I was thinking today: why do our fighter jets need on-board pilots? Wouldn't it be better for the pilots to be controlling the aircraft from the ground?
I was thinking today: why do our fighter jets need on-board pilots? Wouldn't it be better for the pilots to be controlling the aircraft from the ground?
Good point. It wouldn't really be too different the way things are now.
Well I can think of a couple of problems with that:
1. Though communications are good, they aren't perfect. You still experience a time delay between sent and received signals or even worse a momentary break in communications. This delay or break might only be 2 seconds say, but with a jet flying at a ground speed of Mach 2, that's almost a mile of distance covered. This response time is no good when performing maneuvers (sp?) especially around terrain or when launching weapons.
2. I don't know for sure because I am not a fighter pilot but I would imagine much of a fighter pilot's response is based on pilot's intuition. That is being in the cockpit, particularly in hostile conditions would enable you to develop a '6th sense' of what is going on around you and you would start being able to pre-empt occurances through instinct. This would be very hard to replicate in a computer game style simulation environment.
One question that should be asked though is:
How long before fighter jets don't have any human pilots at all, on the the gound or in the air?
my reason is that the SMALL missions in a fighter jet is 6hrs don't these guys deserve any help to make it harder to crash.
That'd make it very easy for the anti-air forces:
1. Find radio transmission frequency
2. Disrupt that frequency
3. Watch the plane go down
Also, because of the long range of modern aircrafts, the radio transmitter on board would have ot be quite strong. Stealth planes wouldn't be very stealthy anymore.
Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling
the air force has been looking into making jet planes without pilots for years. they have small robotic ones now that they are experimenting with to use for reconnassiance. the days of robotic planes might not be far off. also with no pilot g-force will not be a factor at least
yum, yum potatoes!!!!!
There are remote-controlled spy planes called Predators that are capable of carrying missles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in528396.shtml
I know considerable research goes into this. One notable reason is that the pilot is generally the weakest component when it comes to agility. The machine is capable of taking far greater G forces then the pilot - remove the pilot, expand the flight envelope of the machine.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
Obviously some kind of AI would be implemented incase of an unusable or lost signal. I know for a fact they've already built planes with AI... I remember a crash which took place in france-- the AI didn't aquire enough altitude on takeoff and the plane smashed through a forest.
Ever hear about British fighter pilots in WW2? (I think it was the British...) They weren't given parachutes, as those in charge felt they'd fight harder knowing the mortality of the situation. Now we're speaking of putting the pilot on the ground in some kind of simulation; do you think they'll be as effective knowing there's no danger to them? Fighting for your life is a whole different ballgame.
We could instead just beat the crap out of the pilots everytime their airplanes get shot down. This way they'd still fight hard for fear of our torturous punishment but yet we could still keep the trained pilots
lol....Originally posted by Shadow12345
We could instead just beat the crap out of the pilots everytime their airplanes get shot down. This way they'd still fight hard for fear of our torturous punishment but yet we could still keep the trained pilots
Or we could make them pay the cost of a new one
That wouldn't work.Originally posted by Shadow12345
We could instead just beat the crap out of the pilots everytime their airplanes get shot down. This way they'd still fight hard for fear of our torturous punishment but yet we could still keep the trained pilots
They'd have a choice;
a) Die
b) Bail out and be tortured
I'm thinking fear would push them to choose the latter.
c) Shoot down other airplanesThat wouldn't work.
They'd have a choice;
a) Die
b) Bail out and be tortured
d) Get laid
Bail out of what? Do you realize I am talking about pilots remotely controlling the crafts from the ground?
There are anmanned planes, and they are used for spying, and they are not effective as ones with pilots.
And yes, they are easy targets for anti-aircraft forces.
none...
And most of the pilots in WW2 would say they didn't give a *UMM* about dying. They were brave men.Originally posted by Eibro
That wouldn't work.
They'd have a choice;
a) Die
b) Bail out and be tortured
I'm thinking fear would push them to choose the latter.
The answer to the question is HCI. The planes need pilots and the pilots need AI. In reality we need to focus our efforts on making the software which allows the pilot his own senses and those of the AI.
Thus, he will be told of danger etc, but will ALWAYS have full control.
I guess Firefox (clint eastwood) would be a good example-If it was modern day.
And, the question is a bit daft. If the planes were Comp controlled, the pilot would be not flying it(at home)----------------------------------the god damn Comp would be flying it! Collect your wages on the way out boys!
Such is life.
