4 ms·

Perhaps cost? 1 reusable AI platform controlling multiple missiles, vs multiple expendable one. Also I'm guessing maneuverability of a fighter aircraft is muc

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.

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.