USA Fighter Dilemma

[alexsa]

This site’s hostility is proportional to its ignorance.

do whatever dude.

My background is maritime so I watch this part of the forum as an interested outsider, however, since it appears your are claiming greater knowledge than other posters (some of whom should have a pretty good grasp) it seems fair you provide some details of just what your qualfications are to treat others with such distain.

It could be you are better informed (as your appear to claim) and if that is the case you should prove it.

 

[Feanor]

Obrescia there is something called the edit button. Instead of constantly double and triple posting, why don't you use it instead? Not to mention that a random off topic reference to an old movie that has nothing to do with the discussion is hardly appropriate in this thread.

 

[DarthAmerica]

This site’s hostility is proportional to its ignorance.

do whatever dude.

Take a minute and read what you write. You have posted that the KS-172 will be blowing things out of the sky in about every thread without even realizing it's not in service, it's been dumped into the Russian India secret weapon blackhole and infact Russia has chosen to go with another design. Who is being ignorant?


-DA

 

[obrescia]

sure no problem

My background is maritime so I watch this part of the forum as an interested outsider, however, since it appears your are claiming greater knowledge than other posters (some of whom should have a pretty good grasp) it seems fair you provide some details of just what your qualfications are to treat others with such distain.

It could be you are better informed (as your appear to claim) and if that is the case you should prove it.

Not a problem. the funny part is I’m told I have no idea what I’m talking about, so then I show links, then I’m told my links prove nothing and I can't show, they just say I’m wrong w/out showing proof of they're own. My points/links do whenever possible corroborate to either specific page number(s) of reference material. This should have been enough. Some may not read material that can give them the 1000 ft, perspective. Stealth aircraft with afterburning engines are going to have all the same problems any powerful supersonic fighter jet deals with. I prefaced my post with the truth that our older planes need replacement. Well anyway…please be careful out there if you're on deployment.

Reference material I draw from:

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.

Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.

Iranian F-4 Fhantom II Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2003.

Arab Mig-19 and Mig-21 Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Nicolle, David; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

Wings of the Red Star; Box set, NTSC; Rating: Discovery Channel; VHS Release Date: March 17, 1998. Narration by Sir Peter Ustinov.

Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing - Clancy, Tom; Penguin Group, 1995.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Not a problem. the funny part is I’m told I have no idea what I’m talking about, so then I show links, then I’m told my links prove nothing and I can't show, they just say I’m wrong w/out showing proof of they're own. My points/links do whenever possible, corroborate to specific page number(s) of reference material. This should have been enough. Some may not read material that can give them the 1000 ft, perspective? I don’t know. Stealth aircraft with afterburning engines are going to have all the same problems any powerful supersonic fighter jet deals with. I prefaced my post with the truth that our older planes need replacement. Well anyway…please be careful out there if you’re on deployment.

Reference material I draw from (funny part is one learns more about our stuff reading about the other guys stuff):

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.

Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.

Iranian F-4 Fhantom II Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2003.

Arab Mig-19 and Mig-21 Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Nicolle, David; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

Wings of the Red Star; Box set, NTSC; Rating: Discovery Channel; VHS Release Date: March 17, 1998. Narration by Sir Peter Ustinov.

Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing - Clancy, Tom; Penguin Group, 1995.

Not if that stealth jet is VLO, flying twice the altitude the defenses are designed to cover, not using afterburner because they can supercruise DRY and have extensive IR signature management. What do you not get about those facts?

Also, those references. Look at the dates and conflicts you are using. Mig-21s, F-4s, F-14s, Mig-19s, Falklands and a Tom Clancy book that discusses a DECADE OLD ORBAT, Doctrine and TO&E? C'mon do you realize the quality of your sources in the context of your arguments? Why not discuss the P-51 Mustang? You may as well considering how far things have advanced. You must be kidding...

-DA

 

[alexsa]

Not a problem. the funny part is I’m told I have no idea what I’m talking about, so then I show links, then I’m told my links prove nothing and I can't show, they just say I’m wrong w/out showing proof of they're own. My points/links do whenever possible corroborate to either specific page number(s) of reference material. This should have been enough. Some may not read material that can give them the 1000 ft, perspective. Stealth aircraft with afterburning engines are going to have all the same problems any powerful supersonic fighter jet deals with. I prefaced my post with the truth that our older planes need replacement. Well anyway…please be careful out there if you're on deployment.

Reference material I draw from:

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.

Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.

Iranian F-4 Fhantom II Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2003.

Arab Mig-19 and Mig-21 Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Nicolle, David; Osprey Publishing, 2004.

Wings of the Red Star; Box set, NTSC; Rating: Discovery Channel; VHS Release Date: March 17, 1998. Narration by Sir Peter Ustinov.

Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing - Clancy, Tom; Penguin Group, 1995.

I actually meant do you hae any qualifications in this field. Others who respond do (and you have treated them wiht contempt). Can I assume from this that your source material is books covering past conflicts and the public domain?

 

[Pingu]

I was not sure whether to put this in the specific JSF thread or here, but I eventually decided to put it here as it is better suited to the broader context of this thread.

I recently read an article suggesting a cut in the procurement of the JSF and I have to say that despite being an advocate of the F-35 program, it has convinced me that current procurement plans are in need of change.

The airforce buy of around 1700 JSFs would replace the current fleet of F-16s on a more than one-for-one basis. Now, although the JSF is seen as a replacement of the A-10 as well as the F-16, the A-10 is not an aircraft best replaced by the F-35 as they are completely different animals. Therefore, the F-35 should be best considered as an F-16 replacement solely. Given that the F-35 is far more advanced than the F-16, I cannot see why anything more than 1000 to 1200 JSFs are necessary. It is sometimes written that the JSF is intended as an F-15 replacement too, which again is a different animal. This brings me on to my second point...

The cut in the F-22 buy is one that needs to be reconsidered. The plans to keep a certain number of "Golden Eagles" is short-sighted. At the end of the day, 20 years down the line, they will need to be replaced, and nothing will be in production to replace them, leaving a hugely overstreched F-22 fleet. Just as with the F-16, a one-for-one replacement is not necessary (381 sounds about right!). In 20 years, the F-15 will be seriously outmatched and expensive to maintain. Some consider the F-35 to be the gapfiller here but, it simply doesn't cut the mustard in terms of performance and as has been mentioned, is an aircraft formed by compromise.

In some regards, the F-22 can perform certain strike roles better than the JSF. With the same SDB load as the JSF, the F-22 is more survivable due to better stealth, performance and A2A weapon load. I guess what I am trying to say is that it would be easier for the F-22 to fill the JSF role as its secondary role than the other way round. On that note, it is worth considering whether the JSF's EOTS will find its way onto the F-22 not only to improve strike ability but also to add a much needed IRST to the F-22 (this would also achieve economies of scale attained from the large unit production for the JSF, integration costs may be an issue though).

The most important issue with the JSF is its range. I believe that the USAF need to spend more money on longe range platforms such as heavy bombers. The value of having loitering bombers over the battefield is perhaps more important than the value of tactical fighters. Larger heavy platforms have numerous benefits. The large fuel capacity allows longer range and longer time on station. Longer time on station allows for a shorter "sensor to shooter time" and long range allows for less dependance on forward basing and less dependance on aerial tankers.

Large platforms are seen as expensive, but one must ask whether fewer platorms, requiring fewer tankers, requiring fewer sorties, is really that expensive in the long run.

In summary, I believe that the following should be done:

Keep the F-22 buy at 381 and improve strike ability thorugh EOTS etc - Unit cost will be reduced due to larger buy.

Reduce the JSF buy to 1000 to 1200 - JSF procurement is so large that unit cost increase would be small.

Spend the savings on a greater purchase of the so called NGB (Next Generation Bomber)

 

[Aussie Digger]

The airforce buy of around 1700 JSFs would replace the current fleet of F-16s on a more than one-for-one basis. Now, although the JSF is seen as a replacement of the A-10 as well as the F-16, the A-10 is not an aircraft best replaced by the F-35 as they are completely different animals. Therefore, the F-35 should be best considered as an F-16 replacement solely. Given that the F-35 is far more advanced than the F-16, I cannot see why anything more than 1000 to 1200 JSFs are necessary. It is sometimes written that the JSF is intended as an F-15 replacement too, which again is a different animal. This brings me on to my second point...

The cut in the F-22 buy is one that needs to be reconsidered. The plans to keep a certain number of "Golden Eagles" is short-sighted. At the end of the day, 20 years down the line, they will need to be replaced, and nothing will be in production to replace them, leaving a hugely overstreched F-22 fleet. Just as with the F-16, a one-for-one replacement is not necessary (381 sounds about right!). In 20 years, the F-15 will be seriously outmatched and expensive to maintain. Some consider the F-35 to be the gapfiller here but, it simply doesn't cut the mustard in terms of performance and as has been mentioned, is an aircraft formed by compromise.

In some regards, the F-22 can perform certain strike roles better than the JSF. With the same SDB load as the JSF, the F-22 is more survivable due to better stealth, performance and A2A weapon load. I guess what I am trying to say is that it would be easier for the F-22 to fill the JSF role as its secondary role than the other way round. On that note, it is worth considering whether the JSF's EOTS will find its way onto the F-22 not only to improve strike ability but also to add a much needed IRST to the F-22 (this would also achieve economies of scale attained from the large unit production for the JSF, integration costs may be an issue though).

The most important issue with the JSF is its range. I believe that the USAF need to spend more money on longe range platforms such as heavy bombers. The value of having loitering bombers over the battefield is perhaps more important than the value of tactical fighters. Larger heavy platforms have numerous benefits. The large fuel capacity allows longer range and longer time on station. Longer time on station allows for a shorter "sensor to shooter time" and long range allows for less dependance on forward basing and less dependance on aerial tankers.

Large platforms are seen as expensive, but one must ask whether fewer platorms, requiring fewer tankers, requiring fewer sorties, is really that expensive in the long run.

You can have nearly 2 F-35's for the price of a single F-22. How does the comparison go then?

Flight performance is important, but the F-35A WILL have oodles of it. It will make a superb replacement for the F-15C in USAF service.

Anecdotal reports released in Code 1 magazine and elsewhere have already shown that the F-35 significantly outperforms the F-16 and F/A-18 in the range of flight profiles that have been tested to date.

As for heavy bombers and range, they have their place, but they DON'T gain air dominance, tactical fighters and supporting assets do. It is an issue of balance and arguing that heavy bombers are needed at the expense of tactical fighters is a bit short sighted. The F-35 co-incidentally should outrange every other tactical fighter in the world too...

Heavy bombers come into their own when there is no air threat to face and they can use their efficient cruise, enormous loiter time to bomb an enemy til the cows come home. Face a decent threat though and you're going to call upon tacair pretty quick...

The F-22 cannot complete the JSF's role completely nor can the JSF entirely complete the F-22's job.

But with an F-35A you get 80-90% of the capability of an F-22 at a MUCH lower price (close to 50 % in some estimates).

There are benefits and disadvantages with both schemes. Personally I think the F-35 is the better, cheaper option than more F-22's. 8x operational squadrons should be enough to "kick the doors in" in those VERY few places where that tad extra ATA performance that they provide, compared to the F-35 MAY be needed.

Personally, I don't see TOO many places where that will ever be a problem for the USA.

Don't forget a reduction in the number of USAF jets WILL affect the price of Navy and USMC jets and they need the F-35 as much if not more than USAF. USAF at least HAS an operational stealth ATA and strike capability. Neither of these services do and their existing aircraft are operated in a harsher environment with less combat support (AEW&C, RC-135, tanker support etc)...

 

[rjmaz1]

Aussie digger said everything i was going to say.

Now, although the JSF is seen as a replacement of the A-10 as well as the F-16, the A-10 is not an aircraft best replaced by the F-35 as they are completely different animals. Therefore, the F-35 should be best considered as an F-16 replacement solely.

The A-10's original role cannot be performed by the F-35. However that role no longer exists. Close air support has now moved to medium altitude using optical and IR sensors to detect the enemy from a distance and out of harms way.

The A-10C upgrade shows us clearly where close air support is going. The F-35's excellent range and endurance for its size will see it circle silently above the battlefield and within short notice a small brimstone missile or small diameter bomb will hit the enemy when required.

The F-35 will be the best close air support platform.

It will most likely replace most of the roles of the F-15C and F-15E's when it comes time to replace them. Some of the longer range missions of the F-15E may be handed to a future platform, however most of their missions will be performed by the F-35.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Aussie digger said everything i was going to say.

The A-10's original role cannot be performed by the F-35. However that role no longer exists. Close air support has now moved to medium altitude using optical and IR sensors to detect the enemy from a distance and out of harms way.

The A-10C upgrade shows us clearly where close air support is going. The F-35's excellent range and endurance for its size will see it circle silently above the battlefield and within short notice a small brimstone missile or small diameter bomb will hit the enemy when required.

The F-35 will be the best close air support platform.

It will most likely replace most of the roles of the F-15C and F-15E's when it comes time to replace them. Some of the longer range missions of the F-15E may be handed to a future platform, however most of their missions will be performed by the F-35.

I say the A-10 is still needed and will be needed in the future and the A-10s role still exist. I don't think the F-35 is a good replacement for the A-10. Though the F-35 and the F-22 can replace the F-15C, and the F-15E will also be replaced by the F-35 as well as the new 2018 bomber.

I would not say the F-35 will fly around silently since the F-35 will have the same engine noise as the F-15 and F-16. I don't know the actual noise levels but believe me their very very load, I would know from personal experience.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I say the A-10 is still needed and will be needed in the future and the A-10s role still exist. I don't think the F-35 is a good replacement for the A-10. Though the F-35 and the F-22 can replace the F-15C, and the F-15E will also be replaced by the F-35 as well as the new 2018 bomber.

I would not say the F-35 will fly around silently since the F-35 will have the same engine noise as the F-15 and F-16. I don't know the actual noise levels but believe me their very very load, I would know from personal experience.

Apart from the GAU 8, the A-10 is outclassed as a CAS platform by the F-35. The lightning II can sit at mid altitude and reign precise death on the poor bastards on the other side. 24 SDB's from altitude, thats 24 targets eliminated while staying above 90% of the threat. A-10 is slower, has stone age C4ISTAR capabilities, has an RCS the size of a truck and an inferior weapons package.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Apart from the GAU 8, the A-10 is outclassed as a CAS platform by the F-35. The lightning II can sit at mid altitude and reign precise death on the poor bastards on the other side. 24 SDB's from altitude, thats 24 targets eliminated while staying above 90% of the threat. A-10 is slower, has stone age C4ISTAR capabilities, has an RCS the size of a truck and an inferior weapons package.

Wait the F-35 carries 24 SDBs? I thought it only carries 8 internally and has not been cleared externally yet.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Apart from the GAU 8, the A-10 is outclassed as a CAS platform by the F-35. The lightning II can sit at mid altitude and reign precise death on the poor bastards on the other side. 24 SDB's from altitude, thats 24 targets eliminated while staying above 90% of the threat. A-10 is slower, has stone age C4ISTAR capabilities, has an RCS the size of a truck and an inferior weapons package.

Flying low doing CAS has proven to be the most dangerous thing in terms of aircraft downed. AAA/MANPADS and IR SAMs are passive and unpredictable. Another thing that has been a huge limitation is the ability of platforms to discriminate targets or search for targets. Pilots have gone in for CAS using Binos, dropping flares to illuminate targets and all sorts of improvised methods.

With the F-35 you get RF/IR stealth, medium-high altitude, comprehensive threat warning and state of the art ECM which has been shown in the past to significantly improve survivability but at the cost of accuracy in the past. The F-35s sensor suit, the AESA/Laser/EO/IR, should in theory make the F-35 as precise and accurate at mid-high altitude as legacy fighters were at low altitude. In addition it can do BDA and share it's data all of which in theory makes it more deadly and survivable. Obviously though having a single engine and less armor doesn't help if it is hit. But it's flight profile should dramatically reduce the chance of that. The design is clearly influenced by events and lessons learned in ODS. We will see I'm sure. Otherwise we will be in the same position as the RAF when they learned that flying Tornados on the deck through Iraqi air defenses wasn't a good idea.


-DA

 

[guppy]

Hmmm, seems like a perfect job for a Reaper, or its future successor whatever it may be. CAS, I mean. Why bore a fighter pilot with a 2 hour CAS mission doing nothing most of the time? Imagine the Reaper pilot turning on the auto pilot sipping his Starbucks coffee reading the latest auto magazine in his truck parked just outside Las Vegas. No offense to Reaper pilots out there, I know some of you hate your job, but it is sure doing a lot to help the guys in theater! Anyway, that things loiters like 14 hrs, fully loaded with 12 hellfires, if I remember correctly. Voila, there is your answer for most of the CAS missions. If they still need manned fighters, there still the venerable strike eagle and the future F-35. Besides, the weapons footprint of the hellfire is much smaller than a GBU-12, reducing the collateral damage risks in urban CAS. The SDB is a little overkill for urban CAS don't you think?

I have heard talk that the F-35 will be the last manned USAF fighter. Knowing the USAF, with their foresight, they are probably working on a very capable air to air unmanned fighter. It seems to me the natural route to take and is in fact a long term goal according to the UAS Roadmap 2005-2030. Careful, it is a 213 page US DoD document.

Cheers

Guppy

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Hmmm, seems like a perfect job for a Reaper, or its future successor whatever it may be. CAS, I mean. Why bore a fighter pilot with a 2 hour CAS mission doing nothing most of the time? Imagine the Reaper pilot turning on the auto pilot sipping his Starbucks coffee reading the latest auto magazine in his truck parked just outside Las Vegas. No offense to Reaper pilots out there, I know some of you hate your job, but it is sure doing a lot to help the guys in theater! Anyway, that things loiters like 14 hrs, fully loaded with 12 hellfires, if I remember correctly. Voila, there is your answer for most of the CAS missions. If they still need manned fighters, there still the venerable strike eagle and the future F-35. Besides, the weapons footprint of the hellfire is much smaller than a GBU-12, reducing the collateral damage risks in urban CAS. The SDB is a little overkill for urban CAS don't you think?

I have heard talk that the F-35 will be the last manned USAF fighter. Knowing the USAF, with their foresight, they are probably working on a very capable air to air unmanned fighter. It seems to me the natural route to take and is in fact a long term goal according to the UAS Roadmap 2005-2030. Careful, it is a 213 page US DoD document.

Cheers

Guppy

I've maid a poll about this before and I think unmanned fighters will take over some of the more dangerious roles but not replace manned fighters. A mix of unmanned and manned fighters is most likely.

The MQ-9 does do a lot of CAS missions in Iraq but there are only around 10 of them in service I think. As for the 250lbs SDB, no its not too big for CAS because CAS is what the SDB was designed to do.

Here is some cool pictures of the MQ-9 in case your interested: http://www.yannone.org/BlogPics/Reaper.jpg

 

[DarthAmerica]

I've maid a poll about this before and I think unmanned fighters will take over some of the more dangerious roles but not replace manned fighters. A mix of unmanned and manned fighters is most likely.

The MQ-9 does do a lot of CAS missions in Iraq but there are only around 10 of them in service I think. As for the 250lbs SDB, no its not too big for CAS because CAS is what the SDB was designed to do.

Alright, a few thing about CAS and this suggestion. Current armed UAVs or UCAV like the Reaper would not be able to do what an A-10 does now or what and F-35 will do. Granted they have good sensors but the SA of the UAV operator is nowhere near what a pilot on the scene gets with his MK1 eyeball or from the instruments in the cockpit. The pilot on the scene will also react much faster in a fluid situation typical of close air support. There are also some C2 and Comms issues as well but I will not get into the specifics. Then there is survivability. The MQ-1/9 is fine flying around at 10,000ft + over Iraq where the SAM threat is minimal. Against ZSUs, ZPU and SA-16 in a more conventional CAS scenario they wouldn't survive long.

There is also the issue of speed. CAS scenarios develop with the utmost quickness. When you need CAS, YOU NEED CAS, NOW! Flying at ~100-200 knots looking through the equivalent of a soda straw isn't going to cut it if you are really in trouble. Even the "slow" A-10 would have a significant speed advantage and it would develop he situation quicker because the pilot is going to "see" with his own eyes whats going on below. The difference would be like looking at a video of a scene vs in person. The FoV is entirely different. CAS pilots have to be able to quickly pick out targets and make decisions. Those kinds of UAVs don't have the "intelligence" to do that and future "UCAVs" may still need a man in the loop to ensure that whatever target is chosen is an enemy. For example what if the tank the UCAV selects is a Friendly T-72 in the service of the Iraqi Army coming to assist U.S. troops(Don't laugh I seen it) against insurgents in a captured M1114 menacing U.S. Soldiers in M1151s and M1117s. Do you see the magnitude of the difficulty in getting a machine to make the right "choice".

A UAV dedicated to CAS would have to be either fast or forward deployed with the troops and it would have to be survivable against modern battlefield air defenses. Finally and perhaps most important it need proper C3 and/or the ability to "choose" appropriate targets. CAS talk between guys in contact and pilots can be "get the guys in the building to the north of us!!!" and thats it if the stress is high enough. And it can be! So IMHO we are not ready for unmanned CAS in the traditional sense. We will get SEAD, strike and even a2a missions first and much later CAS. The A-10, F-16 and F-35 have a comfortable dominance in this category for now. Sorry to babble on but this is one thing you really don't want to F up!



-DA

 

[guppy]

Hi Eagle,

I beg to differ slightly. I would say that the SDB is suitable for CAS, but has some limitations in an urban CAS environment due to collateral damage concerns.

Although 250 lb class, the SDB packs about as much penetration capability as a 2000lb class BLU-109 penetrator. It suffers at the fragmentation effects, which I believe, to be 500lb class. In the urban context, this is often too much, as can be seen from the need to resort to strafing runs by US forces in Iraq. Otherwise, the MQ-9 is already a target platform for the SDB.

If you read the introduction of the previously linked document, you will see that US DoD has destined unmanned aircraft to perform the dull, dirty and dangerous missions. Right now, the mindset seems to have changed a little, and they are thinking what can a UAS not do?

Hi DA,

A MQ-1/9 are medium class UASs, and definitely can fly above 10,000ft while performing their missions. I totally agree with your points on NFOV and target identity. That is why I did say that if manned fighters are needed, they are still available. Perhaps I was misunderstood. However, let's dissect some of the problems a little more...

1. Speed, or lack of it. Put more UAVs in the sky with demarcated kill zones so you almost always have a UAV somewhere where you need it. Not a perfect science though. I speculate that it is possible to fund a lot more UAVs by reducing the dependence on manned platforms in the CAS roles. Just think about all the $ you will save when you don't need to train and maintain so many %$#!! fighter jocks...

2. Target ID. Put a man in the loop to do the abstract part ie for target identity and weapons release consent. We don't have to make UAVs understand abstraction. Just automate the really boring parts, like drawing circles in the sky.

3. NFOV. I can't think of a solution here which is also one of the reasons why I think manned fighters still need to be involved.

For the future fighter dilemma, I forsee that by 2030, UASs will play a crucial role in CAS, SEAD/DEAD, especially the latter because any solution to neutralise VLO will probably materialise in a ground system first.
I forsee that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter type built for the US.
If and when there is a capability gap in any areas, it will be filled with more upgraded F-35s until a suitable UAS is developed.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hi Eagle,

I beg to differ slightly. I would say that the SDB is suitable for CAS, but has some limitations in an urban CAS environment due to collateral damage concerns.

Although 250 lb class, the SDB packs about as much penetration capability as a 2000lb class BLU-109 penetrator. It suffers at the fragmentation effects, which I believe, to be 500lb class. In the urban context, this is often too much, as can be seen from the need to resort to strafing runs by US forces in Iraq. Otherwise, the MQ-9 is already a target platform for the SDB.

If you read the introduction of the previously linked document, you will see that US DoD has destined unmanned aircraft to perform the dull, dirty and dangerous missions. Right now, the mindset seems to have changed a little, and they are thinking what can a UAS not do?

Hi DA,

A MQ-1/9 are medium class UASs, and definitely can fly above 10,000ft while performing their missions. I totally agree with your points on NFOV and target identity. That is why I did say that if manned fighters are needed, they are still available. Perhaps I was misunderstood. However, let's dissect some of the problems a little more...

1. Speed, or lack of it. Put more UAVs in the sky with demarcated kill zones so you almost always have a UAV somewhere where you need it. Not a perfect science though. I speculate that it is possible to fund a lot more UAVs by reducing the dependence on manned platforms in the CAS roles. Just think about all the $ you will save when you don't need to train and maintain so many %$#!! fighter jocks...

2. Target ID. Put a man in the loop to do the abstract part ie for target identity and weapons release consent. We don't have to make UAVs understand abstraction. Just automate the really boring parts, like drawing circles in the sky.

3. NFOV. I can't think of a solution here which is also one of the reasons why I think manned fighters still need to be involved.

For the future fighter dilemma, I forsee that by 2030, UASs will play a crucial role in CAS, SEAD/DEAD, especially the latter because any solution to neutralise VLO will probably materialise in a ground system first.
I forsee that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter type built for the US.
If and when there is a capability gap in any areas, it will be filled with more upgraded F-35s until a suitable UAS is developed.

Two things. I said 10,000ft + and not 10,000ft. There was a reason. Also it's a common misconception that UAVs are cheaper. I used to think that too. It was the fantasy of every defense planner to let automation reduce cost but that simply hasn't been the case as UAS get more advanced and costly. Moreover, people still have to man the GCS and that is a very labor intensive task. For every fighter you replace with a persistent armed UAV you will need a crew to man it. There goes your cost benefit analysis. It's a really really big sky and we cover a lot of ground. Using Iraq as an example, from Balad an F-16 on a CAS sortie can scramble and be anywhere in the 435,000 sqkm within 10 to 20 min or so because of it's speed. Todays UAVs would exceed that time BY FAR and still have the other limitations I mentioned above that add to the OODA loop. The sheer number of them needed for your suggestion would be impractical and exceed the cost benefit of the manned F-16 squadron that could cover the entire battlespace. Thats proven.

-DA

 

[guppy]

Seems like we are reading the same threads...

You are right, I misread your 10000 ft+.

You are also right that UAVs are not much cheaper. At least to develop, acquire, arm and equip with the latest sensors. However, there is a major difference in training and operating costs.

1. Cost of training a pilot vs a UAV operator. Today, I believe the USAF is still using rated pilots to fly the UAVs. But if you automate the flying portion including the takeoff landing portion, the cost of training a basic UAV operator will be much less.

2. Cost of training an operational fighter pilot. Add another year for RTU and several million more dollars. If I remember correctly, reaper RTU only lasts 3 or 4 months.

3. Cost of general flight training.

I won't go into other specifics but just look at the fuel consumption rates per hour of training. A F-16 flies let's say 2 hours. So let's just say for simplicity sake, it consumes 10000 lbs of fuel or an estimated 1500 gallons costing $1500 (1500 X US$1 per gallon). You train 1 pilot.

A MQ-9 can fly 14 hours for using 600 gallons of fuel costing $600. Every 2 hours, they rotate crew. You train 7 sets of crew.

If we normalise the figures, we can easily see that training costs are different by a magnitude of more than 10. That means it cost more than 10 times as much to train a pilot than a UAV crew, at least from the fuel perspective.

That means the earlier the US operationalises armed UAVs and mass produce them, the more they will save in the long term by scrapping earlier the older fighters. The cost avoidance will eventually pay for the UAVs.

I am sure that you would notice that the figures are deceptively low. For simplicity's sake, I just did not factor in other things.

How much flying hours does a typical fighter pilot get every year? Hmmm...

4. Cost of prolonged in theater flight operations from the fuel perspective. I believe that today, there are airborne fighter CAPs 24/7 because it would probably take too long to scramble. From the fuel perspective, for each fighter that you have airborne, you can afford to have at least 10 UAVs airborne.

At the end of the day, I believe both systems are necessarily complimentary. As stated in the roadmaps, I think the US will develop suitable C2 systems to control large numbers of UAVs effectively to have massive coverage. If you have 100 UAVs airborne, it is unlikely that all 100 UAVs will be engaging targets all at once. Perhaps a quarter, 20 or so will be involved so plan the appropriate numbers of crew. Put the rest in orbit and automated search, detect, identify and track. Develop planning and targeting teams. Yes, nightmare airspace and c2 issues, but then fighter aviation has always been a airspace and c2 issue.

Ok, I have been really long winded. sorry.

Cheers

guppy

 

[guppy]

Just want to add something

I am not saying that UAVs can replace fighters in the CAS mission in the near future. I brought out the numbers to support my opinion that in CAS missions and other missions related to direct support of ground troops, it is much better to use UAVs to cover certain areas, especially if it involves having a pilot sit in a cockpit twiddling thumbs for the next two hours. At least, the pilot can be enjoying his cappuccino in base camp until he gets scrambled to support a prolonged firefight.

Cheers

guppy