Future of Aerial Warfare
#1
Posted 13 August 2008 - 16:55
#2
Posted 13 August 2008 - 18:39
I don't see any UCAVs being piloted by AI for a LONG time.
#3
Posted 13 August 2008 - 22:00
Eddy01741, on 13 Aug 2008, 12:39, said:
I don't see any UCAVs being piloted by AI for a LONG time.
Don't forget how UCAVs have a longer life span and cost much less the maintain. I also think we'll see the implementation of microwave and laser weapons soon enough, those will definitely change dogfighting.
#4
Posted 13 August 2008 - 23:16
Once concept that I've always wondered about is the 'missile truck' idea. Why not just take an AWACS aircraft and/or an ECM aircraft and give it the longest-ranged guided missiles and best point-defence missiles you can design? If you actually build the plane and the missiles from scratch it's hard to see what could touch it from my point of view.
Quote
#5
Posted 14 August 2008 - 01:22
tank50us, on 13 Aug 2008, 18:55, said:
Which would mean..... that they would cost as much as current fighters.
Training a fighter pilot costs millions of dollars. Training a UCAV pilot - ok, it may be more difficult than completing the tutorial mission of the latest Ace Combat title, but it's certainly a lot cheaper than a full-blown fighter training. And, as has been said, safer; if a fighter goes down, you lose a fighter and likely also a pilot, if a UCAV goes down the pilot can fly another UCAV launched minutes later. Nothing short of a strike at the control centre would endanger the pilots.
Plus, UCAVs take up a lot less space - even if they're as big as current fighter planes, or maybe even bigger, you still save space on crew. You don't need one or two people to fly every UCAV, unless you want to be able to have them all in the air at once, which is unlikely and unreasonable. And since you can save so much space, future UCAV aircraft carriers, for instance, could be a fair bit smaller than the current Nimitz-esque monstrosities while retaining the same undiminished strike abilities. Or they could be built to the same size, and would be able to house even more aircraft and hence be even more powerful.
I for one accept the dominion of our remote-controlled robotic overlords
#6
Posted 14 August 2008 - 09:03
Cuppa, on 13 Aug 2008, 23:00, said:
Top Gun killed that method of combat. It won't happen again. Modern warfare just isn't what everyone has planned for.
I can UCAVs as being the way forward. Why put a pilot in a $2bn plane when you can have someone on the ground control 10?!? They can be smaller and harder to target via radar etc, use less fuel and ulitmately will be better. However I would be loathe to pass most of the control over to AI, for pretty much eternity. AI vs AI match ups are just boring
#7
Posted 14 August 2008 - 09:38
Electronic componentry is susceptible to EMP.
Thus, UCAVs are suscpetible to EMPs.
Once EMPed, BOOM! Down goes the UCAV.
Human pilots are still viable. At least he/she can fly the 'craft manually.
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#8
Posted 14 August 2008 - 09:47
PS is there even a currently an effective ECM weapon system employed anywhere?
#9
Posted 14 August 2008 - 09:50
The Wandering Jew, on 14 Aug 2008, 19:08, said:
Electronic componentry is susceptible to EMP.
Thus, UCAVs are suscpetible to EMPs.
Once EMPed, BOOM! Down goes the UCAV.
Human pilots are still viable. At least he/she can fly the 'craft manually.
You have greatly underestimate how much and how important electronics are, even to earlier-generation fighters.
All he/she can do then is to crash-land, if flight control surfaces are still controlled hydraulically.
It is also probable that EMP-hardened equipment be used to build today's aircrafts.
Edited by Waris, 14 August 2008 - 09:51.
#10
Posted 14 August 2008 - 10:05
I was thinking of sensitive electronic components. To control a "drone" thousands of feet in the air, you need precise equipment. And precise equipment require sensitive electronics.
As to crash-land, point the 'craft on a, let's say, a barracks and in a split-second decision, use the ejection seat. That's a barracks less to worry about (just a theory, anyway).
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#11
Posted 14 August 2008 - 10:18
The Wandering Jew, on 14 Aug 2008, 12:05, said:
To control a manned fighter thousands of feet in the air, you need precise and sensitive electronics too. Do you really think humans have it in them to just fly manually at twice the speed of sound, and engage enemy aircraft so far away they're not even visible as a speck?
Quote
I'd like to see you hit a barracks accurately with a crash-landing plane flying a couple thousand feet in the air. That is, even if the plane allows manual control without electronics. And then you eject; and since you can hit that barracks, means that you're over enemy territory.
#12
Posted 14 August 2008 - 10:19
#13
Posted 14 August 2008 - 10:31
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#14
Posted 14 August 2008 - 15:22
#15
Posted 14 August 2008 - 22:48
Quote
#16
Posted 15 August 2008 - 04:13
That's the main reason why Russian MiG-25 Foxbats were not electronically upgraded. The 'planes still used "old-school" vacuum tubes.
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#17
Posted 15 August 2008 - 08:01
Quote
#18
Posted 15 August 2008 - 09:54
1. Nuclear
2. Chemical
3. Biological
4. Thermobaric
5. EMP
6. Weather control?
What is this? Red Alert?
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#19
Posted 15 August 2008 - 15:27
#20
Posted 16 August 2008 - 01:10
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#21
Posted 17 August 2008 - 14:59
Quote
2. Chemical
3. Biological
4. Thermobaric
5. EMP
6. Weather control?
You forgot on orbital weapons, meteorical weapons or "gay bomb". :chillpill1:
Back on topic: I think some fighters without electronics should be kept in servise (be built) for this cause.
Another way is using of minimal amount of electronic, more optotronical systems, EMP shields.
(I'm making RA2YR mod, check Revora Forums for more info)
+ equivalents :p
#22
Posted 17 August 2008 - 15:55
The Wandering Jew, on 16 Aug 2008, 3:10, said:
Lol, and what about Agent Orange then? Ain't that a Chemical weapon?
Anyways, I think it's better indeed to use UAV's instead of human pilots. Reasons enough
#23
Posted 17 August 2008 - 21:28
Dutchygamer, on 17 Aug 2008, 16:55, said:
The Wandering Jew, on 16 Aug 2008, 3:10, said:
Lol, and what about Agent Orange then? Ain't that a Chemical weapon?
Anyways, I think it's better indeed to use UAV's instead of human pilots. Reasons enough
Agent Orange was designed as a defoliant, not a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons were used fairly extensively in WWI.
#24
Posted 17 August 2008 - 21:42
#25
Posted 17 August 2008 - 22:30
WWI they were used, I'd imagine WWII they were used, in conflicts with israel there was complaint of using hwite phosphorus, which is like a combo of chemical and incendiary, and oh yeah, the kurds were mustard gassed by Saddam Hussein for their opposition.
Anyways, i have NEVER seen boilogical weapons used via the air, biological is like anthrax, cholera, tuberculosis, influenza, the plague, etc. I don't know how you could spread that.... (drop bombs full of infected fleas/mosquitos? drop dead horses (with parachutes retarding their landing lol)? I mean, I know of biological warfare in the middle ages, ie, when defenders of a city/castle were killed, they were loaded into a trebuchet and launched to the enemy forces in hope of spreading plague, they also did the same with dead horses.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users