what about Bill Pullman and Randy Quaid?
I love how that movie is so absurd the President and a drunkerd crop-duster are both flying fighter jets at an alien ship.Man With No Name wrote:
what about Bill Pullman and Randy Quaid?
hahahahhaha look up the alternate ending to it....Quaid was flying the crop duster at the end, and pulled the same vertical climb into the ship as he did with the F-18. (Edit...with a fucking missle strapped under his stearman hahahhaha)I love him in that movie..."I can fly, I'm a pilot".KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I love how that movie is so absurd the President and a drunkerd crop-duster are both flying fighter jets at an alien ship.Man With No Name wrote:
what about Bill Pullman and Randy Quaid?
"Russel you sprayed the wrong field you idiot!" "Are you sure?" LOfuckingL
Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2009-05-15 17:51:54)
Another problem with replacing manned fighters with UCAVs is network latency, or ping. Since we've all played BF2 I'll assume ping/latency needs no explanation.
A human operator in the aircraft is able to react instantly, wheras if the drone's video signal is going through the airwaves - possibly via satellites - theres an additional time delay which the human operator has to deal with. Depending on the transmission medium, the added latency could be anything from 20ms to 500ms - the later is likely in case of satellite control. Now I've never flown a plane and have never been near anything to do with drones but I do know a thing or two about networks, so take what I say as you will. In cases where reactions are paramount, moving the human from the cockpit to the desk will be a bad thing, unless you like giving a head start to your opponent.
A human operator in the aircraft is able to react instantly, wheras if the drone's video signal is going through the airwaves - possibly via satellites - theres an additional time delay which the human operator has to deal with. Depending on the transmission medium, the added latency could be anything from 20ms to 500ms - the later is likely in case of satellite control. Now I've never flown a plane and have never been near anything to do with drones but I do know a thing or two about networks, so take what I say as you will. In cases where reactions are paramount, moving the human from the cockpit to the desk will be a bad thing, unless you like giving a head start to your opponent.
In 1991 over Iraq, An EF-111 flew an Iraqi mirage f1 into the ground. Does that count?S3v3N wrote:
'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.
Absurd...but fun.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I love how that movie is so absurd the President and a drunkerd crop-duster are both flying fighter jets at an alien ship.Man With No Name wrote:
what about Bill Pullman and Randy Quaid?
I'm fairly certain that inconvenient ping isn't as huge of a concern as the lives of pilots at risk from weaponry exceeding the capabilities of a manned aircraft.Pubic wrote:
Another problem with replacing manned fighters with UCAVs is network latency, or ping. Since we've all played BF2 I'll assume ping/latency needs no explanation.
A human operator in the aircraft is able to react instantly, wheras if the drone's video signal is going through the airwaves - possibly via satellites - theres an additional time delay which the human operator has to deal with. Depending on the transmission medium, the added latency could be anything from 20ms to 500ms - the later is likely in case of satellite control. Now I've never flown a plane and have never been near anything to do with drones but I do know a thing or two about networks, so take what I say as you will. In cases where reactions are paramount, moving the human from the cockpit to the desk will be a bad thing, unless you like giving a head start to your opponent.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-15 19:51:09)
Future unmanned fighters may not look like today's fighters. Imagine a swarm of a hundred 5-foot-long minijets with rocket boosters, each one packed with C4. A swarm like that could be pretty effective at achieving air superiority. They could also provide close air support with kamikaze C4 dives on enemy tanks and positions. And good luck to enemy surface-to-air missiles shooting down a hundred tiny planes.
and operation sea lion will finally come into playsan4 wrote:
Future unmanned fighters may not look like today's fighters. Imagine a swarm of a hundred 5-foot-long minijets with rocket boosters, each one packed with C4. A swarm like that could be pretty effective at achieving air superiority. They could also provide close air support with kamikaze C4 dives on enemy tanks and positions. And good luck to enemy surface-to-air missiles shooting down a hundred tiny planes.
My sarcasm meter is broken.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.
Please tell me you're not serious.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
well not all pilots. Army pilots are pretty hardcore.
Well this opens up whole can of possibilities.
You can deploy manouvering countermeasures that would normally be impossible because human body cannot take it.
You can also start deploying electronic jamming in more wide scale to counter the threat of unmanned jets.
Race of electronic jamming vs EM protection.
I can see were this is going. Operator will eventually control a whole squadron on bombers/fighters.
You can deploy manouvering countermeasures that would normally be impossible because human body cannot take it.
You can also start deploying electronic jamming in more wide scale to counter the threat of unmanned jets.
Race of electronic jamming vs EM protection.
I can see were this is going. Operator will eventually control a whole squadron on bombers/fighters.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Um... because they're not inside 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.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
They won't be unmanned as such. They will be remotely piloted probably. Read somewhere that the technology is all their. Its the data transfer that's the current problem. Say you want 100 jets in the air. The satellites can't stream that amount of data back to HQ.
Not to talk about possible electronic jamming fucking up the data stream.JahManRed wrote:
They won't be unmanned as such. They will be remotely piloted probably. Read somewhere that the technology is all their. Its the data transfer that's the current problem. Say you want 100 jets in the air. The satellites can't stream that amount of data back to HQ.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
No way, they must've been some in both Iraq wars. I dunno you guys might be having different definitions of what a dogfight actually isS3v3N wrote:
'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.
I remember reading that a MiG-25 recently shot down a UAV in Iraq, well not recently, during Invasion time
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/ … 1126.shtmlIn December, an armed Predator was downed in a dogfight with a manned Iraqi MiG fighter - another first.
I'd imagine if you could just plonk on a good enough missile and radar onto a UAV and make it stealthy you won't even need to do any of the aerial moves etc..
I mean should the F-22 ever go toe to toe with some planes it probably wouldn't even need to pull off anything drastic to take them all out from far away due to a mixture of stealth, AWACS, good onboard radar, other jets, and the BVR missiles themselves
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-05-16 08:21:12)
I was going to be abusive to the first guy that asked that, but since you asked so nicely I won't be mean. No I'm not serious. It'd be like joining the army and getting pissed off when you occasionally have to go to a warzone. You don't join the airforce to have your cockpit replaced with a bunker hundreds of miles away from the action.FEOS wrote:
My sarcasm meter is broken.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?
Please tell me you're not serious.
I just got shortlisted for the ADF Airforce Gap year program, all my plans to be a pilot are now ruined.
InfantryHakei wrote:
I just got shortlisted for the ADF Airforce Gap year program, all my plans to be a pilot are now ruined.
Baba Booey
Instinct will be lost with full automation.
To the question about the last dogfight:
I'm not sure about OIF...NO CONTEST: AERIAL COMBAT IN THE 1990s
Dr. Daniel L. Haulman
Air Force Historical Research Agency
2002 Version wrote:
During the 1990s, U.S. Air Force pilots shot down 48 enemy aircraft. In the same decade, enemy pilots shot down not one
U.S. Air Force aircraft.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-05-16 14:07:30)
Just cos no plane shot down the US doesn't mean there wasn't any dogfights
Just that yous guys won them all
Just that yous guys won them all
There WERE dogfights. That's what I'm saying.
People who think dogfights are a thing of the past are just like the fools who thought future combat would be missile only at BVR, in the 1950s. (Which is a large part of why the USAF had a kill ratio of less than 3:1 in Vietnam, instead of the over 10:1 ratio of Korea.)
People who think dogfights are a thing of the past are just like the fools who thought future combat would be missile only at BVR, in the 1950s. (Which is a large part of why the USAF had a kill ratio of less than 3:1 in Vietnam, instead of the over 10:1 ratio of Korea.)
Arent most planes protected against EMPs? I know jamming can knock back the radar and disrupt communications, but Im pretty sure onboard systems are protected, cockpit is at least I think(gold overlays and what ever).
As for dogfights, I'm willing to imagine that a great deal of manuevering will be 'assisted' by on-board computers. Also, the fact that there would probably be more aircraft involved would work in tandem to help even the odds against 'ping.'
Sarcasm?AussieReaper wrote:
Human error will be a thing of the past.