Are manned fighter jets an obsolete technology?

[Skwinty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8

The Foxbat shot it down.(MQ-1 Predator)

Still, as you say, the capabilities will improve over time.

 

[excaza]

False. The MQ-1 Predator can and has fired AIM-92 Stinger missiles against enemy combat aircraft. It failed to shot down the aircraft in question but technology has moved forward since that time.

That's stretching air superiority a bit. Yes, it fired a missile (and almost scored the kill), but it's hard to assert superiority when you're in an aircraft that's slower than a helicopter.

 

[roger]

No you build something simpler and cheaper and rely on shear weight of numbers.

Let me run and tell my bosses that they have it all wrong according to some guy on the internet with no experience in the area.


.... I'm back....

In the long term you are of course largely correct, as I said in the post you are arguing with. We will be creating a lot of different drone systems that can perform specialized missions more cheaply, and, of course, as our technology progresses we will have more sophisticated general purpose weapons as well. But that is all a long time coming. For now we do face real air threats that require conventional forces. As for who wins that technology battle, who knows? DS Gates has been pushing the Air Force to focus on this technology more, for example. The Army is investing heavily in ground systems. Given our available budget I have little doubt that we would dominate should we slip behind and find out the hard way.

But, for now, NO, jet fighters are not obsolete.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Once you got up to the speeds of fighters, wouldn't the signal lag make it impractical to control a drone in real-time?

 

[Ziggurat]

Once you got up to the speeds of fighters, wouldn't the signal lag make it impractical to control a drone in real-time?

Depends on what level of detail you need in the controls. If it's along the lines of "that's your next target, go kill it", then no. If every turn has to be commanded, then that's a potential problem, but not necessarily a deal breaker (maybe your AWACS would also be your drone command center).

 

[Trakar]

Once you got up to the speeds of fighters, wouldn't the signal lag make it impractical to control a drone in real-time?

Only if you are talking GEOsync sat links, anything in theater or bounced off even LEO systems is generally in the hundredths of second delay range (300,000km/s versus a few thousand km distance round-trip) which is faster than human reaction spans and generally at or beyond perceptual lags so while there may be a lag, for most issues it shouldn't be a major problem unless you are trying to remote control a drone in where-everstan from stateside. For the most part, however, if we are talking UCAV interceptors, they are going to have a lot of autonomous operation functionality (in the very near future,...if not now) that will handle most flying and actual "dog-fighting" control, and the human operator is going to act more as a higher-order executive system, guiding the weapon away from "decoys" and human-designed/planned deceptions that might mislead purely autonomous AI systems.

 

[quarky]

Its very reassuring that our willingness to engage in mostly pointless violence will evolve unabated.

Go, humans!!

 

[Trakar]

Its very reassuring that our willingness to engage in mostly pointless violence will evolve unabated.

Go, humans!!

Violence is rarely pointless. Occassionally ineffectual, often misdirected, frequently excessive, and often counterproductive, but rarely pointless.

 

[quarky]

Violence is rarely pointless. Occassionally ineffectual, often misdirected, frequently excessive, and often counterproductive, but rarely pointless.

Hard to argue with that.

There is a point.
Billionaires.

 

[I Ratant]

If the aerial combatants are stealthy, how can there be the traditional dogfight?

 

[Ziggurat]

If the aerial combatants are stealthy, how can there be the traditional dogfight?

Traditional dogfights take place within visual range, and stealth planes aren't invisible. So at least during the day, a traditional dog fight is in some sense easier than long-range missile combat.

 

[quarky]

There is something upsetting about this rational discussion in the science forum.
Perhaps its because there is an innate prejudice towards first-world military tech?
Imagine being a member from one of the receiving ends of our glorious advanced smart bombs and all?

Spank me, but ol' Einstein would share my squirminess.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is something upsetting about this rational discussion in the science forum.
Perhaps its because there is an innate prejudice towards first-world military tech?

How so? Because we think it's far more effective than third-world military tech? Well, that's simply true. Because we want it to be effective? Well, what country doesn't want their military tech to be effective?

Imagine being a member from one of the receiving ends of our glorious advanced smart bombs and all?

A little bit of history informs us that for civilian populations, it's far better than being on the receiving end of dumb bombs

Spank me, but ol' Einstein would share my squirminess.

I'm not sure he would. Consider this: smart bombs are perhaps the first time in history where the advances in technology are allowing us to use less destructive weaponry. How is that a bad thing?

And if he would be squirmy about that, well, he would be wrong to be.

 

[Roboramma]

I have to agree with Ziggurat. Old Star Trek episodes aside, I can't see how advancing technology changing warfare in such a way that results in fewer casualties is a bad thing.

I suppose the fact that high technology means that rich nations have an unbridgeable military advantage over poor nations could be a major problem in theory, but in the real world and in practice is doesn't seem to be a major problem at the moment. In fact, if technology is what keeps North Korea from invading South Korea and starting a major war, I'm all for technology.

If the EU starts a war of world domination, well, I'll agree with quarky that I was short-sighted.

But to be honest what I find most exciting about this is that military expenditure is going to develop technology that has some very obvious civilian uses. The same technology that can be used to fly a fighter autonomously can be applied to drive a car autonomously. Obviously there are different problems to be solved in one case than the other, but advances with respect to the military application are likely to be applicable to the civilian application as well.

Another application: space exploration/resource utilization. Manned spaceflight is an expensive dream that's not likely to become anything more than that in the near future, but robotic applications are already doing very important science. That this will improve as technology improves is obvious. But NASA doesn't have the budget to make the necessary technological improvements to, for instance, develop autonomous rovers for mars that don't requite detailed instructions from earth*. The military does have to budget to solve the necessary problems, and once those solutions have been made, they can be applied to space-robots as much as fighter jets.

*At least, NASA's budget is more limited than the military's budget, and thus its contribution to those advances will likely be proportionally slower.

 

[I Ratant]

Traditional dogfights take place within visual range, and stealth planes aren't invisible. So at least during the day, a traditional dog fight is in some sense easier than long-range missile combat.

.
-Unmanned- stealth planes will need optics as well as electronic stuff, to engage in dogfights.
Some basement game player kiddies may be able to handle that task.
Interceptor type UAVs will probably be small, and difficult to see anyway.
And then there the shooting part... what can the gun/missile track as the target, if the target isn't easily detected?

 

[I Ratant]

Some of the stealth planes are autonomous for performing the mission. The pilot is just a systems observer.
They tended to be bored when the system was being developed...
Not much for them to do, other than plug in the box with all the mission parameters before engine start, which itself was automated, then sit through the flight and observe/comment.
(not much hands-on flying involved... I remember during the Autoland system development for the L-1011, my boss, a private pilot, said to the PIC... "Art, I'd love to land this airplane" during a test flight. AJ said rather grumpily... "
SO WOULD I!"...

Global Hawk is totally autonomous.. no pilot at all! The first flights for each, from Palmdale, are preprogrammed for every aspect from power on to taxi to takeoff to flight, land and taxi in.

 

[Ziggurat]

.
-Unmanned- stealth planes will need optics as well as electronic stuff, to engage in dogfights.

Actually, at dogfight ranges, stealth planes can't rely on stealth. Radar signal will scale something like 1/r⁴ (from a 1/r² intensity falloff from emitter to the target times another 1/r² falloff from the target back to the detector). Stealth makes the prefactor small enough that at long ranges, the signal is too weak. With long-range missiles, that means an F-22 can attack before it's detected, and it also means that they see the enemy before the enemy can see them, which is a major advantage. But that stealth won't last once you get into dogfighting range.

And optics isn't a problem either, even at night. Stealth planes still emit heat. The B-2 is designed to shield much of its heat signal from the ground, but it's still visible from above, and the F-22 doesn't even use the B-2's heat shielding since it would interfere with engine performance. I don't think human operators are going to have a serious advantage over the computer in terms of tracking the enemy optically.

 

[quarky]

How so? Because we think it's far more effective than third-world military tech? Well, that's simply true. Because we want it to be effective? Well, what country doesn't want their military tech to be effective?



A little bit of history informs us that for civilian populations, it's far better than being on the receiving end of dumb bombs



I'm not sure he would. Consider this: smart bombs are perhaps the first time in history where the advances in technology are allowing us to use less destructive weaponry. How is that a bad thing?

And if he would be squirmy about that, well, he would be wrong to be.

I can't really argue your point. And not because you are right or not.
That I expressed squirmy-ness in reading this thread was emotional.

I would like to think that hi-tek could go one better than smart-bombing, as per the relative damage done. Good thing I'm not the boss of this forum. I'd allow all sorts of sex and drugs, but not what constitutes advocating violence. We don't dare suggest that someone kill themselves, yet we are allowed to discuss the details of killing others.

We can show off our guns here.
And we are mostly elite.
That's a bit of a problem, as per the international spirit of jref.

 

[quarky]

I have to agree with Ziggurat. Old Star Trek episodes aside, I can't see how advancing technology changing warfare in such a way that results in fewer casualties is a bad thing.

I suppose the fact that high technology means that rich nations have an unbridgeable military advantage over poor nations could be a major problem in theory, but in the real world and in practice is doesn't seem to be a major problem at the moment. In fact, if technology is what keeps North Korea from invading South Korea and starting a major war, I'm all for technology.

If the EU starts a war of world domination, well, I'll agree with quarky that I was short-sighted.

But to be honest what I find most exciting about this is that military expenditure is going to develop technology that has some very obvious civilian uses. The same technology that can be used to fly a fighter autonomously can be applied to drive a car autonomously. Obviously there are different problems to be solved in one case than the other, but advances with respect to the military application are likely to be applicable to the civilian application as well.

Another application: space exploration/resource utilization. Manned spaceflight is an expensive dream that's not likely to become anything more than that in the near future, but robotic applications are already doing very important science. That this will improve as technology improves is obvious. But NASA doesn't have the budget to make the necessary technological improvements to, for instance, develop autonomous rovers for mars that don't requite detailed instructions from earth*. The military does have to budget to solve the necessary problems, and once those solutions have been made, they can be applied to space-robots as much as fighter jets.

*At least, NASA's budget is more limited than the military's budget, and thus its contribution to those advances will likely be proportionally slower.

I hear you, and that was a great post

 

[theprestige]

I can't really argue your point. And not because you are right or not.
That I expressed squirmy-ness in reading this thread was emotional.

I would like to think that hi-tek could go one better than smart-bombing, as per the relative damage done. Good thing I'm not the boss of this forum. I'd allow all sorts of sex and drugs, but not what constitutes advocating violence. We don't dare suggest that someone kill themselves, yet we are allowed to discuss the details of killing others.

We can show off our guns here.
And we are mostly elite.
That's a bit of a problem, as per the international spirit of jref.

Thanks to the Internet, anybody with a cell phone and an interest in the subject can participate in an informed discussion about whether or not manned fighter jets are obsolete. That encompasses a lot more people around the world than you might think. Lots of developing countries are skipping the PC phase, and going straight from "no computer" to "smart phone".

The Internet also allows them to contribute to an informed debate about the propriety of discussing the current and future state of the art in military technology. But they should probably start a separate thread for that...