It is true that volume fire can shoot down aircraft - It just isn't reliable.
On the other hand - Albert Moris was flying a much slower and more vulnerable aircraft (a 1912 production M.F.7 Farman) and...
'At the time, 100 to 150 hours of frontline duty was considered enough for any machine, even without visible damage, but the ever-determined Moris kept his airplane going until Henri Farman #123 reached a total of 253 hours- and over four hundred carefully registered hits. Of these, more than forty-seven struck his bathtub-type nacelle, some within inches of the pilot. His fuel tank was pierced, but there was always enough left to reach home. Bullets went right through critical structural members, but by piloting his stricken machine ever so gently, he always made it back. He was never injured; he never failed to make his home field.'
'As most airplane members were only an inch or so in thickness, the practical result of most hits was to slightly slow the bullet as it passed right throught the member and out the other side, free to speed away. The resulting small hole was rarely sufficient to cause structural failure.'
(From 'Gunning For the Red Baron' by Leon Bennett)
Dragon029 said:
Void said:
Defense is not terribly difficult. Jam the uplink, and it crashes.
Assuming it requires an uplink; a cheap autopilot can provide more than enough capability to carry out a surveillance mission, or at least provide the option for it to return to home when jammed.
...and sensors/cybernetics to recognize muzzle flashes or even visually I.D. human beings are quickly being miniaturized.
