5 ms·

6th-Gen fighter concepts include drone "wingmen" under partial control of fighter pilots in their own fighters. e.g. Japan's I3 Fighter: https://en.wikipedia.or

by lainga 7y ago

6th-Gen fighter concepts include drone "wingmen" under partial control of fighter pilots in their own fighters. e.g. Japan's I3 Fighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I3_fighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I3_fighter ed.: and yes, the F-22 and F-35 are 5th generation and decade-old tech. There is unfortunately a lot of lead time on fighter development. I think the F-15 was relatively speedy at 9 years from selection to roll-out (1967 - 76).

CoolGuySteve 7y ago
I've always wondered why there's a guy in the plane at all at this point. Doesn't it severely limit the maneuverability of the aircraft to have a liquid-fueled brain piloting it around rather than some remotely controlled semi-autonomous solid-state electronics?
- lainga 7y ago
  You could make an argument about drone jamming and autonomous behaviour not being quite there yet... I think that's what the "wingmen" are for. The paradigm we're moving out of was one where you'd get high-quality sensor data from a specialized patrol or AWACS plane like an E-3, which would send information to ground, which would relay it to the fighters. Now, platforms like the F-35 often have better sensors than patrol planes do; and despite still having a person inside, are better at evading missiles than big patrol planes are. So it's more like the fighters take on the role of the patrol planes; the human inside decides what to do, probably assimilating information from other fighters; and sends the drones out to do acrobatics. And there's no need to run that information through a ground station first.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    Still a place for AWACS, bigger RADAR allows different frequencies, much wider field of view, lots of power. Usually they would communicate with fighters directly to update their picture (voice & link). Ground controllers usually take a back seat to what AWACS says. The difference with the drone wingman (wingbot?) is that the controller is in the air and close by, and she can point a powerful X-band radar at the drones to use as an un-jammable comms link (high power, better geometry). If the manned aircraft were also to merge then they could be jammed because the geometry would be wrong, but for short periods the wingbot tactics are mainly dominated by physics (energy, shot flyout and engagement envelopes).
- karatestomp 7y ago
  I think the idea with all the modern long range smart weaponry and anti-radar targeting tech and such is that the airplane with the squishy, fragile pilot is really a platform for very deadly, smart single-use drones (missiles) and if anyone gets close enough to shoot at the drone platform then several things have already gone wrong.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  You are thinking from a technical perspective. You will always need a guy in the cockpit that can refuse an order. Not the same thing if it's a room of drone pilots, a drone pilot will just get fired and replaced on the spot. Imagine being given an order to kill a terrorist, but you notice the place he is at is actually a wedding. A fighter pilot has final authority on the strike, he can make decisions about collateral damage. Beyond that, if a fighter pilot engaged an enemy aircraft he coule be starting a war,you can't make the same quality of observation about the enemy pilots,their intent and threat. Humans make different decisions if they are detached from the scene. I agree the piloting and targeting should be mostly automated away but final decison should be done by someone at the scene risking their own lives
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Except we already make most of our air-based strikes from drones currently, so that can't be the reason we have SOME piloted planes.
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      Air to land not air to air.
      - angry_octet 7y ago
        We'd happily have air to air drones (really RPA/RPS) except for jamming. Basically all the current generation RPS tech (like Reaper) stops working once you're dealing with someone with jamming capability. No one is happy with algorithms pulling the trigger yet for air to ground, but air to air I can see happening quickly.
      - jki275 7y ago
        We have plenty of air to air drones. They're mostly prefixed with "Standard Missile", but that's what they are.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    This reminds me a lot about the Geneva convention and how the rules of war very quickly got tossed aside during WW2. If you compare say the Battle of River Plate (1939) vs. say the North Atlantic convoy run or the siege of malta (1942), there's a dramatic difference in how war was conducted and the types of weapon systems that were most effective. River Plate was almost gentlemanly: while commerce-raiding, the Graf Spee would first hail the merchantmen she was taking prisoner, identify them as belligerents, give them the opportunity to surrender, and then take crews on board before sinking them. When she was engaged and damaged, the ship took refuge in Montevideo, released the prisoners, and then there was elaborate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid violating Uruguayan neutrality. The ship was scuttled without further loss of life - other than Captain Langsdorff, who committed suicide. Several of his British adversaries attended the funeral. By 1942, nobody cared about any of that. The most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft, and they shot to kill on sight. We're at peace right now, despite a state of perpetual war that mostly exists for propaganda and business purposes. If it ever came to an existential conflict, human judgment would likely become a liability. Humans generally don't want to kill; in a state of total warfare that hesitation could be lethal.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Latency issues, I am guessing....
- nradov 7y ago
  When fighting an advanced adversary with the ability to disrupt satellite communications, remote control can only be used at short ranges within line of sight. And EW makes even that problematic.
r00fus 7y ago
Kinda exciting to know that the Gradius Option is finally becoming a reality.
mc32 7y ago
DecadeS-old tech. From design and prototyping to testing to actual deployment takes 2-3 decades...
sien 7y ago
The F14 was even quicker. 1969 selection to 1973 deployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#VFX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#VFX It's interesting how things changed from that generation to the next. The introduction of sophisticated computers seems to be part of the issue. The F14's electronics, BTW, were pretty primitive. This episode of the Fighter Pilot Podcast F14 is amazing. The ways people had to keep the systems going were dramatic. In the 1990s the back seater in the F14 would sometimes carry their own tools to fix things in the plane. https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/042-f-14-tomcat/ https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/042-f-14-tomcat...
- close04 7y ago
  > The introduction of sophisticated computers seems to be part of the issue. Sophisticated technology was always part of the issue no matter how far back in time you go. What changed is the mentality. 50 years ago you had to deliver because the enemy was at your door. Today companies realized that they can make far more money by just dragging it out for decades through the magic of a cost-plus contract and subcontracting. The kind of arrangement that keeps entire subcontracting companies going forever even if they only tread water and never deliver anything. If anything, sophisticated computers and software just made it easier to drag your feet because unlike building the actual plane, coding is not that capital intensive. You just need your coders constantly writing code and picking up a paycheck while shipping eternal pre-alpha builds.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
This was already achieved 15 years ago with the X-45As flying simulated combat missions together.

by lainga 7y ago

CoolGuySteve 7y ago

I've always wondered why there's a guy in the plane at all at this point. Doesn't it severely limit the maneuverability of the aircraft to have a liquid-fueled brain piloting it around rather than some remotely controlled semi-autonomous solid-state electronics?

lainga 7y ago
You could make an argument about drone jamming and autonomous behaviour not being quite there yet... I think that's what the "wingmen" are for. The paradigm we're moving out of was one where you'd get high-quality sensor data from a specialized patrol or AWACS plane like an E-3, which would send information to ground, which would relay it to the fighters. Now, platforms like the F-35 often have better sensors than patrol planes do; and despite still having a person inside, are better at evading missiles than big patrol planes are. So it's more like the fighters take on the role of the patrol planes; the human inside decides what to do, probably assimilating information from other fighters; and sends the drones out to do acrobatics. And there's no need to run that information through a ground station first.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  Still a place for AWACS, bigger RADAR allows different frequencies, much wider field of view, lots of power. Usually they would communicate with fighters directly to update their picture (voice & link). Ground controllers usually take a back seat to what AWACS says. The difference with the drone wingman (wingbot?) is that the controller is in the air and close by, and she can point a powerful X-band radar at the drones to use as an un-jammable comms link (high power, better geometry). If the manned aircraft were also to merge then they could be jammed because the geometry would be wrong, but for short periods the wingbot tactics are mainly dominated by physics (energy, shot flyout and engagement envelopes).
karatestomp 7y ago
I think the idea with all the modern long range smart weaponry and anti-radar targeting tech and such is that the airplane with the squishy, fragile pilot is really a platform for very deadly, smart single-use drones (missiles) and if anyone gets close enough to shoot at the drone platform then several things have already gone wrong.
badrabbit 7y ago
You are thinking from a technical perspective. You will always need a guy in the cockpit that can refuse an order. Not the same thing if it's a room of drone pilots, a drone pilot will just get fired and replaced on the spot. Imagine being given an order to kill a terrorist, but you notice the place he is at is actually a wedding. A fighter pilot has final authority on the strike, he can make decisions about collateral damage. Beyond that, if a fighter pilot engaged an enemy aircraft he coule be starting a war,you can't make the same quality of observation about the enemy pilots,their intent and threat. Humans make different decisions if they are detached from the scene. I agree the piloting and targeting should be mostly automated away but final decison should be done by someone at the scene risking their own lives
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Except we already make most of our air-based strikes from drones currently, so that can't be the reason we have SOME piloted planes.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Air to land not air to air.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      We'd happily have air to air drones (really RPA/RPS) except for jamming. Basically all the current generation RPS tech (like Reaper) stops working once you're dealing with someone with jamming capability. No one is happy with algorithms pulling the trigger yet for air to ground, but air to air I can see happening quickly.
    - jki275 7y ago
      We have plenty of air to air drones. They're mostly prefixed with "Standard Missile", but that's what they are.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  This reminds me a lot about the Geneva convention and how the rules of war very quickly got tossed aside during WW2. If you compare say the Battle of River Plate (1939) vs. say the North Atlantic convoy run or the siege of malta (1942), there's a dramatic difference in how war was conducted and the types of weapon systems that were most effective. River Plate was almost gentlemanly: while commerce-raiding, the Graf Spee would first hail the merchantmen she was taking prisoner, identify them as belligerents, give them the opportunity to surrender, and then take crews on board before sinking them. When she was engaged and damaged, the ship took refuge in Montevideo, released the prisoners, and then there was elaborate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid violating Uruguayan neutrality. The ship was scuttled without further loss of life - other than Captain Langsdorff, who committed suicide. Several of his British adversaries attended the funeral. By 1942, nobody cared about any of that. The most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft, and they shot to kill on sight. We're at peace right now, despite a state of perpetual war that mostly exists for propaganda and business purposes. If it ever came to an existential conflict, human judgment would likely become a liability. Humans generally don't want to kill; in a state of total warfare that hesitation could be lethal.
cortesoft 7y ago
Latency issues, I am guessing....
nradov 7y ago
When fighting an advanced adversary with the ability to disrupt satellite communications, remote control can only be used at short ranges within line of sight. And EW makes even that problematic.

r00fus 7y ago

Kinda exciting to know that the Gradius Option is finally becoming a reality.

mc32 7y ago

DecadeS-old tech. From design and prototyping to testing to actual deployment takes 2-3 decades...

sien 7y ago

The F14 was even quicker. 1969 selection to 1973 deployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#VFX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#VFX It's interesting how things changed from that generation to the next. The introduction of sophisticated computers seems to be part of the issue. The F14's electronics, BTW, were pretty primitive. This episode of the Fighter Pilot Podcast F14 is amazing. The ways people had to keep the systems going were dramatic. In the 1990s the back seater in the F14 would sometimes carry their own tools to fix things in the plane. https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/042-f-14-tomcat/ https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/042-f-14-tomcat...

close04 7y ago
> The introduction of sophisticated computers seems to be part of the issue. Sophisticated technology was always part of the issue no matter how far back in time you go. What changed is the mentality. 50 years ago you had to deliver because the enemy was at your door. Today companies realized that they can make far more money by just dragging it out for decades through the magic of a cost-plus contract and subcontracting. The kind of arrangement that keeps entire subcontracting companies going forever even if they only tread water and never deliver anything. If anything, sophisticated computers and software just made it easier to drag your feet because unlike building the actual plane, coding is not that capital intensive. You just need your coders constantly writing code and picking up a paycheck while shipping eternal pre-alpha builds.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

This was already achieved 15 years ago with the X-45As flying simulated combat missions together.