[Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

A human pilot is only exercising "displaced choice" too, that is why he needs rules of engagement, and authorization for use of force.

The difference is that the human pilot has the ability to understand when the orders it seems to have been given don't make sense.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The difference is that the human pilot has the ability to understand when the orders it seems to have been given don't make sense.

Not within the amount of time that is required for shoot-or-no-shoot.

[Mike Wightman]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The difference is that the human pilot has the ability to understand when the orders it seems to have been given don't make sense.

Shame you can't teach human pilots to recognise the flags or their allies

Two Warriors were destroyed during the First Gulf War, with nine soldiers killed, in a friendly fire incident when hit by an AGM-65 Maverick launched in error by an American A-10 Thunderbolt II.

The pilot claimed the warriors were not painted in the US flag - they had the UK union jack. A computer would not have made that mistake.

[warellis]

Biggest problem with human pilots, primarily for low-altitude ground attack operations, is that fighter jets & ground attack aircraft like the A-10 are moving too fast to be able to ID effectively where targets often are. In addition, the pilot has to concentrate on flying the plane which makes such attacks difficult

Drones on the other hand, are often slow enough and, thanks to having no onboard pilot, cwn be safer and more accurate to use for better ground support.

The harsh truth about the A-10, is that people only like it for its 30mm gatling gun that fires AP DU rounds.

It is not that heavily armored and in fact during Desert Storm, a number of A-10s were shot up by Iraqi AA fire. It got so bad that they were pulled out while the F-16s in use were far more effective at ground attack due to being able to fly higher and faster while using PGMs.

Modern ground attack aircraft primarily use PGMs, which can be dropped from high-altitude accurately and have multiple means or targeting stuff, for ground support.

Drones are also useful in the role due to the pilot sitting in an air-conditioned room and not having to constantly scan his surroundings, unlike aircraft pilots who are doing low-altitude ground support.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by warellis

The harsh truth about the A-10, is that people only like it for its 30mm gatling gun that fires AP DU rounds.

No, the A-10 is also quite useful for its' low speed/low altitude flying characteristics and its' loiter capability. F-16s are useless for escorting rescue helicopters. Effectively they don't even fly in the same sky.

The A-10 is also useful for armed reconnaissance missions where you have to find your target before you can attack it. All those quick and clean F-16 missions depend on going against known targets.

A-120s can also carry PGMs. An A-10 pilot who shot down an Iraqi helicopter with his 30mm said in an interview afterward that he only engaged with his gun after he couldn't get his Maverick AGM to lock on the helo. Mavericks were used extensively by A-10s in their designed role as anti-tank weapons.

A-10s can also make gun attacks from an altitude of 15,000 feet.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Mike Wightman

Shame you can't teach human pilots to recognise the flags or their allies
The pilot claimed the warriors were not painted in the US flag - they had the UK union jack. A computer would not have made that mistake.

Computers make object recognition mistakes all the time.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Computers make object recognition mistakes all the time.

UCVs aren't a cure for blue-on-blue, although they are a (more than slightly worrisome) cure for the public caring about it. Nobody is going to write their congressman about the robot tank that was killed by the robot helicopter.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by warellis

The harsh truth about the A-10, is that people only like it for its 30mm gatling gun that fires AP DU rounds.

It is not that heavily armored and in fact during Desert Storm, a number of A-10s were shot up by Iraqi AA fire. It got so bad that they were pulled out while the F-16s in use were far more effective at ground attack due to being able to fly higher and faster while using PGMs.

That doesn't seem to match what Wikipedia article says on the matter:

The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict. Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by RyanW

That doesn't seem to match what Wikipedia article says on the matter:

The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict. Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.

The Air Force still nearly retired the aircraft in 2015 and briefly suspended maintenance, only to have to retool when it was clear they were still going to have to do the CAS mission and won't get a replacement eariler than 2022.

None of this really has much to do with its suitability versus a UCAV platform, but rather with the extremely peculiar politics of fixed-winged aircraft deployment, military procurement, and defense spending in the US.

Expect the Air Force to deploy more UCAVs in the CAS role, and expect the Army to try to get their own unmanned CAS platforms too.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

None of this really has much to do with its suitability versus a UCAV platform, but rather with the extremely peculiar politics of fixed-winged aircraft deployment, military procurement, and defense spending in the US.

The Cold War was basically a three way fight between the US Army, the US Air Force, and the US Navy. There might have been some other players involved, but they were insignificant.

And it's still going on.