$1bn to build unmanned fighter

[epicstruggle]

And BTW, all civilian rocket programmes have worked closely (read under) respective militaries.

Is that true? As far as I know Arianespace doesn't have very close links to the military (which isn't suprising as Europe as an entity doesn't have a military).

I don't know much about the Japanese launcher programme, but I'd be mildly suprised if their military were too intimately involved.

how old is the arianespace space program? How about the japanese one?

The big cost comes at the begining, when you have to put lots of research into the project. Its a hell of alot easier once the concept is fleshed out.

epic

 

[Deepak]

What I am trying to say is that all civilian space programmes have a critical military component. And initial military research and investment laid the foundation for civilian space programs. Governments are pouring money in civilian space programmes primarily due to their potential military applications.

 

[Guden Oden]

GO, you can't deny the fact that military research has benefitted mankind immensly and has been a stepping stone for further research.

That's not what I'm saying, read what I actually AM saying dammit. I'm saying money is better spent on actually making stuff that benefits mankind than on making stuff that will blow mankind up and hoping something that benefits mankind will come out of it as a freebie.

Not that hard to understand is it?

Who designed Saturn V, the german guy who had been responsible for V2 earlier.

But he actually started experimenting/building rockets BEFORE the german military became involved, so again, rockets are not something the military invented, or came out of military research. Military money furthered the field, but that's not the same thing.

Generally speaking, it's much easier to get the money you need if you say "we need $4bn to build a launch vehicle to send a bomb over to the enemy side and blow them up" than say "we need $4bn to build a launch vehicle to send people to the moon". So it's no wonder the military has become a way to get costly stuff built, but what we NEED is rockets that go to the moon, not rockets that send bombs to other countries. Hence the military is a waste of money, time and resources (and not to mention lives as well I might add).

And BTW, all civilian rocket programmes have worked closely (read under) respective militaries.

Not all. And even in the US, NASA is not under the US military btw, so you're clearly wrong on both counts.

And a special reply to Epic:
Did I say Carmack invented everything himself? No, so quit yer yappin, alright?

 

[epicstruggle]

And a special reply to Epic:
Did I say Carmack invented everything himself? No, so quit yer yappin, alright?

lol, just admit your making stuff up as usual. People will forgive you and we can move on.

Anyways back on, does anyone know how much a cockpit adds to the design of fighter plane? (weight, costs, air dynamics, ...)

epic

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Anyways back on, does anyone know how much a cockpit adds to the design of fighter plane? (weight, costs, air dynamics, ...)

epic

The big thing is the pilot inside of it. I think the absolute max with all the latest g-suit gear a pilot can stay operative is 14 gee for *very* short periods (I think that is the current record). Without a pilot, you could build planes that can pull 40 or 50 gee.

 

[Guden Oden]

Epic:

Please point to the stuff I alledgedly "made up" or quit pooping on the thread. You've reached troll status with that latest accusation.

Zaba:

What are you going to use a plane that does 50G turns for? There's no way a 10+ tonne jet fighter is going to out-turn or out-accelerate a 20kg (max) homing rocket anyway. Besides, a 50G jet fighter is going to be at least as expensive as what we got today, and on top of that comes the problems of controlling it through hostile enemy territory.

You don't want that half-billion unmanned fighter jet crashing in a foreign country because of some bug in the guidance software for example. It would be a much worse disaster than when the serbs downed a F117A; that plane was basically built on obsolete tech by then so that wreckage could be salvaged didn't matter much.

 

[DemoCoder]

For the same reason that we don't use missiles for everything and get rid of planes and artillery. Missiles are different than planes and do not serve the same mission criteria and have different tradeoffs.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Epic:


Zaba:

What are you going to use a plane that does 50G turns for? There's no way a 10+ tonne jet fighter is going to out-turn or out-accelerate a 20kg (max) homing rocket anyway. Besides, a 50G jet fighter is going to be at least as expensive as what we got today, and on top of that comes the problems of controlling it through hostile enemy territory.

Today's fighters can already out-turn today's missiles. Anti-aircraft missiles are fast and have limited fuel and limited turning ability (small control surfaces). If you turn hard and one flies past your plane, it's not going to be able to easily turn around and come back for you.

A pilotless plane will either be flown remotely (like current UAVs) or will become a reusable, reloadable, programmable weapons platform. It'll be like a larger, more versatile cruise missile.

You lose one, so what? Put a self destruct in it. You didn't lose a pilot, didn't give the enemy hostages, didn't have to risk more lives on a rescue attempt, didn't give the enemy a propaganda victory.

 

[Mize]

Why do you always think about warmachines etc., why not unmanned commercial jets, helicopters...

i did mention helicopters.
as to commercial jets, i feel more comfortable knowing that there is a person up front flying the plane. but thats just me. eventually technolodgy will improve to the point that humans will be where the errors will occur.

epic

Humans ARE the fault in 90% of air crashes (told to me by the Chief Scientist of the FAA). Still, I prefer a survival instinct in my pilot.

 

[Deepak]

But he actually started experimenting/building rockets BEFORE the german military became involved, so again, rockets are not something the military invented, or came out of military research. Military money furthered the field, but that's not the same thing.

Generally speaking, it's much easier to get the money you need if you say "we need $4bn to build a launch vehicle to send a bomb over to the enemy side and blow them up" than say "we need $4bn to build a launch vehicle to send people to the moon". So it's no wonder the military has become a way to get costly stuff built, but what we NEED is rockets that go to the moon, not rockets that send bombs to other countries. Hence the military is a waste of money, time and resources (and not to mention lives as well I might add).

Every critical aerospace technology has its roots in military research, Fly-By-Wire, Thrust Vectoring, Super Cruise, Jet Engine etc.

 

[nutball]

I'm wondering is a (perhaps unanticipated) side-effect of the development of UAVs will be an increased willingness on the part of the political masters to use military force to solve any little difficulties they might have.

The body bag factor is a pretty big swayer of public opinion it seems to me, and at some level must act as a brake on the actions of the military. But if the political leadership can guarantee zero casualties on "our side" will the general public more readily accept the use of force in any given situation?

 

[Fred]

Well the last three wars we fought, our casualty load has been pretty low.. It seems more people die on our side from either accident, disease or friendly fire rather than opposing forces.

I very much doubt we can cut into our casualty levels much more than current tech disparity permits. Sure perhaps if we were to face off against an adversary like say China, but thats remote in this day and age.

I think the more important tech areas are rather in bunker busting, and drones that can go through tunnels/mountain access points.. As well as tech that allows planes to be non dependant on nearby airports (read the 24 hour bombers that could leave from the US to any remote location, and return)

 

[DemoCoder]

A hypersonic bomber that could reach any point on the surface in < 2 hrs from the COTUS could be useful as well.

How about the laser from Real Genius?

 

[Guden Oden]

Nutball:

Bodybag figures goes both ways. These days it's extremely difficult for politicians to portray the enemy as devils as has been possible in the past. The proliferation of independent media and watchgroups means official propaganda that may attempt to tone down civilian casualties will be ineffective, or at least hampered. Also, to trust mounting lethal weaponry on a remote-controlled or possibly AI-controlled vehicle that is deployed in mass quantities is a big step. We have cruise missiles now, but they only attack fixed installations. Unmanned airplanes fighting other airplanes or possibly ground targets is another, imagine the public outcry should the thing misfire and blow up say a school, a hospital or the Chinese embassy for example...

Deepak:

I never said military research did not have civilian side-effects, just that those side-effects could have been developed faster and cheaper without the military angle (which is patently true I might add).

Bouncing:

I seriously doubt today's planes out-turn missiles. I've done some casual googling and not found evidence to back up my claim, but a military egghead type of character I once knew (he designed roleplaying games for a living and was well versed in most, if not all things military), said air-to-air missiles of today have turning performance of 20Gs. You don't out-turn that with a jet fighter... The next-gen sidewinder has vanes mounted in the rocket engine jet, and would most likely have much higher performance than that...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I've done some casual googling and not found evidence to back up my claim,

So every missile launched always hit every plane then? Why do fighter pilots even bother to turn hard when a missle gets launched at them? They are trying to make their planes a difficult target by forcing the missile to adjust and possibly miss.

It's only in the movies that a missile goes past a plane and then turns back 180 degrees. It's only in the movies that every missile hits it's target. During the Korean War, the US found out that missiles were not the be-all and end-all of air-to-air combat, and reintroduced guns and the pilot training to use them.

 

[DemoCoder]

I never said military research did not have civilian side-effects, just that those side-effects could have been developed faster and cheaper without the military angle (which is patently true I might add).

But since they weren't, it's patently unsupported. You could also assert that the Catholic Church could develop these technologies faster and cheaper in principle. In reality, people need a Cold War to convince them to spend $100 billion on a moon landing or a reactor.

I'm interested in how history really turned out. In the world we live in today, it was fear driven military spending that drove many of the really hard R&D developments.

Most civilian projects simply don't have a fire burning under their ass to push their priority. You think Galileo would have been built by now if GPS didn't exist? Oh, let us review the history of failed civilian satellite projects. Iridium ring a bell? How about Teledesic?

 

[Vince]

It's only in the movies that every missile hits it's target.

You're right about this, but I always thought modern AAMs can pull upwards of 40+Gs. There's no way a piloted aircraft can out-turn an AAM, in the AIM-9X video below, a few times it comes off the rail at a target that's way off the boarsight (perhaps >60deg?!)

AIM-9X

May I say, sir, I admire your taste in footwear.

 

[Heathen]

So every missile launched always hit every plane then? Why do fighter pilots even bother to turn hard when a missle gets launched at them? They are trying to make their planes a difficult target by forcing the missile to adjust and possibly miss.

Reduction of IR and radar cross section, chaff, ECM. Nothing to do with out turning the missile, it's generally the tracker which can't keep up.