Sec. Gates proposes an end to the F-22 Program

[The Scotsman]

.....But there is something to be said for having a human in the cockpit with that much more situational awareness.
.

Doesn't have to be in the cockpit! Can be in a room thousands of miles away staring into video screen with the "kill" / "no-Kill" descisions still being under direct control. This is what happens in A'stan with the armed UAVs. Likewise, with a reasonable amount of R&D remote operated fighters could easily be operated either under AWACs control or.....well..... anywhere so long as you have a good high speed communications link and a geek with a helmet and a joy-stick.


[threadjack]
As for passenger aircraft, sorry to say but the pilots don't score to highly in most cases of aircraft accidents. Obviously there are some high profile incidents of pilots beating the odds but likewise there are some real horror stories and these well outweigh the happy endings!
[/threadjack]

 

[BigRob]

.....missions being run don't need these aircraft most current operations are being done with UAVs, helicopters and close air support aircraft.

True, but should we find ourselves involved in a place like North Korea or Iran that are loaded down with SAM's and air defenses, we will be glad that we still have planes like the F-22 to rely on, since unmanned really (at least in present generation) would not stand up to this, at least not well.

Aircraft could get much more sophisticated and lethal if you take the soft squiggy thing out of the front seat. Aircraft are limited in their flight charateristics simply because the human needs to be protected and supported. Computers limit the flight profiles of aircraft because the pilot simply cannot keep up it and the usual problem of high G loadings can incapacitate a pilot whilst a perfectly good aircraft "impacts with terrain"

The more sophisticated aircraft get the more limited become the people that can fly them and the more expensive the training becomes. All it takes is a head-set and a joy stick in a room thousands of miles away and any geek can be an ace fighter jock!

Agreed. Although, at the same time the legal aspects will need to be changed. Pilots are immune from problems of collateral damage under army regulations given that they are removed from the target and do not really see what it is. However, it is somewhat different for those on the ground (including those flying a predator) who will see exactly what the target it. Already there have been legal problems with predator missions (sadly) and we have had to forgo multiple good targets simply because they traveled with children, and things of that nature.

In the effort to go unmanned, which certainly has benefits, I think this will need to be addressed.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The F-35. It is just not as quality in my view as the F-22.

to be fair its not suppose to be though, the f-22 is a fighter, made for air to air as its focus, while the f-35 is multi role and better suited in other areas then the f-22...so while in a dog fight sure I want the f-22, but the best use is a mix of the 2, and given the roles they play the f-35 will be the one we need more of.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Looks to me like there is a number of other governments using F-35s. Should we not be wanting to base our military on proprietary hardware, instead of what's being shipped all over the planet?

I think I'd rather scrap the 35 and keep the 22 for ourselves.

that's not economically sound. Fact is the tech for these jets is such that we cant afford to not sell some to others. If we kept them to our-self they would be far to costly to buy and operate. That's why so many nations have f-14's f-16's f-15....its the only way it realisticlly can and will be done. The Pentagon has stated that against other fighters, ( 4rth gen) like the Russian Sukhoi...it was found to be at least 4 times more effective. The manufacture backs that claim up, but of course they would so that goes without saying.

Also you need to look at the total cost for the f-22 vs the f-35 and also that we buying 2,443 f-35's. cost of US$40 billion in development cost, plus 200 billion per plane.

take those costs, and now factor in that we dont sell any, we did it all our self...we lost 4.37 Billion in Development cost covered by others...and have 3100 est planes less then its we have currently....Now do the math and see what that total cost per plane ends up being....But if you fear we will have to go to war with the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark that bad to pay those costs.......Also note that there are different levals of players here, not all get the same access and same planes as we get...that is scaled as well. We will still have the best of the planes...

 

[BigRob]

to be fair its not suppose to be though, the f-22 is a fighter, made for air to air as its focus, while the f-35 is multi role and better suited in other areas then the f-22...so while in a dog fight sure I want the f-22, but the best use is a mix of the 2, and given the roles they play the f-35 will be the one we need more of.

That is true, but the F-22 can basically do every mission the F-35 is designed for, and can dominate in the air-to-air role. There are some differences, such as the vertical take off for the F-35 in the Marine version, but the F-35 is slower and is not as agile.

The price is probably what really sealed the deal. The F-22 runs something like $130 million per plane while the F-35 is like $40 or so. In a combat role, it will be the F-35 following in the F-22, especially to hit targets such as air defense and radar installations etc. The F-35 is a fine fighter, the F-22 just performs all of its roles (basically) better.


Late edit: I see you addressed price above, which probably was a major issue in the decision.

 

[The Scotsman]

In the effort to go unmanned, which certainly has benefits, I think this will need to be addressed.

..........good point!
And a point that has to be addressed generally in the military as some of the descisions taken in light of actions on soldiers in combat zones have been absolutely ridiculous........ but I think that is a whole different conversation.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

..........good point!
And a point that has to be addressed generally in the military as some of the descisions taken in light of actions on soldiers in combat zones have been absolutely ridiculous........ but I think that is a whole different conversation.

I think you could find some decisions based on guys looking at computer screens even worse,....

 

[Andy]

While I would agree that UAVs certainly are the future, I am still not sure how I feel about most of the planes not having a human in direct control. While I know that human pilots are the weak link when it comes to g-forces and such. But there is something to be said for having a human in the cockpit with that much more situational awareness.

I certainly wouldnt want to be a passenger on an airliner without a human pilot in the cockpit.

Wait wait... this is where my lack of military understanding comes in. My idea of a UAV would be something remotely controlled somewhere on the ground.

Is the idea a UAV, where you hit a button, and the plane takes off, fly itself to a location, and supposedly bombs whatever, or shoots down enemy aircraft, and we don't know if it does this successfully until it's covered on CNN or something? I'm not sure if I like that theory.

I think I want some direct observation, even if at a remote base somewhere, to make sure it's attacking the correct target, or bombing the correct location. I don't want us hitting a button, and finding out later it bombed a hospital, and shot down a private lear jet.

 

[Andy]

I think you could find some decisions based on guys looking at computer screens even worse,....

Ah... maybe. I mean, I do get the issue, but... given that UAV are almost inevideable, I think I would want someone double checking by video feed, the targets being attacked. The guy looking at the screen would be a human controlled abort. At least I hope so. They'd simply double check the target the computer is going after, is in fact the one we want. If somethings screwy, he'd hit abort, and the UAV would return home. Hopefully they would then investigate our intel on the target, and make corrections.

Of course that's in my ideal world which doesn't exist.

 

[Andy]

It is also worthy to point out that the F-15 has never been shot down in air to air combat. While someone will point out that the F-15s didnt fair to well in a recent COPE INDIA exercise against the Indian SU-30s, the F-15s have since upgraded with helmet mounted aiming system that the Indians also have. But the American models are a serious improvement over what the rest of the world had, as well as the weapons are superior.

Then of course the F-18 is a very capable airframe, and the F-14 while it is mothballed is still the biggest, baddest, fastest model out there. The F-14 has also never been shot down in aerial combat.

Is this because they have not seen much real combat? Or because we have better trained pilots going up against lame pilots? Or could it be because we simply out number our enemies?

I question this, not because I doubt the truth of the statement, but I wonder how much of it is due to other attributes than the aircraft. Sometimes you can defeat someone by out thinking them. Or surprising them with a good tactic. But if the playing field is leveled out, you end up getting destroyed.

In WW2 we had 20 tanks to each Panzor. We won, but it wasn't for quality of tank.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Is this because they have not seen much real combat? Or because we have better trained pilots going up against lame pilots? Or could it be because we simply out number our enemies?

I question this, not because I doubt the truth of the statement, but I wonder how much of it is due to other attributes than the aircraft. Sometimes you can defeat someone by out thinking them. Or surprising them with a good tactic. But if the playing field is leveled out, you end up getting destroyed.

In WW2 we had 20 tanks to each Panzor. We won, but it wasn't for quality of tank.

in computer sims, our planes are on average at least 4 times better then what they have...is what I have read from the pentagon.
so no worries, India is not going to invade us.

 

[The Scotsman]

Is the idea a UAV, where you hit a button, and the plane takes off, fly itself to a location, and supposedly bombs whatever, or shoots down enemy aircraft, and we don't know if it does this successfully until it's covered on CNN or something? I'm not sure if I like that theory.

All actions are taken by a ground operators based on information sent back from the UAV. The controller can be back in the US with the UAV over a mountain pass in Afghanistan. All attacking desicions are made by the operator just as in a normal aircraft.

Pure reconnaissance missions can be pre-programmed so all that happens is you press a button and off it flies and 24 hours later comes home for a beer and sandwich change of clothes and off it goes again.

 

[The Scotsman]

I think you could find some decisions based on guys looking at computer screens even worse,....

..... no worse than anything so far achieved I reckon........anyway.......when man and machine come together $hit always happens!

 

[BigRob]

in computer sims, our planes are on average at least 4 times better then what they have...is what I have read from the pentagon.
so no worries, India is not going to invade us.

True in our simulations the F-22 outperforms the fighters of other nations. In my mind, the threat for the F-22 will come from China. The Chinese have their own 4th generation fighter, the J-XX, that will be a problem down the road. While not much is known about this fighter, what is on public record is that it is similar to the F-22, and could (in theory) be in service by 2015.

The problem will come should there be a crisis of Taiwan for example, and should we send F-22's in an attempt to protect the island (which is doubtful we even could) China would not go out and try to dogfight us, in my view they would simply target the bases that the F-22's came from, thus rendering them useless, unless we can defend our bases, which is highly doubtful against a full on Chinese attack.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

True in our simulations the F-22 outperforms the fighters of other nations. In my mind, the threat for the F-22 will come from China. The Chinese have their own 4th generation fighter, the J-XX, that will be a problem down the road. While not much is known about this fighter, what is on public record is that it is similar to the F-22, and could (in theory) be in service by 2015.

The problem will come should there be a crisis of Taiwan for example, and should we send F-22's in an attempt to protect the island (which is doubtful we even could) China would not go out and try to dogfight us, in my view they would simply target the bases that the F-22's came from, thus rendering them useless, unless we can defend our bases, which is highly doubtful against a full on Chinese attack.

actuly I was talking about the f-35 , but point is same.