New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Drone's change the game. If you are a drone pilot and you get shot down you go home and have an argument with your wife because you are in a bad mood.
Point being you can lose a few drones, particularly if you make them cheap. Say you lose lose a couple of drones for every enemy plane you shoot down. Do you even care?
Tactics change. You can sacrifice a drone just to find out where the enemy stealth fighter is, then hunt it with the rest.
Total game changer.
Likely the first rev will be drones working in combination with manned flights and operating only semi autonomously but that is still a game changer.
If you think the current gen drones are a game-changer, wait until we see autonomous drones in warfare.
So true.
Aren't there already STEALTH DRONES?
I've even heard of STEALTH CRUISE MISSILES.
Like Terminator?
(Have you seen the new series HUMANS? When will those life-like, submissive, sexy robots arrive on the scene?)
Last edited:
Thanks! I get all that. What you state also supports why drones will be heavily used by the navy in both surface and sub-surface warfare by the end of the decade. Drones can be used to detect and flesh-out enemy combatants cheaply and over a larger area, compared to the number of expensive ships to accomplish the same task. They also make great decoys and surveillance platforms.
What I would like to understand. Could a sufficiently developed fighter drone with a well trained and experienced remote pilot be able to reliably and regularly win against a (for example) F22 figher with an equally well trained and experienced pilot? I've read alot on this topic and have seen quite a few TV shows - the vast majority of credible sources say no - although a drone would be able to out-fly a piloted aircraft, a drone pilot simply doesn't have the needed combat situational awareness - i.e. the 3-D "feeling" for relative speed, direction, angle, etc. that can only come from being there. Fighter pilots imply it's like a 4th sense, a good pilot "knows in his mind" what is happening and what he needs to do to make the kill shot. Short of putting a drone pilot in a simulator with 3-D projection, appropriate noise and gees, the drone pilot simply can't make as effective use of this 4th sense. The articles argue that the very nature of the drone interface - monitors, flight-sticks and keyboards - drone flying is almost 2-D as perceived by the human brain. Therefore drones are more suited to surveillance, ground attack and ground-directed close support where the height is used to provide visibility, but the actual shooting is 2 dimensional.
That comment that you made about a drone being able to 'out-fly a piloted aircraft' connects with me insofar that it may withstand higher G-forces than a human pilot, but drones don't have the speed or power of say, an F-22. So current drones are limited in performance. They can also be shot down relatively easily I would think.
That's why I used the words "sufficiently developed fighter drone" - I agree current drones (that you and I are aware of) aren't optimized for fighter roles. Without the need for a pilot and related seating, oxygen systems, screens, controls, radios, canopy, etc, the drone would be smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic and stealthier. Also the drone could be built with no safety equipment, less redundancy, no countermeasures, etc. because we don't have to worry about the politics of protecting the human pilot. Lighter and smaller means less required power. So, a drone's design could be 100% optimized as a fighter aircraft including sufficient engine power and have no human-forced design limitations. Spec-for-spec it could/should slaughter an F22 -- but how important is it for the pilot to be "there"? Thus my question.
Keep in mind one the the main reasons many fighters have two engines is for redundancy. If one engine is damaged, the pilot may still be able to get home (it's a mandatory requirement in the Navy). However a single engine can develop the same thrust to weight ratio, is smaller than 2 engines, uses less fuel and allows for a more aerodynamic airframe (i.e. F16), thus making for a superior performing aircraft. Put a more modern more powerful engine in a F16 and update its electronics, it might make for an interesting dogfight with a F15 or F18.
One of the lessons learned from WW2 was quantity can beat quality. In many cases the Germans' fielded superior weaponry from tanks to machine guns to rifles to the Panzerschreck. The kill ratio of Tiger or Panzer to Sherman was 10:1 or higher. Yet it was the American ability to outproduce the Germans in every category that helped win the war.
My point: The F22 and F35 are the current top quality. But what if a couple of old Bear or modern blackjack bombers were designed to carry 100 AMRAAM-type missiles each under the wings or bomb bays and fired a saturation attack at a flight of F22s - what would be the outcome? I know I'm making sh*t-up, but please consider this as a hypothetical question. Considerations:
- the stealth capabilities of the 22 and 35 will hopefully mean they shoot or scoot before the Russians shoot
- What if the Russian radar or infrared technology sufficiently advances to negate the stealth or range advantage
- what if the Russians focus on electronic countermeasures to prevent the AWACS from detecting the Bears/Blackjacks in the first place (recall, the F22 and 35 will not be using active radar at range or their stealth becomes negated)
The US Navy is absolutely concerned with saturation attacks from supersonic air to sea missiles. I've read in Janes that a single Aegis destroyer, would likely be destroyed by a flight of 8-10 sea-skimming supersonic anti-ship missiles at 35+ mile detection ranges - depending on the missile. 2-3 Russian bombers can carry 5X that number and launch from 100++ miles away. Navy doctrine is to not allow the bomber to get close enough to launch by using AWACs and to always sail multiple ships together for mutual protection in hostile environments. Me? I would not want to be on a warship in a shooting war.
Last example, a couple of years ago a Chinese diesel submarine surfaced in the middle of an American Aircraft carrier battle group which included a SSN. It went completely undetected and was within 5000 yards of the carrier which is a short quick torpedo run. So much for the billions in technology designed to prevent such an occurrence. Soon AIP submarine drones may keep Aircraft carriers in their home ports when things get nasty.
My point: The F22 and F35 are the current top quality. But what if a couple of old Bear or modern blackjack bombers were designed to carry 100 AMRAAM-type missiles each under the wings or bomb bays and fired a saturation attack at a flight of F22s - what would be the outcome? I know I'm making sh*t-up, but please consider this as a hypothetical question. Considerations:
- the stealth capabilities of the 22 and 35 will hopefully mean they shoot or scoot before the Russians shoot
- What if the Russian radar or infrared technology sufficiently advances to negate the stealth or range advantage
- what if the Russians focus on electronic countermeasures to prevent the AWACS from detecting the Bears/Blackjacks in the first place (recall, the F22 and 35 will not be using active radar at range or their stealth becomes negated)
The US Navy is absolutely concerned with saturation attacks from supersonic air to sea missiles. I've read in Janes that a single Aegis destroyer, would likely be destroyed by a flight of 8-10 sea-skimming supersonic anti-ship missiles at 35+ mile detection ranges - depending on the missile. 2-3 Russian bombers can carry 5X that number and launch from 100++ miles away. Navy doctrine is to not allow the bomber to get close enough to launch by using AWACs and to always sail multiple ships together for mutual protection in hostile environments. Me? I would not want to be on a warship in a shooting war.
Last example, a couple of years ago a Chinese diesel submarine surfaced in the middle of an American Aircraft carrier battle group which included a SSN. It went completely undetected and was within 5000 yards of the carrier which is a short quick torpedo run. So much for the billions in technology designed to prevent such an occurrence. Soon AIP submarine drones may keep Aircraft carriers in their home ports when things get nasty.
This title is beyond stupid.
Its not the F-35's job to get into air-to-air combat, its main job is to get behind enemy lines, drop its ordinance, and get the fuck out of there. Yes it has air-to-air combat capabilities, but thats only to be used in extremely rare occurrences. The vast majority of the F-35's purpose is to just drop bombs and leave.
Air-to-air combat is an ancient art with todays technology. Can Danmand show me even case of air-to-air combat in the last 20 years??? And I'm talking about air-to-air combat between a superpower and a small player
Drones can outperform manned fighters, humans cannot tolerate much more then 9G for any amount of time, while airframes can be made to handle 30-40Gs. (missiles already are capable of this). The huge problem is drones can have their communications jammed. If the drone is too autonomous then you have another risks of a uncontrolled killing machine in the air. One idea is a small flight of drones that flies as part of a wing with a manned fighter. When the wing meets opposition, the manned fighter designates a target with his helmet. The a drone form the flight takes over to kill it. After the kill it rejoins formation waiting for the next assignment, but once a kill is assigned, it is not revocable without a code. I wonder if the right type of plane for Canada is really something like an AWACS with long range AAMs. I wonder what will happen when F-35 intercepts a TU-160, only to have it throttle up and vanish.
Given our previous missions, Canada will be using these fighter planes for "show the flag" missions, or missions requiring visual target identification. We will be using them to patrol the far North, or far off-shore. We will use them on peace-keeping missions where we need visual target identification. In this type of mission, Stealth is no advantage because people can see the fighter plane.
Properly, for this type of mission, we should send up an inexpensive dual-engined jet-aircraft. Something like the F-18E/F, or for ground-support, the A-10. The A-10 can handle being shot at, has a heavy weapons load, and is a great ground-support aircraft. The F-18 Super Hornet is the US Navy's "inexpensive" fighter platform for the future. It will have a long-life, and is well suited for nautical environments where land may be far away.
The only time stealth is a big-factor is when going up against a site protected by SAM batteries. By the time Canada gets the F-35, the SAM batteries will be able to hit the F-35, and the F-35 is too slow to evade. Also, no one is going to attack SAM batteries with manned aircraft any more. It will all be done with drones within a few years. Why put someone's life at risk, when a drone can be the decoy target? Drone's are the future when attacking against heavily defended airspaces.
China Flies Its Largest Ever Drone: The Divine Eagle
http://www.popsci.com/china-flies-its-largest-ever-drone-divine-eagle
