Cool.
F-15 Takes satellite into space
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Reminds me of the ASAT missile.
Whomever made that video doesn't know USAF tail numbering. According to the tail number that plane was built in 1932.
Whomever made that video doesn't know USAF tail numbering. According to the tail number that plane was built in 1932.
This is a concept video. Lousy CGI and all...
The concept is 30 years old. An actual F-15 launched an actual ASAT in 1985. Hardly a new idea.
The concept is 30 years old. An actual F-15 launched an actual ASAT in 1985. Hardly a new idea.
^^^^Hhahaha, great call Astro.
Old news...
Old news...
Hopefully Boeing can figure out the fuel problem. That is a very large chunk of money they had awarded for this project.
http://www.spacenews.com/darpa-airborne-launcher-effort-falters/
http://www.spacenews.com/darpa-airborne-launcher-effort-falters/
Why do you even need a pilot in the age of autonomous drones?
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Why do you even need a pilot in the age of autonomous drones?
Pilot optional.
The concept of 'fly-back' boosters is old and was obvious. Any kinetic energy applied to the satellite helps. Think of a wing and tail with 4 jets screaming away, with the main fuselage rocketing away, leaving behind a minimal fuselage+wings+tail to glide down.
Or just a variation of the old SR-71 + D-21 operational system:
http://www.geaviation.com/press/other/other_20020829.html
Why do you even need a pilot in the age of autonomous drones?
Pilot optional.
The concept of 'fly-back' boosters is old and was obvious. Any kinetic energy applied to the satellite helps. Think of a wing and tail with 4 jets screaming away, with the main fuselage rocketing away, leaving behind a minimal fuselage+wings+tail to glide down.
Or just a variation of the old SR-71 + D-21 operational system:
http://www.geaviation.com/press/other/other_20020829.html
Last edited:
The additional booster capability required for a ground based launch has never been a technical problem. We do it all the time. For example: high thrust, relatively low cost, solid rocket boosters are well more than enough.
The airborne launch system is simply a way to save money. And, I'm not at all sure it saves that much.
The airborne launch system is simply a way to save money. And, I'm not at all sure it saves that much.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Why do you even need a pilot in the age of autonomous drones?
Drones can fly limited mission profiles. With simple airplanes.
Show me a done that can do air to air combat.
Let me know when you find an airline that has only autonomous drones.
And tell me how you like flying on them...
Why do you even need a pilot in the age of autonomous drones?
Drones can fly limited mission profiles. With simple airplanes.
Show me a done that can do air to air combat.
Let me know when you find an airline that has only autonomous drones.
And tell me how you like flying on them...
Well, I was speaking in the context of this application, not for pilots overall.
But I can see how I was not clear and certainly, inartful in my presentation.
This topic spoke of the dangers to a pilot for this mission, using the fuel described.
So let me rephrase: for this application, in the age of autonomous drones, why is a pilot even needed?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Why do you even need a pilot in the age of autonomous drones?
Drones can fly limited mission profiles. With simple airplanes.
Show me a done that can do air to air combat.
Let me know when you find an airline that has only autonomous drones.
And tell me how you like flying on them...
But I can see how I was not clear and certainly, inartful in my presentation.
This topic spoke of the dangers to a pilot for this mission, using the fuel described.
So let me rephrase: for this application, in the age of autonomous drones, why is a pilot even needed?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Why do you even need a pilot in the age of autonomous drones?
Drones can fly limited mission profiles. With simple airplanes.
Show me a done that can do air to air combat.
Let me know when you find an airline that has only autonomous drones.
And tell me how you like flying on them...
Java they day will come. It's probably at least century away though.
Do you mean Military or Civilian Aviation?
Remember the Hal 9000 Commanding the Spacecraft in 2001.
In my civilian life I have found people more dependable than computers,
Do you mean Military or Civilian Aviation?
Remember the Hal 9000 Commanding the Spacecraft in 2001.
In my civilian life I have found people more dependable than computers,
Last edited:
If there is risk from the fuel in the missile to the pilot in the F-15, you can turn an F-15 into a remotely piloted vehicle.
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
But you can install systems to turn a modern fighter into an RPV.
And I think that the terms have added confusion. The Predator, for example, is flown by humans. It is not an autonomous drone. It is remotely piloted.
The Navy's UCAV, the X-47B, is built from the ground up as an autonomous vehicle. It is as complex as a fighter: gear, flaps, hook, etc. and has flown in a carrier environment and done air to air refueling. Still can't perform an air to air mission, but it can do air to ground, or reconnaissance...simpler profiles where it can be programmed with mission parameters.
So, built from the ground up - autonomy is possible. But the X-47 is about the cost of a modern fighter. It isn't cheap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
But you can install systems to turn a modern fighter into an RPV.
And I think that the terms have added confusion. The Predator, for example, is flown by humans. It is not an autonomous drone. It is remotely piloted.
The Navy's UCAV, the X-47B, is built from the ground up as an autonomous vehicle. It is as complex as a fighter: gear, flaps, hook, etc. and has flown in a carrier environment and done air to air refueling. Still can't perform an air to air mission, but it can do air to ground, or reconnaissance...simpler profiles where it can be programmed with mission parameters.
So, built from the ground up - autonomy is possible. But the X-47 is about the cost of a modern fighter. It isn't cheap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If there is risk from the fuel in the missile to the pilot in the F-15, you can turn an F-15 into a remotely piloted vehicle.
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
Nothing "too complex" about the F-15 here. Nonsense. A retrofit can be made that takes an F-15 from takeoff to landing with no human in the loop. Full navigation and flight control, with failure handling as well. Pilots may have the flowing scarf, but computers these days can do it all. The exception may be target identification in an air-to-air environment, although decision makers in AWACS or other command and control centers can ID the threat before firing on it.
If there is risk from the fuel in the missile to the pilot in the F-15, you can turn an F-15 into a remotely piloted vehicle.
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
Nothing "too complex" about the F-15 here. Nonsense. A retrofit can be made that takes an F-15 from takeoff to landing with no human in the loop. Full navigation and flight control, with failure handling as well. Pilots may have the flowing scarf, but computers these days can do it all. The exception may be target identification in an air-to-air environment, although decision makers in AWACS or other command and control centers can ID the threat before firing on it.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If there is risk from the fuel in the missile to the pilot in the F-15, you can turn an F-15 into a remotely piloted vehicle.
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
Nothing "too complex" about the F-15 here. Nonsense. A retrofit can be made that takes an F-15 from takeoff to landing with no human in the loop. Full navigation and flight control, with failure handling as well. Pilots may have the flowing scarf, but computers these days can do it all. The exception may be target identification in an air-to-air environment, although decision makers in AWACS or other command and control centers can ID the threat before firing on it.
You once said that some pilots had big egos. I think you may have identified the wrong profession...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If there is risk from the fuel in the missile to the pilot in the F-15, you can turn an F-15 into a remotely piloted vehicle.
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
Nothing "too complex" about the F-15 here. Nonsense. A retrofit can be made that takes an F-15 from takeoff to landing with no human in the loop. Full navigation and flight control, with failure handling as well. Pilots may have the flowing scarf, but computers these days can do it all. The exception may be target identification in an air-to-air environment, although decision makers in AWACS or other command and control centers can ID the threat before firing on it.
You once said that some pilots had big egos. I think you may have identified the wrong profession...
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If there is risk from the fuel in the missile to the pilot in the F-15, you can turn an F-15 into a remotely piloted vehicle.
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
Nothing "too complex" about the F-15 here. Nonsense. A retrofit can be made that takes an F-15 from takeoff to landing with no human in the loop. Full navigation and flight control, with failure handling as well. Pilots may have the flowing scarf, but computers these days can do it all. The exception may be target identification in an air-to-air environment, although decision makers in AWACS or other command and control centers can ID the threat before firing on it.
Your understanding of fighter tactics and weapons systems is poor. Target ID and engagement isn't that simple. Radars are limited in range, discrimination and ID capability. An AWACS often cannot tell friend from foe. Often it cannot see the target due to line of sight considerations. Just like guys engaging the enemy on the ground, decision making has to be executed forward, not at the rear, not remotely, and not by computers.
There is a legal issue here too. Killing people should be decided on by a human. No weapons are released by our current inventory of drones without humans making the kill decision. This is critically important when close to friendlies and when collateral damage is a consideration. Cruise missiles are a different matter, autonomous, but targeted and released by a human.
Computers do not make life or death decisions.
And your understanding is colored by your clear disdain for pilots and your clear belief in the superiority of computers. But computers fail. Air France 447 was a clear failure of engineering. The autopilot (that would be flying an autonomous aircraft) pitched the airplane up into a stall based on erroneous air data inputs from a poorly engineered sensor. Engineering failure begat engineering failure.
The pilots didn't recover from the stall. Flying failure due to training deficiencies.
But if that were an autonomous airplane, it would have crashed just the same. Computers can't do it all. Not when poor engineering provides them with faulty inputs. Not when they fail, as the Air Asia rudder system failed. As numerous components have, and will continue, to fail in flight.
The F-15 can be made to fly as a drone. But it's not as simple as "computers can do it all".
You've got flap, gear, throttle, flight control interfaces that need to be built. F-4s fly as drones. So do F-16s. But they're remote piloted and complex actuators are installed.
Built from the ground up, as the X-47 is, those control systems become electric, and easy to build. But the retrofit is complex and not at all simple.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If there is risk from the fuel in the missile to the pilot in the F-15, you can turn an F-15 into a remotely piloted vehicle.
Not an autonomous drone. This airplane is bit too complex for that, given the current state of the art.
Nothing "too complex" about the F-15 here. Nonsense. A retrofit can be made that takes an F-15 from takeoff to landing with no human in the loop. Full navigation and flight control, with failure handling as well. Pilots may have the flowing scarf, but computers these days can do it all. The exception may be target identification in an air-to-air environment, although decision makers in AWACS or other command and control centers can ID the threat before firing on it.
Your understanding of fighter tactics and weapons systems is poor. Target ID and engagement isn't that simple. Radars are limited in range, discrimination and ID capability. An AWACS often cannot tell friend from foe. Often it cannot see the target due to line of sight considerations. Just like guys engaging the enemy on the ground, decision making has to be executed forward, not at the rear, not remotely, and not by computers.
There is a legal issue here too. Killing people should be decided on by a human. No weapons are released by our current inventory of drones without humans making the kill decision. This is critically important when close to friendlies and when collateral damage is a consideration. Cruise missiles are a different matter, autonomous, but targeted and released by a human.
Computers do not make life or death decisions.
And your understanding is colored by your clear disdain for pilots and your clear belief in the superiority of computers. But computers fail. Air France 447 was a clear failure of engineering. The autopilot (that would be flying an autonomous aircraft) pitched the airplane up into a stall based on erroneous air data inputs from a poorly engineered sensor. Engineering failure begat engineering failure.
The pilots didn't recover from the stall. Flying failure due to training deficiencies.
But if that were an autonomous airplane, it would have crashed just the same. Computers can't do it all. Not when poor engineering provides them with faulty inputs. Not when they fail, as the Air Asia rudder system failed. As numerous components have, and will continue, to fail in flight.
The F-15 can be made to fly as a drone. But it's not as simple as "computers can do it all".
You've got flap, gear, throttle, flight control interfaces that need to be built. F-4s fly as drones. So do F-16s. But they're remote piloted and complex actuators are installed.
Built from the ground up, as the X-47 is, those control systems become electric, and easy to build. But the retrofit is complex and not at all simple.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 757guy
You once said that some pilots had big egos. I think you may have identified the wrong profession...
Its true, I generally am skeptical about airline pilots. Ever since a 32-year veteran pilot and his 8-year copilot killed an entire family I knew. Pilot error. Human error. Just facts, very sad facts about over reliance on pilots, some of the biggest jerks on the planet. Also, spin accidents in F/A-18s caused by the Navy pilot lobby made a lot of widows. Other examples are numerous. Their egos and political power is just nauseating.
You once said that some pilots had big egos. I think you may have identified the wrong profession...
Its true, I generally am skeptical about airline pilots. Ever since a 32-year veteran pilot and his 8-year copilot killed an entire family I knew. Pilot error. Human error. Just facts, very sad facts about over reliance on pilots, some of the biggest jerks on the planet. Also, spin accidents in F/A-18s caused by the Navy pilot lobby made a lot of widows. Other examples are numerous. Their egos and political power is just nauseating.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Just like guys engaging the enemy on the ground, decision making has to be executed forward, not at the rear, not remotely, and not by computers.
You changed your answer from your silly "airplane is bit too complex". Now you're changing your answer saying it would be hard to retrofit it. It wouldn't be too difficult at all.
I don't expect you to admit you don't know what you're talking about, since your ego won't allow it. Just be a huge "pilot god" to yourself as you look in the mirror. Actually you need to have worked on some of these automatic systems, not just be a trained monkey pulling sticks. I'll bet you comb your hair every 15 minutes.
Just like guys engaging the enemy on the ground, decision making has to be executed forward, not at the rear, not remotely, and not by computers.
You changed your answer from your silly "airplane is bit too complex". Now you're changing your answer saying it would be hard to retrofit it. It wouldn't be too difficult at all.
I don't expect you to admit you don't know what you're talking about, since your ego won't allow it. Just be a huge "pilot god" to yourself as you look in the mirror. Actually you need to have worked on some of these automatic systems, not just be a trained monkey pulling sticks. I'll bet you comb your hair every 15 minutes.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
And your understanding is colored by your clear disdain for pilots and your clear belief in the superiority of computers. But computers fail.
I have a clear recognition of the facts. You have a contempt and bias for anything not piloted, because you've been a pilot. More reliance on pilots would result in more fatalities compared to the proper use of automation, including autonomous vehicles.
The Air Force, Navy, airlines, safety experts, etc., all agree with me, not big-headed pilots like you. The future is fast making people like you obsolete. Natural evolution into safer flying.
Maybe with people like you gone, there will be fewer incidents like the Tailhook Scandal ("The Tailhook scandal was a series of incidents where more than 100 U.S. Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 83 women and 7 men.")
And your understanding is colored by your clear disdain for pilots and your clear belief in the superiority of computers. But computers fail.
I have a clear recognition of the facts. You have a contempt and bias for anything not piloted, because you've been a pilot. More reliance on pilots would result in more fatalities compared to the proper use of automation, including autonomous vehicles.
The Air Force, Navy, airlines, safety experts, etc., all agree with me, not big-headed pilots like you. The future is fast making people like you obsolete. Natural evolution into safer flying.
Maybe with people like you gone, there will be fewer incidents like the Tailhook Scandal ("The Tailhook scandal was a series of incidents where more than 100 U.S. Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 83 women and 7 men.")
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Maybe with people like you gone, there will be fewer incidents like the Tailhook Scandal ("The Tailhook scandal was a series of incidents where more than 100 U.S. Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 83 women and 7 men.")
That's uncalled for.
Yes that happened, but to sterotype Astro14 or all military aviation personnel like that is ignorant.
Maybe with people like you gone, there will be fewer incidents like the Tailhook Scandal ("The Tailhook scandal was a series of incidents where more than 100 U.S. Navy and United States Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 83 women and 7 men.")
That's uncalled for.
Yes that happened, but to sterotype Astro14 or all military aviation personnel like that is ignorant.
- Status
Similar threads
