The last manned fighter

2009-05-17 18:42:22

#51

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6711|US

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
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.'

What you're willing to imagine is not what is being developed by the US (at least publically, and I don't have access to a ton of classified developmental planning).

As much as some would like it, we do not have the ability to field dogfighting swarms of UAVs. UAVs are either remote piloted, or fly very simple courses (i.e. strategic/operational recon). The computing power, required memory, programming, and sensors are not cheap or easy to design into a semi-disposable aircraft.

2009-05-18 02:04:13

#52

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6407|'Murka

ghettoperson wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:

Pilots these days are pussies and don't like the unnecessary risk of death it places upon them.
My sarcasm meter is broken.

Please tell me you're not serious.
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.

Fair enough.

I know too many close friends who put themselves in "unnecessary risk of death" and died. They weren't pussies.

“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

2009-05-18 02:09:29

#53

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6407|'Murka

Commie Killer wrote:
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).

No. Most planes are not. Many combat aircraft are, but typically only those that are nuke capable--to protect them from the EMP they create when they launch/drop their payload.

All this talk of maneuvering is interesting, but I think RAIMIUS has hit it on the head: we're not there yet for the maneuvering required for dogfighting or SAM evasion. We don't have all-aspect antennae that allow for remote control through those types of maneuvers and the processing power and sensors required for the necessary situational awareness aren't there to keep the UAVs from running into one another while maneuvering in congested airspace.

“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

2009-05-18 02:10:04

#54

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6768|PNW

RAIMIUS wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
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.'
What you're willing to imagine is not what is being developed by the US (at least publically, and I don't have access to a ton of classified developmental planning).

As much as some would like it, we do not have the ability to field dogfighting swarms of UAVs. UAVs are either remote piloted, or fly very simple courses (i.e. strategic/operational recon). The computing power, required memory, programming, and sensors are not cheap or easy to design into a semi-disposable aircraft.

You're talking in two directions at once with your first statement. What I'm willing to imagine is as good a guess as anyone's as to what all the US military has under development. If you don't think our chains are being yanked every which way from Sunday, well...

Anyway I'm going to describe it with SCIENCE!, not science, because those are the materials I have to work with. I might as well imagine that they're putting space-to-surface EMP lasers with over 9000 kajiggawatts in geosync over Iran.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-18 02:11:46)

2009-05-18 06:22:16

#55

Lai: Member; +186|6147

S3v3N wrote:
Man With No Name wrote:
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.
just wondering, when was the last dogfight?
'Nam.. or the early Eighties if you count Top Gun.

There was some significant dogfighting between migs and harriers during the Falklands if I remember correctly.

2009-05-18 06:23:39

#56

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6496|so randum

yeh falklands we raped the argys.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-05-18 06:34:43

#57

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6102|eXtreme to the maX

There was some significant dogfighting between migs and harriers during the Falklands if I remember correctly.

No migs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_ … aft_losses

People have been talking about pilotless fighter aircraft and all-missile battles for a long time now.
It will be interesting to see if it ever happens.

FEOS wrote:
All this talk of maneuvering is interesting, but I think RAIMIUS has hit it on the head: we're not there yet for the maneuvering required for dogfighting or SAM evasion. We don't have all-aspect antennae that allow for remote control through those types of maneuvers

Which is why they would need to be autonomous.

processing power and sensors required for the necessary situational awareness aren't there to keep the UAVs from running into one another while maneuvering in congested airspace

Processing power has been there for a good while now, sensors need a bit of imagination.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2009-05-18 06:49:38

#58

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6219|Escea

FatherTed wrote:
yeh falklands we raped the argys.

Harriers ftw!

2009-05-18 09:43:01

#59

Lai: Member; +186|6147

I heard the Argentinian craft were superior to the Harriers when it came down to dogfighting. Don't get me wrong the Harrier is an excellent and versatile craft, my personal favourite, but it is no true interceptor. The reason the Brits still managed to win so decisively, is because the Argentinians basically shit their pants upon sight. All sort of myths regarding the Harrier (mid flights stops and turn, flying in reverse and upside down), made them enter the fight with a certain anxiety.

2009-05-18 10:56:36

#60

Mugen: Member; +19|5995

Lai wrote:
I heard the Argentinian craft were superior to the Harriers when it came down to dogfighting. Don't get me wrong the Harrier is an excellent and versatile craft, my personal favourite, but it is no true interceptor. The reason the Brits still managed to win so decisively, is because the Argentinians basically shit their pants upon sight. All sort of myths regarding the Harrier (mid flights stops and turn, flying in reverse and upside down), made them enter the fight with a certain anxiety.

but then again: british pilots > argentinean pilots in terms of experience/ego/whatever.

2009-05-18 11:16:16

#61

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6443|Chicago, IL

I can see it in lopsided wars like those we're currently fighting, but remote control systems may be too vulnerable to electronic attacks by more developed enemies. I forsee a mixture of the two types of craft in the future, but piloted fighters will always be used to some degree

2009-05-18 12:34:55

#62

Lai: Member; +186|6147

Mugen wrote:
Lai wrote:
I heard the Argentinian craft were superior to the Harriers when it came down to dogfighting. Don't get me wrong the Harrier is an excellent and versatile craft, my personal favourite, but it is no true interceptor. The reason the Brits still managed to win so decisively, is because the Argentinians basically shit their pants upon sight. All sort of myths regarding the Harrier (mid flights stops and turn, flying in reverse and upside down), made them enter the fight with a certain anxiety.
but then again: british pilots > argentinean pilots in terms of experience/ego/whatever.

Yes and the Brittish, despite being carrier based, had less logistical problems keeping their birds in the air as the Harriers did not run on cerosine, but rather on the same stuff as their pilots (Darjeeling).

2009-05-18 14:23:38

#63

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6496|so randum

M.O.A.B wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
yeh falklands we raped the argys.
Harriers ftw!

You know the one that just blew up in Afghan? i worked on that Sdn, welding and calibrating lol

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-05-18 14:25:28

#64

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6219|Escea

FatherTed wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
yeh falklands we raped the argys.
Harriers ftw!
You know the one that just blew up in Afghan? i worked on that Sdn, welding and calibrating lol

Roots of a conspiracy there

2009-05-18 14:25:44

#65

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6496|so randum

oh and yeh the argy jets were better at straight sparring, we were using a single engine vector jet ffs.

RAF are arguagbly the best pilots in the world however, and the world didnt know what to expect of the harrier, hence the argys locked up and died.

Not to say we didnt lose many in that war.

RIP

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-05-18 19:03:16

#66

mcjagdflieger: Champion of Dueling Rectums; +26|6307|South Jersey

hahahahah the falklands...you guys give us so much shit about iraq, yet you stand proud that you killed some "argys" over that rock...laughable at best...

2009-05-18 19:21:19

#67

san4: The Mas; +311|6684|NYC, a place to live

FEOS wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
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).
No. Most planes are not. Many combat aircraft are, but typically only those that are nuke capable--to protect them from the EMP they create when they launch/drop their payload.

All this talk of maneuvering is interesting, but I think RAIMIUS has hit it on the head: we're not there yet for the maneuvering required for dogfighting or SAM evasion. We don't have all-aspect antennae that allow for remote control through those types of maneuvers and the processing power and sensors required for the necessary situational awareness aren't there to keep the UAVs from running into one another while maneuvering in congested airspace.

I agree, RAIMUS did succeed in raining on the parade somewhat but I think part of the problem is a failure to abandon traditional conceptions of what fighter jets are like.

A new generation of unmanned aircraft could start out being more like missiles. For example, how about an air-to-air missile that can be guided by radar, infrared and remote control? We know that air-to-air missiles can be effective. Remote control would not replace the other guidance systems, but it would fill in the gaps when radar or infrared sensors are temporarily jammed or blocked and the remote pilot can still see the enemy aircraft. The missile would require a camera or two and significant bandwidth to handle high-resolution video, but these seem like plausible, incremental changes. I agree, it's not happening tomorrow, but I don't see why it couldn't happen in the next 10 years. Especially if we threw billions of dollars at it.

2009-05-18 21:42:55

#68

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6768|PNW

I hope in all this talk of high-tech air forces clashing that it never actually happens en masse.

/Einstein's sticks & stones warning

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-18 21:43:15)

2009-05-18 21:44:52

#69

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6149|what

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
/Einstein's sticks & stones warning

That doesn't come into play until WWIV. We've still got another world war to go before we have to start learning how to tie a pointy rock on the end of a long stick.

2009-05-18 23:10:06

#70

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6768|PNW

AussieReaper wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
/Einstein's sticks & stones warning
That doesn't come into play until WWIV. We've still got another world war to go before we have to start learning how to tie a pointy rock on the end of a long stick.

WWIV doesn't come into play until WWIII, which is what all this high-tech clashing would be about.

The quote essentially describes WWIII and the aftermath.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-18 23:11:54)

2009-05-19 00:15:29

#71

Lai: Member; +186|6147

mcjagdflieger wrote:
hahahahah the falklands...you guys give us so much shit about iraq, yet you stand proud that you killed some "argys" over that rock...laughable at best...

The Brits wanted to make a statement and did so succesfully, regardless of the cost.

2009-05-19 08:01:17

#72

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6496|so randum

Lai wrote:
mcjagdflieger wrote:
hahahahah the falklands...you guys give us so much shit about iraq, yet you stand proud that you killed some "argys" over that rock...laughable at best...
The Brits wanted to make a statement and did so succesfully, regardless of the cost.

this.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-05-19 19:52:48

#73

mcjagdflieger: Champion of Dueling Rectums; +26|6307|South Jersey

point taken, you are exactly the same as us, no matter how much you tell yourselves that youre not. got it.

2009-05-19 22:02:23

#74

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6711|US

san4 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
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).
No. Most planes are not. Many combat aircraft are, but typically only those that are nuke capable--to protect them from the EMP they create when they launch/drop their payload.

All this talk of maneuvering is interesting, but I think RAIMIUS has hit it on the head: we're not there yet for the maneuvering required for dogfighting or SAM evasion. We don't have all-aspect antennae that allow for remote control through those types of maneuvers and the processing power and sensors required for the necessary situational awareness aren't there to keep the UAVs from running into one another while maneuvering in congested airspace.
I agree, RAIMUS did succeed in raining on the parade somewhat but I think part of the problem is a failure to abandon traditional conceptions of what fighter jets are like.

A new generation of unmanned aircraft could start out being more like missiles. For example, how about an air-to-air missile that can be guided by radar, infrared and remote control? We know that air-to-air missiles can be effective. Remote control would not replace the other guidance systems, but it would fill in the gaps when radar or infrared sensors are temporarily jammed or blocked and the remote pilot can still see the enemy aircraft. The missile would require a camera or two and significant bandwidth to handle high-resolution video, but these seem like plausible, incremental changes. I agree, it's not happening tomorrow, but I don't see why it couldn't happen in the next 10 years. Especially if we threw billions of dollars at it.

That is a possibility. I would guess that the first generation of unmanned fighters will be not much more than stealthy missile platforms, rather than dogfighting vehicles. Using a stand-off, low observable platform would eliminate the maneuvering and control problems, simplify the sensor issues, and reduce the risk of loss.

2009-05-19 23:52:55

#75

legionair: back to i-life; +336|6619|EU

yea, good! I knew that Terminator wasnt bullshit!

BF2S Forums The last manned fighter

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Man With No Name wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Lai wrote:

Mugen wrote:

Lai wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

Lai wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

san4 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Board footer