- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Has anyone heard the same or know anything about this air craft?
Will this be a semi-autonomous remotely piloted fighter? I have read the F-35 will be the last generation of fighters with on board pilots.Has anyone heard the same or know anything about this air craft?
Will this be a semi-autonomous remotely piloted fighter? I have read the F-35 will be the last generation of fighters with on board pilots.
They would still be remotely piloted by a human that would push the button. The problem is the performance of a fighter plane is limited by having to keep an onboard pilot conscious and even alive. A remote pilot would not be stressed by the g-forces of a fighter under combat conditions.Not likely. As the USAF would want any future combat aircraft to be nuclear weapons capable (just in case) and regulations (and common sense) prohibit any nuclear armed aircraft from being unmanned.
They would still be remotely piloted by a human that would push the button. The problem is the performance of a fighter plane is limited by having to keep an onboard pilot conscious and even alive. A remote pilot would not be stressed by the g-forces of a fighter under combat conditions.
Will this be a semi-autonomous remotely piloted fighter? I have read the F-35 will be the last generation of fighters with on board pilots.
The amount of G's an aircraft can pull in combat is arguably the most overrated statistic people carp about.
The amount of G's an aircraft can pull in combat is arguably the most overrated statistic people carp about.
Until you're trying to dodge a SAM.
Even then. Turn radius is not that dependent on Gs.
How so, do we have new technology that changes Newton's third law of motion?Even then. Turn radius is not that dependent on Gs.
How so, do we have new technology that changes Newton's third law of motion?
That would probably be a very expensive additional requirement. Is this for missions where remote piloting is interfered with or not possible?"Optionally manned"
So you slow down to turn. Doesn't that make you more vulnerable to other threats?No. But turn radius can be massively influenced by how fast an aircraft is traveling.
That would probably be a very expensive additional requirement. Is this for missions where remote piloting is interfered with or not possible?
That is a very interesting idea. I'll search for that. The "wing men" could be controlled with line of sight communications, perhaps a laser.Yes, plus one of the ideas is to have a manned fighter followed by a flight of unmanned fighters that follow the manned fighter’s lead.
Aren't ICBM's manned remotely? So why are drones not for nukes?
It is assumed that once an ICBM leaves the silo that it is completely committed to putting its nuclear weapon on target.
Aircraft thought for the most part carry conventional weapons. Thus their POSSIBLE deployment of a nuclear device means such a deployment is completely optional. This means the line between a nuclear and a nonnuclear weapons delivery system is blurred. That "blurring" necessitates more "positive control" throughout the aircrafts flight.
From what I read it could do both.They would still be remotely piloted by a human that would push the button. The problem is the performance of a fighter plane is limited by having to keep an onboard pilot conscious and even alive. A remote pilot would not be stressed by the g-forces of a fighter under combat conditions.
ICBM's have a kill switch.
There is no need for a new fighter that just will be outclassed and outmanned by autonomous enemy fighters. They are the future and the AF knows it. Here is Boeings prototype.Not likely. As the USAF would want any future combat aircraft to be nuclear weapons capable (just in case) and regulations (and common sense) prohibit any nuclear armed aircraft from being unmanned.
There is no need for a new fighter that just will be outclassed and outmanned by autonomous enemy fighters.