3 ms·

They could start with smaller and more feasible thinks like UAV instead of going to fighter jet.

Reason077 5y ago
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised that anyone is still expecting fighters to be a thing beyond the current "fifth generation". Won't UAVs, with varying degrees of autonomy, be able to outmanoeuvre and outperform a fighter that has the additional burden of having to carry a pilot and all the extra hardware associated with that?
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Close in dogfighting isn't a very big part of modern air combat, the real use for crazy manoeuvrers is avoiding missiles and those are already not burdened by keeping a human operator alive. There is some scope for a manoeuvrers competition between the larger fighter class UAVs and current gen missiles, but the purpose built and smaller machine will always win the agility fight eventually so it doesn't seem like a very fruitful contest to enter from the perspective of the fighter manufacturer.
- touisteur 5y ago
  I was going to lob a joke about Japan having already tried the drone thing in WW2 but I think the real advantage there is situational awareness. Drones might become extensions of the fighter jet, and probably the right 'next step' after all the amraam generation. I feel they're signaling that they're going for 'skin in the game'...
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  The advantages of UAVs are massive, numerous, and obvious. The only military advantages I can really think of manned fighters would be the increased situational awareness of a manned craft: the pilot has a panoramic view of their surroundings thanks to the fighter's canopy and being able to look around. Although, this seems like something drones could achieve relatively easily, providing a 360 degree view to their remote pilots. Manned craft also have the ability to function autonomously if communications are down due to jamming, I guess? Drones could proceed toward a preselected target even without comms, of course, but a based on my layman's understanding of air combat decision-making is a huge element of combat flight. Things are messy, confusing, and ever-evolving.
  - gallegojaime 5y ago
    That last point trumps everything, really. You can't rely on preselected-target UAVs for most tasks. And we're far, far away from an AI smart enough to make those complex decisions on its own.
- thunderbird120 5y ago
  6th gen fighter designs are trending towards significantly larger aircraft. The amount of hardware a human needs for support is relatively fixed so as aircraft size increases, ditching the pilot becomes less and less beneficial. Most fighters are also not limited by human G endurance but rather by structural limits. Fighters are growing in size because engagement distances have massively increased thanks to the proliferation of high quality sensors and long range missiles. This ultimately means that the fighters need to have more range (fuel capacity), more powerful (bigger) sensors, more electrical generation capacity to power those sensors, and they need carry more and larger munitions. For an aircraft that meets those requirements you can take the pilot out and you won't see many benefits. It's still going to be large and very expensive. Smaller, cheaper drones can supplement this but they are not a replacement.
fxtentacle 5y ago
This new airplane is basically a flying controller for UAVs and weaponized drones. I'm guessing that they prefer short-range communication with the drones so that they don't disclose the location of their command and control center.
- sgregnt 5y ago
  How would it solve the problem? What about communication between the jet and C&C center? Or why not use a number of UAVs as a retransmission hubs to conceal the C&C?

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised that anyone is still expecting fighters to be a thing beyond the current "fifth generation". Won't UAVs, with varying degrees of autonomy, be able to outmanoeuvre and outperform a fighter that has the additional burden of having to carry a pilot and all the extra hardware associated with that?

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Close in dogfighting isn't a very big part of modern air combat, the real use for crazy manoeuvrers is avoiding missiles and those are already not burdened by keeping a human operator alive. There is some scope for a manoeuvrers competition between the larger fighter class UAVs and current gen missiles, but the purpose built and smaller machine will always win the agility fight eventually so it doesn't seem like a very fruitful contest to enter from the perspective of the fighter manufacturer.
touisteur 5y ago
I was going to lob a joke about Japan having already tried the drone thing in WW2 but I think the real advantage there is situational awareness. Drones might become extensions of the fighter jet, and probably the right 'next step' after all the amraam generation. I feel they're signaling that they're going for 'skin in the game'...
JohnBooty 5y ago
The advantages of UAVs are massive, numerous, and obvious. The only military advantages I can really think of manned fighters would be the increased situational awareness of a manned craft: the pilot has a panoramic view of their surroundings thanks to the fighter's canopy and being able to look around. Although, this seems like something drones could achieve relatively easily, providing a 360 degree view to their remote pilots. Manned craft also have the ability to function autonomously if communications are down due to jamming, I guess? Drones could proceed toward a preselected target even without comms, of course, but a based on my layman's understanding of air combat decision-making is a huge element of combat flight. Things are messy, confusing, and ever-evolving.
- gallegojaime 5y ago
  That last point trumps everything, really. You can't rely on preselected-target UAVs for most tasks. And we're far, far away from an AI smart enough to make those complex decisions on its own.
thunderbird120 5y ago
6th gen fighter designs are trending towards significantly larger aircraft. The amount of hardware a human needs for support is relatively fixed so as aircraft size increases, ditching the pilot becomes less and less beneficial. Most fighters are also not limited by human G endurance but rather by structural limits. Fighters are growing in size because engagement distances have massively increased thanks to the proliferation of high quality sensors and long range missiles. This ultimately means that the fighters need to have more range (fuel capacity), more powerful (bigger) sensors, more electrical generation capacity to power those sensors, and they need carry more and larger munitions. For an aircraft that meets those requirements you can take the pilot out and you won't see many benefits. It's still going to be large and very expensive. Smaller, cheaper drones can supplement this but they are not a replacement.

fxtentacle 5y ago

This new airplane is basically a flying controller for UAVs and weaponized drones. I'm guessing that they prefer short-range communication with the drones so that they don't disclose the location of their command and control center.

sgregnt 5y ago
How would it solve the problem? What about communication between the jet and C&C center? Or why not use a number of UAVs as a retransmission hubs to conceal the C&C?