Japan Plans To Build Unmanned Fighter Jets (reuters.com)

Slashdot reader It's the tripnaut! quotes an article from Reuters: Japan aims to develop a prototype drone fighter jet in two decades with private sector help in a technology strategy that focuses on weapons communications and lasers, according to a document seen by Reuters... The military technology plan calls for first developing an unmanned surveillance aircraft in the next decade and then an unmanned fighter jet 10 years later, the document showed...

The ministry will also allocate budget funds to acquire an upgraded version of the F-35 stealth fighter, made by U.S. company Lockheed Martin Corp...as tension rises in the East China Sea and North Korea steps up its missile threat, government officials with direct knowledge of the matter said.

Comments

Stealth

[AK Marc]

It could be great, it could not matter. One of the realities is that the current designs are not much stronger than the human body. Sure, they can pull 20g indefinitely, when the human can't, but a quick transition from -20g to +20g could cause structural failure. A plane with no delicate meat-sack inside would greatly out-perform the meat-sack, but not if it exceeds the airframe capabilities or performance envelope.

Re:Stealth

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are dealing with war. Being nice is not part of the game. You crush you enemies. You do not mess around. You crush them subjugate them and take their things. Then for the icing make sure they will not rise up again you kill their children.

War is ugly. Don't try to put a humanitarian spin on it.

Re:Stealth

[FlyHelicopters]

It's bad enough when some military base thousands of kilometers again is bombed, but seeing your own cities rocked by explosions, the lights going out for days, death out of the blue, seemingly at random... Not so nice when it happens to you, whaddaya think?

I think the United States of America has the most powerful military in the world, along with several thousand nuclear weapons.

If another nation-state started to bomb our cities, the "war" wouldn't last very long...

Re:Stealth

[knightghost]

It must also transform into a humanoid robot. After all, this is Japan we're talking about.

Re:Stealth

[ShanghaiBill]

One of the realities is that the current designs are not much stronger than the human body.

That is because there is no reason to do so. If you are carrying a human pilot, there is no point in designing the airframe to turn fast enough to kill him. But if there is no pilot, the design criteria are different. For instance, a SAM can generally turn much faster than a plane.

Re:Stealth

[willy_me]

An expensive plane with a "meat-sack" does not only have to be built strong, it has to be built to last. This results in larger development times and costs. One big advantage to an autonomous fighters that is rarely mentioned is that it does not have to last long. The aircraft can be designed to last 100 flights, not 10,000. This is because the planes would sit silent until needed. With piloted fighters, the pilots need regular training and practice using the same planes with which they will be fighting. With autonomous fighters the planes would almost never fly. Regular duties such as patrol could be taken over by simpler planes with lower maintenance costs where the full capabilities of a modern fighter are not required.

Re:Stealth

[Applehu Akbar]

All the same, North Korea is not going to appreciate the Hello Kitty H-bomb drones that are controlled from Samsung phones.

Re:Stealth

[ShanghaiBill]

Ground-based energy beam weapons will make all existing aircraft obsolete.

Energy beam weapons are not very effective against low-flying terrain following targets. So you take them out with cruise missiles before launching your main attack. Beam weapons are ineffective against kinetic energy weapons, which are being placed on ships, so they can be taken out if closer than ~100km to the coast. They are also ineffective against over-the-horizon targets, so if carriers are 300 km off your coast enforcing a naval blockade, you can't touch them with ground based beam weapons.

Re:Stealth

[Sarten-X]

Unless that other nation-state also has nuclear weapons, or a stealth-heavy navy that's hard to successfully target, or guerilla fighters and false-flag agents operating in other nations, or cyberwar capabilities that can't be quickly and reliably traced to their nation of origin.

The war could last for years, even with nukes, as the participants play a game of chicken, trying to make the other guy be the bad guy first.

Re:Stealth

[AK Marc]

The what is a "fighter jet"? Something designed to take out manned aircraft? Unmanned aircraft?

What are the design considerations? Do you want a fighter jet that can out maneuver a SAM? Perhaps designed to dog-fight a SAM and shoot it down. Then you could deploy 10 of these around manned aircraft (bombers or the like) as an anti SAM defense.

Part of my point to base the discussion around existing jets, is that that's all we know. Designing a jet with unlimited capabilities is beyond aerospace design. It'll take many generations until the unmanned fighter jet will be anywhere close to optimal. At first, I'd expect them to take an existing airframe, and strip all the human tech (O2 bottles, etc.) and strengthen it. You can't make vast changes with the first generation.

The predator drones are incapable of making maneuvers that would kill a pilot, and they were designed from the ground up as unmanned. But then, they are not "fighters". Or are the fighters of the future just mobile weapons platforms?

Re:Stealth

[slashrio]

It's not 'another nation-state' that worries me as until now it's almost exclusively the US that initiates agression upon agression without proper provocation.

Re:Stealth

[Sarten-X]

From the stories I heard working in defense, airframes still can't match pilots. An aircraft on a mission may need to execute some spectacular maneuvers, and the pilot can often survive quite well, especially with active flight suits. However, the airframe is still damaged by the maneuver, and might not be usable again.

Re:Stealth

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... airframes still can't match pilots. An aircraft on a mission may need to execute some spectacular maneuvers, and the pilot can often survive quite well, especially with active flight suits. However, the airframe is still damaged by the maneuver, and might not be usable again.

Which just means that they didn't throw extra weight and strength (a constant cost) into insuring that the meat-sack-carrying vehicle would take no damage in ANY extreme, momentary, corner case that the meat-sack COULD survive.

Remove the meat-sack-guidance-computer, its support systems, emergency ejection systems, and that big space in the middle for it, and the design potential is drastically altered.

So there's no conflict between your point and the predecessor's claim.

Re:Stealth

[Anonymous Coward]

You crush you enemies.

See them driven before you.

And hear the lamentations of their women.

Re: Stealth

[Anonymous Coward]

The most powerful nation in the world has been defeated in Vietnam, sent home packing in Somalia, defeated in Afghanistan, bled dry in Iraq... Shall I continue? And should Russia or China retaliate for drone strikes by using conventional bombs against a legitimate military target such as your capital, would you escalate to nuclear warfare knowing this would mean the death of a lot of your population and the destruction of the US as an industrial nation? I don't think so. Don't bite more than you can chew.

Re:Stealth

[tchdab1]

Especially if these new aircraft come free with a subscription to the wireless network that supports them.

Re:Stealth

[Dutch Gun]

I didn't see anywhere in the article that these were "autonomous fighters", just that they were "drones", or "unmanned fighter jets". My assumption is that human controllers will still very much be in control of these things at some tactical level. You're still going to need to regularly train whoever controls, commands, and maintains these things.

I'd agree that they'd need to fly less frequently, but they'd probably still need to regularly perform in training missions, just like every other military asset currently in existence.

Re: Stealth

[peragrin]

To be fair Russia and China both have been bogged down in small conflicts as well.

The problem is political not military. The us military could have won in Vietnam if allowed to fire bomb civilian targets.

Trying to limit warfare to only military targets and win is like trying to arrest drug dealers. You can never get them all

Re:Stealth

[AK Marc]

For high-speed maneuvers, probably. A static 30g for 30 seconds is likely within the capabilities of the airframe (and deadly for the pilot). But a lower-speed dog fight, the meat sack can (and has) asked more of the airframe than it could give, and had to punch out from an airframe failure

Re:Stealth

[willy_me]

Human controllers can train using simulators. Pilots require real flight time - although simulators undoubtedly help minimize the amount of flight time required.

Re: Stealth

[FlyHelicopters]

The most powerful nation in the world has been defeated in Vietnam, sent home packing in Somalia, defeated in Afghanistan, bled dry in Iraq... Shall I continue?

We weren't really trying and none of those nations were bombing US cities...

We could have turned all of North Vietnam into a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot...

Re: Stealth

[Anonymous Coward]

The most powerful nation in the world has been defeated in Vietnam, sent home packing in Somalia, defeated in Afghanistan, bled dry in Iraq... Shall I continue?

No, you should stop and think. Each of those wars was not lost by defeating the US with military force. It was the American people who didn't like it, and demanded that the boys come home. Seeing as how the politicians wanted to keep their jobs, they complied.

If the US wanted, it could have kept supplying the Vietnamese with arms for decades. If the US wanted, we could flatten Somalia. Afghanistan? Don't see any occupation troops from there coming here. Iraq? You're confusing "not willing to bother" with "not being able to do it" and that's why you should and think.

We'd much rather watch our NASCAR races, enjoy a few beers and chill. Freedom's free here in America. Americans don't feel a need to bleed for anybody else that much. Especially not when they resent and despise us. So fuck them.

And should Russia or China retaliate for drone strikes by using conventional bombs against a legitimate military target such as your capital, would you escalate to nuclear warfare knowing this would mean the death of a lot of your population and the destruction of the US as an industrial nation? I don't think so. Don't bite more than you can chew.

Bite off more than you can chew? That's what I'd say to anybody stupid enough to bomb Washington DC. Especially Russia or China. They don't want none of the hell that would raise. Bitch over a few islands in the South China Sea? Bully a few former territories? Yeah sure.

Start a war that would be fought to the last? Nope.

Re:Stealth

[khallow]

Or are the fighters of the future just mobile weapons platforms?

The fighters of the present are of use only because they are mobile weapons platforms. The quality of the mobility and the kind of weapons are what makes fighter jets what they are.

You do have good points to the first generation. Once humans are removed from the cockpit, there likely won't be a hard limit to the size of vehicles, but it'll take considerable time for humanity or its successors to come up with good designs to take advantage.

Re: Stealth

[CrimsonAvenger]

The us military could have won in Vietnam if allowed to fire bomb civilian targets.

The US military didn't even need that. All they needed was permission to go into North Vietnam and beat the crap out of them.

Alas, the Korean War was still fresh in everyone's mind - when we rolled up North Korea, the Chinese came into the war. So, the various Presidents said "no invading North Vietnam".

And it's still pretty much true that if you give the enemy a safe space, the enemy CANNOT be beaten. If he's losing, he just pulls back into his safe space until he's ready to go another round....

Re: Stealth

[Anonymous Coward]

The us military could have won in Vietnam if allowed to fire bomb civilian targets.

If your idea of winning is slaughtering untold number of civilians just to stop the spread of a political system that your overlords deem unacceptable than yeah...maybe you could have "won" that one.

Re:Stealth

[AK Marc]

The definition is the important point at this time. A "fighter" could be anything. Fighters are all purpose. So are these going to be remotely piloted F16s, based on F16 and modified slightly to remove the human component? Are they going to be remotely piloted F-16 with a full cockpit, so a human will fly them from one test ground to another? Are they to be ground support (precision bombers)? Air combat?

TFA says there's a line item in a budget with the wish of having an unmanned fighter. No plan for one, and no definition of the role or requirements.

Re: Stealth

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do so many Americans get boners at the thought of nuking an entire nation into a parking lot? I see it all the time. Fucking WAKE UP!!!

Stop deluding yourself, it was an observation of restraint exercised in the face of capability.

Noting that is something you should learn, not everybody is so beneficent.

Re:Stealth

[Rei]

The problem with stealth aircraft isn't finding a missile that can hit them. It's getting a reliable, targetable lock on them. You can detect stealth aircraft with low frequency radar, but you get a very poor quality return. Low frequency doesn't just make stealth aircraft more visible, it makes *everything* in the atmosphere more visible, including water vapour.

A good example of what it takes to shoot down a stealth aircraft with a low frequency radar can be seen in the one time it was accomplished, by the Serbs during the Kosovo conflict. The airplane flew right over their position almost every day. Even with it right overhead, they still couldn't target it most of the time. The time that they finally got it, it was right overhead and had its bomb bay doors open, significantly increasing its visibility.

And this was with an old generation of stealth aircraft.

No country in the world wants to have this much difficulty hitting their adversaries targets. Is the problem solveable? Probably eventually. Is it solved now? Very doubtful. As good evidence to that effect, look at how much money Russia has been throwing into their antiaircraft systems - first modernizing the S-300, then introducing the S-400, and now developing the S-500. Much of Russia's military struggles for funding (look at the sad state of their only aircraft carrier, for example, or their struggle to bring tanks like the Armata or planes like the MiG-35 into full production), but air defense gets tons of money. If they had actually solved the stealth problem and felt that they could reliably shoot down US stealth aircraft, they wouldn't be focusing so heavily on it.

Re:Stealth

[Rei]

Could you remind me again, which nation is building military bases on internationally disputed islands that they lost the judgement for, and which nation recently annexed a part of one of its' neighbors and is waging a constant low-level war in a large chunk of said country's east while propping up one of the most brutal dictators in the middle east by white phosphorus and cluster bombing its cities?

Not that I'm a huge fan of the US either, but come on now....

Re: Stealth

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Why do so many Americans get boners at the thought of nuking an entire nation into a parking lot?

I blame the American car culture.

Re:Stealth

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The problem with stealth aircraft isn't finding a missile that can hit them. It's getting a reliable, targetable lock on them. You can detect stealth aircraft with low frequency radar, but you get a very poor quality return. Low frequency doesn't just make stealth aircraft more visible, it makes *everything* in the atmosphere more visible, including water vapour.

You may need a visual or multispectral lock. Until the terminal phase, command guidance might be necessary. Not sure about all-weather use, though. High frequency radar from very a short distance?

Re:Stealth

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Regular duties such as patrol could be taken over by simpler planes with lower maintenance costs where the full capabilities of a modern fighter are not required.

Instead, those things would probably have massive endurance, I imagine.

Re: Stealth

[Type44Q]

A robot we can fuck... in augmented reality.

Re:Stealth

[hey!]

You're assuming you'd fly a drone fighter with the same air superiority tactics that you use for manned fighters. That might not be the case.

You might opt to forgo the traditional aerobatic capabilities of a manned fighter for more stealth, even knowing that you'd lose more aircraft. It depends on how the math works out. Suppose you expect to lose 20% of your drones to dog fighters, but your early weapons lock advantage allows you to shoot down an additional 1.5 fighters for every drone you lose. That's a good deal. It wouldn't be so attractive if you were losing pilots along with aircraft.

Of course the math might work out completely the other way, in favor of highly aerobatic drones. Depends on two things: what you can accomplish tech-wise, and what your opponents can accomplish.

Re:Stealth

[khallow]

Air combat?

Bingo. For example, Oxford dictionary has this to say about fighter jets:

A fast jet-powered military aircraft designed for attacking other aircraft:

Re:Stealth

[Anonymous Coward]

And why is that a business for the USA, with already more than 800 military bases in more than 100 countries the world over?

Um, let's see, most populous country, nuclear power, major economic force. It's pretty dumb to ignore them.

At least the Chinese haven't killed anybody yet, unlike the USA did with millions (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak, Lybia, to name a few countries), and by the way was the first country to deploy, totally unnecessary if you ask me as the Japanese were already surrendering, 2 A-bombs with devastating results for the civilian populations involved.

Come on now.

Wow, the Chinese haven't killed anybody yet? What have you been smoking? Even leaving aside the massive famines that Mao's policies resulted in, there's been plenty of executions for political repression, an invasion of Tibet, disputes with China, Pakistan, and even the USSR that have resulted in loss of life.

And whining about civilian deaths from A-Bombs? If you're going to stand on principle, stand against all bombing, whether it be the Blitz, Dresden, or whatever, don't pretend that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were special because of the methods involved. And like it or not, even if the US had refrained from that option, conventional bombing would have continued because the Japanese didn't understand the need to surrender. They fucked up badly since their previous war was with a power that wasn't seriously angry at all the fucked up shit the Axis powers were doing.

Re: Stealth

[guestapoo]

Hanoi, Hai Phong, Nam Dinh were all destroyed during bombing operators. HCM trail have no civilian target.
John McCain was shot down while bombing a lightbulb factory.

It's misleading that Vietnam war was a guerrilla warfare, in fact it's was serial of battles to capture/defense positions, areas, with participation of large number of soldiers and weapons, between U.S and NVA (not VC).
There's a myth of U.S military won all battles but lost due to politics.
Also, there's problem with statistic, such as using "body counting" as a measure of "victory".

Re:Stealth

[guestapoo]

Much of Russia's military struggles for funding

If you count in dollar, not in rouble.
If Russia could not produce things inside the country, that is the problem with their budget!

or their struggle to bring tanks like the Armata or planes like the MiG-35 into full production

Armata introduced last year.
Mikoyan has problem because Sukhoi has been doing better both on domestic and foreign market. And, MiG is a kind of light fighter, which has less demand today.

Re:Stealth

[tlhIngan]

An expensive plane with a "meat-sack" does not only have to be built strong, it has to be built to last. This results in larger development times and costs. One big advantage to an autonomous fighters that is rarely mentioned is that it does not have to last long. The aircraft can be designed to last 100 flights, not 10,000. This is because the planes would sit silent until needed. With piloted fighters, the pilots need regular training and practice using the same planes with which they will be fighting. With autonomous fighters the planes would almost never fly. Regular duties such as patrol could be taken over by simpler planes with lower maintenance costs where the full capabilities of a modern fighter are not required.

Not only does a regular piloted fighter have to be built to last, it has to be built to survive as well as keep the bag of meat alive even when fired upon. (Or at least give him options on where to land).

Without a pilot, a whole pile of things go out the window - canopies and their induced drag disappear (replaced with tiny windows through the skin for cameras), you can dump a whole pile of heavy and now obsolete life-support gear (oxygen generators, air conditioning/climate control, ejection seats, flight instruments/displays/etc). This makes the jet a lot lighter, and lighter jets can maneuver a lot faster and withstand stresses better.

It is widely believed that the current 5th gen fighters (F-35, etc) are the last that will be piloted because pilotless ones will become practical. And yes, it's got some pilots worried (see the trouble the Air Force has recruiting drone pilots).

Re:Stealth

[davester666]

To who? You've killed your enemies and their children. Presumably, that may have left some old people and some women. And a destroyed economy.

You've got, what, 50 years or so, before they are back on their feet enough to spit angrily towards you.

Re:Stealth

[davester666]

And someone like Trump in charge of each country.

"Don't make me do it. I'll do it. You know I will. Many people want me to do it. Smart people. Awesome people.. NAMBLA FTW.

Re:Stealth

[tsotha]

That "800 bases" thing is bogus. If you look at the list the vast, vast majority are small detachments of men working at a base belonging to the host country. Five guys tasked with training F-16 mechanics in BFE do not constitute a "base".

Re: Stealth

[tsotha]

We didn't even have to win to win. If the US was willing to pay the price Vietnam would be partitioned to this day. There's no way they could have defeated us militarily even if we didn't invade the North. But the public wasn't willing to pay the price. I suspect we wouldn't even have needed troops on the ground - the South Vietnamese destroyed a large invasion force with the help of US air power in 1973 and might have been able to hold indefinitely if we had continued to provide air support.

It sucked for the people in the South, but I wonder if the country isn't better off today. Like China, Vietnam only pays the barest lip service to communism these days. They have more economic freedom than Americans. If we had forced a partition maybe Vietnam would be like Korea, with both armies on a hair trigger and Ho Jon Un building nuclear weapons to intimidate the neighbors.

Re:Stealth

[drinkypoo]

You may need a visual or multispectral lock. Until the terminal phase, command guidance might be necessary. Not sure about all-weather use, though. High frequency radar from very a short distance?

It's a complex problem at best. You will certainly want a sensor package that includes the visual range. Probably a combination of approaches will work best; you want some sensors that you can use to figure out what's weather and what isn't so you know what to target. All that of course makes the weapon more expensive, which is a big part of the goal of stealth technology to begin with. If you have the economic advantage then you can have better stealth and better detection systems, and the enemy goes bankrupt trying to keep up with you.

Re:Stealth

[Rei]

If you count in dollar, not in rouble.

Also if you count in "cutting funding and repeatedly missing deadlines and production targets by massive margins"

If Russia could not produce things inside the country, that is the problem with their budget!

It's a systemic problem. Russia has shown itself quite capable of producing very advanced military hardware at the small scale in recent years, but has struggled to produce them in the sorts of volume it can for its older hardware systems. Its testing programs are also rather underwhelming by western standards.

This is one area where I think China holds an edge. China has always tended to be behind on the technology curves, but they've been catching up. And if there's anything China can do, it's produce in quantity.

Armata introduced last year.

And in its introduction in the Victory Day Parade it stalled, they had to try to tow it, failed, and eventually managed to get it working again enough to drive off. It's been delayed by two years and orders have been cut.

Mikoyan has problem because Sukhoi has been doing better both on domestic and foreign market. And, MiG is a kind of light fighter, which has less demand today.

Speaking of Sukhoi, the PAK-FA - still under development - is the result of a project that was initially supposed to deliver in the 1990s. The current concept, created in 2007, was supposed to have been delivered in 2009. Current expectations are 2020 or later, and orders have been cut to 1/10th of what was planned.

Re:Stealth

[guestapoo]

Of course, the sanction have some effects (such as, some technologies instead of buying/corporation with, e.g. France, now they must develop themselves). But not terrible as media showed, such as, the foods price, or people being starved. Their agriculture booms, and surpassed the weapons industry.
As I said, some report tried to show that Russians have cut "something" in dollars, not in rouble - which is weaker in recent years.

If you read Russian (I don't but I read using Yandex/Google translator), I could say that Russian technologies are underrated. Of course, they acknowledged that they are behind Western in many areas, or are "reinventing the wheel", but the progress is very positive.
China is a different story, Russia is likely, they have know-how but lack of motive (but, not now with sanctions) and money. China have motives and money but lack some key technologies that could not fill without "great leap-forward", such as, they have tried to develop jet engine for more than 30 years but the result is still in doubt.

About Armata, OK, one of them got glitch. But I see the broader scene, the consequence of Armata is the merger of two famous German and French tank manufactures.

About PAK-FA, in 80's-90's, not mention the budget of Russia after the collapse of Soviet. The mindset of Soviet airforce was protect the land, they needed super fast fighters, not somethings stealthy enter enemy base and drop bombs. All the Soviet bombers/fighters followed this trend.
In fact when Russian began to develop "5th" fighter plane, here is what they think:
1) for protect "motherland", 5th fighters are not needed.
2) Russia is a #2 arms exporter, they need to keep their market/buyers
3) does not want to fall behind in technology.

The deadline of development only move to 2020 for Indian version for mass production. It said that in early 2009 they would introduced three prototype, but then actually in early 2010, by traditional Soviet fighter producing process, it took about 5 years from maiden flight to final product, and they would test with new engine with the prototype when everything is OK.

Re:Stealth

[AmiMoJo]

If there is a major attack on the US, I'd expect it to be via state-sponsored terrorism. Quietly help some idiot religious fanatics out with some military hardware or nuclear weapon parts.

Re:Stealth

[pryoplasm]

You mean like the QF-16? Or the QF-4?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

fighters have been converted to drones in the past, and continue to be good for targets/testing.

use in combat might be different.

Re:Stealth

[slashrio]

That's interesting, thanks.

Re:Stealth

[slashrio]

Good that you leave Mao aside, because he isn't there anymore, nor his regime.
For the remaining points you mention I still don't see the USA targeted in any of them.
So why again is China considered an adversary to the US?
At the time the A-bombs were dropped, Japan had already offered to surrender, with only one condition: the emperor would not be touched.
That was refused by the US until the Russians were approaching, threatening to finish Japan off, and that's the only reason the A-bombs were dropped, aside from being a demo show for Stalin. The result was that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally and the emperor still hasn't been touched. Now how 'fucked up' is that?

Re:Stealth

[HiThere]

Sorry, but the Emperor was definitely "touched". He wasn't replaced, but severe constraints were placed upon what he could say or do for over a decade. This wasn't totally just, as he had been largely the figurehead of a militarist group, and was only a teenager when things started happening, but in another sense it was necessary. He had been demonized during the war, and had to appear (to the US public) to have been punished. The actual restraints were quite minor as they weren't really needed. He wasn't actually pro-militarist, but had only been the figurehead of a militarist clique. But I remember even during the 1950's growing up seeing some old propaganda pictures. I don't really understand how vilified anything Japanese was during the war, but it was enough that there was plenty of sentiment left over during the early 1950's. During much of the war Japan was more vilified than was Germany. In both cases the people in charge really deserved to be vilified, but most people in the countries didn't.

It's all very well to say you should be independent and not moved by group think, but nobody really is. Some people are contrarians, and tend to swim against the current, most people have basic beliefs that are only shifted by the group think, but everyone is affected, and most people end up being driven considerably in a direction that they would not otherwise move. As an example, how do you feel about the divine right of kings? A few centuries ago you'd probably be not only accepting, but passively in favor of it. The relict of it is in how we in the US feel about the President. Note that many dislike him, but most would consider his person to be "sacred". If they don't think he should be president, they try to come up with a flaw that shows him to be an usurper...and will believe palpable lies if it makes that easier to believe.

Re: Stealth

[HiThere]

I still don't think we should ever have been there. We had no call to sabotage the Geneva accords.

Re: Stealth

[HiThere]

Sorry, but the the US and either Russia or China get into a serious war, humanity will end up deindustrialized, starving, and with probably less than 1% of the current population. There won't be any countries. Or cities. Or towns.

I wouldn't expect a true "On The Beach" scenario, but it wouldn't be far from that.

An interesting question is "What if India and one of it's neighbors gets into a nuclear exchange?". The best prediction includes massive world wide starvation due to a few "year without a summer"s, but nobody's really sure. (The "year without a summer" was caused by one volcano...but ash from firestorms lofted by an atomic bomb aren't the same.)

Re:Stealth

[HiThere]

That's the basic approach that is the only feasible one. Make it something deniable.

That said, I sure hope the current work on hypersonic missiles is just chest thumping. Several countries can already manage a "doomsday machine".

Re:Stealth

[HiThere]

My question is "How do you prevent them being jammed?" Are they going to have a built-in AI? What could possibly go wrong with that?

Re:Stealth

[FlyHelicopters]

Keeping that quiet and making sure it isn't linked back to you is harder than you think... It only takes one mistake...

And nuclear materials are the sort of thing you can use in that way, all refined uranium and plutonium has a signature, it wouldn't be hard to figure out what nation made it.

Unbeatable

[Cpt_Kirks]

Without a pilot, a drone fighter will be unbeatable, except by other drones.

The limitations will then be the HARDWARE, not the pilot.

Only a matter of time

[bigdady92]

till the Japanese launch the SDF-1 with the Rick Hunter Limited Ultra 2k99 Edition AI.

Then we can only pray Godzilla comes to save us.

Let's do it!

[wjcofkc]

Seriously though, are we not heading to a future where we have robot fighting robot on behalf of humans, and killing humans in the process of domination and conquest? The implications of this future do not sound like they could ever play out well. War worse than war? Insert skynet remark here I suppose.

The United States tried implementing autonomous killer bots in Iraq. They never saw action and one day starting targeting, but not firing on Marines. The were removed with quickness.

Re:Don't do it

[Applehu Akbar]

" The ideology of; if we don't do it then our enemies will is the path to darkness."

Nope, darkness is when your enemy does it first.

Re:Don't do it

[slashrio]

Then don't provoke.

Re:What it needs is a fleet

[slashrio]

Yes, that would be nice. That was lacking: another war in an area of the world where we have no business being. Just to satisfy our military-political-industrial-financial complex in their hunger for more expenses, money gained, and destruction.
Way to go, bro...

Vaghn Bode's Ramdove

[Ungrounded Lightning]

It's Vaughn Bode's Ramdove Weapons Platform.

Re:Why not buy Russian s-400 SAM?

[cheesybagel]

Because there is a non-insignificant chance that the Russians would sell them to the Chinese as well. So the Chinese could reverse engineer them and find weaknesses. Also it wouldn't be the first time Japan and Russia fought a war. They are regional competitors and have an ongoing dispute about ownership of the Kuril islands.

China is Doing the Same Thing

[Kagato]

The biggest fear of the US Military is autonomous fighter jets. Even if you disrupt command and control it's quite possible the jets could still defend/attack enemy forces. The problem for that is the Chinese can make a MIG for a fraction of the cost of a F-35. Sure, the F-35 would take out some MIGs, but the it only holds a relatively small number of missiles.

Sweet jesus, we're all doomed.

[martinux]

Japanese pilots have demonstrated the ability to fly more than one craft simultaneously while defeating overwhelming odds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And you thought drone warfare was bad?

[kheldan]

Flying a fully-armed drone into a structure doesn't cause much damage, but how about a fully-armed fighter jet full of fuel?

Hey, let's build remotely-controlled fighter jets, great idea!
Build a whole fleet of them
Someone hacks a vulnerability in your control system and takes over the entire fleet
Skyscrapers burning everywhere!
Civilian targets hit everywhere!

Hey here's an even better idea: Why not build an entire fleet of bombers? Be sure to put your nuclear weapons in them while you're at it.

Hey here's an even betterer idea: Build an entire fleet of autonomous, self-flying nuclear bombers! Then when the hackers hijack your fleet of bombers, all they'll have to do is reprogram them to bomb all the major population centers of the world! Overpopulation problems solved!

***FACEPALM***

I seriously can't think of stupider ideas than some like this. Drones are bad enough; now you want your entire fucking Air Force to be drones? It's confirmed: we're getting stupider, not smarter.

Re:And you thought drone warfare was bad?

[AHuxley]

Re "Someone hacks a vulnerability in your control system and takes over the entire fleet"
Thats why nations are so careful about how much encryption to add. If a drone is captured, lost, induced to land in another nation or staff walk out with the codes thats an expected loss.
The loss of US drones in the past shows the US thinking on the issue. The drone has just the right amount of crypto to fly for a long time and anything lost is only sensitive to that mission. No need to pack in, power and keep an extra smart computer system flying.
The US likes its flight time, loitering, ammo count over the need to protect from smarter staff in another nation setting new missions or an early return default.
Having drones return mid mission or before a mission starts would be a creative alteration option.
Other nations now fully understand that US design ideas and can work on their own systems to alter course or take over.
Japan really has to consider what it buys in from the US or the US allows Japan to use.
Weak crypto networks used to avoid a loss if captured could be very interesting due to its lack of protection in flight from smarter surrounding nations :)

Re:Why not buy Russian s-400 SAM?

[AHuxley]

That would lack US command and control integration, support from US standard supply lines. Think of the US jobs, happy generational shareholders and political support from getting big contracts to arm up Japan.
Japan over the decades is encourage to always consider made in the USA.

Re:in favor

[slashrio]

As an example, how do you feel about the divine right of kings? A few centuries ago you'd probably be not only accepting, but passively in favor of it.

Not only would I, 'a few centuries ago', have been in favor of it, a mere few decades ago I actually was.
Not any more though...