Airforce may be be going out of business

[wm]

Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you.

Not only that, but let us not forget about software bugs.
How many times have each of us cursed Bill Gates when we get some kind of glitch associated with a software programming error?

Just think how many KSLOC (thousands of software lines of code) would have to be written and, at best only partially, debugged to get a fully automated or remotely piloted drone capability that comes close to matching what a human does in an aircraft moving at supersonic speeds. "Oops" just doesn't quite cut it when you get a 404 error and your Predator launched Hellfire flies into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul instead of Balla Hissar in Kabul.

[selil]

Not only that, but let us not forget about software bugs.
How many times have each of us cursed Bill Gates when we get some kind of glitch associated with a software programming error?

Just think how many KSLOC (thousands of software lines of code) would have to be written and, at best only partially, debugged to get a fully automated or remotely piloted drone capability that comes close to matching what a human does in an aircraft moving at supersonic speeds. "Oops" just doesn't quite cut it when you get a 404 error and your Predator launched Hellfire flies into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul instead of Balla Hissar in Kabul.

And the UAV was built by the low bidder. In all honesty I think the aircraft has a role, but the implementation may have issues that can't be overcome.

I'd say this... naw I won't.

[Presley Cannady]

Not only that, but let us not forget about software bugs.
How many times have each of us cursed Bill Gates when we get some kind of glitch associated with a software programming error?

Microsoft has a different, more expansive set of problems to deal with than the embedded arch required for UAV control.

Just think how many KSLOC (thousands of software lines of code) would have to be written and, at best only partially, debugged to get a fully automated or remotely piloted drone capability that comes close to matching what a human does in an aircraft moving at supersonic speeds.

On the order of 1e5. Outside of the front-end web developer space, debugging is only the first, most basic step in a test path. Given a defined envelope of requirements, unit, functional and performance testing harnesses ensure to at least a high degree of reliability (compared to a human) in a target system. And these test suites run in seconds to hours, as opposed to months and years for similar validation in manned pilot programs.

"Oops" just doesn't quite cut it when you get a 404 error and your Predator launched Hellfire flies into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul instead of Balla Hissar in Kabul.

If a contractor's selling you onboard software that interoperates via web services, you probably should drag him, his contracting officer and DASD Acquisitions into court. Beyond that, a lot of things would have to go wrong for a computer to mistake two targets thousands of miles away and successfully prosecute to full error. It's the equivalent of a human pilot, his combat commander, and dozens of others going full retard. On the other hand, the real problem is whether unmanned software is better able than a human being (who is undoubtedly relying on software anyway) to discriminate a target from a school a few dozen yards away. Or, barring that, if a computer can abort as reliably as a man.

[tankersteve]

OK, I have read this thread from end to end.

Certainly the hang-up or beef many of us have (those of us in the dirt world) is the AF crying for funding after years of watching them have facilities worlds beyond the other services. I think the other services see the Air Force as having forgotten that it is in the military and the mission, not people, come first.

The idea of a limited capability aircraft for COIN is outstanding. An aircraft along the lines of an OV-10 would be very useful. As you stand up the indigenous forces of the host nation, you could turn those aircraft over to them and buy new ones for yourself with the latest avionics/electronics, at a fraction of the cost of a new fighter jet. Wikipedia has some descriptions of what the original OV-10 design specs were to be and I think that would be an interesting aircraft. Perhaps a biplane to fit the 20 foot wingspan?

You have to wonder what we were thinking with F15/F16s providing aerial reconnaissance over Iraq and Afghanistan. We wanted the observation but the tradeoff of wear and tear on the airframes is questionable.

The Air Force likes to talk about having been on a war-time footing since Desert Storm. Well, we certainly didn't hear that back in the 1990s. Perhaps if they had mentioned it, they could have gotten new fighter aircraft (same models, just newer) through Congress. I suspect they didn't want to raise the issue too loudly because it would hurt recruiting and support for newer models of aircraft. Of course, as many here have mentioned, war-time footing for the Air Force (when not in an actual aircraft) means the danger of intermittent satellite TV...

We won WWII not by having the best stuff but having the most of pretty good stuff. Since the Air Force pilots are top notch, how about getting more 'good enough' birds, like upgraded F15/16 and having the ability to flood the airspace with more of them. The sheer numbers and their pilot's ability would outweigh the lack of technical uber-superiority.

Of course, to keep the cost of all these extra pilots down, we might have to have warrant officers flying them - not sure if AF could stomach that - institutional prejudice.

Perhaps the real beef here is the appearance (and likely just appearance) that the AF is much more interested in protecting it's sexy image of flying off in the wild blue yonder. Unmanned aircraft are not sexy. I truly think any officer could be trained to make the decision of shooting/not shooting, thus killing the AF hangup of having flight-qualified officers commanding armed UAVs. But the AF has a strange class/caste system where the flight-rated folks dominate and are treated differently. This could be a real upset to the culture. The AF will reply that the Army Chief of Staff and the key general officer commands only comes from the combat arms branches. True, but for the most part, in the Army, unless you are a commander, you really are not that special unless you have a lot of rank. In the AF, a rated officer is operating in a different sphere than his non-rated counterparts (not peers - they aren't).

I don't think the AF is going out of business. I do believe in the need for air superiority. I just think the AF doesn't have all its priorities in proper alignment and the very culture of the AF will have to change to properly affect this.

We need limited numbers of air superiority frames, and lots of drones for ISR and bombing. We might have to get by on simpler airframes, but we could use more of them. The AF might need warrants. Maybe they fly the drones.

I just hope the next administration and AF secretary take a realistic approach to this mess.

Tankersteve

[120mm]

Tankersteve -

I've corresponded with one of the USMC types who developed the OV-10, and the 20 foot wingspan is completely achieveable using a large chord wing, and avoiding malicious USAF efforts to kill the program/air craft through over-speccing. Ironically, though the USAF tried to kill the concept, they ended up buying them and using them during VN.

The original aircraft did not resemble the finished aircraft. But the concept of a rough field/no field aircraft that can be used (at low cost) to FTF with forward ground forces, drop ordnance, carry personnel and mark targets, without the typical rotary wing support issues is tempting.

[Entropy]

Tankersteve,

The Air Force likes to talk about having been on a war-time footing since Desert Storm. Well, we certainly didn't hear that back in the 1990s.

I was in the Navy during the 1990's and I certainly heard the AF make those kind of complaints. In particular, I remember the AF complaining about the "gruelling" 3 month deployments to OSW, how it was negatively affecting their equipment and training, how they need more money to offset those effects, and their suggestion the Navy should do more. It made us Navy guys laugh because we were probably on month 4 or 5 of a six-month deployment - something we got to do every 18 months with lots of little deployments in between. Of course, at that time, the Navy and Marines were the only true expeditionary services and the AF didn't really have the mindset or organization to conduct OSW in the most effective and efficient manner.

[Stevely]

The idea of a limited capability aircraft for COIN is outstanding. An aircraft along the lines of an OV-10 would be very useful. As you stand up the indigenous forces of the host nation, you could turn those aircraft over to them and buy new ones for yourself with the latest avionics/electronics, at a fraction of the cost of a new fighter jet. Wikipedia has some descriptions of what the original OV-10 design specs were to be and I think that would be an interesting aircraft. Perhaps a biplane to fit the 20 foot wingspan?

This won't happen because it would greatly upset the patronage system of the military-industrial-congressional complex. This would mean a lot less $$$ flowing into congressional districts and aerospace contractors' coffers, which would mean political death before the idea could ever really take hold.

Of course, this idea may sound more attractive as the reality sinks in that the nation (not just the government) is flat broke, but by then even el cheapo OV-10 style aircraft will seem like an extravagance.

[Presley Cannady]

Perhaps the real beef here is the appearance (and likely just appearance) that the AF is much more interested in protecting it's sexy image of flying off in the wild blue yonder. Unmanned aircraft are not sexy. I truly think any officer could be trained to make the decision of shooting/not shooting, thus killing the AF hangup of having flight-qualified officers commanding armed UAVs. But the AF has a strange class/caste system where the flight-rated folks dominate and are treated differently. This could be a real upset to the culture. The AF will reply that the Army Chief of Staff and the key general officer commands only comes from the combat arms branches. True, but for the most part, in the Army, unless you are a commander, you really are not that special unless you have a lot of rank. In the AF, a rated officer is operating in a different sphere than his non-rated counterparts (not peers - they aren't).

We're missing a couple game-changing caveats here:

1. There is no multi-role UCAV in existence yet. The technology can handle reconnaissance, some deep interdiction and that's it. Autonomous or even remote strategic bombing, air-to-air and mid-air refueling remain a long way off. Hell, we haven't even automated similar tasks in the Navy onboard ships traveling slower than a Plymouth Horizon going up hill.

2. UCAVs today are essentially retrievable cruise missiles with human training wheels. The real debate isn't over shoot authority--both Navy and USAF reconciled themselves to that fact decades ago--but over how expendable those platforms are. And given the susceptibility of remote control to such environmental factors such as lightspeed lag and weather, the less expendable your UCAV the more likely you're going to have somebody in the sky looking out for it. Remote-control only narrows the scope of knowledge involved by eliminating flight medicine from training. You still need someone with a graduate understanding of aviation, and the reqs of effective flying haven't changed much in over a century. You're still going to have people with skill sets ranging from navigation to meteorology to aerodynamics with hands on the stick.

3. Full autonomy even in the ground attack and reconnaissance missions lies twice beyond USAF's 2025's vision of the future. That has nothing to do with a resistant culture, it has to do with the fact that there isn't yet an AI smart enough for cheap enough to integrate terrain mapping, threat evaluation and aircraft status to reliably implement countermeasures in deviance from the mission. Hell, there may never be. If these things are to be anything more than expensive cruise missiles or RC aircraft, then this is a hurdle we have to overcome.

[Bob's World]

Don't save all of your abuse for our brothers in blue.

Co-worker and friend is a Marine F/A-18 pilot, who was gently, but firmly told to stand down when he put together a paper making the case that Marine air was going the wrong direction in seeking stealth capability and Joint Strike Fighters, (how stealthy can you be below 1000' supporting ground troops) and should be considering platforms such as the Skyraider.

[reed11b]

Don't save all of your abuse for our brothers in blue.

Co-worker and friend is a Marine F/A-18 pilot, who was gently, but firmly told to stand down when he put together a paper making the case that Marine air was going the wrong direction in seeking stealth capability and Joint Strike Fighters, (how stealthy can you be below 1000' supporting ground troops) and should be considering platforms such as the Skyraider.

Unfortunately that whole argument has been deeply tainted w/ Sparkyisms and it will take time to heal the damage caused there. At one point I was working on a paper to compare cost efficiencies of using less expensive to operate helicopters in decentralized taskings compared to higher operating cost helicopters in more centralized taskings. Sparks caught wind of it and contacted me and insisted that the story needed to be about the then current LUH program and trailer mounted helicopters. Of course that was not something that could work, and I was annoyed to the point of dropping the idea before completion. Now whenever I see an idea supported by Sparks and crew, I have a tendency to reject it out of hand. Some of the ideas are good, even if Sparks et al. really do not understand them.
Reed

[William F. Owen]

Now whenever I see an idea supported by Sparks and crew, I have a tendency to reject it out of hand. Some of the ideas are good, even if Sparks et al. really do not understand them.

Concur.