Next Generation Air Dominance (USAF)

[Web99]

What’s everyone’s take on this? For the US to build and test a 6th generation fighter in a year is absolutely crazy. 

It’s speculation but I really think it’s going to be like a “super raptor” or something as it’s highly unlikely for a designer to be so sure an untested will fly without issues. Even with computer simulations it’s a long stretch to fly something in a year. 
 

source: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36122339/air-force-secret-new-fighter-jet-concept-art/

[Lord Riot]

As long as it won’t be a drone it’s all good with me.

[exdraken]

Interesting!

I'd assume it builds upon lots of proven technology and components, still very impressive approach if you wanna place real people inside!

I hope it is not resulting in  a silver bullet or Starfighter ... covering all design criteria but still not being really suitable.

 

Why would you want different engines from the start is beyond me, modularity and adaptability of course desired!

[junglierating]

19 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

As long as it won’t be a drone it’s all good with me.

How about flown by an android...kinda a half way house 😆

[spruecutter96]

On 6/7/2021 at 5:57 PM, junglierating said:

How about flown by an android...kinda a half way house

I guess it takes human emotions and weaknesses out of the equation. A good thing, or bad? I'm really not sure on this one.

 

Chris. 

[Slater]

Well, given the F-35's seemingly enduring problems and the fact that industry can't seem to combine airborne refueling equipment with a 30-year old, non-stealthy Boeing 767 airframe (the KC-46) without an embarrassing series of problems....I'm not particularly optimistic.

 

Maybe the USAF would have better luck signing on to the the Tempest program. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by Slater

[Giorgio N]

37 minutes ago, Beermonster1958 said:

Definitely a bad thing. Humans have the ability to think creatively and, to act based on compassion,judgement, instinct and other emotions.

If we go down the road of exclusively  drone aircraft etc, how long is it going to be before we have drone soldiers?

The usual excuse given is that it "saves lives" or"means we don't have to put people in harms way".

All very noble I'm sure but, I think this sort of thing actually makes the prospect of conflicts a lot easier. If all we are risking is a collection of either fully autonomous machines or, ones operated by desk bound geeks hundreds of miles away from any danger how much easier is it going to be for sabre rattling, ambitious leaders to pick a fight with someone else?

 

John

 

Looking at many aspects of the process followed to make recruits into soldiers, we've had drone soldiers for centuries since this process tend at eliminating emotions and eradicating certain istincts in favour of those better suited to efficienty in combat. Even "creativity" is something that has very often been taken out of the job of a soldier ("a soldier must obey, not think").

[junglierating]

3 hours ago, Beermonster1958 said:

As a former serving soldier, I have to respectfully disagree with your comment.

We weren't drones by any means and creative thinking and initiative were certainly not discouraged.

For sure, soldiers have to taught instant obedience. For the simple reason that hesitation in combat conditions can be fatal.

That's beside the point however when a soldier is ordered to do something that violates their conscience.

Real soldiers may very well refuse to carry out an order that results in an atrocity.

A robot soldier will simply do as programmed, without morals or conscience.

I can accept that there will always be some roles for UAVs, etc. However, I cannot accept that removing humans from the equation is anything other than an extremely worrying development

John

Bootnecks are clever ...so they keep tellin' me 🤣👍isnt that right Royal 😀

[Giorgio N]

20 hours ago, Beermonster1958 said:

As a former serving soldier, I have to respectfully disagree with your comment.

We weren't drones by any means and creative thinking and initiative were certainly not discouraged.

For sure, soldiers have to taught instant obedience. For the simple reason that hesitation in combat conditions can be fatal.

That's beside the point however when a soldier is ordered to do something that violates their conscience.

Real soldiers may very well refuse to carry out an order that results in an atrocity.

A robot soldier will simply do as programmed, without morals or conscience.

I can accept that there will always be some roles for UAVs, etc. However, I cannot accept that removing humans from the equation is anything other than an extremely worrying development

John

 

John,

I've served in the Army myself and I've kept in touch for a while with that world. At the same time after my service I looked more into what meant to be a soldier in older days and regardless of what we may have thought during our service days, history shows quite a different picture.

Starting with creative thinking and initiative. these are all aspects of the training process that are related to "modern" warfare, where combat is fragmented at small unit level. It makes sense to develop these qualities when even at squad level decisions are important. This is however a way of combat that only developed in the final stages of WW1 and really initiative at individual level only started to be considered useful in early 20th Century. Before that, this was rarely considered a positive thing and many armies saw personal initiative as a danger. That makes some sense in a style of combat based on larger units, where the inititative only needs to be in the hand of the officers.

Regarding humanity, sure we are more human than robots but militaries are pretty good at de-humanising the enemy through various means. De-humanization process that in time of war is aimed not only the serving soldiers but the whole population, so creating a common hatred . The results are there for all to see: each and every war has seen atrocities of some kind, be it limited incidents caused by individual soldiers snapping out of their minds or organised mass killings promoted at the higher levels and happily carried out by whole combat units. Yes, we may be more human than robots but our track record is not particularly good in this respect..

In a sense a robot may actually be better: once a robot is programmed to spare an unarmed civilian, the robot will consistently do just that. A human on the other hand may react differently dpending on the situation, the stress level, the rage or the fear.

 

You earlier touched on an other point that is quite interesting: yes, employing machines does make war more likely, as losses of machines are much less of a problem compared to human losses. This process already started but it's not only due to the availability of drones and similar machines: the massive rise of private military companies has allowed governments to "wage war" much more freely since losses among PMC "employees" do not attract the same bad public opinion reaction as losses of proper soldiers and rarely make the news. Maybe the new aspct of war is just this, UAVs in the air and expendable foreign mercenaries on the ground

[11bravo]

On 7/4/2021 at 8:01 PM, Slater said:

Maybe the USAF would have better luck signing on to the the Tempest program. 

Yeah, because those folks have such an extensive background designing and building cutting edge, LO aircraft. 

 

What could possibly go wrong? 

Edited July 10, 2021 by 11bravo

[bootneck]

On 05/07/2021 at 16:14, junglierating said:

Bootnecks are clever ...so they keep tellin' me 🤣👍isnt that right Royal 😀

Of course it is.  That's why the Royals were formed,  to stop matelots having guns!  Now that is clever.

[Mr T]

1 hour ago, 11bravo said:

Yeah, because those folks have such an extensive background designing and building cutting edge, LO aircraft. 

 

What could possibly go wrong? 

BAe can call on a lot of experience in designing combat aircraft of all types, including some very successful ones. Some of their design studies for low observable aircraft have appeared in print over the years. Not entirely their fault they have to try to sell to governments who are looking to spend as little as possible on defence. I thought BAe had a stake in the F35 programme. BAC and HSA were one the earliest companies trying out composites for major structures in airframes (and used in the Typhoon amongst others). 

[junglierating]

48 minutes ago, bootneck said:

Of course it is.  That's why the Royals were formed,  to stop matelots having guns!  Now that is clever.

Britians secret weapon of mass destruction....matelot with a gun 😅