Posted on 02/27/2012 4:54:12 PM PST by raptor22
You stick to SMEAC and leave tactical aviation to those in the know.
More on that. Imagine a dozen C-5's, each carrying a load of drones that turn so fast they'd kill a pilot, compared to one F-35.
I hear you.
The next GOP president (although Romney's double win yesterday makes that look like a very distant, if-ever, event) needs to reopen the F-22 assembly lines and start cranking out a new generation of fleet air arm mounts as well, to replace the missing F-14.
Okay, everybody -- there it is. Word has come down.
Everybody OFF THE THREAD ..... certified TACAIR experts only!
Everyone exit by the yellow door, please.
</s>
Well, the F35 has been asked to do quite a bit. I don’t know a lot about it, but in time it may be a great aircraft for what it was designed to do.
That still doesn’t mean the F22 wasn’t needed.
I know you weren’t trying to make that point, and I appreciate you mentioning McInerney was not a big F35 fan. I’d like to think he’s wrong, but he may be dead on target.
Carry_Okie, I like your thoughts on this. I’m not immune to the argument for unmanned aircraft. I am still not convinced you ever do away with all fighter aircraft.
I may be proven wrong on that point over time. And if I am, the F22 and F35 would be obsolete in short order.
There are a number of critical aspects of fighter aircraft and the roles they are asked to fulfill, their antagonists, and countermeasures to both that will have to be studied at length before a determination can be made.
Filling the air with hundreds of our manned aircraft while thousands of unmanned aircraft are launched against them sounds like a real buzz-kill for the manned aircraft. Trouble is, is it practical to launch 1000 unmanned aircraft if you can’t recover them, bring them back to base?
Yes G forces are not as big a threat to unmanned craft. Does that mean that weaknesses won’t be exploited to make unmanned aircraft a pipe dream that is defeated just as it’s promise is about to be realized?
Will our sleuths devise a way to take command of unmanned aircraft away from their owners, or will they find ways to commandeer ours?
In the short term, I don’t think we commit either direction. We keep adequate forces of conventional aircraft, and seek to develop the umanned aircraft to their full potential.
I will say, that if we put our eggs in the unmanned basked, and the command and control is compromised, we’re essentially defenseless in a matter of hours.
Talk about your doomsday scenario...
I agree. I might not roll out as many as we originally ordered, but I would sure roll out a lot more than we currently have.
Click on pic for past Navair pings. Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist. The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation. This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Any engineering involves trade offs. If you want a maneuverable bird, there goes the stability. You want armor? There goes the speed, rate of climb and ceiling. Kick it the butt harder. You just lost range. More fuel? Back to the loss of speed. I think they are trying to make the F-35 do too much. A fairer automotive comparison would be to call it a family sports pickup. Think of how poor it would be at all three tasks not to mention the dismal fuel economy.
Too many tradeoffs, too many compromises.....it was painful....ugh. There is a dvd on the painful project's development.
A competition between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Fun to watch if you're an aerospace engineer
A 450 lb battery used to store the equivalent of a gallon of gas worth of energy. It doesn’t pass the laugh test.
I just meant that it would fulfill it’s basic mission, something I highly doubt of the F-35. I did not mean the Volt is a good vehicle or that it’s flimsy butt has any business on a highway where even a minor altercation with an original VW Bug would put it badly in second place.
I was adding the C-5 scenario to drive out-of-the-box thinking. Obviously drones land now and would have longer range if they didn't have to carry all that weight to support the pilot. Still, if a pilot can land on a carrier deck, I don't think it impossible to land a plane into a C-5 in a manner analogous to parachute jumping or aerial refueling.
It's doable. The combination of speed and maneuverability those birds would have would make the current (and possibly then some) generation of enemy A2A missiles practically useless.
Does that mean that weaknesses wont be exploited to make unmanned aircraft a pipe dream that is defeated just as its promise is about to be realized?
I don't understand the question.
Will our sleuths devise a way to take command of unmanned aircraft away from their owners, or will they find ways to commandeer ours?
With spread spectrum communications, that would be truly difficult. Think of it this way (and I was thinking this in 1985): one could load a random frequency switching sequence from the launcher. NOBODY would know that sequence in advance. The enemy would have to acquire it in-flight or from the actual system that generated the sequence at launch (which could be shared in drabs should the flight extend beyond communications range), which would require them to predict the future of a random number sequence. Any breach would initiate an auto-destruct.
In the short term, I dont think we commit either direction. We keep adequate forces of conventional aircraft, and seek to develop the umanned aircraft to their full potential.
I like the idea of finishing off the F-22 run while we do it. The X-29 project was enough ground work to make such a drone a slam dunk, that is, unless the contractors decide to make a money pot out of it. (Can't stand those people.)
I will say, that if we put our eggs in the unmanned basked, and the command and control is compromised, were essentially defenseless in a matter of hours.
Talk about your doomsday scenario...
With as much fly-by-wire and target management technology we have in those birds now, practically, we're already there.
Landing into a C-5 would be a lot easier than a carrier landing. Much lower relative speed.
True, but the "shock absorber" means would be a downer in an aircraft, so to speak. Yes, I do think the system is doable and it addresses both our need for more transports and tankers. As to close combat air support, I think fighters are a poor tool. I'm a Warthog guy there.
And the number to call is BR-549.
Thanks for the mention. I should probably go out and see if I can dig up a copy.
You can watch it on netflix. It IS interesting to watch, too.
I would have a serious concern for trying to combat the air flow cast off by a C-5 aircraft, penetrating that safely to land on aboard.
Beyond that, the air flow mechanics involved with the transition of exterior to interior air flow would seem to me to make this impossible.
Lift disappears when you transition from 150 to 250 mph exterior wind flow, to 5 to 10 mph interior atmosphere.
Perhaps you folks can explain away my misgivings, but I think that would be quite difficult.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.