3 ms·
Yeah but long range missions require people cause latency is a xitch.
by quiffledwerg 5y ago
Yeah but long range missions require people cause latency is a xitch.
- Ekaros 5y agoI 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 agoDefence 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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.