F-15 Eagle
New Member
Do you think unmanned fighter aircraft will actaully replace manned fighters such as the F-22 and F-35?
Manned and unmanned fighter aircraft poll
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
IrishHitman
New Member
UCAVs won't replace human-controlled fighters, they simply aren't versatile enough. I can see problems like hacking, computer error, computer lag, and software updates stopping UCAVs from ever taking over from humans.
Furthermore, computers cannot reason...
Something which any decent pilot needs in today's warzone.
I do see UCAVs taking on increasingly risky missions, however.
A mix is most likely.
Furthermore, computers cannot reason...
Something which any decent pilot needs in today's warzone.
I do see UCAVs taking on increasingly risky missions, however.
A mix is most likely.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Plus what about all those kids who want to grow up and be fighter pilots? A machine does not have the love of flying that people do.
I don't want them to take away peoples dreams of flying now, that will be cruel.I love flying and fighter jets in my opion are the best thing a person can fly, that and spacecraft which are really cool as well.
windscorpion
New Member
It depends what you mean by "fighters", if you mean A2A then thats a long way away. You would need AI to do that and AI, like nuclear fusion, is always a decade or so away.
UCAVs are already replacing "fighters" in some roles but i think there will always be a need for manned aviation in air forces, even if its just to keep a pool of skilled pilots "just in case".
UCAVs are already replacing "fighters" in some roles but i think there will always be a need for manned aviation in air forces, even if its just to keep a pool of skilled pilots "just in case".
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
When I say fighters I meant jets like the F-15, F-16 F-35, F-22 and such. And there all muti-role there is no such thing as air to air only or air to ground only fighters anymore since they all do both missions now.
Today UAVs are only used as reccon aircraft such as the Predator and Global hawk. Though they can fit weapons on them such as hellfire missiles they are not replacing any fighters in Iraq or Afgahnistian.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
Its a possibility but I still think there will always be fighters with people actualy in the cockpit of the jet though.
Depends on where the controller is. This has been tried before...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8"]YouTube - Dogfight between MQ-1 Predator drone and Mig-25 Foxbat[/ame]
...with obvious technical limitations. But if the controller is not local, almost LOS, then there could be a potentially significant delay in the communications. The controller would be fighting a battle ~ a half a second in the past. That could have consequences IMHO.
-DA
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
When did this happen?
Well its no surprise that the Mig was able to shoot down the predator since the UAV is not even a fighter. If it was say a F-16 than the American jet would have easily shot down the mig. The predator is only a reccon drone with limited ground attack capabilities, its not a real fighter such as the F-16 which can do both dogfighting and ground attack much better than the predator.
Its no surprise that the predator was shot down. The predator is still a very useful aircraft in combat and I think they should build more but its not meant to be used as a fighter.
Well its no surprise that the Mig was able to shoot down the predator since the UAV is not even a fighter. If it was say a F-16 than the American jet would have easily shot down the mig. The predator is only a reccon drone with limited ground attack capabilities, its not a real fighter such as the F-16 which can do both dogfighting and ground attack much better than the predator.
Its no surprise that the predator was shot down. The predator is still a very useful aircraft in combat and I think they should build more but its not meant to be used as a fighter.
A few things. This happened in 1999 IIRC. About a decade ago. Significant to me for several reasons. The UAV/UCAV community has been studying the Idea of air combat for quite sometime and has conducted live test against noncooperative living targets! That the Predator was shot down is irrelevant to the discussion. Here is a quote from a quarter century prior...
Speaking at a largely classified conference on RPVs in Washington DC in April 1972, Air Force Undersecretary John L McLucas stated, "We now believe that we are on the threshold of utilizing them for selected strike missions. However, their use in air superiority may be a longer-term adaptation."
...So considering the 1999 dogfight, it's clear where things are going IMHO. That poor Predator putting along is a sitting duck vs a modern manned fighter especially if the fighter has BVR weapons. But with very little SA compared to the Mig, the Predator was still able to make an attempt. Now ten years later what is possible? What happens to the Mig if the next time we are dealing with a higher flying faster UCAV with an AESA(APG-80) or Link-16 carrying AIM-120 or METEOR? What happens if that same UCAV is stealthy and the Mig isn't aware of it?
These are concepts I think are being validated and maybe even operational already but as a black program. The thing is that there are some differences that are unique to a UAV/UCAV in this role vs a manned fighter. The UCAV can loiter for long periods DEEP in hostile territory waiting near likely enemy air avenues of approach or along air corridors for friendly strike aircraft perhaps even longer than an entire day. Thats game changing as far as CAP is concerned. You can cover the same amount of airspace with less fighters if they are unmanned because human fatigue is not an issue INSIDE the air vehicle.
That means a pair of UCAVs could do the work of a USN squadron assuming a 2 hour CAP for the manned fighters just as an example. Autonomous software has already demonstrated the ability to engage pop up targets in the X-45A program. Adapting it to a2a warfare and BVR combat should not be too difficult especially when you consider that a manned fighter would be relying on the same data and would not see his target either. So even if we didn't want a fully autonomous engagement, the datalinked data could be interpreted at the ground station by an operator.
Another thing and this is why I think the UCAVs should have their own AESA rather than relying on offboard data solely. By being closer to or actually inside hostile airspace as opposed to an AWACS, they can get higher fidelity radar and ELINT data further into enemy airspace. I don't think we should worry too much about dogfighting and ultra high performance with UCAVs. High off boresight missiles make such maneuvering unnecessary and I think the UCAVs situational awareness would still not compensate for the MK1 eyeballs capability at close range. For a2a combat it would be enough just to have this "flying SAM-site" with it's own AIM-9X point defense capability hanging around undetected sniping at unsuspecting air targets.We would still have manned fighters for the unique flexibility only a human can offer.
So I say that both manned and unmanned fighters is the way of the future.
-DA
windscorpion
New Member
I read once about a mock dogfight between a Firebee and an F-4 (manned) way back in the 1970s, didn't the drone (being flown remotely) get into a position where it could have killed the Phantom? I wish i could remember where i read it!
Today, getting into position is a lot different with HOBS missiles...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-u8cOP-hEI"]YouTube - IAF shoots down Hizbolla UAV IAF footage[/ame]
Even that MQ-1 was in position to hit the Mig-25. Just didn't work out for it in that case. Part of it may have to do with the Mig-25 pilot skill as well. IIRC a Mig-25 shot down Scott Speicher in 1991 as well. Might indicate the Mig-25s potential lethality in the hands of a skilled pilot.
-DA
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
I highly doubt the PAK-FA will ever get off the ground especially since the Russians have to update their nuclear arsenal and other more pressing priorities and with the limited defense budget they have. The PAK-FA is more a F-35 comparable aircraft not F-22.
War is not about fair comparisons. A lot of nations are still flying Mig-21s today but if they threaten US national security interest do you imagine the USA not using the F-22 out of fairness?
Also, PAK-FA isn't even a working prototype yet. Nor has Russia deployed a working AESA. The USA has demonstrated stealthy UCAVs however.
-DA
Even if that were true, you are limited by the speed of your biochemical thought process and fatigue. There are weapons now that can kill you BEFORE you even have time to process with your flesh and blood brain the sensory data that would cause you to say "Oh shiiii...".
It sucks being stuck at 200 milliseconds and needing 6 to 8 hours of sleep daily.
-DA
Uh....... yeah..... or not. The PAK-FA will get off the ground, if the Russian economy stays on course. There is no reason to think otherwise. Prototype flight tests are scheduled for next year. As for what the PAK-FA is comparable to, please enlighten me as to why you think it's comparable to the F-35 when it's meant to be a heavy multi-purpose fighter, twin engined, with a potential light 5th gen. fighter being based off of it some time in the future.
My point was that you need to compare air craft to an adversary of at least equal strength when you do your planning. If you plan for an inferior adversary, you're essentially leaving yourself with a less capable weapon system. My statement about fairness was not in regards to actual combat, but in regards to a potential requirement for future UCAV's.DarthAmerica said: