Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 6214188" data-attributes="member: 5868">Comms is one of the things the USAF in particular has been concerned about with unmanned aircraft (aside from the institutional culture thing that still favors manned aircraft).  Bandwidth isn't the problem so much as the risk that someone will jam or otherwise deny your comms.  That goes double for an aircraft with global reach which relies on satellite rather than line-of-sight comms, particularly given that a certain nation recently demonstrated anti-satellite capability.Ultimately manned v. unmanned will come down to mission.  For a purely ISR platform, unmanned makes the most sense provided link integrity is assured.  For a strike platform, though, I'd expect it to remain manned unless it has very limited strike capability (like today's Reapers, which are very highly focused but lack the employment flexibility of multi-role manned aircraft).  There's simply too much situational awareness loss from a long-distance soda straw view to favor a flexible strike aircraft.Anyway, very interesting technology to watch develop, regardless of final use.  My personal prediction is that they'll have more success sooner with the hypersonic missile program (which had a successful flight on its third attempt, recently) than the larger aircraft program, just due to scaling complexity and the costs involved.  Unless this SR-72 becomes the basis for the Long Range Strike Bomber (doubtful since LRSB movement seems to be more in the direction of an advanced subsonic aircraft more along B2 lines), I don't see the USAF being able to fund both a highly advanced large LO ISR platform and an advanced LO bomber program in today's budget environment, and they've made it pretty clear the bomber is in their top 3 priorities with the KC-46 and F-35.</blockquote>

Verification