4 ms·

Are manned fighter jets obsolete by now? Surely we can produce drones that are just as capable, if not more so, and they would be vastly, order-of-magnitude che

Are manned fighter jets obsolete by now? Surely we can produce drones that are just as capable, if not more so, and they would be vastly, order-of-magnitude cheaper than the planes that have to protect squishy human beings. Being cheaper means you can have more of them, which then could mean you don't even need to worry about the expensive stealth features. So what if the enemy detects one and shoots it down? The four other drones can carry on with the mission.

Stranger43 5y ago
The drones have a big problem in that they can be knocked out of communications with the ground support infrastructure using fairly cheap portable ECM equipment so have a limited scope for usage limited to friendly skies or roles that is being filled efficiently by current-gen missiles as it is. The days when manned bombers played any role in the first strike against an capable foe ended decades ago, today's fighters are used when you need on the spot decision making whether it is to interdict errant civilian planes or provide close air support to infantry.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >The drones have a big problem in that they can be knocked out of communications with the ground support infrastructure using fairly cheap portable ECM equipment What about autonomous drones? Can't you have AI piloted drones with ML models trained on thousands of hours of combat missions, where you just punch in the mission objective and the acceptable outcome/casualty levels, and it can decide for itself how to carry it out if communication is lost? That feels terrifying but it does sound like where the future is going.
  - Stranger43 5y ago
    yes for missions that does not change underway or where the objectives don't contain loosely defined objectives with moral ambiguity, and for the vast amount of those you don't really need anything beyond and 80ies computer system running relatively conventional procedural code, which is why they have been performed using cruise missiles or artillery for decades. The problem is that the missions flown requires a lot more judgement then modern machine learning is capable of providing, or that we are likely to entrust solely to an computer anytime soon. Yes the skynet scenario is increasingly likely but it's also something military planners are aware of especially doing periods of diplomatic tensions like the ones we are under now where you really don't want an trigger happy automated defence system in charge of fully armed missiles. There is also the issue that all we know is that the next war will have it's own entirely new politically defined strategic constraints, where the most effective tactical strategy is might be blocked out due to long term diplomatic/political consequences.
- gspr 5y ago
  Honest question: how do modern manned fighters fare when attacked with said ECM? Sure, they keep flying, but my impression was that a lot of the advantage of e.g. the F35 comes from communications and information flow.
- joosters 5y ago
  The drones have a big problem in that they can be knocked out of communications with the ground support infrastructure using fairly cheap portable ECM equipment I am nowhere near an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that drones could be very resistant to ground-based jamming. All their antennas and communications can be above the plane, perhaps relayed via another drone or aircraft flying very high overhead.
zppln 5y ago
No, we cannot produce anything even close to as capable (and versatile). There is obviously work being done in this direction, but what I've seen has at best been able to augment parts of the operation envelopes.
- joosters 5y ago
  But why not? Which technologies are lacking? We can make remote controlled drones now, so it seems (to me) that a remote controlled F-35 is feasible today. And once you take the pilot out, designing a pilot-less fighter plane should be simpler than one with a human inside: no need for a cockpit, ejector seat, etc, no human limitations on manoeuvrability, and so on.
  - zppln 5y ago
    Sure, there are some benefits to that for sure. But you'd still have a qualified "pilot", only somewhere else. With access to the same data as would be available in the cockpit, in order to be able to make the correct decisions as the situation changes (from both a tactical and safety perspective). And you need to ensure this with the same kind of confidence, reliability and integrity as you would in a real cockpit. And you would be able to lug this around the globe quite easily. The whole keep-the-aircrew-alive safety case goes away, but you still have the don't-crash-into-things case left. If you want a more autonomous system I'm not sure there's even a way forward for that at this moment (i.e. if you want to fly in civilian airspace). Airspace is much more heavily regulated than e.g. carspace where companies are allowed to put pretty much anything on the road.
antupis 5y ago
Yeah current situation is kinda similar to 1900s where dandy officers supported cool pricey things that had very limited place(horses) over more modern but mass produced and not so sexy things (machine guns and modern artillery).
mcny 5y ago
» Being cheaper means you can have more of them, which then could mean you don't even need to worry about the expensive stealth features. So what if the enemy detects one and shoots it down? The four other drones can carry on with the mission. I have zero military experience but I have two thoughts: 1. Military leaders are resistant to change. From what I've read, the establishment of the US Air Force as its own branch was highly resisted by leadership. 2. I'm not sure if this covers all the bases. I'd imagine new technologies like drones would complement, not replace existing manual(?) fighter jets. What if they have larger payloads? We'd need time to make them smaller, no? Perhaps there is a limit to how small a "conventional" weapon can get and you can't just nuke everything and everyone and hope nobody fights back? Just thinking out loud.
mhh__ 5y ago
The answer is probably fighter jets and drones. Fundamentally almost no one reading this (myself included) knows jack shit about the actual performance of the F-35 in combat, how good drone technology is etc.
BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
On HN just recently there was a post about the Navy and their wargames. The winning strategy had use for old-school tactics like radio silence, using motorcycle couriers, and signaling planes to start with lamps. In such a highly dynamic situation, I think (some) meat-bags, mostly water, sitting in jets can be an extreme advantage if they are allowed to make decisions independently.
dwighttk 5y ago
> So what if the enemy detects one and shoots it down? The four other drones can carry on with the mission. Why did they stop shooting?
- drran 5y ago
  Why unmanned drones should care about that?
  - dwighttk 5y ago
    Why are there still 4 drones?
flohofwoe 5y ago
I really doubt it's the human pilot that makes a fighter jet expensive (e.g. a drone of the same capabilities probably wouldn't be any cheaper to produce and maintain). OTH combining human-piloted planes with cheap "companion drones" for scouting, distraction and as weapon carriers sounds much more useful.

Stranger43 5y ago

The drones have a big problem in that they can be knocked out of communications with the ground support infrastructure using fairly cheap portable ECM equipment so have a limited scope for usage limited to friendly skies or roles that is being filled efficiently by current-gen missiles as it is. The days when manned bombers played any role in the first strike against an capable foe ended decades ago, today's fighters are used when you need on the spot decision making whether it is to interdict errant civilian planes or provide close air support to infantry.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>The drones have a big problem in that they can be knocked out of communications with the ground support infrastructure using fairly cheap portable ECM equipment What about autonomous drones? Can't you have AI piloted drones with ML models trained on thousands of hours of combat missions, where you just punch in the mission objective and the acceptable outcome/casualty levels, and it can decide for itself how to carry it out if communication is lost? That feels terrifying but it does sound like where the future is going.
- Stranger43 5y ago
  yes for missions that does not change underway or where the objectives don't contain loosely defined objectives with moral ambiguity, and for the vast amount of those you don't really need anything beyond and 80ies computer system running relatively conventional procedural code, which is why they have been performed using cruise missiles or artillery for decades. The problem is that the missions flown requires a lot more judgement then modern machine learning is capable of providing, or that we are likely to entrust solely to an computer anytime soon. Yes the skynet scenario is increasingly likely but it's also something military planners are aware of especially doing periods of diplomatic tensions like the ones we are under now where you really don't want an trigger happy automated defence system in charge of fully armed missiles. There is also the issue that all we know is that the next war will have it's own entirely new politically defined strategic constraints, where the most effective tactical strategy is might be blocked out due to long term diplomatic/political consequences.
gspr 5y ago
Honest question: how do modern manned fighters fare when attacked with said ECM? Sure, they keep flying, but my impression was that a lot of the advantage of e.g. the F35 comes from communications and information flow.
joosters 5y ago
The drones have a big problem in that they can be knocked out of communications with the ground support infrastructure using fairly cheap portable ECM equipment I am nowhere near an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that drones could be very resistant to ground-based jamming. All their antennas and communications can be above the plane, perhaps relayed via another drone or aircraft flying very high overhead.

zppln 5y ago

No, we cannot produce anything even close to as capable (and versatile). There is obviously work being done in this direction, but what I've seen has at best been able to augment parts of the operation envelopes.

joosters 5y ago
But why not? Which technologies are lacking? We can make remote controlled drones now, so it seems (to me) that a remote controlled F-35 is feasible today. And once you take the pilot out, designing a pilot-less fighter plane should be simpler than one with a human inside: no need for a cockpit, ejector seat, etc, no human limitations on manoeuvrability, and so on.
- zppln 5y ago
  Sure, there are some benefits to that for sure. But you'd still have a qualified "pilot", only somewhere else. With access to the same data as would be available in the cockpit, in order to be able to make the correct decisions as the situation changes (from both a tactical and safety perspective). And you need to ensure this with the same kind of confidence, reliability and integrity as you would in a real cockpit. And you would be able to lug this around the globe quite easily. The whole keep-the-aircrew-alive safety case goes away, but you still have the don't-crash-into-things case left. If you want a more autonomous system I'm not sure there's even a way forward for that at this moment (i.e. if you want to fly in civilian airspace). Airspace is much more heavily regulated than e.g. carspace where companies are allowed to put pretty much anything on the road.

antupis 5y ago

Yeah current situation is kinda similar to 1900s where dandy officers supported cool pricey things that had very limited place(horses) over more modern but mass produced and not so sexy things (machine guns and modern artillery).

mcny 5y ago

» Being cheaper means you can have more of them, which then could mean you don't even need to worry about the expensive stealth features. So what if the enemy detects one and shoots it down? The four other drones can carry on with the mission. I have zero military experience but I have two thoughts: 1. Military leaders are resistant to change. From what I've read, the establishment of the US Air Force as its own branch was highly resisted by leadership. 2. I'm not sure if this covers all the bases. I'd imagine new technologies like drones would complement, not replace existing manual(?) fighter jets. What if they have larger payloads? We'd need time to make them smaller, no? Perhaps there is a limit to how small a "conventional" weapon can get and you can't just nuke everything and everyone and hope nobody fights back? Just thinking out loud.

mhh__ 5y ago

The answer is probably fighter jets and drones. Fundamentally almost no one reading this (myself included) knows jack shit about the actual performance of the F-35 in combat, how good drone technology is etc.

BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago

On HN just recently there was a post about the Navy and their wargames. The winning strategy had use for old-school tactics like radio silence, using motorcycle couriers, and signaling planes to start with lamps. In such a highly dynamic situation, I think (some) meat-bags, mostly water, sitting in jets can be an extreme advantage if they are allowed to make decisions independently.

dwighttk 5y ago

> So what if the enemy detects one and shoots it down? The four other drones can carry on with the mission. Why did they stop shooting?

drran 5y ago
Why unmanned drones should care about that?
- dwighttk 5y ago
  Why are there still 4 drones?

flohofwoe 5y ago

I really doubt it's the human pilot that makes a fighter jet expensive (e.g. a drone of the same capabilities probably wouldn't be any cheaper to produce and maintain). OTH combining human-piloted planes with cheap "companion drones" for scouting, distraction and as weapon carriers sounds much more useful.