SanemThings are not like this. LM, NG, Boeing will benefit from Increased survivability demands as they have more flexibility within their designs, while GA is proposing a version of the Avenger which is pretty much a firm design without the tactical flexibility of being morphed into something that tries to match the RCS and survivability of a flying wing or a cranked kite.
so you’re saying that LMT, Boeing and NG are pushing the Navy to focus the UCLASS requirements on high stealth missions, while AG is pushing for a “light” solution?
which confirms what I’ve said earlier: military requirements are written just as much by politicians and industry as generals, and not always with the best interests of the military or the public in mind
Where did i suggest that such was the case?
often, and you just did it again:
This is not my view but that of the USN which DEMANDED THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS/CAPABILITY (those were not written by the industry)…The USN has always envisioned the UCLASS as complementary to the F-35 and SH, while in its original form or the new form.
you agree that the flying wing companies have an interest in different requirements than GA
and we all know companies have a serious influence on both generals and politicians
and then you turn around and say the USN views are iron clad (the same USN that now agrees to cut CLS purchases to 24 after years of insisting on 52) and not written by the industry (so you’re agreeing that the industry does have an influence on requirement formulations… just not here? and your irresistable proof of this miracle rare occurance is what exactly?)
Payload was never an issue..The issue is ISR vs strike…No one is designing it to strap out ISR equipment and put a weapons bay in its place. As with the triton, NG’s design is probably going to have fixed sensors…If you demand a certain ISR capability and seek larger payloads you’d need a bigger vehicle with a bigger bay…
again, you’re making a lot of assumptions, on designs that are pretty much unknown for required capabilities that haven’t even been decided on
and again, you don’t need bigger payloads, that’s what SDBs and APKWS II are for, carpet bombing is a thing of the past for generals who think collateral is a Tom Cruise movie
Sanemit does show the whole UCLASS debate is not as done as you’d suggest, there is serious interest in choosing a more flexible approach
I figure this is in no small part influenced by the military-industrial political interests: LMT and GA and their allies/future well paid “advisors” will push for a lighter ISR solution, complementing the F-35. while NG and Boeing will push for a bigger, more capable UCLASS that can also threaten F-35 budgets
a high-low mix would seem like the best solution, with $15 million Avengers flying your bread and butter missions, while the $50 million X-47b decendants fly the really dangerous or important missions
payload wise I don’t think the problems are all that relevant, NG is already working on an open architecture that allows for easy plug and play module add-on, giving the option of min-maxing the payloads as the mission dictates or the technology allows
Sanemmore movement in the UCLASS role discussion
http://defensetech.org/2013/09/20/lawmakers-seek-broader-roles-for-uclass/#idc-container
Sanemseeing the X-47B take off from a carrier, I was thinking on unmanned AWACS
such an aircraft would allow for superior endurance at a reduced cost and risk to human crew
especially when advanced stealth aircraft and long range missiles are becoming the norm, large targets like AWACS (and tankers) are becoming liabilities
here a few interesting articles:
http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-and-military-aircraft/articles/replacing-awacs-with-uavs/
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20071217.aspx
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/10/help-coming-for-awacs-in-a-j-2/
with AESA radars quicly becoming more advanced, one could also just mount these on any UAV and use large numbers to cover an area
one of the articles talks about this using the F-22 or F-35, but points out that this would be costly and limited in endurance
so how about putting a big AESA on a Global Hawk or a UCLASS/RQ-170
that or, as I’ve suggested before, an RQ-170 flying at extreme altitude with optical sensors. any high-flying stealth aircraft should be easy enough to detect, even at long range
SanemNavy’s CVN survivability solution is to never get within range of cruise missile carrying MPAs. And that distance is far greater than F-35’s combat radius.
but not X-47b. that’s the whole point of a high capacity UCLASS, it gives the USN what the F-35 (and to a large extent the USAF) lack: reach
saying the USN should stay out of reach is nice and all, but it does mean that if China were to disable the US bases in theater (Guam is at about 3.000 km from China, which is about the reach of a DF-21 btw) then the USN and its UCLASS might be the only aircraft capable of going in effectively, other than maybe the B-2
so if anything the USN needs a long range high capacity UCLASS. as does the USAF
SanemUSAF is tasked with making the battlespace safe by eliminating threats before “big Navy” arrives in theater.
1. the USAF does not have the power to eliminate 100% of China’s CVN killing capacity, so that’s an empty promise
2. the whole point of a long range stealth UCLASS is that the USN can stay out of theater and still project power (better than the USAF could, which beyond the B-2 lacks the range to stay out of theater)
Keeping LO off the CVN keeps the CVN out of harm’s way early in a conflict.
3. so they want the F-35 because it’s LO, but they don’t want the UCLASS because it’s LO :highly_amused:
USAF can lose many assets without triggering a drastic response, but if Navy loses a CVN, nukes could fly.
4. nuke China, the US’s biggest trade partner? and I’m sure Russia, India, Pakistan and Japan won’t have anything to say about that…
Sanemto support my argument of installing advanced tech on proven platforms, the F-16 is getting the SABR (based on F-22 and F-35 tech):
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SABR/Pages/default.aspx
other recent F-16 upgrades:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4762.html
does this mean the F-16 will be able to detect the F-22 and F-35 at long range? at what cost? how long before they install DAS and EOTS on the F-16?
SanemDoes this mean that the scope of the testing is broader than that of its European counterpart?
BAe does have a relatively big budget, government support and good US contacts (including LMT which is probably running the US black UAV programs)
they’ve certainly been more agressive and covert with their UAV programs than the rest of the EU
I wonder whether Dassault and the other french partners have been invited to Woomera to see how things are going?
or they might send over a satellite; is it spying when they’re your allies? 😀
Sanemit makes little difference to an aircraft that is the size of the LRS-B (B-2 size, for example)
again, I point at 4 things and you focus on one thing. I also mentioned size, number of engines, expendability… I forgot to mention things like loiter, psychology, payload size…
for example optical detection will probably get more important in the future, the F-35 shows this with EOTS. big size will certainly make the LRS-B easier to spot, even at high altitude, than a fighter sized UCAV
No can imagine or foresee it, other than yourself. :)..
and IBM 😀
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57344881-52/ibm-mind-reading-is-less-than-five-years-away-for-real/
Too bad, there is not likely to be a F-18E/F in existance around 2025 for you to take, itse users would probably have been done buying it by then…The USN has decided, they do not believe a suped up SH is going to cut it in the future…The are investing in the FA-XX for post 2030 SH replacement. You are the only one that i know of, who believes that in 2025, a SH offers more value than the F-35. Keep dreaming my freind!, Hope you find support from boeing at least
again, you’re missing my point. this could be an F-18, or an F-16, or an F-4, or an F-86… the platform becomes irrelevant, the technology becomes the deciding factor
for example I’d expect an F-35 to be superior to an F-22 in a fight: where the F-22 has better performance and shaping, the F-35 has better radar, superior EW, optical detection and tracking, 360 degree launch capability, better data-sharing capability. none of which have anything to do with physical dimensions, and all with technology. and the impact of technology will continue to grow and it’ll be implemented always faster. but (physical) designs will be much harder to adapt, and the F-35 is a fixed design by nature
Sanembut then again i do not think a UCAV would be as stealthy as a LRS-B
that is an assumption. if a lot more money were to be invested into LRS-B then yes, it would be more stealthy than a UCAV, but at a cost to match
a UCAV, being smaller, single engine, no room or support for humans, relatively expendable… allows for different approaches, less compromise, and thus logically a stealth that should at least in cost be superior to the LRS-B (and who wants to bet the LRS-B won’t be late and over budget?)
on the whole stealth discussion, while very interesting, it does negate the whole point I was trying to make: that TECHNOLOGY will overtake the F-35, one aspect of which will be stealth, but also AESA, EOTS, DAS, lasers, nano-technology, AI, bio-tech, warp engines, under-water launch, telepathy…
sounds crazy, but that’s people don’t understand what is coming our way. the coming decades will see technology evolve at a pace we simply cannot imagine today, because the technology needed to develop that new technology does not yet exist
so yes, I will take a Hornet with tech from 2020-2025 over an F-35, because it will be cheaper and better, in most if not every way
Sanemfirst off welcome to the new repliers on this thread, it’s always nice to get some new input
What is it? Are the chinese, the russians, or the Indians smarter, as dumb, or dumber for doing exactly the same thing the USAF is doing, i.e. developing manned stealth fighters and manned stealth bombers? You cannot have it both ways, i.e call the US dumb for doing it while calling the chinese or the russians smart.
not at all, I think the US has done some absolutely brilliant work, including on the F-35
what bugs me is the cost and the whole JSF program screw up (three aircraft from a single design)
and the cost/benefit results, which other than for the F-117, has been disturbingly low on such advanced programs
the UCLASS and other UCAVs have the oportunity to reverse this trend. not because they’re super-advanced, but they’re using off the shelf systems and simply using them in different ways
the Chinese and Russia are doing a similar thing, Russia maturing cutting edge technology on existing platforms before moving to a completely new design, and China mostly copying off everyone else, which circumvents both its own lack of expertise and keeps costs low
Aircraft are retired all the time, and replacements are often not needed as the capability is brought from elsewhere. With he J Series of weapons, and especially the SDB’s you can develop the F-22 to do a lot of the same strike missions as the F-117 while the F-35 comes into the picture. The amount of munition that VLO platforms can drop on a given target as a product of fleet strength has actually gone up over the years despite he F-117 retirement. Capability has come from more efficient use of the existing VLO platforms and the 2 x JDAM carriage capability of the F-22. Not all of the capability is replaced, but enough IS so that a new aircraft is not needed, until the F-35 comes into the fleet.
but that is my question, do you need to replace that capability, and at what cost?
the F-117 wasn’t available over Libya, yet their defences were crushed in days. in the same way I doubt Iraq would have done much better if the US hadn’t sent in the F-117s
I’m sure the F-22 can do the F-117 job, and better, if they put in more budget for upgrades. but that’s a dangerous mission, F-117s did get shot down, and the F-22 already has a relatively high accident rate
I’m saying a UCAV could take over the F-117 role (if it hasn’t already) and do it cheaper and afford the losses
1000 lb max payload, is NOTHING for any sort of medium intensity conflict when deck space is at a premium. No matter which way you look at it, he UCLASS in its current form would NEVER become a successful strike aircraft, in any mission other then the one it is designed for, i.e. long loiter time, persistent, high-priority type of mission. You cannot house a fleet of 100 UCLASS to conduct high intensity ops.
sure you can, if you keep most of them on land and only fly them off the carrier for quick reload and check up. with their endurance and range plus in air refueling you can reroute them as much as you want, and use the carrier as pit stop, rather than a true air field. hell, you could use cranes to offload UCAVs onto other ships if you can’t hold them all at the time. over Kosovo ground targets would simply wait for the manned jets to run out of fuel and return, or use tunnels to move. with a huge number of UCAV orbits, you can keep aircraft on station 24/7, able to detect and attack targets as soon as they move. manned aircraft simply don’t have the endurance for this kind of battle, and human pilots certainly don’t
The USAF is not going to come out and say , that we have designed the F-35 to Just beat the S-400, so the moment Russians make a more advanced S-500, we’re obsolete. Things do no happen in such a way. A more likely scenario is that you design your fighter to defeat high end threats such as the S-400, and to be capable of dealing with threats way into the future, either from qualities already built into the system, or from modifications/upgrades that you do over time.
ofcourse not, Russia isn’t handing out S-500s like candy
my argument is that the F-35 is paying a lot for an edge that has a time limit
the succes of the F-16 was it’s low cost, and recently its ability to upgrade (sniper pod, AESA) which kept it in the front lines
with the F-35 you won’t be able to just plug in a new pod/radar when the technology matures, you need change the entire aircraft to fit it in
I’m not saying the F-35 can’t do it, I believe it’ll eventually be a very capable aircraft
but the strategy is simply dangerous, you don’t buy the most expensive smart phone on the market so it’ll last until 2050, you just upgrade to a new one every few years. even if you can keep the software up to date, the hardware is simply going to evolve too fast
RQ170 is going to be a few examples here and there, the new system would/should not be a F-117 replacement but something that does a lot more. I do not think the USAF would buy in secret a new drone that replaces the F-117 in numerically, but would keep on having token fleets such as that of the RQ170, for special ops and “special needs”. What many are hinting at is that the LRS-B is going to be a systems approach, with 3 aspects , i.e One bomber, One UCAS, and One weapons development program. What it is remains to be seen. We are more then a decade from finding out.
lol, you usually put a lot of faith in the USAF official statements
but you’ll have to admit we know pretty much NOTHING about the USAF black programs
there is no reason to asume they haven’t armed the RQ-170, or a variant. even a single SDB would turn it into a F-117 light
It in no way is an F-35 competitor, It replaces NO F-35 mission set to speak off, moreover the current mission set of the UCLASS is something the F-35 cannot perform…So they are complementary systems, not competitors…Unless you have some weird definition of competition that no one in the USN believes.
the F-22 was complimentary to the F-117. one was fast, deadly and completely aimed at air-combat. the other was slow, numberous, relatively cheap and designed for ground attack
until they scrapped the F-117 and now they’re equiping the F-22 to replace many, if not all of its missions
what happens if the F-35C falls through? if the sequester becomes a serious problem, testing goes bad, costs baloon… then suddenly upgrading UCLASS is going to seem like a cheap way to get a stealthy combat aircraft onto a carrier
I have over 12 years experience working with the DOD. I know exactly what goes on and what it is. Even if the UCLASS was to be magically transformed into something even remotely comparable to the F-35, it would take aleast a decade if not more (post IOC). By that time the F-35 C would be in fleet us and FA-xx would be in development. To do such a radical modification to a basic UCLASS design is rather stupid. At that point the USN would be better off issuing RFP’s for a new UCAS as its wiser then looking to scale up the current design by many times.
yes, and they were going to build 132 B-2s, 381 F-22s, the F-35 was going to cost $30 million each…
program plans and first contact with reality and all that 😉
This is what the Avenger can carry today.
Internal weapons bay with 3,500 pounds (1,600 kg) capacity. 6 external hardpoints. 6,500 pounds (2,900 kg) payload total. Total: 4’500 kg payload and around 8-10 hardpoints compared to 11 harpoints for the F35 and a max payload of 8’100kg. However the F35 only has 7 hardpoints for AG loads. So it might be possible that a single drone can carry more relevant payload than the F35 depending on the mission.
So if you go for the smaller 500 or 1000lbs JDAMs the Drone will be a better choice because of lower risc, longer endurance/range, lower operational costs (mostly due to fuel and low acquisition cost) etc. If you are close to the target zone and need more heavy bombs then the F35 is likely better suited.
my point exactly. the Avenger is estimated to cost $15 million, that’s 10 for 1 F-35. I’d rather cover 10 area’s with 3,500 pounds than 1 area with whatever the F-35 can carry internally
Just to be clear. A UCAV and a fighter/bomber are not the same. The F35 in this case would be a perfect escort and possibly a local C&C. They are different tools, just like the hammer and the crowbar. :rolleyes:
agreed, but if they can make it work. I’d rather upgrade an F-18F with the latest technology, by 2020 it’ll probably on par with the F-35, but cheaper and more advanced. also because when you’re not stealthy, you can C&C, radar and jam all you want
On a carrier, this means a lot as you can only field a limited number of aircraft on deck, and the UCLASS has to perform its primary mission 24×7….Don’t get me wrong, its a very good capability to have, and provides the NAVY the capability that it never had before (24X7 ISR at a distance) including Long range/high loiter.
which is what Predators/Reapers do. but rather than wait for jets to come in, they shoot themselves. much shorter kill loop, limits the target’s ability to run or fight
and like I said above, when your average mission lasts over a day, the numbers a carrier can launch will not be limited by room, but by the speed it can re-fuel, re-arm and check oil. and with UCAVs built with mostly off the shelf parts, that’s going to be pretty fast (contrary to an F-22 hangar queen, or non-US F-35s that’ll have to be sent to the US or specific sites in Europe for anything serious)
Regarding the Avenger: We do not know what sort of survivability it offers, under what conditions and against what which systems. Carrying a payload is all and good, the F-15E carries much more then the F-35, can the F-15E go to the same A2AD threats and do its business? Thats the point, the USAF and the general developmental community makes a clear distinction regarding Survivable vs Non-survivable Systems when it comes to A2AD threats…Non-survivable systems are great for your libiya , Afghanistan type wars, for which the fleet exists today. For Serious A2AD threats, you would probably need a bigger, more autonomous system with the cost attached…That is probably what the USAF is doing in Secret, as mentioned by BS. The avenger is a nice capability to have, but kind of redundant if you are already developing something superior, and you have cheaper less inferior systems in place that can do the low threat wars.
I believe an F-15SE would be an extremely capable aircraft
and one with 2020 technology would probably be superior to the F-35 in many ways, including radar, DAS, …
The capability to develop a true Net-centric persistent ISR platform that is connected to the impressive radars on the ships, E-2D’s, networked through data links to the other assets flying around and constantly feeding information to the AEGIS is FAR MORE important than to go for a 2000 or 3000 pound A2G Bay instead of a 1000 lb bay. Expect the SDB II to be the weapon of choice here for light strike, as it gives you many more targets per sortie…Also what is interesting is that DARPA is working on the LRASM, which in its current form (based on the JASSMER) has something like a 800-900 km range…You need strong ISR crafts to provide targeting information at such long distances…And that would come from crafts like the UCLASS that can stay up for EVER and provide constant information to the ship…
exactly, the UCLASS will find the target and the manned jets come in for the attack
but why not arm the UCLASS to make the attack itself? or arm other UCLASS with heavier weapons instead of sensors etc and use them to execute the attack
with their superior cost and endurance, it’ll certainly be a much cheaper and faster way of getting bombs on the target
I’ve argumented before that SDBs will kill pretty much anything, including tanks and bunkers, so weapons load in the air-ground role isn’t a valid argument why a UCLASS couldn’t execute the mission. certainly the Avenger with its external pylons and 6,500 pounds of payload will also be able to carry some rather big bombs, but at 10-20% of the cost of an F-35 or F-18, with superior range and comparable speed
…the avenger(not connected to the program) , both of them thought it to be a more survivable then the previous generations, but not a truly penetrating UCAS against a credible A2AD threat..
against a T-50 with L-band radar and high grade optical sensors, the F-35 won’t do much better
The reason why the services do not see them that capable against a credible Moderate-high A2AD threat, is best known to them. I would think the degree of automation, reliance on SATCOM etc may be equally to blame as the RCS.
that and the fact that many pilots will have to sit behind desktops all day instead of flying around the sky in race cars
The choke point is bandwidth via satellites.
not necesairily
this is like when the USAF decided not to automate its UAVs for landing or flight, but do it all manually. it’s been proven that automation is far more effective
the same is true about video data. for example when a UAV flies from its base to its mission area, it streams high quality video via satellite to the pilot so he can fly the aircraft, even though 99% of that feed is pretty much useles. the same is true for mission video, when you’re looking at a target, all the footage of the area around the target gets also streamed, but is mostly useless
there are ways around this. most video sites for example allow you to preview video’s so you can quickly find the part you’re looking for, for a very low data stream cost
a similar system could be used for UAV data links. for example you could stream one frame per second, rather than 20-30 FPS. that’s a 95% reduction in satellite bandwith usage right there. then if you spot something interesting, you can order the UAV to relay the full data stream for a specific time space
SanemI’m continuing this here, to avoid spamming the other threads
so everyone making expensive manned fighters/bombers are smart, while the US that is actually doing that, in addition to the most comprehensive UCAS program is dumb. F-22,F-35,B-2 all waste of money and not worth it, Predator, the best system ever made…I am glad there arent more with your views in the armed services…
in operational terms, yes
a single Reaper, costing $15 million, will today be used pretty much non stop as soon as it becomes available, constantly saving lives, providing information and killing bad guys, that’s a good investment
on the other hand the F-22 at $150 million (+ huge operational costs) has seen no action at all in 8 years time, and has spent much time grounded, not to mention the cost in pilot lives
same for the B-2, which cost a fortune and has not been all that useful tactically. and I seriously question it’s nuclear mission in an age of ICBMs
I do believe technologically advanced and thus expensive aircraft are a good investment. but at a reasonable cost, otherwise it’s a waste of money
and the US might be printing all the money it wants to pay for this, but most European countries can no longer afford it
There is no transparency as far as auditing in concerned with either of those systems…So you cannot go to wikipedia and pull up latest Chinese auditors report on the J-20, or that of Russia on the PAKFA. Nor do you actually know how long the J-20 has been in development, and guess what , its already late interms of capability to what its opponent is fielding. You wont get anything on these fighters from wikipedia, that thing is sure. Neither are these fighters cheap.
the J-20 is a different matter. China actually has money, they can afford it
I doubt the nubmers on the PAKFA are reliable. but I have the same doubts about the F-35 😉
The F-117 was retired in April 2008.
meaning since then the USAF has had no (official) replacement for this aircraft. yet the US has not been invaded by the Cubans, shocker :rolleyes:
Note that the USN’s mighty UCLASS-D RFP is asking for a 1,000 lb payload only. Not a minimum of 1,000 lb… 1,000 lb internal payload with NO provisions for external payload! This is to be carried 2,000 miles… and is to be used only against “lightly-defended targets”!
the lightest design for UCLASS, the Avenger, can carry 3,500 pounds internally
and today 1,000 pounds is really all you need, 3 SDBs can do a lot of damage against even bunkers
Lightly-defended targets… just the opposite of the F-117, which was designed AND USED against heavily-defended targets – and the F-35, which is likewise designed and intended for use against heavily-defended targets.
actually, the F-35 is designed to face off against the S-400, but not until they finish its ECM system in like 2018
by that time heavily-defended targets would mean S-500 level defences, which the F-35 is not (yet) expected to match
Note also that the USAF doesn’t have a UCAV designed for use against heavily-defended targets either (they were part of the X-47 program, but dropped out to spend their money on the F-35)… just the various Predator versions, which are intended to stay out of the reach of just about all air defenses anywhere.
more like killed the F-35 competition. officially anyway, they did go for the RQ-170, for all they know they have squadrons of UCAVs to take over the F-117 role
and Predators/Reapers were sent into Libya without getting shot down, so it seems air defences are not that big a danger to them
What some are quick to assume, is that just because the uSN wants a vehicle that is meant for persistent ISR (which they need the most) and only want light strike in lightly defended air space, that they are trying to cut corners to save money and de-risk their manned fighter efforts, while over looking the fact, that UCAV aboard a carrier is a very very new concept, and the navy may just want to tread the waters cautiously, and not enter itself into a Multi billion dollar development effort that proves to be too costly and complex to materialize.
that and not make it look too much of an F-35 competitor, even though that’s exactly what it is
you don’t believe me on this, but that is how bureaucracy works: when you want A you ask for B, and turn it into A afterwards
SanemSo all those nations developing the PAKFA’s the J20’s, the J-31’s and PAKDA’s of the world are making a big misake, when they should have just kept on upgrading the Su-35’s to Su45’s and what not..
it will have been a mistake if they develop them, go way over budget, and end up spending the first 10 years of its operational life in hangars, by which time peers will have developed comparable aircraft at a much lower price
Do provide me audited price comparisons for the PAKFA in terms of fly away cost and over all program cost based on which you have thrown around these numbers…From what i have just read, India which is co-developing the jet ( Doubt that the development is 50:50 split, more likely India is contributing far less then russia) and is expecting costs of around 175 million a pop once its share of develpoment is factored in. This is of course early on in the program, before major development has concluded (still a high risk program)….Now do the math, factor in he fly away cost of the F-35, and add per jet development cost to the mix…And out goes you outlandish claims…
I used wikipedia numbers
I find it doubtful to expect India to actually develop much of the T-50, if you look at the mess they made with the Teja
but they are buying cutting edge technology, that’ll cost extra
while UAC is mostly state owned, so much of the money Russia spends will go back to Russia
Point being, that because mistakes have been made in the past, is not grounds for an assumption that a mistake has been made NOW…by all the major players, without exception…That conclusion has to be based on some solid evidence, otherwise it is going to find little support.
in financial terms, the F-22, F-35 and B-2 certainly are total failures
in operational terms, I doubt the B-2 has made its cost back. the F-22 certainly hasn’t so far, and I’m not hopeful for the F-35
meanwhile most UAVs have proven to be worth their weight in gold, including the expensive Global Hawk, and have had a bigger operational impact than all those stealth programs combined, at a fraction of the price
the F-117 was a manned stealth jet that was cost-effective and operationally succesful. but it’s probably getting replaced by UCAVs as we speak 😉
advanced tech, certainly. but not at any cost and 10 years late (or early)
SanemEh?!,
The Italians are the only chaps this side of the Ocean who have signed for a homegrown armed MALE!
10 of them initially, that’ll probably cost about $150 million. and they’re not paying for research
while they’re buying 90 F-35 for $15 billion, and they’ve already invested $2.5 billion in research
SanemSo you are correct, but the USAF/USN , DOD and their counterparts from all major air forces around the world are wrong…
or they lied, that’s the other possibility 😉
First you claim uncertainty about 2030’s, then you come out and say the US would be bankrupt, and the current technology obsolete, of course the UCAV’s would never be obsolete…What experience does the US have with predicting longevity of defense technology, the F14’s, F-15’s, F-16’s, B-2’s, B-1’s were all obsolete a decade after their introduction…:applause:
ofcourse UCAVs and UAVs will become obsolete
the difference is they don’t cost $150 million a piece
I’m all for buying legacy aircraft and upgrading them with technology as it matures, not unlike the Su-35
the F-35 approach is like buying one really expensive smart phone for the next 10 years: it’ll be outdated in just a few years. and if you’re only getting it in a few years, then there’s really no point
UAVs and UCAVs offer a cheap and effective platform, that can be easily upgraded in time
on longlivety, I’m guessing the F-22 is the best example of what to expect from the F-35
the F-22 was introduced in 2005, and has since been unchallenged in power
but the T-50 will be introduced in 2016, at 15% of the program cost, 30% of the unit cost, with comparable performance, superior technology and radar that’ll seriously reduce the F-22’s stealth
and in those 11 years the F-22 has never been used operationally, and only recently spent months grounded, not exactly what you’d call value for your money
on the other hand the Predator was introduced in 1996, has been used continuously with great succes, 17 years later it’s still at the top of it’s class and can easily be upgraded with the latest tech to keep its cutting edge. not bad for an $8 million aircraft
One develop’s technology to fight future wars, we fight today’s war with technology that we already have….
and the wars in 2030 will probably be fought with technology developed in the 2020’s, but with aircraft developed in 1980-2030
and that’s my point: you want aircraft that will last for decades, not technology
So if everyone else disagrees with you (well mostly), then everyone else is wrong while you are right….:D
that or they’re “…the USAF/USN , DOD and their counterparts from all major air forces around the world…” 😀
Sign In
