Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
ScreamingLighting
Airman
I know that much, notice how I said they will eventually replace the F-18/F-16, which you yourself said are aging and in need of replacement. These drones will not replace the F-22, F-35, B-2, etc. There will always be need for manned aircraft.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
These drones will not replace the F-16 and F-18 either, the F-35 will only do that.
I think true drones which perform a mission from start to finish without any input have limited use and may even be dangerous. Unmanned AC controlled remotely may be more useful but in a combat situation surely the lag between signals being sent received and acted upon would be a major drawback?
ScreamingLighting
Airman
That sums up the need for manned aircraft. Their main purpose would be to hit ground targets in a high threat environment using their stealth to slip in the air defenses. A pilot's ingenuity is still a huge advantage in situation such as the good-ol'-fashioned dogfight. And the lag between controls right now is about 1/4 of a second, which will vastly improve by the time standardized drones such as the X-47 ilk enter service.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"I can see a scenario where you've got an F-35 orchestrating an attack with 20 RPAs [remotely-piloted aircraft] that are weapons-equipped and that F-35, with all its sensors and communications, is essentially an orchestrator."
Pawlikowski On Air Force Offset Strategy: F-35s Flying Drone Fleets « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Pawlikowski On Air Force Offset Strategy: F-35s Flying Drone Fleets « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
buffnut453
Captain
Not entirely sure I agree with this statement for RPAs. In large part this is a "laws of physics" issue based on the speed of communication (electromagnetic spectrum stuff - you can't beat the speed of light) -vs- the distance from the ground station to the platform. There is a finite limit to the the improvement we can make in RPA control latency but it will always be there unless the aircraft can operate autonomously (in which case it's no longer an RPA).
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
"Never" is a very long time and it kindda depends what you mean by "supplement". I can definitely see a time where manned aircraft supplement UAVs, with the latter making up the majority of a force package. The key trade-off is between control latency for UCAVs -vs- human-limited manoeuverability for manned platforms. The use of either platform will depend on the threat and mission scenarios.
Your point about the cost of UAVs is well made. They were supposed to be cheap and expendable but UCAVs that can take the place of manned aircraft are no cheaper. Yes, they don't need life support systems but they do need controls to a pilot on the ground. 'Fraid I don't have enough faith in algorithms to detect and identify targets to support concepts of fully-automated operation in a complex operating environment where there are hostiles, friendlies and neutrals all mixed together (which, let's face it, is the norm these days).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I say never in terms of a scenario - will we ever see (or want to see0 an autonomous UCAV with live weapons on their own with no human input? How about that UCAV carrying a nuke?
See the link on my last post...
- Thread starter
- #312
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Interesting read but I have to throw the BS flag out in some of that.
First, Aegis is not a new system, it's been around for many years. If this is true there is no way 27 officers and enlisted men could just "resign."
The Donald Cook's skipper took command prior to this cruise. I could see him resigning his command or being relieved, but neither has happened since then.
What The Captain Of The USS Donald Cook Faced This Weekend In The Black Sea
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There is a serious BS slant to this story.
First of all, this sentance:
Not only looks like it came from a RT (Russia Today) article, but it's failing to mention that several U.S. warships have been in the Black Sea since the Sochi olympics (one of which ran aground and laid over in Turkey for repairs). It also failed to mention that there has been numerous "buzzings" by Russian aircraft on other NATO and Balkan warships, all in violation of the INCSEA aggreement made between Washington and Moscow about 45 years ago.
And the "Montreux Agreement" has been relaxed by Turkey after Russia invaded the Crimea...
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #315
parsifal
Colonel
Im surprised that it is not considered to be adequate as a fighter. Our defence establisment is expecting the F-35 to fill both roles. that was the problem with the F-111s. They were a peerless long range strike a/c, but of course werent a fighter. The F-18 super hornets we have now do both jobs, but sacrifice some capability in both areas, particularly range. The F-35 for us will primarily be a fighter, with some enhanced strike capabilities, including a little bit more range. Still not up to the capabilities of the f-111, which i think was a mistake, but better than the inadequate strike capabilities of the super hornets that we are currently relying on.
Having somewhat trashed the super hornets, im told by my RAAF mates that the 8 currently deployed in Northern Iraq and supporting the anti-Isil forces there are doing pretty well in this GS role. We cant afford to lose even one a/c in these ops, and whilst we looked at rotary wing support for this job it was rejected because they were just too vulnerable to ISIL ground fire. Getting down and close will give better accuracy, but its too risky for small outfits like the RAAF. And just so we are clear, the Kurds are saying without that critical support being provided by the RAAF F-18s, they could not make any headway against the terrorists that they have.
So, F-35 as a fighter, case remains unproven, but the expectation is that it will fulfil both our offensive and defensive air combat needs until at least mid century. It would need to be shown that the a/c was a net step backwards compared to our F-18 (standard) currently doing that job for us (and by all accounts doing the job pretty well based on exercise results). Similarly, in the ground strike role, the f-35 would need to be shown to be a backward step compared to the current a/c (the f-18 supers) currently filling that role for us. I find that a hard pill to accept to be honest.
The aircraft is trying to do a lot of different things for a lot of different countries, with much different expectations. thats a hard gig in anyones book. Sure some of the hype put out by the company might be just that, but I still remain confident this a/c will deliver the goods, and well.
Having somewhat trashed the super hornets, im told by my RAAF mates that the 8 currently deployed in Northern Iraq and supporting the anti-Isil forces there are doing pretty well in this GS role. We cant afford to lose even one a/c in these ops, and whilst we looked at rotary wing support for this job it was rejected because they were just too vulnerable to ISIL ground fire. Getting down and close will give better accuracy, but its too risky for small outfits like the RAAF. And just so we are clear, the Kurds are saying without that critical support being provided by the RAAF F-18s, they could not make any headway against the terrorists that they have.
So, F-35 as a fighter, case remains unproven, but the expectation is that it will fulfil both our offensive and defensive air combat needs until at least mid century. It would need to be shown that the a/c was a net step backwards compared to our F-18 (standard) currently doing that job for us (and by all accounts doing the job pretty well based on exercise results). Similarly, in the ground strike role, the f-35 would need to be shown to be a backward step compared to the current a/c (the f-18 supers) currently filling that role for us. I find that a hard pill to accept to be honest.
The aircraft is trying to do a lot of different things for a lot of different countries, with much different expectations. thats a hard gig in anyones book. Sure some of the hype put out by the company might be just that, but I still remain confident this a/c will deliver the goods, and well.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I'm surprised that they didn't give it vector thrust(?) engines like the Sukhoi Su-35, more than just for take off, or did they?
With all this fighter/attack (bomber) stuff, I can't help but draw parallels with the Me 262 and others....just saying..
With all this fighter/attack (bomber) stuff, I can't help but draw parallels with the Me 262 and others....just saying..
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm surprised that they didn't give it vector thrust(?) engines like the Sukhoi Su-35, more than just for take off, or did they?
With all this fighter/attack (bomber) stuff, I can't help but draw parallels with the Me 262 and others....just saying..
Thrust vectoring technology has been around for several years and as we know id used on the Su-37. It's great when you have to maneuver within VR and it looks great at an airshow. If you're tracked and locked on 5 miles out and have 3 seconds to use it, it's not going to help you much. Sought of like this...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWB3VXLdgeg
syscom3
Pacific Historian
1) 200 million dollars per aircraft. A budget buster in peacetime. Unsustainable in wartime. Political realities will not go away no matter how you try to downplay them.
2) 4000 pound internal payload. Wow. Impressive. A purpose built attack plane would have a heck of a lot more. Than that. But of course this contraption has to also be a fighter thus it cant be too big.
3) If its carrying a lot of weapons externally, its no longer stealth. Then why have an immensely expensive aircraft that does what a cheaper aircraft could do?
4) Stealth is irrelevant against the types of battles we will most probably fight in the future. Kind of like in Vietnam. The Skyraiders did a heck of a better job in support for the grunts than the F4s.
5) Modern air defenses are cheap compared to a squadron of F35s. And they are deadly now and will get deadlier each year. Anyone care to say that no one updates or upgrades their defensive systems? The F35 will never penetrate a layered system without unsustainable losses. Now of course a purpose built attack plane would have an internal bomb bay that could hold several stand off weapons. But not this plane. Only a paltry one or two.
6) The Hanoi air defenses and the Arab missile belts in the Oct 73 war proved how vulnerable fighters and bombers were to layered defenses and that has not changed a bit now, nor in the future.
7) Who says you need to control a drone remotely. AI is getting quite sophisticated and it wont be too long before it comes into being.
8 ) just because you believe a human needs to be in the loop doesnt negate the technology that makes a drone autonomous.
9) A drone doesnt need to use GPS that can be spoofed or jammed. Theres several types of solid state INS systems that can do the same thing. Especially when you dont need absolutely perfect positioning.
10) The people pushing the "we need manned aircraft" are the communities that have the most to lose by being replaced by drones.
11) You say I drink the kool aid? Listen to yourselves parrot what the generals, admirals and organizations say when they have every reason to be less than truthful and have every reason to make themselves look good.
12) I still say this is a good aircraft for the Marines. If only because they have no alternative for their unique needs.
2) 4000 pound internal payload. Wow. Impressive. A purpose built attack plane would have a heck of a lot more. Than that. But of course this contraption has to also be a fighter thus it cant be too big.
3) If its carrying a lot of weapons externally, its no longer stealth. Then why have an immensely expensive aircraft that does what a cheaper aircraft could do?
4) Stealth is irrelevant against the types of battles we will most probably fight in the future. Kind of like in Vietnam. The Skyraiders did a heck of a better job in support for the grunts than the F4s.
5) Modern air defenses are cheap compared to a squadron of F35s. And they are deadly now and will get deadlier each year. Anyone care to say that no one updates or upgrades their defensive systems? The F35 will never penetrate a layered system without unsustainable losses. Now of course a purpose built attack plane would have an internal bomb bay that could hold several stand off weapons. But not this plane. Only a paltry one or two.
6) The Hanoi air defenses and the Arab missile belts in the Oct 73 war proved how vulnerable fighters and bombers were to layered defenses and that has not changed a bit now, nor in the future.
7) Who says you need to control a drone remotely. AI is getting quite sophisticated and it wont be too long before it comes into being.
8 ) just because you believe a human needs to be in the loop doesnt negate the technology that makes a drone autonomous.
9) A drone doesnt need to use GPS that can be spoofed or jammed. Theres several types of solid state INS systems that can do the same thing. Especially when you dont need absolutely perfect positioning.
10) The people pushing the "we need manned aircraft" are the communities that have the most to lose by being replaced by drones.
11) You say I drink the kool aid? Listen to yourselves parrot what the generals, admirals and organizations say when they have every reason to be less than truthful and have every reason to make themselves look good.
12) I still say this is a good aircraft for the Marines. If only because they have no alternative for their unique needs.
Last edited:
The first serious ideas about jet engines were formed about 1926-28 although the first self sustaining gas turbine ran in 1903. Despite a world war running and all parties throwing as much as they could at the issue jet engined fighters and then much later bombers did not become operational until mid 1944. Unmanned A/C may well be the future we just are not there yet by a long way.
Maybe the German wings civil A/C disaster in France will give a kick to pilotless AC. It is one possible solution to protect passengers from terrorist attackers and suicidal pilots....just a thought.
Maybe the German wings civil A/C disaster in France will give a kick to pilotless AC. It is one possible solution to protect passengers from terrorist attackers and suicidal pilots....just a thought.
