4 ms·

They are not comparable. Drones are 'slow moving sitting ducks' that can be easily destroyed by an enemy with basic capabilities. You need 'some degree of air

by jariel 6y ago

They are not comparable. Drones are 'slow moving sitting ducks' that can be easily destroyed by an enemy with basic capabilities. You need 'some degree of air superiority' to use drones. That could mean extensive electronic warfare or whatever. But drones, in the way they are used as we see them today ... are easy targets for anyone with capability. So they are different things. Now, that said, it still may make more sense for country ABC to buy drones in a lot of cases. "Shooting down an MQ-1 Predator or an MQ-9 Reaper, the propeller-driven drones most commonly used to kill terrorists in Pakistan, would be child’s play for a Pakistani Air Force pilot. They’re easy to detect on radar, and they fly at about 100 mph—about the speed of a World War I-era bomber. (The Dassault Mirage 5, one of the most common jets in Pakistan’s military fleet, cruises at just under 600 mph and tops out at nearly 1,500 mph.) They don’t normally carry any weapons that could be used in a dogfight, and their lack of maneuverability makes them vulnerable to missiles fired from the ground. " [1] [1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/06/cia-drone-program-is-it-hard-to-shoot-one-down.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/06/cia-drone-progra...

mrtksn 6y ago
> slow moving sitting ducks I don’t think this needs to be the case. Jets don’t fly fast because they have human inside.
- jariel 6y ago
  But it is the case though. Jets today fly much faster than drones, even as you point out - they don't have the 'pilot limitation'. There are many reasons for that obviously, not just 'G Force'. Air Superiority Drones are an entirely different kind of entity, and they don't materially exist today. Also for a variety of reasons. Though they likely will in the future.
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > Jets today fly much faster than drones Then make drones which are jets, like Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force are doing: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-learned-from-boeing-about-its-potentially-game-changing-loyal-wingman-drone https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-le... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal-wingman-drone-its-developing-with-boeing-has-been-photographed-in-the-wild https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal...
    - jariel 6y ago
      Yes. 'Prototype'. And they were 'prototyping' F35's 25 years ago. Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why. Drones are mostly used for surveillance, tactical strikes, close air support - so they don't need speed, they want to be slower in fact, and have longer loiter times. One day, over the next generation, those 'fast drones' will be a threat, but they are nowhere near that just yet. Until then, drones are lumbering fat targets that stick out on radar and have 'shoot me' signs on their backs.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why. The political role of piloting in the Air Force and the way that replacing that function for a top of the line combat platform would disrupt that. Or, at least, that was what critics of the decisions made 25+ years ago regarding direction attributed it to, IIRC.
        jariel 6y ago
        So that's a valid point actually (and probably still valid today), however the more obvious reason is that 25 years there was no evidence drones had any real material capability - especially given at that time, the US had no idea they'd be involved in long, low-grade engagements. And of course, the internet upon which our drones depend, didn't even exist as we know it now. Drones were 'new tech' and not until they started being used, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq 2, did it start to become very obvious how valuable they were especially in those kinds of conflicts. Nobody predicted how incredibly 'useful' they would be. Put all those pieces together, and you see that drones are what they are today. And doubling down: completely useless in a conventional situation without support, cover, protection and basically superiority. A squadron of 5th gen. fighters with their great radar and support will take out any number of drones over time. As would ground based systems. With impunity. Predator style will never even come close to being 'in range' of the F35's let alone be able to target them with anything. Drones light up on the dumbest, easiest radar, they fly relatively slowly, they have no defensive capabilities. It's like comparing Apaches to trucks with a 50-cal + maybe a guy inside with a crappy shoulder mounted MANPAD out in the desert, with nowhere to hide. All this talk of 'drones vs. F35s' literally when a drone has never even shot down another aircraft. We literally, just in 2018 were able to test fire some A2A munitions. We know fighters can easily clear out drones ... but the inverse is still purely speculative. As for F35s: they are the only choice, their deployment is inevitable because there's nothing else on the horizon for a very long time. The development timeframe of new gear is growing quite a lot, surely due to bloat, but also to to complexity - an F35 is not an 'aircraft with a few missiles' - it's a 'weapons platform that happens to fly'. A long time ago, I visited a distant family member's home in Texas, and his uncle was a senior leader on the F22 project, they were doing trials, it was very exciting! But took another 15 years (!) for that thing to reach maturity. Surely the Americans have some things up their sleeves we don't know about, but how well deployed and useful can something be if it's a total secret? The old F117 Nighthawk was kept quiet until Iraq 1, but that was before the internet. We're going to see F35s and upgraded 4th Gen Fighters in the mix for a long time. Canada is using it's F18's something like 3x longer than planned.
baybal2 6y ago
A very valid observation, undeservedly downvoted. But, a counter argument to that is that your adversary can simply launch a wall of 20 drones with one A2A missile for every of your F-35, and 20 more to bomb its airfield, and still win attrition-wise. If prices for drones will continue to drop at the current pace, soon they will become near disposable by standards of military hardware.
- jariel 6y ago
  They would need advanced radar and other integrated systems, which they don't have today. Today, an F35 would clear out a squadron of drones way beyond the horizon, before the drones were aware of the F35. So yes 'a lot of drones' would be a problem initially, but they would still be cleared out within hours of being airborne. Basically organized actors have the ability to down drones with impunity, they stand out on radar, and they require extensive networking. Momar Gaddaffi was not very prepared, but Iran for example, is.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    You need 10 F-35 to down 40 drones in an ideal scenario of 1 missile per drone. In real conflict, I doubt anybody with a $120m plane would even think of trading it, and a pilot for a drone. Even a minimal attrition rates like 1 in 40, mean an attrition loss.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Ok, but nobody can actually field that many drones (remember it's not just the craft, it's pilot, tech ground support, comms, rads, networks, etc.) especially in a scenario they are not suited for, and, it's not as though the F35's wouldn't also be supported by drones and other support. We know the 1st wave will be done-on-drone for sure ... ... but the idea Russia is going to be able to man and send up 400 drones (!) for even a single opposing squadron is just far fetched. 40 drones out over the Black Sea? Maybe. But again, as they are 'slow lumbering targets' they will be mopped up pretty quick by a single squadron of F35 and whatever other ground/naval forces are in the region. Every drone in the air facing a capable enemy is basically on a suicide mission.

by jariel 6y ago

mrtksn 6y ago

> slow moving sitting ducks I don’t think this needs to be the case. Jets don’t fly fast because they have human inside.

jariel 6y ago
But it is the case though. Jets today fly much faster than drones, even as you point out - they don't have the 'pilot limitation'. There are many reasons for that obviously, not just 'G Force'. Air Superiority Drones are an entirely different kind of entity, and they don't materially exist today. Also for a variety of reasons. Though they likely will in the future.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > Jets today fly much faster than drones Then make drones which are jets, like Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force are doing: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-learned-from-boeing-about-its-potentially-game-changing-loyal-wingman-drone https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33271/everything-we-le... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal-wingman-drone-its-developing-with-boeing-has-been-photographed-in-the-wild https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35806/australias-loyal...
  - jariel 6y ago
    Yes. 'Prototype'. And they were 'prototyping' F35's 25 years ago. Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why. Drones are mostly used for surveillance, tactical strikes, close air support - so they don't need speed, they want to be slower in fact, and have longer loiter times. One day, over the next generation, those 'fast drones' will be a threat, but they are nowhere near that just yet. Until then, drones are lumbering fat targets that stick out on radar and have 'shoot me' signs on their backs.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Since they could have made those 25 years ago - and chose not to - you have to contemplate why. The political role of piloting in the Air Force and the way that replacing that function for a top of the line combat platform would disrupt that. Or, at least, that was what critics of the decisions made 25+ years ago regarding direction attributed it to, IIRC.
      - jariel 6y ago
        So that's a valid point actually (and probably still valid today), however the more obvious reason is that 25 years there was no evidence drones had any real material capability - especially given at that time, the US had no idea they'd be involved in long, low-grade engagements. And of course, the internet upon which our drones depend, didn't even exist as we know it now. Drones were 'new tech' and not until they started being used, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq 2, did it start to become very obvious how valuable they were especially in those kinds of conflicts. Nobody predicted how incredibly 'useful' they would be. Put all those pieces together, and you see that drones are what they are today. And doubling down: completely useless in a conventional situation without support, cover, protection and basically superiority. A squadron of 5th gen. fighters with their great radar and support will take out any number of drones over time. As would ground based systems. With impunity. Predator style will never even come close to being 'in range' of the F35's let alone be able to target them with anything. Drones light up on the dumbest, easiest radar, they fly relatively slowly, they have no defensive capabilities. It's like comparing Apaches to trucks with a 50-cal + maybe a guy inside with a crappy shoulder mounted MANPAD out in the desert, with nowhere to hide. All this talk of 'drones vs. F35s' literally when a drone has never even shot down another aircraft. We literally, just in 2018 were able to test fire some A2A munitions. We know fighters can easily clear out drones ... but the inverse is still purely speculative. As for F35s: they are the only choice, their deployment is inevitable because there's nothing else on the horizon for a very long time. The development timeframe of new gear is growing quite a lot, surely due to bloat, but also to to complexity - an F35 is not an 'aircraft with a few missiles' - it's a 'weapons platform that happens to fly'. A long time ago, I visited a distant family member's home in Texas, and his uncle was a senior leader on the F22 project, they were doing trials, it was very exciting! But took another 15 years (!) for that thing to reach maturity. Surely the Americans have some things up their sleeves we don't know about, but how well deployed and useful can something be if it's a total secret? The old F117 Nighthawk was kept quiet until Iraq 1, but that was before the internet. We're going to see F35s and upgraded 4th Gen Fighters in the mix for a long time. Canada is using it's F18's something like 3x longer than planned.

baybal2 6y ago

A very valid observation, undeservedly downvoted. But, a counter argument to that is that your adversary can simply launch a wall of 20 drones with one A2A missile for every of your F-35, and 20 more to bomb its airfield, and still win attrition-wise. If prices for drones will continue to drop at the current pace, soon they will become near disposable by standards of military hardware.

jariel 6y ago
They would need advanced radar and other integrated systems, which they don't have today. Today, an F35 would clear out a squadron of drones way beyond the horizon, before the drones were aware of the F35. So yes 'a lot of drones' would be a problem initially, but they would still be cleared out within hours of being airborne. Basically organized actors have the ability to down drones with impunity, they stand out on radar, and they require extensive networking. Momar Gaddaffi was not very prepared, but Iran for example, is.
- baybal2 6y ago
  You need 10 F-35 to down 40 drones in an ideal scenario of 1 missile per drone. In real conflict, I doubt anybody with a $120m plane would even think of trading it, and a pilot for a drone. Even a minimal attrition rates like 1 in 40, mean an attrition loss.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Ok, but nobody can actually field that many drones (remember it's not just the craft, it's pilot, tech ground support, comms, rads, networks, etc.) especially in a scenario they are not suited for, and, it's not as though the F35's wouldn't also be supported by drones and other support. We know the 1st wave will be done-on-drone for sure ... ... but the idea Russia is going to be able to man and send up 400 drones (!) for even a single opposing squadron is just far fetched. 40 drones out over the Black Sea? Maybe. But again, as they are 'slow lumbering targets' they will be mopped up pretty quick by a single squadron of F35 and whatever other ground/naval forces are in the region. Every drone in the air facing a capable enemy is basically on a suicide mission.