5 ms·

I’m definitely not an expert, but I barely see any reason for the next fighter jet to be manned instead of remote piloted.

culturestate 6y ago
I'm not an expert either, but I suspect the reason is that you don't want your primary means of force projection left susceptible to network interruptions. If there's a pilot in the cockpit and the data fusion network goes down, the pilot can still stay in the fight.
- fishnchips 6y ago
  With modern weapons if the network is interrupted the pilot is just as useless.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    > With modern weapons if the network is interrupted the pilot is just as useless. This seems like a gross underestimation of what a pilot brings to the table; if it were true, the F-35 wouldn't have a gatling gun. Missions like close air support for ground troops are just as important to a modern battlefield as taking down enemy emplacements with a missile.
    - fishnchips 6y ago
      Is F-35 really the best candidate for CAS missions? Seems like you can get something at least as good in that role for a fraction of the price.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  It doesn’t have to be connected via the internet. Directed radio channel to the base can be made reliable against these attacks.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    When you're talking about the U.S. military, the base can be an ocean away and the primary network is likely to be a constellation of satellites. Modern military planners are hyper-paranoid about battlefield communications disruption, which makes "someone shot our satellites out of orbit" a legitimate scenario to plan for.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      It cannot be ocean away because fighter jet range does not exceed 2000 miles. Also, there are usually some support ships nearby or other planes which can relay the signal.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
        Satcom is indeed still key. A ship may be nearby, but a ship's mast is only so tall. Assuming a typical cruising altitude of the aircraft at 10km, and a mast height of 100m (generous), the line of sight radio horizon is 30km. A friendly AWACS gives you about 400km. Even with satcom, jamming of these links remains a very real concern. GEO coms sats by their nature have a relatively low power signal. Clever modulation can do a lot, but it can't escape the fundamental physics.
      - culturestate 6y ago
        > It cannot be ocean away because fighter jet range does not exceed 2000 miles. Leaving aside the fact that fighter jets can be refueled in flight, why would you build a fleet of remotely operated planes but still keep the pilots in theatre? Now instead of taking down 25 jets individually, your adversary only needs to blow up the room where their pilots are sitting. The key benefit of remote operation is that the operators can stay far away from the bullets.
        lightgreen 6y ago
        If that “room” is inside an aircraft carrier (which is likely the case), it’s hard to blow. They are very well protected against all attacks except for probably ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.
HaloZero 6y ago
Probably safe bet given the military is to develop both. Let's say you want to enter a zone where local groups can distribute your communication to your drones. Might be useful to have manned jets.

culturestate 6y ago

I'm not an expert either, but I suspect the reason is that you don't want your primary means of force projection left susceptible to network interruptions. If there's a pilot in the cockpit and the data fusion network goes down, the pilot can still stay in the fight.

fishnchips 6y ago
With modern weapons if the network is interrupted the pilot is just as useless.
- culturestate 6y ago
  > With modern weapons if the network is interrupted the pilot is just as useless. This seems like a gross underestimation of what a pilot brings to the table; if it were true, the F-35 wouldn't have a gatling gun. Missions like close air support for ground troops are just as important to a modern battlefield as taking down enemy emplacements with a missile.
  - fishnchips 6y ago
    Is F-35 really the best candidate for CAS missions? Seems like you can get something at least as good in that role for a fraction of the price.
lightgreen 6y ago
It doesn’t have to be connected via the internet. Directed radio channel to the base can be made reliable against these attacks.
- culturestate 6y ago
  When you're talking about the U.S. military, the base can be an ocean away and the primary network is likely to be a constellation of satellites. Modern military planners are hyper-paranoid about battlefield communications disruption, which makes "someone shot our satellites out of orbit" a legitimate scenario to plan for.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    It cannot be ocean away because fighter jet range does not exceed 2000 miles. Also, there are usually some support ships nearby or other planes which can relay the signal.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      Satcom is indeed still key. A ship may be nearby, but a ship's mast is only so tall. Assuming a typical cruising altitude of the aircraft at 10km, and a mast height of 100m (generous), the line of sight radio horizon is 30km. A friendly AWACS gives you about 400km. Even with satcom, jamming of these links remains a very real concern. GEO coms sats by their nature have a relatively low power signal. Clever modulation can do a lot, but it can't escape the fundamental physics.
    - culturestate 6y ago
      > It cannot be ocean away because fighter jet range does not exceed 2000 miles. Leaving aside the fact that fighter jets can be refueled in flight, why would you build a fleet of remotely operated planes but still keep the pilots in theatre? Now instead of taking down 25 jets individually, your adversary only needs to blow up the room where their pilots are sitting. The key benefit of remote operation is that the operators can stay far away from the bullets.
      - lightgreen 6y ago
        If that “room” is inside an aircraft carrier (which is likely the case), it’s hard to blow. They are very well protected against all attacks except for probably ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

HaloZero 6y ago

Probably safe bet given the military is to develop both. Let's say you want to enter a zone where local groups can distribute your communication to your drones. Might be useful to have manned jets.