Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (36067)	7/28/2009 2:08:29 PM
From: Jim S	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A UAV doesn't need to "see" with optics in 360*, it only needs to detect threats or targets from every aspect, hopefully in a passive mode. While seconds can count for a lot in air-to-air combat, it's only in the terminal stages that time becomes critical. Modern "dogfights" aren't like the WWII combat, using guns up close. It's with missiles at longer ranges. While there may only be, say, two miles from target to threat, closure rates mean that 30 seconds or more are available from launch to impact, and it is only the last couple of seconds that really count. On-board programming could easily detect a hostile missile launch and take evasive and counter-threat actions. Evasive maneuvers wouldn't require a PAL (Permissive Action Link) to a controller. Counter-threat activities could also be programmed into the flight computer so that, once activated, no further communication would be needed with some distant operator. Use of an AWACS aircraft as a signal relay would also reduce signal delay times to fractions of a second. My point in all this is just to say that UAVs could be just as, and likely even more, effective as manned craft. The Air Force is run by pilots, and take my word for it, the "pilot union" is very much opposed to widespread use of UAVs, cost effectiveness and efficiency notwithstanding. <G>