Well, air superiority has been classic doctrine because manned vehicles get massacred if the enemy fighters get to play unimpeded. But, if there are no, or few, manned bomber/recon assets, what does air superiority buy you?
Well yeah, I think that pretty much the reason why more of these UAVs are bought is that we already have the air superiority (in that no one else is up there), fighter planes or not, as we're not fighting an army, but an insurgency. It's not so much about the advent of UAVs everywhere as it is "well, that's all we need right now really".
LOL, a UAVed F-22 is never gonna happen, it's just a wet dream, you won't make a 140 million dollars UAV, for what benefits?
Actually the Korea War had a hell of a lot of dogfights, as back then they didn't have yet missiles despite having jet engines. But why are we even talking about dogfights, who talked about dogfights, I was the one to say that these days everything happens from miles away.
Anyways, I have nothing against UAVed fighters in principle, that would be great if a fighter was designed to be a UAV, I'm just saying, these don't fucking exist, there's no fucking such thing as a UAVed F-22 and it's not gonna happen, period. Write a letter to the Pentagon if you like, the fact remains that it'll be a long time before you'll see anything but cheap machines as UAVs, so let's stick to what already exist when we're talking about UAVs vs. fighters, please.
Even if we'll assume an hypothetical UAV similar to the ones existing but with air to air missiles and guns, can we agree that these would never scratch a F-22, even a 100 of them vs 1?
My Aerospace Engineering Degree + Industry Experience
Bwahahaha I'm so gonna believe that, you didn't even know how something much smaller than a F-22 could have a much larger radar cross-section. Noob.
Yeah, a UAVed F-22, that is SO gonna happen. Just a geek wet dream, UAVs are meant to be expendable, you won't make a 137.5 million dollars UAV, for what benefit to outweight the extra costs and disadvantages? Besides, many people have mentioned superior g-load possibility if you don't have a human in, but the F-22 is only rated to sustain +9 G anyways.
I totally agree. Being just a geek with good ideas and the skills to implement them, I thought to myself, why not just use them to make a commercial product that I would sell. The whole "making it" part was easy, that was my thing, algorithms and all that. Time consuming, but easy. Then came the "selling it" part.
All I can say is this, you have no idea how hard it is to market and sell something until you try it yourself. That's the hardest part, for someone like me, hands down. You need to know your market, how to market to them, know how to do, all of that stuff...
This is the commercial project I'm talking about. People were excited about the original idea, people are excited about the implementation, but the people who've even heard of it are scarce. Right now I'm just like an hypothetical Steve Wozniak without a Steve Jobs to whom people would ask "hey nice, this Apple I thing, but what am I gonna do with it?". The Apple I was the next big thing, but if it wasn't for Steve Jobs to explain to the world why it was the next big thing, there wouldn't have been an Apple II.
Utter balls, you only reinforce the impression that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
First of all, 5 years in the Air Force is a blink of an eye, and then, no, you have strong misconceptions about what a pilot does, these days their task is more a matter of decision making than anything else. The "human skills" are not the bottleneck, aircraft capabilities are. You just can't defeat a stealth fighter, mainly when all you have is some shitty slow non-stealth UAV.
Well, you're right, in that it's different tasks, a new class of task airplane if you will, that is, expendable light-weight planes meant to stay in the air for a long time, do reconnaissance and attack precise targets.
I disagree that fighter pilots will be obsolete any time in the foreseeable, which at the rate at which things evolve in the air is in the order of several decades. Fighters = air superiority, only them can assure that, and their UAVification isn't yet even planned, which means that as long as something like a F-22 isn't UAVified, and I don't see why it should be anytime soon, fighter pilots will be absolutely essential and necessary. Besides, even then, you'd still need the very same fighter pilots to do the very exact same things as they did in the air, except remotely. You'll always need a man at the wheel for such tasks.
Oh, isn't there even a precise IR wavelength that allows us to go through those clouds, you know, in the same way as with a precise IR filter you can see through the haze of Titan?
Also, yeah, you don't need a laser for that. The reason for suggesting it in the first place is that people tend to think that lasers are inherently very focused (which they're not by definition), and that radio waves are diffuse, whereas you can have a radio signal just as focused as needed.
You could make a foot-wide reflector that could be detected for tens of miles away, while such a plane as a F-22 might be as detectable as a bird. It's not about physical size at all, it's about how much of the radar signal it sends back to the sender.
And you missed the point. Depending on its payload, the F-22 can take a few UAVs down, surely half a dozen without firing a single bullet, I'm not so aware of how much a F-22 can carry. The UAVs we're talking about (the ones that really exist, not Sladotters' wet dreams) have NOT FUCKING CHANCE IN HELL of taking down a single F-22, ever.
Hmmm, let's see, is it ethical for someone to kill someone without taking any personal risks? I know I'd like a lot better to be killed by someone who could have bothered to take the risk of being killed by an engine failure when I catch a missile in the face than by someone who didn't even have the decency to be on the same continent as me. That would make my death a whole ordeal less bitter, that's for sure!
You realise that we're currently engaged in two wars, right? Maybe you hear more about what Malia Obama had for lunch at school than about these wars, but they're still being fought.
Re:Among insiders this is a well-known phenomenon.
on
The Unmanned Air Force
·
· Score: 1
Goddamnit, IT guys giving their opinions about planes...
Do you fucking realise that the UAVs have absolutely nothing in common with the rest of the military aircrafts? They're slower, lighter, not a bit stealthy, don't have great flying performances, can't carry much, and so on. That's like comparing cherries and bananas, they have nothing in common, one cannot replace the other. If you launch a bunch of UAVs against say the Iranian Air Force all you're gonna end up with is a pile of steaming crashed UAVs on the ground and the enemy in the air. They're slow glowing expendable pieces of metal in the sky that you use to take out ground targets and such. They're not made for that, period.
The only reason we're ordering more of them is because we need more of these for the ground tasks in question. Because we have no epic air battles against a powerful foreign Air Force, we just blow trucks and buildings up.
Also, you clearly overstate the importance of reflexes. It's not really that important, don't use movies as a basis, they keep showing ultra-close range dogfights for the sake of sensationalism while these days most of the stuff happens out of sight.
Secondly, you also assume that the UAV in question is at least as good a plane technically as the F-22. For obvious reasons of cost that's not gonna happen, even less with an eventual AI as a pilot (lol..).
And no, it can't be smaller, faster and cheaper. If you think about all the fuel that has to be carried, as well as the weapons and instruments, you'll end up with something as big and costly as the F-22 anyways.
Spoken like a true computer scientist. As I said in another post, 100 UAVs vs. 1 F-22 probably wouldn't go as you think. F-22s are so stealthy you wouldn't see them on radar or anything before you'd get visual contact, while they'd see your swarm for 100 nautical miles away. Surely the F-22 couldn't take a lot of UAVs down (although it could take the few it could down from a totally safe distance), but you could throw 1,000 UAVs at a F-22 and it wouldn't scrap it even remotely.
It's not Battlefield 1942, you don't dogfight until the one with the best reflexes, decisions and aim wins, in which case an eventual AI pilot would help, no, in this case it's about one machine that's easily ten times faster than your machine and that can launch a missile at you from 16 nm away while you couldn't detect it if it was 10 times closer.
If you want a better comparison, imagine a dude with a gun vs. 100 crawling babies, in an open space.
You do realise that F-22s pretty much have the radar cross-section of a seagull, that they can get out of dodge so fast it's not even funny and that even stealth aside they can still go anywhere by bypassing an eventual swarms of UAVs, right? As for actually taking the UAVs down that may actually take a while, and by a while I mean lots of missiles, but that's the only advantage UAVs would have there. A few SAM stations and such all over the place might help;).
You realise that Reapers are piloted by a full-blown pilot plus a sensor operator, right? The only difference is these guys aren't actually in the plane, but they still have to know how to pilot.. Plus UAV missions can last much much longer, but we're comparing different classes of military planes for slightly different tasks.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, air superiority has been classic doctrine because manned vehicles get massacred if the enemy fighters get to play unimpeded. But, if there are no, or few, manned bomber/recon assets, what does air superiority buy you?
Well yeah, I think that pretty much the reason why more of these UAVs are bought is that we already have the air superiority (in that no one else is up there), fighter planes or not, as we're not fighting an army, but an insurgency. It's not so much about the advent of UAVs everywhere as it is "well, that's all we need right now really".
Either that or ask people for toe prints, or nose prints or stump prints.
Or better yet, face prints, also known by insiders as "photographs". Presents the advantage of being easily identifiable by anyone.
If God was here he'd tell ya to yer face, "Man, your some kinda sinner!" Woo!
Ha! I knew God couldn't be one of those grammar nazis!
True. We still arguably need to shoot stuff from the sky though.
LOL, a UAVed F-22 is never gonna happen, it's just a wet dream, you won't make a 140 million dollars UAV, for what benefits?
Actually the Korea War had a hell of a lot of dogfights, as back then they didn't have yet missiles despite having jet engines. But why are we even talking about dogfights, who talked about dogfights, I was the one to say that these days everything happens from miles away.
Anyways, I have nothing against UAVed fighters in principle, that would be great if a fighter was designed to be a UAV, I'm just saying, these don't fucking exist, there's no fucking such thing as a UAVed F-22 and it's not gonna happen, period. Write a letter to the Pentagon if you like, the fact remains that it'll be a long time before you'll see anything but cheap machines as UAVs, so let's stick to what already exist when we're talking about UAVs vs. fighters, please.
Even if we'll assume an hypothetical UAV similar to the ones existing but with air to air missiles and guns, can we agree that these would never scratch a F-22, even a 100 of them vs 1?
My Aerospace Engineering Degree + Industry Experience
Bwahahaha I'm so gonna believe that, you didn't even know how something much smaller than a F-22 could have a much larger radar cross-section. Noob.
Yeah, a UAVed F-22, that is SO gonna happen. Just a geek wet dream, UAVs are meant to be expendable, you won't make a 137.5 million dollars UAV, for what benefit to outweight the extra costs and disadvantages? Besides, many people have mentioned superior g-load possibility if you don't have a human in, but the F-22 is only rated to sustain +9 G anyways.
I totally agree. Being just a geek with good ideas and the skills to implement them, I thought to myself, why not just use them to make a commercial product that I would sell. The whole "making it" part was easy, that was my thing, algorithms and all that. Time consuming, but easy. Then came the "selling it" part.
All I can say is this, you have no idea how hard it is to market and sell something until you try it yourself. That's the hardest part, for someone like me, hands down. You need to know your market, how to market to them, know how to do, all of that stuff...
This is the commercial project I'm talking about. People were excited about the original idea, people are excited about the implementation, but the people who've even heard of it are scarce. Right now I'm just like an hypothetical Steve Wozniak without a Steve Jobs to whom people would ask "hey nice, this Apple I thing, but what am I gonna do with it?". The Apple I was the next big thing, but if it wasn't for Steve Jobs to explain to the world why it was the next big thing, there wouldn't have been an Apple II.
Utter balls, you only reinforce the impression that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
First of all, 5 years in the Air Force is a blink of an eye, and then, no, you have strong misconceptions about what a pilot does, these days their task is more a matter of decision making than anything else. The "human skills" are not the bottleneck, aircraft capabilities are. You just can't defeat a stealth fighter, mainly when all you have is some shitty slow non-stealth UAV.
Well, you're right, in that it's different tasks, a new class of task airplane if you will, that is, expendable light-weight planes meant to stay in the air for a long time, do reconnaissance and attack precise targets.
I disagree that fighter pilots will be obsolete any time in the foreseeable, which at the rate at which things evolve in the air is in the order of several decades. Fighters = air superiority, only them can assure that, and their UAVification isn't yet even planned, which means that as long as something like a F-22 isn't UAVified, and I don't see why it should be anytime soon, fighter pilots will be absolutely essential and necessary. Besides, even then, you'd still need the very same fighter pilots to do the very exact same things as they did in the air, except remotely. You'll always need a man at the wheel for such tasks.
Oh, isn't there even a precise IR wavelength that allows us to go through those clouds, you know, in the same way as with a precise IR filter you can see through the haze of Titan?
Also, yeah, you don't need a laser for that. The reason for suggesting it in the first place is that people tend to think that lasers are inherently very focused (which they're not by definition), and that radio waves are diffuse, whereas you can have a radio signal just as focused as needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_cross_section
You could make a foot-wide reflector that could be detected for tens of miles away, while such a plane as a F-22 might be as detectable as a bird. It's not about physical size at all, it's about how much of the radar signal it sends back to the sender.
And you missed the point. Depending on its payload, the F-22 can take a few UAVs down, surely half a dozen without firing a single bullet, I'm not so aware of how much a F-22 can carry. The UAVs we're talking about (the ones that really exist, not Sladotters' wet dreams) have NOT FUCKING CHANCE IN HELL of taking down a single F-22, ever.
Moron, RTFA, it states that Harriot "beat Galileo to become the first man to view the Moon through a telescope".
Hmmm.. Obviously Galileo > Harriot. Therefore, let's continue to completely ignore that Harriot guy and his groundbreaking work.
Hmmm, let's see, is it ethical for someone to kill someone without taking any personal risks? I know I'd like a lot better to be killed by someone who could have bothered to take the risk of being killed by an engine failure when I catch a missile in the face than by someone who didn't even have the decency to be on the same continent as me. That would make my death a whole ordeal less bitter, that's for sure!
You realise that we're currently engaged in two wars, right? Maybe you hear more about what Malia Obama had for lunch at school than about these wars, but they're still being fought.
Goddamnit, IT guys giving their opinions about planes...
Do you fucking realise that the UAVs have absolutely nothing in common with the rest of the military aircrafts? They're slower, lighter, not a bit stealthy, don't have great flying performances, can't carry much, and so on. That's like comparing cherries and bananas, they have nothing in common, one cannot replace the other. If you launch a bunch of UAVs against say the Iranian Air Force all you're gonna end up with is a pile of steaming crashed UAVs on the ground and the enemy in the air. They're slow glowing expendable pieces of metal in the sky that you use to take out ground targets and such. They're not made for that, period.
The only reason we're ordering more of them is because we need more of these for the ground tasks in question. Because we have no epic air battles against a powerful foreign Air Force, we just blow trucks and buildings up.
...
For the last time, they're crashed by human pilots.
Also, you clearly overstate the importance of reflexes. It's not really that important, don't use movies as a basis, they keep showing ultra-close range dogfights for the sake of sensationalism while these days most of the stuff happens out of sight.
Secondly, you also assume that the UAV in question is at least as good a plane technically as the F-22. For obvious reasons of cost that's not gonna happen, even less with an eventual AI as a pilot (lol..).
And no, it can't be smaller, faster and cheaper. If you think about all the fuel that has to be carried, as well as the weapons and instruments, you'll end up with something as big and costly as the F-22 anyways.
Spoken like a true computer scientist. As I said in another post, 100 UAVs vs. 1 F-22 probably wouldn't go as you think. F-22s are so stealthy you wouldn't see them on radar or anything before you'd get visual contact, while they'd see your swarm for 100 nautical miles away. Surely the F-22 couldn't take a lot of UAVs down (although it could take the few it could down from a totally safe distance), but you could throw 1,000 UAVs at a F-22 and it wouldn't scrap it even remotely.
It's not Battlefield 1942, you don't dogfight until the one with the best reflexes, decisions and aim wins, in which case an eventual AI pilot would help, no, in this case it's about one machine that's easily ten times faster than your machine and that can launch a missile at you from 16 nm away while you couldn't detect it if it was 10 times closer.
If you want a better comparison, imagine a dude with a gun vs. 100 crawling babies, in an open space.
Unless you put smaller missiles on the missiles!
You do realise that F-22s pretty much have the radar cross-section of a seagull, that they can get out of dodge so fast it's not even funny and that even stealth aside they can still go anywhere by bypassing an eventual swarms of UAVs, right? As for actually taking the UAVs down that may actually take a while, and by a while I mean lots of missiles, but that's the only advantage UAVs would have there. A few SAM stations and such all over the place might help ;).
You realise that Reapers are piloted by a full-blown pilot plus a sensor operator, right? The only difference is these guys aren't actually in the plane, but they still have to know how to pilot.. Plus UAV missions can last much much longer, but we're comparing different classes of military planes for slightly different tasks.
Crap, I meant Predator/Reaper.
Huh? Which UAVs are piloted by AIs? None that I know of, but on the other hand I've only heard of Raptors.
I know you're joking but a range in the infrareds goes through clouds like they're not there.