4 ms·

I'm a bit skeptical. For one, how much of a modern aircraft is actually really dedicated to cockpit space, maybe 5% on a small fighter? How much extra fuel and

I'm a bit skeptical. For one, how much of a modern aircraft is actually really dedicated to cockpit space, maybe 5% on a small fighter? How much extra fuel and thrust is really required to lug along a ~80 kg human (okay maybe double to account for supporting systems)? Keeping in mind a single Sidewinder missile weighs 85 kg. For a drone (even a swarm of them) to compete with a modern jet fighter, it'll need a reasonably powerful engine and sufficient fuel to keep it up in the air long enough to: seek out and engage the enemy, carry a decent payload, and reach a suitable altitude. That all sounds like a lot of fuel and engine power to me, especially if you're expecting this drone (swarm) to operate outside of the immediate vicinity of the launching area. I see more potential for drones to act as 'screen' for jet fighters once stealth technology is made irrelevant by advances in radar. I foresee the use of, low cost vehicles that resemble fighters (in the ways that count), but carry minimal ordinance (if any) to keep the costs down. They could also provide auxiliary functionality like electronic warfare and scouting. I mean you could in theory develop a drone that exploded on impact and operated within a limited area, but you've just re-invented the guided missile, with a little extra smarts.

pixl97 6y ago
You're asking the wrong question. Not how much space the human takes, but how much performance the plane loses because it contains meat jelly.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  I'm not disputing the notion that primary fighters might one day be completely autonomous. My point is that autonomous fighters won't lead to the end of the modern jet fighters as we know them. They'll still be the big expensive machines we know and love (fear?) because most of the factors driving that trend are unrelated to whether the pilot is a human or an algorithm.
  - Kinrany 6y ago
    It seems you misunderstood GP. Their point is that machines have higher tolerances and won't just die of too many g. Unlike weight, this is not obviously irrelevant.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      I understood their point perfectly well and agreed that there may be a point in time where autonomous aircraft replace manned combat aircraft. My point was that such an occurrence wouldn't lead to a significant reduction in aircraft size or cost.
    - salawat 6y ago
      They absolutely will just die from too many G. You're just replacing a family at home mourning the loss of a pilot to the accountants throwing themselves out of windows because these damned airframes keep ripping themselves apart or otherwise incurring excessive maintenance costs because the maneuvers they engage in are pushing the airframe itself to it's material limits. Believe it or not, the art of engineering is striking the right balance to minimize the overall cost of the process, and trying to keep from just stunting the cost to a different coffer.
AOsborn 6y ago
That's a good point. I always considered this in the opposite direction though. Once you have a sufficient number of drones I don't think any conventional aircraft will have sufficient weaponry to deal with them effectively. Use the Sidewinder missiles as an example. You're going to run out of munitions very quickly and be left with far poorer capabilities.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  I just don't see a drone swarm sufficient to the task of taking down a single jet fighter in disputed territory as being economically feasible (for the reasons I outlined previously). Maybe it could be done defensively over territory you controlled, but the 'drone swarm' in this instance really does just sound like a ground-to-air missile.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. The smaller your drone the lower its effective range or loitering time. Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. The transport vehicle usually also has much better sensors so that it can effectively search for targets. Guided weapons receive additional targeting data from the transport vehicle even after they have been deployed and are heading toward the target. When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. For the cost of a F-35 the US can buy 100 tomahawk missiles. I still remember that attack where 60 cruise missiles were launched from a single navy vessel at a military airport in Syria with essentially no risk of counterattack.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. Most drones are cheap civilian toys. Military drones have had much greater endurance for decades. > Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. If you are using short-endurancd drones for some reason (e.g., missiles), the carrier can just be a long-endurance drone. > When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. That they already exist and are cheap and effective is proof of the point, not an argument against it.

pixl97 6y ago

You're asking the wrong question. Not how much space the human takes, but how much performance the plane loses because it contains meat jelly.

scoopertrooper 6y ago
I'm not disputing the notion that primary fighters might one day be completely autonomous. My point is that autonomous fighters won't lead to the end of the modern jet fighters as we know them. They'll still be the big expensive machines we know and love (fear?) because most of the factors driving that trend are unrelated to whether the pilot is a human or an algorithm.
- Kinrany 6y ago
  It seems you misunderstood GP. Their point is that machines have higher tolerances and won't just die of too many g. Unlike weight, this is not obviously irrelevant.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    I understood their point perfectly well and agreed that there may be a point in time where autonomous aircraft replace manned combat aircraft. My point was that such an occurrence wouldn't lead to a significant reduction in aircraft size or cost.
  - salawat 6y ago
    They absolutely will just die from too many G. You're just replacing a family at home mourning the loss of a pilot to the accountants throwing themselves out of windows because these damned airframes keep ripping themselves apart or otherwise incurring excessive maintenance costs because the maneuvers they engage in are pushing the airframe itself to it's material limits. Believe it or not, the art of engineering is striking the right balance to minimize the overall cost of the process, and trying to keep from just stunting the cost to a different coffer.

AOsborn 6y ago

That's a good point. I always considered this in the opposite direction though. Once you have a sufficient number of drones I don't think any conventional aircraft will have sufficient weaponry to deal with them effectively. Use the Sidewinder missiles as an example. You're going to run out of munitions very quickly and be left with far poorer capabilities.

scoopertrooper 6y ago
I just don't see a drone swarm sufficient to the task of taking down a single jet fighter in disputed territory as being economically feasible (for the reasons I outlined previously). Maybe it could be done defensively over territory you controlled, but the 'drone swarm' in this instance really does just sound like a ground-to-air missile.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. The smaller your drone the lower its effective range or loitering time. Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. The transport vehicle usually also has much better sensors so that it can effectively search for targets. Guided weapons receive additional targeting data from the transport vehicle even after they have been deployed and are heading toward the target. When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. For the cost of a F-35 the US can buy 100 tomahawk missiles. I still remember that attack where 60 cruise missiles were launched from a single navy vessel at a military airport in Syria with essentially no risk of counterattack.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I'm always baffled when I see people talk about "drone swarms" as if they have never used a drone or RC aircraft. Most drones can't fly for more than 30 minutes and then they have to charge for significantly more than 30 minutes. Most drones are cheap civilian toys. Military drones have had much greater endurance for decades. > Therefore a transport vehicle such as a jet has to bring the smaller weapon into effective range. If you are using short-endurancd drones for some reason (e.g., missiles), the carrier can just be a long-endurance drone. > When people talk about medium sized "kamikaze drones" that are carrying enough fuel to reach a given far off destination they don't realize that these already exist and are called cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles in particular are quite cheap. That they already exist and are cheap and effective is proof of the point, not an argument against it.