antiterror13
Brigadier
Re: New Chinese UAV
it is like fighter pilot simulator ... look the size of LCD ... huge and very advance
it is like fighter pilot simulator ... look the size of LCD ... huge and very advance
Chinese UAV/UCAV development
- Thread starter AssassinsMace
- Start date
- Status
Re: New Chinese UAV
i think he meant that aircraft displayed on the screen.looks pretty hi-tech
i think he meant that aircraft displayed on the screen.looks pretty hi-tech
Re: New Chinese UAV
a picture of the Chinese globe hawk UAV from CAC. Not much to say, but it looks like a new prototype, the first one that we saw before was already painted.
a picture of the Chinese globe hawk UAV from CAC. Not much to say, but it looks like a new prototype, the first one that we saw before was already painted.
Attachments
-
XiangLong-May27.jpg
vesicles
Colonel
UAV Discussion Thread
I have heard arguments both ways about the future of fighter jets. Some people say that the future will definitely be UAVs because the only limiting factor now for fighter performance is human endurance. Without human pilots, fighters can be much faster and maneuverable, basically a mother missile with a bunch of detachable missiles. Yet, people in the other camp would say that the human element is crucial to winning battles. Machines are less able to react to fast changing situations during combat and only a human pilot can make decisions.
I, myself, favor the UAV argument. These unmanned fighters won't be going into battle by themselves, totally automatic. They are still controlled by human pilots although they are sitting hundreds miles away. These UAV pilots can see everything that a human pilot physically sitting in the cockpit can see. So these UAV pilots have all the necessary resources that a fighter pilot in the cockpit would have to make a decision. So the decisions are still been made by human with feelings and intelligence. Yet, thes UAVs would be so much better, in terms of performance, than a pilotted fighter, and have a much better chance of winning a fight.
What is your opinion?
I have heard arguments both ways about the future of fighter jets. Some people say that the future will definitely be UAVs because the only limiting factor now for fighter performance is human endurance. Without human pilots, fighters can be much faster and maneuverable, basically a mother missile with a bunch of detachable missiles. Yet, people in the other camp would say that the human element is crucial to winning battles. Machines are less able to react to fast changing situations during combat and only a human pilot can make decisions.
I, myself, favor the UAV argument. These unmanned fighters won't be going into battle by themselves, totally automatic. They are still controlled by human pilots although they are sitting hundreds miles away. These UAV pilots can see everything that a human pilot physically sitting in the cockpit can see. So these UAV pilots have all the necessary resources that a fighter pilot in the cockpit would have to make a decision. So the decisions are still been made by human with feelings and intelligence. Yet, thes UAVs would be so much better, in terms of performance, than a pilotted fighter, and have a much better chance of winning a fight.
What is your opinion?
Last edited:
Propagandalass
New Member
Re: Manned fighter vs. UAVs
UAVs or at least RCUAVs will make the cut.
Pilots need to cope with danger of blackouts and g-forces limiting them, UAVs don't and won't immediately cost a human life on failure.
Unless the production of a UAV has over the top costs compared to a conventional piloted aircraft, or cyber warfare gets the cake in which case human controlled aircrafts are slightly less screwed than UAVs.
UAVs or at least RCUAVs will make the cut.
Pilots need to cope with danger of blackouts and g-forces limiting them, UAVs don't and won't immediately cost a human life on failure.
Unless the production of a UAV has over the top costs compared to a conventional piloted aircraft, or cyber warfare gets the cake in which case human controlled aircrafts are slightly less screwed than UAVs.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Re: Manned fighter vs. UAVs
That certainly would be a game changer for all the major opposing powers in that it could be cheaper and no pilots life at threat one could try the old kamikaze stuff?, but Im not certain that complete situation awareness or control could be maintained, through jamming etc and who would benefit the most.
Propagandalass
New Member
Re: Manned fighter vs. UAVs
Which throws up the question wether its better to actually try a UAV with mounted weapons or simply make a UAV thats just a seeking or RC type "missile". And wether a combination of both makes sense.
Which throws up the question wether its better to actually try a UAV with mounted weapons or simply make a UAV thats just a seeking or RC type "missile". And wether a combination of both makes sense.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: Manned fighter vs. UAVs
Something to consider with UCAVs is how they are controlled.
The current man-behind-a-screen method works fine for recon and bombers firing hellfires or dropping LGB/JDAMs etc, but there is a time-delay that increases with distance from the controller.
I don't think I need to spell out how critical any delayed response would be in a dogfight (its less of a problem for BVR, but then the UCAV's biggest advantage of potential ultra-agility is also less useful at BVR).
This means UCAV operators face a choice of either basing its controllers close to the frontline, where they are more exposed. And the operators will be a prime target for the enemy. Or basing them further back, in safer territory, but suffering longer lags.
The alternative is independent AI, but that raises all sorts of control and safety as well as morality issues. Of course, the technology required to develop fully autominus AI that can take on a human pilot and win is far more complicated then anything we have today, so that will push the in-service date of any such aircraft further back.
Something to consider with UCAVs is how they are controlled.
The current man-behind-a-screen method works fine for recon and bombers firing hellfires or dropping LGB/JDAMs etc, but there is a time-delay that increases with distance from the controller.
I don't think I need to spell out how critical any delayed response would be in a dogfight (its less of a problem for BVR, but then the UCAV's biggest advantage of potential ultra-agility is also less useful at BVR).
This means UCAV operators face a choice of either basing its controllers close to the frontline, where they are more exposed. And the operators will be a prime target for the enemy. Or basing them further back, in safer territory, but suffering longer lags.
The alternative is independent AI, but that raises all sorts of control and safety as well as morality issues. Of course, the technology required to develop fully autominus AI that can take on a human pilot and win is far more complicated then anything we have today, so that will push the in-service date of any such aircraft further back.
ravenshield936
Banned Idiot
Re: Manned fighter vs. UAVs
UAVs are good for air support missions, but i highly doubt UAVs are ready for the cream of modern aerial battlefront: air superiority. dogfights is essentially like CQB or melee combat. (sorry for the bad comparisons). dogfights, like cqb and melee combat, are extremely fast paced, operate under heavy stress, very close proximity, and the outcomes are very sensitive to every factors in effect as disadvantages in the variables may work against the fighting forces involved. what the last section means is that losing sight of the target, or slightly less observance of the situation, can be decisive enough to say win or lose.
in this case, even though the pilot may be at the ground piloting the UAV, it is not the same. not being first person, i think the pilots may react differently than at the scene. this includes psychology and the mentality of being safe behind the screen than making decisions inside the canopy. also until UAVs are able to project 100% visual image of what the mark I eyeball can do, and as fast, the UAVs are still in disadvantage. adding on top of that, i think the skills of a real fighter pilot was developed and shown in the air than on the ground, so i think UAVs will never be able to perform what the pilot can do in the air. not only that, the pilot's instincts, skills, will be limited to his reactions on the ground. not only is that a bad thing, i think it degenerates the quality and skills of a fighter pilot as he now has less flying hours. of course this means anyone can be trained to do the same, and less strict conditions, which also can be a bad thing as quality selection has been lowered.
behind the screen knowing g factor is not an issue can be bad too. the pilots will be less sensitive/aware of the environment. being able to experience the g force can help the pilot understand what the target may be experiencing, so this "g force concept" can be a good and bad thing.
lastly, i think that a fighter pilot in a mig21 can outperform a UAV because of who's first person in the situation and by experience. being in the situation means more aware of the situation, and as well, the environment a fighter pilot originally strives. it's been shown numerous times that even for an older aircraft of technological disadvantage, outperform a new one due to experience and skills
UAVs are good for air support missions, but i highly doubt UAVs are ready for the cream of modern aerial battlefront: air superiority. dogfights is essentially like CQB or melee combat. (sorry for the bad comparisons). dogfights, like cqb and melee combat, are extremely fast paced, operate under heavy stress, very close proximity, and the outcomes are very sensitive to every factors in effect as disadvantages in the variables may work against the fighting forces involved. what the last section means is that losing sight of the target, or slightly less observance of the situation, can be decisive enough to say win or lose.
in this case, even though the pilot may be at the ground piloting the UAV, it is not the same. not being first person, i think the pilots may react differently than at the scene. this includes psychology and the mentality of being safe behind the screen than making decisions inside the canopy. also until UAVs are able to project 100% visual image of what the mark I eyeball can do, and as fast, the UAVs are still in disadvantage. adding on top of that, i think the skills of a real fighter pilot was developed and shown in the air than on the ground, so i think UAVs will never be able to perform what the pilot can do in the air. not only that, the pilot's instincts, skills, will be limited to his reactions on the ground. not only is that a bad thing, i think it degenerates the quality and skills of a fighter pilot as he now has less flying hours. of course this means anyone can be trained to do the same, and less strict conditions, which also can be a bad thing as quality selection has been lowered.
behind the screen knowing g factor is not an issue can be bad too. the pilots will be less sensitive/aware of the environment. being able to experience the g force can help the pilot understand what the target may be experiencing, so this "g force concept" can be a good and bad thing.
lastly, i think that a fighter pilot in a mig21 can outperform a UAV because of who's first person in the situation and by experience. being in the situation means more aware of the situation, and as well, the environment a fighter pilot originally strives. it's been shown numerous times that even for an older aircraft of technological disadvantage, outperform a new one due to experience and skills
- Status