4 ms·

500 RPM corkscrews and 50Gs are firmly in "missile only" territory due to the limits of material sciences. The square cube law is a harsh mistress and engineeri

500 RPM corkscrews and 50Gs are firmly in "missile only" territory due to the limits of material sciences. The square cube law is a harsh mistress and engineering is a game of trade-offs. If you want to design a re-usable platform it's typically better to concentrate on other things like sensors, stealth, speed, networking, and payload which could allow you to get a shot off from outside of the enemy's range or before they are even aware of your presence. It would be interesting to see the inevitable version of this contest for BVR combat but I suspect that's going to end up being classified territory given that it's much more relevant to actual modern combat. AI systems will certainly play a huge role in future fighters but it will probably be more in terms of perfect coordination and execution of long range aerial combat rather than something like dogfighting.

clnhlzmn 6y ago
> "missile only" territory I wonder why we're even talking about planes any more. Missiles to kill the planes and missiles to attack the ground. No pilots, no problems. Right?
- dragontamer 6y ago
  Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles. Moving the human closer to the battlefield for a more up-to-date viewpoint is quite important.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - clnhlzmn 6y ago
    I was thinking it's because Air Force leadership are all pilots. > Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles Do we? Why is this important. I thought everything could be done remotely these days.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      > I thought everything could be done remotely these days. Jamming is an issue for one. Latency for another.
aurizon 6y ago
Yes, an AI fighter, stripped of all life support amenities, seats, cockpits etc could easily end up like a missile, with 3-4 wings, all the same with all needed control surfaces, and a similar tail. It would have no preferred up/down and all wings would have lift/control capabilities. Fuel based, air burning engines would have more endurance than rockets that carry oxidizer and fuel. Such a plane would be ramjet/rocket capable, for part of the envelope, in case it went above the atmosphere for a short period = satellite shoot-down?

clnhlzmn 6y ago

> "missile only" territory I wonder why we're even talking about planes any more. Missiles to kill the planes and missiles to attack the ground. No pilots, no problems. Right?

dragontamer 6y ago
Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles. Moving the human closer to the battlefield for a more up-to-date viewpoint is quite important.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- clnhlzmn 6y ago
  I was thinking it's because Air Force leadership are all pilots. > Because we need a human up there, flying around, controlling the missiles Do we? Why is this important. I thought everything could be done remotely these days.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > I thought everything could be done remotely these days. Jamming is an issue for one. Latency for another.

aurizon 6y ago

Yes, an AI fighter, stripped of all life support amenities, seats, cockpits etc could easily end up like a missile, with 3-4 wings, all the same with all needed control surfaces, and a similar tail. It would have no preferred up/down and all wings would have lift/control capabilities. Fuel based, air burning engines would have more endurance than rockets that carry oxidizer and fuel. Such a plane would be ramjet/rocket capable, for part of the envelope, in case it went above the atmosphere for a short period = satellite shoot-down?