• 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

Dayton3 said:
No evidence whatsoever of that.
Click to expand...

Here is Boeings prototype...
Boeing-loyal-wingman.png

Navy Secretary Says Future Navy Fighter Planes Will Be Unmanned
"Unmanned systems, particularly autonomous ones, have to be the new normal in ever-increasing areas. For example, as good as it is, and as much as we need it and look forward to having it in the fleet for many years, the F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly," said Mabus, speaking to the Navy League's 2015 Sea Air Space symposium at National Harbor, Md.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...ure-navy-fighter-planes-will-be-unmanned.html
 
iguanaman said:
Here is Boeings prototype...
Boeing-loyal-wingman.png


Nothing in that supports your claim.
Navy Secretary Says Future Navy Fighter Planes Will Be Unmanned
"Unmanned systems, particularly autonomous ones, have to be the new normal in ever-increasing areas. For example, as good as it is, and as much as we need it and look forward to having it in the fleet for many years, the F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly," said Mabus, speaking to the Navy League's 2015 Sea Air Space symposium at National Harbor, Md.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...ure-navy-fighter-planes-will-be-unmanned.html
Click to expand...
 
grip said:
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.
Click to expand...

ICBM’s most definitely do not have a “kill switch”. Once launched, they are launched. There’s no calling them back and no aborting them.
 
Questerr said:
ICBM’s most definitely do not have a “kill switch”. Once launched, they are launched. There’s no calling them back and no aborting them.
Click to expand...
I understand why we would want our adversaries to believe that. But if it is true that is absolut cold war insanity.
 
craig said:
I understand why we would want our adversaries to believe that. But if it is true that is absolut cold war insanity.
Click to expand...

Why is it insanity? It’s nearly impossible for an ICBM to be launched on accident or by a rogue operator. If one of these missiles is going to be launched, its going to be very much on purpose and you wouldn’t want to call it back.
 
Questerr said:
Why is it insanity? It’s nearly impossible for an ICBM to be launched on accident or by a rogue operator. If one of these missiles is going to be launched, its going to be very much on purpose and you wouldn’t want to call it back.
Click to expand...
I have never known anything dealing with technology or people to be nearly impossible.
What about the case where information used to decide to launch is discovered to be wrong? Or the decision is reconsidered.
 
Last edited:
craig said:
I have never known anything dealing with technology or people to be nearly impossible.
What about the case where information used to decide to launch is discovered to be wrong? Or the decision is reconsidered.
Click to expand...

The hang time from launch to detonation is about 20-30 minutes. There is no realistic scenario in which a decision is made to launch and then within 20 minutes they find out that’s wrong.
 
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...
While that pilot would black out under high G loads, wouldn't he survive and regain consciousness after the high G loads eased?
This would lead to a conclusion of a higher performing autonomous fighter, under autonomous control while in those high Gs, and autonomous / manual control once the pilot regained consciousness?
 
Dayton3 said:
The amount of G's an aircraft can pull in combat is arguably the most overrated statistic people carp about.
Click to expand...
From what I recall the Blue Angles regularly pull moments of 9Gs in their air shows.
 
eohrnberger said:
Post launch abort detonation / destruction?
Click to expand...

This is (was) a PROPOSED nuclear weapons safety measures to guard against an accidental/unintentional launch of a nuclear missile. There is no evidence that any nation has actually installed such a system.

From your linked in article

What makes this second sentence so remarkable is that, in the ensuing decades, no capability to remotely divert or destroy a nuclear-armed missile resulting &om an unauthorized launch has been deployed by the US govem- --~ __E:1: --- Aborting Unauthorized Launches of Nuclear-armed Ballistic Missiles 3 ment.
 
Dayton3 said:
This is (was) a PROPOSED nuclear weapons safety measures to guard against an accidental/unintentional launch of a nuclear missile. There is no evidence that any nation has actually installed such a system.

From your linked in article

What makes this second sentence so remarkable is that, in the ensuing decades, no capability to remotely divert or destroy a nuclear-armed missile resulting &om an unauthorized launch has been deployed by the US govem- --~ __E:1: --- Aborting Unauthorized Launches of Nuclear-armed Ballistic Missiles 3 ment.
Click to expand...
As observed by another poster in this thread, the confirmation of such a self destruct system is highly likely to be classified as top secret.

What we do know, as it was made public, was that when the shuttle Challenger exploded, the range officer did transmit self destruct to the SRBs. Taking those things together, it would seem to be a reasonable assumption that such self destruct system has also been incorporated into the ICBM fleet for many of the same reasons.

Yes, conjecture, however one which would appear to be completely reasonable, given the information we have available at present. Your mileage may vary.
 
eohrnberger said:
From what I recall the Blue Angles regularly pull moments of 9Gs in their air shows.
Click to expand...

The Red Bull Air Racer aircraft and pilots can do maneuvers up to 12G+ but only for very short periods and at relatively low speeds compared to combat jets.
It's pretty amazing to watch. During the race, they have camera's in the cockpit showing the pilot and the current G's.
 
eohrnberger said:
As observed by another poster in this thread, the confirmation of such a self destruct system is highly likely to be classified as top secret.

What we do know, as it was made public, was that when the shuttle Challenger exploded, the range officer did transmit self destruct to the SRBs. Taking those things together, it would seem to be a reasonable assumption that such self destruct system has also been incorporated into the ICBM fleet for many of the same reasons.

Yes, conjecture, however one which would appear to be completely reasonable, given the information we have available at present. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

"conjecture" is NOT EVIDENCE. And the self destructs on the shuttle SRBs is not remotely a plausible reason you would have them on ICBMs. The shuttle system as designed was supposed to be launched twice a week. 100 times per year. And their post launch trajectory if deviated from significantly could take them over one of the largest cities in the U.S. (Miami).

Needless to say neither of those things is true for ICBMs.
 
Peter said:
The Red Bull Air Racer aircraft and pilots can do maneuvers up to 12G+ but only for very short periods and at relatively low speeds compared to combat jets.
It's pretty amazing to watch. During the race, they have camera's in the cockpit showing the pilot and the current G's.
Click to expand...

Which is still not enough to evade a 15 to 20 g maneuvering missile.
 
Questerr said:
Which is still not enough to evade a 15 to 20 g maneuvering missile.
Click to expand...

Which is why all nations have developed aircraft protection systems from missiles.
A new system for the RAF is called Britecloud for example.
en.wikipedia.org

BriteCloud - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Peter said:
The Red Bull Air Racer aircraft and pilots can do maneuvers up to 12G+ but only for very short periods and at relatively low speeds compared to combat jets.
It's pretty amazing to watch. During the race, they have camera's in the cockpit showing the pilot and the current G's.
Click to expand...
I know. I've watched them before, amazing isn't even the start of it!
 
craig said:
So you slow down to turn. Doesn't that make you more vulnerable to other threats?
Click to expand...
It could but a missile would still have the same turn radius throughout its flight unless theres some new tech im not aware of. (Im just a gamer so grain of salt here :p)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom