From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Robert Comer wrote:
>>Std PC hardware can be made very robust. If you're worried about em then
>>faraday cage the beastie.
>
>
> You need to shield it from more than just EMP's and microwaves...
>

How on earth do you think modern fighters fly?

Kill the computer & the plane is unflyable in seconds. Any fly by wire
aircraft has to have this as std.

Take the typhoon. There you have what they call "care free
handling" coz the computers won't let you crash unless you intend to.
i.e. the whole flight envelope is already controlled by computer with the
pilot as more of a "mission manager".

Great so keep a man in a loop but put him in an aircraft carrier or a truck
mounted control center or even in a building in South Dakota.

The vast bulk of the flight profile however will be controlled on board
just as computers control the f22, typhoon, gripen etc.etc.

Then you get to stealth & ye olde knifefight in the dark. Consider a
smaller vehicle with no pilot maintainence system e.g oxygen, ejection seat
etc i.e. which can be optimised for stealth & for manouverability which
would kill a man & it's dark. no afterburner lighting up the sky &
the ir tracking systems. & there are more of them than there are of
you.

Y'know the old submariners thing wrt there are submarines & there are
targets. This is similar.


>
>>I think the F22 is going to be outclassed by drones within 10 years.
>
>
> 20 at least from my viewpoint, the F22 has a VERY advanced weapons system
> even if you don't count stealth.

No stealth & basically it has supercruise cos there is only so much a
man can take. An airframe + electronics can take g forces etc which will
render the pilot into soup.

> It takes time to roll out something this
> sophisticated -- they already would have to have been started building this
> super drone over 10 years ago for it to become operational in 10 years --
> the F22 didn't take that long to develop just because of the human factor...
>

Indeed. a lot of it was to do with budget. These things are much cheaper in
part coz the costs of crashes etc are less in human terms.

>
>>No you won't. No need to try to create every drone a richthofen. How
>>many AAM'es are anything other than idiots let alone savant & yet if you
>>had 10 amraam headed your way you might be worried.
>
>
> Sure it's going to have to be that smart to be an air
> superiority/interceptor weapon, things change on the battle field and you
> can assume that any means of communications with these drones can be
> blocked, so they're going to have to deal with everything that might happen
> in a mission, even up to abort or not because of target
> changes/weather/risk/casualties...
>
>

Oh indeed. telling them not to shoot will be the hardest part.


>>These things will be smaller & thus less visible in all ways from em to
>>visible. They will be hooked into other sources of info inc other drones
>>so they wouldn't need to emit.
>
>
> If they can be hooked into other drones, the master drones would have to
> emit, no doubt about it and you can block that.
>

From above. Unless you are proposing currently illegal anti-satellite
weapons then your jammer is itself merely a flying target.

>
>>We're not talking about a gun fight (yet).
>
>
> I am, that's why I'm saying it can't be done soon.
>

Hey then put a kid in the loop. His aircraft will be able to pull g'es
which will kill a man. You're not that keen of being killed by the Gforces
(or at the very least being rendered unconscious & thus an easy
target).

>
>>All that's needed is an aam
>>solution (preferably from behind & w/o you even guessing you were a
>>solution to a maths problem).
>
>
> aam's are air superiority.
>

indeed.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5