European 5th Generation Fighters

[DarthAmerica]

I was a bit vague there, there were two parts to my savings question. One would be money saving and other is savings in weight of the airframe. Also, it'd be helpful if some actual numbers would be put on the table. Of course one'd have to guesstimate but still - its better than saying savings would be huge. huge in relation to what?

You wont get accurate numbers because there are too many variables based on the broad nature of your question. Generally speaking though, a UCAV will cost less. Take a look at the persistence of a UAV like the Predator vs an F-16 in a CAS role. If you had an F-16 squadron assigned to provide CAS over a 24 hour period for a unit in contact. How many sorties could you realistically provide? Compare that to a Predator with Hellfires on station for 24 hours! Now dont get me wrong, sometimes you need that F-16s ordnance capability. But thats the exception and not the rule. Assume an operation typical of OIF or the current IDF vs Hezbollah.

If you would be so kind to give examples of best ai developed so far i'd be grateful. Otherwise its seriously hard to believe human level would be achieved in years let alone it is here today. Sure, basic things can be programmed today, ordering the plane to do A if B through Z happens, covering literally billions if not trillions of possible situations... but that's not enough. Real enviroment is so unpredictable and programming bugs are such an integral part of programming that its impossible to tell just how well the AI would fare against human opponent. Sure, a lot of times mission might be accomplished in a satisfactory way. defensive long range air to air fights come to mind first. But as we get into a closer fight, as we go deeper into enemy territory and ask for more complex ground strikes or god forbid close combat support for ground troops - i'd say we face some huge ai related problems.

Look into:

Grand Challenge
X-45 Combat Demo
Deep Impact

You will see this technology is not as far off as you think. But like I said, necessity. Fortunately there is time to get this right so rushing Beta software out into combat isnt always the best solution when you have the luxury of lab environment, time, ect.

 

[rjmaz1]

Even advanced programming at the moment is good enough for a UCAV aircraft. Look at the AI on flight sims, they can drop bombs, fire air to air missiles and even engage in a dog fight. All this from a tiny budget of a computer game, chuck 100 billion dollars at it and no one could tell the difference between A.I and a human pilot.

All the programming is there. The only one big step that is needed is integrating the external sensors with this computer. The computers Eye's would be a IR sensor and laser range finders. This allows it to judge distance, speed of terrain and other aircraft. That technology is already here connecting them to the computer and creating a complex algorithm would not be that hard.

F-22 pilots could contact the UCAV's and tell them what to do like in a Flight sim where you can instruct your wingman. Such basics as "escort me", "take out SAM's" etc.

This means if the connection to base drops out the UCAV can continue with its planned mission, or an aircraft inflight can tell it what to do.

Escorts for E-3 and inflight refueling assets would be done by UCAV. Simple bombing missions where we know where the target is will be done by UCAV. All of these bomb trucking missions are to be done by the JSF, another reason why it should be dropped.

As the software programming would represent 90% of the cost of the project you could make a few different aircraft and re-use the software for each one. For example a long range bomber, Navy strike fighter, or Air force light fighter.

This would be ideal.

A single B-2 Bomber flies with 4 bomber UCAV's under its control on a long tange bombing mission.

A single F-22 or Superhornet flies with a few UCAV's to help it perform its mission. Both the F-22 and Superhornet make perfect control platforms for a UCAV.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Even advanced programming at the moment is good enough for a UCAV aircraft. Look at the AI on flight sims, they can drop bombs, fire air to air missiles and even engage in a dog fight. All this from a tiny budget of a computer game, chuck 100 billion dollars at it and no one could tell the difference between A.I and a human pilot.

All the programming is there. The only one big step that is needed is integrating the external sensors with this computer. The computers Eye's would be a IR sensor and laser range finders. This allows it to judge distance, speed of terrain and other aircraft. That technology is already here connecting them to the computer and creating a complex algorithm would not be that hard.

F-22 pilots could contact the UCAV's and tell them what to do like in a Flight sim where you can instruct your wingman. Such basics as "escort me", "take out SAM's" etc.

This means if the connection to base drops out the UCAV can continue with its planned mission, or an aircraft inflight can tell it what to do.

Escorts for E-3 and inflight refueling assets would be done by UCAV. Simple bombing missions where we know where the target is will be done by UCAV. All of these bomb trucking missions are to be done by the JSF, another reason why it should be dropped.

As the software programming would represent 90% of the cost of the project you could make a few different aircraft and re-use the software for each one. For example a long range bomber, Navy strike fighter, or Air force light fighter.

This would be ideal.

A single B-2 Bomber flies with 4 bomber UCAV's under its control on a long tange bombing mission.

A single F-22 or Superhornet flies with a few UCAV's to help it perform its mission. Both the F-22 and Superhornet make perfect control platforms for a UCAV.

Good post. Also look into something called "See and Avoid". Anyone interested in a comparison of this capability and how the human eye works can let me know and I'll continue. The point is that AI that gives approximate or equal capability to humans is already here.

As to the F-22 and F/A-18E being good for UCAV control. They are actually excellent platforms for that role. Along with some of the F-15's and the B-2's. Their high bandwidth secure LPI comms are ideally suited for the task. The F-35 will also be ideally suited when it reaches service. It is here that Europe can make up some of the slack in its comparitively weak(compared to DoD) airforce. Eurofighters and Rafales exist as legacy of the Cold War and in the face of Modern SAMs and threat aircraft would probably suffer too high an attrition to be economically feasable. Already these aircraft depend on long range PGMs to defeat hostile airspace and the limits of that are well understood. Rather than trying to "catch up to the USA" with a 5th Generation of "Manned Euro-Fighters" that would probably be economically and temporaly unfeasible. European nations could focus their efforts on much cheaper UCAVs and slave them to AWACs or fighter platforms to penetrate hostile airspace. Because a UCAV is(should be) cheap. They could be sent in on first day of the war scenarios and take losses while eliminating the threats that would make operations for legacy 4th generation fighters too risky and economically prohibitive.

In my opinion, the worse thing European defense aerospace could do is to try to keep up with American military technology that has both unique global requirements and even more exclusive funding than European nations could realistically hope for. If instead European, Russian and even Chinese defense aviation industries focused on RMA type technology(UCAVs, Cruise Missiles, Ballistic Missiles and SAMs) that provided them with cheaper more realistically achievable alternatives to air defense. They could create truly formidable airforces in relatively short time.

 

[Kurt Plummer]

Totoro,
>>
1. how much savings in weight do you believe one'd get if designing an unmanned fighter for same mission of, say, f16? Overall, with cost of training of pilots etc, how much would savings add up over a, say, 25 year long lifetime?
>>
Not a simple question unfortunately.
How often does the F-16 fly supersonically and what's it's endurance while doing so? Does it compare competitively with other 'fully supersonic cruise' designed systems? If not, dump the burner and the large inlet to feed a the bypass ratio which feeds it. Also take away that percentage of fuel dedicated to the 'three turns or 5 minutes max A/B at radius'. And with it the structural loadpaths to accept it (including hardpoints for the 370s). That's 4,000lbs at least. How effective is the 30` tiltback seat and the bubble canopy? I've heard pilots say that they dislike dogfighting in the Viper because to get proper look through on the HUD or to scan outside requires different seat height settings. And that even when you have everything 'dialed in' to a best-compromise position, you _have to_ tilt your head up and away from the headrest to get full lookabout and this in turn makes fighting under G next to impossible. OTOH, if the goal is only to provide _defensive_ 360` global SA (out to say 10nm) then what is the weight of the removed canopy and ejection seat and HUD optics in trade for installation of EODAS (F-35 SAIRST) level technology? 1,500lbs? The ACES II and rocket pack are 150lbs. The oxygen system is probably another 300lbs.
If you are hunting principally ground targets, do you even /need/ a forward looking, dielectric radome hogsnose area on the jet? As a subset of this, what is the likely effectiveness of the APG-68 (24"?) diameter array, even with AESA technologies (APG-80) on likely LO targets of the future, assuming standard X-Band spectrum? AESAs are heavy monsters that require oodles of cooling so I'm gonna say that's at least another 1,000lbs of structural weight that could easily be shifted away from the longest end of the CofG teetertotter in structural loadpathing.
Lastly, _how often_ do you expect to fight, air to air? If it's less than 10% of your flown sorties, and particularly if 'Air Dominance' comes in the form of a 2MW COIL laser on a 747 300nm away, do you even NEED to optimize the platform for the Air Combat role or are you better off achieving 'pure' bomber performance and letting other, equally 'pure', A2A assets do their mission? If this means you can go down from a 12G rated structure (9G FLCS service limit) to say 5.5G, I imagine that's another _minimum_ 2,500lbs.
Now, assume that the empty weight of an F-16C.50 is about 19,200lbs
-4,000lbs
-1,500lbs
-1,000lbs
-2,500lbs
=9,000lbs.
Now, obviously, there are going to be some give-backs inherent to say LO and added internalization of fuel plus weapons bay structural hollows.
Yet, IMO, there is no reason for an empty weight greater than 10-12,000lbs.
Which is of course 'only important' for one reason: cost baselining.
If you multiply your typical empty weight by X4 million dollars (vs. the typical 2) per 1,000lbs for modern composite engineering costs and spread it out over a _guaranteed_ 'one variant, all services' model spread of COMMON BASING MODES (so that AF assets /are/ Navy assets) inherent to an inventory of 1,200-1,500 airframes, I think that the resulting scalar economics could result in production savings that roughly halve the baseline 40 million dollars per airframe over the run of the program. Say to 20-25 million dollars per unit by the 700th unit off the line.
>>
2. what happens when, for any reason, remote piloting fails and ucav finds itself on its own? Would USAF invest in developing fighter ucavs even despite such scenario? AI programming is a guessing game, no matter what popular science articles say. Any respected scientiest will say its impossible to predict when a breakthrough in AI will be made that'd allow for true independent decisions that'd rival human made ones. It could be in 10 years time or in 100 years time.
>>
Some things I have to disagree with here.
A. LINK is here to stay. With the switched emphasis to 'info warfare' dominance, it is fair to say that NO AIRCRAFT can survive or contribute usefully to a the fragged ATO without electronic connectivity, manned or otherwise. Digital datastreams in fact make that connectivity easier because they are burst-short on a crowded bandpipe channelization system.
B. If a pilot loses contact with the rest of his section or flight and/or becomes otherwise 'lost' relative to a given mission evolution, he aborts. OTOH, if a Blk.IV Tomahawk Cruise Missile loses connectivity it either heads to a safe ditch point (assuming it has not past a given warhead activation point). Or it goes to the first preset in it's stacked target list. Especially with standoff IAMs and 'coordinate bombing' (oooooh, dangerous /buildings/) likely to dominate the first few days of any air campaign, _as always_, the extent to which a CM-with-landing-gear can screw up is very limited.
C. AI is an overassumptive term for aircraft. If you mean AI like a Terminator, you may well be correct. Because it is walking around in the dirt with huge numbers of interactive obstacles all around it: What's an automatic transmission? Brakes? Gas? A stick? What is a yellow line on a road? A white line? A dotted or solid equivalent? What is an intersection of two roads? What is a stop light? What is a cop sitting across from a stop light? What is a semi with no brakes and a blowing horn coming up behind you as you sit at a stoplight? ALL of these things will effect the level to which you obey channelization rules and if you haven't got a working superego and ontological awareness of what is 'right' vs. what is /necessary/ you're screwed. Just driving down the damn road. OTOH, we have been launching and recovering target drones for well nigh 50 years from runways. And this is the most dangerous element of a UCAVs dense traffic obstacle negotiation problem. 'Up There' it's 90% _sheer void_. Don't believe me? Go outside and LOOK UP. How many airliner contrails do you see? No roads. No buildings. No serious terrain elevation worries. Just Air. Which a UCAV, if it's anything like a Cruise Missile, can handle with 90% better waypoint timing and route certainty than any manned platform out there. As an example, the first night of the Kosovo campaign not a single CM missed it's TOT. During FIVE YEARS of preceding 'Deny Flight' it took rotating aircrews up to 2 weeks to get used to the specific airspace corridors required to stay out of neutral airspace and away from commercial lanes. AND NONE of the first timers got it right the first try, including those nominally based out of Aviano.
Okay, we've established that Air Navigation is a basic point to point exercise that is better done by an autopilot.
What about the target end?
IAMs and particularly the winged GBU-39 remove most of the ballistic calculation of dive toss or LGB work the LARs of glide kit munitions are relatively large and thus PTOD (Pin Tail On Donkey) coordinate bombing rather simplistic. Which means that the only message which 'has to' get thru is that of target foldering. And if it doesn't, you just shoot off a preset top-10 list. Lastly, it should also be remembered that anything which emits (including a jammer) is an attackable EM source. And the original DARPA UDS program was for a _SEAD_ drone capable of autonomous triangulation and suppression of threats using onboard emitter sources. If we were prepared to unleash drones to autonomously hunt ground emitters (traditionally a terrible problem of fratricidal politics as the HARM that went off into Albania proved) how can we NOT be willing to let them 'drop on command' in conditions where their most certainly IS a human in the loop?
>>
3. politics. since we're living in an unperfect, real world, by how much do you think politics will slow down ucav fighter deployment? Even if technology was here tomorrow, would we need to wait till most of the current generals are retired before we see enough support of major proliferation of ucavs? That could be decades...
>>
Here's some politics for you:
A. The morons in Congress and probably the White House are going to be replaced. Why? Because they got us into a war they lacked the plan or the fierceness to win as simply as it should have been. Preeminent among the many shortfalls has been a lack of overhead airpower in locking down both AfG and Iraq so that ground units, while occasionally ambushed were never destroyed for _nothing_ by threats that emplaced/detonated IEDs or initiated combined arms ambushes without direct risk to themselves. A large part of that is the 5,000 dollar per flight hour costs of our SIMPLEST fighter in-inventory. In any case, the Dems will ride roughshod over any and all programs instituted by the Republicans for no other reason than 'to leave their own mark' and pure spite.
B. 90% of current missions are 'NTISR' which is what we once called road recce but which now more or less is flying from point to point, looking through a telescope at key traffic arteries and installations with the intent of protecting them from covert attack. This 'Non Traditional Intel/Surv/Recce' is _boring as hell_. And yet because of the lack of robotic sailplanes in-inventory and certainly _under common control_ it is being done by the only alternatives we have with the EO targeting pods capable of actually seeing individual movement on the ground.
C. If the Israelis wanted to stop the bleep that's going on in Lebanon, they would SATURATE the airspace with systems that did NOTHING BUT form a mosaic image of covert rocket positions with specialist gear like FOPEN radar and UWB Carrabas to mark C3D hidden or buried strongpoints. But they can't because even at the pathetically short radii of their 'no wing tanks visible' F-16s short mission distances, they lack the SIZE OF FORCE and the SENSORS ONBOARD to make it happen as a pure look-down vulturing opportunity.
D. As long ago as 1997, the GAO/CBO and Beltway were looking at the JSF program numbers with sheer disbelief on 'optimistic' triservice technology development costs and risk factoring. Because this is not one airplane but THREE which share only a common name. One analyst, Mike O'Hanlon actually had the guts to state that it would be more likely to be a 55-65 million for the basic USAF model and upwards of 77 million for the F-35C naval first-day intruder. And indeed, from a 28-32-35 price range 'promised to Congress' (instant anti-Deficiency act felony) in 1994, by the time of the October 2001 program announcement ONLY SEVEN YEARS LATER, AFSec Roche was already talking 48-50 million. That's a 30% increase. Now, after multiple weight issues _directly related_ the TFX like 'unequal mission share' on basing mode structural penalties, (1,763 USAF-A 240 USMC-B, = 15% of the inventory absorbing 70% of the engineering effort) the costs are up to about 107-112 million PAUC. And those in the highest production tier with locked-in sales prices. Are laughing their butts off at the poor dumb Americans PAYING THE DIFFERENCE to provide fewer airframes to foreign users than were originally supposed to be built for our own use. Meanwhile, all the secondline and poorer nations are scrambling like rats to get off the Titanic of aviation programs and the JSF as a whole is looking at, not a 2009-10 in service date but one as late as 20015. By which time, DEWS will be the ONLY solution to 'guerilla politics' run by the law of the rocket as short cycle cheapest airpower.
E. 5th Generation Airpower only meands diddly dip if it's bought. Because then everyone will have LO and the race will be on to create offensively penetrating airpower with the ability to destroy without warning and escalate regional tensions to enormous degrees. As an alternative to ALO sensors being developed which debunk our investment in the R&D completely. Indeed, the LOCLOEXCOM (controlling governmental body on Stealth Export Rights) has been yelling since the beginning that this was a dumb idea and only the new-toy hungry theater commanders have been saying that 'everybody who plays needs to be able to run with the big dogs'. OTOH, Gen-3.whatever (Su-30, F-16E, F-15E rehash, F-18E), can continue to profit quite well thank you IF the only threat they face is Stealth UCAV as a cow bomber. Because without something to guard them, it's just a matter of motoring out to IRST range and looking up engine plumes. Thus the definition of '6th Generation' airpower, is that which BYPASSES the ultra-expensive 5th generation. While retaining at least some of the same safeties against S2A fires (altitude and standoff plus removed 'fighter' features like tails and cockpits). So as to underbid the JSF with something that costs a tenth as much to operate in peacetime and can do twice the work with HALF the sorties, in war.
F. This world is running out of oil. There is no doubt about this and it is only fair that nations which continue to develop as major industrial and agro contributors get an increasing percentage of what's left. As such there is _ZERO ROOM_ for fighting 'pride wars' based on jets which consume more in a single flight than a car does in YEARS of normal driving. Not for the likes of the Arabs who need a spanking as much as a hand up. Not when we don't intend to go across borders to WIN the fight where it's being supplied from.
CONCLUSION:
Last I checked (mid 90's figures), there were some 6,000 USAF pilots, of which 4,600 were 'core force' aviators with combat applicable ratings as bomber or fighter crews. It takes about 17hrs _per month_, PER MISSION, to retain even basic multirole competencies. Even if you 'swing' between roles with peak competencies in only one area on an endless 60 day total cycle of check-boxing, that's as much as 240 hrs per year. It costs roughly 5,000 dollars per flight hour (depending on variant, some are more) to run an F-16. On this alone: 240X4,600X5,000= 5.52 BILLION DOLLARS EVERY DAMN YEAR. Just for the USAF. Assuming they all fly F-16s instead of B-52s and KC-135s and F-15Es and other systems which probably cost four or five times what the Viper does. You can probably double this again for the USMC and USN because though they have fewer total aviators they deploy more frequently and need more training time just to stay competent behind the boat. And this doesn't include pilot salaries, base pay, flight pay, hazardous/hardship/deployment pay, family housing/transfer allotments or combat pay and death benefit coverage.
Compare this to an A-45CN UCAV which has an 1,100nm combat radius with 2hrs onstation while carrying 3,500lbs of munitions (the F-35 is only good for 700nm and that ONLY on an in-out basis). Said UCAV achieves this with 12-14,000lbs of fuel compared to the F-35s 20,000lbs. It weighs half as much, empty.
If it can indeed be purchased for 25 million apiece, you are looking at 1,500X25 million = 37.5 billion dollars in flyaway acquisition costs. If it you throw in another 35 billion for restarting development and continuing it with UCAV unique systems like XTRA, its conformal radar, that's 72.5 billion.
RIGHT NOW. The _acknowledged costs_ of the F-35 program are 276 billion for about 1,600 airframes. Any lower than that and the price graph goes nearly vertical for money-in/product cost out development returns to Lockheed Martin. ATOP THIS they are assuming another 347.5 billion dollars in lifetime DCO (Direct Costs Of Operation).
That's 623 BILLION DOLLARS.
Vs. 72.5.
Now, I'm sure that the UCAV will have additional DCO costs of it's own but these will likely be less than 10% of the overall total force because you can run 150 jets out at Nellis and Fallon twice a day 365 days a year until their wings fall off, developing that precious 'AI' you think is so important. And not touch any of the rest of them. Because as soon as you plug in the tape to the rest of the fleet, they will all fly with equal competency and _zero training_.
Most importantly, just looking at the yearly manned training numbers, you are talking about 10 billion dollars a year. Which, excluding UPT and the track pipes, means you can PAY FOR THE ENTIRE UCAV PROGRAM IN SEVEN YEARS WORTH OF PILOTED AIRFRAME TRAINING.
Which is an important thing to consider. Because by 2015, the dawn of Directed Energy Weapons Systems will well and truly be upon us. And that will see the flash-vaporization of aircraft on a nearly random-encounter basis with systems that may cost 40-60 million dollars. But whose instantaneous LOS engagement capabilities come at a few /hundred/ dollars worth of chemicals and electricity.
At that point, the pride and union-like job protection self interests of the manned community will vanish in a group howl as they 'refuse to throw away their lives' on threats that they have no means to counter through 'Intelligence'. Artificial or otherwise.

KPl.

 

[atulbansal]

correct me if i m mistaken here
but i think the USAF and USN allotted a sumtotal of $900 million for design and development of 3 x-45c by 2010

these two "very stealthy" planes will have the capability to taxi, take-off, land and autonomously.... they can maintain formation.... do autonomous refuelling and besides all this.....these super-duper intellegent planes are going to have a range of some 2000 km and a payload capability of 2041 kg (internal).....now thats huge

they costs around $300 million per prototype including all R&D... compare it with the $50+ billion dollars for F/A-22....pretty cost effective hmmm

after this i think they will go for bigger UCAVs which can hold upto 5000kg of ammunition....something like that coming out a production line wont cost anything more than $50 million

plus imagine the use of these UCAVs...... a scenario where these are used against countries which dont have anything to counter stealthy-planes...... get the information using Global-Hawk en stuff then couple these UCAVs with AWACS and i dont even think u need a single air-to-Air missile...... a hundred of these planes can basically conduct SEAD and DEAD without any air-cover against a low-tech country and destroy all enemy fighter rite on the ground

regarding the air-to-air combat which might take place when going up against technically advanced countries..... in future i dont think there's gonna be a lot of dogfights..... arm these with some AMRAAM and an AESA they can probably outperform the human-piloted ones in BVR combat.

the way i see it..... these UCAVs r very cost-effective solutions especially when someone like USA attacks a state like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc.... when going up against a huge power like China a small number of F-22 can be used to provide air-cover

 

[rjmaz1]

AI programming is a guessing game, no matter what popular science articles say.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

While i agree with most of what you said i'd like to add a bit more.

Flying an aircraft in combat IS a guessing game, you dont know what the enemy will do next. You can predict what the opponent will do based on experience, this is exactly how a chess program works. It can win without artificial intellegence just good programming.

The key thing is we do not need artificial intelligence to make a perfect UCAV, we only need well written software.

Pseudocode for such software would be as follows:
If aircraft detected, check identity.
If no response received request authority to shoot down.
If authority given initiate air attack algorithm.
Launch AMRAAM and destory enemy aircraft.

While this is done the UCAV will be checking many other sensors just like a human pilot.

If closer than 1000ft to the ground, climb 10degrees.
If SAM site detected initiate ground attack algorithm.
If connection lost, fly to safepoint or

You'll then have algorithms for take off, landing and inflight refuellng.

Nothing more needs to be done. The ground crew or F-22 pilot will just have to click the ok button before weapons release.

The code for all of these missions as well as translating tactics into code will be HUGE!!! However the best thing is that we already have the basic code written we just need to create more possible scenario's.

Once we get the backbone of the system done that integrates all the sensors into a central onboard computer we can then add "plugins" to all the extra missions and capabilities. The entire UCAV fleet would have its software updated at the same time

We could even have a database of all stationary targets and when a new target is located it gets added to the database and within seconds the nearest UCAV is on its way to the target.

For example Australia could order 40 JSF's and 120 UCAV's and the cost after 10 years would be less than 80 JSF's even though theres twice as many aircraft. No need to change pilots or sleep, UCAV would take to the air.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Comms

They say knowing is half the battle and its been shown that the side with information superiority usually wins the battle. But think about this. The means by which we convey the data. For example, I could pick up the telephone and call you(The Reader) and make you aware of some information. Thats information that could be corrupted by a number of means. For example, you could be under the stress of combat while I'm talking to you and I may have to repeat my data to you. Thats just one of many examples. To use another interactive, example. Read the text above post to yourself aloud...

How long did that take? Probably a minute or two depending on how fast you read. Not that long? Well how far could an AAM or SAM travel in that time? Pretty far I bet. Now what if you had to distribute this info to a friend by voice over another phone? As you can see, communications take time. In some cases too much time. Lets do another example. The same message but this time sent as text so just look at it without speaking it...

"They say knowing is half the battle and its been shown that the side with information superiority usually wins the battle. But think about this. The means by which we convey the data. For example, I could pick up the telephone and call you(The Reader) and make you aware of some information. Thats information that could be corrupted by a number of means. For example, you could be under the stress of combat while I'm talking to you and I may have to repeat my data to you. Thats just one of many examples. To use another interactive, example. Read the text above post to yourself aloud..."

...For most people the data is read and understood much faster due to our built in human pattern recognition capability. Now this same message could be forwarded or ideally, distrubuted to your friend allowing him/her to read it as well. I think most people get the point and can see the difference in efficiency. Actual test flown by USAF aircraft have shown a 2.5 time increase in performance by adding the data to the voice comms. But with a UCAV the capability has the potential to go far beyond that.

An artificial intelligence would not only recieve the data at the speed of light. It would understand at the speed of light as well. Whats more, it would be able to act on and distribute the data, instantly. No need to "think about it". Just react to it immediately. And that reaction would be futher enhanced by the machines ability to store and immediately recall vast amounts of stored or real time data. All platforms in the area or even world wide could be made aware if necessary.

But none of that is even the good part. The good part is, that no matter how much this stuff sucks at first. A simple software download can fix it, instantly. This is the future and not any attempt by Europe/Russia/China to duplicate the F-18E/22/35 IMHO.

 

[Kurt Plummer]

Atulbansal,

>>
Correct me if I'm mistaken here but I think the USAF and USN allotted a sum total of $900 million for design and development of 3 X-45C by 2010
>>

And Congress instructed the USAF to have fully one third of it's deep strike be unmanned by 2010. Between 57 F-117, 20 B-2 and upwards of 183 F-22 available by that time, the USAF will have some 260 manned penetrating strike aircraft. And only 14 flying UCAVs of 'intermediate' (developmental or FSD at best) capability. This is a serious breach of a Congressional mandate and should carry the IMMEDIATE penalty of destroying the F-35 production base until such time as the Air Force stops trying to pretend they don't have to follow the law.

>>
These two "very stealthy" planes will have the capability to taxi, take-off, land and autonomously.... they can maintain formation.... do autonomous refuelling and besides all this.....these super-duper intellegent planes are going to have a range of some 2000 km and a payload capability of 2041 kg (internal).....now thats huge.
>>

JPALS and AAR may very well slide with the dropping of JUCAS since doing so (destroying baseline funding for subsystems which are critical to the UCAV achieving combat readiness) is a natural followon 'insurance policy' to cancelling the principal airframe program itself. Indeed, at least insofar as the naval variants are concerned (A-45CN and A-47) it was /always/ questionable whether even a highly tuned version of differential GPS could give the aircraft enough chase-the-panty capability to be a P&D refueler. The key thing to remember is that with only about 2/3rds the fuel, the A-45 was expected to go 30% farther AND HOLD for 2hrs. Without _any refueling whatsoever_. Now this might change a bit given you shifted to an all navalized (heavier) format. But it would still put the worthless piece of trash they call a 'strike fighter' in the shade.

>>
Tthey costs around $300 million per prototype including all R&D... compare it with the $50+ billion dollars for F/A-22....pretty cost effective hmmm
>>

Don't kid yourself, the X-45A is a systems testbed. The X-45C would have been a ground-up new design 'whether they needed it or not'. While you could easily take tech base from the JSF program for things like the EOTS and perhaps APG-81, you would still have to recertify the entire airframe and then begin a massive process of standing up 'dual role' AF/N capable deployment units and indeed virtually rewrite the entire doctrinal basis around which the USAF exists as an 'independent service'.

For this alone, it would not be unreasonable to expect a revised JUCAS (taken fully out of the hands of the utterly untrustworthy service arms and put under the independent funding of a separate R&D/Procurement Agency) to take at least 35 billion.

>>
After this i think they will go for bigger UCAVs which can hold upto 5000kg of ammunition....something like that coming out a production line wont cost anything more than $50 million
>>

Wouldn't want to see that happen. The X4 GBU-39 on a BRU-61 SMER runs about 1,640lbs. JUST ONE of those racks doubles the number of targets and triples the standoff of a conventional GBU-10/24 or 31 equipped F-16. Two such combined system should nominally be covered by a '3,500lb' payload capacity, insofar as you expect to use them solely as Continuous Overhead Presence tools. AND you have to integrate their use as mosaic sensor systems, just to guarantee sufficient targeting to expend FOUR TIMES as many bombs per sortie. Given the way OIF went (two separate 'arms' of advanced, the Western One a virtual no show, the Eastern one on again/off again based on ROE and the Marine advance past certain towns and roadjunctions with heavy Fedayin activity), we will be struggling hard to make use of a UCAVs in-situ improvements because, while an F-16 can also carry X8 Small Diameter Weapons, it cannot come close to the loiter time that a true UCAV can. And thus you will not have 'natural time domain' (fuel) limitations on sorties that just keep stacking in the top end of the funnel. You will have to FIND targets for everybody that comes to the party. Even if that means putting 4 and 8 airframes over every CS/CSS unit that is /potentially/ going to come under attack. While spreading the BAI/OBAS units out across 50-100km frontages 40-60km deep (thus depriving the Army of their F2F heavy artillery needs to preattrite maneuver elements moving up).

With all of the above under consideration, it seems to me that bloating up the system spec (as the process of X-45A/B/C redesign was an undoubted example of hurry-slowly work slowdown) is just begging to have an engineers sandbox effect take place which puts ALL elements of the UCAV designerformance spec behind schedule and overcost. Read _The Pentagon Paradox_ (The definition of which is basicaly: Achieved Performance Is The Inverse of Funded Expectation) by James Stevenson. And then follow it up with _Illusions Of Choice_ by Coulam on the F-111 program to see what happens when you allow some mutt in a uniform to 'spec up' a perfectly good design to the point where it no longer works.

You will then understand how we must completely castrate and strip of all procurement and evaluatory powers those flying services whose 'best interests' are not and have not been for at least 40 years, aligned with the patriotic duties owed this country by it's armed forces.

Having said this, I would value a _powered IAM_ (derivative of AMRAAM with a Brimstone seeker for instance) which could be wedged 1-2 at a time into a weapons bay /along side/ the GBU-39 for winning 'chicken games' with high leverage threats (Adder surface launch and the SA-twenties). I would equally like to see a capability to load a few Silent Eyes or Finder type minidrones so that the digital video is _extra sharp_ when we blow the crap out of some particular Ali Babba and Crew. i.e. Weight is not as important as /diversity/ of payload and this supports a wideXshallow approach to weapon enclosure rather than something like the JSF's singularly deep 'trench' bombbay.

>>
Plus imagine the use of these UCAVs...... a scenario where these are used against countries which dont have anything to counter stealthy-planes......
>>

That's just it, 70% of war is SSC/OOTW. Not high intensity stuff. And for that, the biggest drawback of conventional airpower is not spotting Abdullah and his band of merry men dragging a muletrain over a mountain pass. Because the satellites don't have the mechanic and the 'fighters' are all short legged or low-loitered. And the bombers cost so much per flight hour that _even if they have the sensors to see the bad guys_ they can't be in enough places to simply LOCK DOWN a country and prevent conflagrations at multiple points.

>>
Get the information using Global-Hawk and stuff a couple of these UCAVs with AWACS and i dont even think u need a single air-to-Air missile...... a hundred of these planes can basically conduct SEAD and DEAD without any air-cover against a low-tech country and destroy all enemy fighter rite on the ground.
>>

The reality of war is that (as Hezbollah is showing) irregular forces are adopting high technology solutions to minimal own-force maneuver warfare capabilities (200km+ Fajr-4/5/6 and Hazbam [sp.] missiles and Ababil UAV targeting). While conventional units are going more and more towards distribued, cellular, and highly covert 'guerilla tactics' to preserve forces within the depths of a heavy collaterals environment on the assumption that, even if we find them, we won't shoot. This is all predictable stuff given we were studying it as a part of ALB-2000 and Army 21 back in the 1980s.

What you need those 100 planes for is to punish _explicit bad acts_ with the threat weapons system in the SAME FRAME OF VIDEO as the bad guys and the school children so that there is no question whatsoever who is milking sympathy with human shield politics.

The key then being to leverage _better bullets_ to win the (rare) high tech war. An RQ-4 with RTIP technology can perform an 'ADAAM' role with upwards of 400-500km worth of AEW&C. And simply /command/ a drone to launch an AIM-160 configured MALI. To fly out and intercept a threat well before it poses a direct-proximal danger to the inbound or simply loitering UCAV.

You cannot forget the fact that it is never 'fighter vs. fighter' anymore. It is ALWAYS fighter vs. missile. THAT is where you want to define your 'agility' requirements. And a large part of that is going to be about throwing away conventional definitions of 'who shot first' and 'NEZ'. Because you are going to be running endurant weapons like dogs before the hunters and they will have mixed performance capabilities sufficient to make _multiple passes_ on targets with the same 'deep gas tank' advantage to reenergizing their energy maneuver quotients as the nominal interceptors that they BARCAP hunt.

>>
regarding the air-to-air combat which might take place when going up against technically advanced countries..... in future i dont think there's gonna be a lot of dogfights..... arm these with some AMRAAM and an AESA they can probably outperform the human-piloted ones in BVR combat.
>>

As I've said before, this is going to depend on how many of them you can afford to throw away before you _seriously_ challenge a (Western) threat's AAM carriage numbers as much as individual sortie counts of airframes.

As well as how much you trust a stupid human to run charging into the 'bright light' of a 2 megawatt laser. Or to start dancing the vampire dance with a group of missiles that is smart enough to use pack attack tactics to bleed him down and then kill him with a formation kill.

Because those are the two principle means by which a smart airpower will try to continue to stay atop the (residual) Air Supremacy/Dominance game. And it will be cheaper to throw hordes of 'A2A UCAVs' at the problem (even if they are actually themselves only reusable missiles, launched off of truck catapults, far from any airfield signature tag), than to believe some 'officer and a gentleman' is REALLY going to commit suicide for the privelege of sending up 4-6 jets against the 100 or more he may face. He'll run. And your DCA game will die.

If you play at conventional tag-your-it 'knights of the sky' air combat games.

>>
The way i see it..... these UCAVs are very cost-effective solutions especially when someone like the USA attacks a state like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc.... when going up against a huge power like China a small number of F-22 can be used to provide air-cover.
>>

China has the continental depth and advancing theater ballistic technology to make life a hell for ANY tactical airpower high stakes game being played out over either Korea or the Formosa Straits. The F-22s range is too short to take it outside the immediate threat radii of these (relatively cheap, but ultimately MIRV upgradeable) threats in the DF-15/30 class. Certainly as a function of escorting B-2s deep enough to do production and political infrastructure damage to enough of their warlords as to make a difference.

If you want to take on China, you'd better be willing and able to play the missile slinger game yourself. And right now that probably means a mix of CBM or dedicated (sublaunch) ARRMD/Fast Hawk type intermediate range weapons. As well as a rapid switchover to FOBS-as-unmanned-TAV in the Falcon program or something covert like the supposed Aurora TSTO.

Either way, China's biggest clamp around Americas nuts is going to be the need for oil to support an economic infrastructure growing ever more affluent (cars are a million unit per year GROWTH industry in Bejing alone) while we become all the more dependent on their cheap-production capabilities.

Americans would be vastly better off avoiding any thought of war in that part of the globe, developing completely automated production and 'service economy' robotics to take ourselves off the capitalist tape worm system. And simultaneously going the way Britain is with massive windfarm power generation along with a definite plan to cut our population by 2/3rds before 2100.

i.e. Fixing at home what the Chinese are only /beginning/ to understand of social problems in their own part of the world. While letting the fates of Malaysia, Japan and Taiwan be decided by the Asian equivalent of the Monroe doctrine rather than trying to keep our fingers in a Chinese pie by virtue of an incomplete envelopment of what should be a coastal hegemony for her.

In any case, the utility of the UCAV is inherent to it's ability to prosecute small wars in the same fashion that cops cruising in black-and-whites achieve by upping their 'presence' in certain unruly neighborhoods. While providing an RMA hedge against the coming dawn of DEWS and Hunting Weapons which will almost certainly mean the end of conventional, pilot-centric, airpower. It's not a flying club. Assets cost too much to be purchased solely to give the military aristocracy a form of job assurance that none of the rest of our society has the benefit of.

If UCAVs do nothing but ensure The Aerial Assassins Committee are collectively that much closer to being out of a job, this alone will be a MASSIVE boost to the health of our economy and safety inherent to the end of cowboy diplomacy. War is a tool. Like all tools it should be used only for a purpose that it can successfully achieve it's designed-for functional outcome. Manned Airpower as it now represents itself is an aberration in that it represents a bragging rights /better toys/ means by which war is fought as a sporting event, complete with seasons and meaningly statistics. Such is nothing more than a warped expression of nationalism inherent to a refusal to commit to a fight worth winning with ALL resources. Or stay away from those that are none of our business.


KPl.

 

[rjmaz1]

Congress instructed the USAF to have fully one third of it's deep strike be unmanned by 2010. Between 57 F-117, 20 B-2 and upwards of 183 F-22 available by that time, the USAF will have some 260 manned penetrating strike aircraft. And only 14 flying UCAVs of 'intermediate' (developmental or FSD at best) capability. This is a serious breach of a Congressional mandate and should carry the IMMEDIATE penalty of destroying the F-35 production base until such time as the Air Force stops trying to pretend they don't have to follow the law.

Very interesting, would "deep strike" also apply to the Navy JSF as well?

The navy JSF all it has to do is drop bombs. A UCAV could do the same.

For the airforce the JSF will be a glorified bomb truck, again a UCAV could do all of this. Close air support which often requires a human in the loop could still be done by the A-10 as the JSF was not going to replace this aircraft.

If the JSF was cancelled the Airforce would be happy as it would get more F-22's and of course UCAVs. 500 F-22's and 1000 UCAV's would be better than a 200 F-22's and 1500 JSF's.

If the JSF was canceled the navy still has the superhornet and if the UCAV delivers as promised it will have a better strike platform than the JSF with less manpower. An X-35C is so small height wise that on a navy carrier you could stack them two high allowing 100 UCAV's and 40 Superhornets on a single carrier. This gives more firepower with less carriers and a HUGE saving that spills over to less escorts, less personel, less food etc

And then follow it up with _Illusions Of Choice_ by Coulam on the F-111 program to see what happens when you allow some mutt in a uniform to 'spec up' a perfectly good design to the point where it no longer works.

Remember that to "spec up" a UCAV will in most cases be software only. So you could add 1000 extra fucntions in software with no extra weight penalty etc.

I think a F-22 size bomb bay would be ideal for a UCAV. It allows for 6 AMRAAM missiles or 12 small diameter bombs or a combination of each. The X-35C cannot carry AMRAAM''s as its not long enough, it'd require a complete redesign of the aircraft.

Also a UCAV would not need a huge long range radar. The main reason for a long range radar is to provide aircrew with extra warning of approaching threats and increase survibability to as close to 100% as possible. A UCAV doesn't need to see 200miles into the distance, it could have a small cheap AESA radar that could only see 80miles ahead and it would still detect enemy aircraft before they detected the stealthy UCAV. Another cost reduction right there.

 

[Kurt Plummer]

>>
Very interesting, would "deep strike" also apply to the Navy JSF as well?
>>

It would have to as the F-35A is a virtual clone of the F-117 delivery capability for the USAF with added AMRAAM capability and all weather munition delivery traded against less LO while having nearly the same radius as the F-35C. The latter's higher gross weight navalization and immense drag penalty (inherent to the added 200 square feet of slow-speed wing) eating up all pretense of greater fuel loads or superior altitude performance, IMO.

>>
The navy JSF all it has to do is drop bombs. A UCAV could do the same.
>>

Truth be told, that's the biggest problem with the F-35C. The USN 'official' desire is for only 170 of the type which puts it in the same category as the A-6 in terms of 10 aircraft per airwing as a heavy all weather interdictor.
But _what do you do with that kind of airwing percentage_? You fly out 700 odd nautical miles and you end up looking at 7-10hr round trips, even assuming you don't have to do intermediate tanking. Hitting even 20 targets at maximum (Kabul from the IO) radii is not going to do much to a distributed conventional warfighter architecture and next to nothing at all to an irregular force.
Even as all your (external HARM and AMRAAM and big/powered-standoff PGM) support missions are going to be struggling to get there at all and NONE of you are going to be staying long on-station (average in AfG was 20 minutes over the targets in the north of the country, 40 minutes once Krghyz tanking became available).
Of course you could reserve the airframe for use as a pseudo F-22 at much closer distances while basically acknowledging that standoff ordnance had replaced penetrating airpower for the rest of the 'not-LO-so-much-as-low!' airwing.
Yet the huge wings and 'only two' AMRAAM count means that the F-35 is _never_ going to be a pure fighter, it simply doesn't bring enough to the table.

>>
For the airforce the JSF will be a glorified bomb truck, again a UCAV could do all of this. Close air support which often requires a human in the loop could still be done by the A-10 as the JSF was not going to replace this aircraft.
>>

IMO, the UCAV is the replacement for the A-10 as well. More precision shots from above the trashfire (typical A-10 loads are 1 Maverick, 2 GBU-12 and a LITENING these days). More loiter by /hours/ at typical <250nm Hog-CAS distances (the A-10 has NO combat tank capability). Compatibility with high altitude tanking in the .85 Mach range. And of course the /incredible/ advantage inherent to just 'sitting there' doing the ISR mission of looking 10-20nm up the road to watch the IED emplacer or the guerilla ambush. Often days before a given travel route is used. All because, with the UCAV, you are looking at perhaps as little as $1,200/flthr.

>>
If the JSF was cancelled the Airforce would be happy as it would get more F-22's and of course UCAVs. 500 F-22's and 1000 UCAV's would be better than a 200 F-22's and 1500 JSF's.
>>

The F-22's biggest advantage is transit time and a 'configurable' weapons bay. If you treat radius in terms of straightline segments, you can do the 'supersonic from the deck' as a best climbout profile to 30K, and then a burn-up, ramp-up from their to hit Mach 1.45 and 45K or so some 400nm down range and 1.6 by the time you come back out of SSC at 600-800nm. At which point, you can step down to a tanker, suck another 10-15,000lbs of gas and REALLY hit it, for Mach 1.5-1.8 intrusion run, the last 300nm to target. Before coming back out to hit the tanker again and then highstep on home (3,000lbs lighter in A2G munitions) at Mach 1.5 average. All in a total cycle interval of perhaps 3.5-4hrs. Compared to the JSFs which will only /just/ be getting to the target area if not fence, at Mach .9.
Such just magnifies your daily sortie rate numbers all out of proportion to the size of your force (1.5 for a JSF, 3-5 for an F-22, given sufficient pilots and maintenance and targeting to support it).
_Assuming_ you have enough jets to do more than a token 'Air Dominance' mission ala Stealthy Albino.
Which is where the blue suit brigade and I seriously part company. Because COE Strike is what the F-22 should be configured to do as more of a stealthy F-111 than an F-15. For as long as LO advantagement lasts. Blk.20 is going to get closer to this with GBU-39 and genuine SAR modes for the radar rather than just 'data entry off the IPod text message' which is effectively what Raptor pilots are flunky-with-keypad reduced to doing these days with GBU-32.
Of course if we /whore/ LO to the world at large, a great deal of that edge could slip away, overnight. And we would be back to needing to play 'Ye Compleat Warrior', dragging a dozen different kinds of support missions, 90% of them subsonic, alllllll the way there and back.
Having said this, the Admiral in charge of the JSF program has flatly stated that 1,600 is the cutoff for production economics of the home force. Yet the USAF is fighting Congress to get down to an 1,100-1,200 airframe fleet (because they don't want to be stuck with 'Texas Politics' on another F-16 yearly wallet bleed with current F-35 PAUC sucking dry their acquisition accounts for another 10-15+ years).
OTOH, 'the smart ones', the airpower services for whom naval-LO was originally deemed to be essential to their being a part of 21st century airpower, are already down from 680 to 240 (USMC) and 450 to 170 (USN)
Which means that the business case for the JSF is already neck deep and sinking quick in red ink as foreign buyers have the /gall/ to 'demand' that U.S. purchases remain high enough to leverage their own micro-lot buys. And Congress listens because Congress wants pork for their home districts and a sop to the massive trade deficit.
With the capabilities of small IAMs (and particularly the coming GBU-40 with a seeker and AMSTE) to leverage single airframes with high DMPI counts, there is no excuse for supporting the Fighter Pilot Lobby 'just on tradition'. But tradition in America is making money through corruption of government and industry in support of the military. And that's a hard habit to break.

>>
If the JSF was canceled the navy still has the superhornet and if the UCAV delivers as promised it will have a better strike platform than the JSF with less manpower. An X-35C is so small height wise that on a navy carrier you could stack them two high allowing 100 UCAV's and 40 Superhornets on a single carrier. This gives more firepower with less carriers and a HUGE saving that spills over to less escorts, less personel, less food etc
>>

You tell'em! The key here is going to still be enablers of course. Since a 100 UCAVs operating at 400nm are going to have perhaps as much as 6-10hrs of loiter with a similar, 'easy going' launch-recovery cycle. But the same number operating at 700nm is going to NEED tanking to be fully useful. And probably a high altitude data relay aircraft like a ROBE-in-miniature to keep connectivity going on what would otherwise be a 3-4hr end-radius mission duration. Followed by 3-4hrs coming and going _useles_ transit interval.
For true independence of operations, such can only suggest a CSA platform, whether robotic or manned and the tangential possibilities of replacing the E-2/C-2 and EA-18 as well (fleet size economics again).
IMO, to get the full 100 UCAV sized airwing, would also require a significant redesign of existing hangar spaces and/or a new class of SWATH type ships to ensure that more working vs. deckpark space was availabe on the roof (no more angle deck nonsense) with less or even no reconfigure time between shooting and catching. You would also need to modify hot weapons bay hangar rules between missions (suggesting a compartmentalized bay), bring online an ability to rapidly move unpowered aircraft without a tug (electric wheel motors running on APU?). And of course implement the full spectrum JPALS as a total-LINK replacement ACLS capability to give not only high fidelity approach but general ATC stacking and logistics precue to what was wrong with any given jet. So that you could rapidly repair or replace it the flight list.
i.e. THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE HERE.
To get a truly dominant UCAV mission force stood up and reliably (mechanically) able to start devising new doctrinal approaches to how we do FTSF missioning. But it can be done. And there is no real 'alternative' so long as threats continue to improve ultra short cycle airpower in the form of rockets (it's only a matter of time before inertial if not inertial-GPS systems and then, eventually, terminal seekers are miniaturized down to the level at which even a Fajr/Katyusha system becomes the equivalent of an improved MLRS). Because it will be rockets which drive the development of DEWS. But it will be DEWS that /utterly changes/ the nature of airpower.
The JSF would have been fine if it had been an airframe brought online in the period 2000-2004 as a SINGLE 'CALF', assuming the initial 1998 F-22 IOC had also been met and the F-16/18 were replaced without intermediate standins (F-16C.50+ and F-18E/F). But by pushing this (F-35) airframes service inception date out to beyond 2010, we have _guaranteed_ that the jet will not only overlap the first generation DEWS, it will spend as much as 3/4s of a 20 year life cycle _utterly useless_ whereever these weapons are encountered. Weapons which will look at manned airframes as simplistic threats compared to missile defense.

>>
Remember that to "spec up" a UCAV will in most cases be software only. So you could add 1000 extra fucntions in software with no extra weight penalty etc.
>>

There will be limits to what you can do within a given architecture however. The F-22 had an initial backplane datarate requirement almost double what was eventually installed. Nominally to save costs. But truthfully because there simply were no processor:bus architectures sufficient to provide the level of capability desired. COTS now drives the SOA in the computing world far more than all but the most specialist (radar/EW etc.) of military chip architectures and thus predicting that all elements of a given design will be updateable without 'more memory! more processor power!' limitations of SEM-E type systems is largely unwise. Just like computer gamers, there will be a competing war between what you want (say) a given aperture to do. And what you expect the backing avionics to support that expanded mission set with.
Frontends can be a bleep to redesign for a given LO aperture and indeed overall airframe integration plan. Especially as we switch to ever more complex AESA type architecture and start to USE THEM as both comms pipe and sensor lookin with conflicting bandwidth and datarate problems.
Overall Processor and System Management architecture is easier to deal with on a plug'n'play basis. So long as you don't have any data rate neckdown through the bus.
But either way, software-only is a bit of a myth even as it /implies/ the need for a much greater 'no baby onboard = all on you R2' software update support infrastructure to monitor changing world picture (essentially flying around sampling other peoples bandwith allocations and usage), write new code, flight test and integrate it on a machine without a human backup to given empirical quality-not-quantity performance verification.
THE IMPORTANT THING TO REALIZE is that for a baseline mission of simply COP-watching a backwater threat, the likelihood that the threat will even know you're there, let alone have a reasonable ability to fight back electronically is limited. Because most of the high-rate CDL architecture is now shifting to X and Ka bands which are highly directional. And because there is frankly not a lot you can do in the back of beyond with Radio Shack level electronics against a well designed first-world avionics system. Just _be there_ and the mission will happen. If you don't play, you don't win. And right now modern airpower is too oriented around point target and back flight modes rather than vulturing over wide areas continuously.

>>
I think a F-22 size bomb bay would be ideal for a UCAV. It allows for 6 AMRAAM missiles or 12 small diameter bombs or a combination of each. The X-35C cannot carry AMRAAM''s as its not long enough, it'd require a complete redesign of the aircraft.
>>

I think it's going to be a more complicated question myself. If you have a blended wing body design of what is essentially a low wing monoplane aerostructure, there will likely be a chordwise longeron/rib integrated wingroot. Which, while it may well be fairly deep has the added potential stress factors of outboard landing gear locations (the wider the stance, the less heavy landing or crosswinds will make the jet drag a wingtip or bunny hop from strut to strut) and possibly a wingfold. If the overall box of the airframe volumetric is still fairly shallow/blended, you may not have the option of a wideXshallow weapons bay design. OTOH, if there is virtually nothing in the nose, you may well want to consider the 'Lancaster Configuration' of tandem bays. While you will pay an additional doorsegment/actuator weight penalty and may or may not have an interbay frame (stiffener) that effects absolute length of the munitions available for internal carriage (no SLAM-ER or HARM for instance), you also get away from having such monstrously /over size/ doors as plague the F-22 design.
Indeed, it may well be time to reinvestigate the nature of how we carry munitions again. The B-52 uses individual 'clip load' stations within the airframe itself. Especially now that we are moving towards integrated pneumatic 'smart' ejector systems vs. the old cartridge ejectors (automatic weapons system awareness of proper launch angle and impetus from each station), it may well be easier, safer and faster to replace SMALL munitions individually with exoskeleton enabled crews or robots. Presently, cleared-loads weaponeering rules require that munitions have a given separation from adjacent weapons or in fact not be mixed at all to ensure safe separation. And when a single failed rack-widget is denying you full use of a rack, you can't replace a unit in-situ on the jet, the ENTIRE unit has to be removed/pinned-safe.
Indeed, even weight becomes an issue, for when you look at the Boeing SMER, you have 4, nominally 285lb, GBU-39 (1,140lbs) weapons out of a total loaded system weight of some 1,640lbs. That's 500lbs worth of unnecessary structural strongbacking, IMO.
If, instead, you switch to a series of parallel, longitudinal, /tracks/

/````````\
|..|..|..|..|
|..|..|..|..| Bay 1
|..|..|..|..|
|..|..|..|..| Bay 2
|..|..|..|..|
\_____/
With a thousand or two thousand pound weight station (lined up with a major structural frame at the middle of the midboard stations (2X GBU-31) and two or three other stations on which one or more racks can slide forward or back to various 60-70 inch, 500lb, displacements; while having at least the option to also include a secondary structural footer so that you can extended 120-144" or rail-forward restricted weapons into the airstream then you can start to truly mix loads with say two GBU-39 in tandem on each of the inboard three stations (X6) total. An AMRAAM/Meteor or like (DEAD) 'powered IAM' clone on the left outboard. And a mix of 3 MicroUAV or JCM on the opposed outboard side. The nifty thing being that, even though it was a common bay, with the exception of the AMRAAM or heavyweight JDAMS, all munitions could be released by opening _single hinged_ doors without having the barn-door reflector and likely aerodynamic penalties of say the F-22 system. And without intruding upon wingroot/landing gear bay areas.
The alternative, especially if you want a central keel for stiffness in a carrier capable system, is almost always going to be two separate bays which will restrict the total lateral spread and individual diameters of weapons and require you to go to vertical stacking if you want multiple carriage to the full volumetric capability of the bay or weight carriage of the airframe (within a stealthy enclosure). Munition stacking being another no-no in all our airpower services.
B1 B2
/```\ /```\
.|..|. || .|..|.
.|..|. || .|..|.
.|..|. || .|..|.
.|..|. || .|..|.
.|..|. || .|..|.
\__/ \__/
Of course, there are other modifiers. For instance, IMO, the days of using 2,000lb munitions to kill buildings with should be /long over/. If the structure is truly heavy, go with a hypervelocity (FRSW or ARRMD) aeroballistic kinetic kill weapon. Or a BROACH enabled heavy-warhead AGM-158 variant. If it's Osama Bin Laden hiding in some civillian's basement, pop _the internal volume_ with a spread of GBU-39 or 38 type (250-500lb) weapons, evenly spread and fuzed to take out both the upper and lower floors.
DO NOT SEND MULTITON SEGMENTS OF BRICK AND CONCRETE FOR BLOCKS WORTH OF FRAG AROUND THE IMPACT SITE!
If the key to 4GW is information dominance and knowing WHERE AND WHEN to hit, as much as having tons of explosive overkill when you do (again, the present day IDFAF 'problem' with striking civillian apartment buildings in Beirut and Tyre is a clear casepoint), then it is CRITICAL that you both be able to strike immediately upon detection of a TCT (Time Critical Target set) as a function of omnipresent eyeball force. And that you have immediately available _just the right weapon_ to do the job of precision engagement when that opportunity pops. And lastly that, as a function of both pre and post release BIA 'collaterals damage assessment', you be able to fly a drone down to _take precise pictures_ of the man you were after.
It's one thing to hunt terrorists based on the say of someone and then to have a huge furor when a bunch of civillians die while he was out getting his morning coffee and paper. It's another to show Robin Hood walking a bunch of kids to school because /he knows/ that you won't hit him in a mass of 'innocents'. The threshold of culpability being inherent to parents who let their children or themselves be used as a cheering section shield wall to protect _Very Bad Men In A Total War_.
Proving this, just once or twice, on TV, would go a long ways towards revealing the Arabs 'indignant outrage' as the moral hypocrisy it is. Again, only a cheap airframe taking pictures through a bentpipe relay of _high resolution_ threat verification can prove it however. And F-16s are just not a part of that, even as F-35s (fewer and more expensive yet) /never will be/.

KPl.

 

[Lelik Rus]

yeah
and the situation for Russians is even worst.
Su-30 got attention recently due to much hyped Cope India Excercise.
otherwise, people would even forget about it.

And even when it comes to BVRAAMs, They specify only AMRAAM and AMRAAMski , Forgetting about either MICA or future Meteor.

BTW when will Meteor finally come out. 2008?

I think India would need it as our pakistani friends are getting AIM-120C.

Are you crazy man?
If you think the russian planes are so good just because they've beaten other planes in a single battle test it's nothing to comment. just tell me at least a single example when su27 or su30 have lost to any aircraft except, of course, f22, which is really new?

don't be so sure about stealth technology excellence. There are few methods to detect ANY stealth aircraft - for example, working in group with long and short wave radars together. even c300 radar has no problem detecting stealth but we've already have c400 system now - we don't sell it even to India and China. 5gen prototype Su (I-21 in code) has completed all tests in avionics, engine performance and there's no problems to take off in 2007-2008. Sukhoy delays I21 because of RRJ, they need just a little over 2 B $ to complete the project.
Someone here have said the real thing - after cold war both USA and Russia doesn't have much reason to be so military. otherwise f22 and suxx have already been made in thousands.

 

[Viktor]

other than India, Nobody is interested to tie up with Russia for the Next Generation Fighter program, even china rejected joining their program.
Nor Mig or Sukhoi have the money to invest in this project.
India cannot fund that much amount of money on thier own.

Russians used the money they got from selling Su-27/30 in developing TVC and experimental fighters like Su-47 etc.
Not many countries are interested in buying Russian Fighters in Large Numbers including India.
Fifth Generation fighter development needs Atleast 20-30 Billion Dollars.
who is gonna give them that much money.

One thing is Sure, Russians in no way can develop a Fighter like F-22.

The bottom line is, The more Stealthy the Fighter is , The more Research and funding is needed.

who is gonna give them money??

If India got doubts that Collapse of Russian Aviation Industry is inveitable, Then She will immediately switch to European Market.

What are you talking about. Russia has enough money to finance 5th generation money. It has enough money to finance two 5th generation fighters (havier and lighter version) as is recently said by Russian high offical. Prototype of the first plane we will seen in a matter of servel months and its serial production in a matter of few years.

 

[rjmaz1]

Hahah russia has two 5th generation fighters in development? :laugh

Even the US is struggling to fund its two 5th generation fighters the JSF and F-22. The US military budget is 10 times greater than russia, so Russia does not have a chance.

Also this "serial production" who will this production be for? Russia wont buy more than 100 aircraft as it has no money. China and India at best would order another 100.

The only possible answer is that the manufacturers of these two 5th generation fighters funded the development themselves, in which case ALL of the development money will be added to the purchase price. $50 billion spread over 200 aircraft is 250million dollars PER AIRCRAFT!!! So if the aircraft end up being cheap only 50million to actually make the aircraft already costs more than an F-22.

The worst thing russia could do is build two different aircraft as development is then doubled, setup costs doubled for the same number of aircraft. For example you could buy 200 Mig-29 and 200 Su-27's, or if you went with one aircraft you could have bought 800 Mig-29's or 600 SU-27's for the same money. So 50% and 100% more aircraft numbers just by going with a single aircraft fleet.

It would be moronic for russia to develop two aircraft as each aircraft would be ordered in very small numbers, 50 aircraft of each aircraft type. Thats 2 years worth of production and then you have to shut down production. If one aircraft was never developed all that development money could be put towards buying the other aircraft in greater numbers. This will allow the production line to remain open for 6+ years and reduce the cost of that aircraft to attract international customers keeping the production line open for over a decade.

Thats why what you say cannot be true. Russians are not that dumb if what you say is true we will soon see the collapse of the Russian aviation industry as they will owe billions of dollars and will not be able to pay it back, let alone pay its employee's.

 

[swerve]

Hahah russia has two 5th generation fighters in development? :laugh

Even the US is struggling to fund its two 5th generation fighters the JSF and F-22. The US military budget is 10 times greater than russia, so Russia does not have a chance.

While I agree it may be over-ambitious for Russia to try developing two 5th generation fighters, the F-22 & JSF aren't good bases for comparison. Firstly, it's cheaper to play catch-up than lead the pack. Secondly, the F-35 isn't a single aircraft. The differences between the models are so great that it qualifies as at least two, & that's reflected in the development cost. Thirdly, the USA has higher costs: Typhoon cost a fraction of what F-35 is costing to develop, & Rafale cost even less.

So it shouldn't be assumed that just because the F-22 cost $40 billion to develop & the F-35 is expected to cost $50 billion, that each Russian fighter should cost as much - or even half as much. Could still be too much, though.

 

[Viktor]

Hahah russia has two 5th generation fighters in development? :laugh

Even the US is struggling to fund its two 5th generation fighters the JSF and F-22. The US military budget is 10 times greater than russia, so Russia does not have a chance.

Also this "serial production" who will this production be for? Russia wont buy more than 100 aircraft as it has no money. China and India at best would order another 100.

The only possible answer is that the manufacturers of these two 5th generation fighters funded the development themselves, in which case ALL of the development money will be added to the purchase price. $50 billion spread over 200 aircraft is 250million dollars PER AIRCRAFT!!! So if the aircraft end up being cheap only 50million to actually make the aircraft already costs more than an F-22.

The worst thing russia could do is build two different aircraft as development is then doubled, setup costs doubled for the same number of aircraft. For example you could buy 200 Mig-29 and 200 Su-27's, or if you went with one aircraft you could have bought 800 Mig-29's or 600 SU-27's for the same money. So 50% and 100% more aircraft numbers just by going with a single aircraft fleet.

It would be moronic for russia to develop two aircraft as each aircraft would be ordered in very small numbers, 50 aircraft of each aircraft type. Thats 2 years worth of production and then you have to shut down production. If one aircraft was never developed all that development money could be put towards buying the other aircraft in greater numbers. This will allow the production line to remain open for 6+ years and reduce the cost of that aircraft to attract international customers keeping the production line open for over a decade.

Thats why what you say cannot be true. Russians are not that dumb if what you say is true we will soon see the collapse of the Russian aviation industry as they will owe billions of dollars and will not be able to pay it back, let alone pay its employee's.

Yea laugh as mutch as you like.

August 22, 2006: Russia has paid off all of its Cold War era debts to Western nations. The Soviet Union had incurred huge debts during the final decade of the Cold War, in a desperate effort to keep their command economy, and police state, afloat. But better government, a booming economy and rising price for oil has enabled Russia to pay off $40 billion this year alone, and much more in the last few years. Paying off all this debt now will save over a billion dollars a year in interest charges, and is seen as a good investment, which it is.

So mutch about not having money!!!



US has lots of money but look how mutch time and money they spend on F-22. From 1980 on drowing board with 65Bin spend for 183 planes.Real efficiency just keep on that way.nfloorl: Look how mutch they spend on DDX project just to be canceld, Comanche helicopter, even Escalibur fails begind plans.
Now Im posting from different computer but I will soon provide you with the links witch will convince you in two 5th generation planes. ope

Until then enjoj:

"MiG had presented its concept of fifth generation fighter aircraft when I visited them yesterday. I invited them to make a presentation in India for the IAF officers," Mukherjee told reporters before leaving for home tonight at the end of his three-day Moscow visit. The full text of the Indian government press release is appened below.

The 5th Meeting of the India-Russia Inter Governmental Commission on Military Technical Cooperation held in Moscow today reviewed the progress on bilateral defence cooperation between the two countries and also decided on restructuring the existing structure of the Commission. The Commission expressed satisfaction on the progress of fitment and overhaul of the Aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and its based aircraft. Other major programmes reviewed by the Commission include repair and modernization of frigates obtained from Russia, licensed production of SU-30 MKI Air Craft, T-90S Tanks and other equipment of Soviet origin that form major part of the Indian defence inventory.

Some of the major programmes considered for progressing between the two countries keeping in view joint partnership were the development and production of the 5th-generation aircraft, joint development of multi-roll Transport Aircraft and procurement of three more frigates. On the joint development and production of multi-role transport aircraft, it was decided that India and Russia will have equal participation and work share keeping in view the financial and economic viability of the project.

A formal protocol was signed by the two Defence Ministers on the outcome of the meeting of the 5th India-Russia Inter Governmental Commission on Military Technical Cooperation. Two separate protocols were also signed by the heads of Working Group on Military Technical Cooperation and Ship Building, Aviation and Land Systems. These working groups had detailed deliberations on defence cooperation activities between the two countries.

The agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) was drafted during the meeting to the satisfaction of the two sides and it would be signed during Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s forthcoming visit to Russia next month.

During the meeting India and Russia exchanged views on the long-term perspective of mutual cooperation in bilateral military technical cooperation and concluded the session with the promise to further strengthen the cooperation not only keeping defence sector in view but also the global security scenario in mind.

The Commission meeting was co-chaired by Defence Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee and his Russian counterpart Mr. Sergei Ivanov

And you know that Sukhoi is developing 5th generation.

This has happend as India did not wanted Sukhoi version of 5th generation fighter (two engine).
Besides have you ever heard of Vitjaz 2000.Another self financed MIG development. Well here it is just for you with IRIAF marks on it and serial production about to start in a year at most. It has some stealth carateristic but not as near as F-22 or F-35 althrow it shows that money is not a object anymore. Also Su-47 was financed by Sukhoi company.



As you dont know in defence plans for untill 2015 year Russia is charted to buy 600 of Sukhoi 5th generation plans and still unreaveld number of Mig 5th generation plan. India while investing bilions to learn its scientiest how to make a fighter will certanly not by less than 200.You are further more unaware of a new aircraft carrier for Russian naval forces that will be laid down in 2017. ( as well as new SSBN and SSGN already in production). All that shows direction of Russian economy and ability to produce advanced weapons. As well whole new series of armament (whitch are already best in the world) is being developt for the PAK-FA and is going to be ready about 2013.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...dia_Russia_designing_fifth-generation_fighter
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060117/43040596.html
http://www.interfax.com/3/183265/news.aspx
18 rubel = 1 dolar --- hahaha calculate how mutch money Russian need in response to US 65Bin

 

[Viktor]

While I agree it may be over-ambitious for Russia to try developing two 5th generation fighters, the F-22 & JSF aren't good bases for comparison. Firstly, it's cheaper to play catch-up than lead the pack. Secondly, the F-35 isn't a single aircraft. The differences between the models are so great that it qualifies as at least two, & that's reflected in the development cost. Thirdly, the USA has higher costs: Typhoon cost a fraction of what F-35 is costing to develop, & Rafale cost even less.

So it shouldn't be assumed that just because the F-22 cost $40 billion to develop & the F-35 is expected to cost $50 billion, that each Russian fighter should cost as much - or even half as much. Could still be too much, though.

And here it is:
http://www.royfc.com/cgi-bin/today/acft_news.cgi#today
http://lenta.ru/news/2006/02/09/generation/

RSK MiG is working on two fifth generation fighter projects, RIA Novosti reports referring to an announcement by air force commander-in-chief, Vladimir Mikhaylov.

“A medium fifth generation fighter is being created and all schedules are being observed. All necessary financial question for this year have been resolved in full,” Mikhaylov said. The air force CinC also reported about the development of the lightweight fifth generation fighter. Word on the projects, according to Mikhaylov, is being carried out at the RSK MiG base.

 

[rabs]

Look how mutch they spend on DDX project just to be canceld

DDX wasnt cancelled? There was a thread on this recently.

A country with a tenth of the R&D budget of the US is not going to start popping out planes as advanced as the F-22.

Your also forgetting that after the cold war the US went on a shopping spree on almost all of Russias top engineers.

 

[kams]

Russian 5th genaration fighters

I posted the news about two 5th generation fighters being developed by Russia in Indian airforce thread. The second 5th generation fighter is in-line with Indian requirement - Light, Single engine and is being developed by Mig (favoured by indian airforce over Sukhoi). Here is the translation of the story. The source is TASS.

MiG Developing Two Fifth Generation Fighters

RSK MiG is working on two fifth generation fighter projects, RIA Novosti reports referring to an announcement by air force commander-in-chief, Vladimir Mikhaylov.

“A medium fifth generation fighter is being created and all schedules are being observed. All necessary financial question for this year have been resolved in full,” Mikhaylov said. The air force CinC also reported about the development of the lightweight fifth generation fighter. Word on the projects, according to Mikhaylov, is being carried out at the RSK MiG base.

Earlier representatives of air force headquarters and defense ministry leadership reported about the development in Russia of a fifth generation fighter under the PAK FA (future aviation complex of tactical aviation) project, which is being carried out by the Sukhoy OKB. The first aircraft of this type is supposed to be lifted into the air within a year. The AL-41F new generation jet engine with variable thrust vectoring is being developed for this airplane.

The external appearance and probable flight and technical characteristics of the new Russian fighters are not being reported. The new aircraft are supposed to become a counter-weight to the American F-22 and F-35 in Russia’s air force and on the international aviation weapons markets.

Source: 18.08.06, Lenta.RU

They Are Creating Two Fifth Generation Fighters in Russia

They are creating two fifth generation fighters in Russia – a medium-weight and a lightweight, Russian Federation air force commander-in-chief Vladimir Mikhaylov reported to journalists.

“The medium fifth generation fighters is being created right now, the project’s schedules are being observed,” he said. - “All necessary financial question for this year have been resolved in full.”

“We are working in parallel on the creation of a lightweight fifth generation fighter,” Mikhaylov emphasized. He noted that all work on the lightweight fighters is being carried out at the MiG firm’s production base.

Source: 21.08.06, ARMS-TASS

 

[Viktor]

DDX wasnt cancelled? There was a thread on this recently.

A country with a tenth of the R&D budget of the US is not going to start popping out planes as advanced as the F-22.

Your also forgetting that after the cold war the US went on a shopping spree on almost all of Russias top engineers.

I read the article on www.strategypage.com now I cant find it. It was due to a high cost.
You must realize concernig shoping spree that US always has vulued more Russian scientiest than US. Thats why you where so eager to buy them.
Instead of just talking you could provide me with some arguments while suporting your claim Russia will not pop up F-22 like fighters like pop corns.

Look how many evidence me and Kams have provided to you and others to suport our claims.

 

[Grand Danois]

I read the article on www.strategypage.com now I cant find it. It was due to a high cost.
You must realize concernig shoping spree that US always has vulued more Russian scientiest than US. Thats why you where so eager to buy them.
Instead of just talking you could provide me with some arguments while suporting your claim Russia will not pop up F-22 like fighters like pop corns.

Look how many evidence me and Kams have provided to you and others to suport our claims.

This is the article you were looking for.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20060514.aspx

Perhaps a press release from the DoD on any changes to the program would be in order to qualify this article...

BTW, LO technologies on ships are way, way more simple to implement as they are not so sensitive to their aerodynamics.

The path from knowing the principles of LO and developing applicable tecnologies on ships are far, far shorter than it is to develop the same technologies for a fighter, that at the same time does impede on its attributes as a fighter.

The latter requires a very serious and comprehensive development programme.

The best way to get a sense of the status of the Russian "5th gen" fighter programmes would be to collect some data points to clear it up.