[NGTM-1R]

We should have killed the V-22 Osprey and spent the money to buy more Raptors. The Raptor is expensive, but it doesn't have a habit of crashing into the ocean and killing platoons of Marines.

We should have built the SV-22 version to replace the Sea Kings rather than used the SH-60F or better yet replaced all the SH-60 models with Osprey SVs, built the AV-22 version to replace the Cobra Zulu. The Marines love the Osprey. They have for, by now, the last half-decade. They want to replace all their Sea Knights with Ospreys the instant they can come up with funding. It's long since been debugged. It offers all the utility of a helicopter and greater lift capacity than pretty much any helo in service save the CH-53. It has greater range and greater speed. It's a marvelous design and a truly wonderful aircraft these days.

[Thaeris]

I don't have a problem with the Osprey, but I will tell you that along with helos, it's a nightmare as far as maintainance and mechanical complexity goes. I can't think of a single rotaty-wing aircraft that's not affected by that aspect...

I'd like to see some better rotary wing aircraft concepts in the works - the ABC (Advancing Blade Concept) for helos has been around since the 80s... I've only recently seen more development on helos like that in the US. Heavy-lift gyrocopters (think Rotodyne) would also be useful in the extreme and hopefully also easier to maintain.

...Speaking of the stealth fighter concepts I've seen of the JASDF, I'm not too impressed. Given the latest aircraft they've rolled out, this isn't too surprising, but it's a step forward I guess. I really do expect better, though:



http://inventorspot.com/articles/new_jasdf_stealth_fighter_jet_be_6254

I can say the rearward visibility would be unsightly in the least. Where did all the creativity go?

This also brings to mind that when I was studying for aerospace engineering why I went for astro - I'm simply too violent in the atmosphere... 

...Note that this sketch was from high school:

[attachment deleted by admin]

[asyikarea51]

Nice looking planes...

[General Battuta]

If you're going to complain about maintenance issue nightmares in relation to the Osprey vs. Raptor, well, methinks the Raptor still probably manages to come off worse.

[Turambar]

on the bright side, if stealth keeps getting better and detection isnt keeping up, they will have to dogfight again! :-D

[Dilmah G]

There will always be dogfights, no matter how much the US DoD thinks otherwise.

Just as there will always be some kind of manned craft in the air.
(Knock out the Ground Control Station and your UAV's useless.)

[Flaser]

For once the fact that the Russians have fewer companies and a lot less money seems to be paying off in a really weird way. They have come from "cheap" and "just works" to have a whole range of products with different prices that go from "just works" to "cutting edge".

Also stealth is not all powerful. It's reduced detectability and usually only works well against X-band radars that fighters have built in.



It doesn't work well against low frequency radars (the aircraft are physically too small to sufficiently scatter those). Right now low-freq radars are only good enough for detection but that's already a huge advantage strategically to those who field them. In the future with advances in signal processing there's a good chance low-freq radars will have sufficient resolution for weapon's targeting. Fighter won't be able to mount them though (they're too damn big).

Another approach is to use bistatic radar systerms which comprises of transmitters and receivers separated by a distance that is comparable to the expected target distance. Currently stealth won't be viable against these as these systems see their target by the "blind spot" made in the transmitters beam.

Those are the radar approaches. A stealth fighter can still be shot down using IR - it's harder to do it than a non-stealth fighter but maintaining IR stealth while the fighter is maneuvering is really hard, so tactics will be developed that force the enemy to do that.

[DeepSpace9er]

Everybody is comparing fighters on a 1v1 scale, but thats not how warfare operates. Battlefield awareness and intelligence is very very important. Like E-3 Sentrys, satellites, and the like. What good is an airfield of stealth fighters that has no tower control standing or was bombed overnight with stealth bombers ahead of time.

And calling carriers useless? The ability to move an airfield over 75% of the earth's surface and strike virtually anywhere on the planet is far from useless. Vulnerable? Extremely. So put them in the center of a fleet.

What I think is useless is building anymore piloted fighters or bombers. All new designs should be UCAVs now, with eventual designs to be fully autonomous. Cheaper, higher G combat, lighter, no cockpit or life support system needed, and nobody dies or is down behind enemy lines.

The combat these stealth fighters see, which will probably be in the 2016-2020 range for first engagements, will no be between the US and Russia.. they will most likely be shooting down other russian designs or US planes sold to other nations first. That being said, the F-22 will probably never encounter this figher.

[IceFire]

UCAV's aren't ready yet... we don't have the AI or the ability to minimize control lag yet.  It's fine for what UCAVs do right now (surveillance and the odd firing of a Hellfire missile) but not for air combat. Next generation beyond these may be fighter and bomber UCAVs.  Still need the people ... for now

[NGTM-1R]

Manned fighters are going to be with us for at least the next hundred years. UCAVs simply aren't able to handle air-to-air. They've already proved proficent at air-to-ground, however.

[Woolie Wool]

I think the idea of an automaton UCAV (i.e. no controller) will be political suicide even if the AI are advanced enough to do it. Even if the risks aren't that great, no one wants to be seen as giving guns to Cylons robots and letting them loose.

[Dilmah G]

And besides, you have a whole host of risks with employing Unmanned Vehicles anyway. The connection from the craft to its ground station, the craft itself (especially more vulnerable, you do NOT have situational awareness operating one of those 'plastic-fantastics', A2A will be the death of it), and the Ground Control Station itself.

[BengalTiger]

Well, this debate about UCAVs vs piloted planes reminds me of airplanes vs battleships:




"A bow on view of the U. S. S. Arizona as she plows into a huge swell. It is significant that despite the claims of air enthusiasts no battleship has yet been sunk by bombs."

[Kosh]

I think the idea of an automaton UCAV (i.e. no controller) will be political suicide even if the AI are advanced enough to do it. Even if the risks aren't that great, no one wants to be seen as giving guns to Cylons robots and letting them loose.

IIRC there are programs ongoing to do exactly that. I dont think it would be political suicide because it means fewer young men and women (on our side) in body bags. Big selling point.

[IceFire]

I CAN see UCAV's potentially being supplemental to manned aircraft.  A F-22 with a pair of UCAV's of similar performance that take orders/coordinate using sophisticated AI with the mothership could work well.  I just can't see them by themselves... not yet.

[Woolie Wool]

I think the idea of an automaton UCAV (i.e. no controller) will be political suicide even if the AI are advanced enough to do it. Even if the risks aren't that great, no one wants to be seen as giving guns to Cylons robots and letting them loose.

IIRC there are programs ongoing to do exactly that. I dont think it would be political suicide because it means fewer young men and women (on our side) in body bags. Big selling point.

Except you could have the same UCAVs slaved to operating stations. Nobody likes the idea of a robot pulling the trigger by itself, especially not after decades of cultural conditioning telling voters that armed AIs are inherently evil.

Not to mention the technical aspects of AI. We can't even make an AI that can drive a car down residential streets yet, never mind pilot a much more complex and demanding vehicle in a chaotic war zone.

[Kosh]

We can't even make an AI that can drive a car down residential streets yet,

They are a lot closer than you think, with the ubiquity of onboard GPS systems and neural network architectures, it really wont be much longer before it becomes a reality. According to wikipedia in 1995 a Carnagie Mellon Navlab project called "hands free across america" had a car with a computer controlled steering wheel (the gas pedal and the brakes were still human controlled but still) and it drove all the way across the country steering itself. And that was 15 years ago.