Airforce may be be going out of business

[carl]

I am not sure we need a "new" generation of manned fighters either. But we do need the present generation, F-22's, to replace the old which is wearing out. That is the material side. The other side is most of our plans and thinking are based on manned machines and until we have time to really think through an alternative and develop the tools to implement it we have to go with what we have.

There has been considerable discussion about replacing manned airplanes with missiles and drones and ultimately that will probably happen. But I don't think that day is upon us and I don't think emulating the British and their actions in the 50's is a good idea.

One example of good use of manned fighters is psychologically dominate an opponent. The sight of contrails above you that you can't do a damn thing about must be a daunting one. We don't have any drones available now that could do that.

Stealth in the F-22 is a lot more than a nice to have feature. I've been told that modern short range missiles are so deadly that if both sides were equipped with something like Python 5s nobody will come out of a visual fight. The F-22 probably won't be seen so hopefully it won't be hit. At least for the next few (20) years, we need this thing.

Can we agree that the tankers and transports have to be replaced quick?

[SteveMetz]

One example of good use of manned fighters is psychologically dominate an opponent. The sight of contrails above you that you can't do a damn thing about must be a daunting one. We don't have any drones available now that could do that.

Why does a manned craft have more psychological impact than an unmanned one? Does the guy on the ground know which is which?

Plus, doesn't the idea of visible contrails run counter to the idea of avoiding air defenses?

Seems to me that there is even greater psychological impact when the guy on the ground doesn't see anything and all the sudden stuff blows up.

[tequila]

Let's not forget the elephant in the room ...



All joking aside, there hasn't been a successful enemy-initiated airstrike on American troops for decades. I don't feel comfortable myself putting that record at risk by automating the pilots. We know the many problems with human pilots and have much experience dealing with them - I don't think they are so myriad as to require getting rid of them.

[SteveMetz]

Let's not forget the elephant in the room ...



All joking aside, there hasn't been a successful enemy-initiated airstrike on American troops for decades. I don't feel comfortable myself putting that record at risk by automating the pilots. We know the many problems with human pilots and have much experience dealing with them - I don't think they are so myriad as to require getting rid of them.

Austrian body builders?

[Tom Odom]

Austrian body builders?

yeah they get elected guvnor and you can't get rid of 'em

[carl]

Why does a manned craft have more psychological impact than an unmanned one? Does the guy on the ground know which is which?

Plus, doesn't the idea of visible contrails run counter to the idea of avoiding air defenses?

Seems to me that there is even greater psychological impact when the guy on the ground doesn't see anything and all the sudden stuff blows up.

I was thinking of a show of force short of war. Contrails left by an airplane that can smash you can be pretty effective at that. We don't have any drones that can do that.

Again in a situation short of war, something you can see may be scarier than something you can't. For example, it is hard to do gunboat diplomacy with submarines, aircraft carriers are better.

And in a small war, a low fast run by a fighter in afterburner is, I've read, a good tactic to scare away bad guys. We don't have a drone that can do that either.

This is, of course, a conservative's argument; I am reluctant to give up what I know works for what might work.

[SteveMetz]

I was thinking of a show of force short of war. Contrails left by an airplane that can smash you can be pretty effective at that. We don't have any drones that can do that.

Again in a situation short of war, something you can see may be scarier than something you can't. For example, it is hard to do gunboat diplomacy with submarines, aircraft carriers are better.

And in a small war, a low fast run by a fighter in afterburner is, I've read, a good tactic to scare away bad guys. We don't have a drone that can do that either.

This is, of course, a conservative's argument; I am reluctant to give up what I know works for what might work.

What I was suggesting is that if it's contrails you want, easier to build drones that make them than to buy more multi bizillion dollar fighter planes.

[carl]

What I was suggesting is that if it's contrails you want, easier to build drones that make them than to buy more multi bizillion dollar fighter planes.

Given the history of military procurement, I am not sure building a drone with the capability of say, an F-18F, will be any easier or cheaper than continuing to build the fighters on the production line. I am sure it wouldn't be faster.

[selil]

Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you about sooner.

[Ken White]

"Also agree about not giving a blank check. I wouldn't fund the F-35. But I do think the F-22 is critical as are fast replacement of the transports and tankers."

My conversations with assorted thinking Grunts * indicate they strongly disagree and most -- not all -- would say:

""Also agree about not giving a blank check. But I do think both the F-22 and F35 are critical as is replacement of the transports and tankers.""

The alternative to the capabilities a mature (note that word) F35 will bring is the Army having its own CAS with UAVs and E-4s flying them.

Your choice, Air force...


* Those are the Army types, haven't talked to any Marines on the topic recently but I suspect they feel even more strongly that the F35 should stay (for some strange reason). That's without even addressing the other Nations that have bought into the program and have a right to expect something for their money. I suggest that if the AF wants the air missions required for national defense, it needs ALL the capabilities including the ones it does not like and has consistently tried to ignore over the years...

[carl]

Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you about sooner.

Are you talking about what the Israelis reputedly did to the Syrians only from the ground up rather than from the air down, so to speak?

[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.

[Steve Blair]

Stealth in the F-22 is a lot more than a nice to have feature. I've been told that modern short range missiles are so deadly that if both sides were equipped with something like Python 5s nobody will come out of a visual fight. The F-22 probably won't be seen so hopefully it won't be hit. At least for the next few (20) years, we need this thing.

Can we agree that the tankers and transports have to be replaced quick?

Couple of things with the F-22...it's good and stealthy when it flies, but it's also big. If you're in visual range you can see it. And with its notional SEAD mission, I don't know that bigger is better.

One thing that's biting the AF in the butt here is their own procurement procedures and silver bullet mentality, IMO. Stealth is nice, but do you need it for every platform? We saw the same thing back with the XB-70 when the manned bomber was seen as the backbone of the AF. Dumping tons of money into that program left TAC to make do with aircraft that weren't designed for the mission at hand (the F-100 and F-105) and even borrowing a Navy design (the F-4).

Gonna be tough, but I really don't think that giving the AF a blank check is the answer.

[carl]

Couple of things with the F-22...it's good and stealthy when it flies, but it's also big. If you're in visual range you can see it. And with its notional SEAD mission, I don't know that bigger is better.

One thing that's biting the AF in the butt here is their own procurement procedures and silver bullet mentality, IMO. Stealth is nice, but do you need it for every platform? We saw the same thing back with the XB-70 when the manned bomber was seen as the backbone of the AF. Dumping tons of money into that program left TAC to make do with aircraft that weren't designed for the mission at hand (the F-100 and F-105) and even borrowing a Navy design (the F-4).

Gonna be tough, but I really don't think that giving the AF a blank check is the answer.

There is no way to have an airplane with long range (endurance), sensors and an adequate weapons load that won't be big. The F-22 though is about the same size as an F-15, 62'x44' vs. 63'x42' so there is no great change there. Bigger is easier to see but that is why stealth in this fighter is so important; if your radar can't tell your eyes where to look you are going to have a hell of a time finding it. The fact that the F-22 flies 20,000' feet higher than anyone else is rather a help to. Stealth is nice and you don't need if for every mission, but I think it vital to this one.

In full agreement about the Air Force painting itself into a corner, but unfortunately, they painted all the rest of us in the corner with them.

Also agree about not giving a blank check. I wouldn't fund the F-35. But I do think the F-22 is critical as are fast replacement of the transports and tankers.