[jWhick]

I'm wondering why these days, when my washing machine has an internet connection, they can't take over control of a plane remotely. I guess it could be considered a security vulnerability, however i'm quite sure it could be done securely. Like let the pilot eject and you try to land a plane with remote control

[hypeatei]

That would require even more R&D to maybe be useful in a rare situation. Like you mentioned, the vulnerability surface would increase. The last you thing you'd want is a remote control vuln being discovered in your $200M jet during a conflict.

That and I'm not sure what an ejection actually means for the planes internals i.e. is it even guaranteed the electronic components won't be damaged?

[MBCook]

The article said the plane had become uncontrollable and that’s why the pilot had to eject.

So even if remote control was possible I’m not sure it would’ve done any good.

Of course I also don’t know why the plane would be allowed to think that it’s in ground mode when it’s 100s of feet or more in the air. Or why the hydraulic fluid was 1/3 water.

[1718627440]

When the plane's software misbehaves due to broken sensors and you only now that, because there are human eyes up there, remote control isn't going to improve the situation.

[Aurornis]

Going from “I can check my washing machine remotely” to “it should be easy to remotely control fighter jets without any security risks” is quite a leap.

Anyway it’s missing the point. If the pilot can’t adequately control the airplane then a remote operator isn’t going to have a better experience.

[jWhick]

I mean, a remote operator could either try to land it in life risking situation, salvaging some of that $200M, or do kamikaze style on a target, both feel quite useful for war situations.

[nradov]

Remote piloting isn't useful for aircraft expected to perform penetrating strike missions against near-peer adversaries. Developing such a capability would be a waste of money.