4 ms·

They will be when there are AI controlled aircraft/drones that can exceed the G-force limits that humans require and can thus out maneuver any human controlled

by krunck 2y ago

They will be when there are AI controlled aircraft/drones that can exceed the G-force limits that humans require and can thus out maneuver any human controlled fighter.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Can it out maneuver a missile?
foota 2y ago
This doesn't seem right to me. The limiting factor here is the ability of an air to air missile to hit a target (and to find the target in the first place). A drone might be more survivable (if it's better at avoiding missiles because of the G-forces etc.,.), but it shouldn't be any better at destroying an enemy jet, right? That theoretical highly maneuverable drone with a highly advanced sensor suite isn't going to be cheap either. At which point, what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots, but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  > what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots You gave part of the answer right there. Not only would you not be limited by the number of - hard to replace and time-consuming and expensive to train - pilots but you don't run the risk of losing them either. > but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter. The large expense for fighter aircraft tends not to lie in the actual production costs but in the development costs which are spread over a limited production run. Build more drones and they get less expensive per item. Build enough of them to overwhelm the enemy and you win drone superiority.
  - foota 2y ago
    Hm... I guess the argument here is something like: we don't build 10,000 F-35s because we can't train 10,000 pilots. But with drones, the pilots are no longer a limiting factor so we can plan to scale drone production beyond what we do airplanes?
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      Yes, plus the fact that the craft does not need to be as complicated as the F-35 because it can omit everything related to keeping the pilot alive and functional.
kayodelycaon 2y ago
Fifth generation fighter jets aren’t built for dog-fighting. They are stealthy, mesh-networked missile and bomb platforms. Modern fourth generation fighters would be more than sufficient up close. Except that fifth generation fighters hunt in packs and none of them need to be pointed at their target to hit them.
- hajile 2y ago
  A lot of sci-fi gets tossed around about 5th-gen fighters and stealth vs non-stealth is extrapolated onto everything. If you're communicating, you are broadcasting your position to the enemy. That means you can be shot down. If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close and that means a dogfight. All of this also ignores the massive advancements in IRST and AI which can likely pick out subtle patterns in radar and other data that normal hard-coded algorithms cannot.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close Your side can have another plane paint the enemy plane, so now you can see him without your emitting anything.
    - hajile 2y ago
      If the illuminating plane is not a stealth plane, then it'll get shot by the stealth plane long before it can detect the stealth plane. If the illuminating plane is a stealth plane, then you've just traded on stealth plane for another. Even worse, there's a decent chance that your broadcasting plane gets shot down, the illumination fails, and the enemy stealth plane still gets away leaving you one plane less for no gains at all.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        The way the USAF has been doing it for a few decades is to make the illuminator very powerful so it can stand back 600 miles. They call it AWACS.

by krunck 2y ago

They will be when there are AI controlled aircraft/drones that can exceed the G-force limits that humans require and can thus out maneuver any human controlled fighter.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

Can it out maneuver a missile?

foota 2y ago

This doesn't seem right to me. The limiting factor here is the ability of an air to air missile to hit a target (and to find the target in the first place). A drone might be more survivable (if it's better at avoiding missiles because of the G-forces etc.,.), but it shouldn't be any better at destroying an enemy jet, right? That theoretical highly maneuverable drone with a highly advanced sensor suite isn't going to be cheap either. At which point, what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots, but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hagbard_c 2y ago
> what's the advantage? You wouldn't be bound by the number of pilots You gave part of the answer right there. Not only would you not be limited by the number of - hard to replace and time-consuming and expensive to train - pilots but you don't run the risk of losing them either. > but if the drones are too expensive it doesn't matter. The large expense for fighter aircraft tends not to lie in the actual production costs but in the development costs which are spread over a limited production run. Build more drones and they get less expensive per item. Build enough of them to overwhelm the enemy and you win drone superiority.
- foota 2y ago
  Hm... I guess the argument here is something like: we don't build 10,000 F-35s because we can't train 10,000 pilots. But with drones, the pilots are no longer a limiting factor so we can plan to scale drone production beyond what we do airplanes?
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    Yes, plus the fact that the craft does not need to be as complicated as the F-35 because it can omit everything related to keeping the pilot alive and functional.

kayodelycaon 2y ago

Fifth generation fighter jets aren’t built for dog-fighting. They are stealthy, mesh-networked missile and bomb platforms. Modern fourth generation fighters would be more than sufficient up close. Except that fifth generation fighters hunt in packs and none of them need to be pointed at their target to hit them.

hajile 2y ago
A lot of sci-fi gets tossed around about 5th-gen fighters and stealth vs non-stealth is extrapolated onto everything. If you're communicating, you are broadcasting your position to the enemy. That means you can be shot down. If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close and that means a dogfight. All of this also ignores the massive advancements in IRST and AI which can likely pick out subtle patterns in radar and other data that normal hard-coded algorithms cannot.
- hollerith 2y ago
  >If you're in passive stealth mode, you can't detect the enemy and they can't detect you until both sides are extremely close Your side can have another plane paint the enemy plane, so now you can see him without your emitting anything.
  - hajile 2y ago
    If the illuminating plane is not a stealth plane, then it'll get shot by the stealth plane long before it can detect the stealth plane. If the illuminating plane is a stealth plane, then you've just traded on stealth plane for another. Even worse, there's a decent chance that your broadcasting plane gets shot down, the illumination fails, and the enemy stealth plane still gets away leaving you one plane less for no gains at all.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      The way the USAF has been doing it for a few decades is to make the illuminator very powerful so it can stand back 600 miles. They call it AWACS.