4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSure, 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.