Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

Binhan Lin schrieb:
> Another good example of technology removing humans from direct combat
- 
> aircraft.  UAV's are cheaper, smaller and can be run for extensive 
> periods of time by rotating remote crews.  Since the aircraft doesn't 
> have to carry a crew and all the attendant atmosphere, food, space 
> considerations, it can be loaded with more fuel and munitions or made 
> much smaller.  Also Humans are limited to short periods of about 9G's 
> while hardware can be designed for sustained levels of 9G's and short 
> durations of up to 50 G's or more.  The US Air Force is fighting tooth

> and nail to hang on to the dwindling supplies of human manned aircraft

> as remote piloted vehicles take over 50% of their missions.

Though it has been found that a UAV that has capabilities similar to a 
modern fighter or bomber does not come that much cheaper than a crewed 
plane. The costs for the aircraft body, propulsion system, ammunition 
etc is similar, electronics may be more costly because it needs better 
telecommunications gear. You do save in life-support systems and in the 
synergy of a smaller platform. Certainly a major UAV has become too 
expensive to be seen as expendable.

> Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor?  The difference in

> spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that 
> they really aren't comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two

> levels of technology.

Though it isn't clear that technological change will continue at that 
pace. Aircraft speeds, for example, haven't increased significantly for 
almost 50 years.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l