3 ms·

Remember, the entire life support environment and space for the pilot and cockpit are gone. Lots more room for a higher power to weight ratio.

• nradov 6y ago
  I don't need to remember anything. You simply don't understand the engineering reality here.
  • aurizon 6y ago
    You have no idea of the engineered redundancy for piloted flight. Dual and treble hydraulics/electrics. space for pilot, ejection seat, seat and cockpit, and on and on. Strip this out and you get a massive increase in the power to weight ratio. Air breathing, modern high efficiency jet engines - even turbo-prop with point jets. It will take 10 years or more for this to reach optimization. 30G is well within reach, ~~50?? A lot depends of flight endurance needed. They now make mach 15 air to air rockets that no human piloted plane can evade. Jamming helps many of these, but times are getting so short that at mach 15 few loops can close in time to avoid the focussed blast radius of the latest missiles. This means a steered shrapnel pattern, versus an omni directional banger.
    • nradov 6y ago
      I obviously have a better idea than you do. Stripping out redundant equipment only saves a marginal amount of weight. Large drones aren't disposable; they still need a certain level of redundancy to return to base after a mechanical failure. 30G is not within reach. Calculate how much the airframe would have to weigh to handle that strain, and explain how to avoid stalling the wing or compressor. Scaling up a small missile design won't work at all. This is just basic physics. Range and radar signature are higher priorities than maneuverability.