Which modern nation has highest potential in aerospace? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The F-22 will be the superior fighter comapred with the F-35 JSF. Too much weight is spent for VTOL capability on the F-35 that is not on the F-22 for it to be any other way.

----------------------------------

I personally think International Law should ban the production or deployment of armed "drones".

Just imagine what happens if their are un-manned attack aircraft, choppers, and ground units if a dicator gets hold of the controls. Democracy could be gone in the blink of an eye - even in the USA. A few robotic Appaches could effectively rule any city.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Drones cannot become a massive part of the military. You need a man there and then to judge the situation, nothing is better than a human's judgement.

This is really a silly question in my opinion. The U.S and Europe share so much technology it's a blend more than a rivalry.
 
First off, glider, armed drones are much cheaper than manned planes. R&D is still underway but this belongs to the future, sure.
All manned planes cannot deal with a equally careful unmanned design in valid performances. Independent guidiances are in development, too. They have reached (esspeccially in Israel a very high degree). Jamming is still possible, but the next generations of armed drones would need no ground directioning, some cruise missiles are semi independent working today (in operational use). They will render F-35 as well as F-22 useless. Since technology is not that expensive it can be bought or developed by most countries independently.
By the way, there has been much confusion about independent european politics recently, but if it comes hard on hard, I do not doubt that all european countries would work for the US, no matter how splitted public opinion will be.
A ban on armed drones would be interesting, but is very hard to controll...
 
Delcyros. I think we are closer than you think in some areas. Armed drones are in the future we seem to be close on that. Armed drones are cheaper than manned aircraft. Again I agree on a one to one basis, but I think the expence will be in the number you will need to do a number of different tasks.
Independant guidance is in development, that I realise but as far as I am aware they tend to be single function specific.
Cruise missiles are semi independant, again I agree but again they are mission specific.
A manned aircraft gives you flexibility, and there will always be the need for weapon systems that give you options. In the Falklands we went to war with the Sea Harrier which is a fighter, but it proved quite good at dropping bombs and ground support. The RAF Harriers that came later were better ground attack planes but they carried air to air missiles for self defence and would have made themselves dangerous against Argentine helicopters, ground attack aircraft, C130, recce and other types of target had the chance arisen.
You could certainly argue that the cruise missile could have taken the place of the Harrier in the GA role, but I don't see it shooting down another plane.
Also I must go back to jamming. If you allow for directions to be given to the drone, by default it is at risk of being jammed. If you dont you have to programme it before launch and you have an inflexible system. If it is clever enough to make its own decisions on route, you are in danger of having one very sophisticated loose cannon flying around the sky.

Technology will find a way to defeat the best intentions, may I give a lighthearted theoretical example. The early stealth aircraft were I understand safe because their radar returns were about the size of a sparrow and were lost in the clutter. Logic tells me that they are in trouble once someone designs some software to look for sparrows flying at around 600mph, and treats the rest as clutter.
 
RG_Lunatic said:
The F-22 will be the superior fighter comapred with the F-35 JSF. Too much weight is spent for VTOL capability on the F-35 that is not on the F-22 for it to be any other way.

=S=

Lunatic

Not really RG. There will be a version of the F-35 with just STOL capability in as much, the VTOL ducted fan package will not be in this version. Even with the center "fan" installed, the weight of this aircraft was purposely kept to a minimum through out the design and construction. Engineers received cash bonuses for coming up with weight reduction ideas. This did not happened (to my knowledge) during the F-22 development (the F-22 was one of the last projects I worked on while at Lockheed).

I once lived in the Antelope Valley, just a few miles from the "Skunk Works." I have many good friends that helped develope this aircraft and when the fly-off was conducted against the Boeing "Laughing Guppy," the X-35 performed so well that many F-22 program managers took note and supposedly an effort was made to "Win the JSF Contract but don't make the F-22 look too bad."

When both aircraft are built and deployed, I think the deployment concept (at least in the USAF) will have the same relationship that the F-15 and F-16 has today...

By the way, with the F-35 being smaller and looking like a smaller F-22, is also known as "Minnie Me."
 
Yes, glider, we may share the main opinion.
However, the Drones are the fastest developing technology department in aerospace techniques in our days. Bioniks, network solutions and electronic warfare will bring these designs in operational use quite soon. The flexibility you mention is the reason why designs like F-22, Eurofighter, Gripen and other 5th generation fighters are still in development, but I think, this is a major strategical mistake, a huge waste of time and money. Pilots are able to make decisions, true, but they are not free to do that in general, they do have the limits as would have a independent programmed drone. Just keep the stealthy potential in mind, Israel used today a 5 ft. long (very) stealthy semi independent drone for tracking and recon duties, they are extremely cheap and hard to detect (actually it has a radar reflection zone going to be near zero). Next generation drones made by US, europe and other countries will carry weapons for multiple purposes. No manned plane could match an air engagement optimized independent armed drone, they would be able to outmanouvre (todays) SAM and AAM misseles with ease, while a manned plane always suffers from the thread of extreme G-forces. Not to speak of the stealthyness and the ability to carry more weapons or systems.
And they will be able in within a decade or two to intercept sattelites or orbital targets, while I don´t see such improvements in this timeframe for manned planes...
 
delcyros said:
Yes, glider, we may share the main opinion.
However, the Drones are the fastest developing technology department in aerospace techniques in our days. Bioniks, network solutions and electronic warfare will bring these designs in operational use quite soon. The flexibility you mention is the reason why designs like F-22, Eurofighter, Gripen and other 5th generation fighters are still in development, but I think, this is a major strategical mistake, a huge waste of time and money. Pilots are able to make decisions, true, but they are not free to do that in general, they do have the limits as would have a independent programmed drone. Just keep the stealthy potential in mind, Israel used today a 5 ft. long (very) stealthy semi independent drone for tracking and recon duties, they are extremely cheap and hard to detect (actually it has a radar reflection zone going to be near zero). Next generation drones made by US, europe and other countries will carry weapons for multiple purposes. No manned plane could match an air engagement optimized independent armed drone, they would be able to outmanouvre (todays) SAM and AAM misseles with ease, while a manned plane always suffers from the thread of extreme G-forces. Not to speak of the stealthyness and the ability to carry more weapons or systems.
And they will be able in within a decade or two to intercept sattelites or orbital targets, while I don´t see such improvements in this timeframe for manned planes...

While I agree to a point Delcyros, don't rule out the day of the combat pilot yet. I'm old enough to remember folks saying that modern fighters didn't need guns, all combat will be with missiles, etc., well lessons learned in Viet Nam changed all that. Until UAV technology, bionics, network solutions and artificial intelligence are molded into a "foolproof" technology, there will still be a man in the cockpit, and even when we reach the point where this technology is deployable, I think the combat area will still have some kind of forward combat controller in an aircraft watching and to a point, controlling the action.
 
Remote controlled drones are subject to possible jamming.

Autonymous drones are subject to being spoofed - i.e. fooled into mis-evaluations. It will be a long time before AI will be as smart as a human when it comes to battlefield decisions.

Politically, who is going to authorize a drone to use deadly force in any but the most hostile of enemy territories? In any other environment, the chances of destruction of non-enemy targets is quite high.

We are likely to see an increase in the use of drones, mostly remote controlled, against lesser opponents in "hot zones" over the near future. However I think it will still be another 20+ years before we see AI drones with full combat capability patrolling boarders - they are just much too likley to end up shooting down passenger jets (espeically if spoofed by the enemy/terrorists).

=S=

Lunatic
 
RG_Lunatic said:
I think it will still be another 20+ years before we see AI drones with full combat capability patrolling boarders - they are just much too likley to end up shooting down passenger jets (espeically if spoofed by the enemy/terrorists).

=S=

Lunatic

AGREED :thumbright:
 
All possible. I rate the drones potentially as important as the development of jet engines. Jamming is always possible, but the war of even our days is more a war of informations than anything else. Unmanned drones doesn´t automaticly exclude a team to controll them or set the mission parameters.KI doesn´t need to reach human capabilities (however they will, and probably they will surpass them in a couple of decades...) for an effective armed drone. Fighterpilots may be smart, but they doesn´t represent the pinnacle of human minds, they do have knowledge optimized for their purposes, I assume this for the next generation of armed drones, too. And at least they will be spoofed, jammed or misleading, no doubt, that´s war (someone knows about friendly fire or colleteral damage), no reason to exclude them from the battlefield, or isn´t it?
 
U know, people gasped and screamed when someone strapped some rocket pods to the sides of a helicopter........

And if i recall correctly, the GREAT United States of America just smoked one of Osamas captains using a drone armed with a Maverick Missle......

Whoo Hoo.....

Awww......... Im sorry we werent able to notify this poor unfortunate terrorist........ Not very fair was it?????

I got a whole box of kleenex for the tears.....
 
Well, if that box is in your house, Les, it won't be used for this occasion anyway. I might need to borrow it for my allergies later though! ;)

Lets get real here for a second folks. Fairness is never a word I would use on a battlefield. You want a fair fight, take up boxing, or fencing. When you get into the field of battle, you don't want a fair fight. You want overwhelming superiority. The objective is to crush your enemy and demoralize the reserve forces. The faster you can do that, the sooner you can get the messy business over with and get back to some sense of normalcy. War isn't fair, it isn't pretty and it isn't sport. People DIE. The objective is to make as many of the other guys do that and as few of your own. If that means using a drone to take out some sorry sum'bitch, so be it.
 
lesofprimus said:
U know, people gasped and screamed when someone strapped some rocket pods to the sides of a helicopter........

And if i recall correctly, the GREAT United States of America just smoked one of Osamas captains using a drone armed with a Maverick Missle......

Whoo Hoo.....

Awww......... Im sorry we werent able to notify this poor unfortunate terrorist........ Not very fair was it?????

I got a whole box of kleenex for the tears.....

That Drone should be hung in the Air and Space Museum! ;)
 
Just to correct an error made earlier, India does not have MiG31s, AFAIK only Russia and PRC have small numbers of MiG31s. India has Su30MKs, a sort of export version of the Su-35.

I would say Britain has the second highest potential for aerospace development, as it always has done. BAe is heavily involved with the Typhoon and also helped Saab with the JAS 39 Gripen (which also uses a licence built F404 (F/A-18 Hornet) engine from the US. France also has a reasonably well maintained aerospace industry, so europe as a whole would be second best, the main problem being sorting out all the bureaucratic red tape that strangles all their projects.

Japan mainly uses US technology with it's own contributions, like most nations, India isn't that much different nor is China, though both are maturing by developing their own indigenous aircraft.

Russia could make some top class stuff if they actually had any money. Their missiles are some of the best in the world currently, and their combat aircraft are probably some of the best in the world if you consider value for money. They are suffering from lack of investment though, and I would say their industry is in decline for the time being, any talent they have is likely to be lured to somewhere one of the other countries these days.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back