It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Super Hornet guns down the F-22 Raptor

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoebus
Bit fun this tread..

As I stated almost since before we saw the capabilities of the test plane SU-35, when it summervaulted in the french air show.


I think you're talking about the Su-37 demonstrator. Su-35 is the production model of the Su-37 but with obviously less capability (yet still above adequate).

Apparently the T-50 has superior mobility than the Su-37, and considering T-50 is projected to be half the cost of an F-35 it should be considered as a viable import option for most modern forces.




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Stealth Spy
 

this gun cam image shows its very likely the f-22 targeted here was actively engaged with some-other 3rd party fighter. when this F-18 jumped late into there dogfight attacking from a near right angle & quickly scoring a kill.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by what4
 


The F22 Raptor is a manned fighter which means it is maneuver limited to the G force tolerance of its human pilot.

All the new area 51 unmanned attack planes must be easily capable of taking out an F22.

If they are using laser guidance then you would need another plane in the area that has closed loop line of sight communications with the drone.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 


A truely military-minded person knows that a drone will never capture a fraction of the finess of a human pilot.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Bordon81
 


A truely military-minded person knows that a drone will never capture a fraction of the finess of a human pilot.


'Finess' doesn't count for much in combat.

The real downfall of a drone is latency - until we produce autonomous drones and give them the capability to make decisions on weapons use, the drone will always have a slower reaction time than the manned aircraft.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I don't think it's a matter of finesse that's the issue with human Vs AI competition, be it in the arena of aerial combat, or a chess game. It's the considerations of forethought and tactical awareness where humans beat every AI in every arena and every situation.
No AI (that I am aware of) has any concept of strategy, or of tactical planning, the methodology for AIs is to mathematically reduce any given situation, and to extrapolate the result of any possible actions to a given degree, then to take the course of action that has the highest probability of success.
When AIs have beaten humans in given arenas, such as chess, it has been the raw application of brute force on the part of the AI designers, where the AI has been able to calculate the given outcomes of any given set of actions far enough in advance, that the AI can "see" an unfavourable outcome and manouver to avoid it. However, let us consider what this requires: In the case of chess, where an AI relatively recently beat a grandmaster for the first time (Kasparov Vs Deeper Blue 1997), in a game with strictly limited number of possible manouvers, in a two dimensional world, it took what was at the time, one of the world's top 250 most powerful supercomputers to be able to calculate far enough ahead to be able to beat Kasparov. Even then, the computer needed human assistance between games, and there is the suspicion (and accusation) that the computer was aided by human players during the games.
Fair enough, computer technology is always advancing, what was 10 years ago a supercomputer is now a decent desktop. However, let us also consider how much more complicated manouvering in a 3 dimensional environment is, how many more variations in the range of movement are permissible, and how much more complex the posssible tactical situations may be in air combat rather than on a board of 64 spaces and 32 pieces.
With that consideration, I for one, believe that "simple" digital computers and non-neural network AI are a long way (optimistically 25 years+) from being able to function even at a par with a human in any complex environment, let alone be able to do so in combat.
In simple terms of foresight, adaptability and awareness, we are so superior to anything we can currently create, that (in my ill-informed opinion) it will likely be beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this post that autonomous combat vehicles will be able to match, let alone exceed, humans in combat performance.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
It's the simple point that wars are fought between humans. If you start using drones with AI then you dramatically change everything; the battle strategy, the combatants, the objective, the outcome, and the morality/philosophy of battle. Robots are a non-human factor and have no place in human war, anyone who thinks so should be shot because they represent a threat to our species as a whole and the evolution of.

The more we take away from our natural selves, the deeper we will fall. The fact that the US military is so focused on drones shows how well US soldiers really operate, which isn't that great but that's only to be expected from a fascist nation that "manufactures" soldiers rather than properly train them and immerse them into combat. Drones also eliminate the combat minded factor, in order to operate a drone the only skill you require is being good a video games; with the growing military anxiety in the US ever since shock and awe campaigns in the middle east it is vital for US commanders to start recruiting people on a more general standard rather than sending people off to war who are actually capable of fighting man to man.

I am telling you now as a fellow citizen of Earth that drones and AI military technology is a very dangerous path that will end in dire consequences for us all. Since I belong to the forest and I have an obligation to maintain nature I consider all implementation of drones and AI in combat as blasphemy. It is crossing the line between what is and what should never be.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I personally know of 6 F-15s that were destroyed by two F-22s during an exercise and the F-15s never saw them... One of the F-15 pilots was my commander at the time, and in his words he said “I tell you they rewrite everything about fighters, we never saw them and the fight was over…” boy was he pissed.

I truly think these days they only let them fight with one hand tied behind their backs…hehe



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
The fact that the US military is so focused on drones shows how well US soldiers really operate, which isn't that great but that's only to be expected from a fascist nation that "manufactures" soldiers rather than properly train them and immerse them into combat.

I would love for you to elaborate on these particular points, especially the "fascist nation that "manufactures" soldiers " part...



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
The fact that the US military is so focused on drones shows how well US soldiers really operate, which isn't that great but that's only to be expected from a fascist nation that "manufactures" soldiers rather than properly train them and immerse them into combat.

I would love for you to elaborate on these particular points, especially the "fascist nation that "manufactures" soldiers " part...


I never used to call the US fascist... but then I went to university


Simply put, the people making the drones are corporations. The corporations are pushing a friendly drone image on to potential consumers and for public relations. Since the US is based solely on their military industrial complex, the US military, US government and military corporations go hand in hand. US military corporations have a lot of play within the US government because they want to sell their weapons for taxpayers' money.

I would go as far as to say that US military corporations (and the corporate owners) have indirect control of the US military and government policies through their neo-liberal economic values, ie extensive corporate lobbying of Washington.

When a country becomes run by private interests and not public interests, it technically becomes a fascist state. This is why the US is now a fascist country. Did I elaborate enough for you?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

A truely military-minded person knows that a drone will never capture a fraction of the finess of a human pilot.


So a pilot in a cockpit on the ground operating a drone has less finesse than one in the air?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Simply put, the people making the drones are corporations. The corporations are pushing a friendly drone image on to potential consumers and for public relations. Since the US is based solely on their military industrial complex, the US military, US government and military corporations go hand in hand. US military corporations have a lot of play within the US government because they want to sell their weapons for taxpayers' money.

I would go as far as to say that US military corporations (and the corporate owners) have indirect control of the US military and government policies through their neo-liberal economic values, ie extensive corporate lobbying of Washington.

When a country becomes run by private interests and not public interests, it technically becomes a fascist state. This is why the US is now a fascist country. Did I elaborate enough for you?


So are you suggesting that all aspects of the government are under control of private interests? Maybe so, but then we could say it has been that way for 150 years and add most modern countries to the list too. Talking about companies supporting the military: We (and the world) have advanced well beyond the ability to make plowshares in peace time and then transition to guns in time of need as was the norm in the past.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
the f22 is the most advanced fighter period. however that does not mean it could not be shot down. it is limited in its missile capabilities carrying only 4 ...so in a 5 on 1 situation it would be difficult to survive in a close in dogfight . bare in mind the majority of the f22's true abilities are still classified, but the thing i am most impressed by is its abilities to relay all its information to any other aircraft or military system to take out any target while remaining unseen by any radar or infrared



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

A truely military-minded person knows that a drone will never capture a fraction of the finess of a human pilot.


So a pilot in a cockpit on the ground operating a drone has less finesse than one in the air?


Affirmative. A drone controller will never experience the "kill or be killed" factor that a pilot would experience, which vastly increases the combat capability of the pilot to much more decisive levels.

And really, if you want to create robots to fight humans, then you're going to encounter enemy robots too. What happens when wars are fought robot vs robot? In my opinion, it is a shame to the entire concept of war. On a tactical level, war is a time and place for patriotic men to fight and die for their countries. Robots have no spirit whatsoever and represent not the country they are fighting for, but the company that made them.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
There is one basic premise that I would point out:

Just because the F/A-18 had the HUD activated as though targeting was occuring even guarantees that this picture was taken during a simulated aerial engagement.

On approaches to even a refueling rendezvous we would sometimes keep our HUD imagery systems up. If the Hornet was simply moving past the F-22 to get into position for the engagement to occur, the Raptor pilot wouldn't even be attempting to evade the Hornet, since they weren't "fight's on" yet.

To simply take one HUD photo and attempt to conclude that the Hornet is the equal to the F-22 is silly.

Really, the fact that a topic like this gets this many responses for a rather ridiculous argument is a bit surprising to me,



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Affirmative. A drone controller will never experience the "kill or be killed" factor that a pilot would experience, which vastly increases the combat capability of the pilot to much more decisive levels.


I fly drones for a living so I will just need to respectfully disagree.

So lets just say a F-16 pilot can pull 9g and a drone can pull 30g...



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Exactly, X!

There is NO WAY any piloted aircraft will stand a chance against the upcoming generation of drones. They can be flown by experts. They can be much smaller and lighter since no pilot-support equipment is required, so they will be harder to acquire and identify than piloted craft, yet they can carry the same weapons. In 15 years, the drones will dominate the skies, and those nations still using piloted aircraft will have no chance in air-to-air combat. PERIOD!



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Exactly, X!

There is NO WAY any piloted aircraft will stand a chance against the upcoming generation of drones. They can be flown by experts. They can be much smaller and lighter since no pilot-support equipment is required, so they will be harder to acquire and identify than piloted craft, yet they can carry the same weapons. In 15 years, the drones will dominate the skies, and those nations still using piloted aircraft will have no chance in air-to-air combat. PERIOD!


Think in terms of a F-22 type craft without a pilot inside of it, and as you say, also without all the support equipment/space, but with a team of people flying it that are not subjected to any physical restraints or physical stress.

I do agree that when it is your ass on the line you will have an edge when everything is equal or close, but when the physical factors become extremely favored to one side you do not need that life on the line edge to win.

To think about it all, future air war will be done at long ranges mostly and dog fighting up close will be a thing of the past, and what we run into mostly with human pilots is whether they can out maneuver missiles pulling a max of 7 to 9 Gs, but with drones that G number will be 3x or more and so missiles do not have a chance in hell to hit…

Finally add in that drones can fly as long as they got gas and do not always need to have a return reserve as a piloted craft needs to get its pilot back home safe. A drone can stay on target for 20 plus hours using 5 or 6 pilots and that my friend is a huge capability.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
off topic , sorta but speaking of drones the ucavs coming out are impressive but for now there are no air to air capable drones not till we need a replacement for the raptor.............. they are however turning all f117's into drones



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by standupamerica32
off topic , sorta but speaking of drones the ucavs coming out are impressive but for now there are no air to air capable drones not till we need a replacement for the raptor.............. they are however turning all f117's into drones


No, the F-117s are not being during into unmanned aircraft.




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join