• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I read that the Air Force has already built a six generation fighter

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
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?
 
independentusa said:
Has anyone heard the same or know anything about this air craft?
Click to expand...
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.
 
craig said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dayton3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
craig said:
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.
Click to expand...

The amount of G's an aircraft can pull in combat is arguably the most overrated statistic people carp about.
 
craig said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Optionally manned"
 
Dayton3 said:
Even then. Turn radius is not that dependent on Gs.
Click to expand...

No, but a sudden change in vector is. Which is what you need to dodge an incoming SAM.

Modern SAM’s like those found on the Tor-M1 and the Tunguska have G-ratings somewhere between 15 and 20. Some sources say the Tor can go as high as 30g’s.
 
Dayton3 said:
Even then. Turn radius is not that dependent on Gs.
Click to expand...
How so, do we have new technology that changes Newton's third law of motion?
 
craig said:
How so, do we have new technology that changes Newton's third law of motion?
Click to expand...

No. But turn radius can be massively influenced by how fast an aircraft is traveling.
 
Questerr said:
"Optionally manned"
Click to expand...
That would probably be a very expensive additional requirement. Is this for missions where remote piloting is interfered with or not possible?
 
Dayton3 said:
No. But turn radius can be massively influenced by how fast an aircraft is traveling.
Click to expand...
So you slow down to turn. Doesn't that make you more vulnerable to other threats?
 
craig said:
That would probably be a very expensive additional requirement. Is this for missions where remote piloting is interfered with or not possible?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Questerr said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I am not really expert in the new technologies. However, it seems to me that communications can be blocked or altered making a remotely operated aircraft vulnerable. A pilot can also see and perceive threats and other stimulus that can not be detected with sensors. In addition, any remote operation is reliant on two way transmission, the operator gets a signal, reacts to it, sends a signal back to the craft and the craft complies with that instruction. Depending on the distance involved and if it is a satellite transmission or not, the signal delay can be several seconds. In some cases that delay could spell disaster. I can not believe the brass would allow nukes in a drone.
 
Aren't ICBM's manned remotely? So why are drones not for nukes?
 
grip said:
Aren't ICBM's manned remotely? So why are drones not for nukes?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dayton3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

ICBM's have a kill switch. B-52's carry a huge compliment of nukes as do submarines. Drones will eventually and definitely carry WMD's. Manned fighters will be phased down over time.
 
craig said:
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.
Click to expand...
From what I read it could do both.
 
No big deal. A couple of weeks ago the 1 ton Dodge traveled without a human pilot, and parked completely unscathed right next to the stable. And yes, I was an interested observer concerned that it not miscalculate and attempt to park IN the stable. We're not quite that advanced yet.

Next time, I'll remember to put it in reverse. The parking brake ain't much.
 
Dayton3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Boeing-loyal-wingman.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom