
- greglindahl 8y agoMy suggestion is to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on longer-range SAMs and more fragile, unmanned, missile-carrying aircraft cheaper than the F35. Sorry if this isn't obvious, I've seen lots of other people (including people in the military) suggest the same thing.
- riku_iki 8y agoOk, let's assume your aircraft succeeded to gain air superiority, now you need to do actual bombing of enemy territory with air defense. What now? F-35 has some edge by being stealthy. It can track and target moving targets, it can do CAS. Will your fragile aircraft survive in such conditions?
- 8y ago
- megaman22 8y agoBut it's a shitty air superiority platform, compared to its specialized predecessors, as the article highlights. It's only a matter of time before anything manned aircraft can do, unmanned will be capable of. And likely more, since the unmanned won't have to keep the meat-bags behind the yoke alive or conscious.
- mrep 8y agoCannot drones be jammed which would effectively make them useless?
- manicdee 8y agoHumans can be blinded quite easily. Surely nobody would rely completely on a flight control system that can be completely disabled with a twenty cent laser operated by untrained personnel? Autonomous aircraft will be designed to operate with no communications, since they need to be able to land at an airstrip after a mission with potential damage.
- newnewpdro 8y agoThat may be true, but the linked article paints the F-35 in a pretty negative light as an air superiority platform.
- sintaxi 8y agoThe F-22 is no doubt better but the F-35 would still dominate against anything else. Quite effortlessly in fact. My take is the US Military wants F-22s back in production and they are working with Japan to help build a case so congress will pass it. "We already have a customer who wants 150 Raptors, yada yada yada American jobs." That's the way I read this. Japan is in no position to refuse the F-35 given its capabilities thats why I think the DOD is somehow behind this.
- sterlind 8y agoYeah, the article's predictions were pretty heavy-handed and curiously specific. The article hinted that Japan might be eager to share development of the F-22... perhaps if the production lines were restarted, Mitsubishi could do the assembly of surplus F-22 parts with less cost. Though, I'm not sure we'll have time to make any F-22s before Japan really needs them in the air.
- sintaxi 8y agoGood point. For sure Japan wants in on the development. Jobs is how politicians justify the insane price tag to tax payers. If Japan lowers the cost of F22 to below the F35 that would be a huge blow to the JSF.
- newnewpdro 8y agoIsn't the F-35 already more costly than the F-22 without Japan's involvement?
- captainmuon 8y agoI am mostly making this up, but it would seem to me that a fleet of autonomous drones would be far superior to any fighter. You could get many drones for the price of one fighter. They can carry more fuel and/or ammunition, and they could fly maneuvers that are impossible with human pilots. I could also imagine that if you have several planes in one area, you could better defeat stealth by having each plane "paint" laser targets for the others, or by using their radars together.
- sintaxi 8y agoAll that matters is which side has the superior platform. Ever seen hornets raid a hive of honey bees?