"phil hunt" wrote
Paul Austin wrote:

That said, you know as well as I that detection range is a 4th root
function of RCS. That means that small changes in RCS
make_very_small
changes in detection range. While no-one is publishing "official"
RCS
measurements, Typhoon is likely to have an RCS on the same order as
an
F-18E/F while the F-22 has been described by official sources to be
in
the F-117 range. The difference in detection ranges between the two
is
likely to be at least a factor of 10, militarily important
especially
when each type, now retasked to air-to-mud, has to deal with things
like SA-10/20s.

Best to use UAVs for bombing.

That's highly unlikely in the short to medium term. Especially with
SEAD, time lines are short between detection (either way) and the time
to take the shot. UAVs make the man more distance in the
sense-decide-act loop and give REMFs more opportunity/requirement to
review shoot decisions "to prevent collateral damage". Higher feels
comfortable with a manned platform making the final "shooter"
decision. It will take a lot of hands-on experience before the command
chain feels comfortable with UCAVs roaming the battlefield looking for
something to kill on their own recognizance.

Doctrine for UAV and UCAV use is still in early days. The USAF sees a
gaggle of strike UCAVs operating in company with and under the control
of a manned two seat platform (F-15E currently). The USN sees UCAVs
primarily as sensor platforms. The Typhoon/F-22/F-35 generation is
likely to be the last manned fighter/attack aircraft generation but
even so, military operators are a long way from settling on doctrine
for UAV use. After all, UAVs are not yet cleared to operate in
national controlled airspace.

If anything, UCAV use in autonomous air to air roles would be easier
from a collateral damage standpoint. The only reason you don't hear
about it is that the air forces don't no how want Killer Robot
Fighters roaming the sky and killing-them-by mistake. Bomb the
occasional own-side ground pounder or civilian? That's a risk of war.