Is Pilot Important?????

[saurabh]

Yaa Superior pilot can be let down by technology,

But on the other hand technology develops everywhere.. That's the reason why we are acquring MMRCA and later FGFA and Pakistan doing the same with JF 17, J 10, and future projects in the pipeline..

It is very difficult to define a winner prior to combat when technology is competent. There the real deal of superior pilot will come in place.

300 posts completed....

Exactly what I said. But there is more to it. Consider F22, cause it would be baseline for future tech. A pilot will heavily rely on tech. Its plane will tell him where to go. How to avoid radar, and how to avoid incoming missile (if any). Point is, compare it to what the pilots had to do 20 years back. Don't you think their stress level has reduced? Lot of work is being done by tech? AIs onboard are getting more capable?

PS: congs for the promotion

 

[Thomas]

The poll doesn't quite cover all aspects. if there is an pilot v pilot engagement. I would assume both aircraft are going to be armed. Also technology is about even when comparing weapons and aircraft. As an example many would think a thrust vectoring Su-30 would have a large advantage against a F-16. But what if that F-16 gets a lock and fires a thrust vectoring Aim9-X missile?

Technology can be an overwhelming advantage if one side has a lopsided technology advantage. Such as the U.S. currently has with stealth aircraft. Now that the worlds military's are rushing to close that gap there are 2 huge gaps about show themselves. One is in the area of high energy weapons. They are currently working on a solid state laser equipped F-35 that will be able destroy incoming missiles fired at it. Or destroy other aircraft. check out the published paper from the air war college on the matter. It is a PDF download.

Laser equipped F-35
pdf link would not work so I linked the html version. from there you can download the PDF

The other is in pilot less aircraft with it's own Artificial Intelligence (able to fly itself). The advantage of pilot less aircraft is you can make them small, stealthy, and able to perform maneuvers that would cause a pilot to black out and die. In the future aircraft will become pilot less. below is a one such concept example. other current operational programs are the X-45C, X-47, and others.

YouTube - Lockheed Martin Sabre Warrior UCAV Concept

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Well the pilot is the most important part of the aircraft but the technology (avionics and radar) gives him a much required situational awareness in air combat. This must be place aesthetically in the cockpit for him to have easy access this is called ergonomics. The airforce without its weapons is the costliest flying club. And a lot of emphasis is laid in man-machine interface during training. And the platforms are continuously changed and modified to suit its short comings against the enemy it is going to face in the near future.

Weird isnt it...everything is important in air combat.

 

[gambit]

By Radar And Weapons I mean that.If a superior pilot has inferior weapons and a rookie has superior weapons.What will be the result.I don't mean that a pilot has no radar or weapons

This is more complex than people willing to consider. A graduate pilot today is far more educated about aerodynamics in particular and aviation in general than one who graduated even as recent as the Korean War. Next issue is the technological gap between said competitors. The greater the gap, the less pilot instincts, airmanship and education matter. Red Flag and Top Gun instructors routinely fly technologically inferior aircrafts than their students. Yet they consistently win. Why? So put the best of WW II in his familiar, be it the FW-109 or the P-51, against an F-16 graduate and the F-16 pilot will win hands down.

 

[MaXimMaRz]

Exactly what I said. But there is more to it. Consider F22, cause it would be baseline for future tech. A pilot will heavily rely on tech. Its plane will tell him where to go. How to avoid radar, and how to avoid incoming missile (if any). Point is, compare it to what the pilots had to do 20 years back. Don't you think their stress level has reduced? Lot of work is being done by tech? AIs onboard are getting more capable?

PS: congs for the promotion

Technology may have reduced the work load in one department but it certainly has increased the job in an other. For example today high class navigation systems have reduced the amount of work in the Nav side, but the radar work has increased a lot. And you have to be really good on it. Today you can shoot the enemy from lets say 40 NMs, but then he can also do the same. As a result you have the same stress level as the pilots in the good old days.

In the old days, if a strike leader or escort didnt encounter enemy aircraft in the enemy territory he was 80% sure that he has surprised his enemy.

Today you cross the border into enemy territory, if you dont encounter enemy in the first quarter of your flight....You are gonna get a surprise.... This shift of surprise factor is all because of technology

Technology reduces our work at one end but at the same time increases some other work at the other end. Over all the pressure and work load is the same.

 

[AliFarooq]

A normal driver in Lamborghini LP640
Experince Driver in Swift

btw race kitna bagalay experince driver Swift ko against Lamborghini.. man lamborghini driver just put his shoes on accelerator do u have any idea about initial of speed of lambo ? lol

For godsake stop favouring pilot 90% and tech 10%. Without tech pilot cant do much if your enemy with 4.5 gen in front of you!

Experienced driver of the swift would have tuned his ride to take on the lambo, theres this girl that took down a 1000cc bike and a porche with a ford delivery truck/mini van. So experience does count.

 

[niaz]

Ever since warfare began, there have been very few times when the adversaries armaments were evenly matched. It has always been a combination of man and machine. Simplest example is that if ten people play same computer game, scores will be different for each one.

Therefore answer to the question ‘Is pilot important?” must be Yes.

Even if you fly UAV’s sitting in far away control room, there would a different in skills and some would be able to control UAV better than others. Therefore IMO there is no substitute of a human pilot.

 

[gangwar]

Experienced driver of the swift would have tuned his ride to take on the lambo, theres this girl that took down a 1000cc bike and a porche with a ford delivery truck/mini van. So experience does count.

are u nuts.......i bet u werent riding the 1000cc bike.....

frankly, tomoro i wud like to give birth to a baby.....how bout pigs flying.....

ARE U GROWN UP? SERIOUSLY?

 

[MastanKhan]

Experienced driver of the swift would have tuned his ride to take on the lambo, theres this girl that took down a 1000cc bike and a porche with a ford delivery truck/mini van. So experience does count.

Hi,

How are you---what size motor did the ford van have---5.0 l---5.9 l---7.0l----big V 8 or big V 10 engine----in the u s big ford vans come with a V 10 eng I believe in 7.0 L out put----so you bet it would take down a porsche----but remeber---the race is not to the swift---but to the one who can sustain it for much longer-----.

The pilot does count----but then the effect of a technically superior machine and high tech weaponery also acts as an APHRODISIAC as well----the pilot gets on a new high---which makes a big difference in performance as well.

This is just a comparison between a shooter of a bolt action rifle, in comparison to an AK 47 shooter----does a weaker individual has equal or more strength with an Ak 47.


Pilot has to know his job in either case---but when you add superior equipment to the equation, it adds a multiplier effect as well. The difference is that the machine by default of its design and technical enhancements can do more of everything in a wider and broader range.

The pilot is not a robot or something static---it is human----the true value of the pilot would come out---after the first salvos have been fired from these high tech machines---pak india conflict will be the first ever oppurtunity for the observers of man behind the machine or machine behind the man----the truth will only come out when the first salvos of BVR's are launched.

People are assuming that the pilot factor will stay static through out the war---it is somehow being assumed that things will stay the same through out the conflict---.

The problem that people with inferior weaponery but superior pilots donot understand is that the enemy would be adjusting its strategy by the minute by the second----what worked in the first encounter maynot work again---whatever superiority might have been achieved in the first surprise may never be achieved again---because the enemy is not an idiot---its superior and long range weaponery gives it the right and power to change the rules of engagement at any time.

There has to be some kind of parity somewhere in the equation---superior pilot is just a fallacy by itself---.

The superiority can be in the form of amraam 120's---that is one for sure shot winner---then in the form of french bvr's of the same capability---then with strike aircraft to keep the enemy on its toes and under pressure of some kind---there has to be somekind of combination of equipment to make a statement where average will overcome excellence.

The form that this question is being asked, is in a closed form----it is either this or that----the starter of this thread should have put a better effort in putting forward a more pro-active question---.

In what form and fare the pilot superiority more effective---what combinations of weapons systems enhance the pilots performance---what is minimum parity---.

We know that the enemy's missile can shoot from 80 km with a 70 % kill ratio---and from50 km with a 95 % plus kill ratio---now we know that our Sd 10 have a max range of 60 km witha probale kill ratio of 70 % and at 40 km in the 95 % range.

Now once the missile is locked and launched from their respective distances---can someone explain to me where does the superior pilot training comes into force---now this equation has purley and for surely turned into FATE---.

Neither pilot can defy the laws of physics---one's radar got a lock at 80 km----the other's at 60---how stupid can a su 30 --- mig 21 bis pilot be---come on people----is that how poorly you estimate the abilities of the flyer of the state of the art plane like the s u 30.

 

[su-47]

I think this poll is rather weak. All the factors are important.

Pilot experience: Yeah an experienced pilot flying a MiG-21 will be able to shoot down a beginner flying an F-22, coz the beginner wont even know how to keep the plane in the air without devoting his undivided attention to it.

But on the other hand, if the F-22 pilot has some experience, he can down the more experienced MiG pilot, due to superior tech.

In effect technology acts as a multiplier effect on pilot skill. Lets assume a scale of 0-100, with 100 being best. If pilot skill is 0 and tech level is 100, the effect is still 0. Same case if pilot skill is 100 and tech level is 0.

Of course, in real life this is not so linear, but you get the idea.

Its when there is a perfect marriage of man and machine that a true threat to the enemy emerges.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I would say it again---we are taking things for ganted---both the F 22 and the SU 30 has system setup where the system would warn the pilot to do what is neccessary.

Any newbie to these aircraft by default would still be an experienced pilot with a lot of time in the simulator---no freshman flying officer will be jammed into the seat to operate these birds.

The strenghts of their radars and other electronic measures give the pilot enough warning to prepare themselves for any untoward action---plus the F 22 not being visible to the radar would make things extremely difficult for the opponent regardless if he is experienced or not.

The su 30 with its massive radar can see so far off and employ either evasive measures or air to air strike.

In order for you to succeed, you ought to have some kind of weapons or electronic parity against the superioraircraft.

 

[Kinshuk]

Everything seems right to me..

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

every thing can be jam but not the pilot

 

[Thomas]

I think this poll is rather weak. All the factors are important.

Pilot experience: Yeah an experienced pilot flying a MiG-21 will be able to shoot down a beginner flying an F-22, coz the beginner wont even know how to keep the plane in the air without devoting his undivided attention to it.

But on the other hand, if the F-22 pilot has some experience, he can down the more experienced MiG pilot, due to superior tech.

In effect technology acts as a multiplier effect on pilot skill. Lets assume a scale of 0-100, with 100 being best. If pilot skill is 0 and tech level is 100, the effect is still 0. Same case if pilot skill is 100 and tech level is 0.

Of course, in real life this is not so linear, but you get the idea.

Its when there is a perfect marriage of man and machine that a true threat to the enemy emerges.

problem with the first scenario is the pilots assigned to F-22's are not beginners. So you can rule that one out.

 

[gambit]

Pilot experience: Yeah an experienced pilot flying a MiG-21 will be able to shoot down a beginner flying an F-22, coz the beginner wont even know how to keep the plane in the air without devoting his undivided attention to it.

problem with the first scenario is the pilots assigned to F-22's are not beginners. So you can rule that one out.

Spanked.

Actually...If we disable all portions of avionics that make the F-22 into a weapon instead of merely an aircraft, the F-22's advanced flight controls avionics will make a fresh flight school graduate a superior aviator/pilot SOONER than a graduate equally fresh but is assigned to a MIG-21. This is the core philosophy of US military aviation -- make the aircraft do as much of the flying as possible.

A 'pilot' is someone who controls and that includes the remote pilot. On the other hand, the 'aviator' is someone who actually experience the full spectrum of physical and environmental stresses of flight and of course he would be at the controls of an aircraft. The remote pilot does not experience the full spectrum of physical and environmental stresses as the 'regular' pilot, or 'aviator', does. So does the 'pilot' matter? Yes, even a remote pilot. But would a remote pilot be superior to the aviator? Perhaps someday technology render this disctinction irrelevant.