Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: The Pentagon's Worst Nightmare???

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    The Pentagon's Worst Nightmare???

    Article.

    I'm somewhat appalled by two paragraphs:

    During a decade of warfare, the Pentagon mostly had its way with budgets, as Congress was reluctant to turn down many spending requests for troops in the field. There was billions here for IED-detection and billions there for weapons like the F-35 joint strike fighter, the Virginia class of submarines, or the Predator drone.
    The F-22 was much more expensive than the F-35, yet the numbers to the F-22 were cut drastically, something like 80%, which drove the per-plane cost through the roof. Why? Was it really to save money? No! The incremental expense, the cost to produce one more plane, is NOT the fully ammortized cost, but rather only the additional cost:

    Hypothetical example:

    R&D cost: $10 Billion
    Scheduled Production: 100 planes
    Amortized R&D cost per plane: $100 Million
    Finished cost per plane: $110 Million

    How much does our 101st plane cost?

    $100 Million? No, as that's only the R&D cost, which is considered a "sunk cost." It's spent. That doesn't mean it's not accounted for. It is most certainly accounted for! It's also a fixed cost and is associated with the entire program, much as rent is for a department store in the mall. Whether they have 10 employees or 30, whether they stay open 9am-9pm or just 2 hours a day, whether their gross profits are $5 Thousand a month or $50 Thousand a month, their rent is still a fixed amount.

    $110 Million? Certainly not, as $100 Million of that is a sunk cost, having already been spent.

    The cost of the $101st plane is just $10 Million. If you made 5 more, it'd be $50 Million. If you made 100 more it'd be $1 Billion

    Still, both the politicians and the media say "These aircraft cost $110 Million apiece, so cutting production from 200 planes to 100 planes just saved us $11 Billion!"

    WRONG.

    It only "saved" 100 x $10 Million, or $100 Million, not $11 Billion, which is $110 times more. Furthermore, you now have 100 less planes, a gap which will have to be fulfilled by something, whether that's more of the same planes, more F-35s, or a mix of F-35s, Predators, Reapers, and other UAVs. Thus, the net savings isn't $100 Million, but probably closer to $0, given that new programs have their own huge R&D costs which will invariably overshadow the much smaller production costs.

    In order to obtain a clear picture of military spending, one must look at the R&D costs, production costs, life-cycle, and utility for both the original program as well as all replacement programs required to match the same life-cycle, utility, or both. The problem is, different programs almost always vary with respect to both life-cycle and utility. There are some simple ways of equating them, but the media never manages to bridge that simple gap, a fact politicians use to their advantage when they spin the "cost savings" of program cuts.

    The fact is had the USAF gone ahead with it's initial procurement numbers of both B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters, there'd have been no money left over for the F-35 JSF, but there'd be no need for it, either. On the other hand, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's commonality between the service variants results in some serious cost savings with respect to maintenance logistics, storage, and training.

    Still, do we even need a JSF or ASF (air-superiority fighter) for the kinds of wars we've fought in the 1990s? In the 2000s? Perhaps the B-2s and F-22s, both designed from cold war requirements, were cut in numbers to pave the way for the JSF and UAVs.

    My point is I really hate it when the media gets hold of the numbers, as they do NOT understand basic finance and always manage to present it in a meaningless fashion, but one spoon-fed to them by the politicians who're doing little more than trying to make themselves look good for re-election.

    Sometimes defense officials even got money for projects they didn’t request, such as armored vehicles known as MRAPs (mine-resistant and ambush-protected) that top military officials said were not a good investment. The end result was the Pentagon’s base budget swelled from $307 billion in 2001 to $529 billion this year, a 72 percent increase over 10 years.
    The other side of the SNAFU is due to the same reason: Politicians trying to make themselves look good for re-election, primarily by forcing unwanted, unnecessary, and wasteful programs down the military's throat simply because it's built in some Congressman's backyard.

    Instead of allowing Senators to be directly elected as they are now, or appointed by a state's legislators as they specified in the Constitution, I think each state's legislators should appoint 10 candidates to a lottery pool from whom a total of 100 will be randomly picked to serve a six-year term, providing oversight of the House. A third would be replaced each year. Short, sweet, and to the point. No elections, no campaigns. If a state appoints 0 candidates, then they get what they deserve: 0 representation.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Savings numbers aside, I think the bigger issue at hand is do we really need this airplane?

    I'll be the first to tell you it's cool as hell. I always thought the Harrier was one of the coolest planes, but that thing is getting along in age-and this would be its direct replacement. It's all got very cool technology that should be implemented asap.

    However, why do we need a plane that hovers? Besides take off from roads, small boats and FOBs, I fail to see a tremendous need we have for this plane. I have a hard time convincing myself that we needed the F-22, but that's a whole other issue and it's already in service anyway. But the F-35 doesn't deploy troops, and it doesn't hover for flight-just for take-off and landing. And for what? To save fuel in logistics? At the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

    The USAF plans to use it as a replacement for the F-16. The USN, the F/A-18, and the Marines the AV-8B. The AF already has the F-22, which is not only an air superiority fighter (something we don't really need), but will end up serving as a multirole fighter. That makes it a good replacement for the F-15 and the F-16. The Super Hornet only came out 15 years ago. Make more of those. The Marines, I'll admit, do need a replacement for the aging Harrier. It's a workhorse of their branch, and only the F-35 can replace it.

    But you know who really needs the F-35? The British. The Royal Navy doesn't operate aircraft carriers as large as we do, nor do any of the other countries that are helping us develop this aircraft. So their need for a plane able to take off on their significantly smaller carriers is much greater than ours. So why are we footing such a large bill for it?

    I'll tell you the problem. Everyone knows that they can't possibly keep up with our defense spending, and realize that we can take care of their military needs, so they cut back. We have to increase our defense spending to make up for the difference between we keep our presense in everyone's back yard. We help out more, they spend less. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...

    We can't govern the world unless we tax the world.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    My point is that the Pentagon's "worst nightmare" involves healthy budget cuts following both their inability to trim their own budgets to that which is really needed coupled with their inability to turn down funds thrown at them which they most certainly did not need.

    Their "worst nightmare" is a blessing for the American taxpayers.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    The Raptor and the Lightning II have completely different missions. In a test against USAF and RAAF F-15s and F-16s, the Raptor won 29-0 in AA encounters. The JSF is a multi-mission, multi-service and multi-national 'fighter bomber.' It has significant GAT capability, as well as AA. The F-22 is a 'pure' air superiority fighter, one that can engage in 1 against many scenarios and win. It is virtually impossible to be detected by any current airborne radar--including ours. China and Russia are our enemies, let's never overlook that. We need both planes--and yes, as a former Phantom Phlier, I am somewhat prejudiced. We do not have the numbers our enemies have. We must maintain superiority in qualitative areas. Both planes give us that.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  5. #5
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    I see Obama killed 31 of our bravest and finsest today.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    F-22, which is not only an air superiority fighter (something we don't really need)
    Why would we not NEED air superiority? We've maintained air superiority since WWII and now the Chinese have a low observable fighter (note I didn't say STEALTH lol), I think we need the F-22 more than ever. (now if we could just get them to fly!!!!)
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Consider for a moment what we've spent on our massive military, and that contribution to our massive, massive, massive national debt. Then watch this very short video:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=629_1312594600

    Note: I'm not responsible if you are unable to sleep after watching the video.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-07-2011 at 05:46 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I like the A22, I do not like the military's accounting methods.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Consider for a moment what we've spent on our massive military, and that contribution to our massive, massive, massive national debt. Then watch this very short video:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=629_1312594600
    Precisely. There's a reason the Bible says "owe no man." The one whom you owe is the one who owns you.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    We need both planes--and yes, as a former Phantom Phlier, I am somewhat prejudiced.
    As a Phantom driver, you probably know first hand why "we don't need this" is often a very short sighted. In this case, they said Phantoms do not need guns, they have missiles! Reality was different, missiles were not reliable then. They needed guns, but because someone thought guns obsolete, they did not have them.

    The Titanic did not need lifeboats, it was unsinkable. Till it sank.

    The F-22 is not needed right now, we aren't at war with anyone where it would really come in handy. We may never need it. But then. We do not require a handgun right this second and we may never require one. So why do we carry them?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    As a Phantom driver, you probably know first hand why "we don't need this" is often a very short sighted. In this case, they said Phantoms do not need guns, they have missiles! Reality was different, missiles were not reliable then. They needed guns, but because someone thought guns obsolete, they did not have them.

    The Titanic did not need lifeboats, it was unsinkable. Till it sank.

    The F-22 is not needed right now, we aren't at war with anyone where it would really come in handy. We may never need it. But then. We do not require a handgun right this second and we may never require one. So why do we carry them?
    The Navy used the F-4s first and foolishly thought no gun was needed. The Aim-7 Sparrows were radar guided and it was easy to break radar lock which made them go ballistic (straight line of flight, target no longer acquired). When the WSO could keep the radar lock, they worked well at some decent ranges, but it wasn't easy on a target that was jinking like crazy to break the lock. The Aim-9 Sidewinders, on the other hand, were excellent and where we got most of our kills. The AF put the internal Vulcan M-61A1 in the nose of the E model--huge improvement. Many E fliers used the gun to hose Migs later in the war. Just get a lead angle and let them fly into 6000 rounds a minute of 20mm HE rounds did do the job.

    You are correct on the Raptor. We don't really need it now, but we may well in the future. And it is a plane that will be around a long time. When it comes to our country's security, 2nd best isn't good enough. Your analogy of 'why carry a gun' is right on the mark.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    You are correct on the Raptor. We don't really need it now, but we may well in the future. And it is a plane that will be around a long time. When it comes to our country's security, 2nd best isn't good enough. Your analogy of 'why carry a gun' is right on the mark.
    I respectfully disagree, Gunslinger, for much the same "why carry a gun" reason. Should we carry a gun? I say, "Certainly! If you've the stomach for it." Most people don't, but as a country, the U.S. certainly does.

    Whether or not to carry a gun, however, is not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is whether (by analogy) the Pentagon gets to carry a $3,500 engraved 1911, or whether they'll have to settle for a $750 model. The input involves what they really need.

    Certainly we need an air superiority fighter. Certainly we need air-to-ground attack aircraft. Certainly we need UAVs, airlifters, tankers, and bombers. I've never intimated we didn't.

    What I'm saying is that as a nation, we can't afford the $3,500 model when the $750 model will do. What I'm saying is that since R&D is such a huge portion of the expense of a new fighter, let's stop funding the program with expectations of buying 500 only to cut the numbers by a factor of 5. Go ahead and build 500, then ensure the Guard and Reserves get their fair share as well.

    Since keeping up with the Joneses (potential enemy combatants) is indeed a priority, develop them in such a way that major improvements can be made with minimal changes. Look at the C-130J. It has 50% greater range than the E and H models yet behind the curved props and glass cockpit, it's much the same aircraft that's been rolling off the assembly lines since the early '60s. Sure it has improvements! But those improvements didn't require a completely new aircraft when upgrading several key elements worked just as well.

    You made a good point about the AIM-9s, now in the AIM-9X version. Same basic missile as the AIM-9E which sits in the National Air and Space Museum, but it's far more capable, some aero engineering mods, but mostly just the imaging systems and the brains.

    I've seen what the UCAV can do, and it's not just impressive. It's darn well unbelievable. I would lean towards integrating UCAVs as an augmentation involving F-22s. The Raptors can still fight and win if they have to, but if one Raptor can direct half a dozen UCAVs in a dogfight, would a Raptor need to enter the fray itself? Unlikely. And the UCAVs are cheaper than the Raptors. They're certainly more disposable than a human pilot, which is the very reason why we began using AA missiles in the first place - they're more effective than going after the enemy with guns.

    Back to the spending issues, none of the military services have any great incentive to cut costs, and most have an incentive (use it or lose it) to spend every bit they do receive. That's not working smarter.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    UCAVs are little more than target drones if an enemy fighter is in the area. We need air supremacy for them to operate effectively--when they can, you are absolutely correct they are damned effective. The Herc is a good example, so are the Buff and the 135 on manned a/c, as you well know. Improvements on many planes can be made to effectively prolong their service lives. And there is no question cost overruns are ridicules. But, we need continued air superiority and the F-22 has no equal. The F-35 is no match for it and looks like it's a do it all compromise, albeit a good one. We used the Aim-9J and it was excellent. Still is in some Air Forces. It was a lot cheaper than the current Sidewinder, too. But, time marches on and I still believe we need the best hardware out there for any contingency. I fully agree that we should build more fighters to amortize the R&D cost and outfit the reserve units as they are now indispensable. In this climate, however, cuts are inevitable and the high priced/high performance hardware will always be a target of opportunity, unfortunately.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    I don't think you guys are fully aware of the F-22's capabilities, compared to the planes we have now. You can't just UPGRADE what we have now to do what the F-22 does.

    Unfortunately all of the "cool stuff" the F-22 has over all our other battle proven jets is classified.

    The 1911 analogy was terrible, sorry! XD
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  15. #15
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    I knew someone was going to counter my argument about carry with an analogy about overpriced guns. The difference between the F-15 and F-22 is not the same as the difference between a $3500 1911 and a $750 1911. It's more along the lines of the difference between a black powder pistol and a 1911.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I don't think you guys are fully aware of the F-22's capabilities, compared to the planes we have now.
    I most certainly do.

    <--- Look left. That's what I flew. I was also an instructor at a joint operations school at Nellis AFB and am very well-versed in all U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and foreign air forces aircraft and weapons systems. I am very well aware of the F-22's capabilities.

    Question, though: Where in the world are you and others getting the idea that I'm knocking the F-22? I think you need to re-read the OP, as you're getting it backwards: We should have purchased the full number in the original program and when the budget was curtailed, simply re-engineered a few of the later ones in lieu of the totally new -35 program. True, the -35 can drop a sizeable load of bombs while the -22's bombing capability is limited, but that's no reason for a complete new program when we have other aircraft, however, that are very capable bombers (B-52, B-1, B-2), hence the term "bomber."

    In its defense, the F-35 shares some serious commonalities with the F-22, reducing the maintenance logistics footprint for both aircraft considerably. And, alas, the F-22 can't take off vertically. However, while that's a neat feat, it's one that has yet to be effectively employed in a prolonged engagement.

    You can't just UPGRADE what we have now to do what the F-22 does.
    No kidding. Wasn't talking about upgrading, though.

    Unfortunately all of the "cool stuff" the F-22 has over all our other battle proven jets is classified.
    Hardly. Only the specific details are classified. The capabilities themselves aren't classified at all.

    The 1911 analogy was terrible, sorry! XD
    I apologize, not for it being terrible, but for the error. I meant to compare a decked-out (ported) 1911 with a plain jane, but still quite effective 9mm.
    Last edited by since9; 08-16-2011 at 07:04 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    it is hard to respond to your post if you keep changing it.

    I've gone ahead and removed what I posted here. As long as you believe what you are reading on wiki and other internet resources, then the secrets of the F-22 are still safe.

    Since9, I am an instructor myself. Specifically on the F-22
    Last edited by Schlitz; 08-16-2011 at 07:16 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    UCAVs are little more than target drones if an enemy fighter is in the area.
    I respectfully disagree, and from experience. In a guns-only dogfight, F-22s are no match for the UCAV, which can pull more than twice the G's a pilot can pull. In a standoff, the UCAV was still more capable, as the entire weapons parameters are loaded in their brains, and they can calculate the perfect firing solution as it changes in real-time, maneuvering into that ever-changing perfect firing solution in nothing flat.

    We need air supremacy for them to operate effectively--when they can, you are absolutely correct they are damned effective.
    The UCAV isn't designed to operate under air supremacy. It was designed to establish air surpremacy. I think you're referring to standard UAV's like the Predator and Reaper. The "C" in UCAV is for combat, and they're exceptionally good at it.

    But, we need continued air superiority and the F-22 has no equal.
    It has no equal in a manned fighter.

    But, time marches on and I still believe we need the best hardware out there for any contingency. I fully agree that we should build more fighters to amortize the R&D cost and outfit the reserve units as they are now indispensable. In this climate, however, cuts are inevitable and the high priced/high performance hardware will always be a target of opportunity, unfortunately.
    I agree. It's unfortunate the American people see it as "whoo-hoo! Way to cut those costs!" instead of considering the long-term picture where these sorts of "political cuts" wind up costing the taxpayer a lot more than had they not been made in the first place.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    That's what I flew. I was also an instructor at a joint operations school at Nellis AFB and am very well-versed in all U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and foreign air forces aircraft and weapons systems. I am very well aware of the F-22's capabilities.
    Rereading what you posted it would appear you were an instructor pilot. That's not what I do. I teach aircraft maintenance. (didn't want to mislead you to think I'm an IP)
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I respectfully disagree, and from experience. In a guns-only dogfight, F-22s are no match for the UCAV, which can pull more than twice the G's a pilot can pull. In a standoff, the UCAV was still more capable, as the entire weapons parameters are loaded in their brains, and they can calculate the perfect firing solution as it changes in real-time, maneuvering into that ever-changing perfect firing solution in nothing flat.



    The UCAV isn't designed to operate under air supremacy. It was designed to establish air surpremacy. I think you're referring to standard UAV's like the Predator and Reaper. The "C" in UCAV is for combat, and they're exceptionally good at it.



    It has no equal in a manned fighter.



    I agree. It's unfortunate the American people see it as "whoo-hoo! Way to cut those costs!" instead of considering the long-term picture where these sorts of "political cuts" wind up costing the taxpayer a lot more than had they not been made in the first place.
    Replied to your PM, which is just between you and I. I am 'very' familiar with the difference between UAVs and UCAVs. And, having flown air to air missions in a Phantom, I will simply say again no UCAV will survive an engagement with an AA configured modern fighter. The SA delta between a fighter pilot on station and the 20 year old "flying" the joystick for the UCAV sitting on his butt in an air conditioned "Command Center" is night and day. I'll leave it at that.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Replied to your PM, which is just between you and I. I am 'very' familiar with the difference between UAVs and UCAVs. And, having flown air to air missions in a Phantom, I will simply say again no UCAV will survive an engagement with an AA configured modern fighter. The SA delta between a fighter pilot on station and the 20 year old "flying" the joystick for the UCAV sitting on his butt in an air conditioned "Command Center" is night and day. I'll leave it at that.

    I have a question:

    Do you think that the mission the 'pilot' who is sitting behind a stick in an air-conditioned building is lessened (the mission) because the 'pilot' has fewer, what I believe would be, survival investments in the operation being successful, basically, do you think that it compromises a mission when the individual carrying the mission out does not have their life on the line? Is the lack of the element of survival a liability to a mission? Also, not being there in the thick of the fight, does it render the 'pilot' limited in their scope of the fight as it is playing out?

    Hope I am clear in what I am asking.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 08-17-2011 at 01:41 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I have a question:

    Do you think that the mission the 'pilot' who is sitting behind a stick in an air-conditioned building is lessened (the mission) because the 'pilot' has fewer, what I believe would be, survival investments in the operation being successful, basically, do you think that it compromises a mission when the individual carrying the mission out does not have their life on the line? Is the lack of the element of survival a liability to a mission? Also, not being there in the thick of the fight, does it render the 'pilot' limited in their scope of the fight as it is playing out?

    Hope I am clear in what I am asking.
    I would think that latency with wireless communications could play some type of negative role in unmanned aerial combat.

    I do think that since a pilot does NOT have as much survival investments he/she may be more likely to invest more into the operation since their life is not on the line. You know? If this next move you make will ultimately help out the fight for the better good, but could cost you your life, you may be a bit hesitant because self preservation kicks in. But thats just IMO.


    EDIT: since9, check your PMs
    Last edited by Schlitz; 08-17-2011 at 04:46 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I would think that latency with wireless communications could play some type of negative role in unmanned aerial combat.

    I do think that since a pilot does NOT have as much survival investments he/she may be more likely to invest more into the operation since their life is not on the line. You know? If this next move you make will ultimately help out the fight for the better good, but could cost you your life, you may be a bit hesitant because self preservation kicks in. But thats just IMO.


    EDIT: since9, check your PMs
    What just came to mind is when I had read(e) about live-fire engagements with the enemy, and it was either found, or believed that even in a survival situation, the individuals would shoot high in order to miss who they were engaging - although, I am sure these instances are rare, or at least I hope they to be.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Update on the difference between a UAV and a UCAV

    "Current UCAV concepts call for an aircraft which would be able to operate autonomously. It will be programmed with route and target details, and conduct the mission without help from human controllers." - Source

    The Predator (MQ-1) and the Reaper (MQ-9) are both remotely piloted vehicles, yet both also have considerable on-board ability to fly themselves while under remote direction. The Global Hawk, on the other hand, is self-piloted but remotely directed. The MQ-9's systems are more autonomous than the MQ-1.

    Until recently, the MQs were called UAVs rather than UCAVs, the latter term of which was reserved for the likes of the Boeings X-45 and the Northrop Grumman X-47A Pegasus.

    When I say "UCAV," I'm not talking about a remotely piloted loiter air-to-ground surveillance and fire platform. Rather, I'm talking about a self-piloted aerial combat vehicle armed with both a myriad of fully-integrated on-board sensors throughout the EM spectrum as well as the latest air-to-air weapons. It responds to remote command and control, the same as manned fighters in communication with JFACC and his subordinate elements at the AOC.

    Have they been fielded yet? No. They're still a work in progress, and not without a lot of detraction from the pilots who claim nothing will replace a human in the cockpit. In some ways, they're right, at least in the foreseeable future, as a well-training and sound-thinking human being can leap to trains of thought never anticipated by a programmer. At the very least, the Mark-I Eyeball remains an exceptional sensor platform when coupled to the Cranial Relative Velocity Integrator.

    By the way, Gunslinger, if you're suggesting that an F-22, or even a Vought F4U Corsair could splash an MQ-1 or MQ-9, you're absolutely correct. They're not designed for air-to-air, and they have little defense against fighters. For that matter, they have little defense against any innovative, thinking human being, provided that human has some basic resources which we're careful to deny in the regions where we fly our UAVs.

    As to which is better, I'll leave that argument on the table now, at least until further tests are completed.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I would think that latency with wireless communications could play some type of negative role in unmanned aerial combat.

    I do think that since a pilot does NOT have as much survival investments he/she may be more likely to invest more into the operation since their life is not on the line. You know? If this next move you make will ultimately help out the fight for the better good, but could cost you your life, you may be a bit hesitant because self preservation kicks in. But thats just IMO.


    EDIT: since9, check your PMs
    The flipside is that they are more willing to take greater risk, which is just as much a negative. They have their positives and negatives. I think a fully autonomous fighter is just an all out bad idea for various reasons. One that comes to mind is that drones we currently field now go rogue and have to be shot down. I can't imagine how giving drones the ability to fight back is a good thing. Judgment Day anyone? And to think, they're even talking about arming them with nuclear warheads!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •