It all depends upon what you have to do. Fighting airplane-on-airplane, any modern fighter will do. The F-22 is a really good one for that role. The F-35 is more compromised in order to have VtOL capability. But F-15's and F-16's are still quite good. You need Mach 1, missiles, guns, and a radar warning receiver. Stall nearer 170 KIAS than 200 KIAS helps in some low-altitude dogfight scenarios.
For zapping bad guys on the ground, helos and drones seem to be a better deal. That's a different mission entirely.
If the bad guys are driving tanks instead of walking around in turbans, then you might be just as well off using A-10's or other attack aircraft designed for such a role. Even an A-7 would work fine. They carry bigger weapons. So far.
And as I said before, the aircraft does not have to be the latest and greatest, as long as it is in good repair and suitably equipped. Pilot training and experience are way more important.
If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...
-
GW Johnson
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:14 pm
- Location: McGregor, TX USA
- Contact:
The AI is not as far off as you may think. There have been big presses lately in this area. As far as mixing in Directed Energy, the same issue applies to manned aircraft.DeltaV wrote:Until compact, solid-state DEWs become standard armament. UCAVs will never outfly automated speed-of-light weapons. The unavoidable remote control loop time lag means that non-autonomous UCAVs won't have a chance against DEWs. Bigger vehicles allow more DEW power and better, longer range sensors. If Mach Effect or something similar works out, "inertial dampeners" (sci-fi term) for manned vehicles may also be a possibility, which would nullify the UCAV g advantage. I'm guessing that compact DEWs will be fielded long before any inertial toys, however, as they are making great progress. Much more progress than the AI needed for an autonomous UCAV.ladajo wrote:The most important point point for UCAV is as you said, no pilot in the vehicle, but the real advantage of this you did not mention, which is that the limit in modern combat aircraft is not the machine, it is the man. The machine can do way more aerobatically without the man.
In a UCAV vs Manned Aircraft dogfight, I would put my money on the UCAV. It would literally drive circles inside the manned aircraft. In a standoff fight, having a pilot in the aircraft or not doesn't really matter until the evade phase, and again, the manned one is at a distinct disadvantage for defensive G's vice an unmanned.
viewtopic.php?t=1643&start=0
And UAVs could not have that?You need Mach 1, missiles, guns, and a radar warning receiver.
Ah really? For a DEW to hit a UAV, the launcher (be it a plane, SAM, etc) would have to see the UAV before it sees the launcher.The unavoidable remote control loop time lag means that non-autonomous UCAVs won't have a chance against DEWs. Bigger vehicles allow more DEW power and better, longer range sensors.
UAVs will always be smaller than a piloted plane of the same sensor capabilities, because you do not need a cockpit, controls, ejection seats, etc. These things are heavy and they do also have a very strong radar echo, reducing the stealthiness (correct english word?) of a manned plane versus a UAV.
Also, again I see this as a mass versus class battle. If you outmatch your opponent 1 to 10, maybe even 1 to 5, he can have the best jet fighter ever, he wont have a chance, because the missiles launched by the UAVs will be just as effective as the missiles launched by the fighter plane.
How many air to air missiles do fighter planes carry anyway?
You are twisting my words in a very unfair fashion. Them having a democracy does not make a war any more or any less likely than them not having a democracy. The US just insist on everybody having a democracy even if it is clear that some countries and some people just are not ripe enough for one yet. A democratic country full of people with no understanding of democracy or the value of such a thing can be quite dangerous too. Heck sometimes I am wondering whether the citizens of the US even have sufficient understanding of democracy. Recent elections and the lack of a strong 3rd opposition party in that country make me think otherwise. The severe reduction of personal rights after 9/11 in the US (and forcably in other countries too) also contributes its share to giving me that oppinion.Democracy in China and Russia, a done deal, yes? Let's disarm ourselves then, and save lots of money.
-
GW Johnson
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:14 pm
- Location: McGregor, TX USA
- Contact:
For air combat, maneuver gees is very important. Few manned aircraft can pull 9 gees sustained. The F-16 can/could.
Unmanned vehicles, primarily missiles up to now, need an "edge" to hit a maneuvering target. The old rule of thumb was 3n+6 where n is the target gee capability. To ensure a hit on something as maneuverable as an F-16, the missile (or UAV) needs a maneuver capability pretty close to 33 gees.
The ancient SA-6 "Gainful" had 44 gee maneuver capability, powered to intercept at about Mach 2.8. Unless you could defeat the man in the radar van on the ground before about the last 2 seconds, it would hit you. This great big "flying telephone pole" didn't even need to explode to take you out, but it had a big blast-frag warhead: something like a 6 m kill radius. This thing first appeared in the Red Square May Day parade in 1967. It's still out there, and still dangerous as all get-out.
Because there's no pilots, missiles and UAV's can be designed for 35+ gees pretty easily. One-on-one in a dogfight, all other things being equal, that would seem to give the advantage to a missile-equipped UAV in any sort of dogfight.
Except, the things leading up to the dogfight, and a whole host of other factors, are most definitely not equal! There is no robot now, or for some time to come yet, that has the judgement and adaptability of an experienced human pilot. That puts manned aircraft vs UAV into the realm of remotely-piloted vehicles, not autonomous vehicles. In that event, it's now man-against-man, with a big maneuver advantage to the UAV.
Problem is, no sensors yet available are quite as "good" for a human operator as his own. The problem is not sensor characteristics (many are better than human senses), but the interface. The UAV remote pilot cannot "see" the whole picture as easily and naturally as the guy in the cockpit looking out the canopy. That will be true for some time to come, advances in "virtual reality" notwithstanding.
The ability to visualize and understand the situation quickly and intuitively is quite an advantage for the otherwise-maneuver-poor man in the cockpit. He has a tremendous advantage sneaking up on the adversary before the actual combat even begins (colloquially but accurately: "getting the drop on the adversary"). Little or no maneuver is required to do this.
How that actually plays out in real combat has yet to be seen, but the battle is a whole lot more "even-Stephen" than the technology guys would have you believe. A lot of these factors cannot yet even be reliably quantified yet.
As for directed energy weapons, we had destructive-level lasers long ago. What was lacking was the guidance, the pointing system. That technology is just about here: first generation ground and airborne laser cannon systems are just about ready to be fielded. Finally. Pointing was a whole lot harder to accomplish than anybody believed at the outset.
Given a weapon like that makes hitting a target easier in one way (less lead required), but harder in another (you have to "see" the situation very quickly and intuitively). Less lead is an advantage to the remotely-piloted UAV, but the situational awareness is still an advantage to the human pilot, for reasons of sensor interface again.
Maybe this will not always be so, but I don't forsee it changing anytime soon.
Unmanned vehicles, primarily missiles up to now, need an "edge" to hit a maneuvering target. The old rule of thumb was 3n+6 where n is the target gee capability. To ensure a hit on something as maneuverable as an F-16, the missile (or UAV) needs a maneuver capability pretty close to 33 gees.
The ancient SA-6 "Gainful" had 44 gee maneuver capability, powered to intercept at about Mach 2.8. Unless you could defeat the man in the radar van on the ground before about the last 2 seconds, it would hit you. This great big "flying telephone pole" didn't even need to explode to take you out, but it had a big blast-frag warhead: something like a 6 m kill radius. This thing first appeared in the Red Square May Day parade in 1967. It's still out there, and still dangerous as all get-out.
Because there's no pilots, missiles and UAV's can be designed for 35+ gees pretty easily. One-on-one in a dogfight, all other things being equal, that would seem to give the advantage to a missile-equipped UAV in any sort of dogfight.
Except, the things leading up to the dogfight, and a whole host of other factors, are most definitely not equal! There is no robot now, or for some time to come yet, that has the judgement and adaptability of an experienced human pilot. That puts manned aircraft vs UAV into the realm of remotely-piloted vehicles, not autonomous vehicles. In that event, it's now man-against-man, with a big maneuver advantage to the UAV.
Problem is, no sensors yet available are quite as "good" for a human operator as his own. The problem is not sensor characteristics (many are better than human senses), but the interface. The UAV remote pilot cannot "see" the whole picture as easily and naturally as the guy in the cockpit looking out the canopy. That will be true for some time to come, advances in "virtual reality" notwithstanding.
The ability to visualize and understand the situation quickly and intuitively is quite an advantage for the otherwise-maneuver-poor man in the cockpit. He has a tremendous advantage sneaking up on the adversary before the actual combat even begins (colloquially but accurately: "getting the drop on the adversary"). Little or no maneuver is required to do this.
How that actually plays out in real combat has yet to be seen, but the battle is a whole lot more "even-Stephen" than the technology guys would have you believe. A lot of these factors cannot yet even be reliably quantified yet.
As for directed energy weapons, we had destructive-level lasers long ago. What was lacking was the guidance, the pointing system. That technology is just about here: first generation ground and airborne laser cannon systems are just about ready to be fielded. Finally. Pointing was a whole lot harder to accomplish than anybody believed at the outset.
Given a weapon like that makes hitting a target easier in one way (less lead required), but harder in another (you have to "see" the situation very quickly and intuitively). Less lead is an advantage to the remotely-piloted UAV, but the situational awareness is still an advantage to the human pilot, for reasons of sensor interface again.
Maybe this will not always be so, but I don't forsee it changing anytime soon.
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
McGregor, Texas
I dont quite understand why the UAV would need to be this maneuverable. It would just be a platform to launch a very maneuverable missile from (that missile then does the 33 Gs).To ensure a hit on something as maneuverable as an F-16, the missile (or UAV) needs a maneuver capability pretty close to 33 gees.
The thing is, with UAVs, you can deliberately put a UAV out there into the front line as bait. See from where it gets hit with radar and said SAMs. It is only a UAV that is lost if it can not outmanouver the SAMs. No loss in life. A pawn sacrifice so to speak. A couple of seconds of survival would be enough for the UAV to relay the information to other UAVs that will then happily take out the SAMs (and nearby enemy units) in the second wave of attack. You can not employ tactics like that with manned units (well you could, but it would probably be ill received and costly).
Since it kinda fits the topic:
http://www.gizmag.com/phantom-ray-compl ... sts/17034/
http://www.gizmag.com/phantom-ray-compl ... sts/17034/
Until the jamming kicks in. Then it's either AI or nothing.GW Johnson wrote:That puts manned aircraft vs UAV into the realm of remotely-piloted vehicles, not autonomous vehicles. In that event, it's now man-against-man, with a big maneuver advantage to the UAV.
Is there a way to remotely control a flying machine that isn't vulnerable to radio jamming, but still works in all conditions and can't be optically obstructed?
Spread spectrum radio is pretty resistant to jamming. But if the jammer has enough power and gets close enough to the UAV it can still over power the radio signal from the remote pilot, at which point the pilot may be able to make out the telemetry feed from the UAV but be helpless to give it directions. The twist is that such a jammer becomes an easy target to shoot at for an automated system. And so the arms race goes round and round.
ladajo wrote:As far as mixing in Directed Energy, the same issue applies to manned aircraft.
viewtopic.php?p=34763&highlight=#34763DeltaV wrote:Bigger vehicles allow more DEW power and better, longer range sensors.
viewtopic.php?p=30366&highlight=#3036693143 wrote:Until the jamming kicks in. Then it's either AI or nothing.GW Johnson wrote:That puts manned aircraft vs UAV into the realm of remotely-piloted vehicles, not autonomous vehicles. In that event, it's now man-against-man, with a big maneuver advantage to the UAV.
Is there a way to remotely control a flying machine that isn't vulnerable to radio jamming, but still works in all conditions and can't be optically obstructed?
By "launcher", I assume you mean directed energy emitter platform.Skipjack wrote:Ah really? For a DEW to hit a UAV, the launcher (be it a plane, SAM, etc) would have to see the UAV before it sees the launcher.
A bigger (manned) vehicle will always have the capability for better sensors, simply due to more surface area and greater interferometric baselines (e.g., wingtip to wingtip). A UAV has a smaller signature due to its size, yes, but it's by no means clear which will detect which first. The larger vehicle can combine better sensing with greater DEW power to kill the UAV before it knows what hit it (if it knows anything, that is).
Maneuver g capability is not a factor against speed-of-light weapon lethality, until the maneuver speeds approach the speed of light. Even if the UAV could detect the larger platform first, its DEWs will have much less range because less power can be produced in a smaller volume.
I disagree for the reasons above.Skipjack wrote:UAVs will always be smaller than a piloted plane of the same sensor capabilities
Are you saying, then, that a majority of Chinese citizens in a hypothetical democratic China would approve of China using its vassal-state puppet, North Korea, to foment World War 3?Skipjack wrote:You are twisting my words in a very unfair fashion. Them having a democracy does not make a war any more or any less likely than them not having a democracy.
North Korea shells South in fiercest attack in decades
North Korea attack 'unforgiveable'
North Korean torpedo sank Cheonan
South Korea to Russia: The Cheonan was sunk by a torpedo, end of story
Russian Probe Sees No N Korea Hand In Cheonan Sinking
Report: China, Iran, North Korea have formed strategic alliance
(Edit - fixed dead link)
Last edited by DeltaV on Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Exactly. Also, manned planes are almost equally susceptible to jamming and other things nowadays, given how important flying by instrument has become.The twist is that such a jammer becomes an easy target to shoot at for an automated system.
Also even current systems allow the UAV to turn arround and fly home in case of jamming happening. You can still send in the manned backup to take out the jammer in case the UAV is unable to do that all by itself.
I also think that if you are using a targeted communication from a satellite, jamming would get a whole lot more difficult.
Please read my previous posts again and maybe you will understand what I was trying to say, when I said "same sensor capabilities". Why should it be impossible for UAV to have the same sensor capabilities as a manned plane? Why? If size really is an issue for sensor capabilities, then you can still build a UAV any size you want. There sure is no technical limitation that REQUIRES it to be small.A bigger (manned) vehicle will always have the capability for better sensors, simply due to more surface area and greater interferometric baselines (e.g., wingtip to wingtip). A UAV has a smaller signature due to its size, yes, but it's by no means clear which will detect which first. The larger vehicle can combine better sensing with greater DEW power to kill the UAV before it knows what hit it (if it knows anything, that is).
Radar echo is not just defined by wingspan. In fact one of the biggest issues for reducing the radar echo is the cockpit There are lots of sharp edges and stuff which has to be behind a transparent wind shield that lets radar through. So that increases the radar signature A LOT.
Of course there are techniques to mitigate that. E.g. by using a gold film over the glass, but that only does so much (and costs a lot of money).
A UAV does not need a cockpit and therefore has a lower radar echo already. You are also saving A LOT of weight on the cockpit, the instruments, the life support, ejection seats, etc, etc. On a UAV you can replace that weight with bombs, missiles, additional sensors, etc and STILL have a smaller radar signature because of the lack of a cockpit.
Or you can save the weight and use a smaller engine that produces a smaller heat signature. Tons of options there and all mean that you will have a vehicle that is just or almost as capable as a manned vehicle with a smaller radar echo that is most likely also cheaper to produce.
First of all, North Korea is a rogue state that not even China likes.Are you saying, then, that a majority of Chinese citizens in a hypothetical democratic China would approve of China using its vassal-state puppet, North Korea, to foment World War 3?
China is the last country to want a war on the peninsula. It would only hurt China and the Chinese economy. China does not want that. They are to busy reaching world dominance by taking over the worlds fabrication and selling the US their own cars, e.g. Chevies and last I heard even your Hummers were produced in China. Welcome to the new world order.
WW3? Ridiculous, sorry.
DeltaV wrote:Are you saying, then, that a majority of Chinese citizens in a hypothetical democratic China would approve of China using its vassal-state puppet, North Korea, to foment World War 3?Skipjack wrote:You are twisting my words in a very unfair fashion. Them having a democracy does not make a war any more or any less likely than them not having a democracy.
North Korea shells South in fiercest attack in decades
North Korea attack 'unforgiveable'
North Korean torpedo sank Cheonan
South Korea to Russia: The Cheonan was sunk by a torpedo, end of story
Russian Probe Sees No N Korea Hand In Cheonan Sinking
Report: China, Iran, North Korea have formed strategic alliance
China has long been North korea's ally, but it has also been the diplomatic force and go-between also with the West. Its brokered trade agreements and food supplies, aswell as blockaded them when NK steps out of line. When NK tested its nuclear weapons, China notably condemned it outright, threatening sanctions and went far in defusing the situation with South Korea.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 580513.htm:
""The Chinese Government expresses its resolute opposition," the foreign ministry said in a statement on its website.
"The Chinese side vehemently demands North Korea abides by its denuclearisation promises, stop any actions which may worsen the situation and return to the six-party talks process.
"The Chinese Government calls on all sides to calmly and appropriately deal [with the situation]."
It is also through China that trade and capitalism is now tentatively opening up in NK, with the markets reinstated and flushed with Chinese goods and produce.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/10960 ... ation.html
China Condemns N Korea’s Attack on S Korea, Calls for Denuclearization
China has condemned the attack of North Korea on South Korea earlier Tuesday and has called for parties involved to work harder on promoting peace and to restart multinational talks, Bloomberg reports.
“We have taken note of the relevant report and we express concern over the situation. We hope the relevant parties do more to contribute to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula,” China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hong Lei, has announced.
He has stated that officials were aware of the reports by a US scientist, who claimed that North Korea had revealed its new uranium enrichment plant to him.
“China unswervingly promotes denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. It is China’s consistent and firm position to realize denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and consultation. What is imperative now is to restart six-party talks,” Hong said.
At 5:34 am GMT (2:34 pm local time) on Tuesday, North Korea fired artillery shells across its western maritime border, prompting return fire from South Korea.
The BBC reported that dozens of houses on the Yeonpyeong Island were set on fire and two South Korean marines were killed.
The Defense Ministry has announced that 15 other soldiers were wounded, five of them seriously, and three civilians were injured in the attack.
The South Korean government immediately called an emergency meeting of its security ministers, meeting in a bunker under the presidential residence in Seoul, CNN reported.