Posted on 09/04/2014 8:17:53 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Fighter jets, like the Lockheed F-35, are becoming increasingly expensive. Is it possible to make something much cheaper? Angus Batey reports on a new breed of plane poised to take to the skies.
At this summer's Farnborough Air Show in England, the talk was dominated by the mishaps of one plane: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. Due to be adopted by major air forces in the decades to come, it was supposed to be the star of the show. But in the end, the $100m-a-unit jet failed to turn up to its coming-out party after an engine fire in one of the production models grounded the fleet.
But another new jet fighter, which had taken less than two years to design, build and fly, did make it to Farnborough. The Textron Scorpion costs $20m, still not exactly a bargain by most people's standards, but a fifth of the cost of the F-35. It suggests that not every advanced defence project has to necessarily come in years late and billions over budget – and points to a new twist in not only the future of fighter-jet design, but also in more humanitarian roles that a budget jet could carry out.
As Textron AirLand president Bill Anderson has said, the majority of work devoted to designing and developing fighters over the last several decades has focused on creating expensive, sophisticated machines. Whether it's Lockheed’s F-35 and F-22 Raptor, the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Boeing F/A-18, the designs have reflected the desire for advanced performance over affordability. Yet in today's economic environment, cost is becoming an unavoidably compelling issue for even the richest western nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
We can't afford to be left behind the rest of the world, so we need to lose "humans will always be needed" attitude and press ahead. The glory days of Sopwiths and Hellcats and Raptors are almost over. It's going be similar stories for ground and sea combat too, so don't hang out at the O-club and whine.
It's that, or learn Mandarin.
We can't afford to be left behind the rest of the world, so we need to lose "humans will always be needed" attitude and press ahead. The glory days of Sopwiths and Hellcats and Raptors are almost over. It's going be similar stories for ground and sea combat too, so don't hang out at the O-club and whine.
It's that, or learn Mandarin.
Drat the “mystery double poster”!
The A10 is a monster compared to the A37. The A37 was derived from the Tweet, but it isn’t a Tweet. For grassfire stuff, it is up to the job.
The A10 is overkill for domestic security, IMHO.
I take it from that comment that you are a staunch supporter of the F-35 the single airplane that now epitomizes use of your "overwhelmingly capable" technology.
UAVs today are not autonomous. They are remotely piloted by a human at a videogame console. Lose the link, lose the aircraft.
I can imagine a swarm of 2,000 small attack aircraft all falling out of the sky simultaneously because a version of STUXNET wormed it’s way into the attacker’s servers.
[ Nah. The future of aerial combat is unmanned. Smaller envelope, cheaper to make, higher sustained G-loads, losses are immaterial. Fighter cover will be hundreds of small, extremely maneuverable and completely expendable systems that will overwhelm any attacking aircraft of missiles.
Sorry, no silk scarves needed in the future airspace. ]
True, you can replace all the support gear to keep a pilot alive in a jet with a box the size of a loaf of bread.
I think with all the materials science you can build cheap aluminium air frames and components that are more “swappable” even if it take a bit nmore wieght because you no longer need to support a pilot.
[ UAVs today are not autonomous. They are remotely piloted by a human at a videogame console. Lose the link, lose the aircraft.
I can imagine a swarm of 2,000 small attack aircraft all falling out of the sky simultaneously because a version of STUXNET wormed it’s way into the attacker’s servers. ]
No, they already have computer systems that you program the mission BEFORE they take off and they go run it and return to air field. Some of the more advanced systems can even fly back even IF their GPS goes out by looking at the ground / land marks and even the stars if at night!!!
That and while a pilot can even get disorentied and fly upside down without realizing it, a computer will nto make such mistakes...
It is just this tech hasn’t been rolled out ... yet...for use... even though it has been tested.
And I think even the current UAVs and Drones do have a “Return to base if contact lost” function already in them.
I think that it was a sharp looking little fighter.
For example tanks in WW2. The German Tiger tanks were far superior to USA Sherman tanks. In a one on one fight the Sherman tank didn't have a chance. And yet, when it was 30 Sherman tanks against one or two tiger tanks they prevailed. In WW2 US production of Sherman tanks overwhelmed the enemy.
Another example is the Liberty ship for moving logistics in war. They were cheap, could easily break apart in rough seas and yet they were produced at an astonishing rate. It was said that even though the German U-boats were singling them in convoys at an astonishing rate that they were being produced faster than they could be sunk.
The lessons of history are that single massive works like the Maginot Line did not stop massive number of paratroopers. A huge number of expendable fighters, especially if drones where the trained pilots can fly the next one, is a better strategy than a mega-expensive high tech wonder.
You can only carry so much ordnance. If you have several hundred devices attacking you, you probably will run out of stuff that goes bang.
No way, José! Hugely overpriced kluge. "Overwhelmingly capable" is misused altogether too often. The technologies within reach are mechanical vision through a much wider electromagnetic spectrum, through a full spherical view. No blind spots and sensing far beyond anything human. Autonomous operation and target recognition and maneuvering far beyond any living person and swarms of air vehicles functioning as a single, coordinated entity. Small, cheap, disposable and faster accelerating.
Ground systems will be a similar story: more mobile, more concealable, faster and more lethal and functioning as one.
My background is the engineering that is taking place now and I managed the design of a completely autonomous artillery system (other than having humans to prepare and place rounds on the system - didn't have budget for a magazine!)that could take control of many other systems and run extremely efficient and coordinated fireplans without human intervention. Needless to say, the "artillery mafia" blocked everything but they can't resist forever.
Huh?
And, in my case, to test my ability to keep my lunch down during spin training.
"Overwhelmingly capable" is misused altogether too often.
All your words.
Autonomous, not telecommanded - as you said, the link is interruptable or can be captured. Autonomous has no link, does the deciding based on software and mission orders.
Think of how the Patriot system works and then imagine that kind of fire and forget being applied to fixed-wing attack or defense air systems. Given the huge advances in surface to surface and surface to air missile systems, commensurate advances will have to be made with our fixed wing air.
I am sure that everything that flies will be automated in the near future of combat - even medevacs.
Ewww..side by side seating. Did the IP get to share?
Now, anything more worthwhile to contribute or are you done?
OK the fun is over. I mostly agree with you. Maybe the only area of real debate is when, not if.
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.