US base in Japanese Okinawa plans to replace F-15 fighters with drones

According to military expert David Okmanek, the decision to replace obsolete American-made F-15 fighters with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is becoming more and more obvious, especially against the backdrop of the Ukrainian conflict. The Rand Corporation military analyst also added that all this is happening against the backdrop of a rethinking by the Pentagon of its military strategy in the Western Pacific, where fighters will take the place of Drones.

One of the main reasons that prompted the leadership of the American army to withdraw the old generation fighters from the Kadena military base is China's buildup of its air force. This is even enshrined in the US National Security Strategy. All this includes a set aviation US Air Force squadrons with fifth-generation fighters for their rotational deployment.

Okinawa is an excellent base in the Asia-Pacific region, allowing air operations to be carried out there to protect Japan or Taiwan, declared by Washington, due to the close proximity of these states to the combat zone (in fact, a typical deployment of occupying forces). With the advent drones fighter aircraft, as stated, is losing its importance, since the radius of its combat use without refueling is lower than that of a number of attack drones.

Do not forget that Kadena is within the reach of Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles, and therefore the PRC Air Force is capable of destroying not only military airfields, but also fuel depots, as well as other targets of the Japan Self-Defense Force and the US Air Force. At the same time, the American anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) Patriot may also be attacked.

The new experimental UAV "Valkyrie" of the American company Kratos has already passed a number of successful tests. It has a small turbojet rocket engine built into it. The XQ-58A drone is capable of carrying air-to-ground and air-to-air missiles with a combat radius of more than 2000 km. It is believed that such a drone is capable of engaging even with manned fighters.

Comments

[evgen1221]

They will sit at home and drive cars across the ocean, and then the Faro plague will happen or Skynet will catch a glitch.

[Igor Borisov_2]

It would be interesting to see an aerial combat between a drone and a manned fighter...

[cold wind]

No chance for a manned one. The first training dogfight was in 1971.

On May 10, as a graduation exercise, two F-4 Phantoms, one under the command of Smith and both loaded with air-to-air missiles, flew to intercept MASTACS. The drone was remotely controlled by aerial combat instructor John Pitzen.

“Talley-ho from the left wing,” Smith announced over the radio, meaning he was about to engage, but the drone spun sharply before it could lock the missile.

“He turns like a mother,” Smith said.

Smith lost the MASTACS drone, which continued to turn sharply until it made a loop and was on Smith's tail. The drone's ability to pull out 6-G turns for an extended period of time, which would cause a person to pass out, meant that they could turn 180 degrees in 12 seconds at high speed. An unarmed drone took up a firing position behind Smith.

The same sequence was repeated over and over as the two Phantoms tried in vain to target the MASTAK drone. They simply couldn't stay in a firing position long enough for their weapons to lock properly. They fired two AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles and two AIM-9 Sidewinders heat-guided missiles without a single hit. If he had been armed, then the "MASTAK Firebies" would have easily dealt with both opponents.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/06/11/how-drones-beat-top-guns/

[Gnefredov]

At present, remote control (and even in greenhouse conditions) will not work. The communication channel with the drone will be clogged with interference, and while the brains of the drone will think what to do next, it will be shot down. And not necessarily from the object of his attack, over there we have a "Hunter", he accompanies the fighters. You can load a lot of useful things on it.

[cold wind]

So this is 1971, AI capable of conducting all types of air combat without human intervention has already been created and defeats an experienced pilot with a score of 5:0. True, so far these are virtual battles. They do not report about real ones, which does not mean their absence.

[Gnefredov]

Interestingly, no one has yet guessed at the rate of the drone, blow up a can of aerosol paint? It's curious how he flies with smeared lenses ...

[Andriuha077]

The drone can wipe lenses.
They could run training sets on 25 DGx1 servers at the same time. But what they ended up producing could run on a single GPU. The algorithm has gone through at least 4 billion simulations and gained about 12 years of experience.
2019
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29847417/f-16-drone/
The QF-16's mission profile included automatic takeoff, a series of simulated maneuvers, supersonic flight, and an automatic landing without a pilot in the cockpit.
All eight wing stations are active, with a pre-wired spare payload, and feature a modular payload design for ease of programming.
F-16 Maneuverability: Fully serviced, including supersonic speeds and 9 g turns.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/support/qf-16/index.page
The US Air Force has begun equipping the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters with new radars with AFAR
https://topwar.ru/198308-vvs-ssha-pristupilo-k-osnascheniju-istrebitelej-f-16-fighting-falcon-novymi-rls-s-afar.html
In the United States, since 2013, F16 A / C fighters have been converted into QF-16 UAVs. In tests, they showed high maneuverability at sub- and supersonic speeds. Boeing plans to produce 200 QF-16s.
In the United States, work has begun on converting the latest F-22 Reptor fighters into drones. For them, a special software "Alias" is being developed.

[spektr9]

Interestingly, no one has yet guessed at the rate of the drone, blow up a can of aerosol paint?

Well, the idea is certainly good, but why only drones, let's blow up a balloon with aerosol paint in front of an ordinary fighter at the rate, there are no problems with that

[Johnson Smithson]

AI is not a panacea, if he meets what he was not trained for, then there will be an unpredictable reaction.
For example, the AI ​​of Tesla cars can be tricked into seeing obstacles or a road where there is none, just by sticking small strips of tape on the road that the driver will not even notice, but for the AI ​​it will be a pattern that it will perceive as a certain object.

Of course, this is not immediately found and will require study. But if the enemy finds such a vulnerability, and you have an air force on drones on AI, then you lose.

And the main thing is that no one knows in advance what the AI ​​will react to in such a way, you won’t get into the “brains” of it, the programmer doesn’t know in advance what kind of associative connections they can work for.

[DO]

Close combat of modern fighters is much less likely than long-range air combat, carried out by launching explosive missiles at target designation onboard radar, even beyond the visual visibility of enemy aircraft. And for a long-range air combat drone, only an airborne radar and explosive missiles are required. And of course, the option to automatically evade enemy missiles will not hurt.
A group of long-range air combat fighter drones can be controlled and secured from the outside, from a two-seat manned fighter.

[Gnefredov]

This means that the effective scattering area (ESR) of the drone is so small that the onboard radar of the fighter will detect it only after the launch of air-to-air missiles and not earlier. Conceptually, the stars and stripes have a "phase shift" on the topic "whoever fires first wins" and the idea of ​​​​getting involved in short-range aerobatics affects them like incense on the devil. However, this does not prevent them from calling shooting from afar "air combat".

[cold wind]

Quote: Gnefredov

Conceptually, the stars and stripes have a "phase shift" on the topic "whoever fires first wins" and the idea of ​​​​getting involved in short-range aerobatics affects them like incense on the devil. However, this does not prevent them from calling this action "air combat".

At the same time, they regularly work out dogfight in training battles both between Western-made fighters and MiG-29s with Su-30s. As for the incense, they got very excited. It's just that they will use in battle what is beneficial to them, and not to the enemy. Which is more than logical.

[Terran ghost]

Quote: Gnefredov

"shifted in phase" on the topic "whoever fired first wins" and the idea of ​​​​getting involved in short-range aerobatics affects them like incense on the devil.

Hmm .. why, simply from the point of view of the most ordinary formal logic, a reasonable solution is a "phase shift" - it is not clear from the word "absolutely". The times when the most advanced type of weapons installed on an aircraft was a 20-mm autocannon are long gone. You still need to fly to the "close" one, and actually this very "close" (close air combat) air battle ends. If both sides of the clash managed to reach it.

Quote: Gnefredov

However, this does not prevent them from calling shooting from afar "air combat".

Why the use of long-range missiles against an enemy aircraft should not be called air combat is also completely incomprehensible.

[Gnefredov]

It's like boxers in the ring. The battle. Right? And as an option, the gopnik will hit the boxer with a brick from afar in the head. If you follow your logic, then yes, the gopnik won the fight.
So here. The launch of the product from afar, which led to the defeat of the target, is counted. But you can't just call it a fight. Here we need a different terminology, something like "defeat by remote means" but certainly not an air battle.

[Terran ghost]

Quote: Gnefredov

It's like boxers in the ring. The battle. Right?

The analogy is fundamentally wrong. Military conflicts are not sports competitions, which are conducted according to the initially known strict rules that regulate every aspect of the behavior of athletes during the competition. During military conflicts, there has never been and cannot be, in principle, any referee who would award one of the participants in the end a "victory on points" o.O

Quote: Gnefredov

And as an option, the gopnik will hit the boxer with a brick from afar in the head. If you follow your logic, then yes, the gopnik won the fight.
So here. The launch of the product from afar, which led to the defeat of the target, is counted. But you can't just call it a fight. We need different terminology here.

This is what you should call a fight. No other terminology is needed here.
If, say, somewhere in the 16th century, the Spanish tercio shot the advancing knights with musket volleys before they had time to put their spears into action, this was the problem exclusively of the knights themselves, whose method of fighting turned out to be outdated and useless in the new, generated by development military technology, reality.

[Gnefredov]

"It has a small turbojet rocket engine built into it"

So turbojet or rocket? O_o

[Cheerock]

Quote: Gnefredov

"It has a small turbojet rocket engine built into it"

So turbojet or rocket? O_o

Малый

[Bingo]

Well, something like this they justified why, with the adoption of anti-ship ballistic missiles by China, all American aircraft carriers disappeared from the coast of China, and they had not even sailed to Japan for a long time)

[cold wind]

That's just you write about some kind of parallel universe. In our AUG, the USA swims calmly in the South China Sea and swims to Japan without any problems.

[Negro]

Quote from Bingo

why with the adoption of China's anti-ship ballistic missiles

"Anti-ship ballistic missiles" is a popular cartoon weapon in recent years.