Wow. After the F-35, military planes will be primarily unmanned. I knew that day would come but didn't realize it was so close. Is anyone else wowed by this?Aviation Week wrote:
In recent testimony on Capitol Hill, Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have maintained the unmanned theme. Pressed by defense authorizer and Lockheed Martin aircraft supporter Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) over the need to overcome enemy surface-to-air missiles, Gates noted May 14: “I would say the only defense against surface-to-air missiles is not something that has a pilot in it.”
Mullen noted that some analysts and officials see the JSF as the last, new strictly manned fighter or bomber — and that he was one of them.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_incl … uperiority
unmanned but not autonomous, that's still a long way away
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7071
Something will replace the glory that is to be lost.
Human error will be a thing of the past.
UAVs aren't really unmanned, they are just piloted by remote.
lol +1AussieReaper wrote:
Human error will be a thing of the past.
Hello Skynet...
wtf??? why don't they just have the people in them pilot them?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
UAVs aren't really unmanned, they are just piloted by remote.
Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2009-05-15 13:53:50)
Pilots these days are pussies and don't like the unnecessary risk of death it places upon them.Lotta_Drool wrote:
wtf??? why don't they just have the people in them pilot them?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
UAVs aren't really unmanned, they are just piloted by remote.
hahahahahaha have you ever even met a pilot? I sincerely hope that was a joke. If it wasn't, well then i dont have many nice things to say about your brain. That quote is akin to saying a zoologist doesnt like feeding penguins inside their cages because its too dangerous.ghettoperson wrote:
Pilots these days are pussies and don't like the unnecessary risk of death it places upon them.Lotta_Drool wrote:
wtf??? why don't they just have the people in them pilot them?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
UAVs aren't really unmanned, they are just piloted by remote.
Pilots are fucking expensive.
I want to go to the RAF after Uni, and at the top level (Fast Jet >10yrs) they pay up to £72k pa. Then factor in training and hardware costs.
Unmanned is the way to go, though not unoperated.
I want to go to the RAF after Uni, and at the top level (Fast Jet >10yrs) they pay up to £72k pa. Then factor in training and hardware costs.
Unmanned is the way to go, though not unoperated.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
UCAVs operate using wireless networks. Wireless networks can be jammed.
Yet another case of dumbass politicians meddling in affairs they should keep their greedy fucking claws off of. Any military man agreeing with widespread use of UAV's replacing front-line fighters and bombers is a cock sucking pocket lining grundle licking bag of rat shit. No this is not a slant on military members, but the political ones for those who didnt understand that.
Until we have inertial dampening, I'm afraid that extra manueverability may come at the cost of an on-the-spot pilot.
apparently the new york ANG's fighter wing has been phasing out their F-16s in favor of the MQ-9 reaper (the upgraded armed predator)san4 wrote:
Wow. After the F-35, military planes will be primarily unmanned. I knew that day would come but didn't realize it was so close. Is anyone else wowed by this?Aviation Week wrote:
In recent testimony on Capitol Hill, Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have maintained the unmanned theme. Pressed by defense authorizer and Lockheed Martin aircraft supporter Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) over the need to overcome enemy surface-to-air missiles, Gates noted May 14: “I would say the only defense against surface-to-air missiles is not something that has a pilot in it.”
Mullen noted that some analysts and officials see the JSF as the last, new strictly manned fighter or bomber — and that he was one of them.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_incl … uperiority
so what the fuck happens when our enemies starts using EMP's? Why dont we just put computer chips in all our guns too, so an EMP would leave us completely defenseless, without power, everything you could think of going into your ass at once.
So, an EMP won't affect a jet's electronics if there's a human pilot present?mcjagdflieger wrote:
so what the fuck happens when our enemies starts using EMP's? Why dont we just put computer chips in all our guns too, so an EMP would leave us completely defenseless, without power, everything you could think of going into your ass at once.
yeah macblehblehbleh, you know today's aircraft are nothing more than glorified computers, right?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
So, an EMP won't affect a jet's electronics if there's a human pilot present?mcjagdflieger wrote:
so what the fuck happens when our enemies starts using EMP's? Why dont we just put computer chips in all our guns too, so an EMP would leave us completely defenseless, without power, everything you could think of going into your ass at once.
airliners are somewhat able to glide on their own, but fighters and bombers (especially the B-2, roffles) need computers to ensure that the pilot doesn't get overstressed trying to keep the plane level
to put it in my friend's words, "being a pilot's great, i do nothing more than babysit a giant computer"
i lol'ed to fuck.mcjagdflieger wrote:
so what the fuck happens when our enemies starts using EMP's? Why dont we just put computer chips in all our guns too, so an EMP would leave us completely defenseless, without power, everything you could think of going into your ass at once.
literally fell out my chair laughing.
ever been in a modern jet? sure i was in a harrier a while back, and EWAR is that jets biggest threat. and that's a fucking harrier.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
hahaha fuck me i guess i forgot to take into account all the fly-by-wire systems. im such a maroon, guess its a good thing im not a pilot (jokes on you fuckers I am)
I really wish I was born in the 20's btw
I really wish I was born in the 20's btw
Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2009-05-15 16:31:34)
Modern fighters are fly-by-wire aircraft. They are inherently unstable or borderline stable. They need computers to keep from crashing. Computer technology is not the main factor in the UAV vs manned aircraft debate. The ability to jam the signals to UAVs may be of concern against a modern foe, but not in the type of conflict we are currently fighting (I think the topic merits a close examination, by the USAF).
Most pilots admit UAVs are valuable and needed, but don't want to be the ones controlling them!
Right now, UAVs cannot conduct things like dogfights. The operators simply do not have the same sensory information as they would if they were in the aircraft.
Most pilots admit UAVs are valuable and needed, but don't want to be the ones controlling them!
Right now, UAVs cannot conduct things like dogfights. The operators simply do not have the same sensory information as they would if they were in the aircraft.
the future is fighter planes pulling 30 G's, that would look like a 90 degree sharp turn. Way cool.
just wondering, when was the last dogfight?RAIMIUS wrote:
Modern fighters are fly-by-wire aircraft. They are inherently unstable or borderline stable. They need computers to keep from crashing. Computer technology is not the main factor in the UAV vs manned aircraft debate. The ability to jam the signals to UAVs may be of concern against a modern foe, but not in the type of conflict we are currently fighting (I think the topic merits a close examination, by the USAF).
Most pilots admit UAVs are valuable and needed, but don't want to be the ones controlling them!
Right now, UAVs cannot conduct things like dogfights. The operators simply do not have the same sensory information as they would if they were in the aircraft.
'Nam.. or the early Eighties if you count Top Gun.Man With No Name wrote:
just wondering, when was the last dogfight?RAIMIUS wrote:
Modern fighters are fly-by-wire aircraft. They are inherently unstable or borderline stable. They need computers to keep from crashing. Computer technology is not the main factor in the UAV vs manned aircraft debate. The ability to jam the signals to UAVs may be of concern against a modern foe, but not in the type of conflict we are currently fighting (I think the topic merits a close examination, by the USAF).
Most pilots admit UAVs are valuable and needed, but don't want to be the ones controlling them!
Right now, UAVs cannot conduct things like dogfights. The operators simply do not have the same sensory information as they would if they were in the aircraft.