Werner wrote:Jack, I think the speed of processors, amount of memory, and sensors make a huge difference.
Ever play "Rainbow Six: Las Vegas" on your PC? These guys could make an autonomous UCAV.
I have Werner. Can you imagine a patrol of these things being able to differentiate between an old woman with an umbrella, or metal shopping trolley and an insurgent? You are right--sensors, processors and IT have come a long way in a very short time, but people need to control these things.
Now, to totally digress(!). Imagine installing a stealthy, wireless CCTV/IR network around Baghdad to get as much coverage as London has. These would be small, nearly invisible, high definition units with audio. Combine this with airborne and perhaps satellite recon assets to ease law enforcement and bad guy identification. Now that would be a very good use of tax payer dollars. We need to get smart and use COTS/GOTS capabilities to their best advantage.
A good point. I also think retail gaming is the trailing edge of the technology in this area.
In 1989 The USN displayed a UAV which could be loaded with target priorities and would loiter over the battlefield waiting to recognize the target of most value. I think it was called Tacit Rainbow or something Rainbow. I would think that between 1989 and 2001 some progress must have been made on this weapon. (I say 2001, because I believe the current management of the Pentagon has diverted all elective funding to GWOT).
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
You have a lot more experience in this area than I do, but it seems to me that there are more factors to consider in a combat aircraft than pilot safety. Like combat efectiveness. I don't think the UAV's have evolved enough in either payload capacity or sensor ability to compare at this time to piloted aircraft.
bb-56,
The A-4 was an improvement in some ways over the Spad, a step backward in others. Speed, agility, and size, A-4 for sure. Carrying capacity, durability, perhaps pilot survivability, loitering ability, the Spad.
Even in an air-to-air combat role, the Spad should not be discounted completely. I seem to recall some sucess against MIGs with their tight turning radius. The Spad was hardly defenseless.
It seems to me at least that it is overkill to use something like an F-35 to attack 3rd World targets. That was the idea behind my proposed turboprop dump truck.
Instead of developing a new a/c, why can't we take all the T-45A Goshawk trainers, which are basically BAE Hawks IIRC, give 'em extra hardpoints and there ya go!
Lesforan wrote:
The A-4 was an improvement in some ways over the Spad, a step backward in others. Speed, agility, and size, A-4 for sure. Carrying capacity, durability, perhaps pilot survivability, loitering ability, the Spad.
I would discourage you from bringing up the shortcomings of the Scooter at any O-club. A-4 jocks still think the world of their plane. Some are still in use at Top Gun/Red Flag where they routinely embarrass F/A-18s and F-15s.
The SpAD and the Scooter were probably the two best designs between 1939 and 1970.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
I have to agree that these two planes represent as good designs as existed in the time period you stated. Were they both the product of the same designer? I'm pretty sure they are.
I don't mean to shortchange the A-4. My point is that it is impossible for any one plane to be "best" in all features, as some of these are mutually exclusive. I'll stand on my earlier assessment. The issue of fuel alone would disqualify the Spad in today's world.
The AD-1 would have to have its advocates in the O-clubs, too.
Sean,
Yes, that's the idea. While there is plenty of precedent for combat aircraft to end their careers in a trainer role (P-80/T-33 to mention one), it works the other way around, too. The AT-6 has already been mentioned in this thread. More recently, consider the T-37/A-37. This was about the most basic twin-engine jet you can find. I don't even think it was pressurized.
I had the experience of "flying" a simulator of this thing once at the Air Force Academy. The simulator was made from the actual cut-off front fuselague section of an actual airframe!
Add a gun, and hardpoints for drop tanks and bombs, and you have a bargain-basement attack aircraft. The A-37 was even smaller than the A-4. I'll bet it would take some beefing up to withstand a carrier landing.
Lesforan wrote:Were they both the product of the same designer? I'm pretty sure they are.
Ed Heinemann.
We should not forget the Stovepipe. The F-4 certainly was a worthy aircraft as well.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Lesforan wrote:
Yes, that's the idea. While there is plenty of precedent for combat aircraft to end their careers in a trainer role (P-80/T-33 to mention one), it works the other way around, too. The AT-6 has already been mentioned in this thread. More recently, consider the T-37/A-37. This was about the most basic twin-engine jet you can find. I don't even think it was pressurized.
I had the experience of "flying" a simulator of this thing once at the Air Force Academy. The simulator was made from the actual cut-off front fuselague section of an actual airframe!
Add a gun, and hardpoints for drop tanks and bombs, and you have a bargain-basement attack aircraft. The A-37 was even smaller than the A-4. I'll bet it would take some beefing up to withstand a carrier landing.
I would rather (once the F-35 fails) to "navalize" the F-16 as an alternative. It meets all the F-35C criteria. Would put the USMC in a bit of a bind, though.
If you're going to abandon the two engine requirement for USN carrier craft, why not use a fully evolved aircraft which meets or exceeds the flight characteristics of the F-35?
The only alternative will be to transfer the purchase dollars into the Boeing F/A-18... oops, they did that this week. A bunch of F-35 procurement was shifted to buy more Superbugs.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
You have a lot more experience in this area than I do, but it seems to me that there are more factors to consider in a combat aircraft than pilot safety. Like combat efectiveness. I don't think the UAV's have evolved enough in either payload capacity or sensor ability to compare at this time to piloted aircraft.
Les,
The point I was trying to make is if we have the ability to produce a "wonder weapon" be it a robot plane, ship, or vehicle etc. that can perform the same functions much better than a "manned weapon" then we should spare no expense developing these systems. Of course I know the Human factor will always be needed on a battlefield. But the increased development of robotic weapons where any Country with enough $$ can buy a military force that would put it on parr (at least on paper) with the other "major players" in the world. If so then we should be at the tip of the spear in this area of technoligy or gamble with our futures.
The F18 is 100 times the strike fighter the AD was.. Why would we put a oil leaking short legged relic that anyone with a rifle can bring down into a hi tech battlefield? I too love the old planes and the AD and A4 are among my favorites. But the F 18 and AV 8 series of strike fighters have performed incredible accuracy and effect results in all manner of support missions and they still are daily. Not to mention that very few if any adversary aircraft can dance with it in a dog fight.. Bomb your target with 95% accuracy and hose a few fighters all on the same mission...
As good as the AD and other old time aircraft were and in some places still are, the Modern weapons systems and munition configurations the F18 & A8 etc. have at their fingertips is like comparing apples to oranges. One F18 could do the job of a squadron of ADs...and then most importantly bring the pilot home..
"When you shoot at a Destroyer and miss. It's like hit'in a wildcat in the A-- with a banjo" !
Lt. Joe Willingham Skipper USS Tautog SS-199
Werner wrote:
I would rather (once the F-35 fails) to "navalize" the F-16 as an alternative. It meets all the F-35C criteria.
F-16 is getting pass 30 years old as we speak. Mig-29 and Su-27 were specifically designed by observing the F-16, and avoiding all of the things F-16 did wrong, and do everything that F-16 does well even better. Subsequently a new generation of light combat aircraft has emerged everywhere else except in the US to equal or surpass Mig-29 and Su-27. Everybody who is anybody can deployed large forces of fighters superior to F-16 right now. Navalizing F-16 (not a easy task given the fuselage mounted main landing gear not easily strengthened with major fuselage modification) will take at least 5-8 year. By which time our main adversaries will be deploying thinks in the class of F-22.
Very true, but the USN can't afford to wait another twenty years for a strike aircraft. A navalized F-16 could be had in short order and would greatly increase current carrier power, which has lacked light/medium strike aircraft since the A-7 and A-6 were retired.
Another thought. The advantages of the Russian aircraft are offset by the unwillingness of their owners to maintain the kind of training and operational tempo the USN uses to keep a fine edge on it's pilots.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Werner wrote:
Another thought. The advantages of the Russian aircraft are offset by the unwillingness of their owners to maintain the kind of training and operational tempo the USN uses to keep a fine edge on it's pilots.
I would not count on that as a sustainable edge. Doctrine based on smugness about the expected superiority of one's human resource is disproportionately likely to prove diseasterous when shots starts to fly.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
Also, what is the source of the assumption that a navalized F-16 will be better than the F-18? Which, incidentally, was nothing more than the navalized version of F-17. F-17 was inturn born out of the very same competition that spawned F-16.
Chuck
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
Well, you could buy more Superbugs, but I have a strong hunch the navalized Lawn Dart would occupy a lot less flight deck, increasing the strength of the fleet.
One of the main problems with the F/A-18 E/F is that even folded it occupies more flight deck space than a Hoover, Screwtop or even the Whale (A-3).
The F-16XL ready for take off is only 2 feet wider than a folded Hornet. It would fit in the hangar of the old Essex for height.
The trick will be to strengthen the undercarriage and the lower fuselage structure for catapult take off and arrested landing without adding immense quantities of weight. Perhaps the new composites could do this job effectively.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
There is no way in hell you can navalize an F-16. I say that as a dyed-in-the-wool F-16 nut.
The future is UCAVs. We will not get away from them. The F-18 is the last aircraft the Blue Angels will fly unless they get one last gasp with the T-45.
The UCAV is going to be subject to serious "hacker" issues in the combat theatre. A clever enemy is going to find a way to either deny control of the UCAV to it's owner or take over some/all functions.
Anyone see The Science Fiction Channel miniseries "Battlestar Galactica"?
To succeed, pilotless combat vehicles are also going to have to be smart enough to attack on their own.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
I would think in a combat support role, and a anti-shipping role as well, a navalized version of the A-10 would be ideal. If the Navy needs something special, use the 2 seat version. Republic could use the work, and the airframe is proven.
Ric
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
