Sanemback in 2007 there was peak oil: Bush Jr had this crazy idea (liked it myself though) to replace all oil with alcohol from grain
there are a few complications, like more difficult to transport, damages engines in a different way, polutes in a different way, side effects from using food as an energy source
all workable counter-arguments, the biggest one is cost. but this is a matter of scale and investment, petrol has a century of investments behind it, and nuclear power could have never worked if not for the billions invested by governments
Brazil is an interesting example: they have a very strong sugar industry, which complements food with energy, but also further links food prices with energy prices
my guess is oil will be too expensive in about 15 years, but with the right investments in alternatives, like algee for Navy fighters, the transition should be light enough
I do expect increased conflict over resources in the Middle East and Asia, but that’d be hardly surprising
SanemThis is a Western perception that people in poor countries only want money and will even sacrifice their children for it.
actually I believe that many people in power will sacrifice other people’s children if they can gain from it. the Pakistani president didn’t really give me the impression of caring much for his people when his country was flooded, idem for Bush Jr.
Sanemit would allow the USAF to fly over Pakistan without the Pakistanies knowing about it; I understand they have some decent radars, so you would indeed need stealth for that
for one thing a non-stealthy recon aircraft would have given away the USAF’s interest in that specific area and warned any potential targets
interesting point would be that Pakistan doesn’t want this war to be over, they’re in a superb position where the US needs their help and will pay billions for it. which ofcourse Pakistan spends on fighting the Taliban, and certainly not India… đŸ™‚
SanemMore on Predator ops:
I guess the template for a modern air war is:
day 1. SEAD
day 2. bomb-truck work
day 3. armed UAVs for close high value precision work (ie. urban areas)
here I wonder why UAVs couldn’t do any of these mission (combined with manned flights)
1. SEAD is a simple enough concept, you detect radar emissions and launch your missile in the right direction. Israel used UAVs to find Syrian radars back in 1983, and than used more UAVs as mini-cruise missiles to take them out, worked superbly. today, Reapers and Predators could carry HARM missiles, and nearby AWACS or jets can be used to immediatly confirm the target and order the attack, without satellite lag
2. bomb-truck work is also becoming a UAV job, the Reaper carries as much an F-16, but cost a fraction to buy, fly and operate, can stay on station 5 times as long and puts no pilot in harm’s way
I think manned aircraft add a number of important advantages to the mix, like speed, but they should be used to support UAVs, rather than the other way around
A Predator is defenseless vs any missile
are they? what is the target signature of a UAV?
we know that they are pretty much undetectable to the human senses when operating at altitude, unlike jets. and it’s logical that their IR signature is much lower than a fast-flying, turbo fan exhaust jet
at any rate I am curious as to what the financial and payload cost would be to install flare launchers and missile detectors on a UAV, as these would greatly improve it’s chances against even recent missile types
[QUOTE=mrmalaya;1735473]
i was thinking this was why they were saying the Predator can fly lower than fast jets. not because they can actually fly lower, but because the threat to the hotter aircraft is greater.
they did the same over Kosovo: manned aircraft were forbidden to fly at low altitudes for risk of getting shot down. UAVs had no such problems, and so were used to snoop at lower angles, allowing them to actually look under cammo netting and such, but also resulted in a number of them getting shot down
what they forgot to stress was the value of the Predators: they can stay on station for up to 15 hours, a task that would normally requires multiple jets. that kind of unwavering supervision makes it extremely hard for the Lybian military to get in a shot without being identified and destroyed
Sanemthere’s that huge blimp AWACS in the works (sounds too big, all eggs in one basket if you ask me)
personally I’m more for optical sensors, as these are getting pretty good (see F-35 tech) and are less affected by stealth. their lower power consumption and housing space are also big advantages
I would especially like an RQ-170 like stealth aircraft, flying really high, using passive sensors to overlook the battle field (especially against high flying targets) and pass on any info via satellite to avoid detection
or maybe putting radars on UAVs, like the Global Hawk or even Reaper? they’d be cheap enough to field in considerable numbers to cover area’s
Sanemlooks like they could free up some Predators after all
basing? Italy? like I said, Italian Air Force already has plenty of experience with these UAVs
I find it odd that they keep stressing that UAVs can fly low, that’s how they lost them over Serbia. their strenght lies in endurance
this is pretty big though: it proves that medium UAVs can be used against a standing army with better air defences than the average insurgent force
next steps: flares to defend against Manpads, how much would that cost in money and weight? and lighter weapons, please, those Hellfires are overkill, get some guided 70mm missiles, grenades or mortars on there ASAP
Sanemon armed UAVs, even unarmed models would be very useful over Libya, visually hunting for targets and lazing them. this way, bombers can be held on standby, using their speed to move to hot spots
on European UAVs, there are a lot of Herons and Predators out there, but these are relatively few in numbers and even fewer are armed. which is my point: the US has used weaponised UAVs for almost a decade now, Israel even longer, yet the EU is lagging behind. I believe European countries should invest more in UAVs, and less in overcapable but very costly fighter jets, an important point with F-16 replacements comming up. I mean hell, a single F-35 gives you half a dozen medium UAVs, including extra costs, and these are also useful outside of war time, for SAR, safety, border patrol, etc
on UAVs in Afghanistan, with that war dragging on for a decade now, can’t they spare some for just a few weeks? it’s not like the Taliban are going anywhere, while the Lybia conflict is being decided right now. and redeployment would be minimal, the UAVs can fly to Italy on their own power, Italy already has Predator facilities, and local UAV personal and material can be shipped with a few C-130 flights
SanemGlobal Hawks are used ofcourse, but I was suggesting armed UAVs, like the Predator/Reaper/Heron
back in 1999 unarmed Predators were used over Yugoslavia, providing vital intel. a were handful lost to the enemy because they were sent low to get a closer look, or they crashed by themselves
today, the west has a much greater number of drones, more capable, more mature and ofcourse armed
manned jets used today have better tech and weapons, but they cost on average $50 million if lost and $5000 per hour to use, and they can only stay on site for a few hours
UAVs on the other hand cost on average $10 million if lost and $500 per hour to use, they have similar sensors and a respectable amount of weapons, but best of all they can loiter for up to day, so they can wait for an enemy to reveal itself and attack it, or at least pass on the intel to manned assets nearby
my point is that UAVs have been used mostly for COIN so far, but they also have a huge value against a “real” army (once it has had its air defences stripped, but that goes double for every non-stealthy jet). and that there is a huge number of UAVs a day’s flight away from Libya, a few dozen of which would fill the capability gaps of manned, jet-powered aircraft, shortening the ground battle by weeks or even months and certainly saving a lot of money
SanemI would expect the Typhoon to win: the F-35, for all its promises, is very likely to be over time and over cost. the Hornet lacks raw power and long-term potential. and ofcourse the political and industrial factors mentioned
also Japan could get some really fast to replace their Phantoms, the EU partners would be more than happy to sell some of their own, as the UK did before
it would be cool if India chooses the Typhoon as well, then it would be China’s main adversary for years to come
Sanemthe B-2 is also three times the size of the F-22, and 8 years older
by comparison the X-47b is half the size of an F-22, and 13? years younger
so yes, I’m asuming UCAVs will have serious advantage in stealth over any older planes, or at least comparable performance at a much lower cost
radar is nice, but costly in cost, maintenance and development. and even if not detectable by Soviet era defences, it’s not something to bring against a T-50 or S-500. the F-35 optical systems is very nice, but very new and complex, who knows how long it’ll take to work out all software bugs? by comparison, other platforms will use similar add-on systems, but with a much lower risk and cost because it’ll be younger, yet these might be operational at about the same time as the F-35. this is the disatvantage of trying to be the first, you’re putting a lot of effort into a system that’ll be out of data not long afterwards
on air power you’re right ofcourse, except you forgot a huge UCAV advantage: persistence. these things will be able to fly over enemy air bases for days, just waiting for the enemy to stick his head out and bomb him instantly. any manned aircraft on the other hand will only be on station for hours, before having to return home
and then there’s the biggest advantage any UCAV has over manned fighters: cost. the F-22 cost $60 billion to develop, $150 million to build. the F-35 is going towards $400 billion to develop, $150 million to build. a UCAV on the other hand can be developed for less than $1 billion, built for less than $50 million, but it’ll match or beat the usefulness of any manned aircraft. combine them with other elements to make up for their flaws, like a lack of radar, and you get high performance at a much lower cost. and above all, that is the reason the UCAV will be superior to the F-35, cost versus performance
SanemPoorer stealth and air to air ability, than what? What metric, and source are you using to make that claim?
on stealth: correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that a flying wing is the most stealthy design possible. combined with a smaller frame and no cockpit (two other important factors), I can hardly see how an F-35 could possibly compete with the average UCAV on stealth. except maybe in terms of stealth coating, but NG with its B-2 experience must be at least an equal to LMT here
on air-to-air ability: I was suggesting that both the F-35 and F-15 are supirior in this field over UCAVs, but that this matters little after the first days of combat and with UCAVs being so stealthy
but I realised this is not a given fact: for example both manned planes have their own radar, but this is also a huge location give-away. and a UCAV might very well be capable of carrying 4 AMRAAMs just like an F-35, which, combined with passive sensors and modern AWACS support, could make a UCAV just as capable as any manned aircraft in intercepting targets at range, but at half the cost or less
SanemI like the UCAV vs F-117 comparison very much: the X-47b for example would trade cruise speed for a much greater range, and I’m guessing it’ll offer greater stealth and lower maintenance cost for a similar price ($50 million)
but in addition, the UCAVs ability to stay on location for days on end and carry multiple SDBs, combined with modern ISR ability, will make a formidable and economical attack platform
at double the price the F-15E offers greater performance and air combat abilities, but for attacking air defences or when fighting an enemy without fighters (most enemies these days), this difference seems rather meaningless
also at double (or treble?) the price, the F-35 gives poorer stealth and air-to-air ability, like the F-15 poor trade offs in my opinion
Sanemon UCAV control: I was talking about the actual flying, I would assume that for the actual attack, a human confirms the target via video
is this not how cruise missiles work? they fly to the target by themselves, and only in the end stage does a human operator confirm the target data?
the vital part for me is that the commute between base and target area no longer requires so much man power (3 at this time), especially when this part can cover as much as half of the mission time, while for the actual operation a single operator can be used, one who has enough training to tell the aircraft what to look at/bomb, without the need for him/her (you suddenly can use a lot of people who can be very good in this job but not so much at the actual flying, like women, people with a physical handicap…) to know how to actually fly the plane
interesting point on local controllers: today, the Air Force has people going in on the ground, coördinating attacks, but in the future I imagine them taking direct control of say an X-47B or an AQ-10
a) they have a better “feel” of situation on the ground, rather than purely a top-down view
b) they’ll actually be closer to the aircraft than an operator back home, meaning less lag or interference
c) such a direct link between ground and air assets also gives the people on the ground direct access to invaluable information and instant heavy fire power. it’ll probably be even too much, taking away power from commanders back home as well as the Air Force itself (no organisation likes to give over power and control to someone else, ask the Marines :D)
SanemOn UCAVs vs Cruise Missiles:
– I’m guessing it’ll be a combination between the two, like the B-2s were combined with the TLAMs.
– UCAVs will bring a number of advantages the B-2s currently don’t have over TLAMs, namely persistence (can stay up for days), forward deployment (being not so super-expensive and the main nuclear deployment system), expendability (they will be “cheap” compared to $1.01 billion for a B-2), long reach (with in-air refueling) and other missions like ISR.
– Cruise Missiles are very nice, but you need to get ships into position first, keep those safe, re-arm and re-fuel them, all the time putting a lot of sailors and money in harm’s way (against say enemy submarines).
– And unlike manned aircraft, UCAVs won’t require as much training flights. They’ll be more like Cruise Missiles in that respect, they’ll only be used if actually needed. Pilot training will be minimal, done mainly by simulators or proxy aircraft, as the computer does most of the actual flying, pilots reduced to a supervisor role, checking the stats on multiple UCAVs at the same time, only intervening if something goes wrong or to give mission updates or tactical advice
This thread is simply out of question in terms of F-15 replacement. Mind it that every stealth platform is expensive to MAINTAIN even though MAKING costs become lower with increasing engineering efficiencies.
F-15 will remain in service & by the way have you heard about F-15 stealthy variant this alone proves my above point. US is taming their old birds to take the heat because the future wars will be against small rogue states & not the technology supreme Russians….
UCAVS…thy can’t do dogfights..its just that simple:p
On stealth, shaping does a lot, and UCAVs are designed around stealth, unlike manned aircraft which are designed around the cockpit so to speak.
Russia has been out of the game for 20 years. Now it is finally catching up again, developing more capable weapons and selling them to the highest bidder (who’ll often sell them on again). Add to this other countries developing other advanced SAM systems (I’m thinking China, India, Korea…) and the last few decades might very well be seen as the “golden days” of Western air surpremacy.
My point being, it takes decades to develop a stealthy, proven aircraft, but it takes only years to upgrade a SAM system with more capable radars, never mind the generation of optical sensors we can expect for the near future (if the F-35 can detect and track targets visually, why couldn’t your basic SAM with 2020 technology?).
UCAVs are not proven dogfighters, this is true. You’d have to robotize an F-16, add VTC and send it into combat and than you’ll be able to safely state that is yes or no possible.
But I would say that the F-35, B-2 or a fully loaded F-15E aren’t exactly the Red Barron’s first choice either when it comes to close-in combat. The F-35’s air combat ability for one is designed around missiles, sensors and stealth, not TVC or naturaly agility like every dedicated air fighters out there.
So the UCAVs ability for air combat as yet is pretty much unproven (perhaps on purpose?), but not critial for its main missions, nor as hard to do as some Tom Cruise fanatics might want us to believe.
1. current wars are against small rogue states- who knows what the future brings?
I do know what the past brought: the West engaging inferior, isolated enemy states, NEVER superior or even capable competitors (UK vs Argentinia excepted, but that wasn’t as big a match-up as expected either). So I know that in the future, we might fight something like China or Russia, but we will fight more wars like Iraq, Lybia or Afghanistan.
The UCAVs being ‘cheap’ comment wasn’t aimed at you specifically at all:) – but they’ve always been peddled as such generally… my head nearly fell off when I first came across the Global Hawk’s price!…:eek:
Depends on what you compare it too: compared to a Predator, the price for a Global Hawk is absurd. Compared to an AWACS or a satellite, it’s small change.
It might be interesting to have 2 seat F15 silent eagles as mini sentinels and controllers for UCAVs carrying the munitions.
Which is perhaps my biggest beef with the F-35: if it’s lucky, it might, like the F-22 or F-111, develop into an over-priced but capable aircraft. But the lack of second pilot puts a serious dent in its usability as a mini-command center for tomorrow’s wars.
Then again, they said that the F-16 would replace the A-10, back in the day, and A-10’s still here….
And it will still be here in the future, if DARPA gets its way, as a UCAV, very possibly the first operational UCAV in the world. What an aircraft :).
Sanemwith the F-35 numbers ever doubtfull (ref. F-22, B-2…) I’d say
– UCAVs for all out war and first-day warfare
– UAVs for once the enemy air defences have been beaten down (and even if not, they can win through sheer numbers)
the only reason they’re not using UAVs right now over Lybia is because they’re needed too much in Afghanistan and Iraq
Sign In
