I still think the unmanned fighter aircraft is the best way to proceed for the future. The next generation of manned aircraft will be able to do things that would make a person flying them black out and sometimes in todays fighters they already do just that. Why waste money on manned fighters when technology will overcome the last few problems with umnmanned types of fighters. So let us stop thinking about more manned fighters and start now developing unmanned fighters or the military will be falling behind. The A-10 is good at what it does but fighter types should be unmanned.
Yep, because they're concerned with self-protection. If it's not coming directly at you it isn't a threat to you. Russians did it with Drozd (the first ever such system I think), Arena..., Germans with AWiSS, a few others. That's been possible since WWII. At least. Because, so far, those problems haven't been overcome. And we don't have answers in sight. The A-10 isn't a fighter. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's basically what a missile is. Unfortunately missiles are not nearly smart enough to dogfight with another few tons of metal, aluminum, and several thousand pounds more thrust strapped on. Although the implications are ironic. One missile giving information to another missile and telling it to fire.
I'm sorry but my thinking is that a fighter would be an aircraft that had bombs, missiles and other weapons to use during different events that it might become involved with. A missile on the other hand is only a single flying device that has only one armament, its warhead. To have humans controlling an unmanned fighter aircraft would be what the future , to me, would be having to use for air superiority not just missiles.
But they are being worked on and eventually they will overcome them so that's why I say to develop unmanned fighters instead of building fighters that are superior to their pilots and really do not need a pilot on-board for they could black out and not wake up. But that's what I said if you read my post you included. I said the A-10 was good at what it was designed to do BUT fighter aircraft should become unmanned.
Apart from the slight quibble over terminology (i.e. a fighter is different type of aircraft from a bomber or an attack aircraft) you've argued yourself into a corner. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Using your description of a "fighter" simply points out that it is an aircraft for delivering warheads against different targets. Which is cheaper: a large platform capable of carrying multiple warheads (and which, if shot down loses all of the unexpended ordnance) or a multitude of single-use "missiles"?
We hope those problems will be overcome. At the moment they haven't been. Since you have admitted that there are problems to overcome then how, exactly, do we "develop" unmanned fighters? They are being worked but as yet we don't have the capability to make a viable one. So what are our options? Carry on using manned aircraft while working on overcoming the problems or forget about manned aircraft and field no aircraft until we have totally workable UAVs? We are doing the former, if we do the latter then you are effectively declaring that there is actually no need at all for aircraft of any type* (military at least), and therefore we needn't bother putting any effort into developing UAVs at all. * Because if we can get away with not using them until UAVs are completely viable in the fighter role (i.e. an unspecified and unknown time period) then why would we need them when they do work properly? It would be cheaper, surely, to say "If we managed without for x years then we'll manage without now and spend the money on more troops/ ships/ tanks."
But your definition of a "fighter" is: Since the A-10 does in fact carry bombs, missiles, a gun and air-to-air missiles then how it not, in your description, a fighter? That is why I pointed out that it is not, in fact, a fighter.
I'd think that rather to try and control 100's of single missiles at the same time, it would be better to have a aircraft that could launch those missiles when needed and thereby giving the controller a better way of being able to control one fighter at a time. Once the ordinance is launched it would be on its own to seek whatever target the controller sent it out to destroy thereby letting the controller seek out another target and fire again.
How many controllers do you think you could pay for from the price of one medium-sized "fighter"? And again you're arguing for single-use missiles. A controller only needs to get the missile into range of its own target-seeking system and let it loose. In fact with current inertial guidance systems the missile need not be be controlled from launch to that point at all.
That would be interesting. Have a long range, high flying UAV that is very large. Meant to loiter for days, potentially using solar panels like that other aircraft that did. And then mount dozens of phoenix air to air missiles. I first considered that sort of idea for Israel with balloons mounted with quad missile launchers to shoot down rockets. But if you had a large, slow, long winged UAV you could mount a whole lot of missiles on it. It would save a lot of money because of the fuel saved by not having to have fighter patrols ready to counter enemy aircraft. You would still need a few, but not nearly as many as necessary before. Of course, the problem with this system is that it would create a tremendous radar signature.
Heh heh heh. KS-172 is the answer! 400 km range air-launched missile (Su-27 can carry them) designed specifically for killing large, slow, giant-radar-signature targets.
You wrote that? I don't see any indications other countries are afraid to fly their air forces. Iraq is not the standard by which you should be judging aerial combat, or wars for that matter. That's funny (and so true). Smells like the F-5. The F-5 is a much better aircraft than the F-16, and US pilots wanted the F-5 and not the F-16, but that's General Dynamics and politics (and bribes). The A-10 was made primarily to combat Soviet armor. Few countries have massive armor, so the A-10 isn't needed for that mission, but it is still an awesome close air support aircraft, especially in urban and semi-urban environments. Only the US has "cruise" missiles. Everyone has very nice non-ballistic missiles. Non-technology defeats technology every time. People make effective "radars" for "cruise" missiles. That's why Iran has manned observation posts along the coasts to scan the horizon for non-ballistic missiles, or US cruise missiles, which only travel at 350 knots/hour. Most pilots would get bored and switch to guns to shoot them down (the Serbs did). There is no substitute for experience, nor is there a substitute for ingenuity and creativity. No, it isn't a fighter. It's too heavily armored, moves too slowly, and while it does have air-to-air missiles, those are Sidewinders (and I think it carries one on each wing-tip only so two Sidewinders does not a fighter aircraft make). If I'm not mistaken, the radar is downward-looking, not forward looking, so it would get blown out of the sky without even knowing another plane was around.
What smells like the the F-5? And no, the USAF didn't want "F-5 and not F-16". It wanted F-15 and "The Fighter Mafia" got the ball rolling on the -16 (with no bribes - GD initially received $49,000 to participate in the study, vs. Northrop's $100,000). The F-16 was pushed into service largely by Boyd, Sprey and Riccioni (two air force officers and an air force (Pentagon) civilian analyst). Incorrect, whether we use your personal definition of cruise missile or not. Knots/ hour? A knot is 1 Nautical mile per hour. You can't have knots/ hr. And US cruise missiles fly at 800 km/ hr or faster = 430 kt. A-10 has no "wing-tip" hard points. The usual mounting is a pair on the final (outer) pylon on the wing, "balanced" by a jammer pod on the other. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Radar on an A-10? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It was designed as a purely visual (daytime) CAS aircraft.
@Mircea And that's why a controller is flying the aircraft and it is up to them to decide at which targets they acquire to fire upon. Once they fire they then look for more targets and launch more ordinances. It is the missiles they fire that are then on there own to seek and destroy whatever it is the controller sent them out to destroy. Of course the controller can always disarm any missile they fire in case of a problem.
I want B-4 Bombers: invisible to radar and loded with GPS-controlled smart nuclear bombs. I want the ability to blow a nation off the face of the Earth overnight. Once we have this we scale back, and base out military on the "I will fuck you up overnight" premise to which no nation will oppose. Then peace Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have ICBM missiles that can do just that and vaporize anything withn 30 minutes anywhere in the world. Why spend more money on bombers then if that's all you want to do?
'cause I want the red button that sets off any of a thousand different worldwide scenarios where we win. Once we have that, we will have won the Cold War and ended it.
Er, That Cold War? The one that ended 20 years ago? Time for a new calendar on your wall, methinks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
