The Aviation Thread

[Exorcet]

F-15's are falling out of the sky?

 

Well, some have shown signs of age (and manufacturing flaws). The point was, while people should try to build perfect things, it doesn't always happen. I think he misrepresented the issue a bit. I don't really see it as outrageous at all.

 

There's something to be said for the sheer size and power of our airfleet; not to mention the general lack of a need for it.

 

Oversized? Perhaps. We might not need a huge air force, but we still do need an air force. And I'd like to see it kept current. I would be in favor of completely replacing the F-15 with the F-22 (as was originally supposed to happen) instead of having them coexist. There's a reason to have overlap between the two generations of fighters, namely unforeseen issues like the F-22 OBOGS, but I think some of the money spent upgrading F-15's would be better spent on keeping F-22's in production longer and at a high spec.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I think UAV's would probably alot more sensible.

 

Atleast then you don't have to worry about faulty oxygen systems.

 

The advantages design wise of not having to worry about housing a human pilot are numerous.

 

The strategic and tactical advantages of having aircraft without the pilots in the craft, are even more so.

[Exorcet]

That works fine for small strike aircraft, but unmanned fighters are not ready yet. Is the AI good enough to perform air to air combat yet? If it's not we could have pilots but keep them out of the plane, but then you need to worry about relaying all the relevant info to the pilot and all the commands to the plane without delay/interference.

 

Could unmanned fighters work in a Gulf War situation? Possibly. But an enemy more advanced than that probably poses a number of challenges.

 

Also, if we decided to convert to UAV fighters at this instant, in means started a whole new aircraft program. Converting manned fighters to unmanned doesn't make much sense at this point. Maybe, you could get away with converting the F-35, at a large cost, but realistically, it's too late in the program for that.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

The fact that we are not likely to have an air-to-air war with anyone in the foreseeable future, being non-point.

 

People who are scared of Russia and China when it comes to Air Force vs. Air Force should have their heads checked. Also, UAV's allow for different strategies than manned aircraft, which make them more capable. Like cheap air supremacy UAV's which bait the enemy fighter with one unit, and strike with another.

[Exorcet]

The fact that we are not likely to have an air-to-air war with anyone in the foreseeable future, being non-point.

Still it would be unwise to just place all the fighters in storage, and shut down fight pilot training/aircraft upgrade programs. Force reduction, sure. Removal? No. We'd never be able to reactivate fast enough if we needed the air force.

 

Also, UAV's allow for different strategies than manned aircraft, which make them more capable. Like cheap air supremacy UAV's which bait the enemy fighter with one unit, and strike with another.

Yes, in theory UAV's are superior. But we need to reach theory in application. We can't have UAV fighters (UAVF's) right now, because we don't have aircraft that were meant to be UAVF's. Converting the manned fighters already built would either be very expensive [rebuild them without cockpits] or not carry the promised benefits [put remote or automated control in them without rebuilding them].

 

The bait tactic isn't as easy to pull off as it sounds since modern radar is able to ID targets from miles away, and it's usually backed up by IR of some kind. The decoys would need to look a lot like the actual attack planes in both radar and IR signal, and possible visibly since IR in modern times is often IIR. The decoy would need to act like a real threat too, which might require it to fly long ranges at high speeds and at high altitude. In the end, the decoys will end up costing a lot of money which would have probably been better spent on a real fighter. Or a jamming system that could basically do the same thing as a decoy "virtually". Complicating this issue is the fact that a lot of aircraft (at least in the US) are stealthy, and even the ones that weren't originally are modified to be more stealthy. It would be pretty suspicious to have something flying around trying to gain someone's attention. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it's not something that could counted on in all situations.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Exorcet

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Decoys can be the actual attack planes.

 

One of the benefits of not having to worry about the actual pilots.

[Exorcet]

Decoys can be the actual attack planes.

You still have to worry about the expensive decoy being lost. And the decoys eating up the available sorties for aircraft. This isn't WWII anymore when 1000's of planes rolled off the assembly lines and the loss of 1 or 2, or a dozen, barely had any impact. If the decoy mission is too dangerous for a manned aircraft, there must be a pretty high chance of aircraft destruction, or at least being shot at. That goes against pretty much any strategy in modern aviation. You want to minimize that. If the mission doesn't require that the plane ends up as a fiery crater on the ground, then a manned plane could do it too.

 

These decoy operations would be ditched in favor of more traditional methods where the goal is avoid being seen in the first place. Less sorties = less maintenance and more availability, going unseen = less losses and less forced mission aborts = high sortie success rate. The closest thing to what you described that would probably be used is stationing aircraft well away from enemy lines to serve as radar posts for other aircraft. They would be decoys in the sense that since they are emitting, they would be more likely to be found, but it would be pretty clear that they weren't about to make an imminent strike most of the time.

 

In terms of risk, it doesn't matter whether or not a plane is manned, you can't afford to lose it either way.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

ITT exor knows his shit

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I'm just really saying that the F-22 project, is a totally over-blown expense, especially during a time when we don't really need brand spanking new air superiority fighters. It's also silly in a time when our Government is in debt, and trying to manage an economic crisis, that it's blowing this sort of money.

[Exorcet]

I'm just really saying that the F-22 project, is a totally over-blown expense, especially during a time when we don't really need brand spanking new air superiority fighters. It's also silly in a time when our Government is in debt, and trying to manage an economic crisis, that it's blowing this sort of money.

 

But they didn't start investing in the plane yesterday. The F-22 came out of the 80's. By the time the USSR collapsed, it was already flying. I guess they could have killed it then (but remember, there was no economic crisis to pressure them into that), but what would have happened to all the money that went into R&D? And why wouldn't the US take the opportunity to replace the F-15's - something that would have had to happen eventually (although to this day, they still haven't fully replaced them, a mistake in my mind). The F-15 C is older now than the F-4 was during the Gulf War by about a decade. I guess that's OK when there isn't a huge, short term threat looming, but they can't last forever. Since the F-22 was already rolling long before it was "obsolete", I don't see why they would have killed it.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Exorcet

[Shirtless Crackhead]

They shouldn't have killed it, but they should be a bit less sugar daddy with all the money to these defense contractors.

[Exorcet]

They shouldn't have killed it, but they should be a bit less sugar daddy with all the money to these defense contractors.

 

The F-22 is a shell of what it would have been if LM had infinite money.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Unfortunately that money comes from the tax payers, and I don't think we (as a general populace) are interested in paying them infinite money for scifi-grade fighter jets.

[Exorcet]

Unfortunately that money comes from the tax payers, and I don't think we (as a general populace) are interested in paying them infinite money for scifi-grade fighter jets.

 

Well that's why they didn't get that money.

 

B-2 went from 120 to 20

F-22 from 750 to 187, and it lost IRST, communications, weapons compatibilities, etc. LM is trying pretty hard to sell the latest upgrades, and only a fraction of the planes will get them.

 

Though the cuts are not as severe as they could have been, I'll concede that.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

300,000,000 Americans = 300,000,000 tax payers.

 

Divide the price of the project by 300 million and that's how many bucks per person it costs.

 

66 Billion = 220 bucks per person.

 

While that may seem like chunk change, remember this is just one fucking plane.

 

One plane project*

 

A smarter solution is to design an airframe that is more modular, designed to fulfill multiple mission roles; from less costly more general use in say current style asymmetric warfare, and more expensive Gen 5/6 air superiority roles. One that can be upgraded with new avionics, engines, etc.. as technology over the coming years is going to advance.

 

Something designed for economy and longevity would be nice.

 

We should also be looking at selling our old aircraft to help subsidize these costs. Obviously after the replacements are had.

[Exorcet]

A smarter solution is to design an airframe that is more modular, designed to fulfill multiple mission roles; from less costly more general use in say current style asymmetric warfare, and more expensive Gen 5/6 air superiority roles. One that can be upgraded with new avionics, engines, etc.. as technology over the coming years is going to advance.

The 300+ Billion F-35 program.

 

The problem with it is that it tried to do what you outlined too well. The F-35 B model was and is a complete waste, the Marines don't need it and just about everything unique to it doesn't do a thing for the Air Force or Navy. They would have been better off making the F-35 Air Force/Navy only, and letting the Marines get their own plane.

 

On paper the one fighter for all concept sounded smart, but carrying it out has only become more and more difficult. I really think it could have worked if they reduced the scope though.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Remember that I also think there should be one branch of the military, so all air power roles can be properly aligned and planned for.

[Exorcet]

Remember that I also think there should be one branch of the military, so all air power roles can be properly aligned and planned for.

 

That doesn't necessarily reduce the need for multiple variations. In the one branch system, the A and C must still exist if you're going to keep air bases and carriers, but I guess you could go C only at the cost of not being as effective as you could be otherwise. Then it comes down to whether the one branch holds the Marine philosophy that the amphibious forces need their own dedicated strike planes. The Marines are right in that having the F-35 B so much closer to the front than the A or C does give them a little bit more flexibility. But I don't think that's enough to justify them tying up program resources. I'm not even entirely convinced that it's enough to justify them having any similar aircraft at all.

 

In any case, you can't really boil an air force down to one or two types of planes. However I do agree that removing interbranch competition and bickering would probably help things.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

You'd need naval air power, which has it's own set of rolls and requirements (like landing/take-off from carriers); and it's docket is filled by the number of aircraft carriers we have. Doesn't mean you need to have a whole other branch.

 

You'd also need..

 

-Air Superiority

-Air Recon (spy planes)

-Air Interception (anti-bombers), kinda melds with air superiority

-Strike Aircraft, CAS roles

-Logistics

[Exorcet]

I finally found some of the numbers I was looking for yesterday

S-300 PMU - $160 million

http://www.deagel.com/Air-Defense-Systems/S-300PMU1_a000372001.aspx

 

Iraq Air Force F-16's - 18 planes for 4.2 billion (233 million per plane) [this includes items other than the plane itself, but I think this is fair because that's the only way you get 65 billion and 300 billion out of the F-22 and F-35 programs, the F-22 and F-35 include sensors and other equipment that the F-16 cannot have unless purchased in addition to the aircraft as sensor pods, and the Iraqi F-16 is not the most expensive version either]

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4206.html

 

UAE F-16 E purcahse - 80 planes for 7.3 billion, 91 million per plane (1990's dollars?)

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7022074

 

 

The reason why the F-16 looks so cheap on Wikipedia is because the price is in 1998 dollars. Inflation hits jets hard, and as they get more advanced the price goes up. Another thing about existing planes is that you need to dig around to find their upgrade and maintenance costs. The F-15 as an item is cheaper to build than a F-22, but no cheaper to keep flying.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Why don't we just develop cost-effective stealth cruise missiles?

[Exorcet]

We tried to

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASSM

 

Even if they work flawlessly for air to ground, they can't engage fighters. And they can't orbit over a hot zone and provide CAS. They're also way, way more expensive than dropping bombs.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I'm saying for the purposes of eliminating advanced Anti-Air systems.

 

Don't doubt the potential of American Military Intelligence.

[Exorcet]

Those missiles cover that role, but SAMS, especially the latest like the S-300, are mobile. You could fire a cruise missile at them, and they could pack up and leave before it gets there. SAM's also don't like to stand out in plain sight, they're hidden as much as possible, and this is backed up by some having AESA radar which is more difficult to detect than older radar. The better method for dealing with SAM's is high speed air defense suppression missiles like the AGM-88, or even glide bombs like the SDB II.

 

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii/

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I tend to think military strategy should be built around the phrase, fight smarter, not harder.