The SR-72 "Spacebird"

[Kryten]

What exactly would stop a drone from being able to prioritise targets, or evade a missile? Either would simply be a matter of programming.

[Mmmmyum]

What, if this were to be a military plane, would it's targets be? China?

[Jordanpumah]

What exactly would stop a drone from being able to prioritise targets, or evade a missile? Either would simply be a matter of programming.

just think about it, would you REALLY rather have robots that could wack out at any moment flying an armed aircraft?

like I said, maybe recon, but I just hope that drones don't take over fighter pilots, if so, I'm becoming a Russian.

well, then again, the Canadian AF doesn't seem to keen on using drones either.

Mmmmyum;

I'm guessing either China, or NK or Russia, maybe Iran if things keep at the way they are

[Kryten]

Do you really want a pilot that could 'whack out' at any moment piloting an armed aircraft? We already have autonomous aircraft being trusted to carry out combat missions (we call them 'cruise missiles'), and they haven't faced any real issues. Why does it suddenly become unthinkable if the aircraft is able to return?

[Klingon Admiral]

Maybe, but that assumes you can actually get them close enough to do some good.

Besides, that also assumes there's no such thing as surprise attacks or covert action. The Cuba Missile Crises started, escalated, and deflated within two weeks, and nearly started WW3 right then and there.

An so-called "surprise attack" would most likely be nothing more than an euphemism for a war of aggression, which is a direct violation of international law.

[Canopus]

I say strap a railgun to it.

It's not like they only just came up with the concept, it's just only now the technology exists to make it.

I'm talking about the concept, not the technology. And what would this thing do with a railgun?

[Nibb31]

If you plan to become a fighter pilot, you might want to look for another job. The F-22 and F-35 will probably be the last manned fighters in the USAF. It simply makes no sense, in most cases, to risk a pilot getting killed or captured. Plus, a us meat sacks have the huge disadvantage of being limited to the number of Gs we can cope with. A drone that could withstand 15 Gs would have a pretty big advantage in a dogfight.

However, they will probably still need chopper pilots for a while...

[Yourself]

If you plan to become a fighter pilot, you might want to look for another job. The F-22 and F-35 will probably be the last manned fighters in the USAF. It simply makes no sense, in most cases, to risk a pilot getting killed or captured. Plus, a us meat sacks have the huge disadvantage of being limited to the number of Gs we can cope with. A drone that could withstand 15 Gs would have a pretty big advantage in a dogfight.

However, they will probably still need chopper pilots for a while...

This actually brings up a very important point: most modern aircraft (especially military aircraft) are practically drones already. In order to get the kind of performance out of jets that we want, we kind of have to make them wildly unstable. Much as some might like to think that a pilot is actually flying an aircraft these days, in most cases they're really just a glorified drone operator that happens to be riding in the drone.

If you think you outdo a computer at flying a plane, you're kidding yourself. Computers have access to much more accurate flight data and are capable of reacting literally in the blink of an eye. They don't get tired and they're not as susceptible to high-G maneuvers. Really the only thing humans have left over computers is visual processing ability.

[Canopus]

If you plan to become a fighter pilot, you might want to look for another job. The F-22 and F-35 will probably be the last manned fighters in the USAF. It simply makes no sense, in most cases, to risk a pilot getting killed or captured. Plus, a us meat sacks have the huge disadvantage of being limited to the number of Gs we can cope with. A drone that could withstand 15 Gs would have a pretty big advantage in a dogfight.

However, they will probably still need chopper pilots for a while...

There are also limits of G a hardware can take and i don't think F-22 and F-35 are the last american manned fighters of the U.S.

Drones will and are already replacing bombers and ground attack aircraft, which i think is a good application for them, but it will take a long time (if at all) until they replace air superiority fighters

Edited November 2, 2013 by Canopus

[Hodo]

I still don't think drones are better than a human pilot.

I wan't to be an Air-Force pilot, not a geek behind a computer (which I currently am)

Drones have a human pilot.

Most of the time 2.

All a drone is, is a sophisticated remote control plane. I love drones for the reconnaissance information they provide, and for the stupid long loiter time on target.

Their cost is also nice, the MQ-9 Reaper, 16.9 million each in 2013. F-16C Fighting Falcon, 18.8million in 1998 or about 26.1 million now. So that is a 10 million dollar difference. Considering the MQ-9 has a loiter time of almost 10 times that of the F-16, and is not actively putting a pilots life in danger, the drone is a far better choice for the role it is designed for.

As for fighter planes and attack planes, I would rather see a person behind the stick than a person 1000 miles away remotely controlling it. But that is a personal reason.

[Hodo]

There are also limits of G a hardware can take and i don't think F-22 and F-35 are the last american manned fighters of the U.S.

Drones will and are already replacing bombers and ground attack aircraft, which i think is a good application for them, but it will take a long time (if at all) until they replace air superiority fighters

Not all bombers. The USAF will always keep a man in cockpit of a strategic bomber like the B-1, B-2, and B-52G. Only because they are all nuclear capable.

As for attack craft, and recon planes, drones are going to be the future.

[Mmmmyum]

I don't think drones will take over completely, and that's because of the cultural impact of pilots. Think of Flyboys, Pearl Harbour, there was another one about a drone that went rouge that I can't remember...

[Seret]

i figure the best way to launch a missile at that speed is tail launch it, that is have a missile tube with a tail hatch. instead of being fired out the front, it is released out the back. when ready to fire take some bleed air and use it to shoot the ordinance out the back of the tube or perhaps use some kind of drag inducing device. then bring its propulsion and guidance on line as it departs the plane's wake. plane never makes a stop. its an engineering problem im sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

That's been done, Vigilantes used to drop then out the back. Bit oddball really.

However, this thing won't be armed if it's to replace the SR-71. There's no reason for a reconnaissance aircraft to have weapons if it doesn't need them to defend itself. Their mission is to get in and out without anybody knowing they were there.

As for drones replacing human pilots, it's already happening. It's not romantic, but it is effective. There's not much room for romance in combat.

[Surefoot]

However, this thing won't be armed if it's to replace the SR-71. There's no reason for a reconnaissance aircraft to have weapons if it doesn't need them to defend itself. Their mission is to get in and out without anybody knowing they were there.

I am nitpicking here a bit (sorry about this), but SR-71 was never about stealth, confirmed by the number of missiles fired at them (unsuccessfully), and according to the Lockheed interviewee here SR-72 is also quite not stealthy. It's all about speed and altitude, going higher and faster than anything else. The SR-71 was really successful in that regard, and if the new bird can reach mach 6 it will be really tough to get at. So people know they are there, but cannot do anything about it.. there are fascinating pilot stories to read now that the info is declassified.

As for the military usage of this, the SR-71 was initially designed as an interceptor (and thus to carry air to air missiles), this role was dropped during prototype stage though.

[Tiberion]

Armed version of the Blackbird (or the earlier A-12 CIA aircraft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

It was ordered to production but the Secretary of Defense declined to fund it due to Vietnam.

[Sochin]

Who else thinks that this has already been developed in Groom lake? Triangular flying objects and the Aurora suposed inteligence platform, no one in there right mind will give away development details on this aircraft if there wasnt a very good reason to do so. How long did it take for the F117 to be acknowledged?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

[SFJackBauer]

This actually brings up a very important point: most modern aircraft (especially military aircraft) are practically drones already. In order to get the kind of performance out of jets that we want, we kind of have to make them wildly unstable. Much as some might like to think that a pilot is actually flying an aircraft these days, in most cases they're really just a glorified drone operator that happens to be riding in the drone.

If you think you outdo a computer at flying a plane, you're kidding yourself. Computers have access to much more accurate flight data and are capable of reacting literally in the blink of an eye. They don't get tired and they're not as susceptible to high-G maneuvers. Really the only thing humans have left over computers is visual processing ability.

There is a huge difference between having the brain inside the aircraft and having the brain outside.

In a low intensity conflict zone like 'Stan, where the enemy is unlikely to have any effective countermeasure against the drones, their use is effective. However if we picture a large scale conflict between two superpowers, lots of electronic countermeasures (and counter-countermeasures) of every level will be in place. A drone force could be rendered ineffective by a large scale signal jamming unless it has an autonomous capability of making decisions itself.

So to say that the fighter pilot is only worth sitting there to watch the gauges is a huge understatement.

(I would even like to venture into the territory of the enemy side hacking and taking control of the drones, but I will leave that for now).

Edited November 2, 2013 by SFJackBauer

[Surefoot]

Aurora was supposedly a scramjet (or other propulsion techniques) testing platform, and only a prototype as it seems no further sightings were made in the last ten years. I dont think the SR-72 is directly related as the first rumours about its existence start quite after the end of Aurora sightings.

[Kryten]

Aurora was supposedly a scramjet (or other propulsion techniques) testing platform, and only a prototype as it seems no further sightings were made in the last ten years. I don't think the SR-72 is directly related as the first rumours about its existence start quite after the end of Aurora sightings.

There's also the issue that this 'SR-72', even in this ridiculously optimistic piece of LM PR, isn't supposed to even exist for 15+ years.

[Nibb31]

There's also the issue that this 'SR-72', even in this ridiculously optimistic piece of LM PR, isn't supposed to even exist for 15+ years.

This really. Plus, any "exclusive news" out of Aviation Week shouldn't really be taken seriously.