[closetnerd]

I'm the most ignorant man alive when it comes to war - but this is what I want to know.

Isn't sensor + tracking abilities far more advanced at shooting down planes than planes are at creating damage? And if that's the case, aren't hyper/sonic/long/range stuff better at evading defenses?

Seems like the next "war" will be LoL style to me.

[rich_sasha]

Considering equal capabilities, airborne missiles are, I believe, cheaper than their land based counterparts (the can be smaller as much of their energy comes from the aircraft), more mobile (easier to fly a plane a few hundred km that drive a massive truck) and harder to destroy ahead of time. Many "smart weapons" are basic "dumb bombs" plus a relatively cheap conversion kit that makes them glide to the right spot.

In Ukraine, I understand, much of the defence against Russian missiles pounding civilians is done from aircraft in the sky, not with rockets from the ground.

[KptMarchewa]

>In Ukraine, I understand, much of the defence against Russian missiles pounding civilians is done from aircraft in the sky, not with rockets from the ground.

Ground based systems still do majority of the work, although this might be for the acute lack of air force.

[dirtyid]

>more advanced at shooting down planes

One thing to consider is kill envelope / no escape is also function of manned fighters being restricted to manned limitations. An autonmous fighter that has bigger fuel tank than missiles (more flight envelope), better sensors to inform AI (due to larger airframe + power) that can can pull substantially more Gs than a human, can conceivable be much better at dodging missiles. To the point where it no longer becomes viable to shoot them down, both economically and tactically, i.e. cost more than UAV worth of missile to engage, and require so many missiles that it's easy to saturate defenses with handful of UAVs. A CSG can only dedicate so much space for air (VLS slots), if that DDG with ~100 cells with 30 reserved for anti air suddenly needs to move to 90, then it becomes useless for other missions. And if all ~100 cells isn't then UAVs in relatively small numbers can essentially operate uncontested. Implications being, such shift (which IMO tier1 US/PRC are pursuing) will massively benefit land based aviation that can mass deployment.

[imtringued]

Unmanned aircraft aren't built for maneuver ability. Stop trying to turn everything into top gun.

[dirtyid]

Currently aren't, otherwise go tell the navy and airforce that. There's a reason programs exist to train AI to out gun topgun, because the current roadmap leads to large UAVs more performant than current manned fighters specifically because pushing beyond human flight envelops has capability merits.

[tlb]

Wars are won by convincing the opposing government and its citizens that they have been defeated and must surrender.

When there are a dozen F-35s flying patterns over your capital city, everyone has to admit defeat. Drones or missiles wouldn't have the same effect. For the desired effect, fighter jets must be big, loud, and expensive.

[jcranmer]

How many times has shock-and-awe actually compelled surrender? Especially when you exclude the instances where shock-and-awe wasn't preceded by a thorough evisceration of the defending military, which tends to understandably play a role in motivating people to surrender.

[happysadpanda2]

I realize that I might be illiterate on this topic, but I always thought the "shock" in "shock and awe" was the thorough evisceration of the defending army.

If I am incorrect in this thinking, I hope someone will give me a better understanding.

[KptMarchewa]

Serbia in 1999 comes to mind.

[zwkrt]

That may be true, but I wouldn’t underestimate the terror caused by 100000 armed drones hovering over houses and streets and bridges.

[otabdeveloper4]

Jet airplanes are last millenium's weapon. You're more likely to make them laugh than surrender.