Drones
- Home
- Board: /k/ - Weapons
- Reading: Drones
How does the Air Force cope with the fact that fighter pilots won't exist in the next 30 years? It's not like they dogfight in the visible range anymore. Today the role of fighters is much better replaced by UAVs and UCAVs that take the liabilities of mortal pilots and lethal g-forces out of the equation altogether. What will Air Force recruitment propaganda of the future look like?
>>29991347
>fighter pilots won't exist in the next 30 years
Not until someone develops AI.
G's are limited not by pilots but by the airframes ability to handle them
A missile can always pull more G's than the airplane
UAV's are not autonomous, they are flown just like a plane, except remotely
Theres really no practical reason to remove the pilot, in fact there should be 2-3 people in next gen fighters
>>29991347
>How does the Air Force cope with the fact that fighter pilots won't exist in the next 30 years?
kek
I don't know, by being on good terms with the reality to know thats a load of shite?
>>29991404
You don't have to pull more G's than a missile, friend.
Its all about making a missile waste its very limited ∆v. If you can pull harder turns to make it continually change its vector, its NEZ becomes smaller and you increase your chances of being able to avoid getting hit.
That said, airframes are generally around human tolerance or lower anyway. Even the F-16 with load can't sustain many Gs if its loaded with the bags it pretty much requires to get anywhere.
>>29991568
pulling harder turns just means you are dumping more of your own energy
>>29991633
Less of an issue when you're in a powered aircraft.
Especially one with a high T/W ratio.
>>29991633
>pulling harder turns just means you are dumping more of your own energy
It's a question of having more energy to dump. Unless it's already bingo fuel, the plane will generally have loads more energy available to it than the missile.
>>29992716
Up until they build missiles with airbreathing pulse detonation engines
>>29991404
I always liked the Idea of a WSO, I'm surprised Viper guys dislike them so much.
Russia can jam satellites
If they felt the need they could turn off every drone in the middle east
As long as EW exists manned aircraft will
f-35's will probably be turned into drone controllers. Cant jam that.
>>29992917
Yes you can.
Also,
>Controlling unmanned aircraft from a single seater
olol
>>29991399
>Not until someone develops AI.
Like the USAF?
>>29991568
>Its all about making a missile waste its very limited ∆v.
Which would be 100% correct in space without an atmosphere to use in vector changes saving massively on fuel costs. Your statement is mostly correct but fails to account for the critical difference that missiles have control surfaces and the efficiency of a vector change can be very high.
To further complicate your statement many missiles are wildly faster than their targets so attempting to cause the missile to waste it's delta v is a losing gambit. Simply put you can not make a large enough projected path change to cause a missile that isn't constantly accelerating to be unable to correct.
If the missiles just increased in velocity like they would in space you are correct. But they max out their velocity at a balance point between friction and propulsion. While leaving the missile with enough performance to catch what it's been shot at.
What you are talking about is more like the issues of an ABMS.
>>29993130
A 2 seater F-35 is being developed by Israel for export.
Plus, the range of microwave and other LOS communications is greater at higher altitudes.
>>29991347
>What will Air Force recruitment propaganda of the future look like?
Ever see The Last Starfighter?
>>29992793
Radio jamming is much harder than flipping a switch and having comm shut down. The biggest issue is power. Simply put you don't have the power to block a wide enough range of the EM band to block remote control over a long enough distance.
The complicating factor is that if you want to build some monster jammer and connect it to some grid power supply and try and shout down radio communication you are going to eat an anti radiation missile right quick.
A modern frequency hopping radio connection isn't something that can be blocked at any distance to be useful.
When you start dealing with LEO satellites and those horizons you reach a point of material limits. Your jammer now needs cooling systems to keep it from melting, and even then you are only going to block a few km at most, and likely eat a missile.
>>29991404
no life support, smaller frame. imagine swarms and swarms of these little, smart, cheap missiles networked to do everything from wild weasel, close air support, surveillance, air superiority.
Best part, if you get enough of them, then they don't need to be high performance. They can then be a 3-D mobile minefield.
The holy grail will be drones with AI. You can't jam an AI.
>>29991568
Bingo!
People assume that the aircraft are limited to 9G because this is the maximum tolerance for the pilot. Well that's not true at all, it's the maximum safe for those particular aircraft. The F-16 when loaded with any meaningful combat load, and this includes extra fuel is limited to just 4.5-5G, because pulling any more will damage the wings and the pylons.
Pilots will still be relevant.
latency is enough of an issue that i doubt that manned fighters will go away until we feel comfortable having software kill people with AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs
>>29992786
i enjoy mocking the single seat fighter dudes.
>>29993284
i'll just say that sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, and the answer is "it depends"
>>29993390
>Ever see The Last Starfighter?
Such a fricking ridiculous movie
On the other hand it had the first totally CGI spacecraft
>>29991347
>What will Air Force recruitment propaganda of the future look like?
A fat girl using a joystick while drinking starbucks.
>>29991657
Air breathing missiles like the Meteor are powered aircraft
>>29994009
Nuh uh, F-16s have 9G limits because USAF pilots black out at 9G, Hornet have 7.5G limits because Navy pilots black out at 7.5G. Bombs and missiles on the wings of jets cause pilots to have erections, removing blood from the brain and lowering the their ability to pull Gs.
>>29996718
Kekerino, but what about the huge number of female nay vay pilots?
>>29991347
>promote cyber
>get COD kiddies
Done and done.
>>29991568
>>29994009
If a fighter is attempting to evade a missile the very first thing that happens is the jettisoning of all--ALL--external stores.
>>29993394
Wow, here's an uneducated post.
>>29996913
Not always something that is feasible, champ.
>>29996757
>The Air Force starts running on a Good Boy Points system.
>>29996913
suppose you're carrying nukes?
>>29993450
Pretty much the future. We'll see swarms of cheap disposable drones, not costing much more than the munitions they carry. One out of every ten will be remote piloted, with the rest slaved to them allowing for truly massive flights. Manned fighters and traditional AA systems won't be able to handle the sheer number of targets and will be quickly overwhelmed, making the only effective defense against drone swarms other drone swarms. Large aircraft will be reserved for transport roles in safe skies only.
>>29991347
I like that the UCAV is painted on the UCAV so you can see what the UCAV looks like
>>29997402
You will never, ever see this happen in the way you describe.
>>29997431
I don't expect it in our lifetimes, if that's what you mean. Today's tech isn't up to the job. At some point though, man will have no place in aerial combat.
>>29997454
>man will have no place in aerial combat.
You specifically said one would be remote piloted and the rest slaved to it; thats a person involved in aerial combat.
Which, by the way, is the entire failing. You'll never be able to have a secure enough connection to gamble all that shit on a remote operator.
>>29997468
I meant, like, in the air. Don't be daft.
>You'll never be able to have a secure enough connection
Of course we will. We could probably come close right now, if we wanted to. It just took the FBI weeks to crack the encryption on one dinky little phone, imagine where that tech will be in 50 years.
>>29997523
Its not a matter of encryption, its a matter of keeping an unjammed, 100% reliable line (with no latency, unless they act autonomously anyway)
Which isn't possible, no.
>>29994009
>because pulling any more will damage the wings and the pylons.
well, just construct additional pylons then
