4 ms·

If the ai plane can fly higher and faster than the rocket or at least a human plane because it does not have to care about a human body, then you have scenarios

If the ai plane can fly higher and faster than the rocket or at least a human plane because it does not have to care about a human body, then you have scenarios where the rocket must be shot significantly closer to catch the plane. Not much into military stuff, but seems logical that more options create more margins for success. Savings on inner space, human training, and equipment are only a bonus.

lumost 3y ago
In most modern aircraft, the aircraft over g's long before the human body. When aircraft are pushed to the limit in a combat situation, you'll hear the warning alarm blaring "over-g, over-g" as continued operation in that domain will either tear the wings off - or permanently degrade the airframe. The main advantage of a drone is expendability - sending a pilot to certain death is not something the military wants to do. However there are missions where risking a 300 MM drone on a 30% chance of destruction makes sense. A missile truck drone with an AESA radar could likely maintain a 4:1 kill ratio by simply flying further into enemy air defenses than a human pilot would. It doesn't matter if you lose the drone if it kills 4 other air defense targets worth 300MM.
- gostsamo 3y ago
  Sure, but you base the assumption on the ai being deployed on a current design, and not on something developed without that constraint. I'm not sure if such designs are viable, but someone is sure to look into it.
  - lumost 3y ago
    aye - my assertion is that the limits of the human body are not a major limiter in current military aviation. You can see an example of how current military planners are thinking about things with the B-1R concept (ultimately rejected, due to overlap with F-15EX). The limiting factors are observability, radar, sensors/data-link, payload size, range, and speed. None of these restrictions are problematic for a human pilot. Maneuverability improvements such as super-maneuverability were rejected due to being counter-productive in Beyond Visual Range combat. You have to give up to much energy for fancy acrobatics to be worthwhile.

lumost 3y ago

In most modern aircraft, the aircraft over g's long before the human body. When aircraft are pushed to the limit in a combat situation, you'll hear the warning alarm blaring "over-g, over-g" as continued operation in that domain will either tear the wings off - or permanently degrade the airframe. The main advantage of a drone is expendability - sending a pilot to certain death is not something the military wants to do. However there are missions where risking a 300 MM drone on a 30% chance of destruction makes sense. A missile truck drone with an AESA radar could likely maintain a 4:1 kill ratio by simply flying further into enemy air defenses than a human pilot would. It doesn't matter if you lose the drone if it kills 4 other air defense targets worth 300MM.

gostsamo 3y ago
Sure, but you base the assumption on the ai being deployed on a current design, and not on something developed without that constraint. I'm not sure if such designs are viable, but someone is sure to look into it.
- lumost 3y ago
  aye - my assertion is that the limits of the human body are not a major limiter in current military aviation. You can see an example of how current military planners are thinking about things with the B-1R concept (ultimately rejected, due to overlap with F-15EX). The limiting factors are observability, radar, sensors/data-link, payload size, range, and speed. None of these restrictions are problematic for a human pilot. Maneuverability improvements such as super-maneuverability were rejected due to being counter-productive in Beyond Visual Range combat. You have to give up to much energy for fancy acrobatics to be worthwhile.