5 ms·

Any country still investing in airplanes that hold pilots are wasting there money and should get their shit up to date. The days have been long gone that any pi

Any country still investing in airplanes that hold pilots are wasting there money and should get their shit up to date. The days have been long gone that any pilot would be able to judge if their target is a yay or nay. The distances vastly overreach the capabilities of even the best person's eyes, and the added cost and complexity of putting a human in a jet are not worth it.

quiffledwerg 5y ago
Yeah but long range missions require people cause latency is a xitch.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I wonder how many nations need long range for defence? Of course offensive wars such as invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are different, but most uses for defence should happen relatively near to border.
  - burmanm 5y ago
    Defence is not that different from offence. An offensive task such as destroying enemy artillery behind their borders or their service routes is an effective way to defend. If the enemy has nothing to attack with, then defending is a lot easier.
- gspr 5y ago
  If you want human control, those humans could just tag along in a cheap transport plane and linger at a safe distance close enough for low latency.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Symmetry 5y ago
    I think that would make sense for some missions like air superiority but not others like a deep strike into enemy territory. For the former we already have AWACs that perform nearly that role while also being big flying radars. For the later I think something like the F-35 might actually be the best solution, though with a number of robotic subordinates.
sschueller 5y ago
Tell that to Switzerland. They actually think they purchased 32 F-35s for 6 Billion. I see this more as a bribe to the US to keep them out of our affairs. The planes are just icing... End cost will be way higher and what does a neutral country need stealth for? Whom is the country going to hide from? It's own citizens which happen to be the military? The military said them selves it is for air policing.

quiffledwerg 5y ago

Yeah but long range missions require people cause latency is a xitch.

Ekaros 5y ago
I wonder how many nations need long range for defence? Of course offensive wars such as invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are different, but most uses for defence should happen relatively near to border.
- burmanm 5y ago
  Defence is not that different from offence. An offensive task such as destroying enemy artillery behind their borders or their service routes is an effective way to defend. If the enemy has nothing to attack with, then defending is a lot easier.
gspr 5y ago
If you want human control, those humans could just tag along in a cheap transport plane and linger at a safe distance close enough for low latency.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Symmetry 5y ago
  I think that would make sense for some missions like air superiority but not others like a deep strike into enemy territory. For the former we already have AWACs that perform nearly that role while also being big flying radars. For the later I think something like the F-35 might actually be the best solution, though with a number of robotic subordinates.

sschueller 5y ago

Tell that to Switzerland. They actually think they purchased 32 F-35s for 6 Billion. I see this more as a bribe to the US to keep them out of our affairs. The planes are just icing... End cost will be way higher and what does a neutral country need stealth for? Whom is the country going to hide from? It's own citizens which happen to be the military? The military said them selves it is for air policing.