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

Robert Comer wrote:
>>How on earth do you think modern fighters fly? ...
>
>
> Yep, know about that, a modern fighter would be basically a fast rock
> without its computer, but that's not the type of smarts I'm talking about,
> not even close.
>

But then what was all that wrt protecting the computers? Obviously they
must be protected now or it's all over for the more recent mil a/c.

wrt the "smarts" let's take actually flying the plane,
navigating, take off & landing etc as a "given" ok?

So remind me again what's left? Air to air tactics? 4d situational
awareness? stores management? Mastery of an immelman turn?

>
>>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.
>
>
> Not workable, you can't count on there being communications.
>

You can't count on it which is why you give the machine a degree of mission
completion smarts.

>
>>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.
>
>
> Yep, but it's got to know what and when and how to attack. (and better yet,
> what not to attack) An unmanned aircraft would have an advantage in
> everything but smarts and autonomy.  Like I said, it'll get there, but not
> soon.
>

It would be a killing machine. No point trying to use it to deliver aid in
earthquake hit areas.

>
>>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.
>
>
> Not even close, the most sophisticated part aren't those, it's the
> weapons/detectors system. (I believe it's somewhat super maneuverable too
> with some thrust vectoring)
>


& the weapons/detectors are computerized. No computers no weapons & no
sensors excepting the eyeball.

>
>>From above. Unless you are proposing currently illegal anti-satellite
>>weapons then your jammer is itself merely a flying target.
>
>
> We'd be stupid not to have planned for this eventuality.....  (You don't
> think the jammers are going to be flying along too, they'd be on the ground
> and up where the satellites are.)
>

Ummm....oooo OK.

Satellite jammers would have an unfortunate set of side issues which would
possibly cripple your own side. i.e. if you could launch satellite jammers
then you'd probably be using sats for a lot of other uses.

Adam

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