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: Jim S who wrote (36068)	7/28/2009 2:24:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A UAV doesn't need to "see" with optics in 360* It doesn't to function effectively in a number of situations. It does have to get close to that to give the remote operator the same situational awareness as a local/in plane pilot. 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. Not always. They thought that would be the case before Vietnam, so the F-4 initially didn't have any guns (and then for awhile relied on gun pods, before finally getting an internal gun). While we can't really be sure until and unless we have a war with a serious level of air to air combat, but its likely closer to the situation that you describe now than it was during Vietnam. OTOH closer doesn't mean all the way there. Also even if you have 30 second from launch to impact, getting your shot off a second or two later doesn't help. I agree with your about "the pilot union" likely being a source of serious opposition to air-to-air combat drones even when they are ready and effective, or even later when they are generally superior; but that doesn't mean there are not real issues with them now, or for the near term future.