Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Login

Randolph AFB PIT & IFF Rental House

Minimize
The case for UAVs over manned fighters
Last Post 13 Aug 2009 05:58 PM by Hacker. 104 Replies.
AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing Button Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 5 of 6 << < 23456 > >>
Author Messages
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
06 Jun 2009 06:33 AM
F-15C guy?  I rest my case.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 5, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Lounge@wantscheck.org wrote:

Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
06 Jun 2009 08:11 AM
US Air Force and Boeing all set to launch unpiloted military space plane
June 6th, 2009 - 2:31 pm ICT by ANI Tell a Friend -

Washington, June 6 (ANI): The US Air Force and Boeing are all set to launch the X-37B - an unpiloted military space plane.

According to a report by Fox News, the winged craft, tucked inside the shroud of an Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), will be boosted out of Cape Canaveral, Florida, orbit the Earth and then make an auto-pilot landing in California.

The X-37B OTV-1 (Orbital Test Vehicle 1) is currently on the launch manifest for January 2010, explained US Air Force Captain Elizabeth Aptekar, who works in media operations for the Secretary of the Air Force Office of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C.

“The vehicle is ready for the shipping process, which includes minor close-out activities,” said Aptekar. “The vehicle will ship at the conclusion of the pre-ship activities, which should be approximately 60 days before its launch date,” she added.

Years ago, the X-37B was originally slated to be deployed from the payload bay of a space shuttle.

But, following the tragic Columbia accident, the craft was transferred to a Delta rocket, and then later geared to be sent aloft via the Atlas V EELV.

While next year’s flight profile remains a bit hazy, reports have the X-37B under auto-pilot control zooming into Vandenberg Air Force Base for a landing, or perhaps at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

As a reusable space plane, the intent of the craft is to serve as a test bed for dozens of technologies in airframe, propulsion and operation, and other items in the hopes of making space transportation and operations significantly more affordable.

According to earlier press releases issued by Boeing, the X-37 orbital craft is capable of circling Earth for up to three weeks.

“Potential new commercial and military reusable space vehicle market applications for these technologies range from on-orbit satellite repair to the next-generation of totally reusable launch vehicles,” explained past Boeing-issued material.

The intent of the X-37B mission is to try out a wide variety of experiments and technologies, including a highly durable, high-temperature thermal protection system; storable, non-toxic liquid propellants; and important new aerodynamic features - all of which are applicable to future reusable space vehicles.

The vehicle is about 27.5 feet long with a roughly 15-foot wingspan and tips the scales at about 5 tons at liftoff. (ANI)
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
07 Jun 2009 08:20 AM
Posted By FlyinCajun on 05 Jun 2009 12:16 PM
This brings up a question I've been curious about. Is it legal for us, or any country for that matter, launch a missle at a target BVR without visual confirmation? I know technology can detect signatures and translate it into a viable target, but doesn't the fighter and/or UAV pilot need visual confirmation before attacking? If that's the case, then wouldn't that potentialy compromise unmanned fighter uavs (that is until that 2 sec delay issue can be drastically reduced)?
 

Yes, it is legal to use methods other than your eyeballs to identify a hostile aircraft.  In SOME cases visual ID is required, and in some cases it is not.  It depends on many different factors.

Identification procedures for BVR engagement are spelled out in the ROE for specific theaters and specific operations.  Those ROE are drawn up hand-in-hand with the JAG lawyers to make sure all the bases are covered with respect to following international law, applying LOAC principles of proportional force, minimization of risk to non-combatants, etc.

In fact, the ROE are more restrictive today than they probably ever have been in the history of US warfare.

HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
07 Jun 2009 08:40 AM
Posted By Rynizzle on 05 Jun 2009 01:59 PM

Visual...if you shoot down a foe BVR, sure doesn't make for much a dogfight.

Why doesn't a BVR splash make for much of a dogfight?  Are you saying that such a kill isn't considered a dogfight?  I'm just trying to understand your terminology.

So two seconds of lag can result in defeat in a visual dogfight you say.  Can you explain how this is? 

How many engagements do you think would be visual versus BVR?  When was the last American visual shoot down?  Also, do you think the fact that a UAV wouldn't have near the G limits of a manned fighter might make up for this two second delay in a dogfight or no?



 

Lots of dimensions to this discussion that won't be settled within the constraints of a forum thread.

First off, yes -- two seconds of detection/reaction time makes an immense amount of difference and can be the deciding factor between winning and losing in a visual engagement.  The question is if this is offset by the lack of physical demand on the pilot (who can assess the fight at one G) and increased maneuvering limits of an unmanned fighter.  It might...and it might not.  It depends on a lot of factors that we don't really know about (how how significant they are)until we start testing it out for real.  Again, something that will never be decided in a discussion in an academic environment, no matter how smart the engineers or well thought out the arguments -- it can only determined when two jets are actually dueling airborne and the results are assessed.

The amount of time that has passed between the last visual fighter-v-fighter engagement and now is really not relevant.  The fact of the matter is that a visual engagement CAN happen at ANY time.  Regardless of the view of a battlespace provided by AWACS, GCI, and fighter radars sharing information via datalink, there is ALWAYS fog and friction.  If you ever get the chance to watch a Red Flag push of a 60-ship package, you will see how 10 minutes into that push the entire range airspace is a swirling dervish of friendlies and bandits.  All of the electronic SA in the world goes to hell at that point.  It is VERY DIFFICULT from a fighter cockpit to look at your radar picture, the datalink picture, your radar warning picture, what your eyeballs (NVGs?) see outside, and what you hear on the radio into one coherent picture of what is happening.  In all that confusion it is VERY, VERY easy for a bandit or two or three to sneak in and start causing havoc.

I can also tell you from personal experience that even low tech fighters flown by skilled pilots can absolutely wreak hell on our "high tech" fighter force (Raptors excluded, fortuantely).  As an AT-38 IP, I played bandit against all manner of Eagle, Viper, Hog, and even some fuzzy foreigners.  You would be amazed about how many times I was able to get to a visual merge with the big boys, even when they had AWACS, GCI, datalink, etc.

So, I am vehemnently opposed to the idea that the day of the visual merge is gone.

It is obvious that at some point in the future that the current technology issues of bandwidth, signal delay, and pilot SA will be a non-issue.  There WILL be a day of unmanned fighters.  The question only is, WHEN will that be.

I'm not quite as convinced as many of you that such a day is tomorrow.  I happen to think it's probably a generation down the road, although we are sowing those seeds today.

SkyClopsUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:38
SkyClops


--
07 Jun 2009 11:14 AM
Just saw an interesting article in the LA Times that bears on the USAF sowing the seeds for unmanned fighters... not air-to-air engagement yet, of course, but it does talk about developing new missions for existing UAVs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...8259.story

Here are some excerpts (but the whole article is worth a read):

Training the Top Guns of drone aircraft

Reporting from Washington -- The Pentagon is preparing to graduate its first pilots of unmanned drones from the elite U.S. Air Force Weapons School -- a version of the Navy's Top Gun program -- in a bid to elevate the skills and status of the officers who fly Predators, one of the military's fastest growing aircraft programs.

***
Until recently, pilots would work on the Predators and Reapers, then return to their assigned aircraft. But the Air Force would like officers to make a career out of flying unmanned craft and become experts at operating the drones.

"It is safe to say most pilots will always miss getting back in the air," said Lt. Col. Daniel "D.J." Turner, who leads the Predator and Reaper training at the weapons school. "But we see where the Air Force is going. We understand we are adding to the mission in a crucial way."

Giving top drone pilots a shot at the best training the military offers is one way to ensure the most talented officers stay with the program and do not return to manned aircraft.

***

Air Force officers proposed adding the advanced training for the Predator and Reaper drones three years ago. But the Pentagon said it could not spare the drones or pilots from duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"We have never had an opportunity to do this before because we have been too busy doing combat," said Col. Trey Turner, who oversees training for the unmanned aircraft.

But with 127 Predators, 31 Reapers and 400 unmanned aircraft pilots, the Air Force was given the go-ahead to create the program.

The Predator and Reaper pilots do their debriefings and classroom work at Nellis with weapons school students specializing in other aircraft. They fly the drones from nearby Creech Air Force Base, the control station used to fly drones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some of the tactics under development are unlikely to be used in Iraq or Afghanistan, such as how to use Reapers to take out sophisticated enemy air defenses. But many will quickly be used in the field. For example, the five graduating officers have learned ways to hide the sounds of the noisy propellers to help keep the drones from being detected.

And the drones may be used to rescue downed pilots. For years, on bar napkins and in post-mission briefings, Air Force officers who fly the drones talked about how they could be used in rescues. But it wasn't until the weapons school training began this year that the pilots worked out precise procedures for using the planes in combat search-and-rescue missions.

"Everyone knew it made sense to send unmanned aircraft in," Lt. Col. Daniel Turner said. "But we didn't know how we were going to make that happen."

The training already is paying off. In recent days, students from the school have been advising crews in Afghanistan on more effective ways to use their weapons.

"We are already having an impact," said Maj. Joseph Campo, the weapons school's director of operations.
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
07 Jun 2009 01:32 PM

Excellent article.  Interesting to note that DJ Turner is flying UAVs now.  I didn't know that.  DJ Turner is the Gunship pilot who earned a Silver Star and is discussed at length in the book "Not a Good Day to Die"...

Here is another interesting article although I don't know who the guy is that wrote it or what his credential are.  You can find out more at his site (I'm guessing) over at StrategyPage.Com:

Death To The F-35

<!-- Article Start --> June 7, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is under growing pressure to build fewer of its next fighter, the F-35. The air force has been ordered to reexamine the future needs for F-35s during the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). This is a planning exercise that takes into account all the nations military and civil resources as applied to a list of potential opponents and in wars that could break out in the next decade. This analysis is used to determine what weapons will be needed in the future. The QDR also has to take into account the "guidance" from the president and Congress. The air force believes that a more optimistic (about world peace) government will provide guidance that indicates a need for fewer F-35s (currently the air force plans to buy 1,763.)

Another problem is that many people, including some generals in the air force, believe that its next generation fighter will not have a pilot on board. Many air force generals admit that the F-35 is probably the last manned fighter. But some believe that the F-35 will be facing stiff competition from pilotless fighters before F-35 production is scheduled to end in 2034.

 UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) are not particularly popular with many U.S. Air Force leaders, but that is not the case in many other countries. Air force generals around the world see the unpiloted jet fighter as a way to break the monopoly the U.S. Air Force has had on air supremacy for the last sixty years. Most Americans don't even think of this long domination of the air, but potential enemies of the United States are well aware of it, and that domination has a profound effect on how those nations do their military planning. In effect, if you think about going to war with the United States, you take for granted that American aircraft will control the skies above. Robotic jet fighters could change that. And this is forcing American air force generals to confront a very unsavory prospect; a sixth generation fighter that is flown by software, not a pilot.

It's not just that most of the those American air force generals began their careers as fighter pilots. No, the reason is more practical. American air superiority has largely been the result of superior pilots. The U.S. didn't always have the best aircraft, but they always had the most talented and resourceful pilots. And that's what gave the U.S. its edge. Will that translate to software piloted fighters? Research to date seems to indicate it will.

Meanwhile, simulations, using fighter flown by software, versus those flown by humans, have been used for over two decades. The "software pilots" have gotten better, and better. Moreover, a fighter without a pilot is more maneuverable (because some maneuvers are too stressful on the human body.) UAV fighters can be smaller, cheaper, stealthier and more expendable. But the key to software pilots is the development of superior tactics, and artificial intelligence (AI) that is more capable than anything your opponent can come up with.

The U.S. Air Force, and several other air forces, have already created fighter pilot software, and now the United States, and Russia, are creating pilotless fighters. Many air force generals are convinced that the pilotless fighters will perform as well for real, as they have in the simulations. So convinced are U.S. Air Force generals, that they are seriously considering a sixth generation fighter that will not carry a human pilot. Otherwise, enemy pilotless fighters would have an edge over the U.S. sixth generation aircraft.

The potential superiority of U.S. pilotless fighters is partly driven by the fact that most American fighter pilots are geeks. Many can create software, and have a deep understanding of the many computers, and their software, that modern aircraft contain. It's the fighter pilots who will play a key role in creating the best "software pilots." Thus the thinking is that American control of the air will be maintained by a new generation combat aircraft controlled by software, not someone in a cockpit.

Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
beast05User is Offline
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:79
beast05


--
07 Jun 2009 04:37 PM
I think the author of the article above is spot on, but there are a few questions that I would love to have answered. When discussing CAS, and how we employ it, will there be a problem (disconnect) that would be detrimental to the troops on the ground without a manned aircraft? Also, when will the politicians and USAF officials realize that it is not about them, but a bigger issue, the organization? I constantly hear things on the news about how many people will lose their jobs when these aircraft stop being built. This is not really the issue here, but more of an economic problem that will work itself out. The F-22/F-35 were too costly from the start, and we need something cheaper like these UAVs. My guess is that we will start using these things full scale in the next ten years, and our grandkids will ask the flyers what was like "back in the day."
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
08 Jun 2009 02:39 AM
Posted By beast05 on 07 Jun 2009 04:37 PM
The F-22/F-35 were too costly from the start,

Based on what standard?  What "should" a new air superiority fighter or a new multirole fighter cost?

People said the same thing about the B-2 10 years ago, although proportionally (based on unit cost compared to % of overall USAF budget -- and NOT adjusted for inflation) it actually cost less than the B-52 when it was originally purchased.

RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
18 Jul 2009 08:52 AM
It should cost roughly as much as a Reaper with a nice radar.

BTW, I put the Predator number one on my T-ODP the other day with Global Hawk number two. Money meet mouth.

Proud to serve (but admittedly wincing a little while doing it...Clovis???).
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
18 Jul 2009 04:16 PM
Please don't mention the Reaper and air superiority in the same sentence...except if to say that it needs air superiority in the area which it will operate.

All the huge radars in the world won't make that thing into a Flanker-killer.
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
18 Jul 2009 04:27 PM
I'm not specifying the Reaper. Just a relative cost. The UAV that will likely cost about the same as the Reaper will outmaneuver everything we have in the inventory and will catapult our air supremacy.

Hell maybe I'll get it done in my Predator...
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
18 Jul 2009 08:55 PM
Just not a fair yardstick by any stretch of the imagination.

The Reaper costs HALF of what the F-15E cost when initially fielded 20 years ago (in then-year dollars. It costs 2/3 of what the "cheap" early F-16 Block 10/15 cost in 1970s dollars.

Although a UAV is able to reduce costs by eliminating on-board life support and instrument display equipment, the rest of what's 'required' of an air superiority vehicle remains the same as it has ever been. It needs the same sensors, the same avionics integration, the same capability to maneuver, the same capability to carry and fire ordnance, the same capability to protect itself, etc.

So, a 2010+ multirole (or swing role) UCAV will be less expensive that new Strike Eagles, new Block 60+ Vipers, new Raptors, or new Lightnings, but it doesn't cut 90% of the cost, which is what you are asking for by using the Reaper as a standard.
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
26 Jul 2009 06:04 PM

Will drones push fighter pilots out of the cockpit?

Fliers face future where planes work by remote control
By Carol Ann Alaimo
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.26.2009
For as long as Col. Paul Johnson has been in the cockpit, the fighter pilot has been an icon of American military might.
Now, after nearly a quarter century in uniform, he's witnessing the beginning of the end of that era.
Increasingly, the U.S Air Force is turning to unmanned aircraft to perform work once done exclusively by aviators like Johnson, the wing commander of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
At the highest levels of the Pentagon, plans are under way to reduce the role of warplanes, and rely more heavily on remotely piloted craft.
"This is massive," said Johnson, an A-10 pilot with more than 2,000 hours in the skies, describing the potential changes ahead.
"It's a head-exploding topic," he said. But "for us to sit on the sidelines and ignore this new technology would be irresponsible."
In the space of a generation or two, officials say, Air Force bases like D-M could be doing much of their business by remote control, reducing jet noise over urban areas while saving money, improving effectiveness and preventing risk to the lives of military personnel.
How much of the service's work can be done by drones is the subject of intense research and debate in Washington, and there are many unknowns about how quickly such technology will advance.
Already, though, some are envisioning the end of the Air Force as we know it.
Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution, one of Washington's oldest and most respected think tanks, predicts a vast array of missions for unmanned craft, from stealth bombing to electronic warfare — even dogfights.
"It's not just intelligence and bomber pilots who will be replaced with machines," said a recent article by Singer, a campaign adviser on defense policy to President Obama.
"Planning is proceeding on UCAVs, unmanned combat aerial vehicles, which will replace fighter jocks, too." Last manned fighter?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is among those gazing into the future.
In a May appearance before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Gates suggested that the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF — the warplane due to replace the A-10 attack jets flown at D-M — could be America's last manned fighter.
"We're at a real time of transition here in terms of the future of aviation," Gates told senators, according to a transcript.
"The whole issue of what's going to be manned, what's going to be unmanned, what's going to be stealthy, what isn't, how do we address these threats … it's changing," he said.
"There are those that see JSF as the last manned fighter, or fighter-bomber, or jet. And I'm one of — you know, I'm one that's inclined to believe that. I don't know if that's exactly right. But this all speaks to the change."
This year, for the first time in history, the Air Force expects to train more unmanned aerial vehicle pilots — 240 — than conventional fighter-bomber pilots — 214.
Col. Eric Mathewson, head of the Air Force's unmanned aircraft task force at the Pentagon, said the service plans to examine all its missions to see which can be adapted for unmanned flight.
He doesn't picture pilots going away completely — at least, not anytime soon. But he can't predict what's ahead, he said, because UAV technology is still in its infancy.
"You can't judge UAVs by what you see today. That would be like judging all aircraft by looking at the Wright Flyer," Mathewson said, referring to the first powered plane, built by the Wright brothers in 1903. "Phenomenal" performers
UAVs have been used in various forms since the Civil War but were limited by low technology. They didn't come into heavy use until recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their stellar showing there is a big part of what's driving the current push to find other uses.
The most common Air Force UAVs — the Predator, and its supercharged sibling, the Reaper — are armed with Hellfire missiles. They're used for reconnaissance and surveillance and can carry out strikes against smaller targets.
Col. Trey Turner, a former Navy F-14 pilot who now oversees Air Force UAV training at the Pentagon, said the Predator and the Reaper are "phenomenal" performers in counterinsurgency work.
Even in their infancy, they outshine piloted aircraft for some tasks, Turner said.
A manned jet, for example, typically needs refueling after an hour or so, and human pilots need rest breaks.
A UAV never tires. It can stay aloft for 18 hours or more, staring at hot spots and attacking insurgents caught on camera planting roadside bombs or hauling weapons. And at the end of a shift the mission can be handed off to another UAV, allowing for 24/7 coverage.
Live video feed from UAV cameras is beamed to commanders on the ground and around the world because they typically are flown via satellite link by operators stationed in the United States.
D-M has been home to a Predator unit since 2007. The Air National Guard's 214th Reconnaissance Group now flies missions around the clock in Iraq and Afghanistan from its quarters at the Tucson base.
In perhaps a sign of how high demand is, 214th personnel were too busy flying Predators to be interviewed for this story.
To meet soaring requests for the Predator's services overseas, the Air Force is funneling hundreds of young pilots straight out of flight school into UAV units. The service also is training officers who aren't pilots to fly UAVs and is looking at allowing non-officers to fly some of them.
Finding enough UAV operators may be challenging since the job doesn't have the allure of manned flight, said analyst Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary who oversaw military manpower and reserve affairs during the Reagan era.
"To fly a plane twice the speed of sound and come in for attack with missiles flying, there's a certain amount of glamour to that," said Korb, now a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, another Washington think tank.
"There's not much glamour to sitting in Arizona or Nevada pushing buttons, even though it's just as important." Less noise, pollution
Mathewson, a former F-15 pilot, said one factor that's come up in Pentagon discussions is the possibility of reduced environmental impact — less aircraft noise, less need for jet fuel and other military pollutants — at U.S. bases where pilots train to fly by remote control.
Some snags must be ironed out, though, before UAVs could take to American skies in areas where civilian airliners fly.
The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, has resisted the idea, concerned that public safety might be compromised without human pilots on board.
It's too early to say what impact more UAVs could have on the future need for Air Force bases and personnel, or how much money might be saved, Mathewson said.
Today's UAVs cost far less than manned fighters — $5 million for a Predator compared to $85 million for a Joint Strike Fighter — but they don't have anywhere near the same capabilities. Future UAVs may have much higher price tags as they become more advanced, he said.
As unmanned aircraft mature, certain jobs now handled by humans — bomb loading, ground refueling, some basic flight-line maintenance — could be automated. And, eventually, UAV operators may be able to fly many unmanned craft at once for certain types of missions.
"That's where you would see some savings," he said.
Mathewson couldn't say whether D-M might be a future candidate for more UAVs. But a military consultant who has advised Tucson City Hall thinks it would make sense.
"If you look 20 years into the future, they could be based out of D-M," said Eugene Santarelli, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and former D-M wing commander. "With the geographic location of D-M and the (Barry M.) Goldwater range nearby, it could be a good fit."
As the future unfolds, pilots like D-M's commander will be watching and pondering the implications — both practical and ethical.
"This is not just a discussion about air systems. It's a discussion about the nature of war," said D-M wing commander Johnson, noting that other branches of the military also are pursuing unmanned technology.
"Are we moving toward a battle space devoid of human beings? And, if so, how will that impact a nation's willingness or reluctance to wage war?
"While we are having these technological developments, we can't be afraid to couch them in some larger philosophical discussions about what war is, and what war will be."
On StarNet: See images of the UAV planes, as well as more pictures of the pilots at azstarnet.com/slideshows
Contact reporter Carol Ann Alaimo at 573-4138 or calaimo@azstarnet.com.
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
26 Jul 2009 06:09 PM
Posted By Hacker on 18 Jul 2009 08:55 PM
Just not a fair yardstick by any stretch of the imagination.

The Reaper costs HALF of what the F-15E cost when initially fielded 20 years ago (in then-year dollars. It costs 2/3 of what the "cheap" early F-16 Block 10/15 cost in 1970s dollars.

Although a UAV is able to reduce costs by eliminating on-board life support and instrument display equipment, the rest of what's 'required' of an air superiority vehicle remains the same as it has ever been. It needs the same sensors, the same avionics integration, the same capability to maneuver, the same capability to carry and fire ordnance, the same capability to protect itself, etc.

So, a 2010+ multirole (or swing role) UCAV will be less expensive that new Strike Eagles, new Block 60+ Vipers, new Raptors, or new Lightnings, but it doesn't cut 90% of the cost, which is what you are asking for by using the Reaper as a standard.

There are major operating cost savings, however.  The Reaper is much more fuel efficient and I would wager its maintenance costs are much cheaper.  Additionally, there are major cost savings not having to forward deploy men and equipment vai basing rights to Fuck-America-Istan to operate the aircraft.  We don't have to have a CSAR wing located nearby and we don't need tanker support (though I'm sure we'll see UAS tankers before long).

There will be enormous cost savings that come from an air-to-air UAS (or any other UAS) over its manned counterpart.

Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
26 Jul 2009 09:25 PM

If I've got my facts straight, I believe that the "Col Paul Johnson" quoted in the above article is "PJ" Johnson, who during Operation DESERT STORM had a SAM go through his wing, fail to fuze, and it STUCK there.  He flew home with it sticking out of the wing....there used to be some wicked photos of it on Discovery Channel's "Wings Over The Gulf" from 10-15 years ago.

I heard him tell the story at the Desert Storm 10th Anniversary party at SJAFB back in 2001.  Amazing story.

HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
26 Jul 2009 09:34 PM
Posted By Rynizzle on 26 Jul 2009 06:09 PM

There are major operating cost savings, however.  The Reaper is much more fuel efficient and I would wager its maintenance costs are much cheaper.  Additionally, there are major cost savings not having to forward deploy men and equipment vai basing rights to Fuck-America-Istan to operate the aircraft.  We don't have to have a CSAR wing located nearby and we don't need tanker support (though I'm sure we'll see UAS tankers before long).

There will be enormous cost savings that come from an air-to-air UAS (or any other UAS) over its manned counterpart.

 

Some valid points, but remember that the Reaper simply doesn't have ANY of the offensive/defensive systems required of an aircraft with air-to-air capability.  It also goes as fast as a Yugo and can't handle anything greater than a 2G, 60-degree bank turn without departing controlled flight.

Once you add in all that stuff (that has precisely zero with having a human on board) and capability to maneuver and go fast enough to get out of it's own way, it gets WAY more expensive...and it gets heavier...and less fuel efficient....and loses a significant chunk of that "advantage" it appears to have.

In order to make an apples-to-apples, you're going to have to use something like the X-45 as a starting point.  IIRC, back when X-45 was getting pushed, they were claiming that it would cost 1/2 to 1/3 as much as a manned fighter -- and it had ZERO air-to-air capability (it was a SEAD platform only).  So, start there and add in the requisite radar, missiles, etc.

As they say, "a million here, a million there, and soon you're talking real money!"

 

RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
02 Aug 2009 08:58 PM
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
HackerUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:192
Hacker


--
02 Aug 2009 09:27 PM
Yeah, "Wired" is generally where I turn for answers to questions about strategic decisionmaking in the USAF, too.
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
02 Aug 2009 09:37 PM
I must have missed the commentary I didn't provide with that link. It's simply provided for those interested in reading it.
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
RynizzleUser is Offline
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: Send Private Message
Posts:2451
Rynizzle


--
11 Aug 2009 09:43 AM
Interesting Post article discussing the "Vulture" UAS that will stay airborne for five years at a time: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...sec-nation
Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 5 of 6 << < 23456 > >>


Active Forums 4.2
   
Minimize
   
You must login to request Gouge Vault access
Air Force ROTC Order of Merit (OM) Calculator
Military Aviation News & Video - Views, sources, and opinions are not sanctioned by WantsCheck.Com
Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Units - Click Here for Interview Gouge - Or for upcoming UPT boards click here

  Minimize
Online Now Online Now:
   
Minimize

Military Aviation News
Military Aviation News & Video

Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Unit Pages
Guard & Reserve Unit Map

Air Force UPT Gouge Vault
Gouge Vault Access

Pilot Candidate Stat Statistics
Pilot Candidate Stats

The ChairFly Academy
 Ultimate UPT Gouge 

AFROTC Order of Merit (OM) Calculator
Order of Merit (OM) Calculator

Minimize
You must be logged in to use this module.
Copyright 2008 by WantsCheck.Com Military Flight Planning Terms Of UsePrivacy Statement