4 ms·

It is turning out that remote piloted fighting planes, without the fragile human cargo, can out-turn, out-brake, and out-accelerate the old line manned fighter

It is turning out that remote piloted fighting planes, without the fragile human cargo, can out-turn, out-brake, and out-accelerate the old line manned fighters. In many ways you can add 'smarts' to any missile to make it a very good one shot attacker. With no human on board the weapon load can be 5 or more times larger. In addition, the cost declines. In addition, with modern missiles, even a stealth fighter is an easy target now they use the newer multi emitter radar. (multi emitter radar has many radar transmitters/receivers at separate locations that exploit the specular aspects of stealth planes. Every cell tower can be used as one of these sites with data processing finding the shape of the plane in the sea of clutter). If the US is smart, they will switch away from manned and to remotes, like Russia has indicated they are doing.

mieseratte 8y ago
It would be nice if you could back-up any of your claims with some supporting information. If that were the case, why wouldn't the world's premier warfighting nation instead be creating such a project, graft and all, instead? Perhaps the answer is that the F-35 still fulfills a very real, very important role and that all of the FUD around it is just that. FUD.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  I'm not the person you were responding to, nor do I claim any knowledge of jet fighters, but at a top speed of Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph), it would seem to me that relaying data back and forth from the jet would be a serious technical challenge. A pilot on board the jet receives input from the environment with effectively 0 latency, and responds with 0 latency as well. The only latency would be human reaction latency, which the remote pilot would have to. Except that remote pilot would also have to contend with network latency to a plane that's thousands of miles away. That's assuming the connection doesn't break, which with a plane moving away at 1,200 mph in various arbitrary directions, seems likely.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > A pilot on board the jet receives input from the environment with effectively 0 latency, and responds with 0 latency as well. The only latency would be human reaction latency, which the remote pilot would have to. Except that remote pilot would also have to contend with network latency to a plane that's thousands of miles away. Also remotely operated planes can be disabled by disrupting the communications link. A piloted plane is still able to operate in a degraded mode in an environment where communications links are disrupted. If the USAF went all-in on remotely operated planes, that could incentivize adversaries to increase investment in technology to disrupt the links that control them, since such technology could deliver air-superiority against an all-remote air force in a single action.
    - aurizon 8y ago
      so true, and deep scrambling involves longer delays - delays you do not have. You can have local pilots 10-15 miles out with fighting robots as the tip of the spear. Read about how the Air Force shrunk the coding procurement link - which was 3-4 years deep
  - aurizon 8y ago
    Yes, a complex beast that means command decisions will more and more go to onboard AI, because the ~~1 second latency is a real killer.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      Right, so now it's not just "remote jet", but more of an "AI jet", and we have a whole set of challenges to go with that...
- aurizon 8y ago
  There is no one size fits all solution. Data link latency is a real factor, but that can be mitigated by hard wired look up tables and some degree of AI auto piloting. In addition, the Military industrial complex has its mouth gripped tight to the Pentagon teat. As we have seen in past wars, the rise of fogies into upper echelons with archaic mind sets is a real problem. Losers fight with the past wars winning tech, winners do better.
greedo 8y ago
Funny, Russia seems to be building its own stealth interceptor, and it's manned. (Sukhoi SU-57).
ende 8y ago
More likey we’ll see combined strategies. Some missions are better manned and some unmanned, while some scenarios would benefit from a hybrid approach where manned fighters operate among a fleet of autonomous, semi-autonomous, and remotely controlled air vehicles. Among the later, the lines between missile and drone are likely to blur.
- aurizon 8y ago
  yes, there has been detailed planning on this idea. It may have had some operational use, but not public yet

mieseratte 8y ago

It would be nice if you could back-up any of your claims with some supporting information. If that were the case, why wouldn't the world's premier warfighting nation instead be creating such a project, graft and all, instead? Perhaps the answer is that the F-35 still fulfills a very real, very important role and that all of the FUD around it is just that. FUD.

dunpeal 8y ago
I'm not the person you were responding to, nor do I claim any knowledge of jet fighters, but at a top speed of Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph), it would seem to me that relaying data back and forth from the jet would be a serious technical challenge. A pilot on board the jet receives input from the environment with effectively 0 latency, and responds with 0 latency as well. The only latency would be human reaction latency, which the remote pilot would have to. Except that remote pilot would also have to contend with network latency to a plane that's thousands of miles away. That's assuming the connection doesn't break, which with a plane moving away at 1,200 mph in various arbitrary directions, seems likely.
- 394549 8y ago
  > A pilot on board the jet receives input from the environment with effectively 0 latency, and responds with 0 latency as well. The only latency would be human reaction latency, which the remote pilot would have to. Except that remote pilot would also have to contend with network latency to a plane that's thousands of miles away. Also remotely operated planes can be disabled by disrupting the communications link. A piloted plane is still able to operate in a degraded mode in an environment where communications links are disrupted. If the USAF went all-in on remotely operated planes, that could incentivize adversaries to increase investment in technology to disrupt the links that control them, since such technology could deliver air-superiority against an all-remote air force in a single action.
  - aurizon 8y ago
    so true, and deep scrambling involves longer delays - delays you do not have. You can have local pilots 10-15 miles out with fighting robots as the tip of the spear. Read about how the Air Force shrunk the coding procurement link - which was 3-4 years deep
- aurizon 8y ago
  Yes, a complex beast that means command decisions will more and more go to onboard AI, because the ~~1 second latency is a real killer.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    Right, so now it's not just "remote jet", but more of an "AI jet", and we have a whole set of challenges to go with that...
aurizon 8y ago
There is no one size fits all solution. Data link latency is a real factor, but that can be mitigated by hard wired look up tables and some degree of AI auto piloting. In addition, the Military industrial complex has its mouth gripped tight to the Pentagon teat. As we have seen in past wars, the rise of fogies into upper echelons with archaic mind sets is a real problem. Losers fight with the past wars winning tech, winners do better.

greedo 8y ago

Funny, Russia seems to be building its own stealth interceptor, and it's manned. (Sukhoi SU-57).

ende 8y ago

More likey we’ll see combined strategies. Some missions are better manned and some unmanned, while some scenarios would benefit from a hybrid approach where manned fighters operate among a fleet of autonomous, semi-autonomous, and remotely controlled air vehicles. Among the later, the lines between missile and drone are likely to blur.

aurizon 8y ago
yes, there has been detailed planning on this idea. It may have had some operational use, but not public yet