3 ms·

> B-52s are a design that will turn 70 next year Agree. > A drone Harrier role might not make strategic sense B-52s are still flying because they do actually

> B-52s are a design that will turn 70 next year Agree. > A drone Harrier role might not make strategic sense B-52s are still flying because they do actually fulfil a military role, namely carrying vast amounts of stuff and being suitably militarised. Harriers are relatively short range, non-stealthy, fuel inefficient and sacrifice payload for the VTOL capability. I can't see any way in which a Harrier would make sense as the basis for a new drone, let alone in a strategic sense. [Edit] Updating old military things to new roles can be a fantastic way to waste vast amounts of money before cancelling the programme anyway. Exhibit A - the UK's Nimrod programme (new engines on bespoke vintage fuselages). Exhibit B. The UK Army's Warrior vehicle upgrade (modern turrets on a 40-year old hull), cancelled this year after running the 'capability sustainment programme' for at least five years. [Edit 2] The last time (1982) that the Harriers conducted actual air combat as opposed to dropping bombs in a permissive airspace was against Super Étendard (now 50 years old) and Mirage III (now 60 years old). There is no evidence Harriers would last more than ten minutes if their users didn't have total air supremacy.

dredmorbius 5y ago
The B-52 is an inherently conservative design: tube-and-wing, jets on pods, designed for maximum payload. It's not fast (subsonic), it's not stealthy. It has immense range, and works where the goal is power projection. It's also got a large support infrastructure (including tooling for necessary maintenance and repairs), and major systems (avionics and comms) can be upgraded over time. It's the airframe, propulsion, and fuel that are the architectural bones of the aircraft. The Harrier is more specialised, and attempted to create a specific niche. That niche has since evolved. It's still possible that it (or other comparably-aged aircraft) could be retrofit for pilotless operation. Given the age and capabilities, they might not be able to directly take on current advanced fighters or defence systems, but could still operate where a manned vehicle could not, and with performance parameters a human pilot wouldn't survive. (This isn't just G-forces but temperature, altitude, endurance, and standbye / stationing capabilities.) The ability to take off and land vertically could still be of use, and the notion of such craft which might be parked or staged ready for combat without requiring pilots ... does seem to afford some interesting capabilities. (Of course, this could be achived with specifically-designed drone craft as well.) Another interesting question is in-air refueling. Seems that that's an area of current research, both in enabling refueling of drones in-flight, and of drones serving as aerial tankers.

dredmorbius 5y ago

The B-52 is an inherently conservative design: tube-and-wing, jets on pods, designed for maximum payload. It's not fast (subsonic), it's not stealthy. It has immense range, and works where the goal is power projection. It's also got a large support infrastructure (including tooling for necessary maintenance and repairs), and major systems (avionics and comms) can be upgraded over time. It's the airframe, propulsion, and fuel that are the architectural bones of the aircraft. The Harrier is more specialised, and attempted to create a specific niche. That niche has since evolved. It's still possible that it (or other comparably-aged aircraft) could be retrofit for pilotless operation. Given the age and capabilities, they might not be able to directly take on current advanced fighters or defence systems, but could still operate where a manned vehicle could not, and with performance parameters a human pilot wouldn't survive. (This isn't just G-forces but temperature, altitude, endurance, and standbye / stationing capabilities.) The ability to take off and land vertically could still be of use, and the notion of such craft which might be parked or staged ready for combat without requiring pilots ... does seem to afford some interesting capabilities. (Of course, this could be achived with specifically-designed drone craft as well.) Another interesting question is in-air refueling. Seems that that's an area of current research, both in enabling refueling of drones in-flight, and of drones serving as aerial tankers.