Do these new drones give anyone else a boner?
>>28321486
remote control has too much of a delay for BRRRRRTTTTT to be used.
It's the only way the BRRRT could have improved.
It no longer needs a pilot to kill.
>>28321486
They have a-10 drones?
I'm so conflicted
Is it bad or good?
>drones
>a-10
God damn I hate drones but love the a 10
Help mw
>>28321504
sure does look like a uav a-10.
>>28321486
Lag makes the A-10's most integral feature useless in drone form, until the blessed day that somebody invents an AI that is smarter than a person, and implants it into an A-10 drone.
I want to have sex with an A-10 so god damn bad.
>>28321486
These planes are such a waste of money.
>>28321494
What do you mean, Afghan weddings would be finally be getting some non-lethal fireworks from our drones.
How much lag is there for drone pilots? What if they were locally controlled by a FOB?
>>28321486
As blasphemous as it sounds, I'd rather the gun be removed. That would reduce its weight and further increase the payload capacity or its loitering time.
Let the piloted versions enjoy all the glory.
>>28321643
Shit man, can you imagine 12 AGMS Plus GBU's?
>>28321643
The plane was built for the gun. The PLANE was BUILT for the GUN.
Don't take the gun out of the plane.
>>28321486
>>28321491
Those are both photoshops you morans
They droneified BRRRRRT?
The inevitable delay time makes me kind of sad, but my boner cannot feel sadness unless KS is involved.
>>28321675
war is not static, and evolution does not pause for nostalgia, glory or perceptions of honor, chivalry, or what is cool.
I get where you are coming from. I have a background in aerospace. The only thing of value on the A-10 is the frame and engines, if we were to strip the plane, the avionics would have to be cheap as fuck, and it would be an over glorified reaper. Reaper carries about 10k munitions, A-10 has 50k potential. If we remove the human element, and all redundant safety equipment, gut the cockpit, remove the gun and titanium bathtub feature, you now have more room for fuel. I would say munitions, but in reality, aircraft are carefully designed around a specific range of CG and to be mostly stable in flight as fuel drains. removing that big ass gun, cockpit armor, canopy, etc, will fuck with the CG hardcore, making the aircraft ass heavy, so it will always, always want to pitch up.
You get into almost needing to entirely redesign the aircraft, so now fuck...can an A-10 be redesigned cheaper into a drone, than building and operating 5 new reapers.
Ill go off my background and say, if we did them as disposable units with little value, we could probably cannibalize and re purpose some of the retired F-16 and Predator Avionics and equipment to get away with it. They would have massive attrition, but we would probably get our use out of them.
>>28321486
I dunno, I heard A-10s suck dick
>>28321762
CG can by controlled by a fuel pump and fore and aft tanks
>>28321785
Agreed to an extent.I can't vouch for the A-10 flight characteristics, it would be nice if there was a maintainer here that could tell of a story with one flying without gun and without ballast.
>>28321809
i dont know shit about flight dynamics
but loosing weight while preserving CG sounds good.
throw in a military grade flight controller and it should fly great
There's no such thing as a UAV A-10.
>>28321829
hmm, with the recent darpa drone testing for refueling..
a flight of 5 drone A-10s, one that is just carrying a shit ton of fuel and a buddy (refueler) pod, as well as a sniper pod
and 4 that are just loaded to the gills with SBD II...yeah. Slave it to the unit that is flying highest with the pod. that could work nice.
Give them some leftover F-16 avionics and a towed decoy for contested airspace to emulate radar...G2G.
>>28321486
I just found out this was a thing and I am rock solid.
>>28321876
It's not.
>>28321561
>What if they were locally controlled by a FOB?
They are
>>28321921
Immigrants are taking jobs from soldiers now?
It's a bad photoshop, there's no such thing as a drone A-10, it wouldn't work because UAV's fight by orbiting and dropping, not strafing.
>>28321643
>BRRRRRTless A-10
No. Hell no.
![a-29_super_tucano_thru_flickr1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MfbekJW.jpg "a-29_super_tucano_thru_flickr1[1].jpg")
>>28321966
and the a-10s design is outdated and fuck and no one would ever spend money making a drone version of it.
coin props is where its at
>>28322006
Need to spend 50,000 an hour flying expensive fighter jets for COIN m8
Jets that can't even loiter too
>>28321561
>Drone pilots usually in Las Vegas
>UAV's usually located in one of the Stans or in some middle eastern country
I don't wanna make assumptions, but they gotta have pretty good connections to have the two located so far away from each other.
My guess is little to no lag
>>28322006
COIN planes are not as good at CAS as one thinks. COIN planes are for low intensity conflicts where you need to be as economical as possible while still having the tech/planes to drop bombs on the enemy.
>>28322006
>no one would ever spend money making a drone version of it.
Who the fuck cares about money? If you ask /k/ its just another bragging point.
>>28322034
COIN aren't at good at CAS when compared to heavier CAS airplanes like the A-10******
>>28321675
The request for proposals was modified in 1970 with the first A-10 prototypes flying in 1972 with design work beginning in 1967. The overall choice of design would have been chosen by Fairchild Republic well before the gun was made a requirement and then simply modified to mount it. This meme about how the aircraft was built for the gun needs to die.
Too drunk too Google thi
Are these teal?
>>28322052
>Are these teal?
Nope.
>>28321643
So...basically make it a glorified albeit heavily-armed Reaper?
>>28322039
Spending money means nothing.
>>28322092
dafuk?
having the money to spend on higher end shit DOES mean something. Super Tucano is a shit when compared to the A-10 and other aircraft that can do its job. Especially if the country using the aircraft can more than easily afford to use them for whatever mission is at hand with lots to spare.
>>28322006
i would love to fly that little birdie, fucking up rebels right and left
>>28322140
The Super Tucano is actually a pretty subpar airframe even for a prop-duster, and you are correct in saying it is the way it is because it's more of a pet project than something that was crafted to perfection.
>>28321561
According to Reaper, it'll be upwards of 2-3 seconds
>>28322071
Looks grey to me
>>28321519
>Smarter then a human.
You really just need a very simple program that tells it how to attack a selected target with the gun. Then rather then have someone use the gun 'by hand' just select a target and let the automation handle the details.
Frankly, that would likely be a better way to do it if you had a human in the cockpit.
They're close air support air assets... what is the point, a remotely piloted plane will never come close to the level of precision or make on the spot decisions as well as a physical pilot
>>28322302
Looking through a screen guiding a munition is exactly the same for a UAV as it is for a manned aircraft.
>>28322042
>>28322034
How does that make sense?
What would make a COIN aircraft like a super tucano worse than an A-10?
If you wanted more payload, you could just fly 2-3 tucano's for the same price as the A-10.
>>28321561
For satellite communication, a couple seconds back and forth from geosynchronous orbit. For local communication (direct to the UAV or maybe 1 extra hop on a repeater balloon or some shit) basically instant.
>>28321494
If you can designate a target remotely, I see no reason why you can't strafe it remotely.
>>28322421
Because strafing requires a shitload of manoeuvring and dropping a hellfire requires nothing?
>>28322386
If military LOS links are anything like hobby/commercial-grade UAVs, you're looking at 100-250 ms for the downlink (video, telemetry, etc.) and mere milliseconds for the uplink (pretty much just control signals and waypoints and such; very low-bandwidth).
>>28322430
I said designate, not drop a Hellfire. And from what I hear designating is one of the hardest things to do for a Predator/Reaper crew; much more challenging on account of the latency than actually flying it through the autopilots. Yet they still manage to get it done whenever they don't have a guy on the ground to do the lasing for them.
And as >>28322278 pointed out, it's easily possible to produce an autopilot mode which can automatically keep the pipper on a designated spot. Strafing shouldn't be any more difficult than self-designating for a Hellfire shot, once the proper hardware and software is installed.
>>28322337
>you could just fly 2-3 tucano's for the same price as the A-10.
That doesn't sound very effective. If they're all running at the same time you have 2 or 3 pilots instead of 1, and you have planes idling as one drops bombs. Or if you launch them staggered you'll only have a portion of the weapons - suppose you need X bomb but you already dropped the two you have from the first plane, now you have to wait for the second plane.
>Lets take one of the only advantages of the A-10, flight-hour cost, and inflate it a lot!
makes perfect sense
>>28322449
Saying something is "simple" and "easily possible" doesn't make it so. The amount of factors to be taken into account are insane, the airspace, the target location and speed and direction, the aircraft speed and direction, everything. It'd be amazingly complicated.
>>28322421
>If you can designate a target remotely, I see no reason why you can't strafe it remotely.
>Having an aircraft autonomously execute a dangerous and complicated maneuver is the same as pointing a laser from an optics ball and dropping a Paveway
>>28321695
This desu
Actual manned-to-unmanned conversions generally retain the cockpit unless they're installing a satlink dish in it's place, in which case you would see a bulged radome in it's place, not a flat panel.
>>28322475
>Having an aircraft autonomously execute a dangerous and complicated maneuver
Just what the fuck do you think the Hellfire itself does?
>>28322486
Not be a weapon you would use the word "strafe" for.
>>28322486
1) It's not a re-purposed aircraft
2) It doesn't strafe targets, it crashes into them. It doesn't have to take into account anything else
3) It's guided by a static external sensor
>>28322489
>Missile points it's boresight at a target with just a crude seeker
>UAV is somehow utterly incapable of doing the same fucking thing with a far more sophisticated autopilot and numerous sensors
Mkay, buddy. Whatever you say.
>>28321643
If you remove the gun the plane will collapse.
It's like removing keel from a ship.
But lets be honest, it's not like the gun is that useful anymore unless you're strafing light armor.
Maybe some partial AI where you manually paint the target to be strafed and the aircraft does the gun run on the painted target, that way you don't have to do any complicated and messy AI to figure out friend or foe.
I mean, US allready has the big dog which does more complicated calculations every step.
>>28322499
>Designating a target is the same as performing an attack run on it
>>28322520
I can not believe that people this stupid exist.
>>28322430
>>28322471
>>28322475
>>28322494
They've done UAV air-to-air refueling before you dickheads.
As long as there's a target to fly to, we can implement maneuvering algorithms that can control the aircraft autonomously with a great deal of accuracy. Although it won't be able to do a top gun/macross dodge or whatever silly pipedream shit you think delivering munitions is like, but it will be able to do what a pilot is required to do when brrting.
>>28322539
>They've done UAV air-to-air refueling before you dickheads.
>Flying in a straight line at a high altitude is the same as strafing a target
These equivalences aren't getting any more relevant as we go.
>>28322522
Learn to read, would you?
The Hellfire's own seeker is, in a sense, a simple autopilot. And yet it's plenty adequate for keeping the missile's boresight itself pointed at the target. This is, effectively, all that's required for the gunlaying aspect of a strafing run, except instead of just the boresight you would point the predicted impact point ("pipper") at the target instead. Still, no major issue since CCIP has been around since the 1970s. The approach is rather simple and could probably even be handled manually, or by algorithms similar to capturing a landing approach, and the pullout is effectively just an extension of terrain-following autopilots (which have been around since the '60s and have already been employed extensively on unmanned cruise missiles) and GPWS.
A UAV capable of strafing targets is certainly feasible, from a technical standpoint. The real question is if it's even worth it, for a capability which places the aircraft at more risk and generally causes wider collateral damage than a Hellfire missile (all to save a few grand in munitions expenses).
>>28322539
>They've done UAV air-to-air refueling before you dickheads.
Yeah, and that's so simple for an aircraft flying steady to another friendly aircraft flying steady and not an enemy trying to avoid it that it's only existed in an experiment that took four years to complete.
Use your head, if it took four years to get it to fly in a straight line behind a tanker how the fuck is it strafing a target "simple"
>>28322560
Aerial refueling is generally recognized as an extremely challenging task, even for human pilots. Strafing... not so much.
>>28321695
>morans
>>glp
>>28322560
never mind the fact that actually flying an aircraft in a precise straight line is an extremely difficult task. there are no rails in the air. you know.
>>28322563
Cool anecdote bro
>>28322555
>Trying to get two objects, both moving at a very fast speed, to hit a target no greater than 5 inches while dealing with the inherent turbulent environment provided by being around a large aircraft. The maneuvering also required the computer to deal with course changes on the fly, in order to stay within a refueling area.
vs
>Trying to get one object to point at another slow moving/stationary object (Effectively choosing a heading and pitch for any given relative position of a target to the uav) and lase down to a distance of xty km and fire
What sounds easier?
What sounds so impossible about a computer program determining what the angle, direction and speed is required to point at a target and shoot with accuracy? Modern autopilot systems can execute functions similar to the latter half, and I could probably write you a fucking bit of software which could do the former.
>>28322560
See above.
A ground, or naval based target is going to be far too slow to "avoid" you. Planes performing direct cas/ags typically operate in a safe environment which has been cleared of all major radar threats.
As a matter of fact, the problem has been halved. Now a moving object has to point at a stationary object, that's much simpler than a moving object pointing at a moving object.
In those four years we've ALREADY DEVELOPED THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO THIS. Since those four years have passed, we've gone even further in these fields. I wouldn't be surprised if this would take a maximum of two years production to effectively strafe a target and respond naturally to incoming threats with limited or indirect manned control.
>>28322573
Well there's the fact you're comparing something that spent years being built for the purpose to a converted manned aircraft that you say is "simple" to program.
>>28322580
to
>>28322576
I guess.
>>28322585
But even you're not alluding to the fact that nothing about this charade is simple or easily possible.
>>28322575
Ask any military pilot who's done both. I guarantee you they'll say the same.
Aerial refuelling is more than just "flying in a straight line," as you put it. You're flying in close proximity to another aircraft, which you must maintain very precise position with respect to - not only laterally and vertically, but also fore-and-aft as well. Strafing, on the other hand, only requires incidental attention to throttle and airspeed, with only pitch and heading demanding intensive concentration.
>>28322573
>>28322575
>>28322580
Flying in a straight line is not hard. If it yaws left, yaw right, if it pitches up, pitch down, etc
This kind of technology has been in use in autopilots for literal fucking decades. A faster update, more responsive autopilot has been, and can be developed with ease.
Integration into manned systems is easy. The onboard computer and cockpit would be ripped out and replaced with a single unit that is effectively the plane's computer with some modifications to operate the entire plane independent of command and a radar/satellite receiver.
Would cost half as much as building a new plane, sure, but the upgrade cost and development costs will still, ultimately, be lower.
>>28321783
>>28322558
>all to save a few grand in munitions expenses
>a few grand
>Hellfires $110,00/unit
>SDB IIs double that
>>28322606
Yeah, aerial refueling is a bitch. The receiving jet is constantly correcting itself which makes for a crazy unpleasant ride in the back of the aircraft, and if you ever watch the pilot, he looks like he's having a seizure with the controls.
>>28322606
>You're flying in close proximity to another aircraft, which you must maintain very precise position with respect to - not only laterally and vertically, but also fore-and-aft as well.
That's just a two body problem, which is an issue mostly due to human reaction time limitations, which a computer doesn't have.
I expect aerial refueling will be entirely done by STOVL drones in the near future.
>>28321519
And then skynet will kill us all
>>28322006
I'd rather they start building A-10s again, than buy those bullshit planes.
>>28321519
Would this mean I would have an AI in an A-10 that I could fuck?
>>28323776
The perfect waifu...
>>28322006
>A-10 is outdated guys
>lets put bombs on a Cessna, thats much more modern!
>>28323890
Okay, *now* I'm a little scared if Skynet took over.
>>28321486
>all the droniness of a drone!
>still slow
>still shitty loiter time
How about no.
>>28322243
That's bullcrap. If I can see the multiplayer character of some guy from japan with less than a second delay, drones with dedicated servers can't be much slower.
>>28323922
meh
>>28323971
>
Dealing with top-tier encryption and decryption.
>>28323971
>comparing lag/latency from a Fiber optic or any other direct cable internet to SATCOM communications using satellites 23,000 miles high in geosynchronous orbit.
On paper the lag is 1.25 seconds but it depends on the sattelite and a bunch of other factors. Usually it is 2 or more.
>>28324019
That too, lot of frequency changes enroute between satellite, ppsl, plane, and GCS.
>>28324034
Was an 0656 in the marine corps. Dealt alot with ground to air communication. Ask me anything
>>28324034
AND, least I forget...the data is transmitted via cable halfway across the world before it even reaches the PPSL to get transmitted to the satellite and vice versa.
What a monstrosity
>>28324019
Encryption is probably not a big part of it. They are probably using some SSL derivative, which is not computationally intensive.
Video coding/decoding
Satalite signal modulation/demodulation
Mulitpile checksum for every packet along it's path.
Physical distance of satellites.
