Re: They are getting part of a clue
You're putting words in my mouth I didn't use.
Of course humans are going to be in the loop to decide where to launch which drones against which enemy forces. I never claimed otherwise. You can bring in the "loyal wingman" concept the USAF is thinking about: a pilot orchestrating a swarm.
> drone swarm spots an enemy battletank
But I specifically stated they should be optimized for air-to-air, nothing else. The AI should worry about shooting bogeys out of the sky in its area, that's all.
And if you have a truly autonomous AI for the duration, you don't need to worry near as much about jamming. It just needs to find its way back home in a GPS-degraded environment. That's certainly solvable with terrain following radar.
> Cameras, IR sensors, microphones, radar, comms equipment, IFF transmitters, etc: these all carry a financial cost, and add to the drone's weight,
Weight and cost considerations for the sensors are nice, except a meatbag aircraft has: a pilot, a cockpit and an ejection. Those all add weight and give minimal dimensions. Plus the the same sensors. And a hard 9G limits on turns.
> Realistically, the two big uses for drones at present ...
I am not saying we are there yet. But this, or something different but in the same vein, will be by the time the F35 reaches its old age, in the 2070s. So taxpayers funding gen 5 and gen 6 jets need to worry if we are hitting a battleship moment.
Last I'd appreciate it if you didn't base all your arguments on SF. Fan of Banks as much as any, but we ain't talking Attitude Adjuster drones here and Banks' tech is way too handwavium. Bruce Sterling or the like would be a better bet.