>designing stealth into your aircraft
You're asking for obsolescence within a decade, if not five years. The growth of computers, and thus, radar/satellites will always outpace the development of stealth countermeasures. Therefore, you should design a fighter with:
>maneuverability
>light-weight construction
>high performance engines
>increasingly advanced flight and engine control
>better ECM
Strangely enough, this design philosophy produces better fighters. Really makes you think.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
But technology just gonna advance
Why build aircraft at all
Uh because it's just a matter of time before computers replace human pilots as well, and the most manoeuvrable aircraft in the world capable of carrying a person will get RAPED by a well written fighter drone
>not an engineer
>knows nothing about engineering
>just assums technology is going to end up like mass effect 2
>just kill your self you piece of shit
you know they've only JUST started making cars that can stop in traffic (let alone properly self drive) and you just except drone's to be ace fighter pilots in 5 years
Its about profit. An excuse to use tax payers $ on useless shit. The less effective and more expensive it is, the more $ is sucked out of the taxes pool. Tools of war are made for profit and not for winning.
The only time tools of war are made to win was in the world wars, the rest is just expensive toys that break fast so you need to buy more later.
drone=/=autonomous
You know, full-scale simulators of fighter jets are rather realistic these days. They are made to train future pilots, turns out it is easier to stick pilot into a simulator for 200 hours and then let him get into real jet once he knows all the controls and procedures.
Now connect such a simulator to a remotely controlled jet. Bang. Suddenly Gforces are no problem. No human losses. Cockpit is obsolete. Life support systems are obsolete. There you go. And you are mistaken if you believe that is not what military has already developed...
So computers wont replace human pilots... the pilots will just start to operate fighter jets from a remote location. Not the same thing, Steve.
We already have what you're saying, and having a simulator middle man like the one you are describing is stupid. Drones already have cameras to see what's going on. The pilot already has control of the drone. Nothing else is needed.
you don't understand how the millitary-industrial complex works, do you user? But you spend enough time thinking about these things to post about it on Sup Forums. Your life makes me sad
Drones are the future. Not that inexpensive but entirely expendable. The US could just clog Rusky AAA with drones just like Zapp and the Killbots
OP can't talk to you, he's busy downloading more radar to his satellite
so you still have to pay all the training etc of a pilot, for him to just not get in a plane? not the perfect written red barron ace flying scripts??
bit of lag in the wifi (over 1000's of kilometers away) and your drone gets shot down
OP here, i do understand the industrial-complex military as a matter of fact.
How can they detect your aircraft if it doesn't have any transmitting or receiving capabilities? Surely they should just build an ultimate death machine and leave it stripped of communication devices.
The f-22 raptor, whose first flight was in 1997, has a radar cross section the size of a bee
femanon here, whats a radar cross section?
Stealth may not make a better fighter, but most aircraft that see air to air use today are multirole fighter bombers, and stealth is incredibly important for air to ground.
Also, surface based missiles are a much worse problem with a larger radar silhouette.
Its how a plane appears on radar. The f22 only shows up as the size of a bee, so it really doesn't show up on radar at all
thanks hun
Basically this.
If you would launch out of a sudden a cheap ass WW2 style bomber, only improved by using drones, every army in the world would be overwhelmed.
Let's assume a 500 throw away fleet, the enemy's air defense will start shooting them down one by one, using missiles more expensive than the bomber, until they are running out of ammunition. The remaining 350-400 bombers will reach their target.
>thinking radars could detect bee sized objects
>swarm of bee's fly past satellite
>holy shit mr president russia is sending 1000 planes
>too the bee mobile
wait, what?
hummingbirds
drones fly over communications jammer, don't know where they are coz no gps, return home up set, donald trumps soothes them to sleep
its ok user, supreme court decided that love is no longer just between a man and a woman
For a carpet bombing you do not need precision to a centimeter. You could preprogram the whole fleet and just let them fly by timers, inertia sensors and a compass. Or even man a few of the bombers that can serve as a local controller. At a certain point cheap low tech will surpass expensive high tech.
So now your airforce is remote controlled, and you're talking about tech advances as if signal jamming and hijacking wont be an issue there.
Someone remembered the bo2 campaign
>posts this shit on /k/
>everyone there thinks he's retarded
>decides to post on Sup Forums instead
You can't counter stealth through existing technology. Stealth aircraft will always have an advantage over non-stealth aircraft when it comes to detection. If anything, stealth is becoming necessary for any relevant air force.
YOU DONT NEED STEALTH WHEN YOU HAVE A BILLION DRONES FLYING UP YOUR ARSE HOLE!!!!!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>implying stealth drones wouldn't be much better than non-stealth drones