3 ms·

Yeah. I have no idea how a human would compete at all with g-forces alone. Add the fact that you no longer have to design a plane around a human and that defini

• chongli 6y ago
  Why even put the drone in a fighter? Just put it in a SAM. AI-based guidance system with a multitude of sensors that’s been trained to defeat countermeasures. Seems difficult for a pilot to do much against that.
  • United857 6y ago
    Perhaps cost? 1 reusable AI platform controlling multiple missiles, vs multiple expendable one. Also I'm guessing maneuverability of a fighter aircraft is much better than a SAM which is more or less ballistic.
    • chongli 6y ago
      Also I'm guessing maneuverability of a fighter aircraft is much better than a SAM which is more or less ballistic. Not at all. Missiles are far faster and more maneuverable than aircraft. The only chance a fighter plane has against them is with countermeasures such as chaff and flares as well as electronic countermeasures (ECM). All of these are designed to fill the missile’s tracking and guidance systems. Without them, the plane is helpless against the faster and more maneuverable missile. Missiles are also far cheaper than aircraft. There’s no need to sustain the life and health of a pilot and no need to carry fuel for return trips. This makes missiles very small and light (and thus cheap) compared to a plane.
      • DuskStar 6y ago
        Planes have another advantage - endurance. Missiles have greater acceleration and maneuverability, but they can't sustain that for as long as a plane can. Which makes "run away" a solution in certain parts of the engagement envelope.
        • ajuc 6y ago
          Make a drone that casts away unnecessary parts and turns into a missile when it's close to the enemy. It can carry half the fuel (or fly twice as long), doesn't need landing mechanisms, can be made with less focus on durability (just needs to survive one flight). It can be very small and fly low (and subsonic) to avoid detection. It could even land and wait near military airports on top of trees etc. Basically it would work like movable minefields in air. Denying territory to the enemy planes.
          • DuskStar 6y ago
            I think "single-use missile sled" is actually a USAF project right now, but that's meant to be deployed from a fighter/bomber.
  • albntomat0 6y ago
    Fighters and SAMs serve different roles. A fighter is reusable, can provide coverage at a much greater distance from its launch point and can decide not to shoot/do patrols
  • azernik 6y ago
    SAMs already have as many sensors as can be packed in, and mostly have the human in the loop just to make the decision whether to engage a target. And still cannot reliably get through sophisticated countermeasures. Airborne platforms for both the big launch sensors and the missile launch point have some inherent advantages is all.
  • ThrustVectoring 6y ago
    If the plane is high up in the air and moving fast, you have to burn a lot of fuel to make up the difference in energy. Given that they have enough of an energy advantage, they could never get into the engagement range of the surface. Also, it's really hard to set up a SAM a hundred miles into enemy territory - SAM is fundamentally a defensive technology with extremely limited use for air superiority missions.
  • Agnu 6y ago
    The arms race between drones+AI that can beat countermeasures and countermeasure-carrying drones+AI is going to be insane.