5 ms·

Probably not as much as you would think. Modern airframes are still not capable of sustaining as much acceleration as missiles. You just can't outmaneuver toda

Probably not as much as you would think. Modern airframes are still not capable of sustaining as much acceleration as missiles. You just can't outmaneuver today's missiles.

solotronics 6y ago
maybe this would lead to smart missiles or a platform to launch them that can loiter near the battlefield, directed by a pilot or controller nearby
- nradov 6y ago
  Smart loitering munitions already exist.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Loitering in the sense of expending fuel load until a hypothetical target arrives? Or loitering in the sense it's there for reconissance and isn't intended to directly destructively interact with the target? There's a big difference between a Predator with Hellfires, a tomahawk, A Global Hawk, or a man portablerecon/kamikaze drone, and finally Project Pluto, the ultimate "F you" device likely ever contemplated.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mullingitover 6y ago
> Modern airframes are still not capable of sustaining as much acceleration as missiles. Are those limits what they are because there wasn't any point in designing stronger airframes if the pilot was just going to black out under higher G forces? If you take the vulnerable human body out of the equation I wonder if airframes strong enough to withstand that acceleration would actually be feasible.
- berkut 6y ago
  It's sometimes possible to overstress airframes (even ones that use FBW, and should in theory always operate within limits) in high-G maneuvers, as they have stress limits (g limits), which depend on the airframe as well as load-out for fighters.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  It's mostly a matter of mass. You would need crazy amounts of power to make a large aircraft make the same kind of turns that a small missile can do effortlessly, besides that it is much easier to make a small structure very strong. Try killing a flea if you want more proof of that.
- stouset 6y ago
  A plane is, conceptually, just a platform from which to launch ordnance closer and at a higher starting potential energy than you would be able to from the ground. Given that a plane, then, needs to be capable of carrying multiple pieces of ordnance (otherwise, it's pretty much just a guided missile), it's pretty much fundamentally going to have a higher mass than whatever missile you're launching at it.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all. You just need an autonomous missile platform with good enough ECM to avoid getting splattered by the enemy missile platform.
    - magicsmoke 6y ago
      That's the basis behind F35's design and why it can't outmaneuver a F16 in a visual range dogfight but is never expected to get into one.
    - xnyan 6y ago
      >That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all There has not been an aerial dogfight in this millennia. The last ones that would really count happened over Bosnia in the 90s. I think a Rafale took down a 1960s era MIG-23 in the Libyan Civil war, but modern fighters are either too hard to hit or too expensive to risk.
sandos 6y ago
Just remove the aircrafts altogether, use only a cloud of AI-enabled missiles....
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  There's a saying that drone warfare enthusiasts keep reinventing the guided missile. Proponents point out that drones are cheap and disposable compared to the value of the targets they attack. But a drone can travel further, faster, and with more armor and ordinance if it doesn't carry fuel to return or equipment to land.
- woeirua 6y ago
  The problem with missiles is that they have a limited amount of propellant. Most missiles will spend the majority of their flight time gliding toward their target after the initial boost phase. Fighters can spend hours in the sky, and fly thousands of miles away from their home base. Missiles are limited to a range of several hundred miles and a few minutes max, even with advanced loitering technologies.
  - salawat 6y ago
    If it's loitering, or intended to come back, it isn't functionally a missile. And why in the hell would you fire a missile without a target that would require it loiter unless you were doing something completely mad like Project Pluto? That just doesn't really make sense at all. Though it reminds me of a torpedo from a Michael DiMercurio book that had to be sedated due to it's carbon based computing matrix being smart enough to basically guarantee a hit on an enemy combatant submarine, but not smart enough to understand IFF.
    - greedo 6y ago
      Loitering missiles are excellent at destroying targets of opportunity; a radar site that is only active temporarily, a convoy of armor moving from its lager, etc etc etc.
      - 6y ago
Aeolun 6y ago
So we’ll have AI controlled missiles instead? With small missiles attached to them to fire at enemy aircraft.

Probably not as much as you would think. Modern airframes are still not capable of sustaining as much acceleration as missiles. You just can't outmaneuver today's missiles.

solotronics 6y ago

maybe this would lead to smart missiles or a platform to launch them that can loiter near the battlefield, directed by a pilot or controller nearby

nradov 6y ago
Smart loitering munitions already exist.
- salawat 6y ago
  Loitering in the sense of expending fuel load until a hypothetical target arrives? Or loitering in the sense it's there for reconissance and isn't intended to directly destructively interact with the target? There's a big difference between a Predator with Hellfires, a tomahawk, A Global Hawk, or a man portablerecon/kamikaze drone, and finally Project Pluto, the ultimate "F you" device likely ever contemplated.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mullingitover 6y ago

> Modern airframes are still not capable of sustaining as much acceleration as missiles. Are those limits what they are because there wasn't any point in designing stronger airframes if the pilot was just going to black out under higher G forces? If you take the vulnerable human body out of the equation I wonder if airframes strong enough to withstand that acceleration would actually be feasible.

berkut 6y ago
It's sometimes possible to overstress airframes (even ones that use FBW, and should in theory always operate within limits) in high-G maneuvers, as they have stress limits (g limits), which depend on the airframe as well as load-out for fighters.
jacquesm 6y ago
It's mostly a matter of mass. You would need crazy amounts of power to make a large aircraft make the same kind of turns that a small missile can do effortlessly, besides that it is much easier to make a small structure very strong. Try killing a flea if you want more proof of that.
stouset 6y ago
A plane is, conceptually, just a platform from which to launch ordnance closer and at a higher starting potential energy than you would be able to from the ground. Given that a plane, then, needs to be capable of carrying multiple pieces of ordnance (otherwise, it's pretty much just a guided missile), it's pretty much fundamentally going to have a higher mass than whatever missile you're launching at it.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all. You just need an autonomous missile platform with good enough ECM to avoid getting splattered by the enemy missile platform.
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    That's the basis behind F35's design and why it can't outmaneuver a F16 in a visual range dogfight but is never expected to get into one.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    >That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all There has not been an aerial dogfight in this millennia. The last ones that would really count happened over Bosnia in the 90s. I think a Rafale took down a 1960s era MIG-23 in the Libyan Civil war, but modern fighters are either too hard to hit or too expensive to risk.

sandos 6y ago

Just remove the aircrafts altogether, use only a cloud of AI-enabled missiles....

dodobirdlord 6y ago
There's a saying that drone warfare enthusiasts keep reinventing the guided missile. Proponents point out that drones are cheap and disposable compared to the value of the targets they attack. But a drone can travel further, faster, and with more armor and ordinance if it doesn't carry fuel to return or equipment to land.
woeirua 6y ago
The problem with missiles is that they have a limited amount of propellant. Most missiles will spend the majority of their flight time gliding toward their target after the initial boost phase. Fighters can spend hours in the sky, and fly thousands of miles away from their home base. Missiles are limited to a range of several hundred miles and a few minutes max, even with advanced loitering technologies.
- salawat 6y ago
  If it's loitering, or intended to come back, it isn't functionally a missile. And why in the hell would you fire a missile without a target that would require it loiter unless you were doing something completely mad like Project Pluto? That just doesn't really make sense at all. Though it reminds me of a torpedo from a Michael DiMercurio book that had to be sedated due to it's carbon based computing matrix being smart enough to basically guarantee a hit on an enemy combatant submarine, but not smart enough to understand IFF.
  - greedo 6y ago
    Loitering missiles are excellent at destroying targets of opportunity; a radar site that is only active temporarily, a convoy of armor moving from its lager, etc etc etc.
    - 6y ago

Aeolun 6y ago

So we’ll have AI controlled missiles instead? With small missiles attached to them to fire at enemy aircraft.