6 ms·

How does this type of aircraft shift the balance of power? It doesn't appear to do anything "better" than a manned aircraft aside from not having a pilot to lo

How does this type of aircraft shift the balance of power? It doesn't appear to do anything "better" than a manned aircraft aside from not having a pilot to lose onboard.

breidh 14y ago
It can ostensibly disable an adversary's satellite.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Uhm, I might be off, but are you thinking of the X-37B? The US has had satellite shoot down capability for a while.
  - velodrome 14y ago
    However, disabling (or altering) the satellite without the adversary knowing about it is an even greater advantage.
  - breidh 14y ago
    Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of the x-37. However, I wasn't aware there was air-to-low-earth-orbit shoot down capability. Only ground launch capability.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      There was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Anti-satellite_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#An... and http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015 http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015
mkaltenecker 14y ago
The only consequences I can think of are that the cost for the military is potentially decreased and that advocating war gets easier. The first one is a maybe. I’m willing to bet that you still need a lot of people to make those things fly, they are also potentially more complicated machines and I’m not sure how the cost of pilots (and replacing them if one is killed) figures into this. The second one seems significant to me. It seems that drones already make it pretty sure you are nowhere safe if the US don’t like you – even if you are a relatively low priority. Presidents (especially Obama) have become extremely willing to use them for just about anything.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Dove 14y ago
You can attempt a lot more of the type of mission in which both your target and your aircraft are destroyed. I've heard folks who work on drones say that once you've fired all your munitions, you have one munition left.
mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.
- velodrome 14y ago
  5. Reconnaissance 6. Stealth 7. Autonomy 8. Cost of pilot death (human loss) 9. Reduced training time
  - antidoh 14y ago
    0. No risk of losing a human, which makes it easier to decide to attack or go to war, and so you look more bad ass in the balance of power. The increased willingness and ability to attack is a bad thing.
- kiba 14y ago
  1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. Not unique to unmanned aircrafts. On the other hand, pilots need to go to the restroom, get hungry, and tired. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. Only useful if human pilot have low latency access to aircraft, or if AI is good enough to fight. Otherwise, you're good as owned. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). Useful, when nobody is trying to shoot down your drone. 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error. In 30 years, maybe.

How does this type of aircraft shift the balance of power? It doesn't appear to do anything "better" than a manned aircraft aside from not having a pilot to lose onboard.

breidh 14y ago

It can ostensibly disable an adversary's satellite.

protomyth 14y ago
Uhm, I might be off, but are you thinking of the X-37B? The US has had satellite shoot down capability for a while.
- velodrome 14y ago
  However, disabling (or altering) the satellite without the adversary knowing about it is an even greater advantage.
- breidh 14y ago
  Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of the x-37. However, I wasn't aware there was air-to-low-earth-orbit shoot down capability. Only ground launch capability.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    There was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Anti-satellite_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#An... and http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015 http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=35015

mkaltenecker 14y ago

The only consequences I can think of are that the cost for the military is potentially decreased and that advocating war gets easier. The first one is a maybe. I’m willing to bet that you still need a lot of people to make those things fly, they are also potentially more complicated machines and I’m not sure how the cost of pilots (and replacing them if one is killed) figures into this. The second one seems significant to me. It seems that drones already make it pretty sure you are nowhere safe if the US don’t like you – even if you are a relatively low priority. Presidents (especially Obama) have become extremely willing to use them for just about anything.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Dove 14y ago

You can attempt a lot more of the type of mission in which both your target and your aircraft are destroyed. I've heard folks who work on drones say that once you've fired all your munitions, you have one munition left.

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago

1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error.

velodrome 14y ago
5. Reconnaissance 6. Stealth 7. Autonomy 8. Cost of pilot death (human loss) 9. Reduced training time
- antidoh 14y ago
  0. No risk of losing a human, which makes it easier to decide to attack or go to war, and so you look more bad ass in the balance of power. The increased willingness and ability to attack is a bad thing.
kiba 14y ago
1. With in-air refueling, a greatly increased time in the air vs manned aircraft. Not unique to unmanned aircrafts. On the other hand, pilots need to go to the restroom, get hungry, and tired. 2. Ability to outmaneuver any manned aircraft by exceeding the human g limit. Only useful if human pilot have low latency access to aircraft, or if AI is good enough to fight. Otherwise, you're good as owned. 3. Greatly lowered cost in both manufacture and pilot training (or lack of). Useful, when nobody is trying to shoot down your drone. 4. When fully realized, AI that is superior to human pilots -- increasing overall combat effectiveness and reducing error. In 30 years, maybe.