In case you have not heard, the F/A-22 got axed.


well. sorta.


Its now officially back to F-22 again as of today. And they came up with a final number for the F-22s: 183.

The price of each F-22 will go from 133 million to about 150 million. If production numbers would have stayed as planned, the final F-22s would have been built at sub $100 million levels.

They are also cutting many of the planned upgrades to the Raptor and using the money spent towards producing the final aircraft.

That's a little disturbing to me because all the numbers thrown around for the last few years has been from analysts or the Pentagon. These new numbers are from the Air Force itself, and came directly from the mouth of the CSAF.

He says UCAS (as the term UAV and UCAV is no more) will be much more important in the future.

What a drastic change over a few short months with the new leadership.

I'm pretty disappointed, but I guess that's the way its going to be.

Heh...yeah...its being discussed at length over on the lockon.ru forums. I think its a mistake as well to give UCAS a higher priority. I think this further detachment of the pilot from the actual battlefield will only worsen the problems of fratricide and collateral damage.

quote:

Originally posted by IguanaKing:
Heh...yeah...its being discussed at length over on the lockon.ru forums. I think its a mistake as well to give UCAS a higher priority. I think this further detachment of the pilot from the actual battlefield will only worsen the problems of fratricide and collateral damage.

I am no expert, obviously, but I don't know how it is a bad thing. Here me out here. With some of the technology that is out there in being able to identify bogeys I don't know how fratricide could worsen. I do however think that collateral damage will go up as we "play games" with the lives of other nations, making war a little more sterile for the U.S. then it already is. I also think it sucks in that no little boys are going to be dreaming of flying a ucas when they grow up. Not saying it isn't a good thing to do, just not as cool as being Maverick or Goose. It is much cheaper, they have a greater loiter time, and a lost ucas is a lost ucas only. So I think it is good, and bad.

The distant future looks horribly boring to me, soon we'll have cars that drive themselves, robots to clean, cook, go to war, do all of our jobs, etc. Then the mainframe will try to take complete control.........

I wrote a long post about UCAS. But I got pissed off and deleted it.


Short version:

Regardless of how much it pains me to say it, the UCAS is coming and is the way of the future. Seeing how the F-35 operates, it made that very clear to me. The F-35 is a UCAS, but with a man in the cockpit because they don't know how to transmit that much bandwidth at this time. In 20 years, I doubt that will be the case, and a combat aircraft will gain nothing from having a person in the cockpit. On the other hand, it can be vastly more maneuverable, faster, have greater range, carry the same or more weapons, be significantly more stealthy, be more survivable, and be more deadly. At the same time, cost an extreme fraction of the price to design, develop, test, build, support, operate, maintain and train over manned aircraft of the same type.

UCAS is a revolution, just as much as the firearm and jet engine. At the end of the previous weapons time span (Knights and armor, and extremely complex prop driven aircraft), a new weapon was developed.

Those are both perfect examples of the Raptor and JSF. They (the JSF and F-22) are the pinnacle of engineering and technology. They also suck an unbelievable amount time, energy, and money to create.

The firearm was a fraction of the cost of a suit of armor. It took months to train a soldier with a firearm instead of a lifetime for a Knight. That soldier with a firearm could easily kill the Knight (not so much at first, but after some work). For the cost of a knight, a commander could have dozens of solders, each capable of easily dispatching the knight. The Samurais went away for that very reason--A Samurai couldn't take on 10 guys sporting the modern weapon of the day.

The jet engine re-set the complexity meter for aircraft and allowed advances that you are well aware of.

Both the firearm and jet engine had some pretty significant problems when they were first introduced. When they matured, they completely eclipsed any of the 'old' technology in just about every way.

The Raptor and F-35 are like a Knight and prop fighter put together. Powerful, deadly, yet complex and expensive. There is not much further you can go with a manned figher.

Even though an F-22 can take on crazy amounts of F-15s and come out on top, I don't think that would happen with a mature UCAS. It would be like the F-22 and F-15 fight, except the F-22 is the F-15. Even if a single UCAS is not as good as an F-22 (much like a Knight and soldier), you stick 10 UCAS (at 15 million each) against each F-22 and tell me the result. Those 10 UCAS will be cheaper in just about every way, probably be more survivable, allow a much greater coverage of the battle space (both in time and area) and be more versatile.

The combat pilots in the AF know their days are ending. When I first entered the AF in 2001, the different types of pilots in the AF would tell you to fly their type of aircraft because of such and such mission, or bases at this location, or this or that type of flying.

I noticed a change over the next few years and its much stronger now:

Fly heavies because you’ll actually have a job in a few years.

The fighter guys knows its true too, no matter how much they (and I) hate it.

EDIT: tons of grammar fixes

****it I wish this wasn't happening. My dream is to be a USAF pilot but I am only 15 right now so I am not really sure if my dream is much of a possibility. I hope I will atleast get to be a pilot for a little bit before the UCAS takes over. This is making me think a little bit about joining the army or marines instead so I can get into the action.

Well, its going to take 20-30 years to FULLY convert. And then it will only be combat aircraft and probably recon types. There's no plans for a UAS transport or helicopter to take over the current equipment. I'm also not sure about the bombers.

Hmm I personaly dont trust UCAV concept because of EW warfare. Imagine you have vast fleet of UCAV and your oponent will jamm your com chanels. Than you are doomed.

The future air to air "fighter" will be a 747/A-380 configured like an YAL-1A. Aerial fights in the year 2050 will be fought between 1-2 of these behemoths against a swarm of UCAV's.

Or that's what my crystal ball told me

The F-22 is also operational as of today. I've been waiting for the day for quite a while (well since 91).

I don't know, that news yesterday sorta took a lot of it out today.

We'll see if Congress allows this 180 plane number to stand. The Raptor has many friends on the Hill who may not stand for this. Hopefully, we'll be gettingmore of these jets.

quote:

Originally posted by BoCfuss:

I am no expert, obviously, but I don't know how it is a bad thing. Here me out here. With some of the technology that is out there in being able to identify bogeys I don't know how fratricide could worsen.

I actually meant that in a ground attack sense. I believe fratricide would worsen because of how much easier it would be for the remote pilot to get disoriented as to where friendly and enemy lines are.

Actually, it would be SIGNIFICANTLY easier for a pilot to have good SA on the ground force situation. A quick look at the F-35s avionics shows how this is possible. Stick those avionics in a UAS and you can get the same information.

Furthermore, the pilots will be in a less stressful situation and will probably be less likely to make mistakes and there will also be a sensor type operator like on the current Predator who's only job is to monitor the sensors and launch the weapons.

A joint military report (army, navy, air force marines) came out not too long ago which studied the issues relating to air power and the type of war we are fighting now--Urban warfare. They studied the problems from both an air and land perspective, talking with troops, looking at numbers, and seeing results of the strikes.

The final verdict was no surprise, the current war on terrorism needs a tweak of airpower to make it its most effective. While the planes flying today are excellent, there are areas for improvement.

They also stated the two most effective aircraft flying today (based on the combat record, talks with troops on the ground, ect).

They were the AC-130...


and...


the Predator.


I was completely NOT expecting that last one and my jaw about dropped when I read it. The report said both epitomized what is needed for effective urban operations, the likely battlefield of the future.

I just started thinking right now, when was the last time anyone heard of a friendly fire incident caused by a Predator?

OK...I think I'm starting to understand what you mean. If the pilot is no longer under the stress of being shot at himself...which also tends to piss him off...he can make more level-headed decisions. I'm catching on now.

quote:

Originally posted by destroyex:
I wish this wasn't happening. My dream is to be a USAF pilot.

Hey, me too ! I'm also very disapointed by this decision. I would love to be an F-22 pilot someday. The F-22 is the sweetest fighter out there and I hope they don't keep reducing the number of planes.

But then on the other side, a small core of expensive aircraft (the F-22) complimented by a large number of less expensive aircraft (like the F-35) could get the job done just as well.

All you USAF pilot hopefuls, trust me, there will be plenty of tactical fighters to fly and plenty of combat for them to see at least until we have AI equal to commander Data on star trek. the tactics and weapons will evolve, especially the UAVs, with such machines probably being employed by tac fighters at some point, or at least controled or escorted by them.

As mentioned, the data link will always be a possible weakness, and keep in mind that until comdr data comes along, AI can be fooled (as can humans, but not as easily). The use of UAVs will just free up the tac birds for other misns that are not as dangerous. over reliance on technology is seems to be occuring in the decision to build so few F-22s; anything less than 300 is simply not cost effective.

When i was layed off at the end of the C5B program at lockheed Ga., htey had just built a new computer cntrolled (monitored by people) machining center next to my area, strictly for the coming F-22......this was 1988. Its absurd to string out development of aircraft so long. We should be approaching the end of the production instead of just entering service.

In my 48 yrs, ive seen the over reliance of technical revolution occur often. My dad was layed off as a civie instructor for the USAF (T-37s) rt after i was born in the late 50s: MISSLES and NUKES were gonna make pilots less important and we werent gonna need many piilots blah blah. Vietnam came along and they started training pilots like crazy (my dad becoming a civie helo instructor for the army).

At about the same time, missles fired from ground controlled interceptors were gonna make dogfihgting and guns obsolete. Somebody forgot to tell the soviets and the NVNAF.

Remember, the opposition will also have UAVs someday to, and lots of them. Tactics and techniques will change, but we will need pilots. I guarentee all you future officers you will have plenty to do.

I'm glad that the F-22A has now reached IOC. I'm also glad that they took out that stupid F/A stuff. I'm sorry but two little bombs is not an attack aircraft. {end rant}

Close Air Support (CAS) is one of the most difficult missions for a pilot to perform. There is incredible pressure to go in, work the radios, get the in-flight brief correctly, navigate, find the target, be aware of threats, find the friendlies, get to the target on time, and drop the bombs accurately. Oh, and it all has to be done as quickly as possible (usually in just a few minutes). It really helps to have a two seater aircraft just to split up the tasks. One advantage of a ground based control station for a UAV is that you can have more people looking over the "pilot's" shoulder helping out. You can also give partial control over the JTAC/FAC and help eliminate half of the communication problems that come up in CAS.

Obviously we're a ways off from having UAVs be the ideal CAS platform, but I think that's the wave of the future.

quote:

Close Air Support (CAS) is one of the most difficult missions for a pilot to perform. There is incredible pressure to go in, work the radios, get the in-flight brief correctly, navigate, find the target, be aware of threats, find the friendlies, get to the target on time, and drop the bombs accurately.

Very true, but how does having a UCAV do CAS make that any easier. I've never bought into the claim that UCAV's provide a better, cheaper alternative to manned platforms. Just look at the X-45 and X-47 programs. They are already talking about canceling the programs because their both becoming too expensive and their mission was supposed to be strike, not CAS which is more difficult because there are many more dimensions to consider.

UAVs are perfect platforms for FAC and recce, but these systems haven't completely matured yet so, don't put the cart before the horse and start planning the replacement of all frontline combat units. Computers may be more precise than humans, but jam its sensors, and it is blind, dumb and dead. A well-trained pilot has instinct, anticipation, and in my opinion, better situational awareness.

Fact: The Mk I Eyeball has never been replaced.
Fact: They said the same thing about missiles and dogfighting as they are about pilots and UAS.

That said, I believe that overall, this makes your airforce much more vulnerable- a single cruise missile can ground your entire tactical airforce? You can talk about inpenatrable air defense all you want, but that's an assumption- Assumptions make an *** out of you and me, as they say.

Addidtionally, pilots will not have the same Situational Awareness, being a world away watching a computer screen removes the Mk I eyeball, an essential ingredient in having good SA. You cannot feel half a world away- that includes shell impacts, and more importantly instinct. Pilots will feel invulnerable, being half a world away- and take unnecessary risks- and get their Aircraft shot down.

Pilots will still have to recieve a lot of training, just on simulators. It's not like just giving someone a hand cannon and telling them to point it at some knight.

The Aircraft will not be substantially cheaper- We can't compare predators to F-22s, folks. The predator is a 150mph recce aircraft that can carry a hellfire- the F-22 carries enough ordinance to take down at the very least, 8 Aircraft on a single sortie- In other words, in a target rich environment, it can pay for itself in damage done. A hellfire may be able to take out a tank, but a Predator's job is much, much simpler than a F-22's.

UAS for recon aircraft, I agree, is the future- Predator and Especially Global hawk have proved themselves already. Information on the battlefield is very important, more than firepower. It's also the most dangerous mission, which is why a cheap slow aircraft that is relatively expendable is good for the mission.

You can talk about more Gs this, and more Ordinance that, but in the end, it'll cost more money than it's worth. A pilot in an aircraft that can only pull 9Gs is going to have better SA than some pilot half a world away looking at a screen flying an aircraft that can pull 20Gs, and has a better T/W ratio. All that performance means nothing if a manned aircraft sees you- and shoots you down first.

Most importantly- it's just about impossible to convince a pilot to start shooting friendlies in the middle of combat. Sabotaging communication lines between UAS would be rather simple compared to the former(though still incredibly difficult, assuming it won't happen is taking a huge risk). Missiles can be jammed, and have been jammed. UAS can be jammed, and most probably, will be. You can't jam a TOW missile- it's wire guided. You can't jam an eyeball, either.

Bottom line: Any attempt to make Tactical Aircraft unmanned will likely end up as a waste of money. Even though the F-35 is largely automated, the pilot is an insurance policy. With Recon, however, it's the wave of the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Dammerung:
Fact: The Mk I Eyeball has never been replaced.
Fact: They said the same thing about missiles and dogfighting as they are about pilots and UAS.

That said, I believe that overall, this makes your airforce much more vulnerable- a single cruise missile can ground your entire tactical airforce? You can talk about inpenatrable air defense all you want, but that's an assumption- Assumptions make an *** out of you and me, as they say.

Addidtionally, pilots will not have the same Situational Awareness, being a world away watching a computer screen removes the Mk I eyeball, an essential ingredient in having good SA. You cannot feel half a world away- that includes shell impacts, and more importantly instinct. Pilots will feel invulnerable, being half a world away- and take unnecessary risks- and get their Aircraft shot down.

Pilots will still have to recieve a lot of training, just on simulators. It's not like just giving someone a hand cannon and telling them to point it at some knight.

The Aircraft will not be substantially cheaper- We can't compare predators to F-22s, folks. The predator is a 150mph recce aircraft that can carry a hellfire- the F-22 carries enough ordinance to take down at the very least, 8 Aircraft on a single sortie- In other words, in a target rich environment, it can pay for itself in damage done. A hellfire may be able to take out a tank, but a Predator's job is much, much simpler than a F-22's.

UAS for recon aircraft, I agree, is the future- Predator and Especially Global hawk have proved themselves already. Information on the battlefield is very important, more than firepower. It's also the most dangerous mission, which is why a cheap slow aircraft that is relatively expendable is good for the mission.

You can talk about more Gs this, and more Ordinance that, but in the end, it'll cost more money than it's worth. A pilot in an aircraft that can only pull 9Gs is going to have better SA than some pilot half a world away looking at a screen flying an aircraft that can pull 20Gs, and has a better T/W ratio. All that performance means nothing if a manned aircraft sees you- and shoots you down first.

Most importantly- it's just about impossible to convince a pilot to start shooting friendlies in the middle of combat. Sabotaging communication lines between UAS would be rather simple compared to the former(though still incredibly difficult, assuming it won't happen is taking a huge risk). Missiles can be jammed, and have been jammed. UAS can be jammed, and most probably, will be. You can't jam a TOW missile- it's wire guided. You can't jam an eyeball, either.

Bottom line: Any attempt to make Tactical Aircraft unmanned will likely end up as a waste of money. Even though the F-35 is largely automated, the pilot is an insurance policy. With Recon, however, it's the wave of the future.

I disagree, I think the pilot is replaceable, completely. This means the pilot on the ground is also replaceable. were talking 20 years here, but I think it is very possible. If you are relying on the eyeball to find your enemies, your already dead, close in dogfights are rare, Jumping an equal enemy is rare, the best CAS aircraft in the military is the AC-130, not A-10/F-16. The fighter pilot is a dying breed. I'd rather the enemy Jam an unmaned plane then one with a pilot in it, I fail to see the difference between the two. In my opinion the most important airplanes in war are the AWACS, and JSTAR, have them controling the sky and ground, have UCAS that do what they are supposed to and your set. I think being a fighter pilot is the sexiest job alive, I don't think it will be around in 20 years.

Off the topic:

TOW missile can be'jammed'.

Check out the IR jammers on Russian T-90S MBT

Smoke jams eyeballs.

Back to topic:

UACS can be decent, cost effective replacements for CAS aircraft, such as Su-25 and A-10A.

Even if the flyaway price is higher, training on simulators without burning fuel and wearing away mechanical systems will save money.

If a manned a/c on CAS mission (max. attrition occurs on CAS missions) is shot down, not only the a/c is lost, but the pilot too (dead or POW).