Skip to comments.
Europe Develops Robotic Warplanes.
StrategyPage ^
| March 27, 2006
Posted on 03/27/2006 3:40:34 PM PST by spetznaz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
1)
Neuron:2) Barrakuda:
3) Corax:
1
posted on
03/27/2006 3:40:40 PM PST
by
spetznaz
To: spetznaz
Here is our baby.
X-45A:
X-45C:
2
posted on
03/27/2006 3:47:31 PM PST
by
spetznaz
(Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
To: spetznaz
If there was ever an argument AGAINST the F-22, it is some iteration of these babies.
3
posted on
03/27/2006 3:51:30 PM PST
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: spetznaz
Here's my favorite, the X-45Cylon:
4
posted on
03/27/2006 3:55:03 PM PST
by
Yossarian
(The media is now simply running a 24/7 soap opera with Dubya cast as the arch villain.)
To: spetznaz
"six nation European effort"
What a bunch of losers.... six nations?
5
posted on
03/27/2006 4:09:06 PM PST
by
Porterville
(Sure are a lot of these few Muslim Extremist Fanatics)
To: spetznaz
Assuming they are rolled out at the same frantic pace as the Eurofighter, we should see the first one operational by 2056.
6
posted on
03/27/2006 4:11:13 PM PST
by
SampleMan
To: Yossarian
For some reason, I'm having difficulty focusing on the plane.
7
posted on
03/27/2006 4:14:04 PM PST
by
Recovering Hermit
(I will not need to come here again…I will send my android instead.)
To: spetznaz
8
posted on
03/27/2006 4:24:00 PM PST
by
nuconvert
([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
To: Yossarian
I can see bent willie taking this picture to the bathroom with him.
9
posted on
03/27/2006 5:12:55 PM PST
by
chiefqc
To: MeanWestTexan
The next gen. fighters are mostly planned as remote jobs.
Of course, remote, robotic aircraft generally are dependent upon an uplink. Counter measures in the future may focus on defeating that link.
10
posted on
03/27/2006 6:01:42 PM PST
by
Wiseghy
("You want to break this army? Then break your word to it.")
To: Southack
11
posted on
03/27/2006 6:07:36 PM PST
by
spetznaz
(Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
To: spetznaz; Rokke; Pukin Dog; Marine_Uncle; Dog; dead; Jeff Head
Europe is certainly lagging behind Israel's UCAV efforts, and is probably lagging China and India's UCAV's, too.
Since 1991 the U.S. has shown the world that Hyper-War is something that no one else can match. Ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, stealth fighters, stealth bombers, UAVs, satellites, co-ordinated carrier/sub/land-based assaults, and thoroughly integrated command-n-control.
In Afghanistan and Iraq we've given the world a taste of the future: swarms of 1,000 or more UCAV's. Today in Iraq the U.S. is flying 1,000 UAV's every day. This is present-tense.
Our F-22 is operational in the field, too.
Next, we'll be showing the world sub-orbital and orbital fighters/bombers. 20 years after we display our first sub-orbital fighter in public, we'll have a military base on the Moon (and a nuclear presence on Mars - far away from potential electronic interference/surveillence).
In contrast, only a handful of nations have fielded technology that the U.S. was using in combat in 1945 (e.g. atomic weapons). Only 2 other nations have put their own men in Space, something that the U.S. has been doing since 1961. No other nation has even *been* to the Moon (save for a couple of Soviet robots).
Stealth aircraft, which no one else is yet fielding, will be outdated by video-targeted missiles by the time another nation has viable competition to the F-22. For the rest, consider the benchmarks of atomic weapons, men in Space, and a man on the Moon to obtain a ballpark figure for the time-lag between U.S. versus foreign competition.
12
posted on
03/27/2006 6:40:12 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Wiseghy
"Of course, remote, robotic aircraft generally are dependent upon an uplink. Counter measures in the future may focus on defeating that link." That's a poor defense against UCAV's.
Keep in mind that the first UCAV's were autonomous cruise missiles...something that the U.S. and Germany have been fielding since the 1940's. Break the uplink and you've simply taken away the *recall* and target-changing options for said combat vehicle...the original target is still going to get hit by the autonomous portion of any UCAV.
13
posted on
03/27/2006 6:44:23 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Wiseghy
Of course, remote, robotic aircraft generally are dependent upon an uplink. Counter measures in the future may focus on defeating that link. Somebody successfully hacks your command channel -- suddenly your planes are now HIS planes
We should also pay attention to the "Battlestar Galactica" scenario: enemy agents infiltrating software development teams, and inserting code that cause glitches upon receiving a certain signal from the enemy.
And let's hope the beasties don't run Windows...
14
posted on
03/27/2006 6:53:02 PM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
To: Southack
15
posted on
03/27/2006 6:58:13 PM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
To: Southack
Just asking but what could possably be the point of a
nuclear presence on Mars?
16
posted on
03/27/2006 7:04:06 PM PST
by
MilspecRob
(Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
To: MilspecRob
Nuclear energy, not weapons. The purpose would be for long-term energy in a place immune from spying.
17
posted on
03/27/2006 7:06:35 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
Southack, Don't get me wrong know one wants a much larger US presence in space more than I do, but I have to ask again,what possable utility can "long-term energy in a place immune from spying", on Mars be of any utility?
18
posted on
03/27/2006 7:35:40 PM PST
by
MilspecRob
(Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
To: MilspecRob
19
posted on
03/27/2006 7:43:45 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
We certainly have come a long way. I'm all for unmaned flight for use in SEAD etc.. Makes total sense. Send in hundreds of UCAV's to take out radar AAA and SAM sites without loosing one pilot. As for ACM. Well that is another story.
Man. Time flies. I can still remember training on a Philco Corps. TRANSAC 2000 computer system back in 1966 while attending a computer tech school. It was a beast. 48 bit word length, at 1 Megaherz. All NOR logic. It ran circles around the first generation IBM 360s. The system was used in the US Airforce SAGE sites. Which was I believe was our first program at using un-manned aircraft for intercept purposes in the continental USA.
20
posted on
03/27/2006 7:50:13 PM PST
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson