Military Review

The National Interest: how China and Russia are going to crush American stealth planes

48
The development of military equipment is always a cause for concern related to the success of others. Various news about the achievements of some countries lead to the emergence of various forecasts and estimates in the press of others. So, recently the American edition of The National Interest responded to recent successes of the Russian and Chinese industries.


26 August edition published an article by Zachary Keka on America's Stealth Aircraft ("How China and Russia are going to crush American stealth planes"). As is clear from the title, the task of the author was to determine the prospects for new Chinese and Russian projects, as well as to assess their danger for developments created in the United States.

The author of the article believes that both Russia and China are currently engaged in the development and construction of new unmanned aerial vehicles, which are intended to level the advantages of the United States in stealth aircraft. The reason for such conclusions were some publications that appeared earlier.

Z. Keck recalls that not so long ago the first photos of the promising Chinese UAV Divine Eagle became public. According to foreign experts, this machine, which has the capabilities of a long flight at high altitude, is designed to search, detect and destroy enemy aircraft at a small distance from mainland China.

The National Interest: how China and Russia are going to crush American stealth planes


In May, Popular Science authors Jeffrey Lin and PW Singer, touching on the topic of a promising Chinese drone, expressed their opinion about this car. The new unmanned aerial vehicle, in their opinion, in the future can be used to destroy strike aircraft and warships. In particular, B-2 bombers and advanced destroyers DDG-1000 can become targets of this technology. By organizing the duty of new UAVs, the Chinese military will be able to effectively intercept unobtrusive enemy aircraft, missiles and ships. In this case, the line of interception will be far beyond the range of ground defense. In addition, new UAVs will be able to conduct reconnaissance. For example, when preparing for an amphibious assault operation, they will be able to detect and destroy coastal complexes with anti-ship missiles.

According to Flight Global, similar projects are currently being developed in Russia. In the course of the recent international aerospace show MAKS-2015, Flight Global journalists asked several questions to one of the leaders of the Radio Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET). Vladimir Mikheev said that the concern is currently working on the creation of a promising unmanned aerial vehicle.

According to the expert, the new Russian machine, which so far has no name, is to a certain extent similar to the Chinese Divine Eagle. In addition, some details of the appearance of this development were disclosed. So, for an effective search for aircraft built using stealth technology, the prospective Russian UAV will receive a low-frequency radar station. Most modern low-profile aircraft were built based on the use of high-frequency signals by the enemy. Thus, changing the radar range should affect the effectiveness of target detection.

V. Mikheev also spoke about the methods of reducing the visibility of the apparatus itself. So far, the nameless Russian car, as planned by the authors of the project, should receive an integrated system of electronic warfare with high performance. It is assumed that such equipment will create a "protective electromagnetic sphere", which will significantly increase the survivability of the drone. With the help of the EW system, it is supposed to protect the device from air-to-air missiles, as well as to reduce the likelihood of its detection by the onboard radar of enemy aircraft.

Such opportunities promising UAVs can be a cause for concern. According to Z. Keck, the ability to detect a stealth plane, but at the same time remaining invisible to it, is a "deadly combination."

In the meantime, disputes over the prospects for stealth technologies have once again intensified in the United States. Some responsible persons from the military department no longer consider them an indispensable attribute of a promising combat aircraft. For example, in February of this year, during the discussion of the requirements for a sixth generation fighter, a curious statement was made by the head of naval operations, Admiral Jonathan Grinert. In his opinion, stealth technology can be overvalued.

In his "accusatory speech," the admiral recalled that in addition to radar equipment for detecting technology, other means could be used. Thus, a plane flying at high speed can be detected by infrared radiation of reactive gases or even by the heat generated by the interaction of technology with air. At the same time, J. Greenert was not the first time criticizing the concept of stealth aircraft. So, in 2012, he showed the fear that the stealthness of the aircraft could be leveled by increasing the computing power of the detection tools.

Then, in his article in the Navy Times, the head of naval operations raised the issue of the prospects and further development of stealth technologies. The admiral did not say that the end of such technologies was nearing, but he noted the limits to which they approached. J. Grinnert offered to divert from the development of stealth technologies directly, drawing attention to other ways to increase the effectiveness of military equipment. In his opinion, greater attention should be paid to promising weapon systems with enhanced characteristics, as well as electronic warfare systems. Thus, the aircraft must be able not only to “hide” from the enemy, but also to take all necessary measures to timely neutralize the threat.

Z. Keck recalls the February publication of another journalist, The National Interest. In The 5, Most Overrated Weapons of War ("5 of the Most Overvalued weapons») Dave Majumdar touched on the topic of fifth generation fighters in connection with the latest Russian and Chinese projects. Both China and Russia are actively involved in the development and construction of new networked systems for detecting air threats. They include radars operating in the VHF band. Such equipment is able to neutralize all US investments in aviation technology of the last generations. D. Majumdar considers the main reason for this approach to the creation of stealth technology. In recent decades, stealth technologies have implied a decrease in visibility in the Ku, X, C, and S bands. Radars operating at other frequencies are capable of detecting subtle techniques.

The author of this posting on Stealth Aircraft China notes that supporters of the version about the obsolescence of stealth technology have not yet received wide support in military circles. Thus, at the beginning of the year, General Hawk Carlile, who holds the position of head of the Air Force Combat Aviation Command, answered the statements of Admiral J. Greenert. In his opinion, stealth technology still has a high priority. At the same time, the general noted that new projects cannot be built on mere stealth. A prospective aircraft also needs maximum integration into communication and control systems, must have appropriate armament, etc.

As we see, promising Chinese and Russian projects are a cause for concern for the US military and analysts. Information about these developments is extremely small, but even in this case they attract a lot of attention and can make the US military correct their opinion on the development of promising military equipment. How exactly the views of the military will change, and what this will lead to - time will tell.


This article is about China and Russia Stealth Aircraft:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-russia-plan-crush-americas-stealth-aircraft-13708
Author:
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 1 September 2015 06: 04 New
    +2
    Asymmetric answer is our method.
    And what does a stealth device look like when viewed from above? Like a black hole on a light surface?
    1. razzhivin
      razzhivin 1 September 2015 12: 16 New
      0
      laughing laughing laughing


      In the meantime, disputes over the prospects for stealth technologies have once again intensified in the United States. Some responsible persons from the military department no longer consider them an indispensable attribute of a promising combat aircraft. For example, in February of this year, during the discussion of the requirements for a sixth generation fighter, a curious statement was made by the head of naval operations, Admiral Jonathan Grinert. In his opinion, stealth technology can be overvalued.

      while the invisibility cap is not invented - the way of stealth technologies (to the detriment of other characteristics), this is the way to a dead end ... negative
      1. vadim dok
        vadim dok 1 September 2015 19: 32 New
        -2
        How China and Russia ???? China signed an agreement on MILITARY COOPERATION with the USA! And you did not know!
        1. Ivan Ivanych
          Ivan Ivanych 2 September 2015 12: 26 New
          +1
          On the fence, it is also written, and sometimes signed)))
      2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 1 September 2015 06: 37 New
    0
    Stealth technology is needed of course, but! it is worth considering that it is good at long distances but not in close combat and or against a well-developed air defense system, it is clear that sooner or later the radar will still see the aircraft, and the technology for the development of radars does not stand still.
    If you cover the entire frequency range in which you can see the aircraft on the radar, then yes, but! this is unlikely to happen because each thread has its own nut.
    1. marlin1203
      marlin1203 1 September 2015 11: 17 New
      +1
      Fear God! Stealth (F-22) in close combat, and even cannon ?! laughing It’s easier for a pilot to shoot himself right away!
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 1 September 2015 11: 40 New
        -1
        Quote: marlin1203
        Fear God! Stealth (F-22) in close combat, and even cannon ?! It’s easier for a pilot to shoot himself right away!

        For close combat, the F22 has side (s) wingers. I’ve always been interested in why to install a gatling gun in a fighter, on the A-10 attack plane it’s okay, but why?
        1. Baikal
          Baikal 1 September 2015 12: 41 New
          -2
          By the way, yes. Is it a multi-barrel cannon on fighter easier, more reliable, less, more precisely, easier to maintain, etc.?
          It seems that it’s like if not a “six-barrel”, then it’s not “cool”. Show off? request
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 1 September 2015 14: 31 New
            +3
            "Show off?"///

            No. Their gun at a rate of 3000 rpm
            very compact and light in weight (200 kg). With electric drive.
            Cut-off line of 10 shells from 4 trunks
            enters an enemy’s plane almost instantly.
            All 10 will hit the target.
            1. WUA 518
              WUA 518 1 September 2015 16: 07 New
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              No. Their gun at a rate of 3000 rpm

              Per minute? Maybe in a second? The effectiveness of the gun is primarily determined by the total mass of ammunition released per unit time, in which guns with rotating barrel units are superior to guns with traditional automation, due to the optimization of the path of the shot.
              1. shonsu
                shonsu 1 September 2015 16: 45 New
                +6
                3000 bps!?!?!?! are you out of your mind it’s even scary to imagine such a rate of fire ...)))
              2. shonsu
                shonsu 1 September 2015 16: 45 New
                0
                3000 bps!?!?!?! are you out of your mind it’s even scary to imagine such a rate of fire ...)))
                1. WUA 518
                  WUA 518 1 September 2015 16: 49 New
                  +2
                  Guilty carried away, of course in a minute laughing
            2. samoletil18
              samoletil18 1 September 2015 21: 22 New
              +1
              almost instantly.
              All 10 will hit the target.
              Yes?
          2. WUA 518
            WUA 518 1 September 2015 16: 31 New
            +2
            Quote: Baikal
            By the way, yes. Is a multi-barrel gun on a fighter easier, more reliable, smaller, more accurate, easier to maintain, etc.?

            Believe easier even in disassembly. On the MiG-23P, the cannon carriage of the GSh-23L gun was lowered on the cable system, the slightest skew led to jamming of the cables, and their replacement, the operation is difficult and dreary, especially in winter and especially at -30, I remember how the gunsmiths swore and dreamed of driving into this compartment creator of this masterpiece.
        2. Atemzug
          Atemzug 1 September 2015 14: 37 New
          0
          Read reviews of battles in Vietnam. Phantom gun problems were recognized by Americans as a critical flaw of this aircraft. Precisely because our response to the phantoms was asymmetric - at our moment there was a gun, and American missiles were stupid
        3. Engineer
          Engineer 1 September 2015 16: 15 New
          +2
          obviously for fire density
        4. CRASH
          CRASH 1 September 2015 20: 04 New
          0
          Because it is a 1 second salvo, and there is no way to survive, just without a chance, it’s just like a salvo of 20 shotguns with buckshot on cardboard.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 4 December 2015 02: 04 New
            0
            It’s not a salvo, but a turn, it’s much easier to hit a target moving in the open air, all the more so as you get distracted by piloting.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 4 December 2015 02: 08 New
        0
        It’s easier to shoot a MiG-29 pilot who collides with him or with the F-15 with his more than four times slower shooting weapons

        and with an arsenal of just 100sn versus 500 or a thousand
  3. qwert
    qwert 1 September 2015 07: 07 New
    +3
    Quote: Fantazer911
    If you cover the entire frequency range in which you can see the aircraft on the radar, then yes, but! t
    Then by weight the fighter will be like an electric locomotive, and the maneuverability will be similar
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 September 2015 19: 39 New
      +1
      Then by weight the fighter will be like an electric locomotive, and the maneuverability will be similar

      And he will not have to fly ...
      Will stand in the hangar and terrify the enemies of democracy .. by the very fact of complete invisibility.
  4. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 1 September 2015 08: 03 New
    +7
    Publication "about nothing" request It is naive to believe that in the near future, unmanned vehicles will be able to pose a real threat to modern fighters. no But this is generally "masterpiece":
    Both China and Russia are actively engaged in the development and construction of new network-based airborne threat detection systems. They include radars operating in the VHF range. Such equipment can neutralize all US investments in aviation technology of the latest generations.
    You would think that the process of developing a new radar ever stopped? The author is straightforward "captain obvious", the VHF range is all high-frequency waves up to decimeter. The VHF frequency range ranges from 30 MHz (10 m wavelength) to 3000 MHz (0,1 m wavelength). If someone is "not in the know", then it is at such frequencies that most of the existing radars work.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 1 September 2015 08: 49 New
      0
      Now the most popular is the centimeter range.
    2. qwert
      qwert 1 September 2015 11: 08 New
      0
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Publication "about nothing"

      Well, there is information. According to unverified data on the drones of the meter radar, and on the PACF of the millimeter.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 1 September 2015 12: 38 New
        +3
        Quote: qwert
        According to unverified data on meter drones,

        I can’t imagine how a drone with such an antenna flies in the sky.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 1 September 2015 14: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          I can’t imagine how a drone with such an antenna flies in the sky.

          Or with such laughing P-14 is also a "classic of the genre" like your P-18.
          1. Olezhek
            Olezhek 1 September 2015 15: 45 New
            +3
            Poshol draw drone .. wait ... angry
  5. NEXUS
    NEXUS 1 September 2015 08: 35 New
    +2
    Work on strike UAVs weighing up to 20 tons is carried out not only in China and Russia. The Americans with their X-47В and X-37В have advanced the most in this matter ... maybe the 6 generation fighter will be unmanned and methods, solutions for improving these very UAVs. Another question is when we see the first fighter UAV as they say in metal (or in plastic).
    Based on these developments, they will apparently create the 6 generation fighter.
    1. Civil
      Civil 1 September 2015 11: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      Work on strike UAVs weighing up to 20 tons is carried out not only in China and Russia. The Americans with their X-47В and X-37В have advanced the most in this matter ... maybe the 6 generation fighter will be unmanned and methods, solutions for improving these very UAVs. Another question is when we see the first fighter UAV as they say in metal (or in plastic).
      Based on these developments, they will apparently create the 6 generation fighter.


      How many years our staff with sarcasm rejected UAV ??? How many here on the forums proceeded in a rage from powerlessness before shortsightedness.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 September 2015 12: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: Civil

        How many years our staff with sarcasm rejected UAV ???

        And now they are still numbing ... the SKAT project was cut off by the Mikoyanites, although even then it was clear that an impact UAV was needed.
        Best regards hi
  6. Nymp
    Nymp 1 September 2015 08: 50 New
    +2
    Maybe someone will not like my comets, but I don’t care about some Merikassian general, concerned about the creation of their 6th generation airplane! The fact that after MAXA the stench rises in the ranks of mattresses I knew in advance.
  7. lotar
    lotar 1 September 2015 09: 19 New
    0
    And I’m wondering when the next step will be made in ensuring the safety of aircraft on completely new principles, such as a plasma cloud (blanket), which various experts have repeatedly stated. EW is good, stealth is provided by the materials and form used, but where something that should radically change the situation? And then there is a feeling that we are pulling the last crumbs from the technologies of the century before last. It is clear that the further, the more finance will be required for every percentage of the increase fektivnosti.A by it seems as if people are in place in the scientific and technical plane.Nadeyus people like Einstein and others have already been born, and they were born in our country.
  8. Havoc
    Havoc 1 September 2015 10: 56 New
    +2
    UAVs are good in a war with those countries and groups that do not have a layered air defense system and modern electronic warfare systems. For example, the Taliban ISIS, i.e. to carry out certain actions. Those countries that have modern air defense have no problems detecting and shooting down, even intercepting a drone.
    The myth of invisible aircraft, it’s true that they have now begun to speak, is inconspicuous, created by the Americans to justify gigantic investments in their “irons”. P.Ya. Ufimtsev, thirty years ago, debunked the theory of invisibility of an object.
    As for the unmanned fighter, in close combat it will always be a bit, no operator on the ground can replace a pilot in the cockpit.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 1 September 2015 15: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Havoc
      As for the unmanned fighter, in close combat it will always be a bit, no operator on the ground can replace a pilot in the cockpit.

      But if you exclude the operator, then the pilot has little chance. Physical limitations (overload, speed of reaction, emotions) and equipment for ensuring the life of the pilot against the drone are like wooden planes versus all-metal ones.
    2. Throw
      Throw 1 September 2015 15: 45 New
      -3

      As for the unmanned fighter, in close combat it will always be a bit, no operator on the ground can replace a pilot in the cockpit.

      The operator will replace the autopilot bully
      Automatic piloting systems and specialized artificial intelligence are developing very quickly. Recall how the “Buran” got on the machine and chess programs.
      And in aerial combat, the computer will be able to calculate all the combinations and options for attack / evasion taking into account the performance characteristics of machines much faster than a person. Plus, they wrote above: the reaction is faster, it does not require life support systems and bailouts, only glider overloads are limited, and increased survivability.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 1 September 2015 16: 25 New
        +5
        Write nonsense - Buran sat down according to a pre-compiled program, but here it is impossible to lay down a maneuver program for an enemy fighter. Chess is already closer, since there is a miscalculation of all the combinations due to a specific disposition. But if there are 32 pieces in chess, then rearrange how many options have to be calculated by the computer's digital computer for delivering a preemptive strike to our highly maneuverable fighters. This is a supercomputer needed, which in Ruslana does not fit.
        1. rosarioagro
          rosarioagro 1 September 2015 19: 59 New
          +2
          Quote: Engineer
          But if there are 32 pieces in chess, then rearrange how many options have to be calculated by the computer's digital computer for delivering a preemptive strike to our highly maneuverable fighters. This is a supercomputer needed, which in Ruslana does not fit.

          Well, firstly, for an example, to calculate the trajectory of the descent of the spacecraft to the earth with all the evolutions, the power of the smartphone is enough, there will be no graphics in the load, and all conceivable calculations can be done on the ground, the drone computer can use ready-made data
        2. Petrix
          Petrix 1 September 2015 20: 38 New
          +2
          Quote: Engineer
          But if there are 32 pieces in chess, then rearrange how many options you have to calculate the computer's digital computer for delivering a preemptive strike to our highly maneuverable fighters

          A very good comparison with chess. But at first, people beat a computer easily, then it was harder. Now they’re unlikely to beat. In close air combat, the main thing is not to be able to calculate the enemy’s strategy for half an hour ahead. Everything changes in seconds. Here the main reaction to the changed situation and the speed of "keeping up" the technology behind the thought. The drone is much faster, but programmers will bring the right algorithm to mind.
          There is still an important factor that contributes to the implementation of AI, even inferior to average pilots in skills. Mobilization of human resources is limited. Elite manned air forces are knocked out in the initial period of hostilities. It's cheaper to rivet chips than to cook recruits.
          1. Throw
            Throw 1 September 2015 21: 25 New
            -2
            Do not write “nonsense” to yourself, but at least try to calculate the number of possible combinations of 32 figures on 64 fields ... So, to understand the order of numbers laughing
            And at the same time, think, for example, that, according to the long-developed algorithms of combat operation, air defense systems are capable of reflecting a massive raid in automatic mode. And this is a miscalculation of tens and hundreds of maneuvering targets of different classes in real time.
            And think about where the training goals come from in the simulators. laughing laughing laughing
        3. The comment was deleted.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 1 September 2015 19: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Havoc
      As for the unmanned fighter, in close combat it will always be a bit, no operator on the ground can replace a pilot in the cockpit.

      Of course, remote control of a fighter from the ground is a dead end and a hopeless direction. Cars will “grow wiser” and learn to conduct air combat on their own. More recently, a fight on a chessboard (which is also a battle) ended in a computer defeat, but at the present stage, things are not so simple.
      In 1994, Garry Kasparov lost to the Fritz 3 tournament tournament blitz game in Munich. The program also won against Viswanathan Anand, Boris Gelfand and Vladimir Kramnik. Grandmaster Robert Hübner refused to play against the program and automatically lost. Chess computers are now available at a very low price. Many open source programs have appeared, in particular Crafty, Fruit and GNU Chess, which can be downloaded freely from the Internet and which can defeat many professional chess players. And the best commercial programs, for example, Shredder or Fritz have already exceeded the level of champion people. hi
  9. igorv501
    igorv501 1 September 2015 12: 27 New
    0
    Lotar. I can answer you when the oil runs out. I probably understood why!
  10. castle
    castle 1 September 2015 18: 32 New
    0
    Artificial intelligence, I mean intelligence, in which the combat vehicle itself will decide what to do, attack, leave, whom to attack. What if the enemy’s target begins to send a signal that it is civilian and from a friendly country? What if it’s a malfunction? And his, because the beat will begin. Artificial intelligence, which will be independent of the human operator, will only be irresponsible on a combat vehicle. Or science fiction fans who have already come up with an algorithm for kvass patriotism for robots?
    Seen enough of "Terminators" in the movie? A little brain scratch?
    Although, if you look at the crime series in Russian TV, you really will lose your brains. And the culture of discussion, which the Russians show "The Right to Vote", teaches how to behave in the bazaar. What brains are there ?!
    1. serg2.72
      serg2.72 1 September 2015 20: 02 New
      +1
      Yes, the Russians do not look at all rubbish, and for a long time, we prefer to work. All this is watched by our former compatriots who have nothing to do.
    2. Petrix
      Petrix 1 September 2015 20: 58 New
      0
      Quote: hrad
      What if the enemy’s target begins to send a signal that it is civilian and from a friendly country? What if it’s a malfunction? And his, because the beat will begin

      Imperfect technology is brought to the test stage. No one in their right mind will accept a raw weapons system.
      And the same questions for a person:
      - Wrong? Yes.
      - Are there any traitors? Yes.
      - Can get sick, lose consciousness, experience shock, get scared, panic and act inappropriately? Yes.
      The human factor will be replaced by a robot factor. And no problem.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  11. soratnik
    soratnik 1 September 2015 20: 55 New
    0
    So, to effectively search for aircraft built using stealth technologies, a promising Russian UAV will receive a low-frequency radar station.

    And if the Chinese equip these UAVs with the most modern toasters, bread makers, and egg cookers, then these miracle planes can also make breakfast for the operator while they are in flight.
    This is to say that funny Serbs without any sophisticated UAVs, using our anti-aircraft missile systems developed in the 60s, shot down an American super-sophisticated B-2 bomber created using stealth technology. Soviet means reliable. And do not reinvent the wheel by investing a lot of money in weapons that are irrelevant. Or if you really want to spend people's money on toys such as UAVs, determine for them a different direction of action.
    1. Logos
      Logos 1 September 2015 22: 47 New
      +1
      funny Serbs without any sophisticated UAVs, using our anti-aircraft missile systems developed in the 60s, shot down an American super-sophisticated b-2 bomber created using stealth technology.

      Shot down within line of sight, which is quite rare. And the Serbs are anything but funny

      Soviet means reliable.

      In Serbia, this "reliable" did not save from trampling the country into the Stone Age by air strikes of NATO countries. And in the Bekaa Valley, the Soviet-made air defense that was layered and ready to repulse the attack was completely destroyed by Israeli aviation with minimal losses
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 2 September 2015 02: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: soratnik
      With the help of our anti-aircraft missile systems developed in the 60-s, the American super-sophisticated B-2 bomber was created using stealth technology.

      Really? no The F-117 was shot down (withdrawn from service in the 2008). At the same time, the S-125, modernized using western components, was used. The capture and tracking of the target was carried out through a backup thermal imaging channel. Unfortunately, this was one of the few successes of Serbian air defense. As sad as it may seem, NATO forces managed to crush it effectively.
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 September 2015 11: 05 New
    0
    The air defense response to stealth technology will inevitably come.
    The question is how much it will be costly. Stealth aircraft
    force the enemy to literally be blocked by "layers"
    radars. In total, the radars give the answer: "the enemy flies
    we’ll shoot down the plane. "But the system turns out to be complicated, and if
    it must be deployed on an extended border, on its
    equipment will take much more money than attacking
    enemy aircraft.
    Americans adhere to the concept that the best air defense
    fighter aircraft. And missiles missiles - supporting measures
    (The Last Frontier). Therefore, they stamp fighters in commodity
    quantities.
  13. Komik
    Komik 3 September 2015 16: 40 New
    +1
    Not a big comment. Pilots have been operators for 10 years. At modern speeds, they are pointed at the target by the optimal route by remote control, the automation searches for and captures the target, and the pilot only pulls the trigger. An aircraft without a pilot has several advantages: easier - due to weight reduction due to the lack of a pilot and life support systems; more resistant to overloads; more economical (the cost of training and maintaining the pilot); more reliable (the notorious human factor). The disadvantages are obvious: control interception; inaction in unusual situations; insufficient computing abilities (a PC is good, but a person is better however). As a conclusion: "Replacing a pilot with automation and remote control is a matter of time and technological development." Of course it's a pity, but .....