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

["john tailby" <John_Tailby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That's exactly the sort of example I was talking about.

 

What's the radar signature of a WW1 biplane? there is very little metal used so they could be hard to spot. They fly so low and slow that a raptor would be hard pushed to engage it with it's cannon and even then I'd bet the WW1 plane could out turn it. With radar guided weapons and minimal infrared signature the raptor might have a hard time of engaging.

 

The WW1 plane has little chance of engaging the Raptor.

 

I don't know that remote controlled drones can fly as well as manned air combat. They are fine for surveillance but I don't think they could do air -air without an onboard AI and a large amount of bandwidth to transmit the sensor data to the human operators.

 

The other challenges of using remote control drones is maintaining communications. At the speed a warplane travels a few seconds delay to bounce the signal from one or more satellites to base and back could produce an unacceptable lag.

 

There is also the susceptibility of the "droid army" where if you command signal is lost then your remote drone would all lose control and resort to onboard computer backups and preplanned flight paths, Pretty easy for a human operated plane to take apart a drone then.

 

I certainly see why an airforce that makes fighter pilots the top of it's pecking order wants to keep funding to manned operations. The last thing you want is to be replaced by a geek with a games consol.

----- Original Message -----

From: Binhan Lin

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.

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