Witht the birth of the SAM misslies in the 1950s people were heralding the end for manned planes, well that didn't happen. UAVs present a variety of problems especially sinces its unmanned it would require an open comms channel to it controller at all times. Wouldn't this channel be easily jammed by conventional means already available. Furthermore wouldn't the controll staion for such a UAV squadron be extremely vulnerable not only does the equipment for controlling the UAVs need to be specialise but the equipment for programing them needs to be specialized. Also for a dogfight don't pilots rely on 360 degree vision by turning their heard and all that, would the UAV be so flexible in terms of vision, of course you could mount cams to cover all angles but that would mean bigger uavs, also to mount weapons and all that the UAV just gets bigger. After a while the UAV is not much cheaper then a conventional fighter nor is it much smaller.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Not very likely, in a dog fight, the UCAV will be bound to win. Because with a pilot seperated from the aircraft, it frees the system to go faster, and push limits that would kill any human. While the "elite" pilot is struggling in his hunk of junk, the UCAV will be smaller, stealthier, and faster, flying circles around him and pulling 30 gee turns that he can never hope to match.
A properly flown UCAV, or even one with the AI programmed to be smart enough, has massive advantages over the old manned aircraft. If anything, it's the manned aircraft that will be shot down by the swarms if they every tried to take on the UCAVs of the future.
I seriously doubt this. In a dogfight, the UCAV is bound to lose. 1) The human brain still has the advantage in dogfights. AI will not be able to deduce the next move an opponent may make, and AI simply responds according to how it is programmed to react to a certain maneuver. 2) Pulling 30G turns creates its own problems. Unless the operator of the UCAV has a view which is superior to one in a manned aircraft, pulling 30Gs will end up with the UCAV not knowing where it is pointing.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Not very likely, in a dog fight, the UCAV will be bound to win. Because with a pilot seperated from the aircraft, it frees the system to go faster, and push limits that would kill any human. While the "elite" pilot is struggling in his hunk of junk, the UCAV will be smaller, stealthier, and faster, flying circles around him and pulling 30 gee turns that he can never hope to match.
A properly flown UCAV, or even one with the AI programmed to be smart enough, has massive advantages over the old manned aircraft. If anything, it's the manned aircraft that will be shot down by the swarms if they every tried to take on the UCAVs of the future.
Originally posted by redrooster79:You are wrong on almost all counts. What is actual fact, is that UCAVs are considerably smaller (30 percent) then manned aircraft, and the elimination of the meat from the system means that it frees up space used for life support and all that other rubbish for sensors, weapons and engines.
Witht the birth of the SAM misslies in the 1950s people were heralding the end for manned planes, well that didn't happen. UAVs present a variety of problems especially sinces its unmanned it would require an open comms channel to it controller at all times. Wouldn't this channel be easily jammed by conventional means already available. Furthermore wouldn't the controll staion for such a UAV squadron be extremely vulnerable not only does the equipment for controlling the UAVs need to be specialise but the equipment for programing them needs to be specialized. Also for a dogfight don't pilots rely on 360 degree vision by turning their heard and all that, would the UAV be so flexible in terms of vision, of course you could mount cams to cover all angles but that would mean bigger uavs, also to mount weapons and all that the UAV just gets bigger. After a while the UAV is not much cheaper then a conventional fighter nor is it much smaller.
A matter of time means its in the future. UCAVs has its value in strike roles, not dogfights. You have confused the design priorities of the UCAV.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Our aversion to UCAVs replacing pilots is more of traditionalism then actual logic. In fact, most fighter pilots themselves admit that UCAVs can provide a lot more capabilities then they can. It's not in the far future at all, it's only a matter of time. After all, the longivity of the combat airframe as a concept is not dependent on the pilot being on the loop, but the ability to bring munitions to the enemy. And if cruise missiles or UCAVs do the job better and at lower cost and risk, manned combat aircraft will eventually go, they are currently persisting on their conceptual inertial, rather then actual innovation. Once that's gone, we dun need to stap humans in aircraft and force them to go throught he same insane manuvers their system has to preform to survive.
Such technology is closer then you think, already, harderned electronics and advanced AI has heralded the way for the maturation of UCAV technology. The pilot is about to be pushed out of the loop, and there's nothing anybody can do about it, but to embrace it.
As in human brain is better, I dun see how in a dog fight. Sure, a human can probably think smarter, but dogfights dun require much brain, just point your aircraft in the right direction and shoot. And in that case, an aircraft with superior turn capability will win out, and not to mention one that is faster. If a UCAV can pull 30gs and accelerate and turn way faster then any manned ATF in a dogfight, there's no way the human can win. Even in air combat simulators, AI opponents can already give you a hard time, and that's just a game.
The manned aircraft is a senile system that is become outdated as more technologies start to rise, esp in long range smart munitions. There's just little sense in spending increasing money just to increase crew survivability and such when the actual tatical ability of the manned aircraft to wreck increased damage has actually increased little with the massive increase in cost. Like carriers outmoded the battleship in force projection, the UCAV is about to push the manned aircraft out, when the technology matures. There's no question about it.
Wrong on all counts?? Flawed Logic?? thats a pretty high pedestal you are standing on.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You are wrong on almost all counts. What is actual fact, is that UCAVs are considerably smaller (30 percent) then manned aircraft, and the elimination of the meat from the system means that it frees up space used for life support and all that other rubbish for sensors, weapons and engines.
But what is important, is not the size, but the ability of the UCAV to remove the element of human risk from the picture and free up mission capability to do things no humanely possible if there was some meat in the system. If you have to select between two systems, one that risks a pilot that takes millions to train, whose lifespan in battle is measured in hours in an aircraft that at best can make 9+ gees and with a maximum speed of 2.5 mach and enduarance limited by the pilot against a system which only risks the system itself, can be pushed to limits that would kill any human, and not to mention carry more space for engine, weapons and sensors that would have been taken up for life support instead.
If managed, the vulnerabilities of UCAV systems actually present a cast increase in tatical ability over the manned aircraft. Even your supposed 360 degree view is highly misleading. The issue here is not view, but situtational awareness. (BTW, adding cams dun increase system size much at all, dunno where your flawed logic come from). If the 21st century concept of sensor intergration is put into the UCAV, which I'm sure the amerians will do, what the UCAV operator will get is not a multiple screen view like a secuity system, but a single, unified three-dimentional display of easy to grasp information showing the situtational display in detail that no oxygen starved pilot pulling gees can ever hope to grasp.
Air combat is fought like a video game. If you put the gamer in the cockpit and force him to go through all of the motions his control unit has to go through versus one that is sitting outside the system and can see the big picture immediately without having to look around and glance and displays and HUDs, logic tells you who's going to win. The pilot has to see his target, read weapons status, endure manuvers and at the same time digest all this in order to fight. The UCAV operatior just has to look at the information coming in from the sensor network (does not even have to be sesnors on his system) point his aircraft and shoot. Game over.
yeah to add on that, computers have become so complex that there is not one single chip without a flaw in it. so would you trust tons of bombs and ammunition to a machine with even that bit of flaw.Originally posted by EXCO:Manned aircraft senile? Thats the biggest folly anyone can make. Humans should never allow computers to fight for them. The rate of progress for using computers in war is miles ahead of the technology for protecting the computers. I stress that computers are prone to failing. There will never be a computer which will not fail.
Said and done, I have never stated that any UCAV would be unfailable. But tireless AI relying on electronic sensors would probably be far more reliable then battle weary pilots who have to digest sensor output info who drop on friendly troops.Originally posted by redrooster79:yeah to add on that, computers have become so complex that there is not one single chip without a flaw in it. so would you trust tons of bombs and ammunition to a machine with even that bit of flaw.
It obviously a vulnerability, but then again, it's like saying "what if the aircraft carrying pilot is kanna hit?" these are vulnerabilites that have to be managed.Originally posted by duotiga83:onli 1 problem ..........wad if the building that have the ucav pilots pilot the ucav kanna bomb......![]()