Musk on F-35 vs drones

Velocity173

Velocity173

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
15,597
Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Last edited:
I would guess that any fighter aircraft vs an unmanned version of itself would lose at least in terms of maneuverability since robots dont black out or red out. Other than that, depends on SA and interface IMO.

Go my drone bretheren, go!
 
overdrive148 said:
I would guess that any fighter aircraft vs an unmanned version of itself would lose at least in terms of maneuverability since robots dont black out or red out. Other than that, depends on SA and interface IMO.

Go my drone bretheren, go!
Click to expand...

But like the pilot states in the second article, the maneuverability of today’s fighter vs the other aircraft isn’t that important. The F-35 doesn’t need to find a way to get on the drone’s 6. In theory, his weapon system would already have engaged the drone long before it gets to a turning dogfight. The drone would have to be so maneuverable, that it exceeds the capabilities of the incoming missile. I know that sounds an awful like what was proposed during Vietnam times but the military has leaps and bounds advanced in sensor fusion since then.

The F-35 is really nothing more than an antenna with weapons linking his picture and others to one big tactical display. An enemy drone wouldn’t just be up against an F-35, they’d be against all the supporting elements as well. There’s a chance that enemy drone would be shot down by the carrier battle group or in theater SAMs long before he reached the F-35. All about synergy in today’s battlefield and if the enemy doesn’t have infrastructure to support it like we do, they’ll lose.

If the drone were to work it’s way into a visual turning fight, I think whatever benefit the drone pilot has in maneuverability, would lost in the lack of visual sensors at his console. Eye balls in the air can’t be replicated on the ground. Just the split second delay in the downlink and the fragility of LOS in a high EM theater, would be an Achilles heal for the drone operator.

Now, if the drone possessed AI? That’s a whole other ballgame. :eek:
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
It is hard to jam a pilot...
Click to expand...
Nope. G-loads, and mental overload, can both render a pilot useless. The electronics, with or without a pilot, could be an issue.
 
kyleb said:
It is hard to jam a pilot...
Click to expand...
Ever hear "TUMBLEWEED!"? :cool:

You don't jam the pilot, you jam the box he's sitting in. If you've got the power and bandwidth to render an ECCM-capable unpiloted airplane deaf, dumb, and blind you can pretty much render a piloted one useless as well.

Nauga,
and his loyal wingman
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
Ever hear "TUMBLEWEED!"? :cool:
Click to expand...

This one?:

Tumbleweed
Describes one who is NO JOY, BLIND, and rapidly losing situation awareness, in a request for directive commentary and orientation. Colloquially NO TALLY; NO VISUAL, NO CLUE!​

But I don't understand what the Oshkosh arrival has to do with this discussion.
 
Velocity173 said:
But like the pilot states in the second article, the maneuverability of today’s fighter vs the other aircraft isn’t that important. The F-35 doesn’t need to find a way to get on the drone’s 6. In theory, his weapon system would already have engaged the drone long before it gets to a turning dogfight. The drone would have to be so maneuverable, that it exceeds the capabilities of the incoming missile. I know that sounds an awful like what was proposed during Vietnam times but the military has leaps and bounds advanced in sensor fusion since then.
Click to expand...

This is still the same situation, technology or not. The reason is the Rules of Engagement haven't changed all that much. While we have the technology to reach out and down an enemy aircraft from long range, the ROE seldom allows for that. It does turn into a maneuvering fight at some point usually.

When I was growing up in the 80's, I of course was deep into learning about aviation, and all the books in the 80's predicted unmanned systems were going to eliminate the pilot in the next 5-10 years. The F-14,-15,-16,-18 were the latest and greatest, and were destined to be the last manned fighter jets. 30+ years later, and we are still hearing the same predictions.

Now it is true, some roles have been replaced with technology, but I don't think its fair or safe to say its over.
 
To exceed the capabilities of a piloted aircraft a drone would have to be designed to higher load ratings. I don’t know if they are or not. ButI would suspect the added structural weight to sustain more than 9gs would have other negative impacts on the drones performance.
 
skier said:
To exceed the capabilities of a piloted aircraft a drone would have to be designed to higher load ratings. I don’t know if they are or not. ButI would suspect the added structural weight to sustain more than 9gs would have other negative impacts on the drones performance.
Click to expand...

Yes. But think of the weight penalty of all of the pilot centric stuff like pressurization, an ejection seat, the extra airframe volume, etc.
 
I happen to love the F-35 (but I'm biased) and also think Elon Musk is a fascinating individual with no shortness of vision. Drones in an air-to-air centric role are probably inevitable but not in the way he is espousing. At some level in the system architecture there is human interaction. Mr. Musk's assertion that "the jet fighter era has passed" is fundamentally false. Jet fighters are machines. Nothing more. It sits on the ground until someone interacts with it in some way. A drone is an attack or fighter or refueling platform that has had its human interaction moved to a separate level of the system. So, jet fighters won't go away, they will simply change. Nothing new there.

I have 5 concerns with Mr. Musk's proposal, and none of them are pilot centric.
1) His statement is illustrative of a general (and common) ignorance as to the CHARACTER of warfare vs the NATURE of warfare within society.
2) While removing the human from within the machine certainly solves problems it also adds completely new ones. Humans in the machine actually simplify the system as a whole. For example, Mr. Musk is assuming we will have the technology available to support the networks required for such systems after the shooting starts in peer or near-peer conflict; I'm not so sure and I do this for a living.
3) AI isn't there yet. People are working on this and it shows a lot of promise under certain circumstances. BUT, we must ask the tough questions about AI when it comes to taking life. Do you want a machine to be able to make that choice? Skynet aside, there are real concerns here and Mr. Musk should be one of the people addressing them.
4) Drones, and those that operate them, present a special challenge under certain aspects of the Law of Armed Conflict. Are drone operators valid military targets? What if they are doing so from Nevada? What if it is just a bunch of IT nerds entering code and hitting enter, thus programming a maneuver response into the system that now poses a threat to a real, human enemy? If we flip the question and put yours truly on the targeting end of the problem then I would unequivocally say yes, I am going to target those nodes of the system. This could potentially lead to unintended escalation by forcing country Red to target the US Mainland when under "normal" circumstances they would be targeting US deployed assets. We haven't seen this to date simply because the enemy we've been employing drones against doesn't possess this capability. Make no mistake, drone facilities are on the target lists of our adversaries.
5) I hate drones, really do. Why? Not because I think fighters are cool or some other childish thing. I hate them because they make killing easier. They simplify the decision cycle that ends with a life ending. As someone who trains to take life everyday I take this seriously. I love drones, really do. Why? Not because I think war is cool or some other childish thing. I love them because they make saving the lives of friends easier. They simplify the decision cycle that ends with a Marine coming home and a bad guy going away. As someone who trains to take life everyday I take this seriously. Mr. Musk is visionary who knows nothing of this.
 
I think he is wrong. I respect Elon, but it will take decades until a drone is capable of what a trained fighter pilot can do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top