RC jet fighters

pyro

pyro

pyro

Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2002
Posts
16,167
Fighter-controlled jet is tested

The defence technology spin-out company Qinetiq has successfully completed the world's first flight of a plane remotely controlled by a fighter aircraft.

The trial flight, carried out at Boscombe Down airfield in Wiltshire, is part of a programme to develop a system that would enable a single pilot to control a number of unmanned aircraft by remote control.

The US Air Force routinely uses unpiloted aircraft for search and destroy missions. These planes are controlled remotely from a missions operations centre.

The advantage is that these planes can be sent into dangerous areas without risking a pilot's life. The supposed downside is that the controllers are remote from the battle area and so may not be able to respond to rapidly changing situations.

That is why the RAF is testing a converted Tornado whose pilot is able to control four unmanned craft from the cockpit.

Target destroyed

In the system's first big test the Tornado pilot flew a passenger jet - a BAC-111 - and three computer-simulated craft while airborne.

In the exercise, Squadron Leader Andy Blythe successfully used his unmanned aircraft to search out an enemy target and destroy it.

According to Squadron Leader Richard Wells, a member of the RAF's Future Combat Air Capability team: "Militarily speaking not only does it allow the pilot to remain in a safe area - but it allows him to operate his team of unmanned aircraft and allow him to carry out the elements of the mission he wants to undertake."

The main risk is to the pilot being overwhelmed
Click to expand...
Rohit Jaggi,
aviation correspondent

But some independent commentators, such as Rohit Jaggi, aviation columnist for the Financial Times, believe that in the heat of battle pilots would be swamped with information and unable to engage in combat and control their robot planes.

"The main risk is to the pilot being overwhelmed," he said. "They won't be able to deal with threats to the unmanned aircraft - so you may as well control them from sunny Wiltshire."

Mr Jaggi believes it may well be easier to control unmanned aircraft from the ground - where there is less stress and more battlefield information.
Click to expand...

You gonna ask why the thumbs down? Well this is all very good for the pilots, they can engage the enemy without any risk to their life, how noble is that though? Isn't trying to stay alive part of the combat?
 
So you would rather pilots risk death getting in close to the fight rather than staying safe.

Staying alive is part of combat and so is killing the other guy, this technology accomplishes both.
 
If someone is so protective over his life why not become a civilian pilot? We are going closer and closer to having machines fight for us...
 
If theres no risk of life then all war terns into is a game. Wars by there nature should mean risking lives.
For instance if we had the technologies and used it against another nation that did not, we'd loss no lives but our target(s) would they would feel a greater motivation to win they would "Feel" the war were as we would mearly ignore the war.
if that sort of makes sence.

It's kind of like be fighting a war in Battle field 2 or something.
 
This reminds me of a book I once read, controlling lots of fighter planes from a B52 Bomber through some sort of system. Anybody know what that book was called? I'd love to read it again :D
 
pyro said:
You gonna ask why the thumbs down? Well this is all very good for the pilots, they can engage the enemy without any risk to their life, how noble is that though? Isn't trying to stay alive part of the combat?
Click to expand...


Read Dale Brown's Dreamland series of fiction books, it talks about UAV style planes, armed with stingers and a cannon of sorts, but controlled by two operators within a high tech version of a B52 (the mothership),

It's actually a lot more realistic sounding than the real version lol
 
proponents of the theory that "war is about risking lives" have obviously never lost a loved one/family member in a war. wake up people, theres nothing honorable about dying
 
pyro said:
If someone is so protective over his life why not become a civilian pilot? We are going closer and closer to having machines fight for us...
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
The only response your comments deserve.
"How dare a combatant not endanger his life unnecessarily!"
:rolleyes:
 
Nah I think it's great. They have fighting robots too, look like Jonny 5 out of Short Circuit with a big gun on its shoulder.
 
Aod said:
proponents of the theory that "war is about risking lives" have obviously never lost a loved one/family member in a war. wake up people, theres nothing honorable about dying
Click to expand...

So I can only have an oppinion about war if I have lost a family member? Fair enough, I have, still have the same idea though. What you are saying is absurd, what greater honor than dying for your country? Sure you might not like the idea, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
 
pyro said:
So I can only have an oppinion about war if I have lost a family member? Fair enough, I have, still have the same idea though. What you are saying is absurd, what greater honor than dying for your country? Sure you might not like the idea, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Click to expand...

How about not dying for your country, maybe dying for what you believe in not what you're told to believe. :)
 
Raikiri said:
How about not dying for your country, maybe dying for what you believe in not what you're told to believe. :)
Click to expand...

That can be very broad, if your ideals go against your country, would you fight on the other side? Consider the case of David Hicks, he fought for what he believed, was he right to do so?

Kreeeee said:
I expected more from someone like you pyro :(
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here :confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom