5 ms·

I have followed military aircraft technology for decades. Development costs for systems have risen very high. There are some systems like fighters in Europe, t

I have followed military aircraft technology for decades. Development costs for systems have risen very high. There are some systems like fighters in Europe, that are made by multiple small manufacturers. As a result the build quantities are low and costs high. Old systems are never renewed. They don't do well in export competitions. Some manufacturers are geographically located in one country like Dassault. SAAB is very much in Sweden with some US components. One solution to this would be to just make each project a large international megaproject, have most of the manufacturers in Europe coordinate. But this kills competition and makes projects complicated. There is a another method too. Instead, share basic research and build prototypes and share the lessons from those. Have manufacturers form multiple co-operating international alliances to compete for each program. Sustain multiple programs, even if it means some duplicity. Competition and independent capabilities are more important.

t43562 5y ago
I think you have something but I think they could also try building to cost instead of function. There are also advantages in everyone using the same equipment (even if cheap) and some way needs to be found to buy in larger batches without demanding the union set of the features that each nation wants. Somehow it also has to keep some national capabilities alive otherwise it will be unpopular. Think of Ukraine - it needs replacements but has to get soviet stuff because that's what it understands. It is an inconvenience really isn't it? NATO can't just send them some Patriots or F-16s.
laurent92 5y ago
Are fighter jets so important in the age of drones? Shouldn’t we invest in drones which are much cheaper? If “but we need something for air superiority”, then isn’t it achievable with space superiority and drones?
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  Everything is needed
- LeanderK 5y ago
  I wonder if unmanned but not independent aircrafts are just too risky to rely on them completely. If the adversary develops a successful jamming attack (or whatever, idk anything about this) it denies the country to operate in the area completely.
  - boznz 5y ago
    With all the effort being put into full self driving cars I would think a full self flying plane would be a lot easier with a lot less edge case scenarios than driving on a road with other users.
    - nradov 5y ago
      You would think wrong. There are no full self-driving cars today. All of them rely to some extent on human operators, either in the car or remote. Sure it's possible to build a drone that can take off, fly to a designated point, drop some ordnance, and return. But we don't have the technology to automate complex missions like air superiority or close air support. Those require a human in the loop making real time decisions. If the human isn't right there in the airplane then the risk is that communications will be disrupted. In a major conflict with a near peer adversary, most of our communications satellites will get knocked out.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Are fighter jets so important in the age of drones? Shouldn’t we invest in drones which are much cheaper? AFAIK: Militaries have done a lot of research, as you can imagine, and the overwhelming conclusion is that UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles or drones) can do some things very well, some things not well at all - the truth of all technologies, once they shift from dream to practical reality. In almost all cases in the military (and probably in life), AI does better when teamed with a human. Particularly, AI does poorly in unexpected situations. Driving on streets with rules and lanes and signs is difficult enough for AI; war is chaos - the main tactic in war is overwhelming your enemy's decision-making with chaos. AI is too brittle; it can only handle what happened last time. The widespread solution - I'm not sure about China and Russia - is teaming AI-controlled systems (UAVs in this case) with human commanders, so for fighter plane scenarios you get a human in a fighter plane controlling several UAVs. The US is just reaching the next development stage in this technology; look up 'loyal wingman'.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Instead, share basic research and build prototypes and share the lessons from those. Have manufacturers form multiple co-operating international alliances to compete for each program. Sustain multiple programs, even if it means some duplicity. Competition and independent capabilities are more important. Does this idea have any currency in military or industry circles, do you know?
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  If you look at how the F-15 came to be, NASA did a lot of the initial aerodynamic work. Engine wise, there were multiple suppliers (although not initially). No fly off. For F-16 and F-22 each there were two different manufacturers with different prototypes. Both had also multiple companies co-operating. Many companies have merged since. There are some hard questions. Sometimes groundbreaking technology is developed in a company and other designs become obsolete quickly. This happened with stealth. How do you deal with this?

t43562 5y ago

I think you have something but I think they could also try building to cost instead of function. There are also advantages in everyone using the same equipment (even if cheap) and some way needs to be found to buy in larger batches without demanding the union set of the features that each nation wants. Somehow it also has to keep some national capabilities alive otherwise it will be unpopular. Think of Ukraine - it needs replacements but has to get soviet stuff because that's what it understands. It is an inconvenience really isn't it? NATO can't just send them some Patriots or F-16s.

laurent92 5y ago

Are fighter jets so important in the age of drones? Shouldn’t we invest in drones which are much cheaper? If “but we need something for air superiority”, then isn’t it achievable with space superiority and drones?

Gravityloss 5y ago
Everything is needed
LeanderK 5y ago
I wonder if unmanned but not independent aircrafts are just too risky to rely on them completely. If the adversary develops a successful jamming attack (or whatever, idk anything about this) it denies the country to operate in the area completely.
- boznz 5y ago
  With all the effort being put into full self driving cars I would think a full self flying plane would be a lot easier with a lot less edge case scenarios than driving on a road with other users.
  - nradov 5y ago
    You would think wrong. There are no full self-driving cars today. All of them rely to some extent on human operators, either in the car or remote. Sure it's possible to build a drone that can take off, fly to a designated point, drop some ordnance, and return. But we don't have the technology to automate complex missions like air superiority or close air support. Those require a human in the loop making real time decisions. If the human isn't right there in the airplane then the risk is that communications will be disrupted. In a major conflict with a near peer adversary, most of our communications satellites will get knocked out.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Are fighter jets so important in the age of drones? Shouldn’t we invest in drones which are much cheaper? AFAIK: Militaries have done a lot of research, as you can imagine, and the overwhelming conclusion is that UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles or drones) can do some things very well, some things not well at all - the truth of all technologies, once they shift from dream to practical reality. In almost all cases in the military (and probably in life), AI does better when teamed with a human. Particularly, AI does poorly in unexpected situations. Driving on streets with rules and lanes and signs is difficult enough for AI; war is chaos - the main tactic in war is overwhelming your enemy's decision-making with chaos. AI is too brittle; it can only handle what happened last time. The widespread solution - I'm not sure about China and Russia - is teaming AI-controlled systems (UAVs in this case) with human commanders, so for fighter plane scenarios you get a human in a fighter plane controlling several UAVs. The US is just reaching the next development stage in this technology; look up 'loyal wingman'.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Instead, share basic research and build prototypes and share the lessons from those. Have manufacturers form multiple co-operating international alliances to compete for each program. Sustain multiple programs, even if it means some duplicity. Competition and independent capabilities are more important. Does this idea have any currency in military or industry circles, do you know?

Gravityloss 5y ago
If you look at how the F-15 came to be, NASA did a lot of the initial aerodynamic work. Engine wise, there were multiple suppliers (although not initially). No fly off. For F-16 and F-22 each there were two different manufacturers with different prototypes. Both had also multiple companies co-operating. Many companies have merged since. There are some hard questions. Sometimes groundbreaking technology is developed in a company and other designs become obsolete quickly. This happened with stealth. How do you deal with this?